Cherry's Blog

"The ways of the Lord are right; the righteous walk in them, but the rebellious stumble in them." Hosea 14:9b

Friday, February 27, 2004

Christians not to be Passionate about Gibson's Passion

The Banner of Truth has posted five well-thought-out reasons why Protestant Christians should not see the movie The Passion. One comment made resonates with my own perusals of the past few days:

Lest we forget, the greatest torment that Christ experienced on the cross was not caused by the nails driven into his flesh, but in his being made "sin for us" and vicariously suffering the righteous punishment of the Father in our place. Even the worst physical torments inflicted by the Sanhedrin and the Romans upon Jesus were nothing by comparison to the anguish of having the sins of all the elect imputed to Him and making full satisfaction for them. Satisfying the justice of the Romans on a cross was comparatively easy, thousands of condemned men and women including Spartacus and several of the Apostles did that, but only Christ could satisfy the justice of God.

In addition, I disagree with the notion that Jesus wants us to continually dwell on his physical suffering. He calmed his disciples before his crucifixion by saying:

"I tell you the truth, you will weep and mourn while the world rejoices. You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy. A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world. So with you: now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy." (John 16: 20-22 NIV).

Jesus did not want his followers obsessing about his physical suffering, but instead longed for them to embrace the joy that would follow his resurrection, the joy that would come as they realized his sacrifice meant their salvation.

Another qualm I have with the movie is the Christian community's emphasis that the movie will be a great evangelistic tool. Banner of Truth makes their fourth reason for not seeing The Passion: "Its Medium: Many Evangelical Pastors are hailing movies like The Passion of Christ as part of a new and better way of spreading the Gospel". I agree with the author's assessment that relying on the movie to do the Bible's job is lazy and discounts the power of the written Word. "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing sould and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)

Christians should not think that they can leave evangelism to a movie. No, we have had the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) all along and should have been telling people about the Gospel before Gibson's movie ever came into being. Perhaps some Christians who have never shared their faith before will do so because of this movie, but I find that to be a sad commentary on today's Christians' lack of urgency in spreading the good news, rather than a positive reason for taking advantage of Gibson's movie.

Let the Banner of Truth author offer these final words:

In closing, let me address a common objection, namely that we must use tools like The Passion of Christ in order to reach the lost and that if we don't we are "missing a great opportunity."

Are we really missing an opportunity though? If we are convinced that using a Roman Catholic movie to present the Gospel is in essence a violation of God's law, how could we possibly use it? Should we sin that grace may abound?

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

Abstinence: The Only Guaranteed STD Prevention Method

Reuters' story: By age 25, half of young Americans will have a sexually transmitted disease (STD). Reuters' explanation: "perhaps because they are ignorant about protection or embarrassed to ask for it, according to several reports."

It seems some people truly do "have eyes but do not see," as Jesus prophecied. Here's my explanation:

Our country has become lax about moral standards, accepting premarital sex, teenage sex and sex outside of marriage (adultery) as acceptable. This has led to a profligation of sexual diseases, because people are promiscuous, and are accepted for being so. No one scolds a young man or woman for beginning his or her sexual life at 14, having numerous partners before he or she finally "settles down" and marries.

And then we wonder why so many people have STD's. Am I the only one that sees the connection? To me it's obvious. To others, like James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, the connection is not there. Rather, such, shall I dare say fools, believe we need to continue to abandon talk of abstinence and instead forge ahead with more condom education. This, despite the fact that condom usage does not prevent the transfer of many STD's--human papilloma virus, chlamydia, herpes or syphilis!

The Advocates for Youth report, though, acknowledges that "three diseases -- human papillomavirus or genital wart virus, a parasitic infection called trichomoniasis and chlamydia -- accounted for 88 percent of all new cases of STDs in 15- to 24-year-olds." HPV and chlamydia are both impossible to prevent with condom use, yet Mr. Wagoner added that, "For the 27 million young Americans under the age of 25 who have had sex, the stakes are simply too high to talk only about abstinence."

I don't get it. What stakes? If you keep harping on condom use, the number of young adults infected with STD's will only rise. The Alan Guttmacher Institute's Sharon Camp commented, "Most young people are sexually active, and many are ill equipped to prevent STDs or seek testing and treatment." That's because they can't prevent STD's with condoms. They've got to stop having sex. Wouldn't abstinence eduation encourage that behavior?

Yes, some kids will still engage in premarital sex. We should be honest with them and tell them that condoms will NOT prevent all STD transfers and that by engaging in immoral behavior, they are only going to hurt themselves.

To Christians, we see God's wisdom in his plan that sex should be within the confines of marriage only. To the world, this is a silly notion for which they will risk their lives trying to ignore. Sadly, half of my generation has already reaped the consequence of their behavior--and have the STD's to show for it.

Monday, February 23, 2004

More Commentary About Television

It's Time for Hollywood to Grow Up, by Dan Burrell, EP News, as reprinted in Plain-Truth Magazine's latest weekly email. (Sorry I don't have a URL for this, or I'd send you to his article directly).

It seems that the hullabaloo over the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show has stirred a lot of people to action. Letters to the editor, Internet blogs, radio talk shows and numerous editorials are filling the public discourse with condemnations, evaluations and explanations. In the end, a few, but very few have been as brazenly foolish as to defend the “costume reveal gone amok” that was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back. But I think there are other issues related to the infamous halftime that haven’t been discussed.

Having a 23-year-old man rip the bodice off the dominatrix-style costume of a 37-year-old woman as entertainment is only a small fraction of the problem. From the first seconds of the whole so-called show, it was offensive to respectable family-oriented, religious or conservative folks. But so is much of what is produced by Hollywood, Detroit, Nashville, New York and other so-called “entertainment centers” in this country. This is just the latest act in the natural progression of an entertainment culture which has lost its core and foundation. The entertainment industry is quite willing to prostitute itself for notoriety and profits and ratings without regard to its impact. They let off bombs and then revel in the aftermath. Does anyone see this as less than a strategic, cynical, calculated, manipulative action designed to draw headlines and attention? For all their “public apologies,” you can bet they are giggling in glee in offices in Hollywood and New York. They got exactly what they were asking. Attention! Controversy! Notoriety!

From Bono’s use of the “F-word” to the infamous Madonna/Britney kiss to the nudity on “Sex and the City” to the vulgar and offensive lyrics of Eminem, one can find offensive and prurient content anytime on most any channel.

Sadly, the typical American will eventually grow numb and desensitized to this trend and what causes outrage this year will receive barely a roll of the eyes or a disapproving cluck next year as American entertainment consumers prostitute their values by continuing to tune in and support such drivel. Until the American public refuses to spend their money on this swill, we are doomed for more of it. There is enough guilt to go around for both the promoters and the consumers.

Somebody needs to show some responsibility in all this. The entertainment industry shouldn’t have to have the FCC or the threat of legislation to oversee themselves. They should grow up and act with some sense of maturity and decorum that elevates art instead of reducing it by appealing to the lowest common denominators. There is no end to the appetite that feeds off of depravity ­ it will require more and more outrageous and shocking behavior to satiate it.

Hollywood is encouraged and empowered to produce more moral poison each time we support their products. Ultimately, we could cut them off at their source ­ the bank. By refusing to contribute to their machine of debauchery, we could stem the tide of glamorized immorality that seems to be the main thing they are interested in producing.

The public needs to realize we are damning our children, our culture, and our civilization by propping up these purveyors of filth and tastelessness. Until we turn off our TV's and pick up books or take walks with our kids or find other forms of recreational entertainment, they will continue to hurl this stuff at us. Hollywood has already lost its soul. Now they are trying to steal ours.

Another good response to the smut on TV can be found here.

Babies More Precious than Animals

Scott Tibbs has an excellent post regarding Bloomington, IN's misplaced sympathy for animals. This hypocrisy is not inimitable to Bloomington. How many people cry over abused animals, but never shed a tear over the plight of 40 million babies that have lost their lives in the name of women's rights?

Global Warming Scares a Sham

It's really pathetic the way the news media makes such a panic about a theory that has little or no scientific support. (And in the use of the term 'scientific', I mean real science, not just the backing of leftist scientists who also believe Evolution of species is a fact, without having ever seen a fossil record indicating such species-to-species crossover has occured). The Guardian Unlimited published an "alarming" news article meant to inspire panic over rising temperatures and rising water levels.

The article claims that as a result of global warming, by 2020, "Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world." The report claims that Jeremy Symons, a former member of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
"said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added."

Evidence? What evidence? A great website I've enjoyed for several years is the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. They use data from 1221 U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) stations across the U.S. between 1930-2000 to illustrate that U.S. temperatures are not drastically rising, and in many places, are falling. They also analyze world temperatures, allowing visitors to the site to reach the same conclusion.

Global warming is a theory that has yet to be proven. It would be devastating for the U.S. economy if we were to implement programs meant to stave off warming. Bush was right to reject signing the Kyoto treaty and we need to stand behind his administration's decision not to enter the U.S. into costly programs for a theory that has no basis in reality.

For this reason, I have included this valuable website in the list of links to the right. Please share this site with your friends. This may not be one of the hottest topics in the coming election, but it will be an issue and we don't want Kerry, or Nader, making Bush look silly for a stand on an issue he should be proud to take.

Saturday, February 21, 2004

Women Staying at Home, Part II

I thought I'd reprint my post in the World Magazine Weblog commentary section regarding God's intent that women stay at home with their children.

I take particular issue with the idea that God did not have a designated plan regarding whether mothers should stay at home rearing their children. Let me remind you of an often overlooked Bible verse.

"Then [the older women] can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God." Titus 2: 4,5

Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, thought it necessary for the older women to train the younger women to be busy at home. Whether this means a woman is not to be working outside of the home could be debated, but coincidentally, there is no urging for the older women to train the younger women in any professional sense and neither does Paul ever ask older men to train the younger men to be busy at home.

Paul also thought it important to mention that younger women should love their husbands and children. What a gift to give a husband by tending to domestic duties, making home a peaceful place for her husband when he comes home after work. The wife is then free to spend time with him, without the stress of laundry, paying bills, etc.

As for loving children, how can women say they truly love their children, yet place them in a daycare because these women would rather go earn a paycheck and prove themselves to men? It goes without saying that a woman who must, for financial reasons, work outside the home is not loving her child any less. But women who work simply to get a bigger SUV or a larger house or just to be players in the workforce are not putting their children's interests first. Rather, such women are treating their children as if they are pets that can be taken out and played with whenever these mothers want.

It is a proven fact that daycares, private babysitters, even grandparents, DO NOT provide the same nurturing environment that a mother could. When she chooses to send her child off to a daycare (other than out of dire financial necessity), she is not, as God desired, loving her child as herself.

Thursday, February 19, 2004

The Bible Saved His Life....Literally

What a neat story. Pays to tote the Holy Book around, doesn't it?

Send Seven your Sentiments

Seven Magazine is looking for articles on social justice issues. The editors want to know how "life, faith, God, joy and pain change and transform you and the world you call home."

For more details, visit their site.

Sexual Orientation is a Farce

A good post over at Avoiding Evil tackles the homosexual issue quite well.

One quote I like in particular:

It perplexes me that homosexuals claim to have natural relationships and yet the very premise of their relationship is based on deceit. In almost all homosexual relationships, one person is ‘the woman’ of the relationship. This person acts like a woman, walks like a woman, talks like a woman, and has very feminine qualities even if they are a man! It is unnatural for a man to be a woman or a woman to be a man and yet homosexuals have to pretend they are one or the other in order to make their ‘mock’ relationship work. Therefore, you have women who dress like men and walk and act as if they are men and vise versa because they are playing a deceitful roll in an obviously unnatural relationship. If homosexuality was a natural relationship then both men could be and act like men and both women could be and act like women, and they would have the ability to procreated with one another to carry on their family genes just like all the other natural families… but wait a minute… they don’t have that ability! It is an abnormality and a perversion of what God intended the family to be.

The "Stay-at-Home-Mom" was God's Plan

"Then [the older women] can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God." Titus 2: 4,5

A good post over at the World Magazine weblog inspired much good commentary on why women should stay at home with their children. I was impressed that so many people think as I do, that a woman/mother who stays at home is benefiting society and her marriage. Feminists must face another social experiment gone awry: divorce rates are sky high and women are choosing to go back to their maternal instincts, staying at home with their children and are even choosing to homeschool them as well.

Poster DLE succintly notes that, "Feminism sold us all down the river." Amen.

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

Worship As God Intended

As a break from recent political posts, I thought I'd write a bit on what I believe God intended worship to be. I take issue with most church's modern-day definition of "worship": that is, the corporate praise and prayer "show" on Sunday morning. I haven't found a passage in the Bible that even talks about such a Sunday morning show. Nor have I found a verse in the Bible that states that worship is to be the central focus of the church. Rather, worship is defined as the personal life of a believer (Romans 12:1). I would contend that true worship has more to do with how we treat believers and non-believers than how we conduct formal worship assemblies. For example, James 1:27 claims that "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world". The church was designed, primarily, for the edification of the family of God. (Note Paul's many commands that believers love each other, exhort each other, etc). While the New Testament does not detail how we are to "worship" (i.e. corporate singing, praying, etc), we are given express commands to love our neighbors, especially the body of believers. While people make argue with my point that the church's primary purpose is to benefit of the believers, just remember that the NT notes that out of our love for one another, others will see the love of Christ. If people come into our assemblies and see us encouraging one another, bonding, and sharing our lives with one another, people are going to see Christ and they're going to want to be a part of that fellowship. On the other hand, if they walk into a modern-day "worship" assembly, they may or may not be impressed with the singing, bands, prayer or sermon. If they decide to keep attending, it will be because they were impressed with the production, not because of Christ. I'm not saying that we don't get close to Christ through praise, prayer, etc. I'm just saying that I don't believe that is God's primary way for non-believers to see Christ. They see Christ in our love for one another, and that can take many forms.

Tuesday, February 17, 2004

Why Leftists Shouldn't Educate Our Children

The Leftist "feel-good" education policies of the past few decades have left many students pathetically under-challenged and ill-prepared for college and the real world. Personal example: In junior high, my parents saw that I was easily grasping the standard curriculum and bumped me up to the "excel" group. Yet rather than push ahead with tougher learning challenges, I was taught that white people are bad, Native Americans categorically good, the proper construction of an igloo out of sugar cubes, what a rain forest might look like if capitalists would stop logging and how to sew little fur outfits for my Eskimo figurines. Oh yeah, and that no matter what I do or who I hurt, I'm special. Quality education, huh? No, it was leftist propoganda, and my story, I fear, is not unusual. I was cheated out of a good education and, so famished for knowledge, I read from encyclopedias in my spare time. I wasn't unusual; I've heard from many of my other college friends similar stories. Many kids thirst for knowledge and have been starved for educational nourishment.

My educator friend believes I am dead wrong. She firmly believes schools should serve as emotional bandaids. Yes, she's right: there are students who don't get love at home. The school's primary function, however, should not be to provide "feel good", fun activity, but rather to promote rigorous learning. My friend is anti-testing. Vocally so. I am pro-testing. I believe testing gives students opportunities to use their knowledge and inspires them to study harder for future exams. Testing helped me learn. Playing with stuffed rain forest animals and making video tapes did not help me learn.

Are kids still learning? Well, for some reason they've gravitated toward the easier subjects such as English (case in point: I have a degree in English) and have neglected the math and sciences. Thus, our country is facing a shortage of engineers and consequently a decline in technological innovation. Thanks, leftists, we appreciate your social experiment. But let's let teachers get back to their real job: education.

Friday, February 13, 2004

It's Here.

The evil has begun.

Just What's So Bad About Porn?

Porn. It's everywhere you turn around, from the soft core variety, such as women modeling lingerie in the Sunday paper ads, to the hard core variety, for which an example shall not be given here. Today, Scott Tibbs sent me an email from the Washington Times about Harvard and their recent bout with the never-ending creation of porn. The two founders of a new pornographic magazine at Harvard had this to say of their purpose:
"It will provide comfortable, relaxed discussion that doesn't hold back and puts a lighter spin on something that shouldn't be a restricted or delicate topic at Harvard."

Do we need more pornography? More discussion of sexual activity?

Edward Fudge opportunely sent out an email this morning explaining why pornography is sinful. Here is an excerpt.

Most men tend to be visually oriented and pictorial pornography strongly tempts men from puberty onward. It appeals to one of the most basic human appetites and it is ever-present in our society. Pornography is particularly pernicious because, like all addictive substances, it increases the appetite without quenching the thirst. It is also progressive, requiring "doses" ever-increasing in quantity, frequency and intensity.

Pornography entices us with a cluster of subtle lies. In its fictional world, full-bosomed women sport tiny waists and hips, sex has no connection with emotional intimacy, and all females eagerly wait to jump into bed with the nearest male. When believed, these illusions destroy intimacy that is genuine and meaningful. Real women cannot compete with pornography's photographically-enhanced and surgically-altered models. Such unrealistic comparisons hinder efforts by unmarried men to develop genuine relationships and often lead married men to resent their faithful, normal, wives.

The devil lies when he promises that imaginary immorality will not affect real life. Regular fantasizing about illicit sexual behavior gradually programs the mind to anticipate similar activity in the world of reality. This unreal expectation often prompts a man to initiate improper remarks or conduct toward good women, who do not welcome either. Constant immorality in his thought-world weakens a man's resolve to yield to temptation when he encounters a woman willing to engage in immoral sex.

Pornography is sleaze. It doesn't make our world a better place. It's harmful to the men who encounter it and the women and children who become either direct or indirect victims. Pornography does not better our society and should be removed from the "marketplace of ideas"--that public exchange of information we like to refer to as free speech.

Call me the Taliban, I don't care. I miss the day, though admittedly I was not yet born, when TV shows were not even allowed to show husbands and wives in the same bed. I don't consider pornography to be free speech and I long for the day when it is no longer protected. I wish the FCC would put some decency back into media that used to be family fare.

Wednesday, February 11, 2004

Intelligence is not Magic

The Federalist included a quote from John Podhoretz in their Monday brief. I will share that quote here as well, because it is too good to pass up.

"Intelligence is not magic. It appears every intelligence agency on earth believed in the existence of the Iraqi stockpile because the Iraqis themselves believed they had it. We know Iraq icommanders in the field during the war thought their buddies to the left and to the right of them had chemical weapons at the ready even though they did not. How on earth could an intelligence agency know more about the state of weapons programs in Iraq than Saddam Hussein himself? A regime this crazy, sitting on a cash-machine of oil, was itself a potential weapon of mass destruction. Who knows what it might have done in the coming decade? That's why [weapons inspection chief David] Kay himself says that his discoveries make him think Saddam may actually have been more dangerous than he thought. It's just as clear this week as it was nine months ago that America and its 33 allies did themselves, the Iraqi people and the world an immense service by extracting this terrifying abscess." --John Podhoretz

Gay TV almost a Reality

World magazine reports that,
"MTV is forging ahead with plans for an all-gay television network that will be on everyone's basic cable plan. To be called Outlet, the 24-hour network will feature gay-themed lifestyle and entertainment programming. Earlier plans had been for a premium, subscriber network, which would have allowed for the showing of pornographic fare. Canada already has such a network, Pridevision, which is working to break into the American market.....Outlet would be part of the package that includes MTV, VH1, and the children's network Nickelodeon."

Last week I posted a proposal that Christians strongly consider dumping their cable packages. News like this only proves my point: Christians have no business paying for Satan's evil to be infiltrated into their home. Yes, you can just skip by the channel, never watching it, but what shocking scenes will your eyes behold as you pass by to the Discovery channel? What will your 7-year old see when he's searching for a good cartoon and lands on Outlet?

You can choose to keep paying for cable, but you're paying for services the devil loves to use for his own plan. I know it's cliche, but the question has excellent validity: What Would Jesus Do?

Tuesday, February 10, 2004

Friends in the News

A few of my conservative friends (the unlucky ones that have not yet graduated) are featured on today. Check it out!

Monday, February 09, 2004

Good Defenses of Capital Punishment and Pro-Life Arguments

I'm late in bringing these two articles to your attention (what can I say, I have a lengthy reading list), but there is a good defense of capital punishment that is worth reading:

#1 Mr. Veith writes:

Many pro-life activists, including the Roman Catholic Church, are promoting what they call a "consistent pro-life ethic," which opposes the taking of all life, lumping together opposition to abortion with opposition to the death penalty, as if there were no essential difference between killing someone who is innocent and killing someone who is guilty.

Doesn't capital punishment denigrate the value of human life? According to the Bible, the value of human life is the reason for capital punishment. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image" (Genesis 9:6). This is no Levitical law designed only for the children of Israel but a commandment to Noah at the reestablishment of the human race. Committing murder is a sacrilege, a blasphemous assault upon God Himself, whose image is borne by every human being. There is thus an objective basis for affirming the value of every human being. The corollary, though, is that those who violate that truth must forfeit their own lives.

And #2, a good article penned by Justin Taylor in response to faulty pro-abortion rhetoric:

[A] car had [a] sticker slapped onto its bumper: "IF YOU CAN'T TRUST ME WITH A CHOICE, HOW CAN YOU TRUST ME WITH A CHILD?"

The virtue or vice of a "choice" is dependent upon its object and outcome. Choosing to punch a pillow is rather innocent; choosing to punch a woman is contemptible. Choosing to elect a president is good; choosing to kill him is evil. The logic of this bumper sticker makes perfect sense if you assume that the "choice" has two legitimate, positive outcomes. When that is the case, we rightly implore: "Trust me." But we don't say that when one of the choices entails something evil.

A Forward Worth Reading has a forward in their archives worth reading (yes, this one is true). The piece contains quotes and speeches from Democrat leaders. Many of these leaders who were once adamant about invading Iraq, as their speeches clearly show, have now retracted in order to attack Bush and bolster their own campaigns. One speech I found most surprising was given by Senator John Kerry while making a speech at Georgetown University on January 23, 2003.

Kerry says, and I quote:

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

Senator Kerry also spoke during a debate from the Senate floor, and his speech included the following statement:

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region.

If Kerry even once tries to nail Bush for not yet discovering Iraq's arsenal of WMD's, the press needs to throw this quote back in his face.

Now, let's turn to Al Gore. Mr. Gore said on September 23, 2002:

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. [...]
However, if Iraq came to resemble Afghanistan — with no central authority but instead local and regional warlords with porous borders and infiltrating members of Al Qaeda than these widely dispersed supplies of weapons of mass destruction might well come into the hands of terrorist groups.

Today, Mr. Gore is saying, according to a New York Times headline, that "Bush Betrayed the U.S. by Using 9/11 as a Reason for War in Iraq". I find this surprising, given that in the first quote Mr. Gore found there to be some danger in Iraq's possession of WMD's. Enough so that he compared it to the 9/11 perpetrators, Al Qaeda. To Mr. Gore's credit, he was saying that he did not think that Iraq resembled Afghanistan. Well, Mr. Gore is wrong in that point, given that we have discovered that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. He is also wrong in assuming that WMD's are safer in the hands of a murderous dictator rather than a terrorist group.

Nonetheless, it is sad that Mr. Gore, although explicit that Iraq posed a threat to the U.S. is so quick to condemn Bush.

"He betrayed this country!" Mr. Gore shouted into the microphone at a rally of Tennessee Democrats here in a stuffy hotel ballroom. "He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."
Yeah, and if we'd handled the situation your "UN approval only" way, Gore, Saddam would still be sitting on his terrorist throne. Your presidential running mate knew Iraq posed a dangerous threat to America before 9/11 ("One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998), but he was too busy covering up his affairs and worrying about his ratings to do anything about it.

Animal Rights Activists Go Way Too Far

Cambridge University will not go through with its plans to build a laboratory that would research diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or Huntington's disease. Why? Good ol' hippie animal activists used terrorist activity, as usual, to extort scientists from their project. Why? Good question. These animal activists/terrorists were opposed to testing on animals, a necessary part of such research. This is a clear case when leftists have chosen animals over humans. As Epstein, the author of this piece, points out, "Millions of humans would suffer and die unnecessarily if animal testing were prohibited."

Monday, February 02, 2004

Glad we didn't see the Superbowl

Our life group from church met last night and rather than watch the Superbowl, we dined together and had some good fellowship. Most other people probably tuned into the Superbowl last night and, if they watched the half time show, were exposed to lewd, shocking, unnecessary indecency. How many men saw a partially naked woman? How many children saw a man grabbing his crotch while singing? (My mother told me a little bit about last night's half time show). World Magazine Weblog describes the general Superbowl content in this way:

This year the dominant motif of the commercials had to do with the male anatomy, with ads for three different impotence products, air up the kilts, and a crotch-biting dog. The half-time entertainment had to do with the female anatomy, as Janet Jackson bared her breast and, in a pay-for-view alternative half time show, women played tackle football while dressed in lingerie.

Incidents like these reinforce our family's decision not to have television in the home (we watch certain movies, and that's it). With a baby on the way, I feel especially confident in our decision that we're doing the right thing.

"But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God--having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them." 2 Timothy 3: 1-5

"But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving." Ephesians 5: 3, 4

"Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world--the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does--comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever." I John 2: 15-17

"The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this whill not inherit the kingdom of God." Galatians 5:19-21

"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things." Phillipians 4:8

Let us live with a clear conscience that we are trying to avoid evil. Paying for filth to be broadcast in your home is not doing what you can to avoid evil. I'm not condemning those who do subscribe to cable, but I just ask that those who feel twinges of guilt for all the accidental views of evil they've paid to see would make the final decision to cancel their cable bills. Use the extra $30 or $40 a month on something wholesome your whole family can do together, like watching a family movie, taking a hike in the park, or on Christian fiction or some good classics. Think about it, at least.

Perhaps the saddest commentary is that even non-Christian media sees a problem in the type of content as was seen during the Superbowl. This article would shame any Christian who watched the Superbowl without seeing any problem with the content of the commercials or halftime.

But just remember: filth on TV is not reserved for the Superbowl alone. Such commercials are commonplace, as are shows featuring the homosexual lifestyle and pre-marital sex. Christians, let's leave this stuff to the heathens.