Life and Sex

Jim and I are a lot alike in many ways. One of the ways in which we are very different is that Jim was an atheist for 35 years while I have never really known a time when I did not believe in God. I have had times of doubt and have lived at times in rebellion to God, but never as an atheist. As someone who doesn't want to miss out on things in life, I love to take the road less traveled and the road well traveled and all the other short cuts and long cuts in between. Although atheism is not a road I can travel down at this point in my life with any kind of honest commitment, I find others' stories out of atheism compelling. Outspoken atheist blogger, the Raving Atheist (now the Raving Theist) posted his announcement that he had converted to Christianity late last year.

There also seems to be an intimate connection between understanding the pro-life position and conversion to Christianity for many. The most famous may be Norma McCorvey (AKA "Jane Roe" of Roe v Wade). She wrote in her book, Won by Love,

I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. "Norma," I said to myself, "They're right." I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, Abortion - it brings out the kid in you! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth--that's a baby!
I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about "products of conception." It wasn't about "missed periods." It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion–at any point–was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear.

Another atheism to Christianity blog is by Jennifer F. who tells how she became pro-life after her conversion. Like all these stories from our brothers and sisters in Christ, there is much to learn. I found most compelling the connection she makes between her view of sex growing up and how it distorted her view of life, choice and abortion.

Sex could not have been more disconnected from the concept of creating life.

The message I'd heard loud and clear was that the purpose of sex was for pleasure and bonding, that its potential for creating life was purely tangential, almost to the point of being forgotten about altogether. This mindset laid the foundation of my views on abortion. Because I saw sex as being closed to the possibility to life by default, I thought of pregnancies that weren't planned as akin to being struck by lightning while walking down the street -- something totally unpredictable, undeserved, that happened to people living normal lives.

Being pro-choice for me (and I'd imagine with many others) was actually motivated out of love and caring: I just didn't want women to have to suffer, to have to devalue themselves by dealing with unwanted pregnancies. Because it was an inherent part of my worldview that everyone except people with "hang-ups" eventually has sex and sex is, under normal circumstances, only about the relationship between the two people involved, I got lured into one of the oldest, biggest, most tempting lies in human history: to dehumanize the enemy. Babies had become the enemy because of their tendencies to pop up and ruin everything; and just as societies are tempted to dehumanize the fellow human beings who are on the other side of the lines in wartime, so had I, and we as a society, dehumanized the enemy of sex.

It was when I was reading up on the Catholic Church's view of sex, marriage and contraception that everything changed.

I'd always thought that those archaic teachings about not using contraception were because the Church wanted to oppress people by telling them to have as many kids as possible, or something like that. What I found, however, was that their views expressed a fundamentally different understanding of what sex is, and once I heard it I never saw the world the same way again. The way I'd always seen it, the standard position was that babies were a horrible burden, except for a couple times in life when everything is perfect enough that a couple might temporarily see new life as a good thing; the Catholic view is that the standard position is that babies are a blessing and a good thing, and while it's fine to attempt to avoid pregnancy for serious reasons, if we go so far as to adopt a "contraceptive mentality," feeling entitled to the pleasure of sex while loathing (and perhaps trying to forget all about) its life-giving properties, we not only disrespect this most sacred of acts, but we begin to see new life as the enemy.

To use a rough analogy, the Catholic Church was saying that loaded guns are not toys, that while they can perhaps be used for certain recreational activities, they are always to be handled with grave respect; my viewpoint, coming from contraceptive culture, was that it's fine to use loaded guns as toys as long as you put blanks in the chamber. Thinking of that analogy, expecting to be able to use something with incredible power nonchalantly, as a toy, I could see how that worldview had set us up for disaster.

I came to see that our culture's widespread use and acceptance of contraception had led to the "contraceptive mentality" toward sex being the default position. As a society, we'd come to take it for granted that we're entitled to the pleasurable and bonding aspects of sex even when we're in a state of being vehemently opposed to the new life it might produce. The option of abstaining from the act that creates babies if we're in a state of seeing babies as a huge burden had been removed from our cultural lexicon: even if it would be a huge crisis to get pregnant, we have a right to go ahead and have sex anyway. If this were true, if it was indeed a fact that it was morally OK for people to have sex even when they believed that a new baby could ruin their lives, in my mind, then, abortion had to be OK.

I realize that ideally I would have taken an objective look at when human life begins and based my views on that alone...but the lie was just too tempting. I didn't want to hear too much about heartbeats or souls or brain activity...terminating pregnancies just had to be OK, because carrying a baby to term and becoming a parent is a huge deal...and society had made it very clear that sex is not a huge deal. As long as I accepted that for people to engage in sex in a contraceptive mentality was morally OK, I could not bring myself to even consider that abortion might not be OK. It just seemed too inhumane to make women deal with life-altering consequences for an act that was not supposed to have life-altering consequences.

So this idea that we are always to treat the sexual act with awe and respect, so much so that we should simply abstain if we're vehemently opposed to its life-giving potential, was a totally new and different message. For me, being able to honestly consider when life begins, opening my heart and my mind to the wonder and dignity of even the tiniest of my fellow human beings, was not fully possible until I understood the nature of the act that creates these little lives in the first place.

At the time, I thought my dad gave a somewhat clumsy "birds and the bees" talk, but looking back, I think that he did a great job in connecting life and sex. I worry about my own children growing up in a culture that will say the opposite of what I will teach them about these same issues.

While my pro-life position coincides with the idea that we are all created in the image of God, I would not say that it is a religious position for me. I know that there is a biblical case to be made, but have never looked into it. I have never needed to. My position is that the murder of innocent human beings is wrong. I don't know anyone who would disagree with that statement. I had to at one time argue that embryos were human beings, but advances in science have made that reality abundantly clear. There was a time when I would have argued that although I thought that abortion was wrong, "who was I to impose that view on others?" Reason has since taken over. If abortion is the murder of an innocent human being, then why would I think that it was all right for others to murder an innocent human being?

Life and Sex

Truth in Love

Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church - Ephesians 4:15

The church these days seems to be divided over the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Albert Mohler reminds us how we are to respond to homosexuals with regard to Paul's message to the Ephesians about spiritual maturity, love and truth.

Evangelical Christians must ask ourselves some very hard questions, but the hardest may be this: Why is it that we have been so ineffective in reaching persons trapped in this particular pattern of sin? The Gospel is for sinners--and for homosexual sinners just as much as for heterosexual sinners. As Paul explained to the Corinthian church, "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" [1 Corinthians 6:11].

I believe that we are failing the test of compassion. If the first requirement of compassion is that we tell the truth, the second requirement must surely be that we reach out to homosexuals with the Gospel. This means that we must develop caring ministries to make that concern concrete, and learn how to help homosexuals escape the powerful bonds of that sin--even as we help others to escape their own bonds by grace.

Mohler challenges the church to reach out with the Good News that Christ has died for all sinners who trust in the sacrifice of God. But in order to know what they are being saved from, we must be compassionate and courageous enough to tell the truth of God's purpose for us in our relationships with each other and our creator.

Homosexual rights activists try to isolate the evangelical church, forcing change by political action and cultural pressure against a cultural tide of moral relativism that promotes personal feelings as the highest value. With evidence of young Christians ascribing less and less to a biblical worldview, Mohler implores our churches to

...teach the basics of biblical morality to Christians who will otherwise never know that the Bible prescribes a model for sexual relationships. Young people must be told the truth about homosexuality--and taught to esteem marriage as God's intention for human sexual relatedness.

The times demand Christian courage. These days, courage means that preachers and Christian leaders must set an agenda for biblical confrontation, and not shrink from dealing with the full range of issues related to homosexuality. We must talk about what the Bible teaches about gender--what it means to be a man or a woman. We must talk about God's gift of sex and the covenant of marriage. And we must talk honestly about what homosexuality is, and why God has condemned this sin as an abomination in His sight.

Not losing sight of the call from Ephesians,

And yet, even as courage is required, the times call for another Christian virtue as well--compassion. The tragic fact is that every congregation is almost certain to include persons struggling with homosexual desire or even involved in homosexual acts. Outside the walls of the church, homosexuals are waiting to see if the Christian church has anything more to say, after we declare that homosexuality is a sin.

But Mohler says that compassion does not mean that we need to change the message of sin. Telling a homosexual that he is a sinner is neither callous nor intolerant. We never think that a doctor is intolerant because they tell a patient that they have cancer.

Biblical Christians know that compassion requires telling the truth, and refusing to call sin something sinless. To hide or deny the sinfulness of sin is to lie, and there is no compassion in such a deadly deception. True compassion demands speaking the truth in love--and there is the problem. Far too often, our courage is more evident than our compassion.

...We cannot settle for truth without love nor love without truth. The Gospel settles the issue once and for all. This great moral crisis is a Gospel crisis. The genuine Body of Christ will reveal itself by courageous compassion, and compassionate courage. We will see this realized only when men and women freed by God's grace from bondage to homosexuality feel free to stand up in our churches and declare their testimony--and when we are ready to welcome them as fellow disciples. Millions of hurting people are waiting to see if we mean what we preach.

HT: The Pugancious Irishman

Truth in Love

From Drama to Discussion

Finally, some discussion about same-sex marriage, rather than the shouting of gay rights protestors and the stereotyping of those who defend marriage. Who would have thought that thanks to Carrie Prejean's convictions and character, a Miss USA Pageant would open this kind of exchange? Dennis Prager defends traditional marriage in a discussion on Larry King Live with Miss USA judge Perez Hilton.


In the interview Prager addresses Hilton’s comment that he is “talking about civil marriage, not religious marriage.”

Well, first of all, the civil marriage is the way we define marriage in society. What religions do is their business.

And what does a secular person do?

So the -- you can't separate them. There is a -- there is a marriage that is done in churches which is totally a church matter. The society doesn't recognize church marriages, necessarily.

I got married in a synagogue. The society doesn't recognize that marriage. It recognizes it as a civil marriage because the rabbi was confirmed by the State of California as one who could do a marriage.

Religious marriage is entirely a separate issue, as it should be in a country that separates church and state.

Hilton interjects,

I agree. I agree. I'm not talking about religious marriage. I'm talking about equality. The principals that this country were founded on, that we all should be treated equal.

But I don’t think that he gets it. As a society, we have certain restrictions that come with marriage. Marriage is not a right. For what other right do you need to apply for (and complete the requirements of) a license? You can’t marry someone who is already married, is under the age of consent, is closely related or is of the same sex. Hilton sees these restrictions as “religious” prohibitions. While they may coincide with Judeo-Christian values, they are boundaries determined by “civil” society for the benefit of children and families. In fact, these restrictions overrule "religious" mandates for polygamy in Islam and the early LDS and some current FLDS churches to mention just one example. Homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same restrictions. What gays are asking for are special permission to change these restrictions.

The comparison of same-sex marriage and race is brought up immediately by Hilton and I think that Prager handled it well.

That is absolutely right. And that was never the value of any religious tradition or any non-religious tradition. That was racism. And there's no comparison between the two for one incredibly important reason -- there is no difference between people of different races. There are immense differences between people of the two sexes.

The notion that sex and race or gender and race are parallel is -- is invalid. There is no difference between a black human and a white human. There are enormous differences between a male human and a female human.

Hilton thinks that there is no difference between males and females except for their body parts. He mentions intellect and contributions to society which of course is not in question. Prager continues,

Yes, treated equal, but not the same. We're not the same. Male and female aren't the same.

…Perez, I actually respect your intellectual honesty here. See, a lot of people I debate on this acknowledge that men and women are profoundly different. Perez thinks that we are, except for body parts, identical. If you believe that, then it doesn't matter what gender you marry.

But if you acknowledge that men and women are profoundly different, that a mother can give something to a child that no two men can give, that a man can give to a child something no two women can give, then you want to retain marriage as specifically male/female.

I wish that Dennis Prager would have asked Perez Hilton, “if there is no difference between men and women, should men be allowed to enter the Miss USA Pageant?” The problem is that Hilton can claim that men and women are the same, but he is homosexual, not bisexual. The difference between men and women IS important to Hilton. He isn’t ambivalent about who he has relations with. He likes men and the ways in which men are different.

From Drama to Discussion

Does Politically Correct Really Mean Lie?

I have hesitated in writing anything about the controversy surrounding the Miss USA 2009 pageant because well, it is ultimately a popularity contest and Miss California, Carrie Prejean, said something unpopular and so she lost. No big surprise. A couple of things...

If you don't know what I'm talking about go here. You can search around on YouTube for Perez Hilton's many rants and interviews (profanity warning) where he says among other things,

She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage. Miss California lost because she’s a dumb (expletive deleted). She gave an awful, awful answer which alienated so many people. And Miss California, Miss USA - she doesn’t alienate. She unites. She inspires.

and

I didn’t disagree with her not believing in the right for gays and lesbians to be equal under the law. I disagree with how she answered the question because Miss USA should be all inclusive. She should be my Miss USA. And when she answered the question that way, it was instantly divisive and alienated gays and lesbians and friends and supporters.

When asked how he would have answered the question, Hilton said,

"You know what, Perez, that’s a great question, very relevant right now. However, I think as the future Miss USA, I should represent all Americans and I’m not here to talk about politics. I’m here to inspire people. And I think it’s a great thing that the states are currently making these decisions and the states should continue to decide for themselves," something along those lines.

She could have stayed true to herself and not alienated anyone. Miss USA should represent me and everyone.

I think he would have also accepted "I think that it is unfair the way that gays are treated unequally and gay marriage should be legalized in all states!"

So let me get this straight, in response to Hilton's question,

Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?

Hilton says he expected her to say something politically correct like,

I think it’s a great thing that the states are currently making these decisions and the states should continue to decide for themselves.

While that seems like a fair compromise to Hilton, a) it in no way answers the question and b) it would go against what she believes as well, especially when in California, if the state decides to legalize same-sex marriage it will be against the will of the majority of voters. Notice that in his response he does not allow for a statement about Prejean's belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman even though he says he didn’t disagree with her for "not believing in the right for gays and lesbians to be equal under the law." Essentially any response in line with her Christian beliefs would have lost her the pageant because of Hilton.

Hilton gave Prejean a zero score and she ended up receiving second place in the competition. The winner, Miss North Carolina, Kristin Dalten's question (from a different judge) was

Do you believe that taxpayers' money should be used to bailout struggling U.S. companies? Why and/or why not?

She answered,

That's a tough one. Um, no, I don't think that U.S. taxpayers' money should be used to bail out companies. Taxpayers' money should go towards bettering our education and our school systems and, and welfare and the healthcare systems and that's what our taxpayers' money should go to. Absolutely.

It seems that she was able to give her opinion and not have to give a politically correct non-answer. What about all the workers and families of the companies that have been bailed out? What about those officials and their supporters that thought it was in the best interest of the United States? Won't they feel alienated? Wasn't her response divisive?

Carrie Prejean didn't compromise and has received more publicity because of her stance, her character and of course Perez Hilton's lack thereof. That being said, can we armchair quarterback a bit and develop our position for traditional marriage? What would you say in response to Perez Hilton's question (contestants are given 30 seconds)?

I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman because that's how I was raised is not a great answer with little persuasive power. Simply substitute 'I believe that racial discrimination, torturing babies or littering is acceptable' for 'marriage between a man and a woman' and you can see why.

How about "No. Although I believe that all people are created equal and should have the same rights, marriage is not a right and so I think that we have to admit that same-sex marriage has nothing to do with equal rights. Gays certainly have the right to commit themselves in civil union to someone of the same sex and have an elaborate ceremony that can be attended by friends and family without changing what marriage means. In California, civil unions are afforded all the same rights and privileges that marriages are given, so it would seem that the redefining of marriage for the purpose of attaining rights doesn't seem to make much sense. In the same way, I would oppose a movement by heterosexuals who wanted to be a part of the gay community by lobbying to change the definition of homosexual or gay to also include those who do not have homosexual attractions/desires/behaviors?"

Too direct? I guess it's probably a good thing that I'm not trying to win any popularity contests.

Does Politically Correct Really Mean Lie?

Rock Star Apologetics

I ran across this excerpt from, Bono: In Conversation with Michka Assayas while looking for an article on Karma.

Assayas is a friend of Bono's and a journalist. This is part of their conversation.

Assayas: I think I am beginning to understand religion because I have started acting and thinking like a father. What do you make of that?

Bono: Yes, I think that's normal. It's a mind-blowing concept that the God who created the universe might be looking for company, a real relationship with people, but the thing that keeps me on my knees is the difference between Grace and Karma.

Assayas: I haven't heard you talk about that.

Bono: I really believe we've moved out of the realm of Karma into one of Grace.

Assayas: Well, that doesn't make it clearer for me.

Bono: You see, at the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics—in physical laws—every action is met by an equal or an opposite one. It's clear to me that Karma is at the very heart of the universe. I'm absolutely sure of it. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that "as you reap, so you will sow" stuff. Grace defies reason and logic. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I've done a lot of stupid stuff.

Assayas: I'd be interested to hear that.

Bono: That's between me and God. But I'd be in big trouble if Karma was going to finally be my judge. I'd be in deep s---. It doesn't excuse my mistakes, but I'm holding out for Grace. I'm holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity.

Assayas: The Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. I wish I could believe in that.

Bono: But I love the idea of the Sacrificial Lamb. I love the idea that God says: Look, you cretins, there are certain results to the way we are, to selfishness, and there's a mortality as part of your very sinful nature, and, let's face it, you're not living a very good life, are you? There are consequences to actions. The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That's the point. It should keep us humbled… . It's not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven.

Assayas: That's a great idea, no denying it. Such great hope is wonderful, even though it's close to lunacy, in my view. Christ has his rank among the world's great thinkers. But Son of God, isn't that farfetched?

Bono: No, it's not farfetched to me. Look, the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: he was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, be they Elijah, Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucius. But actually Christ doesn't allow you that. He doesn't let you off that hook. Christ says: No. I'm not saying I'm a teacher, don't call me teacher. I'm not saying I'm a prophet. I'm saying: "I'm the Messiah." I'm saying: "I am God incarnate." And people say: No, no, please, just be a prophet. A prophet, we can take. You're a bit eccentric. We've had John the Baptist eating locusts and wild honey, we can handle that. But don't mention the "M" word! Because, you know, we're gonna have to crucify you. And he goes: No, no. I know you're expecting me to come back with an army, and set you free from these creeps, but actually I am the Messiah. At this point, everyone starts staring at their shoes, and says: Oh, my God, he's gonna keep saying this. So what you're left with is: either Christ was who He said He was—the Messiah—or a complete nutcase. I mean, we're talking nutcase on the level of Charles Manson. This man was like some of the people we've been talking about earlier. This man was strapping himself to a bomb, and had "King of the Jews" on his head, and, as they were putting him up on the Cross, was going: OK, martyrdom, here we go. Bring on the pain! I can take it. I'm not joking here. The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me, that's farfetched …

HT: Strange Herring

Rock Star Apologetics

LDS Core Beliefs

FAIR, The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, the apologetics group for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), has recently released their monthly Journal and it contains a message from Scott Gordon, the president of FAIR.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

One of the great difficulties we have as Latter-days Saints is explaining to others what we believe. As others try to pin us down in our beliefs, they frequently run into comments such as, "that's not what I believe," or "I wouldn't put it that way." Some of our critics shake their heads in exasperation. What do Mormons really believe? Some say that pinning down LDS beliefs is as difficult as nailing Jell-O to the wall. That's because many critics are looking for a list of our beliefs. They are familiar with the idea of a systematic theology, which is common in their own faith tradition, and when they don't find it, they search books looking for the truth of what Mormons believe.

As they search those books, they come up with comments that they piece together to define what they think must be LDS beliefs. But they are typically spectacularly wrong and often focus on the unimportant things.

There is a diversity of thought within the LDS community on many issues. But there is a set of core LDS beliefs. Some of those core beliefs are as follows: We believe that God lives and that Jesus is the Christ. We believe that the Bible and the Book of Mormon contain the Word of God. We believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet today. We believe we should do our best to follow what God wants us to do.

Outside of these core beliefs, there are many other issues that we talk about which we may or may not know. These are things we are studying and learning. We may differ from one another in many of these areas. The important thing is that one can remain a good and faithful member of the Church so long as we hold to those aforementioned core beliefs...

Except for believing that Joseph Smith and Thomas Monson are prophets of God, we as Christians would agree with pretty much everything else in the "core beliefs" as described above. The problem is that much is intentionally left out.

LDS may believe that God lives, but in Mormonism, God is but one of many gods who was once a man and earned His way to godhood. They may believe that Jesus is the Christ, but He is our brother and the brother of Satan, a created , non-eternal being (God the Father as well) who can not save us in our sins and died so that we would be resurrected to be judged on our good works and help us out if we don't become quite perfect. They believe that the Bible and the Book of Mormon contain the word of God although the Bible has lost many important truths and can't be entirely trusted due to mistranslations. Even the combination of the Bible and Book of Mormon is not sufficient to explain all that God wants to and so continued revelation is necessary. They believe that Joseph Smith was necessary to restore the truth of God's plan and that includes modern day prophets. Not only do LDS believe that we should do our best, but that following all the commandments and ordinances is how we will become exalted to godhood, becoming gods of our own worlds.

Does this seem extremely deceptive to anyone else? Imagine you bought a car that claimed to have air-conditioning, low mileage, and no accidents. After purchasing the car you found out that none of the claims were true. You return to the person who sold you the car and they explain that the air-conditioning requires that you roll down the windows, the low mileage was achieved by rolling back the odometer and that the previous owner did crash the car, but they intended to do so, therefore it was not "an accident". You would be furious. You would have been lied to and you would demand your money back or take legal action against them.

It also is not true that one can remain a good and faithful member of the Church so long as they hold to those aforementioned core beliefs as they are simply stated. God MUST have a body of flesh and bones and CAN NOT be a Trinity; faith in Christ alone WILL NOT save you; the Bible CAN NOT be trusted over your own testimony and Joseph Smith was NECESSARY in restoring priesthood authority. You MUST obey the Word of Wisdom, be MARRIED in the temple, etc. to remain a good and faithful member of the Church.

I love Mormons, but I think this is a horrible apologetic. Their scholars and apologists are encouraging dishonesty and deceit in faithful LDS believers. Conmen have a term for this, it's called a "bait and switch".

LDS Core Beliefs

Reacting to the Day of Silence

Today is the 12th annual Day of Silence on many high school and college campuses. By remaining silent, students and teachers are trying to bring awareness to bullying and harassment, especially of gay, lesbian and bisexually identified (or accused) students. This student-run event, supported by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) has in the past led teachers and students to to be silent even during teaching hours and so some conservative groups are advising parents to keep their children home or have them walk out if the Day of Silence is being observed. Although the Day of Silence claims to defend against all bullying, the movement definitely is designed to promote homosexual behavior and is intolerant of anyone who believes that homosexual behavior is not a good or healthy alternative.

In response to the Day of Silence, the Alliance Defense Fund and Exodus International are sponsoring the Day of Truth the following Monday. Also student-run, students are encouraged to challenge homosexuality by wearing T-shirts and passing out cards that state: “I’m speaking the Truth to break the silence. True tolerance means that people with differing — even opposing — viewpoints can freely exchange ideas and respectfully listen to each other. It’s time for an honest conversation about homosexuality. There’s freedom to change if you want to. Let’s talk.”

So the question becomes how do we as Christians encourage the safety of all students, including our gay friends and neighbors without sacrificing our convictions about sexuality? As Christians should we be protesting or leading by example? Are we missing a teachable moment?

Jennifer Autry writes,

While homosexuality should indeed be countered by Christians who believe the lifestyle is harmful and immoral, as I do, it seems intrinsically backward to expect GLBT students to listen to Christians on the Day of Truth when we refuse to extend them the same common courtesy and respect on the Day of Silence.

…As an alternative to the walkout, [Warren] Throckmorton [Christian and psychology professor at Grove City College] and Michael Frey, western Pennsylvania director for College Ministries with Campus Crusade, last year proposed the Golden Rule Pledge, where Christian students promise to stay in school on the National Day of Silence and hand pledge cards to GLBT students that state: “I pledge to treat others that way I wanted to be treated. ‘Do unto others as you would have them do to you’ (Luke 6:31).”

From the Golden Rule Pledge Blog,

We encourage Christian kids to demonstrate the grace of Christ by pledging to follow the Golden Rule in their interactions with all students. Last year, students in over 30 high schools and colleges participated by agreeing with GLBT peers to respect each other as Image bearers of God. Students distributed pledges to honor the teaching of Christ to love as He loved and to treat others as we want to be treated.

Autry reminds us,

Christians who remain skeptical of lovingly engaging GLBT students must remember Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well, recorded in John 4:1-42. Because Samaritans practiced a religion comprised of Jewish and pagan beliefs, Jews did not associate with them.

Rather than ignore the woman or criticize her for holding pagan beliefs, Jesus showed compassion by sharing the message of eternal life with her and then preaching to the other Samaritans.

John 4:39-41 states, “Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in Him because of the woman’s testimony, ‘He told me everything I ever did.’ So when the Samaritans came to Him, they urged Him to stay with them, and He stayed two days. And because of His words many more became believers.”

Reacting to the Day of Silence

Is Rick Warren a Liar? - Part 2

In a previous post I commented that I think that a real opportunity has been missed by Warren with regard to giving a clear and comprehensive apologetic for what we believe and why. I was rereading the interview by Christianity Today in which Rick Warren says,

...I don't know how you take one video newsletter to your own church and turn that into, all of a sudden I'm the poster boy for anti-gay marriage.

Obama called me the first week in December and asked me to do the invocation [prayer]. I made a commitment to say nothing to the press about it until after the inauguration. For nearly 40 days or 50 days — I called it 40 days of persecution (laughs) — I took all kinds of flak and never responded back.

The only response that I made was, I wrote an e-mail to all of the gay leaders that I know. I have many friends who are gay leaders whom we've worked with on AIDS campaign on health, poverty, and disease. The guys that I knew, I apologized to them.

In a Beliefnet interview, which was an hour long, Steve Waldman asked me about gay marriage. I said I believe marriage, that term, should be reserved for a man and a woman. I'm not saying same-sex couples don't love each other. I gave some examples of what I think shouldn't be considered to be marriage, like an older guy with a younger woman. Then [Waldman] said, "Are you saying that those are the same thing?" I said, "Oh sure." It made it sound like I was equating homosexuality with pedophilia and incest. I don't believe it, never have, and never would.

I don't believe that, but because I made a commitment to not say anything about it, people just ran with it.

Rick decided that during the time in which he had the most opportunity to be heard to deliberately not say anything? Jim has spoken in the past about being Responsive Christians based on 1 Peter3:15.

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 1 Peter 3:15

As Responsive Christians we need to live lives of integrity, commitment and confidence in God. We need to be in the world, but not of it; not secluding ourselves to the safety of only the Christian community. We need to not shy away from conversations about the tough subjects. These are great opportunities to share those areas of our life that may prompt people to ask, "Why?" We need to be patient and wait for their questions, but strategic in how we share our lives and CREATE opportunities (or use opportunities created for us) for people to question who and what we are as Christians. We need to be prepared with an answer and then actually GIVE the answers!

God has used Rick in amazing ways and I just want to encourage him to not miss an opportunity to give good answers to a world that is asking about what we believe and why we believe it.

Is Rick Warren a Liar? - Part 2

Is the Devil Real? asks Barna Group

Barna conducted a new study on spiritual beings, the influence of faith on their life, views of the Bible, and reactions to faiths other than their own show the inconsistencies of many Christians in America.

When asked questions about spiritual beings, although 78% said he is the “all-powerful, all-knowing Creator of the universe who rules the world today,”
only 40% strongly agreed that Satan “is not a living being but is a symbol of evil.” A minority of Christians (35%) disagreed with the statement indicated that they believe Satan is real.

Although a core teaching of the Christian faith is the divinity and perfection of Jesus Christ, tens of millions of Christians do not accept that teaching. More than one-fifth (22%) strongly agreed that Jesus Christ sinned when He lived on earth, with an additional 17% agreeing somewhat. Holding the opposing view were 9% who disagreed somewhat and 46% who disagreed strongly. Six percent did not have an opinion on this matter.

Much like their perceptions of Satan, most Christians do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a living force, either. Overall, 38% strongly agreed and 20% agreed somewhat that the Holy Spirit is “a symbol of God’s power or presence but is not a living entity.” Just one-third of Christians disagreed that the Holy Spirit is not a living force (9% disagreed somewhat, 25% disagreed strongly) while 9% were not sure.

While most self-described Christians said that their religious faith has significantly impacted their life, believed that a person must either side with God or with the devil – that there is no in-between position and that the most important purpose in their life is to “love God with all their heart, mind, strength and soul,” they weren't as sure about Mormonism, Wicca and other religions holy books.

Among self-identified Christians, few held a positive opinion of Wicca. Overall, just 5% had a positive opinion while 55% had a negative opinion of Wicca. However, a huge segment (40%) did not know enough about Wicca to have formed an opinion of it, despite it being described to them as “an organized form of witchcraft.”

Survey respondents were asked whether they believed that Mormons are Christians. Mormons themselves claim to be Christian, but most evangelical leaders say that they are not. There was no clear-cut perspective among the self-described Christians: four out of ten felt Mormons were Christian (18% strongly agreed, 21% somewhat agreed), three out of ten disagreed (17% strongly, 12% somewhat), and three out of ten were not sure what to think.

...When faced with the statement that “the Bible, the Koran and the Book of Mormon are all different expressions of the same spiritual truths,” the group was evenly split between those who accepted the idea (19% agreed strongly, 22% agreed somewhat) and those who rejected it (28% disagreed strongly, 12% disagreed somewhat), while leaving a sizeable portion (20%) undecided.

The Barna study recognized these inconsistencies,

About half (47%) of the Christians who believed that Satan is merely a symbol of evil nevertheless agreed that a person can be under the influence of spiritual forces such as demons.
About half (49%) of those who agreed that the Holy Spirit is only a symbol but not a living entity also agreed that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches, even though the Bible clearly describes the Holy Spirit as more than a symbolic reference to God’s power or presence.
About one-third (33%) of the self-defined Christians who agree that the Bible, Koran and Book of Mormon all teach the same truths simultaneously contend that the Bible is totally accurate in its principles, even though the three sacred books have very different ideas about truth, salvation, and the nature of God.

Statistically significant differences were seen in the research between two groups; “Born Again Christians,” were defined as people "who said they had made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that was still important in their life today and who also indicated they believed that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior" and those who describe themselves as Christian but "do not base their view of salvation solely on confession of sin and God’s grace received through Jesus Christ" (labeled "nominal Christians").

Born again adults are at least twice as likely as notionals to strongly agree that the Bible is accurate in all the principles it teaches; that their life has been greatly transformed by their faith; that a person can be under the influence of spiritual forces such as demons; and to hold an unfavorable opinion of Wicca.
Born again adults are more than twice as likely as notionals to strongly disagree that Satan is just a symbol of evil, and that Jesus sinned while He lived on earth.
Born again adults are more than three times as likely as notionals to strongly disagree that the Holy Spirit is merely a symbol of God’s power or presence; that Mormons are Christians; and that the Bible, Koran and Book of Mormon teach the same truths.
Born again adults are one-third more likely than notionals to possess a definition of God as the omniscient, omnipotent creator and ruler of the world; nearly 60% more likely to believe that you either side with God or Satan because there is no in-between position; and slightly more than 50% more likely to say their chief purpose in life is to love God with all their heart, mind, strength and soul.

The major source of difference it seems to me is trust in the word of God. If you A) believe that the Bible is true and B) have knowledge of what scripture says, you will know and believe that the devil is real, the Holy Spirit is a person, Jesus did not sin, witchcraft is forbidden and that the claims of Mormonism and Islam don't coincide with what the Bible teaches. The researchers found that only 55% strongly agreed that the Bible is accurate in all of the principles it teaches, with another 18% agreeing somewhat.

Another important point was that both the Born Again and Nominal Christians agreed strongly (39% and 31% respectively) that it was important to have active relationships with people who reject the central tenets of the person’s faith. I would like to hope that this is because we want to be a light in this world and not just surround ourselves with other Christians, but I know that it is probably more likely that this is found at one end of the spectrum and relativism is found at the other.

Why do you think Christians and others dismiss the reality of Satan even if they believe in God? This was the subject of a recent debate shown on Dateline (watch here). Here is a great synopsis of that debate.

Is the Devil Real? asks Barna Group

Inside the Revolution

You rarely hear about it on the news. You rarely even hear about it in churches in the West, in the East, or even in the Middle East. But the big, untold story is that more Muslims are coming to faith in Jesus Christ today than at any other time in history.

says Joel C. Rosenberg, the New York Times best-selling author of The Last Jihad. Joel is not just a Gold Medallion winner for Best Novel, Joel has worked with several U.S. and Israeli leaders, including Steve Forbes, former Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Natan Sharansky, and former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Joel has spent the last several years interviewing more than 150 pastors and ministry leaders operating deep inside the most difficult countries of the Islamic world for Inside The Revolution, his newest non-fiction account of the people God is using to change the lives of Muslims. Joel reports that,

...in Iran, more than 1 million Shia Muslims have turned to Christ since 1979. In Pakistan, there are now more than 2.5 million followers of Jesus Christ. In Sudan, there are now more than 5 million followers of Christ. Not every country has seen millions leave Islam to become adherants of the New Testament teachings of Jesus. In Syria, there are between 4,000 and 5,000 believers, but this is up from almost none in 1967. In Saudi Arabia, there are about 100,000 followers of Jesus now, up from almost none in 1967. But overall, the trend has been dramatic and largely unreported.

Joel shares part of the reason why maybe for the first time, Muslims are open to the gospel and revival.

For many Muslims, despair and despondency at what they see as the utter failure of Islamic governments and societies to improve their lives and give them peace, security, and a sense of purpose and meaning in life are causing them to leave Islam in search of truth. Some have lost their way entirely and become agnostics and atheists. Others, as we have seen, have sadly turned to alcohol and drug abuse. But millions are finding that only Jesus Christ heals the ache in their hearts and the deep wounds in their souls.

For other Muslims, it is not depression but rage that is driving them away from the Qur’an and the mosque. They are seeing far too many Muslim leaders and governments and preachers both advocating and acting out cruelty toward women and children and violence even against fellow Muslims. Not all of these find Jesus in their journey away from Islam, but millions do, especially since the 9/11 attacks against the United States. In fact, while this backlash against the theology and practice of Radicalism has been building since 1979, I first began to detect it during my travels in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East soon after 9/11. Again and again, I would meet people who had long been devout and traditional Muslims who told me that they had watched with horror as Arabic television networks constantly replayed the images of commercial airliners hijacked by radical Islamic jihadists flying into the World Trade Center.

First they found themselves weeping. But then they saw other Muslims cheering, and their sadness turned to anger as they asked themselves, “Is this who we really are? Is this what it really means to be a Muslim? To fly planes into buildings and kill thousands of innocent civilians? Because if it is, then count me out. How could I possibly be part of a religion or a political movement that glorifies and celebrates death?”

Joel retells the incredible interview he had with pastor who was former Muslim.

I met “Shakir” during my first trip to Iraq in February of 2008. Another fearless and effective evangelist, church planter, and pastor in his war-torn country, Shakir (pronounced “Shah-keer”) has a tremendous passion to care for the poor and needy, preach the gospel—especially in villages and rural areas—and help young converts from Islam study the Bible and become fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ. But this was not always the case. Indeed, how Shakir became a Christian and entered full-time ministry is one of the most fascinating testimonies I have personally had the privilege of hearing firsthand...

“Were you raised in a Christian home?” I asked through our translator.

“No,” he replied quietly. “I was raised a Muslim.”

“Really!” I said, a bit startled. “What did you do before becoming a pastor?”

“I was a jihad cell commander.”

I gulped. You don’t say, I thought. He certainly had my full attention now. “Please, tell me your story,” I said eagerly, pulling out my notebook. Shakir graciously agreed.

Read the full story here.

What do you think about the thousands of testimonies of Muslims having dreams of Isa/Jesus?

Inside the Revolution

He Died for My Sins.

"He died for my sins." My lips tremble as I speak the words and know that this truth has changed my life and is once again brought into focus on this Good Friday.

The Great Exchange

Lord, the condemnation was yours,
that the justification might be mine.

The agony was yours,
that the victory might be mine.

The pain was yours,
and the ease mine.

The stripes were yours,
and the healing balm issuing from them mine.

The vinegar and gall were yours,
that the honey and sweet might be mine.

The curse was yours,
that the blessing might be mine.

The crown of thorns was yours,
that the crown of glory might be mine.

The death was yours,
the life purchased by it mine.

You paid the price
that I might enjoy the inheritance. ~ John Flavel (1671)

HT: Between Two Worlds

He Died for My Sins.

Is Rick Warren a Liar?

Rick Warren is being attacked from all sides for recent comments on Larry King Live.

Larry King asks,

How did you handle all the controversy that resulted about the president selecting you?

PASTOR RICK WARREN, DELIVERED PRAYER AT OBAMA'S INAUGURATION: Yes, you know, Larry, there was a story within a story that never got told. In the first place, I am not an anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist. I never have been, never will be.

During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never -- never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going.

In nearly every article and blog calling Warren a liar, this is the part of the interview quoted (sometimes only quoting him as saying "I am not anti-gay marriage") or the edited YouTube clip that is shown and then directly below it is Rick's video message to Saddleback members just prior to election day with the following quote from that address.

This is not even just a Christian issue, it's a humanitarian, a human issue, that God created marriage for the purpose of family, love and procreation. So I urge you to support Proposition 8 and pass that word on

He never issued a statement? And yet there is his endorsement. It doesn't look good for Warren. But he wasn't finished. He continues,

The week before the -- the vote, somebody in my church said, Pastor Rick, what -- what do you think about this?

And I sent a note to my own members that said, I actually believe that marriage is -- really should be defined, that that definition should be -- say between a man and a woman.

And then all of a sudden out of it, they made me, you know, something that I really wasn't. And I actually -- there were a number of things that were put out. I wrote to all my gay friends -- the leaders that I knew -- and actually apologized to them. That never got out.

There were some things said that -- you know, everybody should have 10 percent grace when they say public statements. And I was asked a question that made it sound like I equated gay marriage with pedophilia or incest, which I absolutely do not believe. And I actually announced that.

All of the criticism came from people that didn't know me.

KING: Well...

WARREN: Not a single criticism came from any gay leader who knows me and knows that for years, we've been working together on AIDS issues and all these other things.

KING: All right. Do you, therefore, criticize or not comment on the Iowa court decision to permit gay marriage?

WARREN: Yes. I'm -- I'm totally oblivious to -- to what -- that's not even my agenda. My agenda is two things.

One, today is the 15th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda. It's a national day of mourning, which I -- as you know, I've been heavily involved in -- in Rwanda and helping rebuild that nation and I'm very concerned about that.

And later in the interview,

[King:] One other thing in the gay issue, while you said you were not an activist at all...

WARREN: Yes.

KING: Did you not encourage your flock to vote yes on Proposition 8?

WARREN: Oh, yes. You know, I don't think that the definition of marriage should be changed.

KING: So you did ask your people who worship with you to vote that way?

WARREN: Yes. I just never campaigned...

KING: ...because that's an active issue.

WARREN: I never campaigned for it. I never -- I'm not an anti-gay activist -- never have been. Never participated in a single event. I just simply made a note in a newsletter. And, of course, everything I write it's -- it's (INAUDIBLE).

KING: It's not high on your road of issues?

WARREN: No, no, it's very low. In fact, I am working with a number of gay organizations on issues that we care about, in saving lives.

In the context of the interview you can see that what Warren is saying is that while he does endorse traditional marriage between a man and a woman, he has no animosity towards gays. So then Steven Waldman points the finger back at Warren because he is the one who interviewed Warren at Beliefnet regarding the incest issue but then later defends him,

Despite his lack of self awareness on gay marraige (and the pain he's caused gays), I still think that he deserves to great credit for his extraordinary work in fighting poverty and disease in Africa. This man is saving thousands and thousands of lives and we should keep looking at the full Rick Warren.

But that's only half the battle. Christians are attacking Warren saying that he is "softening his stance" and "backpeddling" on same sex marriage asking how he could apologize for his position. The truth is that Warren never really took a strong stand to begin with and only apologized for the perception that gays were equivalent to incestuous relationships or pedophilia (it is clear that he meant that marriage should be between a man and a woman and not any other type of relationship).

Warren explains himself on Hugh Hewitt's show and just tonight, a spokesperson for Warren and Saddleback church sent further clarification:

Throughout his pastoral ministry spanning nearly 30 years, Dr. Warren has remained committed to the biblical definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, for life -- a position held by most fellow Evangelical pastors. He has further stressed that for 5,000 years, EVERY culture and EVERY religion has maintained this worldview.

When Dr. Warren told Larry King that he never campaigned for California's Proposition 8, he was referring to not participating in the official two-year organized advocacy effort specific to the ballot initiative in that state, based on his focus and leadership on other compassion issues. Because he's a pastor, not an activist, in response to inquiries from church members, he issued an email and video message to his congregation days before the election confirming where he and Saddleback Church stood on this issue.

During the King interview, Dr. Warren also referenced a letter of apology that he sent to gay leaders whom he knew personally. However, that mea culpa was not with respect to his statements or position on Proposition 8 nor the biblical worldview on marriage. Rather, he apologized for his comments in an earlier Beliefnet interview expressing his concern about expanding or redefining the definition of marriage beyond a husband-wife relationship, during which he unintentionally and regrettably gave the impression that consensual adult same sex relationships were equivalent to incest or pedophilia.

While I think that the clarification is sufficient to explain the situation to any reasonable person, I think that a real opportunity has been missed. When all eyes are on you; when phones are ringing off the hook for interviews; when many will go to the Saddleback website as many did when he was announced to give the inaugural invocation (and continue to do); is the time to give a clear and comprehensive apologetic for what we believe and why. To just say that "it's in the Bible" gives ammunition to those who would say that we do not live in a theocracy and has no weight for those who do not take the Bible to be the word of God. Yes it's in the Bible, but because God loves us, He gives us guidelines for our benefit. Those guidelines when disregarded manifest in negative ways that can be seen in the lives of individuals, families, children and society. It is out of love that we to speak the truth and warn those that engage in homosexual behavior of the inherent dangers. The opportunity to teach why we believe traditional marriage is vital to our relationship with God, others and our understanding of the Gospel is being missed in all this. What's the worst that could happen? People get mad at him?

Is Rick Warren a Liar?

Proof of a Designer

Perry Marshall, a Google AdWords marketing consultant and computer networking expert, uses his background experience to point out what he believes is a proof for the Designer.

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled his proof. All you need is one. See here for a video presentation.

What do you think?

Marshall has issued an open challenge to anyone who understands information theory, and has a rigorous argument. He has been challenged so far with six major counter-arguments.

1. The objection that DNA is not a code (it is, by universal definition)

2. The objection that information is not real (it is, because it produces real effects)

3. The objection that information has no objective meaning (it does, because a message produces results that are just as objective and specific as the message itself)

4. The objection that random processes can create information (they can't)

5. The objection that codes do occur naturally (they don't)

6. The objection that the nature of the Designer cannot be determined (in very broad terms, it can)

Marshall explains that,

...the atheist position is forced to insist, against decades of well-established scientific literature and every convention in the field of biology, that DNA "isn't really a code." And yet things like pebbles and snowflakes somehow are.

...[The atheists] insist that I'm foolish for taking all those biology books literally. How very interesting that the atheist position cannot accept one of the most fundamental definitions in modern science, once the implications become clear: If DNA is a code, then we have every reason to believe that it is designed.

Proof of a Designer

Does God Exists?: The Craig vs. Hitchens Debate

I went to the William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens debate Does God Exist? on Saturday night with some friends from church and had a great time. One thing came across very clear in the opening arguments and continued throughout the debate. Craig came prepared for a debate and Hitchens did not. Hitchens came prepared to maybe talk over some beers at a bar where wisdom is seen as the loudest voice with the quickest witty response. Some will say that it wasn't fair but Hitchens is no dummy. He also had access to Craig's papers, debates, etc. Craig didn't come with any crazy twists. He brought classical proofs for God's existence.

Maybe I assume too much, but I would just imagine that atheists who are writing books and participating in debates would be familiar with these proofs. Hitchens clearly did not even understand the Moral Argument much less answer it. I have seen Hitchens debate before and the same question was proposed then. He didn't understand it then and he still doesn't understand it. Craig wasn't asking how an atheist can be moral without God. That is a different question than can the atheist account for the objective moral truths that we discover (remember Hitchens is not a relativist)? The only thing that I can conclude is that Hitchens just doesn't really care about the answers to these questions.

Trained atheist philosophers would not have had an easy time debating Craig, but Hitchens was especially out of his element because Craig would not follow the red herrings and continued to hold Hitchens' feet to the flames with regard to his opening remarks about the evidences for the existence of God. Hitchens brought no evidence for atheism and instead tried to push the burden of proof onto Craig and then claim that the proofs were not extraordinary enough. The highlight for me was when Craig quoted noted atheist Bertrand Russell against Hitchens' main form of attack. Hitchens wants to say that because religion has done bad things, there is no God. Russell argued that because Christians did good things, it did not prove that there was a God pointing out the non sequitur. I also love Craig's heart in always trying to get to the gospel in a debate, never shying away from his convictions as a Christian. You know that he would rather lose the debate and have Christopher's heart won to God and it showed.

Other great insights to the debate:

Doug Geivett, Melinda Penner (here and here), Mary Jo Sharp and Rich Bordner.

Does God Exists?: The Craig vs. Hitchens Debate

The Jesus Tomb Unmasked

"Has the tomb of Jesus Christ been found? With the help of archaeologists, DNA analysts, biblical scholars and statisticians, join Academy award-winning filmmaker, James Cameron as he follows the trail of clues that could lead to the greatest discovery of all time. This gripping two-hour special sheds new light on the story of one very well-known family." This was the claim of The Discovery Channel's 2007 documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus.

The documentary not only claims that the Jesus did not resurrect and ascend to Heaven, but was married and had a child as well. These claims were refuted (see here, here, and here), but still this distortion of the truth persists.

Joel Kramer from Living Hope Ministries has formed Sourceflix Productions. The non-profit production team are “three guys who believe the Bible is real history. So we are living in Israel, traveling the country, exploring the source, interviewing scholars, and seeing for ourselves the evidence that supports this booking which we base our faith. And of course, presenting that evidence to you.”

Joel began his documentary ministry to reach out to Mormons and soon realized that although Mormons say that they believe in the Bible, the LDS church discounts the Bible as missing many “plain and precious truths” due to corruption. This led Joel to Israel to document the historicity of the Bible and in comparison, the lack of any historical evidence for the Book of Mormon.



Now Joel has returned to Israel and continues the work that was started there.

Expedition Bible is an online and DVD series that documents the Sourceflix guys as they travel and interview. There first series interviews the archaeologists and epigraphers from The Tomb of Jesus original documentary. Eager to divulge the truth that they were “manipulated,” and “highly edited” by the Discovery Channel team, they describe the original documentary as “a hoax” used to dupe and mislead the audience and undermine history to the point where ”facts were changed.” Check out The Jesus Tomb Unmasked.

William Lane Craig is also interviewed and as always does a great job of defending the Christian view of the resurrection of Christ.

The Jesus Tomb Unmasked

Dr. Oz from the Oprah Winfrey Show, "The Stem Cell Debate is Dead"

UPDATE: a correction to the viewership of the Oprah show - 7 million not billion

On a recent Oprah Winfrey show, Dr. Oz explains to Oprah, guest Micheal J. Fox and over 7 million viewers the problems with embryonic stem cells and that new advances in non-embryonic stem cells will likely be the cure for Parkinsons in the next ten years.

“Now I’m going to say something that’s going to be a bit provocative, just think about this…I think, Oprah, the stem cell debate is dead. And I’ll tell you why…”

“The problem with embryonic stem cells is that embryonic stem cells come from embryos, like all of us are made from embryos, and those cells can become any cell in the body, but it’s very hard to control them and so they can become cancer. But in the time of all this fighting we’ve had, which did slow down, I think, a lot of this research, there has been a huge amount of changes made and in the last year we have made ten years of advancement.”

Oprah asks, “In the last year, we’ve advanced ten years?”

Dr. Oz replies, “Yeah. We went places we never thought we would go.”

Speaking to Fox, Dr. Oz says, “I can take a little bit of your skin, take those cells, get them to go back in time so they are like they were when you were first made, and then they will start to make that dopamine and I think those cells, because they won’t be as prone to cancer and because they’re your genes will be the ones that are ultimately used to cure Parkinsons.”

“I’ve talked to a lot of experts in this field and I think we are single digit years away from making a big impact in the lives of Parkinson’s disease but also diabetics, heart attack victims, people who have had a lot of problems.”

The Good: Adult or iPS (although not specifically named) stem cells are finally given some recognition and to a huge television audience.

The Bad: We aren’t really “made from embryos” as much as we all WERE embryos.

The Best: Dr. Oz makes his presentation soon after Michael J. Fox explains that America has a lot of ground to make up regarding stem cell research. “We had eight years where there was no forward progress and some things people don’t even understand.” Apparently, Michael, there has been some significant progress.

HT: STR

Dr. Oz from the Oprah Winfrey Show, "The Stem Cell Debate is Dead"