Q&A: How can I be better prepared for evangelism? – read a free chapter of Lord Foulgrin’s Letters, a modernized version of C.S. Lewis’ classic, The Screwtape Letters.  Both are great books.  Here’s a snippet (the writer is a senior demon coaching a junior demon, so everything is backwards):

Let Fletcher be a “good example” until he’s blue in the face—as long as he doesn’t explain the forbidden message. Look around you, Squaltaint, and you’ll see innumerable Christian sludgebags who’ve been good neighbors and model coworkers for decades. But they’ve never actually told those around them what it means to be a Christian. Many of them imagine by now the message has somehow magically gotten across, but of course it hasn’t. Excellent.

Fletcher made the statement to Ryan he’d like to share the gospel with his wife and mother-in-law “when the time is right”? This frightened you, but it can work to our advantage. Don’t let him grasp the Enemy’s notion that evangelism is one beggar telling another where to find bread. Instead, turn evangelism into something more complex or obscure, something that will happen one day, but never today.

Fill him with an irrational dread of bringing up the Carpenter and the forbidden mes sage in conversation. If the vermin analyzed it, they’d be on to us. What else but our efforts could explain why they get so apprehensive about doing for someone what they believe is the biggest favor in the universe—telling them about the Enemy’s plan to save them from hell and give them heaven?

Don’t let Fletcher ask himself why a man from Portland should care about what a man from Chicago thinks of him as they both fly to Philadelphia. Why, when he will never see this man again (unless he accepts the message, in which case he’ll be deeply grateful), should he be so frightened of the man’s rejection? Why would they feel so hesitant about telling people what’s clearly in their best interests? Don’t let the obvious absurdity settle in, or he may catch on it’s we who are playing tricks on his tiny mind, fueling this irrational fear.

Whaling on false teachers in less than 5 minutes! – some productivity tips from my other blog plus some responses to my Super Fans (TM).


Is Barack Obama a Socialist? To avoid the question is to avoid personal accountability to our nation, our individual rights, and our freedoms. If Barack Obama is a socialist, the evidence will speak unequivocally, his policies will confirm it implicitly and his stated agenda will answer the question undeniably. Socialism is the government forcibly taking from those who have earned what they have and giving it to others. It crushes initiative, innovation and spirit while fomenting class warfare, racial strife and social welfare as it devours a nation. Heed the words of a statesman: Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. – Winston Churchill

Militant Gays Demand to Donate Risky Blood – as usual, this is about politics and hurt feelings, not helping others.  As noted in Why didn’t the media cover the new CDC study on HIV transmission?, if a communicable, preventable disease rate is 44 times higher for one particular group (gay and bisexual men) that just might be a reason to put some safeguards in place.  Even if testing has improved, can you imagine the impact and lawsuits if tainted blood slipped through?

NAACP Offended at Black Holes: Hears Black Whores – Hallmark’s Hoops and Yo-Yo cards are really funny.  They had a card with an astronomy theme that referenced “black holes” and some thin-skinned, hopelessly political correct professional victims insisted that it said “black whores.”  Yeah, right, another sample from Hallmark’s line of prostitution cards.  Sheesh. Listen to the card yourself at the link and note the context.

From the “I am not making this up” category: Publisher’s Warning Label: That Constitution and Declaration are No Longer Valid Thinking

Digg This


I love this scene from The Simpsons where Homer buys a gun.

More evidence of the difference between intelligence and wisdom: Stephen Hawking: “Science Will Win” (over religion).  He perpetuates a false dichotomy (scientific inquiry can exist within God’s universe).  He makes multiple errors in this line alone:

When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible.

Size does not confer value (do wives prefer diamonds or boulders?).  He begs the question by assuming that human life is insignificant and accidental, because neither are true if God created it.

I hope that he repents and believes soon.

Anglicans impose sanctions against gay affirming Episcopal church – good for them.

The homosexual religious movement has done nothing good for the unity of the church. Quite the contrary, it has seeded and fostered division and disobedience to God and his word time and time again. Its good to know some church leaders are growing a backbone and responding with influence killing sanctions. And that’s best course of action with people who are hell bent on spreading sexual immorality and false teachings. Restrict, restrain and if possible kill their influence.

Are Gill Slits Really Powerful Evidence for Evolution? – no, just more bad science and propaganda.

Planned Parenthood has well established procedures to hide pedophiles like this from justice.

OF PELICANS AND BABIES – Mike highlights the moral schizophrenia of pro-legalized abortion Greens who fight to save every pelican.

The Crime of the Century (General Motors) – Steve nails it.  This was a massive, multi-billion dollar theft carried out by the Federal Government.

Who would have thought that euthanasia could have a downside? /sarcasm — New study analyzes the legalization of euthanasia in Belgium

The paper finds that nurses administered life-ending drugs without the patient’s consent in 120 cases, as compared with 128 cases where the patient requested the drugs.

Digg This

Even a community organizer should lead better than this

I really don’t think President Obama or anyone else sabotaged the BP well to further a political agenda.  But the lack of leadership and communication on this fiasco mean at least one of these has to be true:

  1. He doesn’t care about it but only pretends to when the media make a big deal out of his inattention (btw, does he even know that Tennessee had major flooding?  Where is the media on that one?)
  2. He wants to let it become as big a disaster as possible to rationalize more government control.
  3. He has no clue what to do to stop it.
  4. He might have ideas on how to improve the situation, but is too fearful of being associated with it.

Real leaders – those with actual business experience or even political executive experience – would have moved quickly to mitigate the damage instead of making embarrassing, pointless threats to kick some ass.  They would have done things like:

  1. Actually talking to the President of BP.
  2. Accepting help from other countries.
  3. Removing red tape to get the right products in place to deal with the spill.

But he and his administration have done nothing but ignore the situation, pretend they weren’t ignoring the situation, point fingers and hold onto the donations made by BP and the rest of big oil.  But it is still Bush’s fault, eh?

Digg This

Run, don’t walk, from the UCC

Welcome visitors!  Please be sure to read Whaling on false teachers in less than 5 minutes! for more background.  God gave many lessons about the importance of sound doctrine.  The false teachers that sent you here mock those passages.  Eternity is a mighty long time, so don’t follow those fakes.


False teacher ChuckJesus is not the only way” Currie referred to this United Church of Christ (UCC) announcement in his comments on this post to justify his support for oxymoronic “same-sex marriage.”  Read it to see why this denomination is apostate.

Theological and Biblical Foundations

The message of the Gospel is the lens through which the whole of scripture is to be interpreted.

Yes, but the UCC gets the Gospel wrong.  The Gospel is that Jesus died for our sins and rose again and that by trusting in him we get forgiveness and eternal life (see 1 Corinthians 15).  You won’t find that in this UCC gobbledygook.

Love and compassion, justice and peace are at the very core of the life and ministry of Jesus. It is a message that always bends toward inclusion.

Inclusion?  Sure, but on what terms?  Is everyone included even if they don’t repent and believe?  No.  Notice how they don’t mention anything about repentance.  The only “sin” for them on this topic is not being pro-oxymoronic same-sex marriage.

The biblical story recounts the ways in which inclusion and welcome to God’s community is ever-expanding – from the story of Abraham and Sarah, to the inclusive ministry of Jesus, to the baptism of Cornelius, to the missionary journeys of Paul throughout the Greco- Roman world. The liberating work of the Spirit as witnessed in the activities of Jesus’ ministry has been to address the situations and structures of exclusion, injustice and oppression that diminish God’s people and keep them from realizing the full gift of human personhood in the context of human communion.

That’s odd, because Chuck and the UCC are pro-abortion.  They deny the human personhood of the unborn.  They won’t protect the unborn from being crushed and dismembered but shake their fists at God in support of perverting his ideal for marriage.  But they care so much about “human personhood” that they must bless what God has called sinful?

The Bible is very clear:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

The biblical call to justice and compassion (to love one’s neighbor as one’s self) provides the mandate for marriage equality.

That is a non sequitur.  Using that logic it would mandate “marriage equality” for humans and animals (see Leviticus 18 verses 22 and 23).  Why doesn’t the UCC use their same logic to overturn v. 23 while they are at it?

Justice as right relationship seeks both personal and communal well being. It is embodied in interpersonal relationships and institutional structures, including marriage.

That is just gibberish.

Justice seeks to eliminate marginalization for reasons of race, gender, sexual orientation or economic status.

Only in their made up definition.  And they beg the question about sexual orientation.  The burden of proof is on them to prove that it is genetic (it isn’t) and that even if it was why that would trump the clear word of God.

The language of covenant is central to the message of scripture concerning relationships and community. Both in the message of the prophets and the teachings of Jesus, covenant relationships are important, taken seriously by God and are to be taken seriously by God’s people.

More non sequitur gibberish.  They just throw the words justice, covenental, relationships, etc. as often as they can to make it sound good.

The overriding message of the Gospel is that God calls God’s people to live fully the gift of love in responsible, faithful, just, committed, covenantal relationships of trust that recognize and respect the image of God in all people. These Gospel values are at the core of the covenantal relationship that we call marriage.

They make up a definition of the Gospel and work from there.

It is essential to note that the Gospel values of covenant do not come from the practices of marriage, which change and evolve throughout the history of the biblical story.

Jesus reiterated the plan for marriage from Genesis: One man and one woman.  God’s ideal did not evolve.

Indeed, it is not possible to rely exclusively on scripture for understanding marriage today. For example, biblical texts that encourage celibacy, forbid divorce, or requirewomen to be subservient to their husbands are not considered to be authoritative because they are primarily expressions of the cultural norms of the ancient Middle East.

That works if you deliberately misunderstand the text.

At the same time, there are also many biblical models for blessed relationships beyond one man and one woman. Indeed, scripture neither commends a single marriage model nor commands all to marry, but rather calls for love and justice in all relationships.

The Bible has no issue with friendships.  It has zero examples of “blessed” homosexual behavior.

We recognize and affirm that the covenantal values that are essential to the Gospel are central to how we understand marriage in this time. We also recognize and affirm that all humans are made in the image and likeness of God, including people of all sexual orientations, and God has bestowed upon each one the gift of human sexuality.

Again, note that Chuck and the UCC offer no protections to the humans in the womb who are made in the likeness of God.  They are pro-abortion.

And just because people are made in God’s image doesn’t mean they get a free pass on sinning.

Further, we recognize and affirm that, as created in God’s image and gifted by God with human sexuality, all people have the right to lead lives that express love, justice, mutuality, commitment, consent and pleasure.

They are just making things up as they go along.

Is God still speaking about marriage?

The overwhelming testimonies of countless couples, regardless of gender, throughout the United Church of Christ, and beyond, say, “Yes, God is still speaking.” Couples who have chosen to exchange covenantal vows attest to the blessing of God’s abundance and lifegiving power in their relationships.

The UCC slogan that “God is still speaking” is a tip-off  This would be true provided that it meant that God still speaks through his Word.  However, they use this phrase to mean that God is changing his moral laws — and oddly enough, He is only telling westerners in Liberal denominations!

These apostates don’t think God communicated his laws in a discernible way in the first place (i.e., in the Bible), but they now think He is communicating with Swiss-watch precision to them.

Through their committed relationships, many throughout the church – parents, siblings, children, friends and others – have witnessed the liberation of the gifts of God for service in the world.

Another non sequitur.  Just because people have gifts doesn’t mean you need to sanction their rebellion against God.

Therefore, theologically and biblically, there is neither justification for denying any couple, regardless of gender, the blessings of the church nor for denying equal protection under the law in the granting of a civil marriage license, recognized and respected by all civil entities.

Actually there are many reasons.  Again:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.Yes, God is still speaking through his word, and He is still warning people against bad theology and churches like the UCC.
  • Digg This


    There is truly no reason for Super Glue to come in anything but single use containers.


    Gov Christie to Teacher’s Union: ‘You Punch Them, I’ll Punch You’ — I really, really like NJ Governor Christie.  We need more plain talk and common sense. 

    Monday Sarcasm and Smorgasbord — great roundup by Roxanne.  A sample:

    According to the Washington Post, interfaith marriages don’t do very well.  In fact, people in interfaith marriages are three times as likely to divorce as people in same-faith  marriages.

    That one should be in the “duh” category, but I suppose it is news to a postmodern “truth is relative” culture.  What could be more central to one’s view of the world than their beliefs about God?  Christians are specifically commanded not to marry non-believers.  And what an awful message  these marriages send to kids: “We find ways to agree on where to live, how to raise you, what jobs to have, vacations, etc., but God is so unimportant that we saw no reason to agree about him.”

    The first of three from the Wintery Knight (I should just redirect my blog to his) — New study compares donor-conceived vs biologically-conceived children

    Which group is faring the worst? The 100 percent wanted, planned, intended group. The donor offspring, overall, even with controls, are twice as likely to have struggled with substance abuse and delinquency, and 1.5 times as likely to have struggled with depression, compared to those raised by their biological parents (and these differences are significant). The adopted generally fall in between except with regard to depression in which case they were higher than both the donor conceived and the raised-by-biological.

    Forty-five percent of these young adults conceived by donor insemination agree, “The circumstances of my conception bother me.” Almost half report that they think about their donor conception a few times a week or more. Forty-five percent agree, “It bothers me that money was exchanged in order to conceive me.”

    Nearly half of donor offspring (compared to about a fifth of adopted adults) agree, “When I see friends with their biological fathers and mothers, it makes me feel sad.” Similarly, 53 percent (compared to 29 percent of adoptees) agree, “It hurts when I hear other people talk about their genealogical background.”

    Who is really responsible for the abolition of marriage? Men or feminists? – good distinction between “equity feminists” and “gender feminists.”

    The Wintery Knight asks, Why do secularists think their view should be privileged in debates?

    My thoughts: In addition, the "secular only" argument fails because:

    1. That pesky 1st Amendment thingy, which explicitly protects, not restricts, our rights to have our religious views inform our political views.

    2. The illogical conclusion that we should vote the opposite of our religious views.  I think my religion forbids me to ask the government to put atheists in jail and take their stuff.  Must I vote the opposite of that?

    3. Do the secularists complain about the theological Left and their support for unrestricted abortion, open borders, legal recognition of same-sex unions, universal health care, etc.?  Do they hyperventilate about the President’s religious advisor Jim "the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution" Wallis?  No, they generally just oppose religious views that they disagree with, which demonstrates that their tactics are more about bullying than principles. 

    Book Review: The Making of an Atheist 

    Philosopher James Spiegel has written a clear, biblically-informed, philosophically-astute and well-documented account of the ultimate origins of atheism. Unbelief, he argues, is not attributable to a lack of evidence for God. Rather, the problem is fixed in human rebellion against God himself, just as Paul explained in the first chapter of Romans. This book provides a much needed dimension of analysis in light of all the press received in the past few years by “new atheists” such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris.

    Sir Paul McCartney, Deep as a Thimble — A few more factoids about how ridiculous Paul McCartney’s “library” dig at President Bush was. 

    Let’s take a look at just a few of Obama’s greatest hits on Britain since taking office:

    • Feb. 2009: Much to the Brits dismay and embarrassment Obama summarily rejected the famous bust of Winston Churchill that sat in the Oval Office since 2001
    • March 2009: Obama canceled a traditional press conference with the British Prime Minister without explanation then, thoughtlessly gave a pack of U.S. DVD movies to the man as a diplomatic gift — Not only is the British PM nearly blind but the movies were Region 1 discs that cannot play on a British DVD machine
    • March 2009: Obama’s administration refused to return repeated phone calls from the British government to discuss policy
    • April 2009: Obama and his wife broke protocol by touching the Queen of England in a state visit
    • May 2009: Obama did not include the Queen in his D-Day memorial plans as is traditional
    • And in the worst slap yet, April 2010: Obama abandoned the British as they re-asserted sovereignty over the Falkland Islands

    So what has Barack Obama done to deserve the appreciation of a Brit, anyway?

    This is funny, true and a great parody.  Watch it.

    The face of the mainstream media and anti-Semitism.  Seriously, she doesn’t even realize how outlandish her statements are.  Her apology was meaningless, as it was the “I totally meant it but am sorry people were offended” type.  But her reporting was totally unbiased, eh?  Glad she’s gone.  Wish we could get rid of the rest.


    Digg This


    Hope you all have magnificent weekends!  On Saturday I have a Kairos Prison Ministry visit in the morning and tickets to the Houston Ballet at night (always an interesting juxtaposition).  On Sunday I’m starting a series on Decision Making and Will of God for the youth at church.  It is one of my all-time favorite lessons to teach – solidly biblical and immensely practical for all ages.  Please pray for open minds!

    Nice start for the Lakers.  Hope they keep the intensity up. 

    I’ve been a Beatles fan for 35 years, but was disappointed in Paul McCartney’s pathetic dig at President Bush.  As with many performers I like much of his art but hate his politics.  Just shut up and sing / act / etc.

    Ann Coulter with some excellent points on the politics of illegal immigration.  Short version: Republicans should quit pandering and enforce laws, because the voter impact is roughly zero.

    The media have been crowing that Republicans will lose the Hispanic vote forever if they support enforcing laws against illegal immigration, such as the Arizona law. To great fanfare, a poll was released last week showing that 67 percent of Hispanics oppose the Arizona law.

    The headline on that poll should have been: "One-Third of Hispanics Support Arizona Immigration Law Despite Frantic Media Campaign to Convince Them It’s a Racist Plot Against Hispanics."

    Incidentally, 67 percent of Hispanics also vote Democrat. The exact same percentage of Hispanics who oppose the Arizona law voted for Obama over John McCain — who was championing amnesty for illegals.

    Suck up to Hispanics with insane amnesty proposals; get one out of three Hispanic voters. Do the right thing and defend the country’s borders; get one out of three Hispanic voters. … Promise to make every Tuesday "Ladies’ Night"; get one out of three Hispanic voters. Offer them a choice between "Extra Crispy" and "Original Recipe"; get one out of three Hispanic voters.

    Indeed, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll released on Tuesday, only 52 percent of Hispanics oppose the law, while 37 percent support it. In other words, more Hispanics support the Arizona law (37 percent) than voted for John McCain (31 percent) -– which is the strongest argument for amnesty I’ve heard in my entire life.

    The New York Times’ Linda Greenhouse recently compared the Arizona law to Hitler’s policies toward the Jews. You remember how Jews were constantly sneaking across the border into Nazi Germany?

    Beware of Leftists Bearing Rhetoric – so accurate on so many levels.  Read and enjoy.  Here’s a sample:

    The rhetoric of global warming vs. the reality of falsified data, politicized science, obfuscation, Big Environment, and weather patterns that, er, refuse to cooperate with climate prognostications.

    The rhetoric of altruistic socialism vs. the reality of socialism’s inherent selfishness and de-moralizing effects on the human soul and psyche.

    The rhetoric of principled abortion rights and reproductive choice vs. the reality of unwanted unborn humans chewed up like twigs under a lawn mower.

    The rhetoric of gentle, dignified Islam hijacked by anomalous extremists vs. the reality of Islam an inherently violence-oriented religion from the get-go.

    The rhetoric of gay equality vs. the reality that same-sex union at its "best" is morally, medically, socially, and psychologically unequal to the best union of a man and a woman resulting in children growing up to know the love of their father and their mother and having the deepest longings of their dear hearts fulfilled.

    The lesson?

    Beware of leftists bearing rhetoric. Leftist rhetoric consists of how they would wish the world to be. It is delusional. The facts on the ground are conservative. And, within those facts, there is plenty of room to act with love, compassion, and mercy — as we are called by God to do.

    But compassion and delusion are mutually exclusive categories.

    Glenn on the Unity School of Christianity — from his great series on various cults.  I am friends with an old woman I used to work with who belongs to that cult.  It is so bizarre – basically Hinduism with a Christian veneer and so many truth-is-relative claims your head may explode.  One minute they can be completely rational and in the next they’ll explain how you can create your own reality and that opposite statements can both be true.  She’ll complain about slights done to her and recoil over animal abuse then turn around and claim that sin and evil are illusions.  Sure. 

    President Obama has worked non-stop on the oil spill, just as he claimed, other than these minor breaks:

    • Two days of media events (White House Correspondents Dinner and a tête a tête with Bono)
    • Three days of fundraising
    • Four commemorations
    • Six days of vacation
    • Six days of campaigning
    • Six sports events
    • Seven days of golf

    No one expects any President to have a “singular” focus on one issue at a time; this job requires a multi-tasker.  But we do expect some focus on the job.

    Obama’s response to the spill has been a combination of incompetence, apathy and exploitation of a crisis to further his socialist agenda – because you know the answer just has to be a vast expansion of government control instead of fixes to the obvious gaps. 

    LA students to be taught that AZ immigration law is un-American – pathetic, but unsurprising.

    Digg This


    Oh my: Administration admits that Colorado Dem was offered job to drop out of primary — I wonder how many more there are like this?  I wonder if Obama supporters care about these potential felonies and the otherwise-comical spin and changing stories his administration is putting out?

    I have a secondary blog called Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing where I whale on false teachers such as Chuck Currie and Jim "the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution" Wallis.  I just do quick posts now and then highlighting their latest heresies.  Feel free to visit.  I would put more of the posts here but this blog feeds my Facebook account and I don’t want to be negative all the time.

    If Someone Would Offer me $200,000, I’d leave the Ministry Right Away – speaking of false teachers, this survey helps explain why we see so many in pulpits who obviously aren’t Christians. 

    The Cambrian explosion is getting more explosive – read the Wintery Knight’s analysis.  One of the quotes he rightly mocks:

    “We go from very simple pre-Cambrian life-forms to something as complex as a cephalopod in the geological blink of an eye, which illustrates just how quickly evolution can produce complexity,” said Mr Smith.

    Yes, when your tautological worldview deliberately excludes alternate possibilities, then of course evolution moved quickly to produce complexity. 

    Jesus, Who Was NOT a Political Activist – great parenting by Marie in coaching her daughter to seek the truth, not revisionist history.

    Our President of Perversion Has Done it Again – Glenn analyzes Obama’s declaration of June as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender month. 

    Was Peter the First Pope? – Short answer: No.  Click the link for a longer answer.

    Digg This


    Bad reasons to leave God — here are a few.  Be sure to read them all.  This is an important piece that addresses many common objections.  Eternity is a mighty long time to lament foolish reasons for not reconciling with God.

    • Death might be a good reason to leave God if He had promised that men and women would never die. He did not.
    • Misfortune might be a good reason to leave God if He promised His children, let alone everyone, exemption from misfortune. He does not.
    • Apparent contradictions in Scripture, even ones for which we’ve found no solution, might be a good reason to leave God if He promised that all Scripture would be simple, and equally immediately transparent to every reader. He does not.
    • Lack of evidence that forces the unwilling to convert against their will might be a good reason to leave God (A) if such were even definitionally possible, and (B) if God promised to provide such. He does not.
    • Lack of evidence that no one can possibly pervert, ignore, twist nor deny might be a good reason (A) if such were even definitionally possible, and (B) if God promised to provide such. He does not.
    • God’s failure to meet expectations we put on Him might be a good reason if He promised to be the servant of our expectations. To say the least, He does not.

    Stan on CINOs (Christians In Name Only) – I have the same thoughts whenever I read about what self-proclaimed Christians say in response to poll questions.  At best they are saved and confused.

    I think, however, that he was accurate and that “self-identified Christian” does not necessarily classify one as actually Christian. Consider the following facts. According to a 2009 Barna survey of “self-described Christians”, 22% believe things contradictory to Christianity about God, such as “everyone is god, god refers to the realization of human potential,” and so on. Did you read that? These are people who call themselves “Christian”. And it doesn’t get better when you ask more questions. Some 59% don’t believe that Satan is real. Nor do 58% believe the Holy Spirit is real. They dobelieve that evil spirits and supernatural forces exist, just not that Satan or the Holy Spirit are actual beings. When asked about Jesus (remember, “Christian” means “follower of Christ”), 39% believe that Jesus sinned in His lifetime. If this were true, Christianity would be nullified because Jesus would neither have been God Incarnate nor would He have been able to pay for sins. It is no wonder, then, that 38% believe that their beliefs have not transformed their lives much. Oddly, while denying so much essential to Christianity, 89% hold that their main goal in life is to “love God with all their heart, mind, strength and soul.” It begs the question, doesn’t it? “What God?”

    Undercover video of fraud in Census Bureau training – just what you’d expect and just what you’ll hate to see.

    As to whether this is an “isolated incident” or if there are more Census videos showing more waste, fraud, and corruption, we’ll let you take a wild guess.

    Addition to the apologetics blogroll: Answering Muslims.  Hat tip: Edgar

    Nancy Pelosi tries to blame God for her awful political views — Yeah, as if Jesus would have voted against the ban against partial-birth abortions.

    Say, About That Wonderful, Awesome, Monumental, Going Broke Canadian Health System . . .

    Roxanne hearts Thomas Sowell – and with good reason.

    It was Thomas Edison who brought us electricity, not the Sierra Club. It was the Wright brothers who got us off the ground, not the Federal Aviation Administration. It was Henry Ford who ended the isolation of millions of Americans by making the automobile affordable, not Ralph Nader.Those who have helped the poor the most have not been those who have gone around loudly expressing “compassion” for the poor, but those who found ways to make industry more productive and distribution more efficient, so that the poor of today can afford things that the affluent of yesterday could only dream about.

    Another good one from Stan, where he rightly skewers the foolish “bibliolatry” canard

    We tried using a leash on a cat once.


    Digg This