If a Calvinist cannot state accurately what God says, what makes you think they'll get your words right?

Calvinists accuse God of creating people for Hell (Double Predestination) and Christ of dying for only some people (Limited Atonement), both of which are contrary to Scripture and make YHWH a lying monster.

Additionally, they pretend an affinity to Luther, trying to wrap around themselves the cloak of the Reformation, when in reality what they have is a Deformation of Christ.

Here a guest not only defends the hellish doctrines of Double Predestination and Limited Atonement, he attributes to me his own perverse attitudes:

How do you look at the things Jesus says later on in John 6? Namely, that the full number of those whom God gives to Him WILL come to Him, and that out of that number not a single one will be lost? Just curious.

Those who are not given to Christ by the Father -- are those not given because YHWH created them for Hell, because Christ did not die for them, or because the Holy Spirit never worked in their hearts?

Or is it, as Scripture teaches -- including here in John's gospel -- that they are rejected because they reject God through unbelief?

You're trying to say against that a person's condemnation is God's fault. Where does He say that?

Here's some of what God does say in John 6, including another opportunity for Calvinist selective reading near the end:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out [. . .] this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

[. . .] No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

[. . .]

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

Note in verse 44 that God says all who come to Christ are drawn by the Father. It doesn't say that only those who come to Christ were drawn by the Father.

Did not Christ say that when He was crucified He would draw "all men" to Himself?

Dusty McDusty continues:

I notice you tend to accuse Calvinists of bringing blasphemous charges against God's character

That's false. I accuse Calvinists of blaspheming God by their false doctrine.

There's a difference between Calvinists proclaiming that God is malicious, for example, and Calvinists proclaiming something that makes God seem malicious in your own personal judgment.

Where did I accuse Calvinists of saying that God is malicious? Is that misrepresentation of my words intentional?

-God says that He is not willing that anyone should perish. You say God makes people for Hell.

-God says that Christ died for all. You say Christ died for some.

-God says that He has mercy on all. You deny His mercy to "many."

-God says that in Christ's body on the cross, He was reconciling the world to His Father. You deny that reconciliation to "many."

-God says that Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the "whole world." You deny His sacrifice to "many."

-God says only that believers are predestined to eternal life. From this you infer that God predestined those in Hell to Hell. when in fact they rejected Christ's payment for sin through unbelief.

Where does God say that He predestines the "many" who find themselves in Hell for it? Where does God say that Christ died for only some? That He loves and has mercy on only some?

Dusty continues:

I've never heard a Calvinist call God "malicious" or "blame" God's sovereignty for people going to hell.

No, he just claims that God creates people for Hell.

I don't suppose I need to restate this, but just in case: The Calvinist makes God a monster. I merely point out what the Calvinist is doing.

And hey-- do you believe that God, before creating this existence, foresaw the situation of lots of people going to Hell, and yet decided to create this existence anyway? Well, if you do (and how can you not, as a theologically responsible Christian), then how do you not also "blame God's sovereignty" for the fact that people go to hell? God could have created this existence differently and He didn't. Voila--He's to blame (not to mention malicious). Shame on you for believing such a thing.

Just like the Darwinist and the Muslim, projecting their error onto the one pointing out the error.

You're confusing foreknowledge with predestination.

The reason I cannot "blame God's sovereignty" for people going to Hell is because unlike the Calvinist, I tell the truth about what I read. God says a person goes to Hell because of their own sin.

Do you, as a theologically correct sort, believe that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present? (That is, that God is sovereign?)

Here comes a perfect example of Calvinist theology in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

your own version of a cruel, malicious God? You know what I mean, right? The God who is sitting there as you read this refusing to intervene in the brutal beating and worse of a little child at the hands of her mom's drunk boyfriend (3rd time this month)... and Who will send that little child to hell when she dies of a drug overdose 19 years from now after a life of bitterness and unbelief, which He could have done something to prevent by putting a stop to the brutal beatings and worse 19 years before...

Blaming God first for mom's drunk boyfriend's cruelty (and mom's negligence), and second for
the adult woman's sin and unbelief.

To a Calvinist that's called, "good theology."

But what does God say? He says that He has mercy on the just and unjust.

Christ explained in one parable that He allows the weeds to grow up alongside the wheat until the harvest so that no good plants are destroyed prematurely along with the weeds.

As Peter said, God's "slowness" is His patience, for He wants all to be saved.

And there will be justice: Either in Christ's body on the cross, or in the unrepentant sinner's in Hell.

soul-squashing evil that people's lives are saturated with all over the world on a daily basis--evil which the loving, non-malicious, all-powerful God you believe in allows. Stuff that plays a huge part in stoking the UNBELIEF of people everywhere, which unbelief--as you yourself profess--is the reason why people go to hell.

That's dishonest!

You blame God (again) for human evil, you blame Him (again) for unbelief, and you attribute the responsibility for unbelief to outside forces rather than to the individual.

You imply also that suffering causes unbelief, when in fact, God often works through suffering to create and strengthen faith, as He says.

Nice, well-thought-out beliefs (and accusations) you've got going here. What a noble defender of God's character you are.

If you say what God says -- no more, no less -- you won't have to worry.

The ironic, self-contradictory hypocrisy of the Islamo-Leftist alliance

Ever notice how people doing (or defending) evil have to lie?

Nevermind that even President Clinton believed Saddam had WMD.

Not finding the quantities of weapons everyone expected is not evidence that President Bush lied, it's evidence that Saddam used the time prior to the actual invasion -- during which the President solicited the cooperation of those nations in collusion with the Iraqi tyrant -- to ship them off to Syria.

So, here's "PersianImmortal" (I saw 300 -- talk about a misnomer!) warning against spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) by spreading . . . FUD!

"Indeed, as we know, FUD is not limited to the IT world. US President George Bush knowingly lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) existing in Iraq - the CIA reported conclusively in 2004 that no such weapons existed.

Everyone in the U.S. knows what a friend to President Bush the CIA has been! Nope, no political agenda here!

This information was widely reported in the media at the time. Yet public polls such as this one show that from 2004 to 2006 the proportion of Americans who believe Iraq had WMDs actually grew substantially from 38% to 50%!

Clearly FUD is extremely hard to counter once it gains a foothold in people's hearts and minds."

Clearly.

No wonder Ghazi spends so many words in this article trying to convince us he's unbiased.

The University of Southern California discovers suddenly that it's been aiding the jihad against us

I wrote about USC some time ago noting that they allow genocidal, terrorist propaganda to be hosted on their web site.

At last, someone's gotten USC's attention. David Horowitz, Robert Spencer, and the third Islamofascism Awareness Week have gotten results. According to Hugh Fitzgerald:

USC Provost C. L. Max Nikias, [. . .] declared that "the passage cited is truly despicable...The passage in the Hadith that you brought to our attention violates the USC Principles of Community, and it has no place on a USC website." Said Nikias: "I have ordered that the passage be removed" [. . .] The USC MSA complied.

So, the USC Muslim Student Association removed one offensive (to normal, decent people, not to Muslims) hadith (Muslim, 41.6985, see the count jump in the screenshot below) encouraging the slaughter of Jews:


But don't celebrate just yet.

That's only one out of many requiring slavery, mutilation, rape, and death for those who refuse the "invitation" to Islam. Will USC remove the rest? What about Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:

"Allah's Apostle said, 'The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him"'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177)?

What's left of Islam when you remove the rape and slaughter? Prepositions?

So far, instead of removing all of the hateful passages, there is now a disclaimer at the bottom of the pages of the MSA's Compendium of Muslim Texts distancing USC from whatever is contained within it:


Not only that, but the MSA has been allowed to include two links to the removed hadith:


So, in effect, what have we gained? Only a better sense of the cowardice and impotence of USC's leadership?

While USC plays Whack-A-Hadith, the jihad continues.

Still, the provost has demonstrated greater knowledge and courage on the subject of Islam and its foundational texts than has President Bush.

Why are the people behind this site allowed to walk freely among us? Why is such vile filth allowed in any non-Muslim land? When will our leadership do its job, which is to defend We the People against all enemies, foreign and domestic?

What will be Muslim reaction when word gets out that Nikias called the hadith, "despicable"?

When I say that kind of thing, I get Muslims talking about killing me.

Calvinism blasphemes the Living God

What makes Calvinism unreasonable (to a Christian) is that by attributing to God what He does not say, it contradicts what He has said.

Calvin's god creates people for Hell and denies the grace of God to all (Double Predestination and Limited Atonement, respectively).

To teach such heresy, a Calvinist must deny that God has "bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."

Watch how a Calvinist negates the clear language of the Word of God to justify his false doctrine: Not only did Christ not die for the sins of the whole world, but He actually creates people for Hell!

So, you're a universalist!

I am someone who makes it his goal to say only what God has said, nothing more nor less.

We should all speak His words and remain silent where He does.

What does God say? He says that Christ died for the sins of the "whole world." He says that He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should have eternal life. In lamenting over Jerusalem He says, "I longed to gather you like a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing."

Was He lying?

Don't blame God because someone rejects Him through unbelief. To attribute to God the evil we create is not only unjust, it is blasphemy.

Strong Tower writes:

Why is it that anti-Calvinists never, ever quote all of Scripture like you did with Romans 11: What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear [. . . .]”

Here he tries to use a discussion of (natural) Israel's unbelief to prove that God creates people for Hell. One shouldn't use Romans 11 for that, since verses 20 and 21 state:

That's right! They were broken off because they didn't believe, but you remain on the tree because you do believe. Don't feel arrogant, but be afraid. If God didn't spare the natural branches, he won't spare you, either.

Why were those members of Israel rejected ("broken off")? Because of unbelief!

It's also worth nothing here that God warns believers against being rejected also through unbelief.

(So much for "Once saved, always saved.")

Look also at verse 23, which reads:

If Jewish people do not continue in their unbelief, they will be grafted onto the tree again, because God is able to do that.

There goes Double Predestination and Limited Atonement. Broken-off unbelievers rejoining the people of God!

Strong Tower continues:

And the same with what Jesus said: [. . .]“To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given [. . .] I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled [. . . .]’"

Later in Matthew 13, the Apostles receive an explanation of the parable of the sower. Does that mean the Apostles were blind, deaf, and uncomprehending unbelievers?

No. The Apostles listened to God, and He gave them explanations to His parables in and to which an unbeliever would have neither interest nor access.

Note also in this parable that the Word of God goes out to all soils (hearts).

Does God steal the seed? No, the devil does.

Does He make the soil rocky? No, that's a faith that falls away.

Does He make the thorns grow and choke the Word? No, those are human cares and lusts.

Do not make examples of Man's unbelief proof of God's malice.

If it was the mere preaching of the Word that saves and that all could be saved by the mere hearing of it and choosing to believe it, why is it that Jesus says that the preaching that he did actually accomplished the opposite in some. Why too would Jesus not pray for the entire world, John 17:9 if indeed what you are saying is true?

I've never said that we "choose" to believe the Gospel. One dead in trespasses can choose nothing. In fact, Christ said, "You did not choose Me; I chose you." All we can do is reject God's gifts through unbelief, as noted above.

What does God say? "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17). We are saved by His grace, through faith, and God offers these to all.

Do not make the fact that some reject God's gift proof of His not giving it.

As for John 17, He says He was praying specifically for His disciples. This was just before He was to be betrayed. Is it unusual to pray for loved ones before leaving them?

Is not praying for someone proof of condemning them? That makes no sense, especially in light of the many passages where God states explicitly His love for all people.

The reality of what Scripture teaches is that God does as he wills and in part that includes the blinding and hardening of the people not elect.

We've seen that the hardening is connected to unbelief, and that God says unbelievers will be accepted if they "do not continue in their unbelief."

In response to my questions, "Are you implying that Christ only wants some people to be saved? Where does He say that?" Strong Tower responds with:

Will all people be saved? Then no . . . .

He wants to blame God's "sovereignty" for the fact that people will be condemned.

But that is not what God says. He says that those who end up in Hell do so entirely on their own account: First, they sin. Second, they reject the only payment for sin (other than their own torment), which is the body and blood of Christ given and shed for them.

Jesus said, "Many are called, but few are chosen." God calls "many" (all), but most reject His call through unbelief.

One last observation: Using Strong Tower's logic, Christ's executioners were Christians, since He prayed for His murderers, "Father, forgive them."

The wisdom of God is foolishness to Calvinists

Here's a site worth checking out.

An observation on Calvinism versus Universalism versus the Word of God:

although Luther’s theology used reason to discover Biblical truths, his resultant theology sometimes ended up being quite “unreasonable.” That is to say, it embraced logical absurdities. He would simply not allow reason to stand in judgment of Scripture.

Luther believed that if something was taught in Scripture it didn’t matter to him if he and others thought it to be absurd. He saw, as did few before or after him, that logical attempts to escape from something clearly taught in Scripture often just ended in another kind of contradiction - contradicting the words of Scripture itself. This, to him, was more absurd than accepting a Biblical paradox on pure faith.

So Luther had no difficulty teaching contradictory absurdities. The saved are predestined to salvation, but the lost are not predestined to damnation. The saved cannot lose their salvation and, oh, by the way, yes they can. No one can make a decision to accept Jesus, but we can make a decision to reject Jesus. The saved are saved entirely by God, but the condemned are condemned entirely by themselves.

These are, to most theologians and philosophers, logical absurdities.

So it would be quite in keeping with Luther’s way to accept and believe in the universal restoration of all, and - at the same time - accept and believe in the eternal punishment of some. Both are taught in Scripture, so both can be believed and taught.

No only "can" be, but should be, since they are the Word of God!

Here's my comment:

The problem that Calvin's disciples have is that they make Reason more important than Scripture, and this causes them to attribute to God statements He does not make.

It's similar to the problem Israel found with the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah: Suffering Servant and Mighty King?

Our answer is "Two Messiahs."

God's answer is, "Yes."

Darwinism's utter lack of intellectual integrity

Of course, it is unfair to generalize about all members of a group based on one person, but the lack of intellectual integrity demonstrated by this Darwinist is representative of the logical gymnastics one must go through in order to believe the Darwinian creation myth.

The comments below are offered in response to Salamantis at Little Green Footballs. The thread was closed before I could reply.

Responding to my comments with the intellectual equivalent of, “I know you are, but what am I?” indicates an inability or unwillingness to reason.

After what I thought was your honest attempt to present empirical evidence of vertical speciation, you've continued with red herrings, false tu quoques, straw man arguments, and repetitions of the same non-evidence.

I don't mind repeating important facts, but at this point, you've demonstrated a resistance to facts:

I. MISREPRESENTING MY WORDS

You state falsely that I claim Darwin advocated abiogenesis. What I have stated is that Darwinism – the atheistic naturalism underlying Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory -- needs abiogenesis for its creation myth to be complete.

Rather than be honest and admit you have no evidence for vertical speciation, you accuse me of misrepresenting Evolution.

II. PERSONFICATION

You claim also that I misrepresent your words regarding personification. How is it "misrepresenting" your statements if you're using personification and I say, "You're using personification"?

Here are some examples of your (apparently) subconscious admission on the nature of Life:

"Nonrandom," means, "having a definite plan, order, or purpose.” Blame Dawkins.

"End," means, "goal."

"Exigency," means, "need."

"Impose," means, "to force on another."

"Allow," means, "to permit."

"Build," means, "to construct," or, "to develop according to a plan."

You use words implying Will and Intellect for blind, impersonal, ignorant, random, natural forces.

I didn't invent the language. Don't blame me.

III. STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS AGAINST "CREATIONISM" DON'T DEMONSTRATE VERTICAL SPECIATION

You continue to bring up the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and a 6000 year-old Earth. I've mentioned neither, which reinforces the impression you haven't really read what I've written.

(By the way, 6000 years is not "the Genesis date." I've read Genesis. So should you. It's a good book.)

IV. DEFINING MACROEVOLUTION, AND THE USE OF "RANDOM"

In referring to speciation, an essential distinction must be made between the two parts of Macroevolution: Organisms which can no longer reproduce but are the same kind of animal on the one hand and new species possessing newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function on the other.

The former I call, "lateral speciation;" the latter, "vertical speciation."

Lateral speciation is observable. Vertical speciation no one has observed occur.

In fact, you admit we cannot observe it.

To claim as unassailable scientific truth something impossible to observe is convenient for the person making the claim.

Unfortunately, it isn't Science.

With regard to the use of the word, "random," I understand what your buddy Dawkins wants. Since the nature of Life points unavoidably to Intention, he tries to attribute that intent to ignorant, natural processes.

The only problem is, "nonrandom" means "having a plan, goal, or objective." You cannot attribute intent to Nature.

Unless you're an animist, that is.

V. DARWINISM'S BAD LOGIC

You wrote of Man showing that arose without a Designer by creating experiments “specifically DESIGNED” to do so.

You infer from the fact of lateral speciation that vertical speciation occurs, though no one has ever observed it. No one has demonstrated that it can occur.

In other words, assuming that all Life arose from your Magic Mud Monsters by only random, natural processes without any empirical (observed) evidence is science fiction, not Science.

Additionally, how is it a "lame, stuffed straw man" to demand empirical evidence of vertical speciation from someone claiming scientific truth? Especially when you admit no one can observe it?

Changing the subject, attacking others' creationist arguments (not mine), and mis-stating what I've written do not constitute empirical evidence of vertical speciation!

Similar genetic code is evidence of . . . similar genetic code. No one's observed vertical speciation occur by only evolutionary processes.

All Darwinists can do is point to random mutations that never result in more than the same kind of animal as proof that random mutations have resulted in more than the same kind of animal.

As I've noted before, similar genetic code is most logically evidence of the same programmer. No one would say that DOS evolved into Mojave by only random, natural processes, right?

VI. GOOD CHRISTIANS VS. GOOD EVOLUTIONISTS, AND WHY THE TWAIN SHALL NEVER MEET

A "good" Christian would say what Moses said, that in the beginning (before sin entered the world), God made all Life by His word, and it was "very good."

No sickness, no death, no suffering.

Christ affirmed Moses' work as true.

On the other hand, a good evolutionist says that all Life came about through an accumulation of random, minor genetic mutations in organisms that appeared magically out of the ground.

Since such mutations often kill an organism (or make it really, really sick), Darwinism teaches that Life arose through sickness, death, and suffering.

The two explanations are mutually-exclusive. There is no middle ground.

And I thought you might appreciate this from your buddy Frank:

"recognize that there are things outside of nature, namely God, for which the tools of science are not well designed to derive truth. The middle-ground position is that there is more than one way to find truth, and a fully formed effort to try to answer the most important questions would not limit you to the kinds of questions that science can answer . . . ."

Where have I heard that before? :)

VII. THE LACK OF EMPIRICAL SUPPORT FOR VERTICAL SPECIATION BY ONLY RANDOM, NATURAL PROCESSES

Admitting that the only way we can observe vertical speciation is by human intellect manipulating the raw materials of Life is not proof that vertical speciation occurs apart from Intellect.

If I'm asking you for empirical evidence of vertical speciation, but you don't have any, who's got, "metaphysical predispositions" and "sectarian predilections”?

"Empirical" means "observable." If you can't observe and test, and replicate the observations and testing, it isn't Science, it's Creative Writing.

Have you found any empirical evidence of vertical speciation yet? Posters and E. coli remaining E. coli -- even after tens of thousands of generations -- do not qualify.

VIII. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION

Again, similarity of genetic code demonstrates . . . similarity of genetic code. Assuming that chimpanzees and humans shared a common ancestor leads to the belief that their shared program indicates they shared a common ancestor. That is a tautology.

I've never said that "being unable to observe something means it never happened." Those are your words.

IX. FALSE ATTACKS AGAINST SCRIPTURE DO NOT CONSTITUTE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF VERTICAL SPECIATION BY ONLY UNGUIDED, NATURAL PROCESSES

Your reference to 1 Kings is spurious. First, it doesn't provide you empirical evidence of vertical speciation.

Second, how do you think they came up with those numbers? The author thought,
"I don't remember what Pi is, so I'll just use 3"? They were measuring in cubits, and it's the difference between 30 cubits and 31.416.

Is it possible someone rounded? It also seems reasonable that perhaps the measurement was taken on the inside circumference (the text states it was a "handbreadth" thick) of the vessel?

X. STRAW MEN EVOLVED FROM STRAW MONKEYS

It is an observable fact that human beings are born to their parents.

You admit it is impossible to observe human beings arise from the first, magical single cells.

I provided Darwin's quote on the eye in a previous post along with a reference to his flawed solar analogy. It is intellectually dishonest of you to imply that I was trying to misrepresent what he wrote.

Arguing that no competing scientific theory of origins exists does not make one claiming Life arose by random, natural processes true.

Human beings creating Life from raw materials is not evidence of Life arising from non-life by only random, natural processes.

XI. CONCLUSION

We know empirically that Life only arises from Life and Life's programs.

We know empirically that no program arises apart from a programmer.

We know empirically that no machine arises apart from a designer.

I've asked you for empirical (observable) evidence of random, minor genetic mutations resulting in organisms possessing newer, more complex program, structure, and function.

You've admitted that you have none. All you've offered is proof of microevolution and lateral speciation. You and your experts use words like, “probably,” “might have,” and “circumstantial,” all of which admit you don't really know.

With 20 years, tens of trillions of cells, and tens of thousands of generations of mutating E. coli and with what do you end up?

E. coli!

When you find some empirical evidence for vertical speciation by random, natural processes, let me know.

If you can't, then to persist in a belief not only without support but contrary to all experience would be unscientific, at best.

Assuming that similarity in code, structure, or function indicates common descent is bad logic, not good science.

Three weeks in Pakistan

Our would-be Commander-in-Chief Obama made a private trip to Pakistan in 1981. He was an adult, not a child traveling at the whim of his parents.

When you hear of American or European men going to Pakistan, what is usually the reason they go?

Let's review B. Hussein O.'s Muslim ties:

-at least a year of Muslim education in Indonesia where he engaged in Qur'anic studies and learned to recite properly Allah's death chant,

-a number of Muslim family members,

-ties to a monster in Kenya allied to Muslims,

-ties to an American criminal associated with a wealthy Muslim donor,

-Farrakhan-loving Irreverend Wright as 20-year spiritual mentor,

-wanting to talk with the latest Muslim Hitler in Iran,

-sympathizing with Hamas' "legitimate" concerns,

-having his Muslim outreach advisor resign over his ties to terrorism

-the DNC hosting, among others, the president of the Islamic Society of North America, an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal terrorism trial

-first affirming and then denying Israel's right to its own capital, and now,

-close friends from Pakistan (I know lots of Baptists named "Mohammed"),

-a trip to their homeland, and all wrapped up in a nice bow of secrecy.

Three weeks in Hawaii's called a "vacation." Three weeks in Pakistan? That's boot camp.

Traveling with a friend to visit his family? In light of the political situation in Pakistan at the time and Obama's other ties to Allah, it seems much more likely that rather than being a citizen of the world, Obama's a sleeper.

From here:

While at Occidental college he became close friends with two Pakistanis, Mohammed Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid. In 1981 he traveled with Mohammad Hasan Chandoo to Pakistan and stayed there for about three weeks. It is rather unusual for a less-than-wealthy college kid to choose far-away Pakistan as a summer break destination, but not necessarily suspicious. For some reason however, Obama has never publicly cited these relationships or his time in Pakistan. Why not?

In his book 'Dreams from My Father,' Obama does talk of having a different Pakistani roommate when he later moved to New York, a man he calls Sadik who 'had overstayed his tourist visa and now made a living in New York’s high-turnover, illegal immigrant work force, waiting on tables.' Strangely, Mr. Obama, the campaign and his publisher have not provided any details about the identity of Sadik.

Jews Against Obama offers some important additional information (by way of Daily Musings):

Pakistan was in turmoil in 1981 and ruled of martial law. Millions of Afghan refugees were living in Pakistan, while the Afghan Mujahedeen operated from bases inside Pakistan in their war with the Soviets. One of the leaders that based his operation in Quetta, Pakistan was Usama Bin Laden . . . .

Pakistan was on the banned travel list for US Citizens at the time and all non-Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by their embassy for official business.

The would be only a few reasons a young Westerner of the Muslim faith would travel to Pakistan in 1981:

To Participate in Jihad, which is the duty of every “True Believer”.

For religious education in a Wahabbi sect, Saudi funded, Madrassa.

In order to purchase drugs from the drug marketplace.

Pakistan was not a tourist stop nor the place to hang out with someone’s family in 1981.

End the jizya in blood and money

President Bush was right to take out Saddam. He's been right in sending our warriors to exterminate mujahideen.

Unfortunately, the President has demonstrated no understanding of Islam.

We ought to be exploiting the natural blood rivalries within Islam, rather than funding the jihad against us. All Infidel dollars/aid to Muslims should be cut off immediately.

Pull our forces to the outer edges of Dar al-Islam and clean up whatever tries to escape.

No more American blood or treasure wasted glutting the avarice of Allah.

When "proof" for macroevolution isn't, it's probably time to rethink one's position

It's interesting. I've been having a little discussion with one person in particular at another site over Darwinism. I've pointed out that no empirical (observable) evidence exists demonstrating either abiogenesis (Life arising from non-life by only random, natural processes) or one aspect of macroevolution (random, minor genetic mutations resulting in newer, more complex program, structure, and function; for this I use the term "vertical speciation") to be true.

He admitted that no one can observe macroevolution occur (in this case, a light-sensitive spot evolving eventually into a human eye). He also offered numerous links to evidence of microevolution (minor changes within species) and lateral speciation (changes in an organism that result in it being unable to reproduce with its cousins, but still being the same kind of animal).

Following is some of that proof showing "exactly . . . how" macroevolution (vertical speciation) has no empirical support.

Admissions of no evidence for macroevolution occurring, ridiculous leaps in logic, and mistaking correlation for causation, from here:

In summary, there is no barrier to species forming. This may not be enough to show that large-scale macroevolution occurs . . . For if there is enough change to form new species, and each species is slightly different from its ancestor, then simple addition shows that many speciation events can cause large-scale evolution over enough time . . . .

We can test a particular claim of macroevolution. We can test, for example, if weasels are more closely related to red pandas than bears are (Flynn and Nedbal 1998, Flynn et al. 2000). This is a test of a particular evolutionary tree or scenario. It tests a historical reconstruction. If shown, on the basis of the evidence and the best data, to be wrong, then that history has indeed been falsified. But can we test the idea of common descent? It is not possible to show that something never occurred, but it is very easy to show that where it ought to occur, it either has or it hasn't. Science will not retain a bad idea when it is shown repeatedly not to explain what we have a right to expect it to explain (this is one reason why creationism was dropped from science back in the 1850s). If macroevolution persistently were shown to run counter to the data, then science would drop it and look for another solution.

Moreover, science has to an extent falsified the initial conception of macroevolution. The original idea was that evolution formed only tree-like patterns – species split like branches. A growing consensus has argued that both hybridisation (species recombining) and lateral genetic transfer (genes crossing the taxonomic boundaries individually or as part of symbiotic organisms that are taken into the "host" taxon's cellular machinery) are more common than we had previously thought. Macroevolution of species is still regarded as the most common way that the diversity of life has developed, but the "tree" now has "vines" that hang across the branches of single celled organisms (Fig. 4).

From here:

The researchers conclude that the presence of the full three-component signaling system may have played a role in the development of metazoan organisms whose cells could communicate with each other in complex ways.

"It shows how evolution might work," says Wendell Lim, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, who was one of the authors of the paper. "Probably there was an ancestor to these organisms that first developed these chemicals."

From here:

Nothing—not even the Plague—has posed a more persistent threat to humanity than viral diseases: yellow fever, measles, and smallpox have been causing epidemics for thousands of years. At the end of the First World War, fifty million people died of the Spanish flu; smallpox may have killed half a billion during the twentieth century alone. Those viruses were highly infectious, yet their impact was limited by their ferocity: a virus may destroy an entire culture, but if we die it dies, too. As a result, not even smallpox possessed the evolutionary power to influence humans as a species—to alter our genetic structure. That would require an organism to insinuate itself into the critical cells we need in order to reproduce: our germ cells. Only retroviruses, which reverse the usual flow of genetic code from DNA to RNA, are capable of that. A retrovirus stores its genetic information in a single-stranded molecule of RNA, instead of the more common double-stranded DNA. When it infects a cell, the virus deploys a special enzyme, called reverse transcriptase, that enables it to copy itself and then paste its own genes into the new cell’s DNA. It then becomes part of that cell forever; when the cell divides, the virus goes with it. Scientists have long suspected that if a retrovirus happens to infect a human sperm cell or egg, which is rare, and if that embryo survives—which is rarer still—the retrovirus could take its place in the blueprint of our species, passed from mother to child, and from one generation to the next, much like a gene for eye color or asthma.

When the sequence of the human genome was fully mapped, in 2003, researchers also discovered something they had not anticipated: our bodies are littered with the shards of such retroviruses, fragments of the chemical code from which all genetic material is made. It takes less than two per cent of our genome to create all the proteins necessary for us to live. Eight per cent, however, is composed of broken and disabled retroviruses, which, millions of years ago, managed to embed themselves in the DNA of our ancestors. They are called endogenous retroviruses, because once they infect the DNA of a species they become part of that species. One by one, though, after molecular battles that raged for thousands of generations, they have been defeated by evolution. Like dinosaur bones, these viral fragments are fossils. Instead of having been buried in sand, they reside within each of us, carrying a record that goes back millions of years. Because they no longer seem to serve a purpose or cause harm, these remnants have often been referred to as “junk DNA.” Many still manage to generate proteins, but scientists have never found one that functions properly in humans or that could make us sick.

Then, last year, Thierry Heidmann brought one back to life. Combining the tools of genomics, virology, and evolutionary biology, he and his colleagues took a virus that had been extinct for hundreds of thousands of years, figured out how the broken parts were originally aligned, and then pieced them together. After resurrecting the virus, the team placed it in human cells and found that their creation did indeed insert itself into the DNA of those cells. They also mixed the virus with cells taken from hamsters and cats. It quickly infected them all, offering the first evidence that the broken parts could once again be made infectious. The experiment could provide vital clues about how viruses like H.I.V. work. Inevitably, though, it also conjures images of Frankenstein’s monster and Jurassic Park.

From here, a short video purported to show "exactly . . . how" the eye evolved from a light-sensitive spot into a human eye, but in actuality offering only a chart showing a progression in the complexity of various organism's eyes and a bit of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," a discredited evolutionary propaganda piece.

Also offered was Lenski's experiments with E. coli. Though noteworthy for showing over twenty years that the bacteria developed the ability to consume citrate without the help of plasmids, it was still just E. coli, not a newer, more complex eukaryote.

Will you be slaves, or free?

Essential reflections on Liberty, and what it means to be an American from James Riley.

Every American-born, college-"educated" liberal needs to learn the same truths.

Americans Made Here

By James Riley

As I have told dozens of the teachers who visit our farm, when we first began conducting Revolutionary War field trips on Riley's Farm, I thought we would perform--if we were lucky--perhaps 10 or 20 tours a year. I thought my own passion for 18th century history, and the whole story of universal human rights on display in the story of Lexington and Concord, would have--at best--a limited audience. I thought, in other words, I would be preaching to the choir for a few kindred souls who knew Sam Adams was more than a beer label.

I could not have been more wrong.

From January to the end of June and from October to the middle of December, we are performing the Revolutionary War Adventure for hundreds of visitors a day, five days a week. I had my first inkling of the story's universal appeal one day when I was leading a group of Korean American boys through the orchard, in military formation, and I heard one of them shout it out behind me, "this is COOL!"

The simple truths are universal. They transcend all cultural, economic, and ethnic boundaries. An Italian American and an African American an Asian American a Mexican American and an Irish American and a Greek American all applaud long and loud when they hear Patrick Henry's immortal words, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death!" When they stand on the battle line and I shout out the rallying cry, "will you be free or slaves?" they all respond, without hesitation, "free!" When I strike up the tune that was once "God Save the King," but that is now "My country 'tis of thee," the voices start in, and they begin to swell, and some afternoons you can hear hundreds of American voices singing, with deep conviction, "from every mountain side, let freedom ring."

Again, the simple truths are universal. No one wants to be a slave. No one wants to have their parents rounded up and put in cattle cars. No one wants to be told who or where to worship. No one wants to have their earnings, their homes, their children stolen from them, by arbitrary, arrogant, un-bridled authority.

Thomas Jefferson had it right. We are endowed by our "Creator with certain unalienable rights." This isn't just an outdated baroque English notion--it's a universal conviction--a granite pillar at the center of our souls. Tyrants can't stand the notion that we--as Americans--derive our rights not from neighborhood committees, not from academic studies, not from tepid consensus, but from God Himself--from our "Creator." Tyrants hate this conviction with a passion. That's why China rounded up another 80 Christian pastors this week. That's why Stalin and Hitler and Castro and Pol Pot had to subjugate their churches before they could subjugate and torture their own people.

Americans HATE tyranny and whether it takes the form of an English aristocrat or a Taliban zealot, they will--as Jefferson predicted--water the tree of liberty with the blood of the tyrant every time. Freedom is what we have in common as Americans, and that is what we teach here. I'm struck--over and over again--by how completely universal that notion is. Left, right, or middle of the road-- Americans lock arms on the story of liberty.

We spend a lot of time these days talking about--and even celebrating our differences, and I love some of those differences. I married a Greek girl and she feeds me well--with foods that I never grew up with as a child. I love Mariachi bands and German Oktoberfests and Irish music. I am fiercely proud of my pioneer stock--of ancestors who braved the wilderness in four different American centuries. I love New England architecture, but I also love Spanish courtyards and Swedish log cabins and Irish stone walls.

I will tell you, though, that--as Americans--there is one difference we should NOT celebrate. There is nothing particularly joyful about Castro's Cuba or the moral lethargy of modern day France. I see no real cause for celebration in pondering Saudi Arabia's total lack of religious tolerance or the brutal rape squads of the Sudanese Muslims. The canine appetite for power demonstrated by China's political leaders isn't something I quietly celebrate whenever I order--and thoroughly enjoy--Mushu Pork. America's immigrants should be taught that their cultural traditions are valuable, but their political assumptions should be left at the border. They left slaves; they arrive sons and daughters of Liberty. It isn't about the differences between the cultures and the ethnicities; it's about people who believe in freedom and those who don't.

And, perhaps just as important, they need to know that Americans fight for that liberty. A friend of mine has a ministry to recently arrived Christians from the middle east. These are folks who have endured tyrannical Muslim majorities most of their lives, and some of them don't really believe any government will ever truly honor freedom and promote justice, but immigrants from all nations need to know that Americans will gladly lock arms with people of every color to protect what their ancestors have purchased with blood. Americans don't stand quivering at the door, asking quietly for their God given rights. They demand them. As one commentator put it, liberty is not really ever given. It is taken.

Well, at Riley's Farm, we teach that story. Along with their teachers, and their parents, we are happy to be teaching a new generation of children the most vital of American truths, and in so doing, we are proud to be, literally, making new Americans every day.

More on Darwin's creation myth

In response to this comment from Slumbering Behemoth:

All very interesting conjecture, but it does nothing to disprove scientific theory that has been worked at and proven for over a century.

Well said, and that is exactly why creation myths, any creation myths, will forever remain unprovable mythology.

Ironically, I'm not the one offering guesswork. I'm offering fact -- what we can observe and therefore know is true. It is Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary theorists who just makes things up.

Darwin's explanations have not been "proven for over a century."

Some of his earliest and staunchest opponents were paleontologists. They knew the fossil record didn't support his theory. Darwin admitted he needed such evidence to materialize.

Instead of Darwin's slow, gradual, random mutations, the fossil record shows a sudden explosion in the diversity of life, a fact for which Darwinists couldn't account, so they came up with Punctuated Equilibrium.

Darwin himself acknowledged that his explanation for something as complex as an eye was preposterous:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible."

(And no, our misunderstanding of the movement of the planets around the Ssun is not analogous: We have been able to observe that in fact, we orbit it. No one has demonstrated -- as Darwin confessed someone would need to do -- that an eye can arise from non-life by only random, natural processes.

Since Darwin brought it up: Just as a quasi-religious body fought vigorously centuries ago to protect its authority by defending its erroneous understanding of Nature, so today a quasi-religious body defends vehemently its power and its own false doctrine. Now that's ironic!)

Finally, Darwin knew nothing of genetics. If he had, I doubt he would have uttered a word about complex genetic program arising by accident.

And as for "creation myths . . . unprovable mythology"? Scientifically-speaking, since no scientist was present to observe and record abiogenesis, and since no scientists have demonstrated that abiogenesis and macroevolution can even occur, I would agree that it is beyond Science's ability to speak definitively on how Life began and developed.

However, to which explanation of Life's beginnings does evidence and experience offer support? To the one that claims Life arises apart from Life and its programs, or the one that speaks of a great Intellect designing and programming that Life?

A last thought: Science is not omniscient. It is not the only way of determining truth.

Darwin's creation myth

Here's another brief analysis of Darwin's creation myth. Couple it with the false dichotomy between the Word of Christ and Science, and you've got not only a great excuse for blasphemy, but ugly, anti-Christian bigotry also.

And nothing says, "Intelligent" like making things up to look down on Christians.

Posted in response to Charles's post here:

It's sad and ironic that one demanding truth of others would promote uncritically the pseudoscience of Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.

Abiogenesis and macroevolution are not only unsupported by the empirical (scientific) evidence we possess, they're contradicted by it.

"Science" is not the untestable assertions of fallible men, it is a process by which we study natural phenomena. It is a process that is testable and repeatable.

In other words, if you cannot observe the subject, test it, and repeat that process, it isn't Science.

What do you know is actually true about Evolution?

Apart from the random, minor genetic mutations occurring within organisms (usually resulting in severe illness and death, but never newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function), what can be demonstrated to be true about Darwin's explanations for the origin of Life?

No scientist has observed abiogenesis or macroevolution occur.

We know empirically that Life arises only from Life and Life's programs. No scientist has ever observed otherwise.

We know that no machine or program has ever arisen apart from a designer or programmer, but a living cell is a complex, metabolic, Von Neumann-type machine. And according to one state university's biology textbook, one human cell contains enough program to fill hundreds of such textbooks (all text, no pictures).

The fundamental logical error into which Darwinism falls is mistaking similarities in design for a chain of causation.

What Darwinism asks us to believe -- despite Reason and experience to the contrary -- is not only that the first abacus appeared spontaneously by only random, natural processes, but that somehow that abacus replicated and naturally (accidentally!) developed new structure and function and that this process occurred over and over again for billions of years until the computer with which you're reading this comment appeared. (This analogy is a bit weak: A human being is much more sophisticated than any computer.)

Asserting truths beyond Science's ability to test -- or worse, contrary to what Science, Reason, and experience shows us -- results in science fiction, not Science.

A malevolent and capricious god

Allah owns no monopoly on heresy or blasphemy (though it's pretty much cornered the market on "religious" genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery).

John Calvin's god -- though he and his followers use the language of the Reformation and associate themselves with Luther at every opportunity -- is blasphemous, capricious, and malevolent.

How else can one describe a god that calls itself "Christ" but is His antithesis? The Scriptures state clearly that YHWH loves all humanity, that Christ's death was for all people, that He takes delight in the death of no one, that God wants all to trust in Him and to live. But Calvin's god?

According to the false reformer, Christ died for only those who would believe (Limited Atonement). How does one determine who these true believers are? Worse yet, how does one know if he or she is one of them? Calvinists make up nonsense about knowing that they possess saving faith by their works, but even then, what about those who fall away from the faith? What about their works? And how does one know he or she is not one of them?

Calvinists say they never were a true believer. Under Calvinism, no one can know that their good works are indicative of saving faith and not just makeup on a corpse hiding future apostasy. This does not reflect the language of Scripture, which warns Christ's people against unbelief and shows us that our confidence is not to be placed in our own works, but in the person and work of Christ, Who loved us all and gave Himself to take away all people's sins.

Calvin also taught Double Predestination, another vile doctrine contrary to Scripture. The Bible speaks only of believers being predestined to eternal life; nowhere does the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob speak of creating people for hell. Such a lie makes Him a capricious monster, which may be why Jefferson confessed that he could never believe in Calvin's god.

Both blasphemies, Limited Atonement and Double Predestination, teach and preach a false Christ. A false christ means necessarily also a false gospel. The Apostle Paul declares bluntly of anyone who preaches such a message: "Let him be eternally condemned (anathema)!"

There are other problems with Calvinism besides a mutant works righteousness and false god. It also makes the Means of Grace -- Baptism and the Lord's Supper -- into nothing more than symbols, which denies the power, immediacy, and incarnation of the Son of God.

I had recently the opportunity to observe elements of a children's program offered by a local, generic community church. It turns out that in addition to what appeared to be Decision Theology, the undershepherd responsible for this congregation's instruction also believes in Limited Atonement and Double Predestination.

I wrote to him of my concerns. As of this this writing, he has not replied. While it is possible that he has been busy, the Internet ate my note, or some other event has prevented him from replying, perhaps it is just that he has no satisfactory answers for the problems inherent to his theology.

My original note:

Hello, Pastor . . . ,

. . . I'd like to share with you a concern.

I noticed that Monday's thought of the day was "Choose to believe."

My concern is that many . . . will internalize the understanding that an unbeliever can choose to believe in Christ. Is that the message you intended?

The Scriptures state that we do nothing to save ourselves; even faith is the gift of God, which the Holy Spirit creates in us through the Gospel.

Christ told His apostles, "You did not choose Me, I chose you . . . ." John 1 states that believers are born again not of a "human decision," but "born of God." Paul states that we are "dead in trespasses," that while we were God's enemies Christ died for us, and that the Holy Spirit works in us "to will and to do."

When Christ says in Revelation that, "I stand at the door and knock," He's speaking to Christians, not unbelievers.

Looking forward to your reply . . . .

And here that is:

. . . The issue of salvation that you brought up seems to be one side of a two-sided coin.

The age old question is... "is one converted because of God's work of regeneration within, or does God regenerate the individual because of his or her repentance and belief"? I am assuming by your email, that you would hold that the many- especially children- are converted because of God's work of regeneration within. In other words, you hold that predestination is the act of God regenerating one from a consequence of sin (an inability to choose God or anything good...AKA total depravity). As a result of that regeneration (a work of God), the individual can not resist that call and will be saved. I am not trying to put words in your mouth... this is more of a restatement to make sure I understand your concern.

I believe in predestination... that God chooses those whom He will save. However, it also seems evident in Scripture that there is a need for a response.

Paul's response to the Philippian jailor was "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-- you and your household" (Acts 16:31). Peter makes a similar statement in Acts 2:38 where he says "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the the Holy Spirit."

Your question... "can an unbeliever choose to believe in Christ?" My answer... "I believe we are all unbelievers when we choose to believe in Christ... however, those of us who repent and have faith have been elected by God (an inner working of God on the hearts of those whom He chose) prior to that decision".

As I started with... this is a question that has been discussed and argued by men much smarter than I for generations. I hope this issue is not one that places us as competitors, but as partners aiming to serve the same Lord and submit our lives to the same Savior.

To which I responded:

Hi, Pastor . . . ,

We have not met . . . .

My concern was that the message "Choose to believe" (and now, "Choose Christ") gives the false impression that we have something to do with our salvation.

A new concern is the idea that "the individual cannot resist that call and will be saved." Are you implying that God does not call all people? For if His call is irresistible, but only a few are saved, then He must call only those few.

Where do the Scriptures define "predestination" as "God choosing whom He will save"?

Are you implying that Christ only wants some people to be saved? Where does He say that?

Would you say also that Christ died only for some people?

What of those who fall away from faith?

Would you say that God predestined to hell those who end up there?

Cordially . . . .

Believers are commanded to teach and preach all of and only the Word of God. Anything else comes from the evil one.

Essential points on Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory

In response to an debate on Evolution here:

The proper questions to ask are: Where's your proof? How do you know?

The fundamental weakness in Darwin's theory (besides the fact that it went against all reason, experience, and the Word of Christ) is that he based it on nothing more than the observation of some minor variations within a species. If you add to that his admission that the idea of a system as complex as an eye arising by chance was ridiculous, that he had no support from the fossil record, and that he knew nothing of genetics, it is clear that his explanation of Life's origins has always been science fiction, not Science.

Not only are abiogenesis (Life arising from non-life) and macroevolution (the sudden appearance of newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function) unsupported by actual empirical evidence, they are contradicted by what we know.

For example, no evidence exists whatsoever that life arises apart from Life and Life's programs. Neither has anyone demonstrated that a genetic soup containing all the ingredients necessary for life can produce it by solely random, natural processes. And no, simulations don't count here, because a simulation is only as representative of reality as are the assumptions of its programmer(s).

Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory mistakes similarity in concept/design/function for evidence of descent. It is asking us to believe that Von Neumann-type metabolic machines containing enough program to fill hundreds and hundreds of college-level biology textbooks (all text, no pictures) arose by chance, apart from a Designer. It's asking us to believe that an Xbox evolved accidentally into an Xbox 360 with its new program, hardware, and function. It's asking us to believe that a wheel arose accidentally and evolved eventually into the space shuttle by only random, natural processes.

Every machine is the work of a designer. Every program has at its origin a programmer.

On the other hand, microevolution (the minor, random genetic mutations that occur within living things) is something that is observable and testable. It is therefore a scientifically-valid concept. It is important to remember, however, that such changes usually kill an organism (or make it really, really sick), they don't create new, more complex program, structure, and function.

The fact that microevolution occurs is not evidence of macroevolution having occurred.

In the matter of religion, the same questions apply: Where's your proof? How do you know?

The resurrection of Christ is the best attested-to fact of ancient history.

Modern, moderate, and most populace Muslim nation on Earth Indonesia persecuting Christians

Just as Mohammed commanded.

Instead of bombing Christians to aid Muslims (President Clinton) and establishing shari'a in Afghanistan and Iraq -- along with its concomitant persecution and purging of Christians and other non-Muslims -- (President Bush), why do not America's so-called leaders tell the truth about Islam, do everything possible to protect We the People, and help fellow non-Muslims escape Dar al-Islam?

Notice the "requisite permission from neighbors and civil authorities." Dhimmi regulations, perhaps?

Coming soon to a neighborhood near you. In fact, your neighborhood, courtesy of the nescient and craven politicians we continue to elect.

Islamic "tolerance" on display in Indonesia.

Quiet now.

Good dhimmi.

From here:

INDONESIA: PASTOR BATTLING ORDER TO DEMOLISH HOME

Neighbors threaten his family, demand destruction of house used for church services.

JAKARTA, July 24 (Compass Direct News) – Officials in Cipayung district, East Jakarta, have ordered Pastor Chris Ambessa of the Protestant Church of Indonesia to dismantle the newly constructed second floor of his home and to cease all religious activity in the area.

Ambessa’s lawyer, August Pasaribu, told Compass on Monday (July 21) that he planned to submit a letter to the Cipayung civil engineering department asking it to cancel the July 3 order to dismantle the second floor of the home, since the demand was in breach of local regulations. Authorities’ order to cease area religious activity for an indefinite period followed on July 13.

Pasaribu said he also hoped to file a report with the East Jakarta police department regarding an incident on May 21, in which Ambessa’s neighbors forced him to sign a document agreeing to cease religious activity.

Ambessa, however, is still weighing the likely consequences of legal action for his family and congregation.

The pastor’s home in Pondok Rangon village has functioned as a legally recognized house church for the past 12 years.

On June 6, authorities sent a letter ordering him to cease work on the second-floor extension. Construction, however, had already been completed on May 17.

When church services continued, approximately 20 young men led by a local resident approached the Cipayung district offices on June 25, demanding that Ambessa’s house be demolished.

On May 21, a similar neighborhood group had threatened Ambessa and forced him to sign a document stating that he would cease holding church services in his home. Ambessa told Compass that he had signed the document under duress, fearing attacks on his wife and daughters.

Having established his small congregation in 1996 with the requisite permission from neighbors and civic authorities, Ambessa said he was determined to protect the right of his church members to worship freely.

Christ gives His own Body and Blood for the life of the world

He offers Himself as the sacrifice that seals the New Covenant with YHWH. He makes us righteous through trusting in Him. And even that trust is God's gift to us.

We see also our ultimate end: Despite our sinful flesh, satan, and the world and all the evil they conjure, we will see God and live with Him forever.

We are victorious, because Christ has conquered all.

From Life Of The World:

John 6:47-51

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world."

Revelation 7:9-17

"After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, saying, 'Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!'

"All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying: 'Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom, thanksgiving and honor and power and might, be to our God forever and ever. Amen.'

"Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, 'Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?'

"And I said to him, 'Sir, you know.'

"So he said to me, 'These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple. And He who sits on the throne will dwell among them. They shall neither hunger anymore nor thirst anymore; the sun shall not strike them, nor any heat; for the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to living fountains of waters. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.'"

An implausible interpretation of 300

Sent to Brandon Fibbs in response to a comment in his review of 300, here:

In reading your review of 300, I am struck by your assertion that interpretations for and against the war in Iraq are supported by the film.

In 300, you have the West defending Life and Liberty against a totalitarianism that enslaves or slaughters those who resist it.

Its relevance to today's conflict -- not only in Iraq, but Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Nigeria, the Philippines, Sudan, and increasingly, the countries of western Europe -- is obvious.

As you note, "the demarcation line between good and evil is vibrantly clear."

Americans continue to support politicians who rob them blind

Politicians use rhetoric about defending "average" Americans while they make themselves rich -- and protect their wealthy friends from their own poor choices -- on the backs of taxpayers.

Barack Hussein Obama and Chris Dodd put the lie to the story that they're for the "little guy." They're looking out for themselves.

On Obama and Dodd, by way of Michelle Malkin.

First, the man who would be president:

Today, The Washington Post Reported That Obama Received A Sweetheart Mortgage Deal For His Chicago Mansion:

Obama Received A Discounted Rate On His $1.32 Million Mortgage For His Georgian Mansion In Chicago. “Shortly after joining the U.S. Senate and while enjoying a surge in income, Barack Obama bought a $1.65 million restored Georgian mansion in an upscale Chicago neighborhood. To finance the purchase, he secured a $1.32 million loan from Northern Trust in Illinois. The freshman Democratic senator received a discount. He locked in an interest rate of 5.625 percent on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago.” (Joe Stephens, “Obama Got Discount On Home Loan,” The Washington Post, 7/2/08)

* “The Loan Was Unusually Large, Known In Banker Lingo As A ‘Super Super Jumbo.’ Obama Paid No Origination Fee Or Discount Points, As Some Consumers Do To Reduce Their Interest Rates.” (Joe Stephens, “Obama Got Discount On Home Loan,” The Washington Post, 7/2/08)

Obama’s Discounted Rate Could Have Saved Him More Than $300 Per Month. “Compared with the average terms offered at the time in Chicago, Obama’s rate could have saved him more than $300 per month.” (Joe Stephens, “Obama Got Discount On Home Loan,” The Washington Post, 7/2/08)

The Obamas Secured Their Discounted Home Loan Despite The Fact That They Had “No Prior Relationship With Northern Trust When They Applied For The Loan.” “The Obamas had no prior relationship with Northern Trust when they applied for the loan. They received an oral commitment on Feb. 4, 2005, and locked in the rate of 5.625 percent, the campaign said. On that date, HSH data show, the average rate in Chicago for a 30-year fixed-rate jumbo loan with no points was about 5.94 percent.” (Joe Stephens, “Obama Got Discount On Home Loan,” The Washington Post, 7/2/08)

NOTE: Obama Also Has Received $71,000 In Campaign Contributions From Northern Trust Employees. “Since 1990, Northern Trust employees have donated more than $739,000 to federal campaigns, including $71,000 to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.” (Joe Stephens, “Obama Got Discount On Home Loan,” The Washington Post, 7/2/08)

FLASHBACK: Obama Paid $300,000 Less Than The Asking Price For His Mansion, While Tony Rezko’s Wife Paid Full Price For A Vacant Lot Next Door On The Very Same Day. “Two years ago, Obama bought a mansion on the South Side, in the Kenwood neighborhood, from a doctor. On the same day, [Antoin 'Tony'] Rezko’s wife, Rita Rezko, bought the vacant lot next door from the same seller. The doctor had listed the properties for sale together. He sold the house to Obama for $300,000 below the asking price. The doctor got his asking price on the lot from Rezko’s wife.” (Tim Novak, “Obama And His Rezko Ties,” Chicago Sun-Times, 4/23/07)

* The Seller Of Obama’s Home “Wanted To Sell Both Properties At The Same Time.” “On the same day Obama closed on his house, Rezko’s wife bought the adjacent empty lot, meeting the condition of the seller who wanted to sell both properties at the same time.” (Brian Ross and Rhonda Schwartz, “The Rezko Connection,” ABC News’ “The Blotter” Blog, abcnews.go.com, 1/10/08)

* Obama Later Purchased A Portion Of Rezko’s Land For $104,500; It Was Valued At $40,500. “Later, the Obamas bought a 10-foot-by-150-foot piece of the lot for $104,500. An appraisal put the value of the strip at $40,500, a spokesman said, but Obama considered it fair to pay one-sixth of the original price for one-sixth of the lot.” (Peter Slevin, “Obama Says He Regrets Land Deal With Fundraiser,” The Washington Post, 12/17/06)

Jim Johnson, A Former CEO Of Fannie Mae And Former Top Campaign Adviser, Also Received Sweetheart Housing Deal:

Obama’s Former Top Adviser, Jim Johnson, Resigned “After His Favorable Countrywide Loan Became Public.” “Within Obama’s presidential campaign organization, former Fannie Mae chief executive James A. Johnson resigned abruptly as head of the vice presidential search committee after his favorable Countrywide loan became public.” (Joe Stephens, “Obama Got Discount On Home Loan,” The Washington Post, 7/2/08)

Johnson Received Special Loans From Countrywide Financial CEO Angelo Mozilo. “Countrywide Financial Corp. makes mortgage loans through a vast network of offices, brokers and call centers. But a few customers have gotten their loans a special way: through Countrywide Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo. These borrowers, known internally as ‘friends of Angelo’ or FoA, include two former CEOs of Fannie Mae, the biggest buyer of Countrywide’s mortgages, say people familiar with the matter. One was James Johnson, a longtime Democratic Party power and an adviser to Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign, who this past week was named to a panel that is vetting running-mate possibilities for the presumed nominee.” (Glenn R. Simpson and James R. Hagerty, “Countrywide Friends Got Good Loans,” The Wall Street Journal, 6/7/08)

* While CEO Of Fannie Mae, Johnson And Mozilo Worked Closely And Maintained A “Close Friendship.” “From 1991 to 1998, Mr. Johnson served as CEO of the Federal National Mortgage Association, also known as Fannie Mae, which worked closely with Countrywide, one of the nation’s leading lenders and loan servicing companies. In 1996, Mr. Johnson named Mr. Mozilo as chairman of Fannie Mae’s national advisory council. A 1999 article in the American Banker said the two men had a ‘close friendship.’” (Josh Gerstein, “Top Talent Scout For Obama Tied To Subprime Lender,” The New York Sun, 6/9/08)

“Property Records Show Mr. Johnson Has Received More Than $7 Million In Loans From Countrywide Since 1998, The First Coming In The Waning Days Of His Fannie Mae Tenure.” (Glenn R. Simpson and James R. Hagerty, “Countrywide Friends Got Good Loans,” The Wall Street Journal, 6/7/08)

* At Least Two Of The Mortgages Were At Rates “Below Market Averages.” “The Journal said at least two of the mortgages, among a series of loans made available to people Countrywide officials called ‘friends of Angelo,’ were at rates below market averages, though it is difficult to predict a market rate without access to nonpublic information about a borrower’s credit history and other factors that can reduce interest charges on a loan.” (Josh Gerstein, “Top Talent Scout For Obama Tied To Subprime Lender,” The New York Sun, 6/9/08)

NOTE: Penny Pritzker, Obama’s National Finance Chair And Campaign Bundler, Owned A Failed Bank That Specialized In Subprime Lending:

Penny Pritzker Is The National Finance Chairman For Barack Obama. “And Penny Pritzker, a Chicago philanthropist, serves as Mr. Obama’s national finance chairman even as her brother, Jay Robert, holds fund-raisers across town for Mrs. Clinton.” (Jodi Kantor, “In Democratic Families, Politics Makes For Estranged Bedfellows,” The New York Times, 2/4/08)

* Pritzker Is A Bundler For Obama’s Presidential Campaign And Has Committed To Raising Over $200,000. (Obama For America Website, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 5/19 /08)

The Pritzker Family Co-Owned Superior Bank FSB. “Ms. Pritzker, who declined to be interviewed, has confronted other challenges, including the 2001 collapse of Superior Bank FSB, which the Pritzker family co-owned, resulting in a $460-million payment to federal regulators, and a rift over family assets that settled out of court in 2005. She oversees the Pritzker family’s non-hotel real estate interests and chairs its TransUnion LLC credit bureau.” (Steven R. Strahler, “Penny Pritzker,” Chicago Crain’s Business, 5/7/07)

“Superior Bank Specialized In ‘Sub-Prime Lending,’ Which Is Making Loans To Underserved Borrowers, Who Are Often Poor Minorities.” (Kathleen Day, “Regulators Probe Bank Loan To Co-Owner,” The Washington Post, 7/31/01)

On Dodd:

Two weeks ago, the Banking Committee chairman was busy introducing a $300 billion rescue package for the subprime mortgage industry and its victims when news broke that Countywide Financial - subprime’s Enron - had given Dodd special “VIP” mortgage rates on homes in Connecticut and Washington, saving him $75,000 over the life of the mortgages. Dodd’s initial reaction was wounded outrage. How could anyone think that he’d done something wrong? After it became clear he’d known he was getting VIP handling (on orders from Angelo Mozilo, the chairman-founder of Countrywide), Dodd backtracked, insisting he hadn’t realized what “VIP” meant.

With 8,000 US families facing foreclosure daily, the $200 per month Dodd’s been saving doesn’t sound so small - and Mozilo’s own toxic reputation, especially after he admitted pocketing $142 million last year just as Countrywide started sinking like the Titanic, hasn’t helped.

Dodd hasn’t been the only one caught up in the scandal. Senator Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, also got Countrywide’s VIP treatment - as did former Clinton-era heavyweights Donna Shalala, Alphonso Jackson, Richard Holbrooke, and Jim Johnson. Conrad quickly mailed off a check for the estimated value of his VIP treatment to Habitat for Humanity, and announced he was taking out new mortgages. Shalala, Jackson, and Johnson meanwhile have ducked the press - though Johnson, who was heading the search for Obama’s vice presidential candidate, had to hastily resign that role.

Dodd, however, keeps insisting - despite growing statewide criticism and a sharp drop in his poll ratings - that he has no plans to give up his VIP benefits, because he has done nothing wrong.

…The $300 billion subprime rescues package Dodd is now managing may be in trouble, with critics tarring it as the “Dodd Countrywide bill.” We voters in turn need to do a little remembering ourselves here, because this bill is the latest “rescue package” in a long ignominious history that includes corporate bailouts such as the Chrysler and Lockheed salvage operations; the savings and loan rescue; the two Mexican rescues, the Asian rescue; the airline rescue after 9/11; the ongoing bailout of agribusiness; and lest we forget, the bailout of Wall Street and Bear Stearns just two months ago.

A chief beneficiary of the Dodd bill is Bank of America, which has just bought Countrywide. If Dodd’s bill passes, taxpayers will take on much of the Bank of America’s risk of further portfolio default - a move worth billions to the bank.

Washington desperately needs to stanch the forced liquidation of millions of American homeowners. Yet once again, the benefits of its rescue efforts will accrue unequally - stacked heavily in favor of the wealthy and the powerful - because in American politics, as in Orwell’s “1984,” some are more equal than others.

Especially the VIPs.

Our political, media, and academic elites affirm, "Je pense que oui."

When will the West use its overwhelming military, technical, financial, and moral superiority to defend itself against all who would impose on us the tyranny of Allah?

Here is Thomas Sowell on Western weakness:

Are We France?
Moral paralysis.

“Moral paralysis” is a term that has been used to describe the inaction of France, England, and other European democracies in the 1930s, as they watched Hitler build up the military forces that he later used to attack them.

It is a term that may be painfully relevant to our own times.

Back in the 1930s, the governments of the democratic countries knew what Hitler was doing — and they knew that they had enough military superiority at that point to stop his military buildup in its tracks. But they did nothing to stop him.

Instead, they turned to what is still the magic mantra today — “negotiations.”

No leader of a democratic nation was ever more popular than British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain — wildly cheered in the House of Commons by opposition parties as well as his own — when he returned from negotiations in Munich in 1938, waving an agreement and declaring that it meant “peace in our time.”

We know now how short that time was. Less than a year later, World War II began in Europe and spread across the planet, killing tens of millions of people and reducing many cities to rubble in Europe and Asia.

Looking back after that war, Winston Churchill said, “There was never a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action.” The earlier it was done, the less it would have cost.

At one point, Hitler could have been stopped in his tracks “without the firing of a single shot,” Churchill said.

That point came in 1936 — three years before World War II began — when Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, in violation of two international treaties.

At that point, France alone was so much more powerful than Germany that the German generals had secret orders to retreat immediately at the first sign of French intervention.

As Hitler himself confided, the Germans would have had to retreat “with our tail between our legs,” because they did not yet have enough military force to put up even a token resistance.

Why did the French not act and spare themselves and the world the years of horror that Hitler’s aggressions would bring? The French had the means but not the will.

“Moral paralysis” came from many things. The death of a million French soldiers in the First World War and disillusionment with the peace that followed cast a pall over a whole generation.

Pacifism became vogue among the intelligentsia and spread into educational institutions. As early as 1932, Winston Churchill said: “France, though armed to the teeth, is pacifist to the core.”

It was morally paralyzed.

History may be interesting but it is the present and the future that pose the crucial question: Is America today the France of yesterday?

We know that Iran is moving swiftly toward nuclear weapons while the United Nations is moving slowly — or not at all — toward doing anything to stop them.

It is a sign of our irresponsible Utopianism that anyone would even expect the U.N. to do anything that would make any real difference.

Not only the history of the U.N., but the history of the League of Nations before it, demonstrates again and again that going to such places is a way for weak-kneed leaders of democracies to look like they are doing something when in fact they are doing nothing.

The Iranian leaders are not going to stop unless they get stopped. And, like Hitler, they don’t think we have the guts to stop them.

Incidentally, Hitler made some of the best antiwar statements of the 1930s. He knew that this was what the Western democracies wanted to hear — and that it would keep them morally paralyzed while he continued building up his military machine to attack them.

Iranian leaders today make only the most token and transparent claims that they are building “peaceful” nuclear facilities — in one of the biggest oil-producing countries in the world, which has no need for nuclear power to generate electricity.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and its international terrorist allies will be a worst threat than Hitler ever was. But, before that happens, the big question is: Are we France? Are we morally paralyzed, perhaps fatally?

"The evidence comes all from the lips and the pens of Mohammed's own devoted adherents"

Which has been one of my essential arguments: It is neither dishonest, racist, hateful, nor "Islamophobic" to condemn Mohammed for what he said and did (who can defend open-ended, universal commands for genocide and systematic rape, slavery, and terrorism on the basis of religion?), since we have his crimes against God and Nature recorded by his own people in Qur'an, ahadith, and Sira, Islam's "sacred" texts.

Allowing Allah and his apostle to speak for themselves is the most damaging thing one can do to Islam.

The Catholic Encyclopedia does a good job of highlighting some of the issues all but Muslim males should (or will) have with the doctrine of Mahomet (and this in an article from 1910!).

Note the echoes of Manuel Palaeologus II, quoted by Pope Benedict:

Quoting Johnstone, Zwemer concludes by remarking that the judgment of these modern scholars, however harsh, rests on evidence which "comes all from the lips and the pens of his own devoted adherents . . . And the followers of the prophet can scarcely complain if, even on such evidence, the verdict of history goes against him".

[. . .]

What is really good in Mohammedan ethics is either commonplace or borrowed from some other religions, whereas what is characteristic is nearly always imperfect or wicked.

[. . .]

In matters political Islam is a system of despotism at home and aggression abroad. The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imâm. In no case was the sword to be raised against him. The rights of non-Moslem subjects are of the vaguest and most limited kind, and a religious war is a sacred duty whenever there is a chance of success against the "Infidel". Medieval and modern Mohammedan, especially Turkish, persecutions of both Jews and Christians are perhaps the best illustration of this fanatical religious and political spirit.