Rapturous Debate

Rapturous Debate
Vol: 79 Issue: 30 Wednesday, April 30, 2008

I received another debate challenge in this morning’s email — this one offering me — or any of you — a check for $1000 if you can prove to my challenger’s satisfaction that there is a:

“literal and direct statement in the scriptures saying that there is a coming of Jesus from heaven, in the days before the tribulation!!”

I’ve yet to understand this whole “let’s debate the unimportant at the expense of the critical” mentality that surrounds the Rapture Question.

I politely declined the offer, but if any of you are hungry for that thousand dollar check, email me and I will forward you his contact information. But don’t start planning how you’ll spend your money yet.

What my challenger is looking for is a verse that says “there shalt be a coming of Jesus from Heaven before the Tribulation” — and if there were such a verse, then he wouldn’t be seeking his ‘debate’.

Since the Bible verses that do talk about the Rapture cannot be construed to mean anything else, finding something more explicit is a fool’s errand.

I won’t take his debate challenge for two reasons; the first is that he isn’t interested in learning anything from the Scriptures. The second is that there is something intrinsically creepy about turning the Bible into a game show for money.

(“I’ll take eternal security for $1000, Alex!”)

I am sure my challenger will use my refusal to debate as ‘evidence’ supporting his position, but for the life of me, I can’t see why anybody would care.

If one doesn’t believe the Scriptures teach a pre-Trib Rapture, but believes that all men are sinners who’ve come short of the glory of God and that Jesus paid the penalty for sin for all those who will Trust Him, then that person is as saved as a pre-Trib Dispensationalist is.

If the Rapture happens before that person dies, then that person will be translated along with the rest of us, whether he or she believes it or not.

The Bible tells believers to walk by faith and not by sight. (2nd Corinthians 5:7)

It promises, “For IF we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him.”

The Apostle Paul adds weight to that promise, invoking the “Word of Lord” to give additional weight to his testimony, writing;

“For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (1st Thessalonians 4:14-17)

Note the words set off in boldface.

The Lord descends from Heaven , the dead in Christ rise FIRST and then those who are both alive and remaining on the earth are caught up together with them to meet the Lord in the air . . . what else COULD it mean?

But in any case, it is irrelevant to salvation — Paul says one must ALREADY be saved as a condition of being raptured.

There is little point to debating what comes afterwards.

Assessment:

There are good, sincere, (and sincerely saved) Christians who believe that the timing of the Rapture is a big deal — that Christians must be prepared to face the antichrist.

They believe that Christians who expect the Rapture to whisk them away before the Tribulation will be so shattered if they find themselves facing the choice between accepting and rejecting the Mark that they will lose their faith and take it.

Nowhere in Scripture can I find even a hint suggesting that one’s salvation is depending on their faith in their ability to know what the Lord Himself was unknowable, ie; the timing of the Rapture.

My challenge’s argument (which he shared with me in advance) is predicated on a fatal flaw; like so many others, he views the Rapture as some ‘Great Escape’ designed to protect Christians from the Wrath of God.

Jesus promised that the Comforter would indwell me until He returns:

“I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. . . . But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” John 14:18,26)

Paul says that the antichrist cannot be revealed until the Restrainer of Evil (the Holy Spirit) is ‘taken out of the way’. (2nd Thessalonians 2:7)

Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would indwell me until He comes, Paul says the Holy Spirit must be taken out of the way before the antichrist is revealed.

While we may see it as a ‘Great Escape’ from our perspective, from the Lord’s perspective it is a great evacuation by the Holy Spirit, which necessitates evacuating the vessels He indwells — or else Jesus’ Promise not to leave me comfortless is nullified.

If, as my challenger believes, there is no pre-Trib Rapture, then he will still go to heaven when he dies, if he trusted in Jesus for his salvation. It is not a case of ‘either-or’ — it isn’t really even a case of ‘when’.

Whether one leaves this earth bodily while still alive or leaves this earth the way everybody else does at death, they still leave this earth.

The ‘end of the world’ is only important to the living. Whether I die alone, die along with millions, or I am Raptured with the living, from my perspective, my worldly sojourn is over — my ‘world’ has ended.

If the criteria for salvation is grace by faith and not of works — lest any man should boast (Ephesians 2:8-9) then the manner of death is irrelevant.

Whether I die as a believer in a car crash tomorrow or whether I am one of the Tribulation saints beheaded for refusing the Mark, I am equally dead, insofar as this world is concerned.

I go to the same heaven, face the same believer’s judgement, stand before the same Righteous Judge and will receive the same rewards whether I get there via accident or old age or the Rapture.

Assuming that a Christian would be fooled into accepting the Mark because the Rapture didn’t happen yet assumes salvation by faith in the Rapture.

If I made that assumption, I wouldn’t worry about that person’s understanding of the Rapture, I’d worry about their salvation. I’d be much more concerned with sharing the Gospel of salvation with them than arguing about the antichrist.

The Apostle John specifically links accepting the mark of the beast with offering worship TO the beast. Further, he says that those who refuse will be put to death.

If a world leader demands you both accept a mark on your right hand or forehead AND bow down and worship him and you can’t figure out who he is or your responsibility as a Christian, it wouldn’t matter if the Rapture was pre-Trib or not. You would still have been left behind.

In the final analysis, we can infer the following from the Scriptures:

1) At some point, Jesus returns ‘in the air’ and calls out believers who then meet Him in the air. (1st Thessalonians 4:17, Acts 1:11, 1st Corinthians 15:51-57)

2) The ministry of the Holy Spirit is withdrawn from the earth before the Tribulation. (2nd Thessalonians 2:6-8)

3) Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would indwell believers until He comes. John 14:18-26)

4) The criteria for who goes in the Rapture and who is left behind isn’t based on when they think the Rapture will happen. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

5) Whether or not someone will meet the Lord in the air is based on whether or not they believe that Jesus died and rose again, not when He comes. (1st Thessalonians 4:14)

As to whether or not believers are ‘prepared’ for the Tribulation Period, what are they preparing for? Physical survival? How does that line up with the Word of the Lord?

“For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for My sake and the Gospel’s, the same shall save it.” (Mark 8:35)

Will believers be unprepared to face the antichrist? It depends on where one has placed their faith. If their faith is in Christ, the Bible addresses that issue head-on, as well.

“But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.” (Mark 13:11)

The Rapture Question is not really a question. . . it is a diversion from what is of eternal importance. What is of eternal importance isn’t whether the Rapture is pre, mid, or post-Trib.

What matters is that one is saved when it does.

“A Form of Godliness. . .”

“A Form of Godliness. . .”
Vol: 79 Issue: 29 Tuesday, April 29, 2008

I’ve not seen Ben Stein’s movie, “Expelled” yet. But I am fascinated by the buzz it has been creating — and in particular, with whom.

The film’s full title is “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” so the title was designed to tweak the noses of ID’s most vociferous opponents.

Scientific American is running an entire series devoted to trashing Ben Stein, his movie, and its ‘take’ on ID.

The feature, written by John Rennie, ran under the revealing title: “Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Integrity Displayed.”

In his debunking of Stein and his conclusions, Rennie actually proved Stein’s point more eloquently than a movie ever could.

Stein invited Scientific American to a pre-screening of the movie, which Rennie acknowledged surprised him:

“Given that our magazine’s positions on evolution and intelligent design (ID) creationism reflect those of the scientific mainstream (that is, evolution: good science; ID: not science), you have to wonder why they would bother.”

Why confuse them with conflicting evidence? By Rennie’s measure, we need a new definition for ‘science’ since the dictionary definition clearly does not apply:

“Science: The systematic study of humans and their environment based on the deductions and inferences which can be made, and the general laws which can be formulated, from reproducible observations and measurements of events and parameters within the universe. “

So, evolution is “good science” whereas ID is “not science.” But ‘science’ is “deductions and inferences” based on reproducible observations.”

That begs a MAJOR question. How does one ‘reproduce’ evolution? Has anyone ever mixed together the chemicals that made up the so-called ‘primordial soup’ and waited to see it evolve into a pterodactyl?

If science is a system of deductions and inferences based on reproducible observations, then evolution is something, but whatever that something is, it is NOT science.

Besides, as Rennie noted in his very next sentence: “It’s not as though anything in “Expelled” would have been likely to change our views.”

Let’s compare the dictionary definition of ‘science’ with the Oxford dictionary definition of religion: “a particular system of faith and worship.”

By that standard, Rennie’s unshakable faith in unprovable deductions and irreproducible observations sounds a lot more like a ‘religion’ than it does a science.

The “Scientific American” made a point of noting that Stein rarely refers to ‘scientists’ preferring instead to call them ‘evolutionists’ — a distinction that evidently offended Rennie, who clearly missed Stein’s point.

If evolution is ‘science’, then both ‘science’ and ‘religion’ need redefinition. Or American English needs a new dictionary.

The entire review reeked of religiosity; in one sarcastic aside, Rennie noted:

“Reporter Pamela Winnick was supposedly pilloried and fired after she wrote objectively about evolution and ID; we don’t know exactly what she wrote but later we do hear her asserting with disgust that “Darwinism devalues human life.” The film forgot to mention that Winnick is the author of the book; “A Jealous God: Science’s Crusade Against Religion”—a title that suggests her objectivity on the subject might be a bit tarnished.”

Not like Rennie, whose objectivity is clearly ‘scientific’ and therefore ‘untarnished’. At one point, he calls the movie ‘dishonest’ because it didn’t include arguments favoring evolution.

Neither, I might add, did Rennie’s rebuttal.

Assessment:

‘Science’ by definition, is a system of deductions and inferences based in reproducible observations.

‘Religion’ is a system of worship based on faith. (I know I said that already, but it is important to keep it in mind as we go on.)

Evolution cannot be reproduced. Not in any shape, form or fashion. It is a deduction based on observations of what is, not how it came to be.

An ape has opposable thumbs, humans have opposable thumbs. The ‘deduction’ is that humans evolved from apes.

Scientific process only proves that apes and humans both have opposable thumbs. The rest is unprovable supposition based on genetic similarities. In essence, evolution is a ‘science’ based on the assumption that things that are different are somehow the same.

Now, can ‘intelligent design’ be reproduced? I have two almost identical iMacs. I didn’t see anyone build them — they arrived at different times, at different locations, by different courier services.

They are almost identical, except one came from Apple’s Canadian website and was delivered to me in Ontario, the other was ordered from Cupertino and was delivered to me in Illinois.

I didn’t see them being created, and they are the same, with slight differences, yet not only do the both exist. But are an improvement over the previous versions of iMac.

Using Rennie’s science I could conclude to the point of certainty that they must have evolved, yes?

But being unscientific in my approach, I conclude that since they are, they came from somewhere, and they are similar, but constantly improving, they must have been designed and built by intelligent human beings.

The reasons for those conclusions are simple. I’ve never seen an iMac in its transition state as it was evolving from an iPod. And my iPod is different than my Mac.

It has certain interchangeable parts. It functions according to set rules of operation based on a specific design. It cannot perform operations for which it was not designed.

Now, as to a human being. There are no ‘transitional’ fossils showing the evolution of some other species into a man.

Humans operate according to set rules of operation. A man cannot perform functions for which he is not designed.

Birds fly. Men plummet to earth like sacks of wet grain. So men designed aircraft. They didn’t evolve into birds.

Given the basic scientific evidence; DNA more advanced than the most advanced iMac, a physical form perfectly suited to the existing environment, intelligent self-awareness, the ability to recreate, the only logical conclusion is that of Intelligent Design.

That is logical, but as unsupported as the evidence for evolution — with one major exception. ID is reproducible. That is why I have TWO iMacs.

But ID is NOT religion. ID does NOT require an all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present God. It simply acknowledges that an intelligent design is evidence of an Intelligent Designer.

That is actual science. It is a form of godliness, but it denies the power thereof.

Intelligent Design is not Christian. Islam embraces ID. So does Judaism. Heck, so does Satanism.

When one stands ID beside evolution, it is ID that is scientific; evolution demands faith. ID says the evidence demands an intelligent design, but admits it knows nothing of the designer.

Evolution demands as an article of faith that there can be NO Intelligent Designer of any description, under any circumstances, despite the absolute and utter lack of evidence supporting random chance.

So ID is not Christian. It isn’t even Deist. One could totally reject the Scriptures, reject the concept of God, reject the idea of mankind’s need for salvation, and accept most of the tenets of atheism, and still support Intelligent Design.

I personally accept the Bible’s outline of creation, although I wouldn’t go so far as to label myself a ‘Creationist’ to the point I would hang my theology on six literal days, or Eve being literally created from Adam’s rib.

The Genesis story takes up three chapters — the creation of the universe was more complicated than that — but the scientific details would have been lost on every generation until this one.

Maybe God literally removed one of Adam’s ribs — but I don’t know if it is literal fact or symbolic understanding. Here’s what I do know — I have the same number of ribs as Gayle does.

But she is as much a part of me as any of my ribs. Which is what Genesis teaches us about marriage. Jesus used it to explain marriage.

“And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

I don’t know if the six days of creation were 24 hour days, thousand year days, or if the ‘String Theory’ that postulates that time was compressed as the universe expanded, made six literal days last billions of years.

I don’t know, but I trust that God does — and that He explained it in a way even a child could comprehend.

This is the place where Intelligent Design gives way to religion and faith. My logic tells me that there MUST be an Intelligent Designer. So does the available evidence. That’s as far as I can go scientifically.

Philosophically, an Intelligent Designer would include an owner’s manual. I got one with my iMac — and a Being that could design the universe to such painstaking detail is at least as smart as Steve Jobs.

It is equally clear that this earth was designed exclusively to support human life and that human beings are the dominant life form on it — again by design

My faith is placed in the fact that the Intelligent Designer identifies Himself as God and that the Bible is His owner’s manual for the human race.

I cheerfully admit I have no more evidence that God wrote it than Rennie has for his faith in evolution.

But I have evidence Rennie doesn’t have. The Bible exists. It is reproducible. It contains information unknowable to mankind at the time in which it was written.

It has withstood every assault on its accuracy and veracity that skeptical human beings could throw at it for two thousand years.

In areas where the Bible’s accuracy can be measured, it has proved itself 100% accurate, 100% of the time, spanning a period of more than six thousand years. Those things contained in Scripture that cannot be proved cannot be disproved, either.

And no other explanation fits the known facts.

Christians are all over the Intelligent Design debate, and for the most part, are firmly on the ID side. But don’t get too excited. ID simply acknowledges what we don’t know and rejects the concept that the unknowable can be replaced by the unprovable.

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. ” (2nd Thessalonias 2:11-12)

The acceptance of Intelligent Design as a viable explanation for the existence of the universe will not,unfortunately, lead to a great Christian revival.

Rather, it leads directly to the ‘strong delusion’ or what 2nd Timothy 3:5 calls, “having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof” — of which Paul warns the Church, “from such turn away.”

ID is a better lie than evolution, but a lie is still a lie.

Out of the Closet

Out of the Closet
Vol: 79 Issue: 28 Monday, April 28, 2008

Last night, Reverend Jeremiah Wright went on national television to give a speech in which America learned there were still two Americas; a ‘white’ America and a ‘black’ America.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright was addressing the Michigan National Association for the Advancement of Colored People “Freedom Fund” dinner in Detroit.

One of the few white politicians in evidence was Governor Janet Granholm, who told the assembly:

“A change is going to come, but we ve got a long way to go to achieve a victory to get to the promised land. As long as racism exists, attacks on affirmative action exist, unacceptable high school dropout rates exist, health care and incarceration disparities exist, we will not rest until we have justice and qualify for all.”

Gov. Granholm is right. As long as racism exists, so will all those other things.

That was not such earth-shattering news, after all. Despite fifty years of affirmative action, desegregation, integration and racial sensitivity.

What WAS stunning was for me to learn that it’s not white America that perpetuates racial separation. According to Wright, it is black America that wants separation according to race.

Wright argued there should be separate standards for schools, separate standards for language, separate standards of conduct and separate moral standards.

Much of what Wright focused on were the differences between black Americans and ‘Europeans’ and some of it was pretty interesting.

I’d have to agree with his observations about ‘black’ music and ‘black’ rhythm, (but up until Wright pointed it out, I thought I wasn’t allowed to notice.)

As long as we’re being honest here, I’ve always thought black people I know sing better, and have better rhythm, but again, I thought noticing that would make me ‘racist’ so it is an observation I’ve always kept to myself.

I can’t say about black people world-wide — my experience is only with black Americans that I’ve heard sing or seen dance. And I admit I know just as many I’ve never seen do either one, so maybe they can’t.

But I’ve heard lots of white people try to sing — and nobody ever spoke admiringly of ‘white natural rhythm’ that I’ve ever heard.

In point of fact, I’ve always kind of envied it — the typical Irishmen of my experience only think they can sing, and the only famous Irish dancers I ever heard of were the River Dancers. (Energetic, but not exactly fluid).

There are exceptions, but that’s what makes them exceptions.

I doubt Bill O’Reilly could sing a note, but I wasn’t a bit surprised to see how well Obama danced with Ellen Degeneres.

I learned from Rev. Wright’s NAACP speech that it is because black people naturally put emphasis on different notes than ‘Europeans’ do, and that is why they sing better and why they are better dancers.

And Reverend Wright proved his case by demonstrating he was both a gifted singer and dancer.

Reverend Wright took all that out of the closet in his speech, and I am grateful to him for it –but I don’t believe his intention was to relieve my white guilt at noticing what is to me, an obvious truth.

Stereotypes exist for the same reason that ‘old sayings’ exist. They don’t spring up out of a vacuum, but are based in what is generally universal observation.

It is when the ‘stereotypical’ crosses over to the ‘typical’ the lines between observation and prejudice begin to blur.

Rev. Wright’s speech brought it sharply back into focus, crafting it around some pretty impressive prose — no doubt he is one whiz-bang preacher.

But the speech, at its core, was as racist as any given by any white separatist at any all-white organization dedicated to the advancement of one race at the expense of another could be.

Only the color scheme had changed — the rhetoric was just as racist.

Reverend Wright reminds me a bit of the late, unlamented Yasser Arafat. Oslo took away Arafat’s reason to hate Israel, but without it, he was purposeless. So he abandoned the promise of present-day peace to rage against history to justify continuing the conflict.

Fifty years ago, Rev. Wright raged against segregation, separate facilities, unequal education, race-based standards of acceptance. They’ve largely been addressed.

What’s he raging at now? What happened a hundred and fifty years ago as if the ink on the Emancipation Proclamation were still wet.

I hate to say that. I don’t think that I am a racist, and I think the charge gets thrown around so much its lost its meaning. But if words mean what they say, this is what the dictionary says the word means:

Racism: “the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races;”

Or, alternatively, “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.”

I’ve admitted I think that the black people I know whom I’ve heard sing do a better job at it than virtually all of the white people I know whom I’ve heard sing.

But I don’t believe that makes me a racist. After all, I don’t know all black people and I don’t know all white people. I just know I’d rather listen to Sam Cooke as Jim Morrison any day of the week.

And I promise not to get mad at you if you don’t.

Assessment:

This is a very difficult subject to take on for me. I’m not writing to white people or black people — I am writing to people — only you know (or care) what color your skin is.

The only colors I use are black words on a white background. Take away the black, and it’s a blank page.

Take away the white, and the words vanish. Both are necessary to make any sense of either. But who notices black and white what is important are the thoughts both conspire together to convey?

An all-white America wouldn’t be America; an all-black one wouldn’t be America either. Without both, it would be neither and whatever it would be, it would be unimaginably poorer.

I have every confidence that every white writer who is attempting to sort out Wright’s comments is doing as much back-spacing as I am, but that was precisely what Wright’s speech was crafted for.

I’d like to think that was what Reverend Jeremiah Wright was getting at in his speech — ie; that we can notice differences between the races while understanding differences aren’t the same as deficiencies.

I agree whole-heartedly — I’ve said so many times. Things that are different are not the same, and that applies equally to people of any color, in any context. No two people are the same and no intelligent person would think otherwise.

But Wright was talking about black ‘differences’ and white ‘deficiencies’ — black churches are different, and whites who don’t make allowances for the differences are deficient.

For example, those who thought that the comments he made justifying the 9/11 attacks were ‘unpatriotic’ were ‘stuck on stupid’ — it was clear his NAACP audience knew he wasn’t talking about them.

If listening to a speech makes one uncomfortable about one’s own racial heritage and background qualifies as ‘racist speech’, then it was a speech about race that dripped unconcealed racism. (It made me want to go punch my daddy — not sure why)

One can banter back and forth all day long with charges and countercharges about which racial argument has the most merit, but racism is racism and the arguments only serve the justify the racist that has the cleverest debating points.

Nobody can be right when everything about the premise is wrong.

The racial hatred Wright was directing at me because black Americans immigrated here in the hold of slave ships took place almost a century before I was born.

Yet he forgave the 9/11 attackers while the Towers were still smoldering in New York, saying it was somehow the fault of ‘white’ America.

What did I do to Reverend Wright in my lifetime that was worse than that?

If I said something offensive about all Muslims, (simply because a huge segment of the Muslim population has sworn a blood oath to kill me if they can,) Reverend Wright would quickly and rightly point out, (as he did in his speech,) that not all Muslims are depraved killers.

Maybe not, but the only way to tell which are which is to wait and see who tries. We don’t have time for racism. There are folks out there that hate us all equally.

This is a real-time threat, not an historical legacy. Wright doesn’t have to worry about being sold into slavery, but his chances of being killed in an Islamic terrorist attack are no more or less than mine.

On the other hand, slavery was abolished in 1863. That was 145 years ago. That was 91 years before I was born.

It was abolished 56 years before my father was born (in slave-free Canada).

It was abolished 34 years before his father was born in County Wexford, Leinster Province, Republic of Ireland, (which held no slaves of any description.)

But all white ‘Europeans’ (including me) are saddled by Wright with a collective guilt for slavery — while the terrorists are simultaneously justified in attacking ‘white’ America because ‘white’ is a synonym for oppressor? If that isn’t racist, then I don’t understand the term.

But if this is what being the victim of racist slander feels like, then I don’t blame black America for hating it.

I just don’t understand why it’s directed at me, based entirely on the color of my skin.

And more to the point, why nobody else seems to care.

The Quest for An “Age of Reason?”

The Quest for An “Age of Reason?”
Vol: 79 Issue: 26 Saturday, April 26, 2008

It is a bedrock article of faith among environmentalists that human beings have become a ‘cancer’ on the planet, multiplying and consuming resources the same way cancer cells overrun and destroy a living organism.

To a hardcore environmentalist, the “Georgia Guidestones” function as a sort of Green ‘Ten Commandments’ handed down to mankind from Mother Earth.

The ‘Guidestones’ were erected by an anonymous group and arranged to resemble Stonehenge. The display consists of six granite slabs twenty feet tall and weighing more than one hundred tons.

One slab stands in the center, with four arranged around it. A capstone lies on top of the five slabs. The slabs are astronomically aligned, hence its nickname, “American Stonehenge”.

An additional stone tablet, which is set in the ground a short distance to the west of the structure, provides some clarifying notes on the history and purpose of the Guidestones.

The capstone declares: “Let These be Guidestones to An Age of Reason”, and identifies its sponsors as “A small group of Americans who seek the Age of Reason.”

The Georgia Guidestones list ten ‘reasonable’ guidelines for maintaining global harmony:

1) Maintain humanity under five hundred million in perpetual balance with nature.

The current population of the earth is 6.6 billion. To achieve the goals demanded by ‘reason’ would require ‘eliminating’ 6.1 billion of them somehow. One way of accomplishing that goal is to:

2) Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity..

Abortion is a fairly effective way of reducing both the surplus population and ‘improving fitness and diversity’.

That is one reason the majority of abortions in America are performed for free, or are subsidized, particularly for members of the African-American community. One third of all abortions performed in the United States are performed on African-American babies.

And one pregnancy in four in the United States is terminated by abortion.

Four-fifths of abortions are performed on single women, a third of them teens.

3) Unite humanity with a new ‘living language’

A ‘new’ language would be necessary, since carrying out just the first two guidelines would necessarily involve the words, ‘eugenics’, ‘genocide’ and ‘infanticide’. Those words would have to be eliminated and replaced with something a bit less ‘offensive’. (Think, “Soylent Green”)

4) Rule passion – faith – tradition – and all things with tempered reason.

“Faith and tradition” are code-words for Judeo-Christianity, which, to the Greens, is the antithesis of ‘reason’.

5) Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.” .

“Fair” laws and “just” courts would be those that protect the earth from humanity, rather than the other way around.

6) Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.

Why should anyone be surprised to learn that environmentalists are also globalists? It is the planet — the globe — that is important, not its inhabitants.

7) Avoid petty laws and useless officials.

Presumably, ‘petty laws’ refer to laws that put human rights ahead of ecological concerns and and ‘useless’ officials as officials who put getting re-elected by humans ahead of being loved by spotted owls.

8) Balance personal rights with social ‘duties’.

The moment somebody suggests ‘balancing’ personal rights against ‘social duties’ the term ‘personal rights’ becomes meaningless. A right that is not a right is a ‘privilege’ to be extended or withdrawn to comport with ‘social duties’ . . . as interpreted by whom?

9) Prize truth — beauty — love –seeking harmony with the infinite.

I wouldn’t know where to begin with this one. So far, we’ve eliminated 6.2 billion useless people, made abortion a social duty to improve fitness and diversity, created a new universal earth-language, eliminated personal rights and replaced them with social ‘duties’ and eliminated any need or mention of God.

Having accomplished genocide via deception, NOW its time for truth, beauty and worship of ‘the infinite’ — presumably the earth. So, finally, the kicker:

10) Be not a cancer on this earth. Leave room for nature. Leave room for nature.

That isn’t a typo — ‘Leave room for nature’ is repeated twice on the slabs, too. The symbolic meaning is clearly that nature is twice as important as the cancer that infests it.

Human beings are the cancer and that cancer must be excised or it will kill its host.

Assessment:

When Al Gore wrote his 1991 “Earth in the Balance” he pretty much followed the outline of the Georgia Guidestones, also likening humanity to a cancer on planet earth that can only be controlled by reducing the population to ‘sustainable levels’ and maintaining it in ‘balance’ with nature.

How is that accomplished in nature? Survival of the fittest. Natural selection. “Natural selection” is the culling process in which the weakest segments of a population die off until there are few enough for the environment to sustain them.

Al Gore and his followers knew twenty years ago what effect biofuel would have on the global food supply. He says so in his chapter “Seeds of Privation” in which he also argues AGAINST genetically modifying crops to increase the available food supply.

It takes roughly four hundred pounds of corn to produce 25 gallons of ethanol. That is roughly the equivalent to the amount of corn it would take to feed one person for an entire year.

There are other technologies, such as Thermal Depolymerization, that can convert ANY carbon-based garbage (which is essentially anything) into light Number Six Crude oil indistinguishable from that pumped from the ground.

The process has been proved at two thermal depolymerization plants, one at Carthage, Missiouri, the other outside Philadelphia. Both were set up outside Butterball Turkey plants to process their waste products — but it works equally well with other animal waste parts, most household garbage and even ground up computer parts.

At present, the process can turn garbage into oil for about $18.00 a barrel — its inventor, Brian Appel, says mass production could bring it down to about $11.00 a barrel.

A Canadian study released this week predicts that the price of fossil fuel oil will double again to more than $200 per barrel by 2012. That translates to roughly $11.00 a gallon at the pump, or roughly $220.00 to fill a 20 gallon tank.

So why is Al Gore championing the production of biofuel alternatives? Wouldn’t turning the excess garbage created by the surplus population into energy, carbon black and clean, potable water be ‘green’ enough?

Evidently not, since the objective is not to reduce dependence on fossil fuel, but instead to reduce the surplus population that depends on it.

Environmentalism is not a social cause, or a political agenda so much as it is a religion rooted entirely in the tenets of the New Age and Al Gore has become its high priest. Anyone who disagrees with its doctrine is immediately labeled a ‘heretic.’

Taking a look at the Big Picture, we see the following: There are two solutions for the energy ‘crisis’ brought on by high oil prices.

One solution is to spread the pain across the planet, creating an artificial food shortage and raising food prices to famine levels.

Appel Technologies is real — the process is real — and it works. But it’s main drawback is that it solves the energy crisis without the necessity for the ‘Ten Guidelines’ (which begins by calling for the elimination of 6.2 billion people).

The other solution is to buy carbon credits from some tribesman in Ubangi who doesn’t have a car, and then starve him to death by using his food to fuel mine.

Using his food to run my car is acceptable; using garbage nobody wants is evidently not even worth discussing.

Maybe I’m just a thick-headed paranoid. You tell me.

Change for Change’s Sake

Change for Change’s Sake
Vol: 79 Issue: 25 Friday, April 25, 2008

There is an old saying to the effect that ‘a change is as good as a rest.’ And of course, there is an element of truth to it, or it wouldn’t be an old saying. Many years ago, I worked on an automobile engine assembly line — easily the most boring job I can think of.

Allow me to describe one of the jobs on ‘The Line’ — the Hangar Bracket Guy. One thousand and fifty times per shift, a new engine would come into the Hangar Bracket Guy’s space. He’d grab a hangar bracket out of a box (looked a bit like brass knuckles for a guy with two fat fingers) and two 1/2″ hex nuts.

Hangar Bracket Guy (his name was Rob) would mount the hangar bracket on two long bolts sticking out of the manifold, spin on the two hex nuts, tighten them down with an air wrench, repeating the operation every forty seconds or so, 1,050 times per shift.

Day in and day out, The Line would move forward, inexorably, as everybody waited for the bell that signaled an engine had slipped by somebody’s station without having the appropriate bolt tightened, or something.

The Line would stop for a few seconds while a “Floater Guy” would run down The Line and fix it. That gave everybody else up and down The Line a chance to stop, light a cigarette (this was the 70s’) and take a few-second break.

The “Floater Guy” job was called “Absentee Allowance”. He had to know every job on The Line, since his job was to fill in for whoever called in sick that day.

The “Absentee Allowance Floater Guy’ job was the most coveted job on The Line — because it was a different job every day. Those rare days when everybody showed up were the best days for the ‘Floater Guy.’

On those days, he would go up and down The Line relieving the various stations for their break — he got a different job every fifteen minutes.

Everybody else on The Line would show up for work with the same expression of resigned boredom. . . but me. As the ‘Floater Guy’ I never knew what I would be doing until I got there.

Some of the jobs were nasty, but I was never stuck on any one of them long enough to experience that crushing sense of boredom.

Back then, I was pretty much immune to politics and didn’t know a conservative from a liberal, but somebody once told me that the difference was that conservatives didn’t like change, so I concluded that I must be a liberal.

Of course, I didn’t have a clue what kind of ‘change’ conservatives were allergic to, and being young, I figured conservatism was something like gray hair or a pot-belly — it was something you had to be over thirty-five to ‘get’.

By the mid-1980’s however, I ‘got’ it. There had been enough ‘change’ for me to figure out the old saying — a change may be as good as a rest, but there is a point where you stop resting and go back to what you were doing. ‘Change’ meant you went back and did something else.

I decided then that I was more conservative than I was liberal, because I didn’t see much that was changing for the better.

Assessment:

I’m a product of the Sixties and Seventies, so I guess I can’t help myself — I don’t like things I can’t control to change, but I can’t seem to stop tinkering with the things that I do.

I try and keep the OL as dynamic as possible — I’m always looking for new features to attract new members and to keep our existing membership happy, engaged and involved.

For the last five months, Frank and I have dedicated pretty much every waking moment to finding ways to change the OL in such a way as to make it more interesting for our membership, and more attractive to potential members.

About all I’ve succeeded in doing so far is making Frank old before his time and eating up time I should be using to minister playing CEO.

We’ve made some changes, most of which are invisible to the readers, but I’ve been pushing for some visible changes. I had a whole list of things; improving the website design and layout, changing the member’s forums to something a bit more modern-looking, improving the archive search features and so forth.

The results of yesterday’s poll question regarding your Omega Letter was, therefore a bit like a two-by-four between the running lights.

Two percent of you said the archives were what you valued most about the OL. Four percent said the fellowship forums. Only one percent found the featured commentary section the most valuable, and NOBODY seemed particularly concerned about the website design and layout.

A whopping 93% said the Omega Letter Daily Briefing was the feature you value most about your Omega Letter membership.

So, I’ve had the focus exactly backwards. I’ve been cracking the whip over the web design and archives — but YOU want me to focus on the OL Brief. (What was I thinking?)

We’ve been working on the OL now for five months; in many areas, it’s been a case of three steps back for each step forward. The stress level (on me personally) has been crippling, and, if I’m reading your responses correctly, at least partly unnecessary.

The Omega Letter is in it’s seventh year of daily publication. Since we opened the doors on October 14, 2001 more than 14,857 folks have signed up for trial membership.

Of those 14,857 trial members, we have retained, as of today, 742 paying subscribers.

We’ve never topped 750 — enough to pay for a webmaster, meet our day-to-day operating expenses, but not enough to pay what it would take to adequately staff it, even if we were able to put into place all the changes I had envisioned last December.

So it is difficult for me to judge whether or not the Omega Letter, as I originally designed it, is a success or a failure. As a ‘business model’– judging from my 401K (at 55, I don’t have one) I have to conclude that it is a failure.

There are 300 million or more internet users out there – a large portion of them Christians. We’ve managed to attract 742 members — out of the uncounted thousands who’ve visited and the 14,587 who took the trouble to sign up for a trial.

But the Omega Letter isn’t a business — it’s a ministry.

And as a ministry, I cannot see the Omega Letter as anything less than successful. We’ve seen many, many, come to Christ as a result of our efforts, and many of those who came to scoff, remained to pray.

Our forums are filled with testimonies about how the Omega Letter has touched lives for the good — well beyond our wildest expectations when we started out.

When I agreed with the Lord, all those years ago, to enter full-time ministry, the Lord led me to a passage in Proverbs that would define my ministry.

It leapt from the pages of Scripture at me, there was no doubt in my mind that it was the Lord’s choice. You need only read the prayer expressed in Proverbs 30:7-9 through once to know I would have chosen differently:

“Two things have I required of Thee; deny me them not before I die: Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: Lest I be full, and deny Thee, and say, Who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the Name of my God in vain.”

God has been faithful. From that day to this, we’ve always had enough to keep things going. ‘Enough’ was all God ever promised me, and He has kept His promise, reminding me which one of us is God. I’ve lost sight of the note I’ve pinned to my bedroom mirror that says, “Dear God: Remind me again that You can make it through this day without my help.”

The pressures of the past five months have taken a real toll on me, physically, mentally and spiritually, and no doubt a greater toll on Frank. I confess to having lost sight of the defining principles of the ministry God gave me, trying to re-define it to meet the world’s definition of ‘success’ by effecting change for change’s sake.

That is NOT to say that we’re not going to continue to work on improving your OL, but we are going to redefine what constitutes an ‘improvement.’

We’re going to continue with the new blog, and we’re going to continue to move forward with design changes, but with an eye towards improving what we have for our existing members.

I’m going to leave the poll up for a few more days — less than a third of you have voted and I want to give everyone a chance to weigh in.

But it has done its job — our priorities are back where I believe that they should be. If this is to be a ministry, rather than a business, then attracting new members is God’s job. My job is to minister to those whom God has placed in my charge.

Thanks for reminding me.

Towards a More ‘Perfect’ Union. . .

Towards a More ‘Perfect’ Union. . .
Vol: 79 Issue: 24 Thursday, April 24, 2008

Towards a More ‘Perfect’ Union. . .

The concept of a ‘global’ government is not new — except, perhaps, in the sense of it being ‘global’. Until relatively recently, ‘global’ government meant a pan-European government, since Europe constituted the ”known” world.

But the perceived ‘need’ for some form of global, supra-national authority goes all the way back to the plains of Shinar in the land of the Chaldeans.

“And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.” (Genesis 11:1-4)

The Bible not only tells us that Nimrod, the great-grandson of Noah was the first to come up with the concept of a universal government, but it also tells us why. The ‘whys’ behind the concept of global government are as old as the idea; “lest be be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”

Genesis says that Nimrod “began to be a mighty one in the earth” as Noah’s descendants began to repopulate, build cities and settled down in what is modern day Iraq.

“And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah . . .”

The remains of “Babel” are still visible today outside the city of Babylon, which is located about 40 miles from Baghdad. Asshur’s Nineveh is today located in northern Iraq just outside Mosul.

But it is the ‘why’ that I find interesting — ‘lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.’

The English word ‘scattered’ is translated from the root word “puwts” which literally means, “to dash in pieces” — so it would be equally accurate to render it, “lest we be dashed to pieces upon the face of the earth.”

That was the argument in favor of global government four thousand years ago. It is the same argument being advanced today.

Moving along through Genesis, the narrative tells us that the Lord then ‘confounded’ their language, preventing them from forming a universal government, saying;

“Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” (Genesis 11:6)

Assessment:

So, why would the Lord oppose the idea of a global government from its inception? (Especially when the ‘globe’ in question was no larger than Iraq?) And why has virtually every effort to reinstate the plan collapsed under the weight of its own ambition?

“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” (1st John 2:18)

Ever since the days of Nimrod, mankind has sought to recreate Babel for precisely the same reasons articulated in Genesis 11 — collective security — “lest we be dashed upon the face of the earth”.

The problem with global government, then as now, is that when there is only one authority, then “nothing is restrained.” As the Babylonian Empire reached its zenith, Nebuchadnezzar declared himself a god and demanded worship.

The succeeding Medo-Perisan Empire reached its height under King Xerxes, who also declared himself to be a god and demanded worship.

Alexander the Great believed himself to be the son of Zeus, chief among the Greek pantheon of gods, and a direct descendent of the god Achilles (on his mother’s side.)

The Roman Emperors believed themselves to be gods, with the Emperor Domitian claiming for himself the blasphemous title; “The Lord God.”

The Roman Empire eventually collapsed as a physical empire, going ‘underground’ so to speak, and re-emerging as a spiritual kingdom, with the papacy replacing Caesar as “Pontifus Maximus”.

It wasn’t long before the Pope claimed the authority of Jesus Christ, including many of the Divine attributes, such as infallibility.

In the 8th century, King Charles the Great of France, (known to history as ‘Charlemagne’) attempted to reunite the old Roman Empire politically under the papacy.

In 799, Charlemagne was crowned by Pope Leo III “Imperator Romanorum (“Emperor of the Romans”) and the head of the “Holy Roman Empire.”

The closest thing history actually had to a truly ‘global’ government, however, was the British Empire. At its peak, the British Empire encompassed a quarter of the world’s landmass and ruled a third of the world’s population.

Henry the VIII claimed the titles; King of England, Lord of Ireland, and claimed the title of King of France. In 1534, Henry VIII declared himself the head of the Church of England, replacing the Pope as ‘Christ’s visible representative on earth.’

Napoleon attempted to revive the Roman Empire under his leadership, and in 1804, was crowned Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire at Notre Dame by Pope Pius VII, comparing himself at various times to Jesus Christ.

Adolf Hitler’s 1000 Year Reich was modeled after the Roman Empire and he was worshipped by the Nazis as a god.

On 16 March 1934, German schoolchildren wrote out the following dictation approved by Hitler’s Ministry of Enlightenment and Propaganda:

“Jesus and Hitler. As Jesus freed men from sin and Hell, so Hitler freed the German people from destruction. Jesus and Hitler were persecuted, but while Jesus was crucified Hitler was raised to the Chancellorship … Jesus strove for Heaven, Hitler for the German earth.”

It should be obvious by now that there is an historical pattern that remained unchanged since the days of Nimrod. In the secular sense, it could be expressed as “absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

According to the Bible, there will be one more pretender to the throne.

He comes to power by acclamation; John pictures him as a rider carrying a bow, but no arrows, indicating a peaceful conquest. Daniel says of him, “by peace he shall destroy many.”

John says the seat of his power will be in Rome, but the scope of his power is both universal and centralized.

It is so centralized, in fact, that he will be able to restrict the ability to buy or sell on an individual basis, depending on the single condition that his followers worship him as a god.

But until this generation, that was impossible. Now that we are here, it is inevitable. The only thing restraining him now is the same Force that restrained the previous pretenders.

Never in the history of mankind has the perceived need for a global government been stronger or the reasons more compelling than exist at this particular moment in history.

But notice what happened back in 1990 when then-President George Bush uttered his famous ‘Thousand Points of Light” speech in which he uttered the phrase, “New World Order.”

The UN was delighted. The Europeans, then in the final throes of unification, welcomed the speech as an endorsement of their unification efforts. Even the Russians were enthralled.

Christians immediately connected the “New World Order” with the one world government of antichrist and George Bush was the last US president to ever utter the phrase in public.

As long as the Church remains on the earth, the antichrist cannot make his appearance. The Restrainer indwells us, and through us, restrains his power to deceive.

Paul says that He will continue restrain until He is taken out of the way . . And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming. (2nd Thessalonians 2:7-8)

But, at some point, before the antichrist makes his appearance, an event that will undoubtedly throw the whole world into a state of panic, (possibly handing him his ‘strong delusion’ on a silver platter, so to speak) will take the Restrainer’s restraining influence ‘out of the way.’

“For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”

“Wherefore comfort one another with these words.” (1st Thessalonians 4:15-18)

Member’s Poll:

We’ve posted a private member’s poll asking the question, “Which feature do you value most about your OL?” . We’re not planning to drop anything that already exists — we’re just trying to prioritize our efforts.

We’re deep in the throes of our effort to improve and streamline your OL, and your replies will help us to vector in on the things that matter most first.

So please, help us out and participate in this morning’s poll question.

And may our God continue to bless and keep you all, until He comes. Maranatha!

The Rider on the Black Horse

The Rider on the Black Horse
Vol: 79 Issue: 23 Wednesday, April 23, 2008

“And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.” (Revelation 6:6)

More than a billion people living on this earth today do so on a dollar a day or less, according to the latest UN poverty statistics. They qualify as ‘poor’ whereas those persons living on $2 a day are classed as ‘middling’ poor.

To those of us living in the ‘First World’ of developing nations, (the “West”, Australia, NZ, Japan, etc) it is unthinkable. The poorest person in the developed world couldn’t imagine living on a dollar a day — even two dollars a day.

In America, the official ‘poverty threshold’ for a single American, on average, is $10,400 per year, or $28.00 per day. As to the wealthy in America, well . . . it is estimated that 28% of the total net wealth is held by the richest 2% of families in the U.S. The top 10% holds 57% of the net wealth.

If homes and other real estate are excluded, the concentration of ownership of financial wealth is even more glaring. As far back as 1983, 54% of the total net financial assets were held by 2% of all families, those whose annual income is over $125,000.

Eighty-six percent of these assets were held by the top 10% of all families (US Bishops Economic Justice 183, quoting 1983 Federal Reserve Board figures).

As to the American “middle class” — the American version of the ‘middling poor’ are those with incomes ranging from $25,000 to $70,000 per year.

Pulling it all together, here is the overall Big Picture as it stands today. The population of the earth is roughly 6.6 billion people. To be poor among the billion richest is to be at least 28 times richer than the standard for poverty among the billion poorest.

To be rich among the top billion is a status of unimaginable wealth. Bill Gates’ personal fortune alone, divided among the world’s billion poorest, would elevate their status to that of the American poverty level.

At last check, based on Microsoft’s current stock price, Bill Gates was worth $26 billion — a figure that can fluctuate from day to day by billions either way. And that is ONLY his Microsoft stock holdings, not the rest of his vast empire.

If Bill Gates were a country, instead of an individual, he would rank between Syria and Lithuania, between the 74th and 75th wealthiest nations in the world.

If every American had the same share of America’s Gross Domestic Product as Bill Gates has, America could only have a population of 480 people.

If Bill Gates wealth were converted to one dollar bills laid end to end, they would stretch from New York to Seattle — and BACK — 431 times! If you could stack them together in a single stack, Bill Gates’ personal wealth would reach 1,757 MILES high and would weigh almost twenty-seven TONS!

New York’s Empire State Building has a listed volume of 37 million cubic feet. Bill’s cash would only fill 2.84% of that space!

In the Apostle John’s vision of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (with which we opened today’s briefing”, the third horseman on the black horse holds in his hand a pair of balances.

He represents famine, but he also represents income distribution as it will exist in the last days. A measure of wheat or three measures of barley represent a day’s rations. A penny represents a days wages.

The ‘oil and wine’ were items of luxury, representing great wealth.

So the economic dynamics necessary for the Rider on the Black Horse to mount up and begin his ride are already well entrenched.

Assessment:

“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” (Proverbs 14:12)

Over the past year, some 30 nations have experienced food rioting. That threatens political regimes in the Middle East, where food prices have doubled in the past two months; Indonesia, home of the world’s largest population of Muslims; and Malaysia, whose export of cheap manufactured goods contributes to lower living costs in the West.

Food riots erupted recently in Haiti, while in El Salvador, food inflation is running as high as 45% per year. Already this year the price of rice, one of the world’s most critically important food staples, has increased a staggering 141 per cent.

And one particular variety of wheat jumped 25 per cent in a single day during that period. Granted, the population of the earth is increasing, but so are new agricultural techniques that can double or triple crop yields.

So, where’s it all going? Into your gas tank. Crops produced for bio-fuel are more profitable, since nobody is going to eat it. And so farmers are increasingly switching over to bio-fuel crop production.

Bio-fuel is one of the Al Gore solutions to global warming. It allegedly burns cleaner, is cheaper to refine and produce than fossil fuels, and the supply, in theory, is endless.

The environmentalist lobby claims that the production of alternative biofuel supplies is high on the list of necessary solutions to the global warming ‘crisis’.

It seems like the right thing to do, assuming that man-made emissions from fossil fuels contribute to global warming. But that is a broad assumption, considering that global warming is neither ‘global’ nor demonstrably warmer.

But it IS profitable.

Al Gore’s Global Management Fund sells ‘carbon credits’ — you invest with them, and they invest in alternative fuels, and issue you a ‘carbon credit’ that minimizes your ‘carbon footprint ‘on the planet.

Al erased his own ‘carbon footprint’ (20 times that of an average American family) by buying ‘carbon credits’ (which, for Al Gore, amounts to buying stock in his own company).

It seems like the right thing to do, even if it DOES impose additional cost of living expenses across-the-board. Al Gore is an ‘oil and wine’ guy and his oil and wine is being squeezed from the existing global food supply.

If a farmer can make more money producing corn for biofuel than he can for producing wheat for food, then where is the incentive to grow wheat? So he grows corn, creating a wheat shortage.

Of course, as supply shrinks, demand grows, which raises the price of wheat, which then spurs wheat production, but now all the poor can afford is barley because wheat is too expensive.

The production of crops for fuel, or energy farming, competes with food production for land, for water and for fertilizer. One-sixth of all the grain grown in the United States this year will be “industrial corn” destined to be converted into ethanol and burned in cars.

The choices are stark. The amount of food necessary to create the biofuel to run ONE SUV for a year is enough to feed twenty-six people.

Although the UN has been at the forefront of pushing for “bio-diversity” and alternative fuels to combat global warming, one UN official told a German interviewer that biofuel production constitutes a ‘crime against humanity.’

UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food Jean Ziegler warned that the world was heading “towards a very long period of riots” and other types of conflicts stemming from food shortages and price increases.

Ziegler blamed rising food costs for sparking food riots in Cameroon, Egypt, Ethiopia, Haiti, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Madagascar, Mauritania, the Philippines and other countries, like Pakistan and Thailand, where army troops have been deployed to avoid the seizure of food from fields and warehouses.

The Bible’s scenario calls for “a measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.”

The UN’s scenario makes the identical prediction, but it blames the coming famine on what seemed like a really good idea.

“There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the ends thereof are the ways of death.”

“And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:28)

And I STILL get emails from critics telling me that the Bible isn’t relevant to the modern world.

“Today, Surrender, Tomorrow, Nuclear War!”

“Today, Surrender, Tomorrow, Nuclear War!”
Vol: 79 Issue: 22 Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Today could, in theory, be the day that the Democrats will have their final candidate. But only in theory.

There is a lot riding on the Pennsylvania primary, but it will take a lot to dislodge Hillary Rodham Clinton.

According to Peter Fenn, a former Clinton campaign advisor, Hillary would have to ‘blow out’ expectations, but to do that, “the wheels would have to come off the Obama bus and the engine would have to blow.”

(I love these campaign metaphors — they’re so colorful)

A Hillary Clinton presidency has been pretty much a foregone conclusion ever since she made her first run at the Senate in 2000. The Clintons practically had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, from the place in 2001.

They liked the White House so much they pried all the presidential insignia from the interior walls.

They liked the furniture so much they took some of it home with them, resulting in an embarrassing, but amusing “Repo Man” scenario on the Clinton’s front lawn as federal agents carried the stuff back out and loaded on a government truck.

They liked Air Force One so much that, when it came back from taking them home, the plane had to be restocked with presidential dishes, towels, and other federally-owned ‘memorabilia.’

And who can forget that bizarre ‘Farewell to the Chief’ ceremony as Clinton arranged as pompous an exit as was his arrival eight years earlier? No doubt they’ve dreamed of nothing else for eight years — but along came Obama.

Obama currently leads by a margin of 1,645 to 1,504 among pledged delegates and those super-delegates — elected and party officials who get an automatic vote on the nomination — who have indicated a preference.

It will take 2,025 delegates to win the nomination. There aren’t enough uncommitted delegates to put either candidacy over the top unless Obama loses every remaining primary by wide margins.

To get the brass ring, Hillary needs to win Pennsylvania by 25 points, and score 20-point margins of victory in West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico.

Plus, she’d have to at least break even in Indiana, North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana and Oregon.

So, Peter Fenn is right — the wheels will have to come off Obama’s bus for the Clintons to have a shot at another four years of paid public housing.

Assessment:

Although Hillary has won all the ‘big states’ Obama still leads comfortably, not just in the delegate count, but by almost a million popular votes.

So Pennsylvania is a bellwether state worth watching closely. It will set the tone for the rest of the primary season. Depending on how the Pennsylvania primary turns out, Hillary will have one of three options remaining.

She can win big, re-energizing her campaign, or she lose big, which could cause her to drop out, kicking off the general election campaign early. In the event of something approximating a tie, she still has her third option — and the one that offers her the best chance at victory.

She could try to steal the nomination at the convention.

To do that, she would have to convince the party big-wigs at the convention that Obama is unelectable, and that her campaign gives the Dems the best shot at beating McCain in November.

In Democratic internal politics, the popular vote is only a guide. Obama could win the majority of delegates and popular votes and the Nominating Committee could legally ignore the results and give the nomination to Clinton and the left foot of fellowship to Barack Obama.

That is the scenario most dreaded by the DNC and the most hopeful scenario possible for the GOP.

How important is Pennsylvania to Hillary? Important enough to ‘obliterate’ Iran, if necessary.

Iran??? That’s what she promised yesterday on ABC’s “Good Morning America”.

Chris Cuomo asked her directly how she’d respond should Iran attack Israel with nuclear weapons. “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” Clinton said.

“In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

That statement provides the clearest contrast yet between Hillary Clinton and, er, Hillary Clinton.

Since voting to authorize the war in Iraq, she’s made surrendering to al-Qaeda in Iraq and their Iranian handlers a mainstay of her campaign — not because she thinks its the right thing to do — but because she thinks it will get her elected.

On the other hand, she is equally willing to ‘obliterate’ (presumably with nuclear weapons) 45 million Iranians — if she thinks that it will get her elected.

Surrendering in Iraq would essentially hand that country to the Iranians, emboldening them to the point where they just might feel strong enough to take on Israel. And then, after surrendering to them and handing them Iraq, she’ll nuke ’em all til they glow?

The story here is not so much that Hillary will do ANYTHING to win, or that Pennsylvania may or may not be her Waterloo.

The real story is that there are people that will vote for her anyway. Lots of them, if the polls are right.

There is something we Christians could do to influence the primaries — we could pray and pray hard.

Except how do we pray that they both lose?

Note to the Members:

What are your political instincts telling you? Who do you think will ultimately face off against McCain in November? Take a second to vote in this morning’s poll. (Remember, you must be logged in to vote)

Carter Brings Peace to Middle East

Carter Brings Peace to Middle East
Vol: 79 Issue: 21 Monday, April 21, 2008

It would be nice to simply speak something into the air and, by virtue of your ‘positive confession’ for that ‘something’ to become the truth.

Former president Jimmy Carter spoke into the air that he could accomplish what no sitting president could, and bring peace between Israel and her enemies.

Carter was SO certain that only he could bring this off that he traveled to Damascus, in defiance of both the State Department and Israeli Foreign Ministry.

He met with the leader of Hamas, in violation of US laws that prohibit giving “aid and comfort” (in this case, a propaganda victory) to a declared enemy of the United States.

Now, having gone over to the other side in defiance of his own government, Carter is now acting as a spokesman for Hamas.

The former US president emerged from the meeting and declared that, “Hamas is prepared to accept Israel’s right to exist and to live as a next-door neighbor in peace.”

Of course, Hamas isn’t prepared to do that without expecting certain concessions, Carter cautions.

Hamas is sad. It seems that neither Israel nor the United States will meet with them just because they won’t stop attacking Israeli civilians. But, as Carter patiently explains, Hamas can’t stop attacking — it is a ‘cycle of violence’.

What is a cycle of violence? Let’s break it down to its component elements.

I walk up and punch you in the nose. You punch me back, knock me down, and walk away. So I hunt down one of your kids and punch him in the nose.

Then I punch your kid in the nose every time I see him, until finally, after a half dozen more attacks on your kid, you come and knock me down again. So I set fire to your house.

A ‘cycle’ of violence!

THIS is how Jimmy Carter sees the conflict. If I attack you and you retaliate in self-defense, then my retaliation justifies your escalating the conflict. It is a ‘cycle’ of violence that can only stop when I stop attacking.

Here’s is Jimmy Carter’s solution. Give me your house and I won’t set fire to it.

That’s fair, isn’t it?

Assessment:

According to Jimmy Carter, “The problem is not that I met with Hamas in Syria. The problem is that Israel and the United States refuse to meet with someone who must be involved.”

You see? The ‘problem’ is that the United States and Israel are wrong, Hamas is justified in its attacks, because Israel and the US won’t meet with Hamas BECAUSE they won’t stop attacking. And only Jimmy Carter can solve the problem.

All America and Israel have to do is surrender to the demands of Hamas in exchange for a cessation of terror and everything will be just fine.

“Hamas indicated to us at least – I’m not guaranteeing their commitment – that if Israel is willing to have a mutual ceasefire and a renunciation of violence in Gaza and in the West Bank, they will accept it, and as a first step they would even accept just limiting that to Gaza. . . . so I think that what they have said, if they were honest and we wrote it out so there wouldn’t be a mistake, it’s a very significant development.”

Aye, there’s the rub! “IF they were honest AND we wrote it out.”

Exactly. Except that if they were ‘honest’ then there’d be no war. And WE can write out anything we want — Hamas already wrote its charter.

In its charter, Hamas lays out the only reason for its existence: the destruction of Israel. So Carter’s position is that Hamas is prepared to abandon its reason for existing, but not prepared to disband. Or something.

And, according to Carter, Israel is at fault because Cpl. Gilad Shalit has been held by Hamas for two years. If Israel had met with Hamas, then Hamas would have released him.

One wonders if Carter knows how Cpl Gilad Shalit came to be a Hamas prisoner in the first place? Answer? He was kidnapped from inside Israel, by armed terrorist thugs, and spirited away into Gaza.

Carter says the major difficulty was in agreeing to the identity of the Palestinian prisoners Hamas is demanding in return for his release. Carter says that Hamas is demanding one thousand Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Cpl. Shalit.

Shalit remains in captivity, says Carter, because Israel has only accepted seventy-one names of the thousand Hamas is demanding.

Is it just me? Or does this sound just a bit odd? A thousand prisoners who are in prison for terrorism against Israel, in exchange for a 20-year old kidnapped Israeli soldier guilty of serving his country?

I have to tell you, even as I explain this, it sounds like some kind of bad joke. A former US president defending the application of terror as ‘justified’ is stunning enough. A former US president defending holding a kidnap victim because the ransom wasn’t sufficiently high is beyond belief, even if this IS Jimmy Carter.

Carter offered as evidence of Hamas’ sincerity, the promise that Cpl Shalit will be “allowed to send a letter, soon,” as a ‘humanitarian gesture.’

As former president Jimmy Carter was lecturing the United States and Israel for isolating Hamas, Hamas decided it would send Israel a message of good faith to back up Carter’s message.

In celebration of Passover, it loaded to US-made vehicles donated to the Palestinians by the US with explosives, disguised them as Israeli military vehicles, and blew them up at at the Kerem Shalom crossing, the main Israeli transport area for goods and humanitarian aid into Gaza.

Muhammad Abdel-Al, the spokesperson and a leader of the Hamas-allied Popular Resistance Committees terrorist organization, explained:

“We warned you we would obtain all the weapons the Zionists and Americans gave to your puppets in Fatah. It is only a matter of time before we take over the West Bank and obtain the American weapons you are giving Fatah now.”

Thirteen Israeli soldiers were wounded in that attack. Three other Israeli soldiers were killed when they were ambushed the same day along an Israeli border fence with Gaza.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said of that attack: “These operations are the beginning of the explosions that Hamas has warned of. . . if the parties don’t intervene quickly to save Gaza and break the siege, what is coming will be greater.”

Last week, Carter met in Egypt with senior Hamas leaders Mahmoud al-Zahar and Saeed Seyam. Israeli security officials stated it was “almost a one hundred percent certainty” both al-Zahar and Seyam were involved in planning this weekend’s border attacks.

Al-Zahar and Seyam are identified by both Israeli and Palestinian security officials as the two most senior leaders of Hamas’ so-called military wing, which carries out terrorist activities from the Gaza Strip, including rocket strikes, suicide bombings, border raids, kidnappings and shooting attacks.

These are Jimmy Carter’s interlocutors for peace.

“Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness.” (Zechariah 12:2-4)

“Astonishment, blindness and madness” — that just about sums it up perfectly.

Myth-Busting 101

Myth-Busting 101
Vol: 79 Issue: 19 Saturday, April 19, 2008

One of the most important differences between Biblical Christianity and most other belief structures, (including atheism) is that, by its very nature, Christianity discourages becoming mythologized.

That is one reason that twenty centuries after the fact, Jesus is still God, but ‘Jupiter’ is a planet in the solar system.

Mythological religious figures are larger-than-life, have supernatural power, are somewhat mischievous, and their deeds tend to grow with time.

One could say that about Zeus, one could say that about about Mohammed, or one could say that about Charles Darwin.

Jesus Christ was larger-than-life in His humility. No other mythological god ever washed the feet of his servants. Jesus did not exercise His Personal power, but always accredited it to God the Father.

Jesus was kind and friendly, but deadly serious — no one could accuse Him of being mischievous. And Jesus Christ was the same yesterday as today.

There are no eyewitnesses to the life and times of Zeus or Jupiter. The Koran contains no eyewitness accounts — it was compiled after the death of Mohammed from oral tradition.

Charles Darwin was not the committed atheist his followers claim, but rather, he was the son of a preacher who attended Divinity School.

And, according to an eyewitness to his death, a Lady Hope, he underwent a ‘deathbed conversion’ in which he renounced atheism.

Darwin’s followers call that a ‘myth’. That’s my point. There are more written eyewitness accounts to the life and times of Jesus Christ than of any major historical figure of antiquity.

(And more eyewitnesses to His last words, (“It is finished”) than there were to Charles Darwin’s.)

Any attempt to mythologize Jesus Christ runs into that brick wall of eyewitness testimony. Jesus Christ has been mythologized by cults, but that is why they are called cults.

Because they introduce an element of unprovable myth to a life already marked by proven miracles well attested to by multiple, unrelated eyewitnesses.

In Jesus’ day, Jerusalem was a relatively small, close-knit city, many of whose residents could trace their genealogy back to Adam. Everybody knew everybody, or they knew somebody who knew somebody — like in many small towns today.

There is a story in which Jesus was preaching in a crowded synagogue. A paralytic, desiring to be healed, couldn’t be maneuvered through the crowd, so instead, they tore a hole in the roof and lowered the guy down.

(Like THAT wouldn’t be the talk of the town, in and of itself – the text says he was a paralytic from birth, and well known to his neighbors.)

Having lowered the guy down from the roof (picture it from the perspective of the audience) to Jesus, Jesus says to the guy, “Arise, take up thy bed, and walk.”

And he does! He picks up his bed, and walks out through the crowd.

The Gospel of Mark, which related the story, was already in circulation sometime around 45 AD — fifteen years after the fact. (There is little reason to doubt the healed paralytic was still alive and telling his own story, as well).

It is fair to assume that Jesus had at least as many enemies as He had friends. But there are no contemporary records denying that event took place.

Why? Too many eyewitnesses were there to see what really happened.

One cannot mythologize Jesus for several reasons; 1) the incredible detail of the written eyewitness record; 2) the contemporary acceptance of the Gospels as fact; and, 3) when it comes to the life and times of Jesus Christ, no myth is necessary.

The truth is staggering enough.

Assessment:

Those are the reasons why Jesus can’t be mythologized. There is also a reason why few, outside of the cults, have tried. There is no motive. To be saved, one must accept Jesus Christ as He is.

A Christian’s motivation is a sincere belief in heaven and hell and an equally sincere desire to keep his fellow man from ending up in hell. A mythologized Jesus cannot save anyone.

On the other hand, atheism has no eternal power, demands no eternal accountability, and therefore, has no absolute truth.

Consequently, it is built entirely on a foundation of mythology.

Let’s examine just a few examples of atheist mythology (with acknowledgment to Vox Day’s brilliant book, “The Irrational Atheist.”)

Day takes on the most specious arguments offered by the three best-selling atheist authors of our time, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.

Myth: Atheists make up a smaller percentage of prison inmates than their religious counterparts. Fact: Surveys show that those who profess no religion are four times as likely to be incarcerated than Christians.

Myth: Cities in Blue States are safer than Red-State (“Jesus Land”) cities. Fact: The safest cities in “Blue” states are in “Red” counties. The most dangerous cities in “Red” States are in “Blue” counties. (It all depends on how you frame the facts)

Myth: Richard Dawkins claimed in his book, “The God Delusion” that religions are responsible for the destruction of religious art and literature. Fact: Vox Day counters by pointing out the 41,000 churches destroyed the Soviet atheists, and thousands of Buddhist temples destroyed in Tibet, North Korea, and Vietnam, as they attempted to persecute religious belief out of existence.

Myth: Hitler was a Christian. Fact: Hitler was a baptized Catholic who was heavily involved in the occult, Theosophy, Arianism etc. who hated Christians and planned to replace Christianity with Aryanism, an atheistic religion based in racial eugenics.

Myth: Atheists are rational, and therefore would never commit atrocities. Fact: Most of the dictators of the 20th century were atheists. The Soviet Union was an officially atheist state.

According to Day, “…the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them.”

Myth: Morality is a function of democracy in which the majority, rather than God, establish fundamental morality. Fact: Both Hitler and Hamas were elected in free and fair democratic elections. Moral democracy is no guarantee of a ‘moral majority’.

According to Day, “…the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them.”

Christopher Hitchens wrote, in his book, “God is not Great” that “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence,” as his ‘evidence’ that proves God is a myth.

Day identifies fifty-one statements made by Hitchens for which Hitchens offers no evidence. (Therefore, by Hitchens’ own logic, his book can be dismissed much more easily that the Bible.)

My favorite chapter title is Day’s “Occam’s Chainsaw” in which he applies the logical principle of “Occam’s Razor” to the logical contradictions offered by Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris, et al.

In it, Day tackles the various logical problems inherent in the atheist arguments, including those rooted in lack of evidence, hallucination, temporal advantage, fiction, unfairness of hell, God’s character, moral evolution, etc.

Bottom line? It takes far more faith in the face of the contradictions, inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies, and outright mythology of atheism than it does to accept the premise of a loving God who is intimately concerned with the spiritual well-being of His creation.

“For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know Whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day.” (2nd Timothy 1:12)

Marantha! (Come, Lord Jesus)