Kingdom Advancing

A Reminder and Some Updates

2008-02-29T14:50:00.004-05:00

I just wanted to remind everyone that all of my posting is still taking place on We Want a Christian President...

Also, I'm officially suspending The Kingdom Courier. I hadn't sent an issue out since late November, and it simply did not pan out the way I had hoped. However, I am happy with what I am accomplishing on WWCP.

I will be leaving The Christmas Watch up for now, but it looks very improbable that I'll ever re-start that effort. If someone--preferably whom I know--would like to take it out of my hands, I'd gladly hand it over.

Just a Thought....

2007-12-03T17:16:00.000-05:00

If it wasn't a Merry Christmas, it wouldn't be a Happy Holiday!

Think about it.

~Kingdom Advancer~

p.s. Check out this site to see what Kingdom Advancer is up to right now.

New Blog Now Open to the Public

2007-11-13T15:45:00.000-05:00

Whether it's ready or not, it's open. My new blog, We Want a Christian President..., is waiting for you to check it out and become a part of the effort it is espousing.

Remember this URL: http://christianpresident.blogspot.com

So what are you waiting for?

~Kingdom Advancer~

New Blog Under Construction.

2007-11-10T20:41:00.000-05:00

Just so you know, I have been blogging the past couple of days--just not for Kingdom Advancing. I have been designing a new blog entitled "We Want a Christian President." I believe it has a lot of potential to unite Christians in search of a quality, Christian presidential candidate.

I'm not going to give you the URL now, because I want the blog to be in fully functioning condition before I open it for business, so to speak.

~Kingdom Advancer~

Decluttering and Updating....

2007-11-08T14:50:00.000-05:00

Hey everybody, or, perhaps, nobody.

Preparing, after long last, for a resurgence of activity, I've been cleaning up and updating the blog by removing outdated or unnecessary elements, adding Mike Huckabee widgets, and updating the links sections. Also, I changed the blog's template, for two reasons. First, because some sort of glitch was affecting the format of the blog. And secondly, because a change is good now and then. I feel like the new template expresses the theme of Kingdom Advancing very well.

Hopefully, these actions will make the blog faster-loading, more user-friendly, and more attractive as I try to get the ball rolling in time to make an impact on the 2008 elections, among other things.

~Kingdom Advancer~

The Kingdom Courier

2007-07-11T11:48:00.000-04:00

I want to take this chance to thank those of you who contributed to the poll about a Kingdom Advancer/Advancing e-mail update newsletter. Although I would, naturally, have liked a greater response, I will "not despise small beginnings," so to speak, so, upon my next post on Kingdom Advancing, I will be publishing the inaugural edition of The Kingdom Courier. For more information or to sign up, visit the online home of the newsletter, The Kingdom Courier, where I will be posting editions of the publication.

Hopefully, I will be posting a new article on Kingdom Advancing soon, entitled Naturally Optimistic: It's Easier to See God When You Look on the Bright Sides and at the Silver Linings. So, if you want to receive the very first edition of The Kingdom Courier, you need to sign up fast.

~Kingdom Advancer

Consensus and Credibility

2007-07-02T19:45:00.000-04:00

In the Creation/Evolution Debate, evolutionists and their sympathizers (like the liberal, secular media) will often point to "scientific consensus" or "what most scientists believe" about the Theory of Evolution as supposed "proof" for its veracity. Three of the most common high-school biology textbooks state that “Evolution is believed by most scientists and is the unifying theory of biology.” (Evolution Exposed, Pg. 53) You may read about creationists that “they believe in a relatively young earth of 6,000-8,000 years, despite scientific consensus to the contrary.” The National Science Teachers Association has stated, "There is no longer a debate among scientists over whether evolution has taken place." ("A Tale of Two Journalists," Answers Magazine, Volume 2, Number 3, July-September 2007, Pg. 32) The implications are clear, but one textbook is unmistakable when it says that “Biblical creation is religion, and evolution is science.” (Evolution Exposed, Pg. 21)
Now, I’m not going to deny that most scientists believe in Evolution. But that concession is no more than what I stated: they believe in Evolution. Although scientific consensus and fact are closely related and interconnected, that does not make Evolution true. That does not make Evolution irrefutable. Creationists should not be intimidated by this ploy. It is an argument littered with logical fallacies, general illogic, and half-truths. The fact is, it's a bad argument.

It’s amazing to hear the liberal media consistently point to “experts” when covering the Creation/Evolution controversy. Rather than cold, hard evidence, we get a 15-second clip of some either painfully dull or hatefully militant "expert" saying, essentially, “We all know that the earth is such-and-such years old and all life originated from a single ancestor. There is indisputable evidence of this and almost all reputable scientists agree.” What evidence? Oh, I guess you don’t have time to go into that one, eh?

It's really a waste of time, and it's a harsh testimony of the short attention-span, "highlight reel" society we live in. These sonic soundbites prove nothing (as I will demonstrate). In their stead, I would like to see an honest argument from the evolutionists, not a propaganda machine piggybacking on the willing participant of the liberal media (and school system, for that matter).

When one points to a consensus or a majority to prove a point or argument, two logical fallacies are committed. First of all, there is the fallacious “bandwagon” argument. The belief that “if everybody is doing it (or everybody believes/says it), it must be right,” is not a case proof. First, we must note that a 100% consensus is almost impossible to achieve. Secondly, the haunting words of my mother inevitably pop into my mind: “If everybody jumped off a cliff, would you, too?” The thinking here is that the masses can err. Let me state, for the record, that I will not jump off the evolutionary cliff.

The other logical fallacy is the “appeal to authority.” Laymen may not know what they are talking about, and experts may not know what they’re talking about (or they may intentionally deceive). Pointing to their opinions en masse, without exterior (other) evidence, does not prove anything, other than, of course, that scientists' opinions line up with evolutionary theory.

Allow me to demonstrate these fallacies further:

In America, we have a governmental system known as a democratic republic. (I know, I speak profound and unknown things, but hang with me.) To simplify a description, one can say that, in such a system, the majority of common people (citizens) elect representatives and leaders—the majority of which legislate the nation’s laws and make other important decisions. In combination with our Constitution and the separation and decentralization of powers, it composes one of—if not—the best system of government that can be attained and maintained on this fallen earth. While protecting core principles and avoiding anarchist chaos, it successfully transmits the will of the people.

But we should not make the mistake of thinking that the “will of the people” is indisputably “right.” We accept the consensus of the people and the politicians because they (usually) do reflect the “will of the people,” but it does not mean they are good decisions. It does not mean they are "correct" or "moral" decisions. In a righteous society, the view of the majority will likely be cohesive with what’s moral and just. However, even in such a case, one must not concede that at face value.

It is easy to visualize the fact that the majority consensus is not universally veracious. For one thing, public opinion can change. Abortion can be looked down upon, then accepted, then (hopefully) condemned. The same sort of thing can happen in the scientific community. The majority can’t always be right if it changes so dramatically, unless one accepts the premise of moral relativism, believing that the majority can be “right” all the time, no matter what it determines, since there can be no real right anyway.
In addition, a consensus can be formed on any level of emotion, misinformation, or presupposition, again compromising its trustworthiness.

Some might claim that these basic truths don’t apply to the elites of society—the politicians and “experts.” But all human beings are fallible (Romans 3:23), and the elites in society may be driven by corruption and agendas, as well as the influences on the common man. For instance, the educational establishment is firmly in the evolutionary camp. So what kind of scientists do we expect to be churned out but that of evolutionists?

This is not to mention that when someone references a majority, they imply the existence of a minority of a varying size from forty-nine to less-than-one percentile. Suffice it to say, the existence of a minority does not automatically eliminate a majority view’s trueness. But considering the minority may consist of a substantial amount of minds, it must be taken seriously, harkening back to the fact that majority opinions are fluid.

It is disingenuous for evolutionists to make it appear that all (or "virtually all reputable/qualified/real/educated") scientists accept the Theory of Evolution. There are many who, in the least, are skeptical of Evolution (See List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism. According to the site, "The purpose of this document is to list individuals of high academic training who have publicly expressed serious doubts about Darwinism, other naturalistic theories of life's origin, or have expressed support for intelligent design theory, either in scientific journals, books, web-documents, letters, or other public statements. Our criteria for this page is that each individual must either 1) have a PhD, 2) be a professor at a university or 3) be moderately published in scientific journals, or 4) is a member of a mainstream scientific society.) The organization Answers in Genesis has publicly educated scientists who espouse creationism. In fact, they just gained another one in the form of Dr. Andrew Snelling, who received a Ph.D. in applied geology from the University of Sydney. Others include Dr. David Menton, who holds a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University and is Professor Emeritus at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis; and Dr. Georgia Purdom, with a doctorate in molecular genetics from Ohio State University. You can click here to read a list compiled by AiG of well over one hundred "modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation" as well as scientists in the past who believed in a Creator God. This is not to mention proponents of Intelligent Design. For instance, there is astrophysicist/-biologist(?) Guillermo Gonzalez, co-author of the book-turned-DVD The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery, who, as Assistant Professor of Astronomy, was recently denied tenure at Iowa State University, potentially—or should I say probably—because of his strong arguments for I.D. According to the Discovery Institute, he is "a world-class expert on the astrophysical requirements for habitability and on habitable zones and a co-founder of the 'Galactic Habitable Zone' concept, which captured the October 2001 cover story of 'Scientific American.' Astronomers and astrobiologists around the world are pursuing research based on his work on exoplanet host stars, the Galactic Habitable Zone and red giants." Another prominent pioneer of Intelligent Design is biochemist Michael Behe, a professor at Lehigh University, who advanced the idea of "irreducible complexity," and authored Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. A third example is William Dembski. "A mathematician and philosopher, [he] is Research Professor in Philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth." He has written The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities. In all probability, there are many others, not listed in the anti-Darwin ranks, who doubt Evolution, but do not possess the fortitude to place their scientific reputations on the line.
(Note: There is some amount of overlap between the List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism, AiG's list of creationists, and proponents of Intelligent Design.)

Another problem for the “consensus" argument is the possibility for a “bait-and-switch” technique. A person can honestly say that “most scientists believe in Evolution” (though this proves nothing), and then genuinely follow that up with supposed “evidence” for Evolution. But here’s the potential underlying problem with that: just because most scientists believe in Evolution does not necessarily mean that they accept all of the proposed (and frequently debunked after-the-fact) “evidences” for Evolution. A truly objective scientist never would. Yet, when “most scientists believe in Evolution” is paired with “here’s the evidence for Evolution,” a natural connection of the human mind is that “most scientists believe…in this evidence.” That may be true in some or even most cases, but certainly there are more scientists who are skeptical of some proofs of Evolution than people who reject Evolution as a whole. This is point which should not be underestimated.
It’s kind of like this: if someone said “Kingdom Advancer believes the Bible is God’s inerrant, inspired Word,” and then stated, “One proof some use for the Bible being God’s Word is that it consists of black ink printed on white paper,” someone may make the reasonable inference that “Kingdom Advancer believes the Bible is God’s Word because it consists of black ink printed on white paper.” Now, don’t get too deep philosophically on me, but that "evidence" probably wouldn’t be one of my first couple hundred proofs, if it ever were a proof at all.

What is the end result of this “bait-and-switch?” Well, in the case of Evolution, people may believe in it, because they believe the “evidences” for it are preponderance, because they think most scientists believe in all or most of the “evidences.”
Worse yet, some of the "evidences" most or perhaps even all scientists may reject--believing they don't even need them to prove Evolution--might still linger in the minds of laymen and women. Consider Lamarckism, Darwin's finches, and discredited "missing link" hoaxes--two of which were actually mentioned by my barber one day as "proofs" of Evolution.

In spite of the utter inadequacy, already demonstrated, of these arguments, we can dig still deeper. We must look at underlying biases of the scientific community. And they do exist. For instance, look at Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion. Am I going to leave my eternal destiny in the hands of someone who expresses such vitriol for an entity he claims he believes does not exist? I don’t think so. But the scientific community as a whole--not as vehement as Dawkins--also has underlying convictions. Naturalism is one. It is “a belief denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically, the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena.” (Evolution Exposed, Pg. 22) Materialism is another, a “belief claiming that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all organisms, processes, and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or interactions of matter.” (Evolution Exposed, Pg. 22) It's great when a scientist honestly confesses, "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." (Dr. Scott Todd, quoted in Evolution Exposed, Pg. 19)

Of course, I'm not going to attack the Theory of Evolution on the basis of scientists' preconceived notions, because that itself would be a logical fallacy: I would be "attacking the person." An idea cannot rightly be discredited just because the person espousing said idea is not credible, just as an idea cannot be verified just because persons endorsing it are credible. However, this fallacious technique is useful in proving the unreliability of the "consensus" argument. In addition, similar to how scientific consensus is closely interrelated to scientific fact (but not interchangeable inandof themselves), an individual's personal bias can be a key to unlocking the truth behind an ideology, though not sufficient standing alone.

Often, the "attacking the person" cannon is aimed at creationists. Obviously, we're told, since Christians like Ken Ham live by faith, independent of scientific permission (if you will), he cannot be trusted to carry out an intelligent scientific discourse. This is absolutely preposterous. First of all, everyone has preconceived notions, if, in the least, the notion of relativity or inability to decipher absolute truth at all. I already mentioned the secular strongholds and foundations of naturalism and materialism.
Secondly, as I said, "attacking the person" is a logical fallacy. Address the issues, not the person.
Furthermore, this accusation is at odds with Christian theology. Jesus said, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32) People don't know the truth and remain in chains. We cannot expect an outsider to vouch for the truthfulness of a six-day creation six thousand years ago. That's why Christians are told to be ready to make an argument for their faith (1 Peter 3:15). No one else will. No one comes to a true knowledge of the Truth (John 14:6) without being set free. The Bible tells us that “a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” (1 Corinthians 2:14) Paul calls Christians to be "transformed by the renewing of your minds." (Romans 12:2) We cannot expect someone "conformed to this world" (Romans 12:2) to validate the Genesis account of creation.

However, this does not mean that evidences for creation cannot be confirmed by non-creationists. Indeed, the Bible makes it clear that a Creator's existence--or necessity--is self-evident (Job 12:7-9; Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:20). That explains why I.D. can be supported by non-creationists, and why there can be so many doubters of Darwin, in general.

I hope this article explains well why the "consensus" argument falls so short on so many levels.

~ Kingdom Advancer

Meshing and Threshing Advantageously and Arbitrarily

2007-06-19T00:40:00.000-04:00

There's an old saying which states that the "winners write the history books." Though this doesn't ring 100% true (or else we wouldn't be able to trust any history--nor would there be "two sides to every story"), it makes the point that the one who's victorious often gets to decide how things "were," are, and will be. It's something along the lines of the philosophy that "might makes right," whether true, just, or not.
However, in the field of science, dissenting views can be the spur to the horse of progress. The earth is round? The earth revolves around the sun? These weren't popular ideas at one time or another, but underdogs barked long enough and loud enough, backing their barks with sufficient evidential "bite," to dethrone reigning theories. Even if the primary theories aren't entirely innaccurate, minority positions can be the "cream" that cures imperfections.

Secularists have largely won the battle over science thus far. Quite frankly, they've been winning the battles for society at large, too. Unfortunately, they've left the battlefield quite damaged. Some of science is in a state of disrepair for the sake of secular domination. Despite what we know about "iron sharpening iron" and "gold being refined by fire" in the scientific fields, creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design are relatively silenced in the public sphere. The ever-spreading infectious Theory of Evolution is a disease that wants no competing virus. It's suspicious, isn't it? If evolutionists were really confident in their belief, they would encourage creationists to publicly make fools of themselves--to be "put to shame" (1 Peter 3:16) if evolutionists had a "good conscience." But they know that creationists are "always being ready to make a defense to everyone..." (1 Peter 3:15) Therefore, silence, not debate, is the preferred method of confrontation. The scientific elite, who wants to tell us "how things were," may cry out that we devious creationists will "deceive people," therefore efforts like the Creation Museum must be shut down. But if the evidence for evolution is so compelling and overwhelming, just show it to all, and creationists should have no answer. ...Still waiting... Speak and listen; don't filibuster and hush, which is essentially what the scientific establishment is doing when they continually point to "experts" and "scientific consensus" and never to cold hard facts and refutations of creationism. Besides, you would think that, if the veracity of Evolution is so irrefutable, creationists would be useful tools in simply polishing and solidifying the theory. That's my perspective, anyways, as a creationist, toward evolutionists. They challenge Christians to think more of God's thoughts after Him. They produce endurance. "Consider it all joy...when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance..." (James 1:2-3)

But, no, that's not the attitude of evolutionists. They decry the private Creation Museum, while controlling virtually every other outlet, including the school system.

Of course, all theories do not hold the same weight and thereby do not require the same level of recognition. If I say that both the earth and moon are made of cheese and only cheese, my voice won't carry very far--and rightfully so. But only the most ardent, arrogant, and ignorant atheists and evolutionists would place creationism in that category.

However, that's the point, isn't it? Those on that side of the spectrum--if not so extreme--do the categorizing, don't they? That brings us to the real gist of this post: Meshing and Threshing... But what do I mean? Simply that the secular, scientific elites artificially, arbitrarily, and advantageously separate and make inseparable what they so please in the fields of science.

In the first place, they collaborate--intentionally or not--historical, origins science and operational, observational science. If you hang around the Creation/Evolution Debate, you may often hear that creationism is unscientific because it "doesn't follow the scientific method." This statement is factual, but it is also inconsequential. It violates the laws of logic with its irrelevance and false dichotomy.

Now, let me clarify that--to believe in creation--one must have faith. Faith is intrical to salvation (Ephesians 2:8) and essential to God's approval (Hebrews 11:6). So I am not denying the faith aspect. "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1); they do not prove His existence by the scientific method or prove the Creation Account. Christians have faith that the Bible is inspired by God (1 Timothy 3:16), regardless of what scientists may hypothesize. I have no problem saying that, especially when I consider some of the preposterous theories and "evidences" that have arisen before being debunked.

What I do have a problem with is the proverbial "holier than thou" attitudes of evolutionists--that somehow believers in Evolution are "more scientific" than creationists, or that believing in Evolution or in no God doesn't take faith. Both creationism and Molecules-to-man Evolution fall outside the bounds of the scientific method, beyond the scope of observational science, and faith is a requirement for belief in either.

Operational (Observational) Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.
...
Historical (Origins) Science: interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view.

(Evolution Exposed, Pg. 24)

Really, it's very much common sense that we can't repeat, control, test, or observe the origin of the universe and the things therein, no matter how it happened. It's just not possible. It goes back to the basic premise, "Were you there?" No one was...except God, who told us how it happened in His Word. But, yes, that's my presupposed philosophical point of view, which places this type of science in an entirely different category than, say, technology, yet Lawrence Krauss, an outspoken evolutionist, in a scathing article, called creationists hypocrites for driving cars!!! According to the book Evolution Exposed, three of the most common high school biology textbooks state that it "is not necessary to distinguish between historical and operational science." (Pg. 21) How can this be?

Some may say that we can "see Evolution all around us." But this falls short on a couple of levels. Adaptation/speciation/micro-evolution--observed, observable, and compatible with creationism--are NOT synonymous with Molecules-to-man or Macro-evolution. The former does not prove the latter. Nor does either (micro- or macro-) prove theories such as the Big Bang or the eternality of the universe.

It is obvious that we do not--and will not--see macro-evolutionary changes, even if they do/did occur. Scientists may say that we simply "have not been observing for long enough." It's rather convenient, when you think about it. One can rid oneself of a plethora of bothersome questions about Evolution by this technique. After all, it "takes massive amounts of time." We'll all be long gone before enough time will have elapsed to expect anything dramatic to transpire.

But this very excuse illustrates the point that Evolution cannot lay a legitimate claim to testable, repeatable, observable science. In fact, even if we did observe, say, humans evolve into "extra-humans," it does not necessarily follow that amoebas definitively evolved all the way up to humans. That conclusion would be based upon the belief that the "present is the key to the past," just like a creationist conclusion would be based on the belief that the Bible--or God Himself--is the "key to the past."

Apparently, evolutionists recognize that this approach of stalling--you could even call it filibustering--pushing the problem into unwieldy amounts of time--only works so much and so far. So, they turn to geology and paleontology as some of the best substitutes for "hands-on," "eyewitness" scientific evidence. After all, if missing links were to be found or the universe was demonstrated to be extremely old, it would go a long way towards swaying the debate to the evolutionists' camp.

Here's the catch: digging up fossils and rock layers unearth problems, not solutions, for the evolutionary outlook, unless you accept evolutionary explanations at face value. Carbon-14 dating? Radio-isotope? Fossil layers? Geologic layers? Transitional forms? Missing links? Living fossils? In all these areas, unreliability, insufficiency, bias/closemindedness, imagination/fantasy, or nonexistence plagues any attempts at a truly evidential basis for Evolution. Notice: preconceived notions required. If you already believe (or are brainwashed into believing) in uniformitarianism, in the ape man-to cave man-to modern man drawing, in the fish-to-frogs-to-reptiles-to-dinosaurs-to-birds chain, etc., etc., you probably can reconcile yourself with the problems that present themselves to portions of evolutionary theories--theories that are frequently devised out of not-so-very-thick air. This is what places the Theory of Evolution squarely in the camp of historical science, and mediocre historical science, at that.

And that brings us to the second stage of meshing, along with some threshing: science and naturalism, as well as science and religion. Creationists are accused of having "presuppositional beliefs." That supposedly excludes them from the realm of science. However, that's just not fair. First of all, such a hard stance would force scientists to always search for but never reach conclusions--never "choose a side," but rather be "tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine..." (Ephesians 4:14) Why would it do that? Well, because, as we've already discussed, neither creationism nor Evolution falls under testable, falsifiable science. Therefore, a concrete conclusion can never be reached without belief, something some people seem to think shouldn't be a part of science. Evidence in the realm of historical science requires interpretations, things that need a foundation. Secondly, it erroneously assumes that evolutionists and secularists in general don't have fundamental worldviews. (Moreover, who can blame Christians if their faith is strong enough in order for them to be skeptical of such things as Nebraska Man, "identified and drawn based on a single tooth, which was later found to be from an extinct pig." --Evolution Exposed, Pg. 221)

One of my favorite quotes, in a negative sort of way, is this one:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." --Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401 (6752) :423, Sept. 30, 1999

That's quite a closeminded creed, especially considering that naturalism is not interchangeable with science itself. Yet, science has been overrun by the "No Divine Foot" philosophy, making there appear to be no differentiation between the two.

Granted, I can see somewhat where naturalists are coming from. Superstititions hinder the progress of science. But naturalism itself becomes a type of superstition when one tries to explain away naturally something entirely un- or super-natural. Moreover, Christianity must not be lumped in with superstitions. Christians endeavor to "think God's thoughts after Him." Although His ways are unfathomable (Romans 11:33), with Christ upholding "all things by the word of His power," (Hebrews 1:3) our God is a God of order (Job 38:4-6, 8-11, 33; Isaiah 40:12; Jeremiah 31:35), who points us to nature (Proverbs 6:6; Matthew 6:26-20; Matthew 10:29), is omnipotent over nature (Job 38:11-12, 23; 41:11; 42:2; Mark 4:41), and is omniscient of nature (Job 38-40; John 16:30). Christians are called to see things as they really are, standing on a Solid Rock foundation (Matthew 7:24-25). "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind..." (Romans 12:2) "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." (Colossians 2:8) The Bible is scientifically accurate, and some discoveries are just recently being made as to the wisdom of God's commands on what and what not to eat. (See Jordan Rubin's book The Maker's Diet.)

To venture into the materialistic assumption that "this is all there is" is to risk missing out incalculably! If a Supernatural Being created nature, nature would naturally reflect back to Mr. Supernature Himself. The Bible says this is so (Job 12:7-9 ; Psalm 19:1 ; Romans 1:20). Belief in this Supernatural Being would unlock doors to otherwise unknown wisdom and knowledge. The Apostle Paul rhetorically asks, "...who has known the mind of the Lord...?" Then he answers his own question, saying, "But we have the mind of Christ." (1 Corinthians 2:16). Christians have access to "the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians 2:3) God offers the only worthwhile perspective on everything. "For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" (Matthew 16:26-27)

To say Christianity has no place in science is to assume that God does not exist. To say that only naturalism is acceptable is to assume there is nothing supernatural. To say that Christians or creationists have no place in science, or that they cannot be good scientists, is to deny scientific history. In essence, to reject Christianity's place in science is to claim science for one's own religion.

"Many people do not realize that science was actually developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe. If the universe is a product of random chance or a group of gods that interfere in the universe, there is really no reason to expect order in nature. Many of the founders of the principle scientific fields, such as Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, were believers in a recently created earth. The idea that science cannot accept a creationist perspective is a denial of scientific history." (Evolution Exposed, Pg. 20)

Let's take back science.

~Kingdom Advancer

You can purchase the book Evolution Exposed here.

You Got Something in Your Eye...

2007-06-03T20:40:00.000-04:00

In contrast to several thousand other visitors--most of whom were happy for or at least interested in the opening of the Creation Museum--atheist, humanist, and evolutionist protesters were a pimple on the face of the Creation Museum's grand opening to the public on Memorial Day (which ended with a fireworks display pictured on the right). Or...from another perspective, were they just a beauty mark, a sign of a job well done? After all, if humanists and atheists were not up in arms about something like this, you'd have to wonder if a good job had been executed by those at Answers in Genesis. Jesus told his disciples not to be surprised if the world hated them (which they did). So, perhaps all the protesters and critics are/were more of a pat on the back then a slap in the face to Ken Ham and AiG.

Some of the signs held by the protesters read: Do you deny gravity too? Don't brainwash our children. It's [creationism] NOT science. A plane flew over pulling a sign with the message "Thou shall not lie." The makers of the Museum have been chastised for "instutionalizing" a "scientific lie."

All I can say to these people is: can I borrow your lines and signs? Because, I'd like to picket in front of public schools, college and university campuses, other museums, television studios which make nature shows, and publishing houses which print scientific textbooks.

Jesus said, "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:3-5) Behold, the log is indeed in evolutionistic atheists' eyes! (Read just some of the problems with Evolution here, at Ambassadors of Christ.) Unfortunately, they don't feel compelled to listen to Jesus' words (obviously) or to subject themselves to the law of God (Romans 8:7). Rather, they show conditionally selective moral outrage--like decrying supposed lies of this Museum--when it's convenient for them and their purposes (Judges 17:6).

However, they would do well to heed Jesus' words in this case, as in all cases. Their volatile opposition will likely only rouse more interest into a topic that is attention-grabbing by itself in the unveiling of a $27 million edifice. If people look for answers, some will find them. And those answers--true answers--don't lead to an evolutionary outlook. So, indeed, what was meant for evil, God may mean for good (Genesis 50:20), for--in the least--those who love Him (Romans 8:28).

To demonstrate the "log" of the evolutionists, I am going to break down some of the token phrases I have heard and seen, starting with, "Do you deny gravity too?"

First off, atheists are the ones making the denial of all denials--denying God's existence (Psalm 14:1)--so that type of condescension on the part of atheists is not very sharp, though expected (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Secondly, creationists not only do not reject scientific studies, discoveries, and research, but the law of gravity is observable, operational science. On the contrary, the Theory of Evolution is in the realm of historical, origins science. It cannot be repeated in a controlled setting. No one was there to see the beginning of the universe (except God--from the creationist perspective). And evolutionists even admit today that we cannot expect to see macro-evolutionary changes occur in front of our eyes. Not to mention all the evidence against Molecules-to-man Evolution, all the hypotheticals, all the theoreticals, all the gaps, all the holes--none of which is similar to the law--not theory--of gravity. That's telling in and of itself: atheists put so much faith in Evolution that the person holding this sign equated it with a scientific, testable law. That's how important it is to them for their to be no God. How much must they really love sin?

Speaking of laws, this apparent opponent of a Creator God walks right into a question that she herself cannot satisfactorily answer: where did laws like the law of gravity come from? And what about the precision of the universe's laws and arrangements--a fact which, were it not the case, would make life nonexistent? (See The Privileged Planet.)

Next, we have the doozy, "Don't brainwash our children." This one may take the cake, along with the "institutionalizing a lie" claim. Believe it or not, I did not make these up. For years, and years, and years, evolutionists have had a veritable monopoly on the education of children and young adults...using public funds! (A good book detailing and analyzing the claims of three of the most common high-school biology textobooks is Evolution Exposed) Yet, they have the nerve to rebuke a not-for-profit organization for building a private museum attended by visitors voluntarily (even if a school took a field trip, it could be optional)! While other museums present millions and billions of years like accepted fact, heavily seasoning exhibits and episodes with evolutionary theory, some have the gall to attack the Creation Museum as an "institutionalized lie"! Where's the academic freedom, tolerance, relatavism, and openmindedness? It is apparent that true colors are on display, and that these people are not really that concerned with the "horror" of someone "cornering the market," but rather, with anyone who does not agree with them voicing their opinion.

And that leads me to the next line, which calls for "science, not superstition." First off, it should be noted that it is not uncommon for detractors of Christianity to refer to it as a "cult" or "superstition." These terms carry heavily negative connotations, so they serve the purposes of anti-Christians by appealing to a person's pride of reputation. (Most people don't want to be wrong or grouped with a faction upon which people look down.)

But who is really superstitious? Who is really paranoid? It seems that the atheists have an irrational belief--an irrational fear--of Christianity. Many of them avoid and/or decry anything having to do with God or the Bible as if it is a ladder with a black cat flying underneath it across their path on a witch's broom. Really, the claim of superstition is a hollow one, emotionally-charged in the attempt to bring about an emotional response.

But I haven't seen that attack all that often. One that I do see regularly is that creationism is "not science." Not only is this infinitely easier said than proven, but it is also simply another elementary technique, reaching the headline reader--not the dedicated researcher. It invokes a false dichotomy (Molecules-to-Man Evolution is not, in contrast, "scientific"), a sweeping generalization (Of course some creationists may be very unscientific, but certainly not all), and often a post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy when the evidence for creationism's unscientificity is the lack of the scientific method (In historical, origins science, the presence of the scientific method of testing, repeating, controlling, and observing is impossible; therefore, either nothing in this sphere is scientific or the scientific method is not the barometer). These logical fallacies will have to be discussed more fully in a later post.

Finally, I should address the idea that the Creation Museum is teaching "lies." This accusation is unbacked and untrue. Conveniently, no evidence is presented to support such a claim, except the appeal-to-authority and bandwagon fallacies of the "scientific consensus" argument, faulty dating methods, and biased interpretations. Besides, to say the Creation Account is scientifically factual and provable would be--at this point in history, anways--lying; but to say that the Creation Account is true by God's Word and supported by scientific discoveries is not lying, for two reasons: 1) It presupposes faith in God's Word--if you throw that out the window, you throw creationism out with it, though evidence may still pull you in the direction of an Intelligent Designer; the Bible spawns creationism, and the science of creationism endorses the Bible; 2) The allegation of deception assumes falsehood; but, if the Creation Account is true, and science therefore (naturally) backs it up, and creationists believe it because of God's word compounded by the testimony of His Creation, there can be no lie. Of course, Evolution is not a lie, in and of itself, either. It's a theory--just like any other theory which can be imagined at any time, without being considered deceptive. However, teaching it as fact, or even close to fact, is dishonest.

Christians know that the Creation Account is indeed true, for Jesus said to the Father, "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth." (John 17:17) How horrifically ironic is it that the Father of lies (John 8:44) would use the deceitful accusation of a lie to bury the truth?

All of this being considered, we must pray and support groups like AiG and efforts like the Creation Museum. The state-of-the-art, $27 million structure is a veritable "city on a hill"; AiG is "salt," attempting to be a preservative in one of the most decayed environments in the modern world--"light" in one of the darkest places: science (Matthew 5:13-15).

The Christian has become a benefactor, a volunteer, a painter, a carpenter, a construction worker, an engineer, a technician, a scientist, and one reviled, "so that by all means we might save some." (1 Corinthians 9:22)

~Kingdom Advancer

P.S. Answers in Genesis has been "Responding to Protesters' Propaganda" all week, and you can read their responses at their website.

The "Divine Foot" Takes a Step in the Direction.....

2007-05-25T12:05:00.000-04:00

The Creation Museum presents a unique and unparalleled experience, a walk through time portraying significant, life-altering events from the past illuminating the effects of biblical history on our present and future world.
Be prepared to experience history in a completely unprecedented way.

The state-of-the-art 60,000 square foot museum brings the pages of the Bible to life, casting its characters and animals in dynamic form, and placing them in familiar settings. Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden. Children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden's rivers. The serpent coils cunningly in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Peter and John peer into the empty tomb. Majestic murals, great masterpieces brimming with pulsating color and details, provide realistic scenery for many of the settings.

That's what can be read on the front and back of the Creation Museum guide, which I received as I was privileged with a sneak preview this week. The Creation Museum is set to open to the general public on May 28th, and it appears that it will open with a bang. Ken Ham said that he has done 38 interviews since this past Monday, and there's more to come. (Read about it at his blog.) Protests are scheduled against the Museum. Petitions are being signed by educators in an attempt to discredit Answers in Genesis' claims, and I've seen one absurd hit-piece of journalism published in a local newspaper. I'm sure there are more.

The truly "state-of-the-art" museum cost around $27 million to build, but it has been estimated that, without volunteer work and donated equipment, the cost would have been somewhere over $100 million.

Located in Petersburg, KY, the Museum is strategically located, near the airport in Cincinnatti, Ohio, and just a day's drive (or less) from the majority of the U.S. population. The area is beautiful, as is the pond, walking area, and building itself.

Although those who closely study AiG and the Creation-Evolution debate probably won't find any terribly profound information in their Museum experience, it is not to be missed. Highlights include the planetarium, which demonstrates the vastness of God's universe and some problems for evolutionists located therein; a walk through Eden; a video presentation of the Days of Creation; a monologuing Methuselah in his tent; a 40-foot tall replica of a section of Noah's Ark under construction, complete with complaining workers, a worker sawing away, and Noah trying to convince one of the workers to join him on the Ark; models of the Ark and Flood; large, robotic dinosaurs; Martin Luther nailing his theses to the church door; and much, much more.

Criticisms of the Creation Museum have generally been, at worst, pathetic, and, at best, misguided and unbacked. One writer (in fact, Lawrence M. Krauss, Director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University, as well as the Chair of the Forum on Physics and Society of the American Physical Society) went so far as to say that we creationists, "if we were intellectually honest," wouldn't use any technology, since we obviously don't believe in science. (note: my sarcasm) Never mind the fact that young-earth [biblical] creationists do believe in science, just not the corrupted, evolutionary and atheistic interpretations of it. That's the point: a scientific person does not have to be an evolutionary person--by all means nay (!); a believer in science does not have to be a disbeliever in God. To the Christian, science means to "think God's thoughts after Him." The difference between the scientist who is a Christian and the scientist who is not is this: one starts with God's Word as foundational; the other does not, replacing God's Word with man's reason. The main thrust of the Creation Museum and AiG is to demonstrate that, indeed, a scientifically honest person should not accept Evolution and billions of years as unadulterated fact--quite the contrary! Also, they are showing why Christians should not feel obligated to compromise the Bible in order to reconcile it with man's claims.

Some appear to simply be fear-mongerers, as this aforementioned writer feels compassion for the children who could be "intellectually injured" by this Museum. (DefCon has claimed the Museum is "institutionalizing a lie.") He ended the article by making a battle-cry to parents to bring lawsuits against any school that would use public funds to have a field trip to this Museum. That would be a violation of the separation of church and state, of course. (note again: my sarcasm) Never mind the fact that the theoretical, problematic science found in most natural history museums is connotatively religious at its core anyway. But, these people don't appear to care about separation of religion and state and multi-cultural, open-minded education...so much as separation of Christianity and state. (Read about one group, DefCon, here)
Sure, the claims of this Museum are incredible, but they simply state the plain dichotomy: believe God's Word? Or (non-Christian) man's word?

All I can say without taking much more of your time is, although some outlets are treating Ken Ham and AiG much fairer than others, don't believe everything you see, hear, or read in the press--as if I really needed to tell you that! Something this groundbreaking is bound to scare people; remember that many of these people have not been "trained up in the way they should go" (Proverbs 22:6)--rather, they've been brainwashed with evolutionary theory; and the devil, as the Father of lies (John 8:44), is bound to resort to his characteristic tactics. Be ready, for instance, for the ever-popular "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, as well as the "sweeping generalization" fallacy, along with emotionally charged language, all prominent in this debate.

Christians must rally together, for those against Christianity already have been. The opening of this Museum is another step in the direction of the demise of the intellectual and educational domineering of the evolutionary, atheistic, naturalistic, secular humanist agenda that won't "allow a Divine Foot in the door." This frightens them, but we can't have the Foot take a step backwards. They don't want to believe, or anyone to believe, that the "fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 14:1) They don't want to admit they are "without excuse." (Romans 1:20) They don't want to yield to the reality that they--and all humans--are responsible for the fallenness of nature. (Romans 8:19-22) Why? Why can't they just believe? "Because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God..." (Romans 8:7) And because "a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." (1 Corinthians 2:14)

For this reason, we must pray for these people, as for all people, for God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:1-4) We must also pray for the safety of Ken Ham, other leaders of AiG, and the Museum itself, especially over these hectic, and potentially volatile, next few weeks.

The debate over origins is pivotal. God's existence is not apathetic knowledge. Trust in the Bible and the biblical account of creation is no insignificant thing. The battle for souls is at stake. A loss here would be a damaging blow--to either side.

"If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3)

~Kingdom Advancer

P.S. The debate over whether a Christian should/can believe in Macro-Evolution and billions of years can be found here: Christian Evolutionist: Oxymoron?

Jesus, the One True 'Sin Eater'

2007-05-17T17:20:00.000-04:00

I recently viewed the movie The Last Sin Eater. If that title makes you skeptical, don't worry. I was too--before I saw it. But this is an amazing story with a powerful message.

In this day and age, Christians must dedicate much of their efforts trying to bring a sense of repentance and a realization of a need for forgiveness to a generation which has ignored, scorched, and buried much of its conscience while justifying many acts which a healthy conscience would rebuke. In such an environment, it can be difficult to remember that there are those who are suffering and those who have suffered from debilitating guilt, fear, and despair, as well as others who try to bury such feelings.

To cope with these feelings, people turn in a multitude of directions: drugs, alcohol, sex, careers, good works, and religious and spiritual outlets. They do not understand that there is only one name given to men under heaven by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12) He, and He only, takes away the sin of the world.

In this movie, based upon the book by Francine Rivers, the alternate method is a "sin-eater." In Appalachia, as per tradition, the people would elect, by a chance process, one person whose life would be spent cleansing others by damning himself--"pawning his own soul." This man would perfom a ritual at funerals, eating ritualistic bread and drinking ritualistic wine, "eating" the deceased's sins so that they could rest in peace. The sin-eater was an outcast, a veritable "scapegoat in the wilderness." No one (except his former lover, from whom he was separated by the lot that fell to him) would look at, talk to, or touch him for fear that "the evil he had taken upon himself" would come up them. The Sin-Eater avoided others, partially because of shame and partially because he did not want to "taint" anyone, thereby making them outcasts, as well. He came down off the mountain at the ringing of the Passing Bell to perform his duty, always dressed in a tattered black coat with a large hood.

The main character in the movie is a young girl, who, after casting a forbidden glance at the Sin-Eater during her granny's funeral, wants to track him down so that he can take her sins away while she's still alive. This--it goes without saying--is against protocol.

Nevertheless, bearing the responsibility she put upon herself for her little sister's death, with perseverance and an angel/imaginary friend, Cadi Forbes eventually catches up to the Sin-Eater, telling him that she would rather die than live with the hurt inside her. She even threatens to commit suicide to thereby force him into eating her sins.

So, the Sin-Eater reluctantly performs his ritual on Cadi, but afterwards she notifies him that she feels no different. The Sin-Eater only apologizes, and when asked what else Cadi must do, he repeats, "I wish I knew," as he scurries into the woods.

Fortunately, a stranger arrives in the cove, someone who's a "voice crying in the wilderness." Though not welcome in the cove, the man of God fears "no man." He talks to Cadi, and at one point he explains to her that there's already been a 'sin-eater,' sent by God long ago, to take away our sins once and for all. "His name is Jesus," he tells her. She asks forgiveness from this Sin-Eater, and finally experiences true forgiveness.

*SPOILER ALERT*

A series of climactic events then transpires: after teaching Cadi and her friend Fagan for a day about the things of God, the "Man of God," as he is known, is brutally beaten--to death--by the boss of the cove: Fagan's father. Fagan is also brutally beaten for being with the Man of God and for "standing fast" by him. Both are left lying helplessly, as Cadi hides in some bushes.

Before taking his final earthly breath, the Man of God tells Cadi to take his pouch, because it holds "the truth." (a.k.a., the Bible) Then, Cadi tries to find help for Fagan, but after taking refuge for a short time with the Sin-Eater's lover, they are forced to run into the wilderness to escape Fagan's still-vengeful father. The Sin-Eater finds them, and offers them shelter in his cave.

In the cave, Cadi tells the Sin-Eater, who indeed is a sad looking and sounding man, of the truth and Book that the Man of God had given her. The Sin-Eater vows that he would never read that book, because it would mean that he "had wasted his life."

Later, Cadi and Fagan discover a dark secret, painted in blood on the cave wall by an Indian. They question Miz Elda, the elder woman in the cove, and they also tell her about the original sin-eater (Jesus). Contemplating these two things, she decides to bring to light facts that long had been in the dark.

Ringing the Passing Bell, she puts things out into the open, which leads to others making confessions. Cadi makes the greatest confession of all--the confession of Christ--stating to the Sin-Eater, "God wants to set you free. He wants to set us all free." She pulls the hood off of his head, revealing a sorrowful, burdened, yet normal, well-groomed young man. Then, she helps him to his feet--initiating the first time he had touched a human in twenty years.

The movie concludes with a baptismal service, headed by the former Sin-Eater, in which the vast majority of the town appears to be accepting Christ. In addition, Cadi's relationship with her mother, something broken since her little sister's death, is finally healed.

*Spoiler Over*

This story is an amazing illustration of redemption, forgiveness, absolution, and God's power. It is more blatantly Christian, in my opinion, than either One Night with the King or The Nativity Story, believe it or not, and yet it is neither artificial nor preachy. It is genuinely touching.

It's not a movie that's a roller coaster by any means, and it don't expect to find any horror elements, although it is a little spooky. Scenes with "The Narrows" posed an insurmountable obstacle for the special effects budget, but those can be easily overlooked. All-in-all, this is a film more than worth seeing. The theology and conversions seem a little questionable in their deepness (or lack thereof), but they remind me of new Christians needing "milk" (1 Corinthians 3:2) and Paul being "all things to all people, so that [he] may by all means save some" (1 Corinthians 9:22)--being able to speak in verbage others can understand, like utilizing the illustration of the "Unknown God" in Acts 17.

Now, in conclusion, for those who may be seeking forgiveness, for those who may feel like God can't forgive what they have done, and for those who just want to revel in their newfound or long-cherished freedom, I have decided to list some applicable hymn references that are among my favorites:

Lord, now indeed I find
Thy power and Thine alone,
Can change the leper's spots
And melt the heart of stone.

Jesus paid it all,
All to Him I owe,
Sin had left a crimson stain,
He washed it white as snow.
("Jesus Paid It All" John T. Grape)

My sin, O the bliss of this glorious tho't:
My sin not in part, but the whole
Is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul.
It is well, with my soul.
("It is Well With My Soul" Phillip P. Bliss)

What a friend we have in Jesus,
All our sins and griefs to bear!
What a privilege to carry
Everything to God in prayer!
Oh, what peace we often forfeit,
Oh, what needless pain we bear,
All because we do not carry
Everything to God in prayer!
...
Are we weak and heavy laden,
Cumbered with a load of care?
Precious Savior, still our refuge;
Take it to the Lord in prayer:
Do thy friends despise, forsake thee?
Take it to the Lord in prayer;
In His arms He'll take and shield thee;
Thou wilt find a solace there.
("What a Friend We Have in Jesus" Charles C. Converse)

In Christ alone, my hope is found,
He is my Light, my Strength, my Song:
This Cornerstone, this Solid Ground,
Firm through the fiercest drought and storm.
What heights of love, what depths of peace,
When fears are stilled, when strivings cease!
My Comforter, my All-in-all,
Here in the love of Christ I stand.

In Christ alone, Who took on flesh,
Fullness of God in helpless babe!
This gift of love and righteousness,
Scorned by the ones he came to save.
Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied;
For every sin on Him was laid--
Here in the death of Christ I live.
("In Christ Alone" Keith Getty & Stuart Townsend)

What can wash away my sin?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
What can make me whole again?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
Oh, precious is the flow,
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
("Nothing but the Blood" Robert Lowry)

~Kingdom Advancer

Kingdom ACTION!

2007-05-02T16:26:00.000-04:00

I usually don't do posts like this, but, on the spur of the moment, I thought I ought to tell you about this:

READ AND ACT:

The Thought-Police: What the Hate Crimes Bill Would Do
By: Chuck Colson

New bill would gives special preference to homosexuals [Employment Non-Discrimination Act]

CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES, AND THE PRESIDENT, TODAY! (YOU CAN E-MAIL PRESIDENT BUSH FROM THE SECOND LINK.)

~Kingdom Advancer

Christian Evolutionist: Oxymoron?

2007-05-02T14:54:00.000-04:00

8 Reasons Why A True Christian Should Not Be An Evolutionist.

In honor of the Creation Museum, which is located in Northern Kentucky and is set to open this month, this article details all the reasons (that I could think of) why true Christians, for logic and the Bible's sake, should not--even cannot--be theistic evolutionists, at least once they have the knowledge revealed in this post.

Answers in Genesis, (to the best of my knowledge) the largest Christian apologetics organization in the world, is behind this museum. They believe in "Upholding the authority of the Bible from the very first verse." Other Christians, however, don't take such a hard stance. They think they can re-interpret (twist) portions of the Bible and reconcile God's Word with man's science; or perhaps they simply believe that man's say takes precedence. When their theories say "Adam and Eve is just a parable/figure" or something else, that's essentially what they're saying.

Theistic evolutionism has become more common than it used to be. And, while theism is not directly at odds with Evolution, the God of the Bible is. It makes one wonder: are many on the liberal and theistic evolutionist side of the coin even serving the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

Of course, the Theory of Evolution has crept into many churches to one extent or another. The devil has been effective and comprehensive in his exploits. Like his first conversation with a human, when he questioned some of God's first words, he is still placing doubt in the hearts and minds of people about the first words of God--the first Written Words of God. Satan is tearing at the foundation, trying to get Christians to "...exchange the truth of God for a lie..." and to worship man's widsom--in fact, man's fallable, preposterous, problematic, hypothetical folly--instead of God's wisdom. (Romans 1:25) What a blunder, as 1 Corinthians 1 states, "...Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?...the foolishness of God is wiser than men..." (vs. 20, 25)

But fortunately, for me and my readers, the buck stops here. Here are the nine reasons why Christians who are evolutionists "ought not be":

1.) God's Image.
The Bible tells us that man is made in God's image. (Genesis 1:26, 27 ; 9:6) If mankind evolved from the lowest of life forms, when did human beings attain "image of God status"? When was that last step taken, that last stage developed? And, what of those "missing links," those "before pictures" of the "God Image Product"?

2.) Soul and Stewardship.
In the same sense, if man is a highly-evolved animal, when did God endow him with a soul? When was he separated from and given stewardship over the animals? After all, he was just an animal. What of the predecessors of the "soul-bearers"?
Likewise...

3.) Sin and Death.
Romans 5:12 says, "...through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin..." Romans 8:20-22 adds onto that, stating, "For the creation was subjected to futility...in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now." These two passages, paired with the apparent first shedding of blood in Genesis 3:21, clearly shows that Adam brought death and suffering to the whole of creation.
This is problematic on a couple of fronts for the Christian who would be an evolutionist.
First of all, the Theory of Evolution at ist core, subsisting on the "survival of the fittest," lives on death (pardon the pun). Death and suffering are vital components of the evolutionary process. But the Bible informs us that creation was "good," and, as I said, death didn't come till sin entered through Adam. How could Evolution take place without man, and therefore without sin, and therefore without death?
The second problem that is encountered is this: along the lines of my first points, if human beings evolved, when did they "evolve" the "capacity" to sin? If humans evolved, when did they become "human enough" for God to hold them accountable for their actions?

4. Adam's Descendants.
If Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden are just mythological, legendary, figurative, or parabolic, it can be concluded that their offspring weren't real people either. Then, one can easily deduce that their children's children didn't exist either...and so on... and so on. Eventually, the whole book of Genesis is discredited, and ultimately, the entire Bible's historical record and geneaology, with it being determined that Jesus Himself was not an actual person. Christians who claim that Adam was not real do not realize that their beliefs would cause Christianity to crumble upon itself.

5. Jesus, the Last Adam.
1 Corinthians 15:45 states, "...'The first man, Adam, became a living soul.' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." Then, "The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven." (v.47) Romans 5:14 calls Adam a "type" or "foreshadowing" of Christ. Other parts of the chapter also make such comparisons. If Adam was not a living, breathing, real man, the implication about the Messiah is obvious. Once again, we see, that Adam's existence is intrical to Jesus'.

6. After Their Kind.
The Genesis account mentions numerous times that God created creatures "after their kind." (Genesis 1:21, 24, 25) Since Evolution requires a drawn-out, trial-and-error, improbable (to say the least), unproven procedure of one kind of animal (or life-form) transforming into another kind, this repeated biblical phrase appears to speak firmly to the issue of Evolution. Fish didn't evolve into reptiles and amphibians which evolved into mammalls...and on and on. No, it didn't happen that way according to the Bible. It says, "God created the sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed AFTER THEIR KIND, and every winged bird AFTER ITS KIND... Let the earth bring forth living creatures AFTER THEIR KIND: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth AFTER THEIR KINDS... God made the beasts of the earth AFTER THEIR KINDS, and the cattle AFTER THEIR KIND, and everything that creeps on the ground AFTER ITS KIND." (Emphasis mine)

7. The Flood Conundrum.
Answers in Genesis dedicates a significant portion of its ministry to defending the Great Flood and to demonstrating that much of the erosion and fossilization we see today could have occurred--and likely did--during a catastrophic disaster like the Flood. In fact, the entire last issue of Answers Magazine was about the Flood and Noah's Ark.
But those who would mix the Bible with secular textbooks remove the necessity of the Flood. In actuality, it is unlikely that the earth has experienced millions (even billions) of years of corrosive elements (and localized catastrophes) IN ADDITION to the worldwide Flood. Six to ten thousand years of existence with some natural disasters (including the Flood) is a more plausible scenario. Moreover, God simply could have created the world with some of its natural wonders already partially or fully intact.
So, as we repeatedly see, denying the literal, Genesis account of Creation introduces difficulties outside the realm of the first few chapters of God's Word.

8. Illogical.
A deistic god could put in motion a process lilke Macro-Evolution, because the case could be made that a deistic god wouldn't really care what the result was, and wouldn't really be involved. An impersonal god could start such a process, because the logic could be presented that that this type of god didn't plan on making humans or having a relationship with them; or that, being impersonal, an impersonal god couldn't directly create personal beings. A god who was not omnipotent or omniscient could initiate natural selection, because it could be said that such a god would not be powerful or knowledgeable enough to create extremely complex life forms from the get-go, but rather only the simplest, most miniscule types. An unholy, imperfect god could utilize Evolution, because one could say that death and suffering didn't bother him/her/it. The case could be made that all of the aforementioned gods could/would be "laissez-faire," and therefore Evolution would be an acceptable tool for them.
But we serve a God Who is hands-on, holy, perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, personal, and involved.
He created the universe with a distinct purpose and plan, and the unfolding of that plan, as well as His sovereign control and intervention, continues today.

"...He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world... He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will...we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counself of His will..." (Ephesians 1:4, 5, 11)

" 'For I know the plans that I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope..." (Jeremiah 29:11)

"...we know that God causes all things to work together for the good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose... If God is for us, who is against us?..." (Romans 8:28, 31)

"Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?...in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus." (Romans 8:35-39)

"Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights..." (James 1:17)

"O Lord, You are my God; I will exalt You, I will give thanks to Your name; For You have worked wonders, Plans formed long ago, with perfect faithfulness." (Isaiah 25:1)

Job 38-39 demonstrates God's omniscience of and omnipotence over nature.

Considering all these things, it is preposterous to think that God would leave His handiwork, for which He had/has plans, to a chance process. Furthermore, the idea of God "directing" a CHANCE process is ridiculous. Though this is not to say that God doesn't use and direct micro-evolution. But, if he designed creatures, including humans, with genetic potential and variation, that is not really chance at all.

And that leads to the conclusion, established by the previous eight points, that the Genesis Record is not a parable, an analogy, or a legend. It is God's truth in the way He decided to reveal it to us, and our choice is simply to accept it...or not. When Jesus says, "There was a man who had two sons," we know it is a story with a moral, a lesson. When Jesus says, "I am the door," we know it is figurative, analogical. All it takes is a little contextual reading of Scripture to determine this. But, when the Bible says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," and the verses thereafter, we are left with only one determination.

So, does that mean theistic evolutionists are not true Christians? Well, I would be more inclined to call them "uninformed" or "misinformed" Christians. That is, unless, their view of origins is an indicator of their overall worldview--their overall level of faith. This is likely what it often is. The Bible tells us, "All Scripture is inspired by God..." (2 Timothy 3:17) Hebrews 11:6 states, "...without faith it is impossible to please Him..."
If someone can't have faith in the first chapters of His Story, they likely have a substantial, deep issue in their heart.

~Kingdom Advancer

Analyzing a False Analogy

2007-04-21T23:00:00.000-04:00

Cho Seung-Hui. I'm you've heard of him already. He is the poor example of a human being--an unfettered picture of man's depravity--who is now infamous for being responsible for the worst school shooting in the history of the United States of America. On the campus of Virginia Tech, on the morning of April 16, 2007, he gunned down in cold blood 32 students and faculty, along with injuring many.

I'll spare you any further details, since--unless you've been hiding under a rock this week--you've probably heard, read, and seen more than you wanted to.

My focus of this article is one statement of Cho, which was made in his video manifesto that he sent to NBC News. As he tried to blame others for his actions and as he made himself out to be a martyr and hero, he stated, "...I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people..."

It's sadly ironic that this young man, who knew enough about Jesus to think he was dying "like" Him, neither died for Jesus nor appeared to know Him in life.

Since whackos and wicked people occasionally drag Jesus' name through the gutter as if they are/were drinking buddies, and since some less-studied observers might consider the comparisons valid, I have decided to dismantle this false analogy of the mass-murdering Cho.

What is a "false analogy"? Well, one textbook defines it as "...a comparison in which the differences outweight the similarities or an assumption that if two things are alike in one or a few ways, they are alike in all ways."

Okay, so let's look at the similarities between the Virginia Tech-gunman and Jesus Christ first:

1.) They both died.

All right, now that we're done with that, we can move on to their differences.

1.) First of all, Jesus is God. (John 1:1, 14) Cho? Not so much. Could there be a more important distinction? You'll often hear someone run off a list of people, saying, "Confucius, Socrates, Jesus, etc." While, for the intended purpose of a given statement, it may be an appropriate comparison/grouping, ultimately, to one extent or another, it's insulting to Jesus' deity.

2.) Secondly, Jesus is sinless. (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22 ; 1 John 3:5 ; Hebrews 4:15 ; Hebrews 7:26) The Virginia Tech shooter? Start with murder, hate, and lust (he allegedly stalked and took pictures of women), along with blaspheming Jesus by the simple act of comparing Him to himself, and go from there, keeping James 2:10 and Romans 3:23 in mind.
This is another important aspect to note. The difference between an innocent man--completely innocent and unstained--dying and a flagrant sinner is significant.

3.) Thirdly, Jesus didn't kill anyone. Any comparison which may otherwise have merits (though this one does not) has to come to a screeching halt here. Christ did resurrect some, and many will be resurrected in the future. As part of the Godhead, Jesus will judge the world, and can make righteous judgments at any time He so desires. However, as a Man on earth, He said, "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe in Him is judged already." (John 3:17-18)
Napoleon Bonaparte, of all people, has something profound about Jesus' non-violent ministry: "I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him."
Jesus was peacefully arrested--telling Peter to put away his sword (Matthew 26:52)--and He quietly accepted His undue punishment, "...Like a lamb that is led to the slaughter." (Isaiah 53:7)
2 Peter 2:23 tells of Jesus, "...while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously." He exhibited the biblical attribute of "longsuffering." In stark contrast stands Cho, whatever wrongs may have been done to him.
Jesus said on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34) No such forgiving spirit is apparent in Cho's words or demeanor.

4.) Jesus didn't kill Himself. This becomes a bit complicated theologically, but the bottom line is that Jesus did not commit suicide (an act that severely diminishes the value in a person's demise), though He did come with the purpose to die. One needs only to look at the passive voice in Isaiah 53. Cho tried to transfer responsibility for his death, but he did so in vain. It was an aggressive suicide mission, plain and simple.

5.) Jesus said, "He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who is seeking the glory of the One who sent Him, He is true, and there is no unrighteousness in Him... I do not seek My glory..." (John 7:18; 9:50) Jesus bore our sins and did the will of the Father (Isaiah 53), showing the righteous characteristic of unselfishness. In contrast, Cho took pictures and a video of himself, comparing himself to Jesus among other things, and sent the material to a major news corporation. Then, he committed the worst school shooting in U.S. history. Selfishly seeking glory? You decide.

6.) Jesus not only died, but also rose again. That, along with being God in flesh and sinless, is what primarily makes Him "inspiring" as Cho would say. Will Cho resurrect? Well, he'll be resurrected for judgment (John 5:29), but I wouldn't hold my breath for anything before that.

7.) Lastly, a common fallacy found with people who like to throw Jesus' name around for their purposes is to mis-name His primary mission on this earth and through His death and resurrection. Isaiah 53, which I have referenced several times in this post, says, "...He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him... He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due..." (vs. 5, 8; emphasis mine) John 3:16, one of the most popular verses in the Bible, says, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believers in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (emphasis mine) Did Jesus inspire "the weak and the defenseless people"? Of course, but don't confuse the side-effects with the main solution. Besides, will Cho even do such inspiring? I hardly think so.

Because of this standard, does this mean that no comparison can ever be made to Christ? No--Christians can. As Christians, we "...may become partakers of the divine nature..." (2 Peter 1:4) We are adopted as children of God. (Acts 17:29 ; Ephesians 1:5 ; Romans 8:15 ; Galatians 4:5) We are to be imitators of God. (Ephesians 5:1) Paul tells us, "To live is Christ..." (Philippians 1:21) "It is no longer I who live, but Christ Who lives in me." (Galatians 2:20) As Christians, we are by definition "little Christs" called to godliness.

Though we may not always live up to that standard, we know that, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9) so that we are washed "...white as snow." (Psalm 51:7)

What a blessed thought! What blessed thoughts!!!

~Kingdom Advancer

Homosexuality and Christianity

2007-04-14T20:50:00.000-04:00

Homosexuality is a hot topic in today’s society. It can be found just about anywhere and everywhere. It pops up in discussions on marriage (Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?), adoption (Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children?), parenting (Is having two mommies or two daddies a healthy parental atmosphere for children?), health issues (How should we approach AIDS epidemic and other STDs?), entertainment (The popularity of "The L Word," for instance, and the general mainstreaming of homosexual characters.), the military (General Pace’s comments about homosexual acts being “immoral” and the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy; what should the military's approach to homosexuals be?), and even civil rights.

But, the debates and discussions do not merely take place in the public square, between Christians and non-Christians, conservatives and liberals, etc. and etc.. Rather, they rage on within the Church, as well, between Christians and… Christians, supposedly. In this venue, the point up for debate is often different than that of the public square.

The confrontation usually centers around one or more of three questions, which are:

1.) Is homosexuality sinful, immoral, un-Christian, wrong, and reproachable?

2.) Can a homosexual become a Christian? / Can a Christian be a practicing homosexual?

3.) How should Christians act toward and show love to homosexuals?

In this article, I will try to sufficiently address each of these issues.

I~~~~~~~~

Concerning the first question, I’m tempted to say, “Where’s the controversy? What’s the problem?” If the Bible were any clearer on the topic of homosexuality, it could be argued that its focus on homosexuality was disproportionate, considering the level of commonness in relation to other acts.
But, lest you take my word, let’s look directly to the Scriptures.

In a chapter that includes references to bestiality, incest, and other forms of lewdness, Leviticus so groups homosexuality, using one of God’s strongest words of condemnation—“abomination.”

“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22)

Later in Leviticus, homosexuality is called a “detestable act.”

“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death…” (Leviticus 20:13)

Although Christians do not execute sinners as the Jewish theocracy was commanded to, the seriousness of the sin of homosexuality is evident.

Romans 1 calls homosexual desires “degrading passions.” It describes homosexual acts as “indecent” (Lit. “the shameless deed”) and “unnatural,” thereby defiling and disobeying the image and purposes of God. (Genesis 1:26)

“…God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts…” (Romans 1:26-27)

1 Corinthians 6:9 names homosexuals as those among “the unrighteous” who “will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

This, of course, refers to those not saved, as we would see, if we were to read on in the chapter. But still, the message of the sinfulness and unacceptable nature of these acts is unmistakable. What a poignant admonition for today: “Do not be deceived.”

In 1 Timothy, the Bible says that homosexuals are one people of many for whom “the law is made,” being “contrary to sound teaching.”

“…law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching…” (1 Timothy 1:9-10)

Notice the listing technique in the previous two passages. God neither unfairly singles homosexuals nor sugarcoats their behavior as a lesser sin—much less not a sin at all. Also, note the fact that the last three passages are from the New Testament, immediately debunking any sort of “that’s Old Testament-stuff” argument.

So we see clearly the Bible’s emphatic condemnation of homosexual behavior, defining it is as abominable, detestable, degrading, indecent, unnatural, unrighteous, lawless, and contrary to sound teaching, while still not unfairly or disproportionately concentrating on this specific “orientation.”

But this is not the end. The Bible irrefutably defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, something to be honored and respected.

“But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” (Mark 10:7-9)

“Because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:2)

“Marriage is to be held in honor among all…” (Hebrews 13:4)

Therefore, it can be concluded that homosexual sex, as any other form of sex, definitively outside the bonds of marriage, is also a type of adultery, if you will, though it doesn't meet the heterosexual definition of fornication. Several of the passages of Scripture I’ve already quoted, as well as many others, mention these sins in addition to homosexuality. The adultery of the heart mentioned in Matthew 5:28 can, in all likelihood, be applied to homosexuals along with heterosexuals.

There is a significant difference, however, between homosexual and heterosexual immorality. Adultery can generally be ratified: repent and stop being unfaithful; have sex only with your spouse. Fornication has a related solution: repent, marry someone, and have sex with him/her solely. Homosexuality, on the other hand, can only be resolved through repentance, abstaining entirely from this type of behavior, and experiencing a miraculous sexual orientation transformation. (Of course, with the solutions to all three of these sins, I’m oversimplifying and ignoring the intrinsic element of lust.)

Also, homosexuality spits in the face of God’s admonition to “Be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.” (Genesis 9:7) Granted, all sex doesn’t have to result in children, and all people aren’t even required to be sexually active. Nonetheless, homosexuality is of such a nature—being against nature—that there is not even a possibility of producing offspring. Something about that seems wrong to me.

What I think is a most telling element of God’s view on homosexuality is that there is not one “biblical hero” in the Bible who is a homosexual. Conceded, there are some Heroes of the Bible who had serious sin issues, but recognize that as their shortcomings weren’t celebrated, homosexuality is not a thing to be celebrated either. Some may try to say that David and Jonathan or Jesus and John the Beloved had homosexual relationships, but these are sensationalist and unfounded claims that simply epitomize the over-sexualized state of today’s culture.

II~~~~~~~~

Some proponents of homosexuality may not even try to deny the act’s sinfulness, but rather simply say that all Christians are sinners saved by grace. While this statement is inherently true, its use as an argument for Christian acceptance of open, practicing homosexuals is as weak and illogical—from a biblical perspective—if not more so, as the claim that homosexuality is not a sin at all. Those espousing this philosophy can’t seem to grasp the biblical concept that homosexuals can become Christians, but Christians can’t continue to practice homosexuality; that Christians can fall into sin, like homosexuality, but Christians can’t/shouldn’t embrace sin; that Christians stumble into sin, but Christians do not rightly walk in sin; that works do not earn salvation, but works result from salvation; that Christians are in the world, but not of it.

This is not a difficult thought process to follow. No one is (or very few are) saying that churches should ordain or accept unrepentant, continuing, serial killers, or unrepentant, continuing, serial liars, or even unrepentant, continuing adulterers. Yet, when it comes to proud, open, practicing homosexuals, the debate is fertile.

Let’s again look at the Scriptures:

Jesus told the adulterous woman, “Go. From now on sin no more.” (John 8:11) He told His disciples, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” (John 14:15) A basic and fundamental prerequisite of salvation is to repent and turn away from one’s sins—or, in other words, turn to God.

Paul tells us in Romans 12:2, “…do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” Earlier in the book, he states, “Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? …so we too might walk in newness of life…knowing…that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin…consider yourselves to be dead to sin… Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God… thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient…” (From Romans 6)

Paul says in Galatians 2:20, “…it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me…” Christ! The Sinless One! In Philippians 1:21, he says, “…to live is Christ…” Paul beseeches the Corinthians, “Flee immorality… do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body.” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

Compare the deeds of the flesh, “…immorality, impurity, sensuality…”, to the Fruit of the Spirit, “…goodness, faithfulness…self-control…” (Galatians 5:19-23)

“Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.” (Galatians 5:24-25)

In Colossians, Paul speaks of praying for the Christians at Colossae, “…so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God…” (Colossians 1:11)

Paul sets the bar in Ephesians when he declares that “…immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints.” (Ephesians 5:3) A few verses later, he explains, “…for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light (for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness…” (Ephesians 5:8-11)

John tells us, “If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.” (1 John 1:6) Again, “The one who says, ‘I have come to know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him… the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.” (1 John 2:4, 6) Later, “No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” (1 John 3:9)

Though this is a complicated theological issue—the difference between walking and falling into sin, the salvation status of backsliders and those who have walked away, etc.—the core concept is still relatively easy to understand.

So, once again, simply by opening the Bible, we see that another argument crumbles utterly. But… have we stumbled upon the real issue at stake here? Do all who call themselves Christians believe the Bible is the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God? Certainly not. Many do not believe that “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) They do not believe that “Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4) Some have “…exchanged the truth of God for a lie…” (Romans 1:25) Hence, the questions arise: why do they even want to be considered Christians? Are they true Christians? Can they have real faith, an essential element of salvation (Ephesians 2:8) without which it is impossible to please God? (Hebrews 11:6)

But, regardless of whether those mentioned above are assuredly damned or not, that assertion alone doesn’t really get us anywhere. We need to know what TO DO.

III~~~~~~~~

So how do we love homosexuals and others mistaken about issues of Christianity? It may be tempting to think that quiet withdrawal, passive resistance, and seeker-sensitive acceptance are the best methods. But, allowing people to slip into hell or walk apart from God’s Will is in no way the loving thing to do. Deception through silence, cruelty through niceties, and damnation through acceptance are in no way the Christian way. Yet, scathing, coarse, polarizing and seemingly hateful rebukes do not create progress either. We must combine firmness with gentleness, toughness with love ("tough love"), and clarity with discretion. Here are six things to do:

a.) First, study this article—study the Bible—carefully. Know what the Bible says, but not just about homosexuality. Rather, be “…ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you…” (1 Peter 3:15)

b.) Second, speak “…the truth in love…” (Ephesians 4:15) “…with gentleness and reverence…” (1 Peter 3:15) but speak the truth nonetheless. Exhibit the characteristics of love and the Fruit of the Spirit: patience, kindness, humility, unselfishness, forgiveness, longsuffering, perseverance, peace, gentleness, etc. (1 Corinthians 13 ; Galatians 5:22-23)
c.) Third, make no double-standards, and keep your relationship with God right. “…first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:5) Keep “…a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame…” (1 Peter 3:16)

d.) Love and lead by example and for real, not just by statement. “…let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and in truth.” (1 John 3:18)

e.) Fourthly, remember that the foundation to ultimate change and progress is genuine salvation. “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matthew 16:26-27)

f.) Lastly and always: pray. “…pray without ceasing…” (1 Thessalonians 5:17)

~Kingdom Advancer

God and Desperate, Pregnant Women

2007-03-27T19:15:00.000-04:00

Recently, I had a substantial debate on the topic of abortion with three pro-abortionists and fellow Christian, pro-life blogger Detective J. Hopefully, I will be able to post some of the content of that debate on Kingdom Advancing in the future. Today, however, I want to address a very small segment of the discussion.

At the conclusion, Detective J made known his belief in Jesus (my name makes my belief in Christ rather obvious). One of the pro-choicers replied with this:

I want you to know that I believe in G-d, too — only I believe that G-d aches for desperate women at least as much as for potential [unborn] children...

Now, I don't know why she dashed out the O's in her references to God, but that's beside the point. One could make the observation that this is a great example of a "figment-of-your-imagination"-god, a violation of the Second Commandment. But, that's not how I have decided to address the issue. This is my reply (I posted a link at the original site of the debate, but nowhere else, because I don't think that the antagonists in the debate would be interested anyway):

Of course God cares about desperate women. But turning to abortion only grieves Him more. God hates "...hands that shed innocent blood." (Proverbs 6:17) He would prefer these "hands that cause sin" (abortion, in this case) to be "cut off" (banned). (Mark 9:43) Women should not look for some kind of "salvation" or "savior" through abortion. For "...there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) Jesus says, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by Me." (John 14:6) "Choice" is not the way; Planned Parenthood is not the truth; abortion does not bring life. Jesus says, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (Matthew 11:28) He does not say, "Go to Planned Parenthood..." God does not want women to try to solve their 'problems'--real, imagined, or distorted--on their own or apart from Him in any way. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight." (Proverbs 3:5-6) For "...you cannot make..." even "...one hair..." on your head "...white or black..." (Matthew 5:36) So, trusting God, Jesus says, "Do not worry then... for your Heavenly Father [knows your needs]." (Matthew 6:31-32)

Can Jesus sympathize with desperate women and their temptations, trials, and weaknesses, even the temptation to have an abortion? The Bible says that He can. "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:15) Jesus takes it a step further: "Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried... He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed... the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him... He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due... My Servant will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities." (Isaiah 53:4-6, 8, 11; emphasis mine)

Does God care about desperate women? As I said at the beginning: of course! "Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father... So do not fear; you are more valuablel than many sparrows." (Matthew 10:29-31) Cast "...all your anxiety on Him, for He cares for you." (1 Peter 5:7) Christians are called to love "...not...with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth." (1 John 3:18) We, as Christians, should be willing to do whatever we can to make the decision as easy as possible for pregnant women.

But the Bible also tells us that women--and men, for that matter--have bigger problems than unwanted pregnancies. "For what is man profited if He gains the whole world, and loses himself [his own soul]?" (Luke 9:25) "For the wages of sin is death..." (Romans 6:23) and "...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god." (Romans 3:23) Only the shedding of One--and only One's blood can rectify the dire situation. (Hebrews 10) Then, we are not to continue to sin. We are not to compound one sin (immorality) with another (abortion). "Are we to continue to sin so that grace may increase? May it never be!" (Romans 6:1-2)

Women, considering abortion based on desperateness, convenience, or a sense of entitlement, need to remember the story of the man, who, after being released from a great debt, then went to demand repayment for a much lesser debt owed him.

"For this reason the kingdom heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents [a talent was worth more than fifteen years' wages of a laborers; in other words, 150,000 years worth of labor] was brought to him. But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you everything [note: impossible].' And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii [a denarius was a day's wages; in other words, if you go by our current 365 days-each-year structure, the slave owed to the king 547,500 times as much as the other slave owed him]; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, 'Pay back what you owe.' So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you.' But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. So when his fellow slaves saw what happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. Then summoning him, his lord said to him, 'You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy with you?' And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed to him [note: never]. My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart." (Matthew 19:23-35)

Are children--are fetuses--indebted to their mothers? Of course! They effect their moms' health, appearance, social life, finances, free time [is there any?], and the list goes on... But how much more do mothers and mothers-to-be--how much more do us all--owe to God? How great has His mercy and grace--even His common grace to believers and unbelievers alike--been? How widespread His forgiveness? How much are we counting on it in the future? How much did all our lives hang in the balance when our moms made the life-and-death decisions when we were in our earliest days of existence?

"Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them." (Mark 10:14) Permit them to LIVE! Get right with God (for without that, none of the reasoning in this article will persuade you), stand up, and say, "I can do all things through Christ Who strengthens Me." (Philippians 4:13)

~Kingdom Advancer

"What Will They Think?" ; "What I'd Love to See in My Lifetime"; and "Amazing Grace"

2007-03-20T16:20:00.000-04:00

If we’re not careful, it’s easy to look back and look down upon the Israelites, who repeatedly rebelled against God, despite His clear presence and their clear dependence upon Him. We cast a critical glance towards our own country’s ancestors, for such things as allowing slavery, yet not (initially) allowing women to vote. We may scoff at the Salem Witch Trials or at the sometimes inhumane and unfair treatment of Native Americans. We may look with pitying condescension at how political disagreements escalated into the War Between the States.

Looking beyond our country’s history, we may quiver at the “darkness” of the Dark Ages, or mock the primitivism of those who lived long before us.

Yet, all is not negative. Within each period of history, we remember and recollect great men, powerful leaders, expansive civilizations, interesting cultures, spectacular literature, breathtaking art, achievements rivaling believability, and astounding advancements in technology and industry. Both the positive and the negative elements define epochs of time, with one usually overriding and smothering the other—to one extent or the other.

Whence comes the poem I am to unveil today. Written during the Sanctity of Life Week 2007, the poem is titled “What Will They Think?” In it, the “they” I refer to are the eyes and minds of the future, reading the history chapters of the present. The idea behind it is that, while there are many positive things that have happened in my lifetime which will be remembered, there are also many evil and despicable things, which will stain the memory of my small piece of time in His Story, if drastic changes do not occur. (Though, if the world does not slow in its spiritual and social execution of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the world of the future may not consider “bad” what I do). Particularly, in this poem, I am referring to abortion, and I hope this poem motivates you to continue to battle for what’s right.

What will they think when they think of when I lived?
An age of technology like there’s never been?
An age of prosperity and communication?
An age of world travel and worldwide friends?

But when I think of this time I live in,
My thoughts often travel in the direction
Of that terrible thing I wish nothing in common,
That terrible thing which is known as abortion.

I wish my time had no relation,
With this time when abortions are freely given,
And in any convenient situation,
One can kill her own baby if she gets the notion.

Oh! This shame of America, if there’s ever been!
This national dishonor, this national sin!
This self-curse upon us, which one day must end,
If God is just, in great punishment.

That is, unless a big change does commence,
Bringing with it an act of true repentance,
A cry out to God for less consequence,
Than we rightly deserve as our just sentence.

For God is love, and He’s full of mercy.
He offers His grace, and He offers His peace.
But if we will not show mercy to our own babies,
What should we expect from the Righteous One judging?

So what will I do, and, so what will you?
We had better do something, and you can bet that that’s true.

I also have a portion of a song I wrote that is relevant to this post. I normally do not post my songs on the Internet, but this song is incomplete, and I don’t see it being finished any time soon. However, the chorus is still very poignant. Titled “What I’d Love to See in My Lifetime,” it’s a play on a very common question asked in interviews: “What would you love to see in your lifetime?” The question infers both where you’d like to go, and what you’d like to happen in the world around you.
Using this pretext, I make brief mention of abortion, along with the sanctity of marriage, and the continuing need for evangelistic efforts to change people’s hearts for Christ.

What I’d love to see in my life, would be that babies get the right to choose.
What I’d love to see in my lifetime, is marriage treated special too.
What I’d love to see in my lifetime, is more and more finding out the Bible is true.
That’s what I’d love to see in my lifetime.

As I type out this poem and chorus of a song, I’m reminded of one of the best movies—okay, I’ll go all out—probably that I’ve EVER seen. At least, it’s the best movie I’ve seen in the recent past. It is powerful, inspirational, emotional, enamoring, and educational, and fully worthy of our support. The title is Amazing Grace, and it’s the true story of English abolitionist William Wilberforce, perhaps the foremost contributor to ending the slave trade. A devout Christian supported by devout Christians in his efforts, the politician Wilberforce battled against slavery on moral grounds for years…and years…and years…when “only Christians were 'crazy enough' to think slavery was wrong.” (Quote: Author of the book Amazing Grace on Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes) Finally, as citizens’ minds were changed one-by-one and the political system was creatively and astutely manipulated, Wilberforce had the sweet satisfaction of godly success. He is a role-model for Christian activists today, an example of politics in the name of God, and a trailblazer for transforming society.

~Kingdom Advancer

The Politics of Death Quiz

2007-03-10T12:00:00.000-05:00

A Nonpartisan Look at the Numbers

You’ve got Conservatives/Republicans using the number of victims under Saddam Hussein to justify the Iraq War. You’ve got Liberals/Democrats using the number of Iraqis who have died since the inception of the Iraq War to demonize it. You’ve got Liberals/Democrats using the number of soldiers K.I.A. in Iraq to try to show that they care more about the troops. You’ve got Conservatives/Republicans using the number of victims on 9/11/01 to show why we need to be tough on defense. You’ve got Conservatives/Republicans comparing the president of Iran to Hitler. You’ve got liberal wannabe heroes speaking out about Darfur. You’ve got them speaking out about AIDS in Africa.

The bigger the numbers—the better the statistics—the more effective the argument. Yet, in the distraction of all these debates and issues, the most astronomical numbers are largely ignored—and seemingly forgotten. And, if things do not change, it will be to America’s everlasting shame.

Take the “Politics of Death Quiz”:

Who killed (kills) more?
a.) Saddam Hussein
b.) Abortionists and pregnant women in a nine-month period

What has killed (kills) more?
a.) The War in Iraq [Iraqi citizens]
b.) Abortion in a one- to six-month period

Who has died (dies) more?
a.) American soldiers in Iraq
b.) Unborn babies in one day

When did (do) more die?
a.) American citizens—victims of terrorism—on 9/11/01
b.) Unborn babies each day on average.

Where have (do) more been (get) killed?
a.) Darfur
b.) Abortion clinics in America in half-a-year

What has caused more suffering (deaths)?
a.) AIDS
b.) Abortion in America

What was (is) more deadly?
a.) The Holocaust to Jews
b.) Five years of abortion to unborn children

As you might’ve guessed, the answer to each and every question is “b”, and the questionnaire could go on indefinitely with similar results.
An average of 1.3 million babies is aborted each year—just in America! That’s about four thousand per day!

This is the shame of America. The verdict over when life begins is virtually in. 4D Ultrasounds, “In the Womb” (National Geographic), a surviving baby born at 22 weeks, double homicide cases concerning pregnant women, Abort73.com ("Abortion Unfiltered"), simple logic (like the S.L.E.D. acronym), and tender consciences are some of the contributors showing that those denying the humanity of unborn babies are not only wrong and deceptive, but downright diabolical.

Some on the “pro-choice” side now rely more heavily on hypothetical-theoretical rape, incest, and fatal situations, as well as the erroneous and absurd woman’s “inalienable right to choose.” The aforementioned three scenarios are rare—especially the last one—and are entirely insufficient to continue to allow Abortion On-Demand.

Yet it is, as liberals celebrate in silent glee, conservatives occupy much of their time with other things, and Roe V. Wade’s anniversary inches closer to golden and farther from silver.

Keep in mind that we are not talking about Iraqis or Africans, for example. This is flesh of our flesh. We are not even talking about volunteer soldiers. This is innocence if there is any—as vulnerable as can be. How can this be? We’ve been “sung to sleep/ by philosophies / that save the trees and kill the children…” (“While You Were Sleeping,” By: Casting Crowns)

However, good things are still happening—the battle is still being fought. There are now more crisis pregnancy centers than abortion clinics in America. South Dakota almost passed a ban prohibiting all abortions except when the mother’s life is at stake. Almost a month ago, Senator Sam Brownback revived the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, a bill that would require all women going in for an abortion after the 20th week to be informed of the pain her child would experience, and be given the option by a doctor to administer a drug to take the pain away from the child. (This, obviously, would likely reduce abortions. If the baby can feel pain…then it’s a baby. Right?) I'm not sure how his efforts are going. There are important issues going on right now concerning partial-birth abortion and tax-funding of Planned Parenthood (a.k.a., Legalized Infanticide). [Check out the American Center for Law and Justice to learn more and find out how to get involved.] Abort73.com is taking a “no more Mr. Nice Guy” approach to the issue. I encourage you to check it out, if you have a strong stomach and a box of tissues. There are virtually countless pro-life efforts, even though the media and big-name politicians seem to rarely mention the issue nowadays.

The fight must continue. God has been far more patient with America than we could ever ask, but He will not be mocked. Christians must stand-up, not just for the sake of our unborn children, but for the sake of our country and her future!

So, the next time you hear someone say that so many people died or were killed in one way or another for some reason or another, tell them to take the “Politics of Death Quiz.”

Poor

2007-03-02T17:50:00.000-05:00

That's about the most positive way I can describe "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" and The Jesus Family Tomb. Poor job. Poor try. Poor viewers who might actually believe this intellectual garbage. The evidence is porous, at best. As I wrote in my last article, the makers and authors should have held themselves to a higher standard.

Of course, it's always difficult to "prove" and "present evidence" that something true--in this case, what the Bible says--is "false" or "inaccurate." Truth always seems to penetrate the falsity, eventually, like light pentretrates darkness, when the dawn comes. Over the past two thousand years, there have been countless efforts to extinguish the fiery flame that is biblical Christianity, different in format and style but always similar in purpose.

Even in comparison to other such endeavors, however, this one is rather...well, poor. Only a person who's willing to wager his soul's eternal status on a work produced by the director of Titanic would put much stock in it.

The following is a sampling of evidence that shows that this documentary (and book) has little to no credibility. Each point may not be a case-closer in-and-of itself individually, but as a collective unit, it proves that the "case" is barely legitimate, if at all.

Still, though, Christians should be willing to address this issue--rather than justifiably ignoring it--so that "by all means we might save some."

DNA:

The "DNA evidence" that is being so highly touted only proves that "Jesus" and "Marianme" (claimed to be Mary Magdalene) are not maternally related. It certainly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, does not prove that this tomb held the Jesus and Mary Magdalene of the Bible. We do not have the DNA of Jesus, and we never will. Therefore, no matching of DNA is or ever will be possible.

But even beyond that, this evidence does not even show that "Jesus" and "Marianme" were totally unrelated. In other words, it does not prove that they were not cousins; it does not prove that they were not uncle/niece; it does not prove that they were not aunt/nephew. It only proves that they did not spring forth from the same womb. If these two people were related in anyway, the theory of the makers of this documentary would fall apart. But, even if it could be shown that they were in no way related, problems would still remain. For all the puzzle pieces to fit, the quantum leap of a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene must be made. This, however, is an unsubstantiated, sensationalistic idea with no basis but that of a Gnostic Gospel or two and the imagination of Dan Brown (The DaVinci Code). Another "evidence" of the marriage that might be claimed is that of the existence of "Judah, Son of Jesus," present in the tomb. But, now we're using evidence from the tomb to try to prove conclusions made from the tomb. Other than the presence of Jesus' son and other fanciful notions, I haven't heard any other argument why Mary Magdalene would've been married to Jesus rather than to one of the other males present in the tomb.

So, the conclusion of the oft-mentioned DNA evidence is that it proves very, very little.

Names:

Some critics don't even think the name translated as "Jesus" was done so correctly. "Hanun" might be the actual name. If that be the case, all has been for naught--for a simple mis-translation. Even if the name is "Jesus," though, the "Son of Joseph" title raises red flags. Jesus was not commonly called the "Son of Joseph," especially by those who knew and loved Him.
Then, there are problems with other names in the tomb. The name "Marianme" is reportedly written in Greek, and is claimed to be the Greek equivalent of Mary Magdalene. But, why would an ardent Jewish family have a Greek version of a name inscribed, especially when all the others are written in either Aramaic or Hebrew? More importantly, Dr. Darrell Bock points out that there is not sufficient credible evidence that "Mariamne" is Mary Magdalene's name:

...to get Mariamne to match Mary Magdalene and not a host of any other Mary’s, one has to appeal to an apocryphal Acts in a fourth century manuscript. Without that, there is not even a possibility of a connection, the Acts of Philip and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, old evidence that was already vetted in the DaVinci Code discussion. In other words, we do not know Mary/Mariamne is Mary Magdalene, a very key point that has to be true for this claim to work.

Sure, they're related, but it's like saying that finding that Maria and Maria are related names is a surprise.

I've also heard that the inscription might even say (translated) "Mary and Martha," which would make very little sense--at least fitting into the fiction mystery that is The Jesus Family Tomb. Mary Magdalene is not the sister of Martha and Lazarus. Back to the Bock article:

Here are the words of Prof. Bauckham, “'Mara' in this context does not mean Master. It is an abbreviated form of Martha. probably the ossuary contained two women called Mary and Martha (Mariamne and Mara).”

The problems continue. "Jose," a rare nickname for Joseph, is the name on one of the ossuaries. But, this would not be Jesus' father Joseph, because, on Jesus' ossuary, it states of "Son of Joseph," not "Son of Jose." Why would there be such a discrepancy?

The conclusion of taking a look at the names, is that this might not even be "a" Jesus and his family, much less the Jesus.

Family Ties:

This is yet another category in which the claims of "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" get really shaky. The "Jose" and "Matthew" in the tomb have to be explained away. They are both distant relatives at most, if this is the Jesus of the Bible. There is no reason to think they are Jesus' brothers.

If it can be determined that they are in fact distant--i.e., not immediate family--relatives, it only serves to open up another can of worms. Who are they? And why are they in such an intimate tomb of mother (Mary), son (Jesus), wife (Mariamne), son (Judah)? Why is Joseph absent? (As I pointed out, it doesn't make sense that "Jose" and "Joseph" would be used in the same tomb to denote the same person.) Why are Jesus' brothers, namely James, Judah, and Simon, missing, when less immediate (supposed) members--Matthew and Jose--are present? Why are Matthew and Jose--not immediate family members--in this tomb in the stead of other non-immediate family members? Are we to assume that neither Matthew, nor Jose, nor Judah, Son of Jesus, married or bore children? Why not? Did not Judah find a way to extend the bloodline of Jesus Christ? Not to mention that Judah's ossuary is the only evidence that he ever existed.

Of course, a point can be made in defense that all family members can't fit into one tomb, but the presence of supposed wife Mariamne and who-knows-who Matthew and Jose are what causes the problem in the first place.

Odds:

The best "evidence" put forth for this film is that they used "statisticians" to come to the conclusion that it is probable that this is Jesus' family tomb. Nonetheless, historians and archaeologists say that all the names found in the tomb were very common at the time. "Jose" might have been a relatively "rare" nickname for Joseph, but Jose is a problem for supporters of the thesis anyway.

About the commonality of the names and probability, Dr.Darrell Bock blogged with these facts:

Here are the details on names provided to me by Prof Richard Bauckham of St. Andrews and sourced in a famous catalogue of ossuary names that has been out since 2002 with the information known about this locale since c. 1980.:

“Out of a total number of 2625 males, these are the figures for the ten most popular male names among Palestinian Jews. The first figure is the total number of occurrences (from this number, with 2625 as the total for all names, you could calculate percentages), while the second is the number of occurrences specifically on ossuraries.
1 Simon/Simeon 243 59
2 Joseph 218 45
3 Eleazar 166 29
4 Judah 164 44
5 John/Yohanan 122 25
6 Jesus 99 22
7 Hananiah 82 18
8 Jonathan 71 14
9 Matthew 62 17
10 Manaen/Menahem 42 4

For women, we have a total of 328 occurrences (women's names are much less often recorded than men's), and figures for the 4 most popular names are thus:

Mary/Mariamne 70 42
Salome 58 41
Shelamzion 24 19
Martha 20 17

You can see at once that all the names you're interested were extremely popular. 21% of Jewish women were called Mariamne (Mary). The chances of the people in the ossuaries being the Jesus and Mary Magdalene of the New Testament must be very small indeed.”

He stated well, that:

To get to the high numbers, all the assumptions about the identifications have to be put into the numbers pot, including Matthew, a name called “consistent with the family.” How? Where is the evidence for this?

Besides, in the end, odds are just odds anyways. Would you bet your soul like you'd bet on a horserace? I don't think so.

Other Common Sense Notes:

The documentary implies that the body of the most influential Person (because He was said to have resurrected) in history has been under the noses of enemies and allies of Christianity alike for almost two thousand years. Is that very possible, with His name right on the ossuary?

Where is everyone of repute supporting this documentary? Dr. Albert Mohler astutely noted on his radio show a few days back that few, if any, reputable people are placing their reputations on the line for this discovery, unless they have something financial or agenda-wise to gain.

Shouldn't the tomb have been a secret one, since the buriers would've been concealing the lie of Jesus' bodily resurrection? This tomb was not secretive.

This was a middle-class or above tomb. Jesus' family was a poor one. The idea that they would've "had the resources later" because they were the "leaders of a popular movement" is bogus and leads into many other problems.

If this were true, it would mean people were giving their lives for a known lie. Make sense?

The supporters of this work are denying any possibility of fraud. How can one be so certain?

This is a tomb originally found in 1980, and it has long been widely dismissed and ignored. This documentary and book is simply a re-packaging. Ultimately, we know it can't be true just because it goes against what the Bible says.

~Kingdom Advancer

P.S. Here are some other sites that have written about this issue:

Pushing Back the Frontiers of Ignorance

Talk Wisdom(Links to several other articles.)

Extreme Theology

Darrell Bock at Leadership U

So You Have Proof Against the Biblical Account of Jesus? Again?

2007-02-27T17:39:00.000-05:00

It no longer seems coincidental. It no longer seems ironic. It no longer seems even conspicuous. Now, it’s just downright predictable—and shameful, at that.

What is this “it” I speak of? “It” is the continuous, repetitious attack on Christianity—the Biblical account of Christ’s life and resurrection in particular—that is so often well-timed to Easter Season, but, in fact, is a year-round event.

The latest episode is “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” produced by award-winning director James Cameron. In this documentary, accompanied by the release of the book The Jesus Family Tomb, which is set to air on the Discovery Channel, it is claimed that the tomb Jesus was actually buried in has been found. Supposedly, the tomb is a family one, containing the Hebrew or Greek equivalent inscriptions, “Jesus, Son of Joseph,” “Mary Magdalene,” and “Judah, Son of Jesus,” as well as others, including another Mary.

The implications here are rather obvious: first off, the supposed DNA of the deceased "Mary Magdalene" and "Jesus" are different, therefore, to be buried together in a family tomb, they very well could’ve been married. Plus, the film’s claim that Jesus had a son also lends weight to that conclusion.
Another natural conclusion of this conspiracy theory is that the resurrection didn’t happen—and, therefore, the Bible is not true and infallible, and hence the same end-goal of liberal theologians and unbelievers reveals itself once more. The filmmakers and film-supporters would likely deny this is their goal in making and supporting the documentary. On “Larry King Live,” the makers made it clear that “they are not theologians,” and they are “just asking questions,” "showing the evidence," and "reporting the news." In other words, “perhaps theologians might come up with a different explanation, now that their main one has been debunked,” such as the spiritual, not literal, resurrection of Christ….or, maybe, preposterously, Christ’s second death. Of course, few persons would actually come to these conclusions. Christ’s bodily, literal resurrection and ascension are central, foundational tenets of the Christian faith. Anyone, claiming to be a Christian, who would accept any lesser explanation of Jesus’ life and death, would show too much faith in man, and virtually none in God and His Word.

Besides, there is no need, as usual when one of these controversies boils down, to abandon your beliefs. In reality, each bombardment of this sort backfires against Satan, at least in my life. The truth is revealed; the fallacies, hoaxes, and frauds are uncovered; and Christ remains sitting on His throne in heaven. As unbelievers try to demolish my faith, they only succeed in solidifying and strengthening it. It happens on a frequent basis in the Creation/Evolution Debate; it happens annually during the Christmas Season; and it happens most regularly during this time of the year, pertaining to the resurrection. William Donohue, head of the Catholic League, whom I’m sure to disagree with on a myriad of theological issues, stated on “Larry King Live” last night that you can find on his website a list compiled detailing the annual attempts to discredit Christianity and the resurrection at this time of the year. They all, as far as I know, fall flat on their faces. Any that don’t really don’t prove anything significant anyways. Christianity has been refined by fire for two thousand years, by everyone from Julius Caesar to Transcendentalists, and it is still golden, though false Christian “dross” pervades the Church.

This work, paired up as book (The Jesus Family Tomb) and documentary ("The Lost Tomb of Jesus"), is no different than the others. It is outlandish, and, to be honest, amateurishly immature. William Donohue called it “science fiction,” while Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, referred to it as “laughable”—something that would be “laughed out of court.” While defending the documentary, the makers hold to the assertion that they are just “asking questions.” But, really, they should hold themselves to a higher-standard for questions. After all, they did spend two million dollars making this documentary……

Ah….money… A root of all sorts of evil, eh? Thanks to the controversy—“hell,” if you will—that this work is raising, it will probably garner a boatload of money. The book will probably make a brief appearance on the New York Times’ Best-Seller List, and the documentary will probably be pretty popular—as far as documentaries go. James Cameron and “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” aren’t Dan Brown and The DaVinci Code, another hoax of preposterous proportions and success, but they are proportionally “disciples,” like Peter is a disciple of Jesus. Though the makers of the film are doing the devil’s work—however God will decide to make it backfire—money was, in all likelihood, a persuading factor to their decision to make this documentary. It becomes increasingly clear that publicity (which is money in the entertainment business) is the most important thing with comments such as: “I think everyone should watch the documentary, read the book, and then make up their minds. First the questions, then the answers, not the other way around. Or, as Larry King, clearly biased as a Jewish atheist, said: “I think everyone should watch this documentary, to get at least a little enlightened.”

The thing is, I don’t really care about the money. That’s capitalism for you, and, if you want to speak in spiritual terms, it’s dirty money. Now, I’m not saying James Cameron and his minions—including Director Simcha Jacobovici—are going to hell. In fact, I hope they don’t. But, regardless, they’re going to have a lot to answer for. “Why are you persecuting Me?”

So, if I’m not jealous of someone making money trying to disprove the very core of who I am, what am I worried about? As I said, my faith will only grow stronger from this. As Bill Donahue stated, he’s not scared about the truth coming out because he’s confident in the truth. Christians have nothing to be afraid of. God’s ways—and truth—are higher than man’s ways—and truth. Even if some illustrious “indisputable evidence” came out, as has been claimed before—at least with other issues—it is eventually thrown in the trash pile as just that—trash.

So why am I concerned? Well, mainly, I am concerned for uneducated Christians and non-Christians alike. Dozens upon dozens of books came out dismantling all the ridiculous assertions of The DaVinci Code. But, how many people do you think read those books? How many people are still walking around saying, “You’re a Christian? But what about The DaVinci Code?” Damage will likely be unavoidable. That’s troublesome.

However, having said that, perhaps this will purify the church—making it stronger and more effectual. Perhaps this will make 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 all the more poignant and applicable. Plus, this is another opportunity to witness to people.

Nevertheless, though we know that God will cause this to work towards His will and together for the good of those who love Him, I wanted to write this article and an ensuing one--with some of the points against this film--in order to equip, encourage, and instruct.

I encourage you to listen to today’s broadcast of The Albert Mohler Show. Today’s show was dedicated to the topic.

~Kingdom Advancer

How Firm is Your Foundation? Part One.

2007-02-25T17:45:00.000-05:00

In school, how often did (do) you get problems wrong? Even if you were (are) an A-student, you probably got (or will get) hundreds or even thousands incorrect over the course of your schooling.
What about gameshows? When you watch one, you probably answer wrongly at least a couple times each show, right? Then, there are sports, political, and other predictions. How many of those of yours fail to come to pass? How many beliefs and opinions have you adamantly held, only to later be convinced otherwise, realizing how "off-base" you really were?
How often are you surprised, perplexed, confused, lost? How many philosophical questions have you not been able to answer satisfactorily?

Then, how many times have you done something wrong, as in, morally? How many times have your thoughts wandered where you wish they wouldn't have? How many times, despite your better judgment, did you "just do it," whatever that "it" was? How many times have you done or said something wrong--even evil--that was beyond your control to control yourself, or you just didn't know better--or think better--at the time?

My point is, both the human mind and human heart are frequently untrustworthy with their errs and evils. Even groups of so-called experts can be--and often are--in error. For instance, it was once accepted as fact--or close to it, anyways--that the earth is flat, and that the sun and planets revolved around the earth. Bloodletting was a common, accepted medical practice.

Civilizations collapse and crumble, usually because of a mistake in military judgment, economics, morality, or by other means. These mess-ups are oftentimes done by the hands of the leaders, and the collapses are sometimes caused by the evil of the leaders. Perhaps the selfish pursuit of power causes the collapse.

In any case, leaders and experts cannot be depended upon.

Neither can the crowd always be trusted. Anarchy brings chaos, putting power into the hands of a mindless mob. A million people can be wrong. Peer pressure does not mean "good pressure." If a bunch of experts and leaders can be wrong--and reprehensible--then a bunch of non-experts--who often follow what the experts and leaders say regardless--can certainly be off-the-mark as well. And it's not just the corruption of society causing the corruption of persons. Primitive folk can be just as morally and factually screwed up as the sophisticated folk.

Even one's self can't be relied upon. Can you really say that you can be trusted, when everyone else can't? I'm reminded of the Lord of the Rings. When Frodo cowers away from Aragorn towards the end of the first movie in the trilogy, Aragorn reassures him, "I swore to protect you." Frodo replies, "Can you protect me from yourself?" We can barely--if at all--control our lusts, appetites, and other thoughts, as well as actions to a certain extent. Self-control is not a commonplace virtue. Neither is wisdom (In fact, those virtues cannot be fully attained in a purely secular way.). You cannot always trust yourself, if for no other reason than you cannot trust the majority, the leaders, or the experts. Clearly, you cannot even put your complete allegiance into the scientific process. Errors occur, results can come slowly, scientists can be biased, and, then, of course, there are so many questions science cannot answer.

So where does that leave us? What do we do?

Well, you can do one of three things. You can go ahead and trust yourself, the majority, and the (intellectual and political) elite. In this case, the Bible would say that you have built yourself a house on a foundation of sand. (Matthew 7:24-27) Sure, you and your cohorts may be right--and even morally sound on the surface--some of the time (perhaps by randomly or indirectly and incompletely following biblical principles), but the "tide" will methodically "pull the rug" out from under you, and in the storm of spiritual matters--the most important matters--you will utterly fail and be failed, being "tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine." (Ephesians 4:14) As worldly wisdom and reasoning pervades your consciousness, you will not realize that only Jesus is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life," (John 14:6) and that "no other name under heaven...has been given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)
You may temporarily be "reasoned" to Christianity--maybe perverted Christianity--by someone, or by a flitting of your whims, but only until someone can reason you away.
This option includes of most of the religions of the world.

Option number two is to trust no one and nothing. In other words, truth is relative. This is like building a castle in the sky, which is really no foundation, or castle, at all. You will have no foundation to build upon. It's an option that leads to a pointless, purposeless, nihilistic life. In terms of spiritual and moral convictions, the hottest you could ever get is lukewarm. You could not please God, because you could not have true faith. (Hebrews 11:6) You could not be saved, because you could not have true faith. (Ephesians 2:8) You could not avoid perishing without truly believing. (John 3:16) You would constantly be sinning, acting not in faith. (
In all aspects of life, you would have uncertainty--a shaky foundation, at best--if not apathy. You too would be tossed "to and fro," only you wouldn't believe anything for certain.

Then, there's Door Number Three.

To Be Continued...

~ Kingdom Advancer

If Angels Go With Me...

2007-02-17T17:30:00.000-05:00

I apologize for the lack of posts lately. My cup of busyness "runneth over" lately, and though against my will, neglect has fallen directly and foremost on Kingdom Advancing. Further, the end of the Dakota Fanning, Hounddog, saga left me with less of a sense of duty and urgency to post something else.

This is not to say that I don't have things to write about. On the contrary, there are many topics I would love to make commentary on. But, at this time, my amount of posting will not be able to accommodate a lot of issues.

Still, I am by no means and in no way abandoning this blog, and I hope you will not either.

For now, I still can't post a full-fledged article, but I thought that I'd publish a poem. I encourage you to check out the rest of the poetry that I've put on Kingdom Advancing.

Christians often get discouraged, frightened, and beaten down in their good fight. Sometimes, I think too much focus is placed on the enemy--the devil and his demons. We should always remember that we have the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and transitively angels on our side. This poem, entitled "If Angels Go With Me," embodies the confidence and courage that Christians should possess, focusing especially on angels in this specific poem.

If angels go with me, at what shall I tremble?
If I go with an army that God has assembled?
In-visible, flying, and nimble,
If angels go with me, at what shall I tremble?

If angels go with me, where shall I not go?
With them by my side, above, and below.
If angels go with me, and this I do know,
If angels go with me, where shall I not go?

If angels go with me, walls will come crashing,
Regardless of pain, I'll withstand the full thrashing,
And I'll not be disheartened by a simple tongue-lashing.
If angels go with me, walls will come crashing.

If demons shall charge me, why should I flinch?
If know I that angels are there in a pinch,
As my battle buddies, right there in the trench,
If demons shall charge me, why should I flinch?

If angels go with me, I know this besides,
That Jesus is with me, and with me abides.
And if Jesus is with me, from whom shall I hide?
If angels go with me, I know this besides.

If angels go with me, they're sent by the Lord,
And if sent by the Lord, then I know this and more,
That the God Who is after and the God who's before,
Is the God Who's protecting me evermore.

~Kingdom Advancer
(Originally Written: 9/21/06)

Resolution to and Last Planned Update on "Wrong in So Many Ways"

2007-02-04T00:10:00.000-05:00

In light of the controversy surrounding the Dakota Fanning "rape-and-plenty-of-other-bad-stuff" movie, Hounddog, which was filmed in North Carolina, Republican State Senator of that state, Phil Berger of Rockingham County, wants "to review scripts before issuing tax credits for films made in North Carolina.... [He] thinks the public has a right to see scripts before the state gives tax credits to films. There are already certain controls on film tax credits.
Sen. Berger is currently drafting the initiative."

People on both sides of the political and moral aisle are crying foul over this proposal, mostly under the banners of "it's a constitutional violation" or "too much government involvement in art," etc.

I, for one, think those arguments are pitifully pathetic (or vice versa). The Constitution of the United States protects our rights, not the abuse of those same rights. Plus, art does not possess immunity to penalties for unlawfulness and indecency. When did we begin to accept that absurd notion?

Also, the government does not have the right to get involved with "art" when the artists are using tax credits--the government's money--MY MONEY--to create this trash? You have got to be pulling my leg.

However, having said all that, I do think there are a few reasons why this is not a good, sufficient, or efficient idea:

a.) It would hurt North Carolina’s film industry and economy without solving the problem. If one lone state steps up with a law like this, the filmmakers move on to South Carolina, Virginia or one of the other forty-seven states, along with other countries, rather than sitting and waiting to see if their script is acceptable and whether or not they'll get a tax credit. When you consider the fact that some moviemakers know that their material is filthy, you realize that they wouldn’t even come near North Carolina. So, essentially, North Carolina “cleanses” itself, loses money from the entertainment industry, and doesn’t protect any more children, really, or the society in general.

b.) It potentially would leave art in the hands of the balance, or lack thereof, of power, rather than the hands of the people and the law. Unless strict definitions and requirements were in place, it would leave the decisions and judgments in the hands of serving politicians and/or judges. If one set of politicians can deny a tax credit to a movie like Hounddog, couldn't another set of politicians, on the opposite end of the spectrum, give EXTRA tax credit? Would conservatives try to punish movies with language or something? Would liberals encourage everything? This may be overreaching, but we’ve given the government enough power already, haven't we? Why more? Without firmly entrenched definitions of allowable and completely unacceptable material, I don't see this as a good idea.

c.) It would slow down the filmmaking process and add to the already overloaded bureaucracy. Protecting children is much more important than making movies faster, but, as you will see below, I think there are better solutions. Plus, the more bureaucracy, the less efficient it seems.

So, here's my five-point, multi-faceted solution to the problem at hand, with point number five obviously the most important:

1.) Stricter definition and stronger enforcement of child abuse laws.
It must be taken care to insure that children are not inconvenient “expenses” (victims) for the sake and in the pursuit of profit margins and agenda advancement in the entertainment industry.

2.) Stricter definition and stronger enforcement of child porn laws.
I think it is an egregious thing that a 12-year-old girl has to take off her panties for it to be considered child porn. Society should hold itself to a higher standard, especially in this day and age of pedophilia when we need to be protecting children, especially when we are discussing big-screen productions that could be widely distributed. Panties are porn. Body suits are porn.

3.) Internal controls within the entertainment industry.
“Artsy” people don’t want the government to get involved at all in these types of situations. Even some of those against this movie don’t want more government involvement. I tend to agree: government involvement usually turns sour in one way or another once power is granted, and it leaves different things, such as art, essentially at the mercy of who is currently in power. Therefore, you can even see child porn and abuse ENCOURAGED rather than prosecuted, if enough of a certain type of people got into power. Worst-case scenario? Certainly. But, even a lesser occurrence wouldn't be a good thing, obviously.
Many believe that the entertainment industry can handle this with internal controls and union regulations, etc. However, if Hollywood-ians and the like want to keep their house clean on their own without the government’s help, then they need to get serious and plug in the vacuum cleaner.

4.) Money message.
Money talks, and you, me, and everyone else shout over a loudspeaker to the entertainment industry. What are we saying? If agenda is the heart of the snake that is entertainment, then money is the head. Cut off the head, and the snake will die…

5.) Regeneration of our culture.
…But that is not enough. If you cut off the hands that do the evil, but the heart is still evil, the soul winds up in hell. That, suffice it to say, is not a desirable outcome. We need to change hearts and minds for Christ. We must defeat the erroneous ideas that maturing is synonymous with immorality; that the ever-earlier loss of innocence is acceptable; and that life is simply narcissistic and nihilistic.
We must do this by praying and acting on our prayers, for God helps those who have a live faith. (“Faith without works [actions] is dead.”)

Although this is my last planned update, I will still post if anything important pops up. The prayers and articles need to continue, in order that our efforts don't result in a "flash in the pan." We must burn to ash this detestable thing, not just burn the outer skin. We must realize, that ultimately, this is a small piece of the puzzle in which souls and societies are at stake, and that is not something we simply can fight for for a week or two. It's a lifetime's effort, and although this particular effort won't last that long, it is a piece that needs to be placed in a spot of victory, not defeat.
There are already other controversies which I could address, but I won't list here, for fear that I won't be able to speak to the issue more fully.

I plan on posting a recognition article thanking all those who joined me in blogging about this issue. Until then, though, I thank everyone for their prayers and efforts.

~Kingdom Advancer

"One Night with the King" Out On DVD

2007-01-30T19:23:00.000-05:00

In honor of the DVD release of One Night with the King, the major motion picture based on the story of Esther, I have decided to create a post linking to my review of the film, which I wrote October 23, 2006, right after having seen it the first time in theaters (I saw it twice). In the article, I talk about the Christian movie movement; I address some of the criticisms of the film; and I disclose some things viewers of the movie should be aware of, such as "interpretive liberties."

I highly recommend renting or even buying this film. Like a skunk calling itself a "perfume puppy," there is a lot of literal trash coming out of Hollywood calling itself "entertainment" and "art." One needs look no further than what the main and sole subject of this blog has been the past two weeks: the Dakota Fanning, Hounddog movie, which features a rape scene of 12-year-old Dakota's character, among other things. To learn more, simply view the recent archives of the blog. Stay tuned for more updates on the situation, which are almost certain to come in not too long.

However, even that movie--as wrong and deplorable as it is--doesn't appear to portray depravity in such an attractive, "fun," "exciting," and "harmless" way as countless Hollywood productions do.

Here, then, we find a movie in One Night with the King, as my article states, that is "Worthy of Our Hearts, Minds, and Money." Is this not something we should support, as part of our statement in the bigger entertainment industry picture? I realize, and point out in the article, that the movie has its flaws. However, I've come to the conclusion that those flaws are not nearly sufficient in making this a movie not worthy of our minds and money. I also recognize the qualms of portraying the Bible on the big screen, and filling in the gaps with man's imagination. But, the entertainment industry is becoming a more and more effective and popular medium to get the Word of God to unbelievers, and the gaps simply have to be filled to make the aforementioned medium usable. As long as you are not claiming that all of it is Scripture, or that it all holds the inerrancy of Scripture, I don't see too big of a problem.

Here is the link to the article:

Worthy of Our Hearts, Minds, and Money

~Kingdom Advancer

Updates (Round 6) on "Wrong in So Many Ways"

2007-01-27T13:05:00.000-05:00

I have a lot to tell you about, so let's not waste any time.

First of all, Hounddog is being trashed by early reviewers of the film. While most reviews that I've read have actually DEFENDED and MINIMIZED the rape scene as "done tastefully," they have torn to shreds the movie itself, on purely artistic and entertainment levels, criticizing the plot, the dialogue, the cliche characters, and the force-fed emotions.
This is extremely good news, and quite frankly, unexpected. You would naturally assume, when you realize that our battle is not against flesh and blood, that liberal critics, who even shun the seriousness of the rape scene (and ignore other parts in the movie), would celebrate this film. But, of what I've seen so far, that is not the case. I don't agree with everything they say, but they seem to be putting down the film--with no vendetta against the subject matter! (Click here for a review of the movie by Variety; Click here for a review on Fox News) God works in mysterious ways. Let's hope and pray this trend continues. Why? Three reasons:

1.) First of all, it looks like this film isn't going to collect very many Benjamins, Washingtons, or Lincolns (pennies), for that matter. I imagine that a relatively small amount of people were going to see this film anyway, and bad reviews are only going to shrink the population of Hounddog moviegoers. As Variety's review says:

Aside from Fanning and the controversy, the film has nothing going for it commercially; sales are likely due to the cast, but paying customers will be scarce.

The director of this film is trying to make herself out to be some type of hero, who's "giving a voice" to silent, suffering women, and "raising awareness" to this important issue. If this indeed were the case (which later I will point out it is not), then her next film would be about child rape, and the next, and the next, and the next, and the next would ALL be about child rape. How likely do you think that is? Or, how likely do you think that is if this movie doesn't bring her any cash? Not likely at all.

2.) Secondly, I think you can cancel Dakota's mother's "Oscar party." Unless Hollywood decides to go totally against the grain, this movie isn't going to win anything. Obviously, this is NOT specifically because of the subject matter--Hollywood has shown us time and time again that you can't underestimate what they'll give an award to. However, compile that with bad reviews of the movie, and you should have a perfectly Oscar-less production. (Yay!)

3.) Thirdly, the movie has yet to be picked up for distribution, and it's looking less likely that it ever will be. That would be some kind of message sent from distribution companies. Fox News posted an article titled No Buyers for Dakota Fanning Rape Movie by Roger Friedman. Here's some snippets from the article:

Hounddog, the simply awful movie in which 12-year-old Dakota Fanning’s character is raped, has no buyers.
"No one wants it after the terrible reviews," one distributor told me...

Indeed, the people associated with The Weinstein Company, IFC Films and First Look were among those who instantly agreed that they had no interest in Hounddog.
At this rate, this exercise in bad taste may wind up being a DVD collector’s item.

With the above-mentioned distributors out, it’s unlikely now that any major buyer will take Hounddog. And that’s just as well, considering that its release is sure to spark more outrage, protests and calls for investigations.

An e-mail I received from Paul Petersen, former child actor, current child advocate, and creator of A Minor Consideration, a child advocacy organization, said this:

No Distributors, at least at Sundance, offered to put this film into general release.

This is great news. Note that it intertwines itself with point number one. Although it seems that some distributors are backing out simply because the movie is terrible--not because of the inappropriateness of the subject matter--one has to think that the righteous indignation towards this movie is playing a role in their business decisions. There just is not enough incentive for these distributors to put themselves on the line by picking up Hounddog. And, hey, maybe distributors have a sense of decency, too!

A small distributor might pick up this film eventually, but it should be noted that smaller distributors might not be able to afford the risk of going out on such a limb. (Paul Petersen and others are trying to "ensure that even a DVD release is liable to result in criminal prosecution.") And, of course, small distributors are better than big ones.

This is my official thank you to every and any distributor who rejects this film.

The second thing I have to tell you about is that, as if the rape scene was not enough, there is more stuff in this film to get your blood-boiling:

From Variety:

Opening interludes are drenched in swampy sweat and sex, as barely prepubescent kids Lewellen (Fanning) and Buddy (Cody Hanford) scamper through the woods to find a secluded place where Buddy can show Lewellen his privates in exchange for a kiss. Lewellen shortly explains that one day she's going to kill her daddy and cut off his privates in the bargain.

Lewellen continually bumps and grinds in Elvis fashion, to the distinct disapproval of Granny, and schemes with Buddy to get tickets to an upcoming local Elvis concert; the two kids play grown-up, dressing up and pretending to drink and smoke, with her kissing him a lot; a little rich girl nicknamed Grasshopper (Isabelle Fuhrman) arrives for the summer at the mansion nearby, giving Lewellen a rival for Buddy's attention...

...loads of vile behavior, beginning with the rape but scarcely confined to it, to scant point.

From Fox News:

...12-year-old Cody Hanford, who plays Fanning’s boyfriend in the provocative and poorly written outing, may actually become more of the focus than even the star.
In the film, his character lures Fanning’s into a barn and then watches as she’s raped. Hanford and Fanning also have numerous kissing scenes, some in which they’re half-dressed.

From the Orlando Sentinel's Kathleen Parker:

The same taboo-busting impulse drives Hounddog, wherein we witness a real 12-year-old portray a girl waking up as her naked father climbs into bed with her; "dancing" in her underwear while lying in bed; and getting raped by a teenage boy.
We are, in other words, voyeurs to a young girl acting out a sexual predator's fantasies.

Also, there's reportedly a lot of "gyrating" and seductive dancing by Dakota, and more than one person has noted that there's a "lot of panties." And let's not forget about the mutual masturbation scene, that seems to have disappeared.
This movie just keeps getting better the more you know about it, doesn't it?

Also, don't allow the makers of this movie to trick you into thinking that it's "all about awareness" and a "message movie," or whatever. It's not. Roger Friedman, in his Fox News articles, said this:

Since I am one of the few who’ve actually seen it, let me explain something important. There is no point that I can find to the child’s rape.
Once it happens, it’s never discussed. The culprit is never accused or apprehended. The child never tells her story to anyone. There’s no great moment of revelation that could possibly help someone who’s watching the film. It’s simply there for shock value.
The fact that Kampmeier and the producers have somehow conned rape-assistance groups into using the movie as a public-service announcement is bizarre to me. But I guess it’s no more bizarre than using Dakota Fanning as the public defender of the indefensible.
.....................................
That her moves are suggestive is another matter altogether. The director seems to be implying that Lewellen is almost asking for her rape by a 20-year-old boy who delivers the family’s milk.
It’s either that or Lewellen should be allowed to act seductively without fear of being attacked. Either way, the arguments do not stand up.

Todd McCarthy, who wrote the Variety article I mentioned, wrote this:

From here [after the rape scene] , one wants to stick close to Lewellen to study her reactions and decisions. Instead, the Strange Lady returns to distracting effect, Daddy starts running naked through town, Granny totes her shotgun around, and a plane's worth of snakes begins materializing everywhere, a matter tended to by a wise black man (Afemo Omilami), a horse trainer who endeavors to restore a measure of physical and psychic health to both Strange Lady and Lewellen.

...there is much sound and fury here signifying very little, and loads of vile behavior, beginning with the rape but scarcely confined to it, to scant point.

In summarization, then, one of the only arguments defenders of the film have been able to come up with falls flat on its face. Paul Petersen, in the e-mail I received, dismantles another of the few arguments for the film: that a couple actresses have played similar roles in the past and "turned out fine." Petersen says:

They would prefer that we not remember that Jodi Foster was stalked by no less than John Hinckley (he eventually shot President Reagan) thanks to “Taxi Driver’s” imagery. Also affected was the other young performer always cited, Brooke Shields, who had to endure a terrifying stalker for fifteen years named Mark Ronald Bailey who was finally jailed in 2000. “Pretty Baby” and “Taxi Driver” were mainstream, big studio films.

Thirdly, and finally, Dakota Fanning is "mad" and she's letting people know about it. In other words, the film's makers, and Dakota's parents, are putting her out there to defend the movie and the choice to let Dakota act in it, because they can't. Roger Friedman in one of the previously mentioned Fox News articles articulated this well:

Meanwhile, the producers of Hounddog trotted out Fanning yesterday to defend the film in places like USA Today and at another press conference.
It’s come to that, apparently. The people who should be answering questions, however, are Fanning’s parents, and the parents of the other children in the film.

Now, I will address individually some of the things Dakota said:

When it gets to the point of attacking my mother, my agent ... my teacher, who were all on the set that day, that started to make me mad...
I can let other things go, but when people start to talk about my mother, like, that's really bad in my opinion ... that's an attack, and that's not fair.

It's both cute and sad to see Dakota defending her mother. Cute, because all children should do, and should be expected to do, the same thing. Sad, because, well, honestly, how much does Dakota's mother deserve to be defended? It's sad, because Dakota can't see that many of these people criticizing her mom are being more responsible, with better priorities, and more protective than her mom is being.
Now, I do not condone any movements calling for her mother to be arrested. I think that is overreaching and counter-productive. Overreaching, because it won't happen, and counter-productive, because Dakota needs a godly mother, not no mother at all. But, the facts speak for themselves: Dakota's mother wants an Oscar and wants Dakota to "be challenged" and "grow up" as an actress; people like myself care for Dakota and other children. I'm not saying that Dakota's mother doesn't care, just that her priorities may be effecting her judgment.

Fanning also said she would recommend seeing Hounddog to her friends, with their parents' approval, because of the issues supposedly presented in this film that her friends might face, or might have already faced. As well, she said she would want to go see the film, even if she wasn't in it, and that her mother would take her.

First of all, about recommending it to her friends. The "with their parents" approval is a gigantic disclaimer, but look: Dakota would have wanted to see it, even if she wasn't in it; her mother would have let her; and Dakota would recommend it to her friends.
But what about your little sister, Dakota? No? Who gets to make that judgment call? You?

Secondly, it's again cute and sad. Because, rightfully so, Dakota is making her mom the moral authority. Unfortunately, is she trustworthy with that power?

You know, I'm an actress. It's what I want to do, it's what I've been so lucky to have done for almost seven years now. And I am getting older.

Here's something Dakota doesn't understand. Your occupation doesn't give you license to do something wrong. That's like a military sharpshooter killing innocent civilians, saying, "I'm a sharpshooter. That's what I do." Also, your occupation doesn't insulate you from any negative emotional effect. Even Coast Guard rescue swimmers can have fearful flashbacks of missions gone awry. They are not insulated from the tragedy of occasional failure.

Fanning also said that she would want to see this movie, even if she wasn't it, because it's educational.

I'm going to be a freshman in high school in September, and I think it would be irresponsible of my parents not to let me know of things that happen and to try not to get yourself in uncomfortable situations. It's educational.

Wow! A freshman in high-school, Dakota? Slap a stamp on me and call me an envelope. Why didn't you say so? You're practically a member of AARP!
In all seriousness, though the director of the film called Dakota an "old soul" and someone else stated that she is "12 going on 45," she's twelve. Period. Secondly, since when do movies become our source for education? Kids shouldn't learn about the birds and the bees at the theater, and they shouldn't learn about the corruption of the "birds and the bees," either--as in, rape, child molestation, etc. It should be the parents doing the teaching on that topic, and maybe a little can be gotten from books.
Plus the fact, that again, this movie isn't that educational.

Phew...I know that was long. I hope you were able to read it all. I'm going to leave with you with another call to keep praying and keep spreading the word about this issue. In the words of Paul Petersen:

Now we have to worry about images of Dakota showing up on the Internet. We all need to pray for her safety.

Pray for her safety, and pray for all aspects of this situation. I encourage you to go to A Minor Consideration and thank Paul Petersen personally for the work he and his organization is doing. Also, this article aforementioned by Kathleen Parker is very good, and witty. I encourage you to read it in its entirety.

~Kingdom Advancer

Updates (Round 5) on "Wrong in So Many Ways"

2007-01-23T18:52:00.000-05:00

Well, Hounddog has now been screened at the Sundance Film Festival. That is a disappointment, but we should not be too discouraged.

Jeanine Pirro, the Republican D.A. in New York, who personally saw the screening, was on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes. She said that the outrage and analysis of the movie was completely overblown (by people like us). She said that there "was no touching," Dakota was only shown "from the shoulders up," and that the rape "was made in the editing room."

This is not a reason to be disappointed with ourselves, thinking that we overreacted. If, indeed, the movie is not as graphic as once thought, this is a victory, albeit a small one. Sean Hannity aptly pointed out that the movie went through 29 hours of re-editing. It is very likely that the film, if it in fact is "cleaner" than anticipated, was sanitized due to criticism. For instance, the Pirro on Fox News' made no mention of the mutual masturbation scene that was reportedly filmed involving Dakota. Hmm..... Where did that scene go, I wonder?

Not everyone shares the same opinion with Pirro, however. This is what Roger Friedman said on FoxNews.com:
Right away, I will tell you: 12-year-old Dakota Fanning plays a girl who endures a graphically suggested rape. If that’s not enough, she is also filmed sleeping dreamily while a half dozen real snakes slither all over her.
The rape scene, no matter how it’s spun, is disturbing and unsettling in fictional terms. In real life, though, it’s creepier to think that Dakota’s parents considered this a scene that was appropriate for their daughter.
...
That her moves are suggestive is another matter altogether. The director seems to be implying that Lewellen is almost asking for her rape by a 20-year-old boy who delivers the family’s milk.
It’s either that or Lewellen should be allowed to act seductively without fear of being attacked. Either way, the arguments do not stand up.

And here's a correction, courtesy of this article: the rape in the movie isn't incest. My apologies for the mistake. It appears that, while being abused by her father, she is raped by "a 20-year-old boy who delivers the family's milk."

Although sanitation--once again, if it did occur--is a partial victory, it is not complete. There are still many problematic questions with this film.
It still has the potential to turn on pedophiles. What about that?

Whas was actually filmed, as in, what got left on the cutting room floor? It's not just what made it in the film that counts, but what was made FOR the film.

If the rape was "made in the editing room," why would Dakota's mom and agent expect an Oscar? Actresses, not editors, generally win Oscars for "Best Actress." Unless, of course, the rest of the acting in the movie was just that good.

If the rape was "made in the editing room," why was the role so reportedly "challenging" for Dakota?

What about coaching? Was she coached through the scene? What exactly did Dakota have to act out?

I believe that I heard that the filming of the scene took place over several days. The scene was that long? Or, there were that many camera angles and that much unused footage? They made Dakota dwell on the scene--the topic--for days?

Either the director or Fanning's agent (I can't remember) made a comment that Dakota was dancing around the set after filming the scene because she knew she had done such a good job. What had she done? Or, was this comment referring to a different scene?

Then, there's the ultimate question, which Sean Hannity raised: Can a rape scene with a 12-year-old girl ever be done tastefully? I don't think so. But, for the sake of discussion, if so, who gets to arbitrarily draw the line between a "tasteful" rape scene and an "untasteful" one?
Also, the questions still remain: what lessons did Dakota learn? What fame is worth? What did she find out that she shouldn't know about yet?
This is still, in all likelihood, child abuse. Child porn? That's more of a question now, although we don't know what's on the uncut reel.

So, ultimately, most--if not all--of the points in my original article continue to ring true now that the movie is out, even if what people like Pirro say is true.

We need to continue to pray for Dakota. Also, prayer needs to be made for Dakota's parents, who should be discouraged and/or hindered from her full-speed-ahead pursuit of fame for their daughter. They, and their daughter, need to find God. As well, this needs to be a springboard to talk about what's acceptable and what's not in the arena of entertainment. The efforts and outrage MUST continue. Legal action, if it is taken, will take a while to unfold, but that's still a possibility. The makers of the film need to be pressured to release all footage, not just what they decided to let the public see. They will do this if they are truly innocent. The battle to block the screening is over...but we need to remember that the war--for souls, society, and justice--is ongoing.

Also, this should be a conversation-starter for the topic of child-rape and abuse. People like myself have been criticized as "trying to avoid the topic." Well, that's obviously off-base, but if you want to talk about it, let's talk about it, not shoot a movie about it.

In conclusion, let's hope and pray that the movie is not as bad as feared and that it won't have the suspected results, but let's also work and pray that there are still consequences for the making of this movie, and that it will be severely discouraged from happening again. Having not seen it myself, that's all I can say for now.

~Kingdom Advancer

Keep praying...keep talking...

Updates (Round 4) on "Wrong in So Many Ways"

2007-01-22T23:02:00.000-05:00

Well, Hounddog has now been screened at the Sundance Film Festival. That's unfortunate and disappointing, but it is neither a reason to give up nor to be too discouraged.

I will try to post a complete update soon.

~Kingdom Advancer

The battle to block the screening is over...but we need to remember that the war--for souls, society, and justice--is ongoing. And the battle over Hounddog is not over yet either.

Updates (Round 3) on "Wrong in So Many Ways"

2007-01-20T19:30:00.000-05:00

Although I thought I had covered all the bases, there are some jewels of points made by bloggers out there, and I wanted to share them with you.

First up: A person who listed his/herself simply as "Mad" commented with this profound point over at Revitalize Our Youth:

Don't they think about young girls who have been raped? How will this affect them? I don't think they understand what this will do to victims.

HCdl pointed this out in his article over at Faultline USA (Read article here) and in the same article at Wake Up America:

If Hollywood wants to make a movie demonizing child sexual abuse, that's fine. THIS AIN'T IT.

Third up: Also at Wake Up America, Debbie said this:

Remember, she has a younger sister, El Fanning I think is her name, just as talented. Is this what the little sister is going to see her bigger sister doing?

Fourth up: From right here at Kingdom Advancing, Austin commented with this:

Look at Lindsay Lohan. In The Parent Trap she was just a cute little kid. Now she's in rehab.

We should all note the astronomical difference between The Parent Trap and Hounddog.

Fifth up: Also right here at Kingdom Advancing, Solameanie made this astute inquiry:

...why is it that liberals always want to defend the indefensible?

Now, I'm not going to say that all liberals are defending this movie, but we know that some are.

Finally: I've been told twice that I shouldn't be "giving this movie free publicity," but rather should "just ignore it." These two comments are how I replied:

What you say is true, to a certain extent. But the fact is, the pedophiles are going to see this movie, whether I talk about it or not. Dakota Fanning was abused, and will have to live with this film, and the memories of making it, for the rest of her life, whether I talk about it or not. If this film goes by unscathed, more like it will be made, whether I talk about it or not. Some people are going to see it and "open doors" that shouldn't be opened, whether I talk about it or not. So, while I see your point, I think that the good of talking about it and trying to take action against it outweighs the bad. We have to stop films like these and protect the children abused in them, not just ignore them.

It's too late for that [not giving it publicity] now I guess, isn't it? In all seriousness though, I think you all are misled in your strategy. This movie is a violation of law: should we ignore that? This movie is child abuse, and possibly child porn: should we ignore that? This movie is fodder for pedophiles: should we ignore that? I do not think so. As Christians, we are to be preservatives in the culture--not escapists. Ignoring something, in this case, is neglect--neglect of a child, and neglect of our society as a whole. Also, you need to recognize a simple "risk-reward" ratio. If Christians remain quiet, the pedophiles will go see this movie, the makers will get off scotch-free, and Dakota Fanning will come up on the short end of the stick, as well as other child actors in the future, and our society as a whole--the entertainment industry in particular. If Christians do speak out, and pray, like I have been beseeching everyone to do, this movie could very well be blocked, depriving pedophiles of a film, punishing the makers of the movie, and protecting a young girl as much as can be done at this point. If Christians talk about this and pray, but it's not God's will to block the film from being first released, action could still be taken afterwards, and Dakota and her family will need our prayers nonetheless. And, even if all seems to fail, how many people, that I have alerted, do you think are going to see this movie, thereby giving it money? One? Maybe. Two? Probably not. I see your concern, because I considered it. But I was able to quickly dismiss it. I hope you will too, because I would love to have you praying about it.

Only one more for me to say right now: Keep praying...keep blogging...keep spreading the word.

~Kingdom Advancer

Updates (Round 2) on "Wrong in So Many Ways"

2007-01-19T18:31:00.000-05:00

Time for more updates.

First, and most importantly, is that I'm hearing conflicting reports about when the movie is coming out. Originally, I heard "next week at the Sundance Film Festival." Then, "this week at the Sundance Film Festival." Followed by "January 18th," and now, finally, "January 22." Let's hope the latter is true. That still leaves time to stop this film in its "hound dog" tracks. Here are the two places I saw the "January 22" report: Christian Worldview Network and The Detroit News. The Detroit News' article mentions a fact that I've known about, but have failed to mention: this is not the first film Dakota Fanning has acted in that most people wouldn't let a 12-year-old see. She's been in Hide and Seek, called a "slasher" film; War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise, a sci-fi thriller/horror; and Man on Fire with Denzel Washington, an intense R-rated movie. What does this show? That it seems that her parents have been irresponsible in their pursuit of fame for their daughter before this incident, although the case could be well made that filming such stories is not nearly intense as watching them. But it also should be noted that even these roles don't seem to compare to that of Hounddog.

Secondly, I've seen a couple of interesting articles on this movie that were written a long time ago (August and September). Things have been known about this film for a while. Let's hope these "fired-up" efforts--like this one I've tried to start--are not too little, too late.

Dakota Fanning 'raped' in new film, dated August 7th, 2006, talks about the potential legal ramifications that the makers of this movie could face. It also talks about the writer-director's past, and more. Here are some of the most thought-provoking excerpts:

...to make such a scene could be first-degree sexual exploitation of a child, a charge on the same level with armed robbery...

World Entertainment News Network said the movie was a shocker for Fanning's fans.

...the actress' agent, Joy Osbrink, told the New York Daily News, fans shouldn't worry.
"It's not just the rape scene – the whole story is challenging Dakota as an actress. And I've never been so proud of her in my life. I've seen the dailies, and in every scene she gets better and better."

Shouldn't worry, huh? Sounds just like an agent, and not a responsible adult looking after an impressionable child.

On Screen Pedophilia Destroying Our Young, posted September 11, 2006 and written by Ted Baehr, pretty much talks about what the title implies. It talks about "the downfall of Dakota"--jumping the gun, we can only pray, although she's definitely headed down that path. The powerful punchline to the article is this:

We need to pray for...Dakota so that [she] will be gripped by the Hand of God instead of the Jaws of Satan. [Her life needs] to be transformed by Jesus Christ so that [she] will not seek the rewards of men, but so that [she] will seek to win for the Lamb of God the rewards of His suffering.

The article also gives statistics of a poll that say that the majority of 12- to 17-year-olds "are offended by sexual material in movies and TV programs." I don't know if that's completely accurate, but the article is a good read anyway, trying to explain what's with the downfall of so many young stars.

That's all I have for now. Keep praying and raising awareness...

~Kingdom Advancer

Updates of Article "Wrong in So Many Ways"

2007-01-19T14:48:00.000-05:00

Here are some updates on the situation:

First of all, I read that the movie was set to debut yesterday, but I have not heard word about whether it has indeed come out yet. Even if it has, prayers and actions need to continue to transpire.

Secondly, I would recommend you checking out Paul Petersen's site and organization, "A Minor Consideration." He writes some good things, like this:

It now appears Dakota Fanning was wearing a flesh-tone body suit (or a two piece suit) when she acted out the rape scene in "Hound Dog." Defenders of the production company were silent for two weeks when the controversy erupted, and now offer up this "cover up," days later, as proof that they were, in fact, concerned about the propriety of wardrobe worn in this rape scene using the talents of a twelve year-old child. These same voices are silent about what Dakota was wearing when she filmed the mutual masturbation scene. I keep pointing out to these people that it wasn't what Dakota was wearing, but what she was doing!

He then goes on to explain why this movie has him so bothered. Read the whole article "Pretending Leads to Reality" here. He also wrote another article. See that here.

Sean Hannity has been a loud and clear voice on this topic. Today on his website, his "free audio clip of the day" is about this topic. Go to his website by clicking here.

Sean Hannity also revealed on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes show last night that Hounddog is not the only movie to catch your eye with its subject matter at this year's Sundance Film Festival. He noted that the material ranges from bestiality to other...demented stuff, to sum it up in a couple of words.

Read the conversation that was had with actress Janine Turner here.

I'll try to update as I hear or see things.

Keep praying...

~Kingdom Advancer

Wrong in So Many Ways

2007-01-17T22:45:00.000-05:00

Indecent. Inappropriate. Inexcusable. Irresponsible. Unacceptable. Unwise. Unlawful. Those are just a handful of the adjectives that come to mind when I think about the controversial film Hound Dog, starring Dakota Fanning. Yet to be released, being planned to come out during this week's Sundance Film Festival, this movie is causing an uproar because of its [insert preferred above adjective here] subject matter.

In the movie, 12-year-old rising actress Dakota Fanning plays a girl who is sexually promiscuous, and who is abused by her father throughout the movie, culminating in an intense and graphic rape scene. Apparently, Dakota's parents approved of the role.

Allow me to repeat myself in short, fragmented sentences for clarity. 12-year-old. Sexually promiscuous. Rape scene. Graphic. Intense. Parents approved. Yanking your hair out yet?

This is wrong and [insert preferred aforementioned adjective here] in so many ways, and something should be done about it. I'm doing my part right here. I'll tell you how to do yours a bit later.

First, let's look at some of the problems with the movie. Then, we'll look at some of the defenses being put forth for the film and how they are easily refuted.

1. Child Porn--Good For No One.
I don't want to rail on this point too much, because some are saying that this isn't porn, because young Fanning is filmed only from the chest up, "in the shadows," and in a full-body suit (like that makes a difference.) However, in case it is:
They say it only takes the first drink to become an alcoholic. Perhaps that first drink could come accidentally. It seems to me that the same could go for child porn and related issues. I'm not saying that people are out of control and that every viewer is going to become a pervert, but what I'm saying is that the negative effects will almost certainly outweigh the positive. No matter how the specific acts and scenes are portrayed, the images potentiallly will open doors that should remain forever shut. Whether it's an 11-year-old boy or a 40-year-old man, no one needs to see a 12-year-old girl naked, or appearing naked, on the big screen, especially when in a sexual sitiuation.

2. Against the Law.
Is that clear enough? Another abstract point at this time, but Ted Baehr and others think that this film could be a violation of federal and state child-porn and/or abuse laws. I tend to agree.

3. Feeding the Appetites of Pedophiles.
We can't always concern ourselves with how deranged minds will twist things that we say or do, but this film is absolutely asking for it. Again, regardless of portrayal, this film will likely arouse and spur on pedophiles. They probably won't care if the father in this film is portrayed as "bad" or "evil"--they are pedophiles for crying out loud!
And, worse yet, their new fantasies could very well be about little Dakota. Scary.

4. Parents, Priorities, and Perversion.
Allegedly, Fanning's parents approved of this role for their daughter because they wanted/want her to "be a star" and possibly "win an Oscar." If this is, in fact, the truth, it is a sad state of affairs. It's not only a sick testimony of Dakota's stardom-obsessed parents--and child star parents in general--but also of the Oscars themselves. Hopefully the Oscars will be a dignified awards ceremony and not give this film a second-glance.

5. Desensitization/ Slippery Slope.
If this movie is a success, it will only spawn clones, if not worse movies yet. America has already been desensitized to foul language; explicit and promiscuous sex; gruesome, graphic, and mindless violence; and death. Shall we allow our society to become desensitized to rape scenes, and child rape, at that? Let's hope and pray we will not. We must stand up for something some time in the entertainment industry. We cannot allow this corrosion of any sense of decency or moral values to continue.

6. Protecting Dakota and Other Young Actresses.

This is the biggest and most stressed point. Although Dakota Fanning has already been put through enough during filming, it needs to stop right here, and no other young actress should be subject to it. It is child-abuse most definitely--irresponsible behavior to put it lightly. Some might say that it is not abuse because Dakota consented, and is being paid. But, as former-child actor Paul Petersen noted on Fox News, a child like Dakota cannot give informed consent, and even her parents don't have that right. Abuse is abuse. Here are some points to ponder:

--Sean Hannity, of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, noted that many former child stars have had problems later in life. But, few, if any, have been filmed in rape scenes.

--A guest on Hannity & Colmes pointed out that, once this movie comes out--if it indeed does--it will never disappear...ever. Dakota will have to live with it for the rest of her life.

--Alan Colmes, of Hannity & Colmes, quoted Fanning as saying that she is able to separate herself from her role. However, it's a completely different thing to separate yourself from the story of Charlotte's Web, or even the monsters of War of the Worlds, than the subject matter of Hound Dog.

Also, the formerly mentioned Fox News guest pointed out that even if Dakota handles this seamlessly, this film has the ability to clear the path for other productions. What about other young actresses?

--Dakota is too young. Plain and simple. The ever-earlier loss of innocence nowadays is not a good thing. Getting a gun and learning how to shoot it can be a very good thing at the right time, but not sooner.

Dakota Fanning is near the threshold of learning about sex, but definitely not acting in a promiscuous role, or acting and learning about complex issues like rape and parental abuse .

The aforementioned Petersen made another good point, saying that directors talk children through emotional scenes. How un-imaginable is it to think of her being talked through this rape scene? The effects could be absolutely detrimental.

Another thing to recognize is the potential life-lessons Dakota could take from this: what is fame worth? Your body? Your morals? Your social and mental health?

One of the biggest defenses of the film is the question, "Well, should this issue never be addressed?" Well, it has been noted by others that such an issue can be addressed in a totally different way while still being effective. Also, it doesn't have to involve a 12-year-old. Some might say that these stories need to be told to have a positive effect. True. But, in this way, water needs to be drank, not shot in the face by a firehose.

Another defense of the movie is that "It's pretend. She wasn't really raped." Well, I should hope not! But that's beside the point! There are many other significant potential results. And, besides, you can "pretend" that a knife is a cavity-causing, sugary lollipop. Just because it's not really a lollipop that will cause cavities, doesn't mean that it won't do damage when stuck into the mouth! (or vice-versa)

Thirdly, I've heard that "It's drama. Drama is often ugly. Etc.." Very true. But that gives no license to break the law, exploit and endanger a child and her future, and abandon decency!

A similar defense to the last one is that it is "art," and the government shouldn't get involved. Cause that would be censorship, right? Yeah, right. That's simply utterly ridiculous. This is child-abuse, and it you can't hide from that behind the title of "art." As well, this type of argument would mean anyone could have simulated sex with a minor as long as they stuck a rolling camera in from of them.

Now, for a three-question survey:
Would you let your daughter, or some other young girl close to you, play in such a role?
Would you make such a movie?
Would you go see such a movie?

If you said "No" or even "Probably no" to those three questions, you've established the wrongness in your mind of this film.
Then, one more question: Can you see the potential causes and results that I postulated?

Answer "Yes" to that, and you should feel obligated and motivated to action. But, what should you do?

First off, don't see, buy, or rent this film. That's the foremost and easiest thing to do. The makers of this movie want money, fame, and exposure of themselves and their work. Don't give it to them. If this movie is a success, as I stated beforehand, it will only encourage the makers and other filmmakers to produce more of the same kind of flicks, if not even more "edgy." This movie needs to bomb, if it comes out at all. (Hopefully it will be cancelled from its release.) I didn't even want to mention it by name and thereby give it publicity, but I felt that it was a necessary evil.

This boycott is not an end in and of itself, however. The claim, "If you don't like what's in the movie, just don't see it," is not sufficient. It's like, if there were a serial killer who killed people in restrooms, rather than trying to catch and stop the killer, saying, "If you don't want to be murdered, just don't use the restroom."
So, secondly, we must pray. First off, pray that this film will be successfully blocked from coming out. Pray for those to be effective who have more legal and public clout than we do. Pray that the movie will be an extreme failure. But if that be not God's plan, pray that the movie won't open any doors that some will walk through. Pray for the children who may become targets as a result of this film--that God will protect them. Pray for Dakota Fanning. Pray for her parents, who need a wake-up call from God. Ultimately, pray that God's will be done.

Thirdly, take action. One way to do this is by blogging about the subject. I beseech you to link to this article in one of your own posts. Link to the site(s) [for further action] that I will try to list shortly. Raise awareness throughout the blogosphere by commenting and e-mailing others.
The other thing to do is to support efforts made against this film. I will try to post them in the near future.

Never Retreat. Always Advance. If God Be For Us, Why Should We Surrender?

Source: Fox News

~Kingdom Advancer

Updates:

January 19, 2007

Here are some updates on the situation:

First of all, I read that the movie was set to debut yesterday, but I have not heard word about whether it has indeed come out yet. Even if it has, prayers and actions need to continue to transpire.

Secondly, I would recommend you checking out Paul Petersen's site and organization, "A Minor Consideration." He writes some good things, like this:

It now appears Dakota Fanning was wearing a flesh-tone body suit (or a two piece suit) when she acted out the rape scene in "Hound Dog." Defenders of the production company were silent for two weeks when the controversy erupted, and now offer up this "cover up," days later, as proof that they were, in fact, concerned about the propriety of wardrobe worn in this rape scene using the talents of a twelve year-old child. These same voices are silent about what Dakota was wearing when she filmed the mutual masturbation scene. I keep pointing out to these people that it wasn't what Dakota was wearing, but what she was doing!

He then goes on to explain why this movie has him so bothered. Read the whole article "Pretending Leads to Reality" here. He also wrote another article. See that here.

Sean Hannity has been a loud and clear voice on this topic. Today on his website, his "free audio clip of the day" is about this topic. Go to his website by clicking here.

Sean Hannity also revealed on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes show last night that Hounddog is not the only movie to catch your eye with its subject matter at this year's Sundance Film Festival. He noted that the material ranged from bestiality to other...demented stuff, to sum it up in a word.

Read the conversation that was had with actress Janine Turner here.

I'll try to update as I hear or see things.

Keep praying...

More Updates:

January 19, 2007 (7:15 p.m.)

Time for more updates.

First, and most importantly, is that I'm hearing conflicting reports about when the movie is coming out. Originally, I heard "next week at the Sundance Film Festival." Then, "this week at the Sundance Film Festival." Followed by "January 18th," and now, finally, "January 22." Let's hope the latter is true. That still leaves time to stop this film in its "hound dog" tracks. Here are the two places I saw the "January 22" report: Christian Worldview Network and The Detroit News. The Detroit News' article mentions a fact that I've known about, but have failed to mention: this is not the first film Dakota Fanning has acted in that most people wouldn't let a 12-year-old see. She's been in Hide and Seek, called a "slasher" film; War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise, a sci-fi thriller/horror; and Man on Fire with Denzel Washington, an intense R-rated movie. What does this show? That it seems that her parents have been irresponsible in their pursuit of fame for their daughter before this incident, although the case could be well made that filming such stories is not nearly intense as watching them. But it also should be noted that even these roles don't seem to compare to that of Hounddog.

Secondly, I've seen a couple of interesting articles on this movie that were written a long time ago (August and September). Things have been known about this film for a while. Let's hope these "fired-up" efforts--like this one I've tried to start--are not too little, too late.

Dakota Fanning 'raped' in new film, dated August 7th, 2006, talks about the potential legal ramifications that the makers of this movie could face. It also talks about the writer-director's past, and more. Here are some of the most thought-provoking excerpts:

...to make such a scene could be first-degree sexual exploitation of a child, a charge on the same level with armed robbery...

World Entertainment News Network said the movie was a shocker for Fanning's fans.

...the actress' agent, Joy Osbrink, told the New York Daily News, fans shouldn't worry.
"It's not just the rape scene – the whole story is challenging Dakota as an actress. And I've never been so proud of her in my life. I've seen the dailies, and in every scene she gets better and better."

Shouldn't worry, huh? Sounds just like an agent, and not a responsible adult looking after an impressionable child.

On Screen Pedophilia Destroying Our Young, posted September 11, 2006 and written by Ted Baehr, pretty much talks about what the title implies. It talks about "the downfall of Dakota"--jumping the gun, we can only pray, although she's definitely headed down that path. The powerful punchline to the article is this:

We need to pray for...Dakota so that [she] will be gripped by the Hand of God instead of the Jaws of Satan. [Her life needs] to be transformed by Jesus Christ so that [she] will not seek the rewards of men, but so that [she] will seek to win for the Lamb of God the rewards of His suffering.

The article also gives statistics of a poll that say that the majority of 12- to 17-year-olds "are offended by sexual material in movies and TV programs." I don't know if that's completely accurate, but the article is a good read anyway, trying to explain what's with the downfall of so many young stars.

That's all I have for now. Keep praying and raising awareness...

Updates (Round 3):
January 20, 2007 (7:30 p.m.)

Updates (Round 5)

January 23, 2007 (7:15 p.m.)

Racism: Ill-Biblical

2007-01-13T18:15:00.000-05:00

It’s been one of the few main stains that have blemished our great country. It’s been around, haunting us, since virtually the beginning of this young nation. It shows itself in slavery, in discrimination, in violence, and in groundless side-taking. It’s shameful, and truly a sign of the fallen nature of mankind. It’s racism. For Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, what better topic could I come up with?

Racism has actually been establishing itself ever since the Tower of Babel, when God scrambled the people’s languages and spread them over the face of the earth. (Genesis 11:7-8) Apparently, people started to think that their scrambled language, their lands which they were scattered to, and they themselves were better than those unlike them. Racism shows itself on a more personal level today—rather than countries going to war against each other—because of the integration of persons in communities. This way, it can be shown in both big ways and small. This is especially true when speaking of America—the melting pot of the world.

The truly grieving thing about racism is the way it seems to be prevalent even in heavily Christian societies and regions. We know that America, in its beginnings and even until now, has been a severely Christian nation--at least in comparison to others--built upon Christian principles by Christian people. The South has long been a center of Christianity in America—a symbol of traditional, faithful believing. Yet these two places—America as a whole and the South as a region—have been and still are—to a certain extent—hot stoves of racism, and the acts that ensue from such a sentiment. This is sad, for it is damaging to the Gospel by setting a bad example to unbelievers, and it is sad because it raises the question of how many of these “Christians” were and are actually in a proper relationship with God.

The thing that is so confounding about this hypocritical cohabitation of beliefs and feelings is that not only is the Bible sufficiently clear on the topic of racism, but racism is simply ILLOGICAL when you take an intelligent look at the Bible. Hence my title: Ill-Biblical. Then, there’s the fact that—even if racism wasn’t addressed in the Bible, and even if racism was not dealt with by implication in the Bible—the RESULTS of racism are ALSO addressed by God in His Word.

Allow me to demonstrate:

There is only one race. This is becoming scientifically recognized. The only race is the human race. We all came from two people: Adam and Eve. We all came from one God and Creator. We are all made in His image. (Genesis 1:26-27) God made humans complete. We are not evolving upwards and we have not been evolving upwards. We did not evolve upwards in order to gain “image of God” status. That was immediate, as we were created on the sixth day. (Genesis 1:23-28) Therefore, no sect of humans is “more human” or “less human” than others, despite what a Hitler may think about the Jews or the KKK about blacks.
The fact is that skin color is only skin deep. It has no deeper significance—in reality—than eye color or hair color, and yet few war or spit epithets about those two things. Is it only because skin is the largest organ of the body? Is it because it reminds man, subconsciously, that as he was building a tower to the sky, God showed him that he could do nothing without God’s allowance?
After the aforementioned Tower of Babel instance, when peoples were spread across the earth, their bodies naturally developed different skin tones, within their genetic potential set by God—either to absorb as much sun and Vitamin D as possible (pale tone), or to block out the harmful rays (dark tone). Other things are different about different peoples as well, such as eye shape. This can be a point of racial tension, as Orientals are made fun of sometimes for their elliptically shaped eyes. But such a small factor rarely exerts such a large reaction.
God makes it clear that He cares little for outward appearances. “…for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7) If cultural nuances are what causes such racial divisions, the Lord makes it clear that he makes no distinction in this sense either. “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him.” (Romans 10:12) “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28) “…a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.” (Colossians 3:11) If past run-ins with a specific cultural group is what causes the disdain, we are reminded that, as Christians, we are to forgive as our Father forgives us. (Matthew 18:23-35)

So, if people physically and culturally different than you or me are equally human—we are all ultimately brothers and sisters biologically and hereditarily—and if all can be equally in Christ, then what then? Where does any prejudice like this belong in the Christian's life? Where do the acts that follow belong? Where does the hate belong? NOWHERE. After all, the Bible tells us not to hate.

On the contrary, we are to LOVE. Love our neighbors (Matthew 22:39)—as ourselves; love our enemies (Matthew 5:44)—and bless them; love our brothers and sisters in Christ—as Christ loves us. (John 15:12) We are to be at peace WITH ALL MEN, as far as it depends on us. (Romans 12:18)

The world is making progress on the front of racism and prejudice. But this is only temporary, and artificial. It can never be fully defeated by purely worldly, fallen attempts. Part of the world's seeming victory over the former division between cultures and "races" is because it is fading into the background to allow a much deeper division to come to the forefront--those who are Christians, and those who are not. "You will be hated by all because of My name." (Matthew 10:22)
Any worldly progress on the racism front is either--as I said--temporary and artificial, or it is another sign of the End Times, as the nations of the world move to a one-world, "one people" government system.

So, how do we truly fix the problem? How can we and the world be saved from this? There’s only one way: “I can do all things through Christ Who strengthens me.” (Philippians 4:13) While Christ says, “Apart from Me, you can do nothing.” (John 15:5) “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) Ultimately, the only efficient answer is Christ.

~Kingdom Advancer

Should We Eat Meat?

2007-01-10T16:36:00.000-05:00

I’m sure most parents would love if their children took to heart the lessons that I learned and wrote about from Charlotte’s Web. But, unfortunately, most children—and adults, really—probably won’t read that deep into things. Instead, they possibly will be left screaming at the dinner table, “I WON’T EAT WILBUR!!!” Just as children wanted to flush "their Nemos" down the toilet so they could "be free" after seeing Finding Nemo.

This brings to my mind the usually docile topic of herbivore versus omnivore, vegetarian versus meat-eater, etc.

Most Christians agree—for good reason—that eating meat is acceptable. Those who refrain from such a habit generally do so either because of preference or health. However, two more reasons can pervade the vegetarians mind: first, that eating animals is wrong BECAUSE of cruelty to animals as they are processed. In this way, it is an act of principle upon the meat industries. This, when taken to reasonable lengths and not to extremes, illustrates the Christian principles of stewardship, mercy, etc.. The other reason is that eating animals is just plain WRONG. This stereotypically comes from the belief that we are basically equal to animals. Although the Christian instinct immediately sounds off on this notion—and rightfully so—all of us are affected by it a little bit. Can you really see slicing your cat up and frying her in butter? Even if you are starving? I didn’t think so. Then there is the other thing we have to own up to: back when this world was flawless, animals were not eaten, and one day they will no longer be eaten. Do we not wish to “think on things above” (Colossians 3:2) and be “perfect, as our Father in heaven is perfect” by fostering habits that can continue for all of eternity?

Although I doubt that these problems I just posed will stop you from picking up a hamburger today, the question must be addressed: how do we resolve this issue?

I believe that the answer is three-pronged: first, we must look at what the Bible says about eating meat; this we will do by taking a short-trip through the Bible. Secondly, we must look at animals’ place in the world—the proverbial “chain”—and how they should be viewed. Thirdly, and finally, we can look very briefly at the health factor.

To begin, let’s take a summarized trip through the Bible to see how God has addressed the topic of carnivorous humans over the millenniums.

1. BEFORE THE FALL.
Animals were not eaten, for there was no death at all (Romans 8:20-22) and man was in harmony with the animals, so much so that God brought forth all the animals to Adam before creating Eve, a “helper suitable for him.” (Genesis 2:18-20) Adam and Eve had all the pleasure, and nutritional value needed (Genesis 2:9) through fruits—and probably vegetables, as well.

2. AFTER THE FLOOD
Death had entered into the world through the curse (Genesis 3:14 ; 3:17 ; 3:19 ; 3:21 ; Romans 8:20-22). God partially cleansed the wickedness of the world through the Flood, allowing only Noah, his family, and at least two of every kind of animal to survive. (Genesis 6-8) After the Flood, God gave humans permission to eat meat, although it appears that that might already have been occurring (Genesis 4:2 ; 4:10). He said they could eat any animal, as long as they did not eat its blood. (Genesis 9:3-4) [This was a temporary provision, as we will see.] The formerly close relationship with undomesticated (“wild”) animals was severed. (Genesis 9:2)

3. LEVITICAL AND DEUTERONOMICAL LAWS.
God later put in place precise definitions of “unclean” and “clean” animals. (Leviticus 11 ; Deuteronomy 14) That which were clean could be permissibly eaten; the unclean were not to be eaten. While the list contains animals we would likely never think of even taste-testing, such as “the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard,” (Leviticus 11:13 ; Deuteronomy 14:12) an animal on this “banned” list that 21st century humans often enjoy is the pig. (Leviticus 11:7 ; Deuteronomy 14:8) Another animal that God prohibited Israel from utilizing for food that we might occasionally—but not frequently—enjoy today is the rabbit. (Leviticus 11:6 ; Deuteronomy 14:7) Also, the rules to be followed for sea creatures are not fully followed today. (Leviticus 11:10-12 ; Deuteronomy 14:9-10) Other than that, most animals on this "X"-list would only be eaten now-a-days in some type of extreme emergency.
It should be noted that these commandments from God, although commands and NOT suggestions, ultimately were for both the physical and spiritual health of His people.

4. DANIEL’S EXAMPLE.
Daniel and his men refused the ration of King Nebuchadnezzar’s choice food and wine, not wanting to defile themselves, opting instead to be fed only vegetables and water. (Daniel 1) After ten days, Daniel and his men were healthier and fatter than those who had eaten the choice food.
Here we notice that, by implication, the king’s choice food probably consisted of meat—since Daniel asked to be fed only vegetables. By not wanting to “defile” himself, Daniel suggests that the meat was of the unclean variety.
Although there may be significant health implications to this story, it should be recognized that the moral of the story is most closely tied to the results of loyalty to God and His commands rather than assimilation to the pagans.

5. NEW TESTAMENT CLEANSING.
In the New Testament, Jesus cleanses all foods by telling us that it is not what enters into a man through his mouth that defiles Him. (Mark 7:18-23) “Thus He declares all foods clean.” (Mark 7:19) This sentiment is repeated in Acts at least twice: “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” (Acts 10:15; 11:9) Paul makes it clear that all foods are clean, though some don’t believe so: “I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” (Romans 14:14) Those who don’t believe are considered “weak in faith” (Romans 14:2), but they are not to be condemned, judged, or held with contempt (Romans 14:3,4, 13, 15). They are compelled to hold to their beliefs, because, “…he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23)
A good conclusion is Paul’s statement: “…the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 14:17)

6. AFTER THE RESTORATION.
Life in the “new heavens and the new earth” will not contain meat-eating. As the earth is restored to its original—non-fallen—state, death will once again cease and nature will finally have peace. (Romans 8:20-22)

So, we see that, for the Christian, eating the meat of ANY animal is inherently acceptable on the spiritual level. But, that doesn’t jump the mental hurdle and the other aspect—that of health.

What I mean by the mental hurdle is that, despite the fact that the Bible gives us permission to eat of any animal, the thought of killing another creature for one’s own survival—or pleasure—is still quite grotesque. The Christian should not be bothered by this internal sentiment: it is sin that brought such a state of existence, and it will one day end. But, remember that “God causes all things to work together for the good of those who love the Lord.” Therefore, we see that God has made meat-eating pleasurable and nutritionally prosperous.

Still, though, to truly be at peace with the idea of devouring another life, we need to look more closely at animals, and there place on this earth.

1.) First of all, as Christians, we should be very careful not to equate animals with human beings. Mankind is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26); animals are not. Men and women are more important to God than animals, although God does care for animals. (Matthew 10:29-31)
On the other hand: just because other animals are not made in the image of God, does not mean that they cannot exhibit attributes of God. For instance, a peaceful animal pictures the Prince of Peace; a graceful animal pictures God's grace; a ruling/authoritative animal pictures God's power and authority, etc., etc.. God often uses animals or parts of animals to describe Himself or His actions in analogical form.
Romans 1:20 could be interpreted in this way.

2.) Secondly, we should recognize that all animals—in fact, no animals—are like Wilbur, Babe, Bambi, Rudolph, Nemo, ad infinitum. By definition, these fictitious characters have been PERSONIFIED. In other words, they have artificially and fictitiously been made to be more like humans. Remove their ability to talk, and suddenly our attachment to them lessens. Remove other attributes generally reserved for humans and unobserved in specific creatures, and it lessens all the more. This is not to say that some animals don’t have great intelligence, personalities, or beauty and grace, for they most certainly do. It is to say that many animals do not match-up to a level of which we would easily feel a connection, and that no animals--at least that we frequently eat--match-up to the levels which would seriously cause us to rethink our philosophies—like, let’s say, little Wilbur or Bambi might cause a child to do.

3.) Thirdly, in relation to the second point, it should be noted that we personally personify animals—especially our pets. In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis writes about us actually MAKING THEM “MORE HUMAN.” By the way we treat them, whether it be hugs and kisses or an intimate conversation, we thereby make them more like us. To a certain extent, this may be literal. But, in a much more prevalent case, it is figurative and mental. It is more the relationship with the pet that is “personal” and “human,” and less the pet itself. (Atheists might say that this is the same case with a Christian’s “supposed” relationship with God, but that is a whole other bucket-load of shenanigans that I will not endeavor to dump out here.)
This is not to say that some animals aren’t more "LIKE" humans than others. Just as animals may demonstrate attributes of God--in their own finite ways--so they can show attributes of humans. And, certainly, relationships between humans and animals do exist, but these relationships most often and seriously exist involving dogs, cats, horses, or even creatures like dolphins. Rarely are these bonds formed between humans and…say, dung beetles. (Not that they are relevant to the discussion. Who eats them?) Also note that domesticated animals are, by definition, more like humans in many ways than wild animals that flee at the scent of human flesh, while, on the other hand, the dullness and dependence that frequently accompanies domesticated animals makes wild animals seem more human in that they illustrate mankind’s “wild-at-heart” nature and relative independence.
Looking at the previous points, we can come to a couple points of conclusion: first of all, eating a hamburger is not the same as eating your dog, although, if you live on a farm, you might fall in love with a baby calf. Cows mass-produced, fed, and transported suddenly become less personal and exert a less emphatic call for compassion. Similarly, eating chicken nuggets is not the same as eating your cat (or even your pet bird), although you heartstrings may be played like a harp when you hold a chick. Likewise, eating a salmon is not the same as eating a beluga whale. Eating a pig is not the same as eating a “Wilbur.” Compare the fictitious attributes of Wilbur and the relationship that Fern fostered with him to the competing pig in the County Fair. See what I mean?

This breakdown won’t end your or my qualms about slaughter-houses (merciful or not) or hunters, but it shouldn't. As I stated before, we should look forward to the day when Christ reigns, and death is no more. But it does put things into perspective.

That brings us to the last segment: health. Now, I am not a doctor or a health expert, so I am not going to pretend to be one here. But, eating meat clearly has its advantages and disadvantages. One of the most infamous disadvantages is cholesterol, while the classic advantage is red-blooded, American "strong bones and big muscles." Differentiations also must be made, though, between such things as coldwater fish with their greatly positive health effects, to bottom-feeding shellfish, catfish, farm-raised fish, etc., with their less than appealing nutritional contributions.

Considering they sell books on such things, I will not try to summarize one here. However, I will leave you with two passages that should motivate us to live healthfully.

"...do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body." (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

"Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Corinthians 10:31)

~Kingdom Advancer

Lessons Learned from Charlotte's Web

2007-01-06T17:16:00.000-05:00

Along the lines of a week ago, I went to see Charlotte's Web, the movie based off the classic children's novel by E.B. White. Let me tell you: this is a fantastic family film. Not only is it great entertainment for the whole family with wonderful production values, but it also is filled with Christian life lessons that can be carried from childhood through the grave into heaven. The voice acting is superb, with especially satisfying performances from the likes of Julia Roberts (as "Charlotte"), Robert Redford (as the horse--sorry, forgot his name), and Cedric the Entertainer (as "Golly"). Then, there's the always adorable Dakota Fanning as Fern. And added humor comes from two dimwitted crows.

The movie is spectacularly clean and inoffensive. You won't find so much as a distant euphamism in the language department; there doesn't appear to be even a subtle reference to anything evolutionary; and neither is there any underhanded, "to-entertain-the-adults" innuendo. Bathroom humor is the only thing in the movie which can be considered slightly "off-color," but in the end, you have to concede it: it's a kids' movie. What do you expect? And don't you really want to pick your battles better than that? But setting all those things aside, which in themselves make the movie a worthy entertainment pastime for the whole family, the story has many noble (and biblical) morals to teach, and it does so pretty well. In relatively random order, they are:

Sticking Up for Those Who Can't Stick Up for Themselves; Caring for Those Who Can't Care for Themselves: Fern rescued newborn Wilbur from the axe. He was going to be killed because he was a runt. Fern told her father, "It's unfair; he can't help being born small....Would you have killed me if I was born small?" That is perhaps one of the most powerful lines in the whole movie, when it is applied to the issue of abortion. Considering that Fern was just defending an innocent pig, how much more should we be motivated to defend an innocent child? (After all, “Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father...So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows." --Matthew 10:29,31 ; and God hates "hands that shed innocent blood..." --Proverbs 6:17)
Fern takes care of the pig, making the commitment to raise it.

"'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.' Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry...etc....?' The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'" (Matthew 25:35-40)

"Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress..." (James 1:27)

The Miracle of Creation: Talking about whether Charlotte's "wordy webs" are miracles, the doctor and Fern's mom have this conversation:

Doctor: The web itself is a miracle. Can you make a web?
Fern's mom: I can crochet a doylie.
Doctor: Yeah, because someone taught you to. Nobody taught a spider how to spin a web.

Creation itself is a miracle--an act of God--and that is why it is so amazing. Creation clearly displays the existence of the Creator.

"Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these." (Matthew 6:28)

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made..." (Romans 1:20)

Being Kind, Polite, Nice, Courteous, Complimentary, Warm, Friendly: After meeting someone and learning their names, Wilbur would always say, "Great name!" This is just one part of the congenial way in which he acted upon meeting someone new, and it illustrates the attributes which a Christian should show in relationships old and new. In the same train of thought, Charlotte compassionately befriended Wilbur, when it looked as if no one else would, though by doing so she was opening herself up for ridicule and humiliation.

"A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly." (Proverbs 18:24) [I know this is considered a mis-translation, but it rings true anyway.]

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control." (Galatians 5:22-23; bold added)

"So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience." (Colossians 3:12 ; bold added)

The True Meaning of Friendship: When Wilbur asks if all the barn animals are friends, Golly the gander replies, "Yeah, we've been here together all our lives." Wilbur then responds, "I'm not sure being in the same place is the same thing as being friends." This brings to light the topic of true friendship. The Bible says that "A friend loves at all times." (Proverbs 17:17) True friends shouldn't just like each other--they should LOVE each other. Therefore, the description of love in 1 Corinthians 13 should be adequate to explain how a friendship should work:

"Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek tis own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails..." (1 Corinthians 13:4-8)

Looking Past Stereotypes and Surface Details to See Inner Beauty: Wilbur was the first, but not the last, to look past Charlotte's creepy external appearance to see what's really important--her inner beauty. This is what God does, and this what we as Christians should do.

"Man looks at the outward appearance; but the Lord looks at the heart." (1 Samuel 16:7)

Be Like Children in Order to Inherit the Kingdom of God: Worried about whether Fern had a problem (by saying that the animals could talk and "tell the greatest stories"), Fern's mom went to the doctor. When asked if animals could possibly really talk, the doctor answers: "Maybe children just listen better." Perhaps we should pay closer attention to what God is trying to tell us through all things in life.

"Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3-4)

A Promise Made Should Be a Promise Kept: Charlotte promised Wilbur that she would make sure he got to see the winter snow. When questioned how she could save him, she essentially said that, although she didn't know what she was going to do, she had made a promise, and she always kept her promises.

"It is better that you should not vow than vow and not pay." (Ecclesiastes 5:5)

Granted, we, as Christians, should not vow or swear at all in the traditional sense. However, it is arguable whether or not promising is the same thing, and I will also note a couple of other things: God, Who is perfect, always keeps His promises. Do a Bible word search for the word "promise," and you will see many such statements as "just as [God] had promised." Then, Jesus tells us, “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48) In our pursuit to become more godly, we should keep the commitments we make, so help us God.

“But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go work today in the vineyard.’
“And he answered, ‘I will not’; but afterward he regretted it and went.
“The man came to the second and said the same thing; and he answered, ‘I will, sir’; but he did not go.
“Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes 1will get into the kingdom of God before you.
“For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him; but the tax collectors and prostitutes did believe him; and you, seeing this, did not even feel remorse afterward so as to believe him." (Matthew 21:28-32)

The Thought-Provoking "Natural Cycle of Life": When about to die, Charlotte states to Wilbur that it is the "natural cycle of life," saying, "We're born; we live; we die."
This should be a cause for great contemplation by every human being. Death will come; we cannot avoid it forever. But we can prepare, so that, although we are just "Flowers quickly fading," (Paraphrase of these passages, and more: Job 14:2 ; Isaiah 40:7 ; James 1:10-11 ; 1 Peter 1:24 ; etc.) and although "It is appointed men once to die and after this comes judgment," (Hebrews 9:27) we can say "O death, where is thy sting? O death, where is thy victory?" (1 Corinthians 15:55)

The Sacrificial Love of Friendship--Which Points to the Savior: Charlotte literally gave her life so that Wilbur could live, illustrating the sacrificial love of friendship. And, in this way, though a weak picture at best, it points to the Savior:

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13)

God Can Use One or Two People to Change an Entire Community: Just like Wilbur and Charlotte changed their town for the better through what they did, so God can use one or two people to have a large impact. Think of Jonah and Esther--just for a couple examples.

God Can Use the Humblest, Lowest, and Most Despised of People or Circumstances to Change the World: I remember there being some comment in Charlotte's Web about the "humblest of creatures" having an impact. It reminded me of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, humbling Himself as a man, being born in the "humblest of places," as is often said, and humblest of circumstances, growing up in despised areas such as Galilee, and it reminded me of this passage:

"...but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are..." (1 Corinthians 1:27-28)

Charlotte's Web may not picture these life lessons impeccably or too blatantly, but the life lessons themselves are impeccable.

~Kingdom Advancer

Leave a Message?

2006-12-26T11:31:00.000-05:00

When proponents of Intelligent Design call on the analogical phone to evolutionists, evolutionists can't seem to answer. They simply can't defend the Theory of Evolution satisfactorily in light of the problems presented by Intelligent Design. Irreducible complexity? Evolutionists can't do anything with that. The idea that something could not have evolved upwardly and progressively more complex because it had to be completely as it presently is immediately poses a so-far seemingly unsolvable conundrum for evolutionists. The same goes for the fact that the earth is not a random planet, but The Privileged Planet.

So, since the evolutionists can't answer, what do they do? Rather than conceding defeat and humbly admitting that they were wrong and there must be a God ("God forbid it," I'd bet they'd say.), they simply don't answer. Instead, they attack Intelligent Design childishly, usually in one of a few ways.

1.) "Intelligent Design is bad science."
You know what's bad science? Teaching something as fact that is really an unproven, even disproven hypothesis--not even a theory in reality! You know what's bad science? Ignoring and rejecting evidence that disproves your hypothesis so that you can continue teaching your propaganda as fact. You know what's bad science? Teaching a "theory," but not allowing any other theories in the discussion.

2.) "Intelligent Design belongs in a philosophy or religion class."
I fail to see how disproving and questioning a theory that is in science class belongs in the philosophy room. If anything, it is Evolution that belongs in the philosophy or religion class, because it is built on more faith and unbacked speculation than Intelligent Design is.

3.) "Teaching Intelligent Design in schools would be a violation of the separation between church and state."
I am not exactly sure how saying that "logically, there must have been an Intelligent Designer," is an establishment of religion. There have been thousands of god-belief systems over history, many still intact today, including the apathetic beliefs in some sort of creator and the beliefs in "personal relationships" with "personal gods." I have seen some statistics that say that up to ninety percent of Americans believe in God.
You see, teaching Intelligent Design would be neither exclusive nor polarizing. Students could still believe Evolution did it all, even if Evolution was pushed out of the science classroom or shown to be foolish when standing alongside Intelligent Design. After all, that's what theists are forced to do right now: believe (in their case in the truth) despite what the science teacher is telling them.

Until the majority of people see that these three claims of evolutionists are totally off-base, I guess we'll just have to keep "leaving messages" and trying to work outside of the school system and public square.

~ Kingdom Advancer

P.S. For Christmas, I got The Privileged Planet and Unlocking the Mystery of Life on DVD. You'll have to wait and see whether I have stuff to tell you about it after I watch it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This post can also be found on the blog Beginnings... which Kingdom Advancer contributes to.

Rescuing Christmas Music, Part Two

2006-12-22T13:10:00.000-05:00

A few days ago, I documented four of my favorite Christmas albums that might rescue you from the same two song cycle being played on the radio (Okay, so it's a twelve song or so cycle). Well, as life is often inconvenient, it so happens that all the good Christmas songs are not contained on those four albums. Thereby, here I will note a large handful--enough to make a compilation CD--of my favorite Christmas songs not on one of the aforementioned four CDs.

It is essential to stress that the following list contains only songs not on my favorite CDs, because many of my absolute favorites are on those. Also, the classics are omitted, for obvious reasons (Do they really need mention?)

In semi-particular order:

1. Christmas Shoes
By: NewSong
Notes: Got tissues? This song, based off the popular novel of the same name, just about will tear your heart out—in a good way! It is about a boy who wants to buy his mom shoes on Christmas Eve. His mom is very sick and about to die. The boy wants to buy her these shoes so she’ll “look beautiful” if she “meets Jesus” that very night. The boy can’t afford the shoes, and the story is told from the perspective of a man behind the boy in line, who had lost the true spirit and meaning of Christmas.
Lyrical Example 1: "Sir, I wanna buy these shoes, for my momma please. It’s Christmas Eve and these shoes are just her size. Could you hurry, sir? Daddy says there’s not much time. You see, she’s been sick for quite a while, and I know these shoes will make her smile, and I want her to look beautiful, if Momma meets Jesus tonight."
Lyrical Example 2: “I knew I saw a glimpse of heaven’s love, as he thanked me and ran out. I knew that God had sent that little boy, to remind me what Christmas is all about…”

2. All is Well
By: Michael W. Smith
Notes: Michael W. Smith utilizes a boys’ choir just about to perfection here, creating a breathtakingly beautiful,peaceful, even angelic song.
Lyrical Example: “All is well. All is well. Angels and men rejoice…”

3. Christmas Canon
By: Trans-Siberian Orchestra
Notes: Like “Canon in D” needs any help! Well, add a boys’ choir singing about Christmas--and somewhat vaguely about Christ--over top, and it is just that much better!
Lyrical Example: "Merry Christmas... The hope that he [He?] brings... This night we pray our lives will show this dream he [He?] had each child still knows... We are waiting. We have not forgotten..."

4. Strange Way to Save the World
By: 4Him
Notes: This is by far the best song told from Joseph’s perspective that I have ever heard. With a beautiful piano riff as an intro and filler, the chorus chronicles the simple and honest question that must have been swirling through Joseph’s head: Why?
Lyrical Example: “Why me? I’m just a simple man of trade. Why Him, with all the rulers in the world? Why here, inside this stable full of hay? Why her? She’s just an ordinary girl. Now I’m not one to second guess what angels have to say. But this is such a strange way, to save the world…”

5. Appalachian Carol
Arranged By: Dan Goeller
Notes: These are the liner notes from the CD this song is found on: Our Daily Bread, Christmas Edition IV:
"Appalachian music is a rich tea of Celtic, English, and African-American roots. The essential singing style and harmony are Celtic, often imitative of Celtic fiddling where the fiddler may slide from one melody note to the next, while sustaining a single harmony note on a higher string. Scottish Presbyterians and English settlers brought carols and the four-part harmony tradition of the Protestant hymn, which in Appalachia found a less formal expression. African Americans brought rhythmic intensity from the old world--and their experience of slavery to Protestant plantation owners--contributing such Christmas gems as "Children, Go Where I Send Thee," "Go, Tell It on the Mountain," and "Behold That Star!"

If you didn't get all of that, don't worry. Here's my translation, since that description seemed to be talking more of the style of music rather than the particular song:
You won't necessarily think Christmas music when you hear this song, but it is a beautiful and moving tune that will conjer images of prairie-life and pioneering, and the type of Christmases they must have had.
No lyrical example because there are no lyrics; just good music!

6. Mary, Did You Know?
Written by: Mark Lowry and Buddy Greene
Notes: I put the songwriters here for a change since many have performed this modern classic. I give this song this high of a ranking mainly out of honor and nostalgia. When I was a small child, it was very near being my favorite Christmas song. In fact, it might have been (I didn't rank them at that time.) I used to sit in my basement, bang on a toy drumset, and belt the lyrics out with all the lung capacity my little self had. Now that I look back, I think, what was my family doing at the time? Earplugs? ;)
This song is truly great because it focuses not on the birth of Christ, which many other songs do and certainly is a worthy thing on which to center, but it focuses on what Jesus would do--not on His birth, but his life. Even with the Old Testament and the angel's message, could Mary really have known who Jesus was?
Lyrical example: "Mary did you know, that your baby boy will give sight to a blind man?Did you know, that your baby boy will calm the storm with his hand? Did you know, that your baby boy has walked where angels trod?And when you kiss your little baby,You've kissed the face of God."

7. A Prayer for Every Year
By: Plus One
Notes: Adapted from the Amy Grant classic “Grown-Up Christmas List,” which has since been re-recorded many a time, this song takes the theistic—and thereby less depressing and hopeless—approach on the topic, although ultimately the chorus is equally unlikely to be fulfilled until the Millenium Reign of Christ. The musical and vocal quality of this particular version may be less than that of Amy Grant, Kelly Clarkson, or Michael Buble, but it is worth the tradeoff to have a song’s lyrics directed towards God rather than Santa.
Lyrical Example: (“Grown-Up Christmas List”) “Do you remember me? I sat upon your knee. And wrote to you with childhood fantasies…”
(“My Prayer for Every Year”) “Do you remember me? Long ago on bended knee, I prayed to you with childhood fantasies…”

8. A King is Born
Written By: Sy Gorieb and Tim Hosman
Notes: This is another song that has been special to me since childhood. At my church, this song would always be performed during the Christmas pageant. The lead singer would always play some sort of drums, and the choir would back him up. I've never heard it on the radio or on a CD, although if you take the link to the writers, it says that Ron Kenoly is the "artist." A Google search revealed the Oak Ridge Boys. However, I haven't heard either of these versions. But, the song is so good and so much fun, I think it would be worth it for you to search it out.
Lyrical Example: "A King is born this day in Bethlehem. Hallelujah, halle, hallelujah. No crown is worn but angels worship Him. Hallelujah, halle, hallelujah..."

9. Emmanuel, God With Us
By: Point of Grace
Note: I'm not sure what it is, but it seems like every song focused on the name "Emmanuel" is fantastic! This song is not an exception, being touching, moving, powerful, and beautiful. Most of the other songs I am referring to are on my favorite CDs, but there are at least two that I cannot think of the names or artists. Maybe you all can help me out.
Lyrical Example: "O Emmanuel, God with us, Spirit revealed in us, that we may be Your hope to the world. O Emmanuel, God with us, with the light to break the darkness, that we may show Your hope to the world. Emmanuel, be God in us."

10. When Love Came Down
By: Point of Grace
Notes: I really love the feel of this song, particularly the introduction and first verse. It is so soft and sweet, illustrating that God--Who is love, as the Bible says--came down at Christmas time, and also showing that we should continue to show people and tell them of that Love.
Lyrical Example: "Christmas Eve, 2 A-M, heavy snow is falling down, and the streets clothed in white, echo songs that were sung by candlelight. We're alive, we can breathe, but do we really care for this world in need? There's a choice we must make each and every day. So close your eyes and share the dream. Let everyone on earth believe. The Child was born, the star shone bright, and Love came down that Christmas time. And Love came down at Christmas time..."

11. All My Heart Rejoices
By: Steve Green
Notes: Another great usage of children's voices, this time in a faster paced song.
Lyrical Example: "All my heart this night rejoices, as I hear, far and near, sweetest angel voices. Christ is born, their choirs are singing, fill the air, everywhere, now with joyous ringing. Come and banish all your sadness, one and all, great and small, come with songs of gladness. Love Him Who with love is yearning, hail the star, that from far, bright with hope is burning..."

12. Good News
By: Steve Green
Notes: Good News. That's what Christmas is all about, and that's what this song is all about. The song portrays well the true yearning, passion, desire, longing, and desperate-ness for the Good News of the Gospel.
Lyrical Example 1: "Good News, Good News, an angel brings Good News. Good news, good news, I leave you with Good News."
Lyrical Example 2: "...The Child grew up to wear a cross; the Child grew up to pledge a life. Behold the time of joy. Behold, Christ a baby boy..."

13. This Christmas (Joy to the World)
By: Toby Mac
Notes: For the rap and hip-hop in all of us, this song focuses on such themes as “it is better to give than to receive” and “Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress.” (James 1:27)
Lyrical Example 1: “Well Johnny never got his wish on December 25th. That’s what he said when we left the orphanage. Nine years old, but Johnny was an old soul, gonna spend his first Christmas in a real home...”
Lyrical Example 2: "Father of the fatherless, be with Your sons and daughters this Christmas..."

14. O Holy Night
By: Apologetix—The Christian Parody Band
Notes: This is not your ordinary band or “O Holy Night.” Apologetix is a group that takes secular songs and gives them Christian lyrics—actually, more than that: they tell Bible stories through the same melodies with different lyrics—sometimes completely different, sometimes just focusing on alternate meanings of a statement. The result is often hilarious, as is the case here.
This song is taken from the Frank Valli & The Four Seasons classic “Oh, What a Night.” The song focuses on the need to celebrate Christ’s birth all year round, since we don’t know exactly when He was born—year or day. A couple rap-like portions not in the original flow of the song clearly—and amusingly—demonstrate this. The song also talks about, however, the fact that neither side (those who celebrate Christmas and those don’t) of the debate should criticize the other--I believe they even mention Romans 14.
Lyrical Example: (“Oh, What a Night”) “Oh, what a night. Late December back in ’63…”
(“O Holy Night”) “O holy night! In December back in 6 B.C...."

Certainly this list will be an on-going, evolving project, but it is relatively comprehensive for now, keeping in mind once again that the old classics and favorites from my favorite albums are not located here.

I want to here about your favorites, and I also would like to know which of the songs I listed that you have (or have not) heard, and do (or do not) like.

~ Kingdom Advancer

Rescuing Christmas Music from Repetitiveness/Redundancy

2006-12-19T16:00:00.000-05:00

I don't know about you, but by this time in the Christmas season, I am about tired of hearing the radio play songs beginning with the following lyrics: "Rudolph the Red-Nosed..." ; "He's makin' a list..." ; "Frosty the Snowman..." ; "I'll be home..." ; "Chestnuts roasting..." ; "Well, the weather outside is frightful..." ; etc.

Now, don't get me wrong and don't call me Scrooge. I love Christmas, and I love Christmas music--even most of the songs I just alluded to. The point is, the radio stations that have dedicated themselves to Christmas music enclose their range into a tiny cycle of familiar songs, artists, and--yes--often secularity. However, even some of the Christian Christmas songs (like "O Holy Night," "Silent Night," "Hark, the Herald Angels Sing," etc.) seem overplayed and, frankly, over-recorded in the same old way--although that is not so much an issue--especially when you consider that even Christian stations rely heavily on the secular songs of the season.

The true shame here is that there is so much good Christmas music out there that barely garners recognition, in both Christian and secular circles, being buried underneath the weight of giants such as Burl Ives, Frank Sinatra, Rudolph, Frosty, and Santa. While I'm fighting off the seemingly "Bah! Humbug!" urge of "not this song again," I wonder, "Why am I not listening to a CD instead?"

And that's what this article is all about: I'm writing to tell you about four of my favorite Christmas albums. If you are a fan of Christian music, I'm sure you'll have heard of at least three of the four artists I mention, but if you've never heard their Christmas CD's, you are in for a pleasant surprise, either as an addition to your Christmas wishlist or as a stocking stuffer for someone else.

1. The Music of Christmas
By: Steven Curtis Chapman
Notes: This song has become about as much of a Christmas tradition with my family as turkey is a tradition at Thanksgiving. I can't recall any song on here worthy of being skipped, except for the fact that you might just be impatient to hear another one. Several of the songs on this production would make it onto my "Christmas Top 20," including arguably my favorite Christmas song: "This Baby." Chapman mixes new renditions of classics with classics of his own, ranging from slow and melancholy to upbeat and fun. All songs, except the instrumental ones, are Christian themed, unlike Steven's newer Christmas album, in which he takes on some secular classics. This is absolutely a must-have!

2. Repeat the Sounding Joy
By: Phillips, Craig, and Dean
Notes: If, for some reason, The Music of Christmas was taken away from me, I'd be able to survive with this CD. This popular singing trio grooves with Gospel-like renditions of "Go Tell It On the Mountain/Amen" and "Joy to the World," and smooth and/or fun originals such as "Call His Name Jesus" (my favorite song on the album), and "Be It Unto Me." The CD does have a few of the overly familiar secular songs, such as a bouncy version of "Sleigh Ride," but the version is so fun in this case, the fact that you've heard it sung a million different times and different ways doesn't really matter!
Although the album is often upbeat and fun, including the likes of what is borderline one of the most fun songs of Christmas--"The Kid in Me"--it doesn't hesitate to slow down occasionally to create great performances of songs like "How Great Our Joy" and "O Come, O Come, Emmanuel." Then, there's the powerful worship medley consisting of "Bow Down/Glorify the Lord/All the Earth Bows Down."
This CD also lays claim to many of my favorite Christmas songs, and it is also a must-have!

3. Snowfall
By: Yanni
Notes: No, I haven't been at the Gaffer's Home Brew (Lord of the Rings inside joke; I think it's gaffer's, isn't it?); no, I'm not off my rocker; and no, I don't have a screw loose. I thought I'd answer all of those questions right away, since some of you might be asking them. To be honest, I don't know much about Yanni--although he gives the impression that he might (stress the word "might") be a bit of a New Age-type. I haven't heard much of his music; I don't know what his beliefs are; and I don't know if all of his music (or everything on his site) is appropriate. I'm not saying I necessarily suspect anything. I simply don't know.
What I do know is that the album Snowfall is incredible. Although there is nothing really Christmas about it (Snowfall? What side of the battle for Christmas is Yanni on?), with an ambiguous title and all original--and wordless--songs, it ranks as one of my favorite Christmas albums for a few reasons: 1.) First of all, because I seem to only pull it out around Christmas time (therefore, I qualify it as "Christmas") ; 2.) Secondly, because of its sheer beauty; and 3.)Thirdly, related to the second reason, it conjures up such beautiful visual images in one's mind of the winter--and thereby--Christmas season.
I often jest that emotionally tantalizing songs without words are "more Christian than a lot of Christian songs." Actually, I'm not so sure that's not true. Why does a song have to have lyrics (or have lyrics in another rendition) to be considered Christian? Why does it have to be written by a Christian to be considered Christian? I have heard it said that "art often exceeds the purpose of the artist." Whether or not Yanni is a Christian or was intending to write a Christian song or evoke Christian thoughts and emotions does not determine whether or not these songs can be edifying to the Christian's soul.
Focusing on soft, nostalgically and reminiscently rhythmic melodies of the piano, this CD transports the listener into the peace of the season's meaning, although Yanni does rampage off into some up-beat, synthesized compositions, which illustrate musically the excitement of Christmas and its true meaning.

4. Christmastime
By: Michael W. Smith
Notes: Phew! Don't have to explain myself on this one! Though I would question Smitty on his recording of "O Christmas Tree," this work scoots onto my list mainly because of three songs: "The Happiest Christmas" ; "Welcome to Our World" ; and the title track. I especially enjoy the latter two--they are a couple of my favorites.

Certainly there are others that I love and would recommend, such as Steve Green's The First Noel, but the aforementioned are my main favorites. However, it is a likely scenario that there are albums out there which I would very much enjoy if I would only hear them. I encourage you to comment with your favorites, but I beg you to give a short description if you do.

~ Kingdom Advancer

Not a Whole Lot New? Fine By Me.

2006-12-14T17:23:00.000-05:00

Just a note: Today is the 3-month anniversary of Kingdom Advancing! And, as evidenced by the amount of comments on the last post, it clearly is growing--slowly, but steadily--in popularity.

I finally went to see The Nativity Story on Monday night. Those who know me probably wonder why it took me so long to go see such an overtly Christian movie. Well, that's just the way things worked out this time. Anyways...

One of the major criticisms that this film has come under is that there is "nothing new"--or "different"--about it; that it is "too straightforward," "drab," and "dull"; and that it "feels like it was made for a Sunday school class." (Whatever exactly that means.)

I reply to such criticisms with a question of my own: what exactly is supposed to be new?

I have some ideas as to what secular critics would probably love:

Mary and Joseph have premarital sex and ingeniously cover it up with a "Messiah alibi" because of the resulting pregnancy.
Mary cheats on Joseph with a Roman soldier (this would be explicitly shown in the movie, of course), and pulls off the greatest cover-up ever.
Mary simply says "No" to the angel Gabriel.
Mary, as an early beacon of feminism and choice, aborts baby Jesus.
Mary and Joseph don't place Jesus in a manger for a bed; they place Him there as a pagan act of worship to the barnyard animals.
The wise men are actually magicians--who put a spell on the world to accept "Christianity."
Jesus is born gender neutral.

I'm sure that anything like that would have the Oscar buzz humming at full force (;)). But anyone who has any respect for the story--and Christianity's beliefs--would never do such a thing...or even anything remotely similar.
And, besides, the bottom line is that The Nativity Story does not need any help. It is the Greatest Story Ever Told. But more than that: the fact that the story is true compensates for any need of being "spiced up." It is the Greatest Truth Ever Known; the Absolute Turning Point in History; the Birth of the Greatest Man to Ever Walk This Earth. To make a great movie, The Nativity Story need only to be adapted and have some gaps filled. This the makers of the movie did.

Now, for Kingdom Advancer's breakdown:

Biblical Accuracy:

As I've stated in a previous article, "interpretive liberties" and "artistic liberties" are necessary in films such as this one. There is simply not enough dialogue or detail in the Bible accounts to sustain much more than a fifteen minute beginning to a movie about Jesus' life. With this in mind, the makers of The Nativity Story did an excellent job.
The one area where it clearly falls short is the topic of the wise men. As depicted in subconscious legend, nativity sets, and children's imaginations, the wise men arrive on the night of Jesus' birth--rather than almost two years later, as the Bible says.
Also including the wise men, the dream warning them not to return to Herod is not recorded in the movie.

A third element is that a "heavenly host" does not appear with the main angel in the shepherds' fields, as the Bible says.

But, other than that, I did not recognize any glaring inaccuracies.

Acting/Casting:

Unnecessary and inconvenient controversy enters in when discussing the casting of The Nativity Story. Keisha Castle-Hughes, an attractive rising 16-year-old actress, who plays the virgin Mary, is pregnant in real life--and no, of course, she's not married. Shohreh Aghdashloo, who plays her part as Elizabeth excellently, is an Iranian-born Muslim.
Not to mention the director, Catherine Hardwicke, who has produced not-so-wholesome movies such as Lords of Dogtown and Thirteen.
Fortunately, none of these factors seem to have an effect on the movie. As I stated, Shohreh is good in her role; Zechariah, Gabriel, Mary's parents, and the Roman soldiers are all par or better. Mary (Keisha Castle-Hughes) has some lines and facial expressions that aren't so great, but nothing that ruins the movie. The actor who plays King Herod illustrates well the paranoia of the pagan king. And, Oscar Isaac, as Joseph, is superb in my opinion.

Music:

Few movies in the past have been able to capture the perfect combination of Christmas--but not overtly Christmas--music and a movie soundtrack. The Nativity Story does a pretty good job of this. The movie begins with a rendition of "O Come, O Come Emmanuel" in a different language (than English) --and the listening ear can detect--or seem to detect--hints of Christmas music spruced with the more than sufficient score.

Wardrobe/Sets:

This isn't a overly-romanticized production or cheap church play. There are no halos floating above Mary and Jesus' heads, and Mary does not wear flowing, royal purple robes to help her stick out from the crowd. Because of this type of thing and other factors, the movie has been accused of being "dull" or "not magical." Well, welcome to first century Jewish life. As a matter of fact, the movie comes across as very believable--is that not what you want in a movie? Perhaps unbelievers don't want anything about Jesus to look believable.
The sets are well-done and the scenery is breathtaking, the movie having been filmed in Italy and Morocco.

Plot:

When I wrote about One Night with the King, I asked the question in reference to the plot: "Does it get any better?" Well, it took time, but I think my question is now answered. This story is so awe-inspiring, so plain inspiring, so harrowing, so hope-inducing, and so true!!!
Before having seen the movie, I had heard that it focused on Mary and Joseph. I cringed at the thought, worrying that too much emphasis might be put on their work or they themselves and not on the essential part of the story--the arrival of the Christ-child. But, after seeing the movie, I realize that is not a necessary concern.

Filming/Special Effects:

This movie does not rely on special effects, but it does have some cool--if not eery--effects, such as a hawk in flight representing the arrival and departure of the angel Gabriel.

Summary:

If you only see one movie this Christmas season, see this one. If you aren't planning on seeing any--then change your mind and see this one. The Nativity Story does its best to do the ageless story of the birth of Jesus respectful justice, and ultimately, supporting this film is one step of many that can be taken to help keep Christ in Christmas. .

Favorite Elements/Parts:

1.) The Birth of Jesus: And you were expecting something else? To the non-Christian, the scene of Jesus' birth in The Nativity Story might come across as anti-climactic. But, to the Christian... I hope you like chills and spine-shivers.

2.) The Shepherds: The shepherds are portrayed more realistically in this movie than in any other portrayal that I have seen to date. You really feel sorry for these guys. The scene with Mary and Joseph on their journey conversing with one of the shepherds can almost bring one to tears. The extra-curricular--but certainly somewhat biblical nature--sub-plot of "everyone is given a gift" that is revealed in this part is really one of the best elements of the movie. By the time the shepherds show up at the stable, you really see how the Savior is a gift to even the lowest of people.

3.) Joseph's Dream: Although I thought that Gabriel's visit to Mary could've been better played out in the film, Joseph's dream is intense, exciting, and unique from other works. I would tell you just what about I like so much, but I don't want to spoil it for you if you haven't seen it.

4.) The Love Story: It's not love at first sight--at least not both ways--and there's no fireworks here. This is likely exemplary of the mass majority of marriages at that time. But the relationship between Mary and Joseph is so sweet in its slow building, virtuous way, with virtually no physical contact--at least in a romantic/sexual way: no kissing, tripping and falling on the ground together, or--obviously--"Rated R" scenes, if you know what I mean.

5.) The Roman Soldiers: Ever since I was a little kid, I've always loved the Roman Soldiers in "walk through Bethlehems," Christmas pageants, and nativity movies. Not because I liked that they were mean and brutal, but because they were soldiers. Hey, I was a little boy who liked to play soldier--what are you going to do? Anyways, in this movie, the soldiers are cold, heartless, inconsiderate, brutal, and always quick to say something clever. They illustrate a double-truth: the attitude of the soldiers and how difficult it must have been for the Jewish citizens to humbly and meekly pay exorbitant taxes, etc.

6.) Jewish Life and the Journey: Life wasn't a bowl of cherries for the Jews in the first century, and this film illustrates that well. But, it also shows a softer side of Mary and the Jews in scenes where children are being read Bible stories. The journey was long, hard, dangerous, and desperate, and that is also well portrayed in this movie.

~ Kingdom Advancer

This season, go see in motion picture form the Reason--if not the origin--for the season.

Care, but Prioritize

2006-12-01T19:16:00.000-05:00

The title of this article is taken from the mold of President Ronald Reagan’s policy: “Trust, but verify.” In other words, trust what people tell you, but go ahead and check it out to see if they are telling the truth. On the topic of AIDS (Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome), I think it is important for Christians to care about the issue and have compassion for the sufferers, but we also need to prioritize our varying efforts, and prioritize the different approaches to the AIDS issue. We must also realize the superior importance of a person's soul to their body.

Today is World AIDS Day. So, essentially, if you plug in to any media today, you’ll see and hear them portray AIDS along the lines of being the most important issue facing the world at present. Ironically, every other day in the media (especially TV), the message seems to be: “There is no God, and look how fun it is to do things that—well, inconveniently—may cause you to contract AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).”

It may be very easy for Christians to fall into the trap of thinking that AIDS should require our full (or near-full) attention and efforts, and that a hands-down cure for AIDS would be the best thing that could happen.

But I think it should be noted that, as even Christians are limited somewhat to the 24-hour days God has given us, we have to balance our numerous and essential outreaches. Also, we must consider seriously some of the negative effects—spiritually—that an all-out—no questions asked—cure for AIDS (or other STDs) might cause.

First, let’s look at just a sampling of the programs that we must never forget, forsake, or demote for the sake of AIDS:

Operation Christmas Child (and other similar programs): delivering Christmas gifts to poor and underprivileged children around the world, while simultaneously telling them of the Greatest Gift of All—Jesus Christ.

Pro-Life Outreaches: It’s the age-old “what-if” question—if America had taken the step of faithfulness to God’s precepts of protecting innocent life rather than slaughtering it, would God have blessed the world with a cure for AIDS and other things? Would one of these murdered babies have come up with the cure?
Many who have contracted AIDS have done so by their own sinful choices. They have essentially taken their own lives. But babies in the womb—the closest thing to complete innocence in this world—have no such choice.

The Gideons International (and other similar programs): Getting the Word of God into countless hands. Polygamous, homosexual, and premarital sex has spiritual consequences, even if the immediate physical consequences were to be eliminated. This is just one of many things that the Bible shows to people. “I would not have known sin but by the Law.” (Romans 7:7)

Missionary Efforts: Preaching the Gospel to countless ears. People must hear that there are eternal ordeals with which they must deal—a cure for the physical symptoms is nothing in comparison to the cure for our spiritual disease.

Prison Fellowship Ministries: Jesus offers forgiveness to all, including those who have contracted AIDS, and those who have wound up in prison. "... focused on the mission of transformation through the grace and power of Jesus Christ."

Soup Kitchens and Shelters; Disaster Relief; Caring for the Homeless; Caring for Orphans and Widows; etc.: We should be showing these people the love and mercy of Christ. "Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." (James 1:27)

Hospital and Nursing-Home Ministries: We must remind people that there is more to this life than breath, pain, and death. We must remind them that there is a life--or a death--after the one experienced here on earth.

Protecting Our Borders: We must protect the values and people of the country of America. These two things are exactly what our enemies want to destroy. They are more than willing to kill innocent citizens, including women and children, in order to reach their ultimate goal—to eliminate Christians and Jews and remove the religious freedom and Christian principles this country is built upon.

Protecting Society by Defending Marriage: For the sake of society as a whole, we must defend the traditional definition of marriage.

Other Disease Research: There are some deadly diseases that have neither cures nor known prevention techniques. We know that abstaining from sexual promiscuity and irresponsible drug use are two prevention techniques for HIV AIDS, but most refuse to accept at least one of those methods of prevention.

Written in Stone (and similar efforts): It surprises Christians, but a lot of people now-a-days really don't know the Ten Commandments, their own sin, and their need for a Savior. Getting the Ten Commandments into the public square is an important step to take--not only for salvations, but also for societies.

ACLJ (and other groups): We must preserve our religious freedom, for the sake of the advancement of the gospel of Christ and the prospering of America.

I understand the fact that many victims of HIV AIDS are innocent by-standers: illegitimate children, raped women, people who accidentally come into contact with the blood, etc., of an HIV carrier. We should love these people and have compassion for them. We should not consider ourselves, at our core, as somehow better than them. Christians should have burdened hearts for their souls as for any others.
But, my biggest concern is that a cure for AIDS would encourage promiscuity, irresponsibility, homosexuality, bisexuality, etc.. They may indeed sin more frequently if they thought they could do so without drawback. That wouldn’t be a good thing for the world, as unbelievers might think. It would be a disastrous thing. Addressing the physical while ignoring the spiritual would be a serious misplacement of focus.

When you look at the above issues, think of the possible results of a total (which is unexpected) cure for AIDS:
Abortions would increase: if people lost the fear of AIDS, promiscuity would become even more prevalent and so-called “safe” sex might be disregarded as useless.

Push for gay marriage would intensify: there are a couple things that proponents for gay marriage have a hard time getting around. They are the facts that two of the same gender can’t procreate, and that gay sex has a high propensity for contracting an STD, unlike heterosexual marriage. A cure for AIDS might eliminate to a point one of those concerns.

Drug usage would increase: I don’t know how many druggies allow the fear of contaminated needles to keep them from taking drugs. But if the fear of diseases was completely diminished, then the fear of tainted needles would as well.

Sexual promiscuity, in general would increase: Why wouldn’t it?

The best way to end the AIDS epidemic is prevention--not by medicine--but through my own version of the ABC Plan being used in some parts of the world, which chastises people to “Abstinence, Be faithful to one partner, and use Condoms.” Although I think this ideology is a great two steps forward for one step back, it doesn’t quite do the trick for me. How about: “Abstinence, Be faithful to your one SPOUSE, and Christ.” That combination, if embraced, would largely end the tragedy that is AIDS and STDs in general.

Ultimately, though, as a compassionate person looking at the big picture and the appropriate attitude of a Christian, finding a cure would—all things being considered—probably be a good thing, especially when you note those infected by the disease by no fault of their own. But, do you know what? More people—AIDS sufferers and not—finding a cure for their souls’ condition would be much, much better.
Obviously, however, because of this, drugs that prolong the life of the AIDS sufferer should be considered a good thing, because Christians should not want anyone to die in their sins, without the Savior. Therefore, a prolonged life--with more opportunity for salvation--is far superior to a short, unsaved life.

~Kingdom Advancer

The key is this: we must assist those in need without assisting them on their sinful road towards eternal separation from God, but rather, our efforts should cause quite the opposite reaction.

Happy Thanksgiving!

2006-11-23T12:54:00.000-05:00

I have so much to be thankful for, and the Bible addresses thankfulness so thoroughly, that I actually won't be able to post my article on Thanksgiving in time. Sorry! However, I did want to leave you with a couple of verses, to remind you why to be thankful and to Whom to be thankful.

James 1:17:

Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.

James 1:2-4

Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

Romans 8:28

God causes all things to work together for the good of those who love the Lord.

Realize this Thanksgiving that every good thing comes from the Lord--for which He should be thanked--and every seemingly bad thing He will cause to be a good thing. There is no person on this planet or in history who does not have reason to thank God--and thank Him endlessly. He should literally be thanked always and for everything (I'll get into that more in a future post.). Yet, setting aside a special day is okay, too, to specifically thank Him for all His many blessings and gifts.

Note: Because every good thing comes from God does not mean we can't thank people who have blessed us--it just means we should also thank God FOR those people.

I wish I could write more....in the future, Lord-willing.

Thanksgiving Blessings,
~Kingdom Advancer

How Then Shall We Live?

2006-11-21T22:24:00.000-05:00

When people reject what they should desire because they don't want to accept some of the other implications, the result is much worse than simply facing the truth and its consequences.

The following short discourse came into my mind as I was thinking of an atheist’s YouTube production that essentially said the world would be a better place if no one spent any time thinking about the possibility of heaven (after “proving Christianity and the Bible false by showing that Noah’s Ark and the Flood was impossible because races couldn’t have been established over such a short period of time from then to now”). Never mind the absolute absurdity of those claims…I dealt with that at that time. You’re welcome to comment and dismantle such allegations if you want to. But this article isn’t directly in reply to such claims. It, rather, just spawned out of thinking about them.

It’s interesting, many times my best inspiration comes in the form of pithy two-liners like these, if not in poetic form. I guess God designs us all differently with different talents, tendencies, and combinations of talents and tendencies.

The After-Life:

Live like there is no heaven, and you’ll never have to worry about going there.
Live like there is no hell, and that will become your eternal home.

Absolutes:

Live like there is no absolute good, and you will do little of it.
Live like there is no absolute evil, and you will do much more of that.

The Spiritual Realm:

Live like there are no angels, and they won’t hang around you.
Live like there are no demons, and they will never leave you.

God and Satan:

Live like there is no God, and He will never be your Father.
Live like there is no Satan, and he will forever remain your father.

Possession and Authority:

Live like your life is yours and yours only, and someday you will find it was Satan’s.
Live like you will never bow, and someday you’ll have no choice but to.

Soul’s Condition:

Live like you don’t have a soul, and yours will be dead forevermore.
Live like your soul is fine just as it is--without the saving blood of Jesus, and yours will be dead forevermore.

Materialism and Relativism:

Live like this life is all you get, and you will wish that you were right.
Live like you can’t know what the truth is, and you won’t like what you eventually find.

How Then Shall We Live?

Live knowing that there is a heaven and a hell. Act accordingly. (namely: salvation through Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and all that entails.)
Live knowing there is absolute good and evil. Do the former. Suppress the latter in the name of Christ.
Live knowing there is a spiritual realm. Allow the angels to help you. Shackle the demons in Jesus’ name.
Live knowing there is a God and a Satan. Pray for the Former to help you become His child and no longer the child of Satan .
Live knowing that your life can ultimately only belong to two entities—God or the devil. Dedicate yourself to the service of God.
Live knowing that souls do exist, in a stained state. Realize that human souls are the most important thing in the universe, and realize that we are all doomed—without Christ—to spiritual death. Act on these realizations.
Live knowing that you know the truth.

~Kingdom Advancer

Remember This On Mothers' Day!

2006-11-20T21:17:00.000-05:00

I've been trying to keep my posts themed to the time of year lately. But, I saw this while I was blog surfing, and I can't help myself. Hopefully this will hold you over until I can post something on Thanksgiving.

According to the original poster, this was on a billboard in London:

"If Evolution is true, how come mothers still have only two hands?"

Whether your mom is a Christian or an evolutionist, tell her this line. She should get a good laugh out of it, if nothing else.

~Kingdom Advancer

The Christmas Watch

2006-11-17T19:06:00.000-05:00

Check out this blog I just started: The Christmas Watch. This is still my main blog, of course. I just want a convenient way for everyone to post news about Christmas. To see what I mean, go there and read the post. I want everyone to contribute, if they can. You can even become a team-member if you want to. It's not about origins or the virtue in Christians celebrating Christmas (or not). The battle over Christmas is just a small taste of a much bigger battle over Christ and people's souls, and this blog is about illustrating that battle through the venue of Christmas.

Oh, yeah, read my new post below, too, though.

~Kingdom Advancer

Is Anything Possible?

2006-11-17T16:29:00.000-05:00

There is a great Hallmark Hall of Fame Christmas movie entitled A Season for Miracles. It’s one of my personal favorites. But I feel that one of the themes heavily intertwined in the movie is worthy of being discussed from a Christian perspective, although the makers and writers of the movie probably never intended it to be taken the way I’m going to discuss it. It is the idea that “anything is possible.”

If anything is possible, then I might someday be the President of the United States. (True statement)

But, if anything is possible, then I might die and reincarnate as President George W. Bush (Not true statement, by Christian—or just logical—standards)

If anything is possible, then you might get married (or re-married, for that matter) on June 17, 2014, at 2:15 p.m. in Honolulu, Hawaii. (True statement)

But, if anything is possible, then homosexual marriage might be just as legitimate and sanctified (even by God) as traditional marriage. (Not true statement, from a Christian perspective)

If anything is possible, then you might someday be the parent of twenty-four children, adopted or hereditary. (True statement)

But, if anything is possible, then unborn babies might be just blobs of tissue, whose lives’ breath should be dependent upon the whims of pregnant women. (Not true statement, from a Christian worldview)

The problem with the magical statement “anything is possible” is that, if anything is possible, than anything is also NOT possible (or “possibly not”). This really violates the Christian faith, while at the surface it seems to tickle our imagination and beliefs. Examples:
If anything is possible, then Jesus Christ might have been the Son of God. But, if anything is possible, it is possible that Jesus Christ might NOT have been the Son of God.
If anything is possible, then Jesus Christ might have been right when He said that “no one comes to the Father but by" Him. But, if anything is possible, it is possible that there are other ways to heaven, and Jesus is NOT the only way.
If anything is possible, Jesus might have been born of a virgin. But, if anything is possible, Jesus might not have been born of a virgin.
If anything is possible, the Bible could be right that there is a hell. But, if anything is possible, then the Bible could possibly NOT be right and there might NOT be a hell.
If anything is possible, God might have created. But, if anything is possible, God might not have.
If anything is possible, the Bible might be the inerrant, infallible Word of God. If anything is possible, however, than it might not be.
If anything is possible, the Red Sea… If anything is possible, Noah’s Ark…. If anything is possible, if anything is possible, so on and so on.

I could make the list go on and on, but it kind of makes me sick to write it. I think you’ll understand.

So, in other words, if anything is possible, then nothing is certain. If Santa Claus might exist because anything is possible, Santa might also not exist because anything is possible (nothing is certain). The fact is, we could never know, could we?

The Bible tells us many things are certain. “In the beginning, God created…” (Genesis 1:1) “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by Me.” (John 14:6) “There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we might be saved.” (Acts 4:12) The Bible is full of unwavering truths. I’d virtually have to reprint the whole of the Scriptures to do this point justice.
The Bible isn’t even afraid of the word “impossible.” Why should God be afraid of it? He’d know if something was possible or not, wouldn’t He? The Bible says it is “impossible for God to lie,” (Hebrews 6:18) for example. It also says it is impossible to please God without faith (Hebrews 11:6).
So, as I’ve made clear, Christians have biblical, godly, and logical grounds to say that “anything—as in everything—is not possible, rather many things are certain.”

I really don’t want to sound like an old, dull, over-certain scrooge, especially since what most people mean when they say "anything is possible" is that "a borderline countless number of improbable and unexpected events can transpire." I think Christians should be wary of too often saying that something is not possible.. The conclusion that “anything is NOT necessarily possible” often leads to a materialistic worldview. “It’s just not possible that God _____” fill in the blank on the path to Deism, Agnosticism, Atheism, Relativism, Nominal Christianity, ad nauseam. That type of thought-processing is what really makes me want to believe that “anything is possible,” but those three words just don’t seem to fulfill my desires.

Christians do need to be cautious when speaking in absolutes, though. Have you ever heard the statement, “Nothing good can come out of this.” That’s about as unbiblical as you can get. The Bible says that “God causes all things to work together for the good of those who love the Lord.” (Romans 8:28) Plus, considering that God has an unchangeable plan/will, the aforementioned statement implies that God’s plan—although God’s perfect plan would be that all would be saved—is not good.
We need not limit God. He is the Author of Miracles, remember. The Bible says that “the things that are impossible with people are possible with God.” (Luke 18:27) Remember, “I can do all things through Christ Who strengthens me.” (Philippians 4:13) “With God, all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26; this passage and Luke 18:27 are synoptic)
The important thing to keep in mind is that all these things need to be taken in context. For instance, “With God,” it is NOT possible for God NOT to exist, is it? Of course not. I can NOT war against Christ “THROUGH Christ Who strengthens me.” A true statement is that God can do whatever He wants. But, God would never want to sin in any way, so some things, for all practical purposes, cannot be done “with” God’s approval or help.
On the other hand, though, the Bible tells us that we “can move mountains.” (Matthew 17:20) But we must always keep God’s will in mind. Take a lesson from the Master: Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane that the crucifixion might in some way be avoided. But He never latched onto the promise that “all things are possible.” He cared more for God’s will to be done. You could even make a compelling case that these Scripture verses I’m referencing--at their core-- actually mean “in God’s will.” With God = with God in His will ; through Christ = through Christ’s will.

Christians also need to avoid venturing outside the realm of biblical, godly absolutes into the realm of our own reasoning ability—or even our own stretched and varying interpretations of the Bible. Example for each case:
How many Christians do you think said that “man will never fly...period...” before the Orville Brothers’ time? How many do you think said afterwards that “I guess anything is possible”? Obviously, man still hasn’t figured out how to fly without assistance. But, people went outside the safe realm of absolutes and said that man will never learn how to fly when the Bible says nothing of the sort, and when the actual case was “man will probably never learn to fly.” We must be careful to not turn cases of probability or opinion into cases of certainty, but we must also not turn cases of absolutes into cases of probability (God does not probably exist; God DOES exist).
Interpreting the Bible is an even more precarious situation, because we must draw the line somewhere between clear biblical teaching/contextual interpretation and opinionated conjecturing. Glass pulpit or wooden? Real wine during communion or grape juice? These are exemplary of some debates going on in and between churches. Now, I'm not sure if these two things in particular are heated anymore--or if they ever really were--but, anyway, things that cannot be determined beyond a doubt as laid down in the Bible are often being treated that way in churches--where do you think we got so many denominations? Many split-off because of real concerns (whether the changes they made were biblical or not), but other differences between denominations are not so serious.

So where does this leave us? Here’s a summarization: ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE WITH GOD, THROUGH CHRIST, IN GOD’S WILL, AND CORRESPONDING TO THE ABSOLUTE PERAMETERS OF THE BIBLE.*As containing as that seems, it really is not. The “magic” of the Bible and the “magic” of the last two thousand years of God and Christianity are plenty optimistic, exciting, imagination-inducing, inspiring, and spontaneous for me. How about you?

~Kingdom Advancer

*This of course, doesn't necessarily--or overtly--pertain to more trivial matters, such as "could Temple beat Ohio State in football" or "can he fit twelve marshmallows in his mouth." Also, all these elements aren't necessarily essential at the same time. A Jesus-hating, Bible-disbelieving football team can win a game because of God's will. I'm speaking more of matters of truth or the Christian's life.

Air Force Memorial

2006-11-13T22:22:00.000-05:00

These are pictures of the recently completed and dedicated, $30 million Air Force Memorial, located in Arlington, Virginia, overlooking the Pentagon. Its design is inspired by one of the Air Forces' legendary and exhilirating in-flight maneuvers. I thought it was an appropriate post considering the recent passing of Veterans' Day.

The Air Force is the last major branch of the military to be honored with such a memorial (although they probably have less majestic ones), even though the Air Force is playing an ever-increasing role in military operations.

The first photo shows President George W. Bush speaking at the memorial's dedication, and it gives a great illustration of the structure's massive size.
The second photo, although blurry, shows--in night perspective--the memorial in context of its location.
And the third photo appropriately catches the fly-by of military planes during the dedication ceremony.

I can see where some Christians might have some qualms about supporting memorials and monuments. No good Christian wants to break the Second Commandment, by making a graven image for themselves. But, I think that such a fear is over-reaching, although it has troubled me for a while while I've been contemplating this post. But I think I've come to a relatively safe conclusion. Consider these things:
First of all, I think most people--and especially Christians--keep memorials in context. These memorials are to honor, acknowledge, and remember--not worship. These memorials don't--or shouldn't--take the place of God--at any level. Ancestor-worship was and is a popular thing, but Christians shouldn't have to forsake a memorial like this because of that ever-present fallibility of man. .
Secondly, we should remember that God had the Israelites build memorials. Critics might claim, "Yeah, but those were memorials to remember what God had done." Is this any different? For some, maybe, but for Christians I don't think so. God has done amazing things for and in this country, shedding his mercy, grace, and bountiful blessings, whether all will recognize that or not.
Plus, these men who serve in our military--whether they are Christians or not--stand for the Christian and moral principles of the United States of America. Although there are plenty of things to be ashamed of in America, like legalized genocide of the unborn, for example, America--as of now--still stands for many upright things.
Also, these memorials are meant for the honorable servicemen. It is meant for the men who fought and fight with honor; fought and fight with valor; fought and fight with mercy; fought and fight with an attitude of love and self-sacrifice; etc.. These are Christian principles. In contrast, for instance, there are no monuments for those at Abu-Graib. Those who run and ran from the battle; those who are and were traitors; those who care and cared more about themselves than their fellow soldiers; those who are bloodthirsty; those who are and were dishonorable in combat--they do not have to be grouped in--obviously--as "honored" by any memorials. I think that's the idea behind being "dishonorably discharged" or receiving the "Yellow Stripe," etc. In addition, we don't have to honor and revere the whole hero, so much as the heroism of the hero. We know that some soldiers have immoral lives and cheat on their spouses. We do not have to be ashamed that we respect and honor their service. We are honoring their service; not their sex-lives or alcohol-ingestion.

Context--as always--is essential. That is why we should honor those serving and who served and enjoy and support their memorials--while not putting them on "graven" pedestals.
Still though, this is a touchy and "high-wire" subject. How much is too much when honoring fallen, fallible men? Obviously, we realize that no one is anything without God's grace. We know that human nature is desperately wicked. But we also know that humans, as made in God's image and receivers of God's common grace, have the propensity to do good. But where do all those things leave us in this discussion practically? I'd appreciate your opinions.

And in conclusion, I want to thank our veterans once again.

~Kingdom Advancer

Prayer for the Air Force:
Dear God and Creator of the "wild blue yonder," keep watch over our men and women in harm's way. It says in Your Word that Your people will "mount up with wings like eagles." These soldiers are literally in the sky, Lord, and they need to have Your wind beneath their wings, and they need the protection of Your wings. Even if they themselves are not Christians, Lord, aid them so that they can defend the Christian principles America represents. Spare their lives so that they may do Your Will, knowingly or not, in protecting the innocent and the freedoms that You have so wonderfully worked through. But don't just protect their bodies, Lord: protect their souls. So that, "when [they] die, hallelujah, by and by, [they'll] fly away" to be with You.
As always, though, Lord, if Your Will be different than what I perceive, do it regardless of what I say.
In Your Son Jesus' name,
Amen.

Thank You, Veterans!

2006-11-11T17:25:00.000-05:00

I, like many others, have a true and great appreciation for our country's military servicemen. I admire them for their bravery and self-sacrifice that I aspire to possess. I could not know, it seems, though, unless I served myself.

Thoughts to carry with you on this Veterans' Day Weekend and throughout life:

If you can read, thank a teacher. If you can read in English, thank a soldier.
If there were no soldiers, you might be reading in German right now.

Freedom isn't free.

All gave some. Some gave all.

Freedom has a price the protected will never know.

The heart of this country: its patriots.
The backbone of this country: its patriots.
The substance of this country: its patriots.*

It's the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us freedom to demonstrate.
It's the soldier, not the reporter, who gives us freedom of the press.
It's the soldier, not the poet, who's given us freedom of speech.
It's the soldier who serves under the flag who defends the protester's right to burn the flag.
Isn't it time now to demonstrate that we support our troops?
Were it not for the brave, there would be no land of the free.

It is the American soldier who gives you the right to be "anti-America" and "anti-soldiers"--unpatriotic and anti-military.*

Let us never forget those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.
Let all know that freedom comes at a great sacrifice.

We should want them on that wall because we NEED them on that wall. Let us demonstrate to them that we SUPPORT them and LOVE them on that wall.*

Sacrifice does not diminish with time past: it gets better like wine.
Sacrifice does not need time to mature, however: it's precious immediately.*

They fight so that we may live in peace; they suffer imprisonment and torture so that we may live in freedom; they risk their present and future mental health so that we may have peace of mind; they lay down their lives so that we may LIVE.*

So that the Eagle of Freedom may fly in "spacious skies," they fly in hostile environments. So that the country may stretch safely from Sea to Shining Sea, they sail, submarine, and battle on the seas. So that America might remain "The Beautiful," they protect it in all conditions on land.*

If "there is no greater love than this, that one lay down his life for his friends," is not laying down one's life for country also a great love?*

"I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free. And I WON'T FORGET THE MEN WHO DIED, WHO GAVE THAT RIGHT TO ME. AND I GLADLY STAND UP, NEXT TO YOU, AND DEFEND HER STILL TODAY. CAUSE THERE AIN'T NO DOUBT I LOVE THIS LAND....GOD BLESS THE U.S.A." ("God Bless the U.S.A.," By: Lee Greenwood)

Thank you, veterans, for going from "the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli" for me, my and my country's freedom. (U.S. Marines)
Thank you, veterans, for going "over hill, over dale," being the "first to fight for the right." (U.S. Army)
Thank you, veterans, for going "off into the wild blue yonder, climbing high into the sun," willing to "go down in flame." (U.S. Air Force)
Thank you, veterans, for standing firm, never changing your course. (U.S. Navy) Thank you, veterans, for protecting our coasts, "from Aztec shore to Artic zone, to Europe and Far East." (Coast Guard)
Thank you, veterans, for fighting on land, sea, and air.
Thank you, veterans, for dying on land, sea, and air.
Thank you, veterans, for fighting and defending home and abroad.
Thank you, veterans, for dying home and abroad.
Thank you, veterans. *

note: Paragraphs denoted with a * is original--or mostly original--by Kingdom Advancer. Paragraphs without a * is either slightly adapted by Kingdom Advancer or not original. This is not plagiarism. The source of all these quotes and one-liners just aren't known to Kingdom Advancer at this time.

~Kingdom Advancer

p.s. The Marines and Air Force both have recently been honored in new ways. I'll try to add links to those stories soon.

p.s.s. I often welcome comments and additions. This post is no different. If you have a good line or paragraph to add to these, please do.

God bless America....Land that I love...Stand beside her, and guide her, through the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, to the oceans, white with foam! God bless America, my home sweet home. ("God Bless America," originally written by: Irving Berlin)

The Battle Resumes

2006-11-10T16:50:00.000-05:00

True Story: A man walked into a post office. He asked the postal worker, "Do you have any Christmas stamps yet?" The employee responded, "Yes. They are up there," pointing to the upper left corner of a bulletin board. Three different pages of stamps were present. Perhaps a little hard to see, the man pointed to the first page and asked, "What are those?"
"Oh," the worker replied, "Those are for Hanukkah."
"Oh, I'm sorry," the man said. "I was looking for Christmas stamps." Then, looking at the second group of stamps, he asked, "What are those?"
"Oh, those are for Kwanza."
"Oh, I'm sorry," the man stated with a tad of sarcasm. "I'm looking for Christmas stamps." Thinking, "What's there to lose?" the man questioned, "Then what are those?"
"Those are Islamic."
The man turned away from the stamps--a bit frustrated--and said to the employee, "I guess you have mistaken me. Do you have any Christian Christmas stamps?"
"Oh, yeah," the employee assured. "I have some Madonna ones right here. I just haven't put them out yet."
The man turned and walked away from the desk, thinking, "Great. Catholic." He ended up purchasing snowflakes as his "Christmas" stamps.

Now, some might say that there's nothing wrong with Madonna-stamps, but--right or wrong--that's beside the point. The indisputable point is that there is a war going on over Christmas. It stays relatively stagnant in a stalemate for about eight to ten months of the year, but for those few months that it rages, it really rages. Many of those effecting Christ negatively don't even know it. They simply get sucked into erroneous ideas of "tolerance," "relativism," and then, of course, apathy. Even Christians fall into this trap. But, there are more concerted efforts. Like in everything else, secular humanists, secular progressives, and atheists want to take Christ out of the public square--really, the private square, too, in as many places as they can. They literally want to take Christ out of Christ-mas. I didn't even mention the conspiracy of Santa Claus (which I will blog about in the future) and the complete materialization of Christmas. Then, of course, you can't forget about the ultimate secularization of Christmas--calling it the "Winter Holiday."
So what do we do? Well, first of all, we shouldn't try to take away anyone's freedom to celebrate Hanukkah or Kwanza, etc., etc.. That's not what America is about, and it is not what Christianity is about. But the bottom line is that Christmas is Christmas, and no individual, organization, or even government should feel obligated to totally generalize the entire event. That would be taking away THEIR freedom. But why should Christians care?
Because, most importantly, I think, Christmas, like Easter, is an incredible witnessing opportunity. Even in this secularized world in which we live, the story of Jesus can't be totally hidden and smothered, because "Jesus is the Reason for the Season." Christmases come and Christmases go, admittedly, as people apathetically, arrogantly, and ignorantly ignore the story of Jesus and for what which it calls. Yet, once a year, Christmas comes around, beckoning to all with the beginnings of the Greatest Story Ever Told--the greatest truth ever known. If you need a conversation-starter to witness to someone, ice-breakers don't get much better than the Christmas story. People gravitate to it--and for good reason. People aren't offended by it, though they should be offended by their own sin. When you begin to explain the story of the First Christmas, though, and illustrate WHY Jesus had to come as He did and WHAT He did, then the Gospel message shines through fully as it should.

We need to get back, though, to what we should do. We all can't do the big things, obviously. We are all not James Dobson, or Albert Mohler, or George W. Bush, for that matter. But I've compiled a small list (in random order) of what EVERY Christian can do. I hope you will join in.

1.) Try to avoid using (in speech or writing) "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings," or something similar. This generalizes Christmas--thereby taking Christ out of it--and frankly demotes it, if you know what I mean. Although they may seem appropriate for including "Happy Thanksgiving," "Merry Christmas," and "Happy New Year" in one package, try to use "Merry Christmas" as much as possible. If you want to reference the incoming year, say (or write) "Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year." It may seem like a mouthful, but it's worth it.

2.) Personally, I wouldn't even say or write "Holiday Blessings." This may be over the top, for, as I said, you may be wishing to refer to Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year's Day all-in-one, but if you are referring to the Christmas season in particular, say "Christmas Blessings," or, better yet, say "God Bless You." In fact, say that all the time.

3.) As I mentioned above, say "God Bless You," staying away from luck, the Fates, etc. You should do this all year round anyway. I'm reminded of the song Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas. One line of lyrics says the following: "Through the years, we will all will be together, if the fates allow..." The song has been Christianized, to say this: "if the Lord allows..." Is that a small change? Yes, in all appearance, but I would suggest singing the Christian version, even if the version you are singing WITH is the "fates" rendition.

Before I lose you all, I want to add this sidebar. This may sound like nit-picking, or extreme, but as the saying goes, "Extreme times call for extreme measures. (Or desperate times call for desperate measures.)" If we are only going to do the little things, we need to do a LOT of the little things. Even if we are going to do big things, the little things give us the chance to never cease being a part of the battle. And we know our enemy, Satan and his minions, are incessantly fighting.

4.) When writing or typing, please don't use the terminology "xmas." Although it may seem convenient, it is the epitome of taking Christ out of Christmas. Here's an idea on how to use the "xmas" phenomenon, though:
An "x" is made from a "cris-cross." It is used in "xmas" to make "crismas"--Christmas. But notice the second part of the x: "cross." Cris-cross. Christ-cross. Christ ON the cross. I'm sure there's a witnessing tool in there. But for normal usage, I say avoid "xmas."

5.) I've already mentioned "Season's Greetings," "Happy Holidays," and "Winter Holiday." But, also, here's a reminder not to call the time off of school "winter break." It is Christmas Break. Although kids in year-round school might have a normal off-time in the winter, kids who do not have year-round school get two to three weeks off because of Christmas and the "sub-holidays."

6.) As I've alluded to, stay away from Santa. Santa is one of the biggest detractors from Christ, especially when it comes to children. Woe, that we would cause the little children to stumble! That we would lead them astray! That we would distract them from the greatest Gift and Gift-Giver of them all! Santa is a cutesy figure, and he can be parts of Christian celebrations relatively harmlessly, but if children and/or unbelievers are involved, he should not be.
Santa parallels Christ in some elements. Along with that, if Santa is put on the same level with Christ at Christmastime, when children grow out of believing in Santa, why would they believe that the story of Christ is real? If parents are willing to lie to their kids that "yes, Santa is real," why would the kids later believe their parents when they are told, "Yes, Christ is real"?

7.) Seventhly, we need to get Christ and the story of Christ back into the media and the mainstream. An effort is currently being made at that through The Nativity Story, coming out in December. I can't fully endorse the movie's content--as I am not familiar enough with the script--but I can say that the base idea is noble. There are movies en masse about Santa Claus every year. The same should go for Christ--from preceding stories preceeding his birth, to the actual birth, to the ramifications of His birth and life.

8.) Support stores like Wal-Mart and Kohl's (Update: Sears and Macy's, as well) for bringing the word Christmas back "in their vocabulary." Criticism and boycotts from Christians finally caused a change, and a reward for these stores from Christians should ensue. The pressure needs to stay on stores like Best Buy, although, as I said, they can do anything they want, just like Wal-Mart can say ONLY Merry Christmas if it wants to (although, of course, it doesn't). Read the story here.

9.) Get involved with Christian charity operations. One of my personal favorites is Operation Christmas Child. (If you know of others, feel free to post them.) This group ships shoe-box sized packages that you assemble to under-privileged children around the world, and simultaneously shares the Good News with these children. If you don't have time to purchase and assemble a present, you can simply donate funds.

10.) Don't be afraid to mention Jesus! That's what this holiday is about: celebrating His birth. We shouldn't hide our speech about Him in the home and church. As I mentioned, it's a GREAT witnessing opportunity.

11.) Lastly, don't forget to pray. As I have spoken of prayer before, I don't feel I need to add anything here, except to emphasize it. Our focus during Christmas should be salvation, and there is no better one to have the assistance of than the God of Salvation.

~Kingdom Advancer

Ever since Christ's birth, starting with Herod, effort after effort has been made to "exterminate" or "eliminate" Christ one way or another in one form or another. Modern-day Christians find ourselves in the midst of the same battle that caused Joseph and Mary to take Jesus to Egypt; the same battle that caused Christ's crucifixion; the same battle that the Apostles fought; the same battle that has caused millions of Christian martyrdoms; and the same battle that has resulted in several concerted efforts at the destruction of the Bible, either literally or "intellectually." Will we Christians stand up today?

Plans

2006-11-07T18:55:00.000-05:00

We must protect this flag, and the people and country it represents!!!

Two posts on politics in a row? Why not, especially since it's election time? Now, as I sort of implied in my last post, I don't want politics to be too spiritually polarizing. But, quite frankly, I think the divide between conservatives and liberals (and subsequently, Republicans and Democrats) is so stark that is has long ago become an issue of spirituality. Christian values versus non-Christian values, etc.. Therefore, I post this without qualms. By the way, I hope you voted. And if you haven't yet, I hope you have time to read this...and then vote.

First, as a precursor, I want to note that this post is actually a comment I made on another blog (sound familiar?). Go there by clicking here. Really, this is in reply to one anonymous, whose two quotes I will post first:

Ha. What's the President's plan? can he articulate it? I haven't heard him do anything other than bash Democrats....but its HIS war, what's HIS plan?

(several comments later)

How? how is he going to "finish the job" - when do we know its "finished" and again, i reiterate, "what is his plan?" Many members of Congress that authorized it are now calling for a change in policy and a change in leadership. So, what's the plan?

~ Anonymous

And now my turn:

Bush's plan, to put it simply: Protect America.

Democrats' plan: I can't really be sure.

Bush's plan: Use aggressive interrogation techniques on terrorist detainees in order to attain important information to protect Americans.

Democrats' plan: Go easy on detainees. As (I think) Bill O'Reilly says, "Democrats want to try to get information out of terrorists by giving them milk and cookies."

Bush's plan: Secure the border, by putting up a fence as well as other things.

Democrats' plan: [whistle of the wind]--perhaps amnesty and/or open borders?

Bush's plan: Surveil terrorist communications and monetary transactions.

Democrats' plan: Give terrorists and those in contact with them their "rights to privacy." Essentially, their rights to privately plot to slaughter Americans.

Bush's plan: Defeat worldwide terrorism on the terms, "If you're a terrorist--you're against us. If you harbor terrorists--you're against us."

Democrats' plan: Negotiate with terrorists. Try to appease them.

Bush's plan: Protect this country and defeat its enemies at all costs (no matter what others say).

Democrats' plan: Go through the U.N. at all costs (e.g., no matter how many resolutions are violated).

Bush's plan: Finish the job in Iraq. He realizes leaving the job unfinished would be disastrous. He also has said that the military constantly adapts. That's the plan. That's the good kind of "change" the American people should want.

Some Democrats' plan: Cut and run. (Big mistake)

Other Democrats' plan: Divide the country. (Also probably a big mistake.)

Almost all Democrats' vague plan: "CHANGE!" (Easy to say. Harder to do.)

I have to vent a little bit about that last line. Democrats criticize Bush for campaigning on "stay the course," but the Democrats could be criticized even more for their "the people want change" line. On a cold day, if cool water is the hottest you can get in the shower, do you turn the knob to ice cold for "the sake of change"? I don't think so. In the same way, although I don't see Republicans as "cool water," for those who do, I ask: why would that make you vote for Democrats [the "ice-cold" water]? If you don't like your leaky roof, why do you then decide to go out and sit in the mud and rain? That's how I see voting for Democrats for the sake of not liking how Republicans are handling Iraq.

Here's a jewel quote from an ordinary, Democrat voter (I'll leave out specific candidates names): "I really don't want to vote for [Republican candidate]. But I CAN'T vote for [Democratic candidate]--he's an idiot!"

Now, I'm not calling all Democrats idiots by association, but I do love that quote.

However, I want to remind everyone (although this may be too late, anyway) that not voting is NOT the answer. You should pick the lesser of two evils, so to speak, because if you abstain from voting, you essentially are choosing the GREATER of the two evils.

Also, I could go on about how Bush and conservatives protect Americans and the Democrats don't. For instance, Bush tries to protect the most innocent and vulnerable of humans--the unborn. Most democrats do not. Bush tries to protect the sanctity of a productive and culturally healthy institution--marriage. Many (perhaps most) Democrats don't. The list goes on into embryonic stem cell research, cloning, etc.,etc.

Clearly, someone who says Bush doesn't have a plan really means, "I don't like Bush and conservatives' and Republicans' plan."

~ Kingdom Advancer