Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Now here is no news. And some real wisdom along with that. The sad truth is that being successful, cute/handsome, wealthy, and young is no guarantee of a good marriage. And maybe even having a church background doesn't help as much as we might like to think.. So, if those things are not sufficient in and of themselves, what is left to cling to?

Can't anyone in Hollywood stay together?

Ok, the title of this post is exaggerating a bit -- there are some long-time marriages in Hollywood. I could probably count them on one hand. But I was really hoping Ryan Phillipe and Reese Witherspoon would last. With their backgrounds (I'm privy to personal anecdotes about Phillipe from a close friend of his who had known him in Delaware and spoke of his Christian background, and Reese's churchgoing is public knowledge), I would have hoped that would influence how they conducted their marriage. (Fine, call me an idealist.) But it's over.

In positive news about marriage, this couple is about to break a Guinness world record:

When they married on Oct. 23, 1926, Bill was 17 and Lorine just 16. Their fathers had to give their approval to make the union legal.

"I hope to tell you I can (remember the wedding)," said Bill, who's now 97. "... I borrowed a horse and buggy, and (we) went on dirt roads."

They traveled to the home of their magistrate, Green Daniels, who performed the ceremony free of charge. ...

"You'd think we'd not had sense enough to feed ourselves by marrying without a job," Bill said. "But we lived good. ... Lorine, my wife, was the workingest person you've seen. She could make a cake or pie as good as anybody." ...

There's no secret to staying happily married for so long, Bill said.

"It ought to be what everybody knows," he said. "First, you should know love. You should know you're in love. Then, you should know the Lord."

While other couples fuss, fight and divorce, they simply decided not to do that.

"We knew we would have disagreements," Bill said. "We just decided if we had disagreements, we would just drop it ... kiss and say goodnight. We still do it."

All together now: Awwww! But seriously, this isn't rocket science. Bill and Lorine get it.

Monday, October 30, 2006

What you can expect in a very few years.. Will you swim against the tide, or drift in the current..

Welcome Week or Brainwash Bash?

After reading the first chapter of Fish Out of Water by Abby Nye, a fellow student of mine from high school, I’m realizing what I “missed out on” by attending a Christian college. Well, maybe I should be glad.

Abby’s first chapter discusses freshmen orientation week at her secular university. I thought back to my first week of college which included meaningful conversations with my RAs (Residence Assistants), a special chapel service, a square dance, light-hearted skits, and dinner with my new freshman hallmates. Orientation week left a wonderful imprint on my whole college experience.

Little did I know what friends like Abby were experiencing at their own places of higher education. Abby describes attending mandatory meetings that involved disclosing your personal views on homosexuality, crowd mixer sessions that encouraged (dating) behavior (with strangers), and a lecture that concluded with the statement that all religions are the same. What surprised Abby most was not that she was confronted with these liberal ideas, but that she was expected to accept them without comment. She writes:

Our institutions of higher education greet freshmen not as individuals on the threshold of adulthood, but as embodiments of group identity, largely defined in terms of blood and history, who are to be infantilized at every turn.
Kudos to Abby for speaking out about this forced infantilization. Her book serves as encouragement to any Christian college student seeking to swim upstream against the harsh current of postmodern brainwashing.

And for all those freshmen attending Christian colleges this fall, don’t complain about getting up at 6 a.m. for that sunrise praise and worship service.

Monday, October 23, 2006

We have and will continue to watch the video about the 2 prominant opposing world views. Here is commentary about one of the current leaders of the atheists. And his strategy to stop your pursuit of living a life of faith.

If You Can't Beat Them, Embarrass Them

I find it interesting that all the notable reviews I’ve read so far of Dawkin’s book, The God Delusion, don’t mince words about the author’s proclivity to dismiss an argument by ridicule or parody as opposed to dismantling it.

In Jim Holt's review of it in The New York Times, he states:

These, in a nutshell, are the Big Three arguments [for God's existence]. To Dawkins, they are simply ridiculous. He dismisses the ontological argument as “infantile” and “dialectical prestidigitation” without quite identifying the defect in its logic, and he is baffled that a philosopher like Russell — “no fool” — could take it seriously. He seems unaware that this argument, though medieval in origin, comes in sophisticated modern versions that are not at all easy to refute. Shirking the intellectual hard work, Dawkins prefers to move on to parodic “proofs” that he has found on the Internet….

The Publishers Weekly review corroborates the point:

While Dawkins can be witty, even confirmed atheists who agree with his advocacy of science and vigorous rationalism may have trouble stomaching some of the rhetoric: the biblical Yahweh is "psychotic," Aquinas's proofs of God's existence are "fatuous" and religion generally is "nonsense."

Or there’s the debate that Dawkins recently participated in that Wired News describes as follows:

A few months earlier, in front of an audience of graduate students from around the world, Dawkins took on a famous geneticist and a renowned neurosurgeon on the question of whether God was real. The geneticist and the neurosurgeon advanced their best theistic arguments: Human consciousness is too remarkable to have evolved; our moral sense defies the selfish imperatives of nature; the laws of science themselves display an order divine; the existence of God can never be disproved by purely empirical means. Dawkins rejected all these claims, but the last one -- that science could never disprove God -- provoked him to sarcasm. "There's an infinite number of things that we can't disprove," he said. "You might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it's wrong to say therefore we don't need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don't need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden.”

But perhaps, Dawkins reveals his modus operandi best in his own words when he told Wired News: “At some point, there is going to be enough pressure that it is just going to be too embarrassing to believe in God."

Bullies have always taunted. Look at Goliath. The faithful, however, see their taunts as directed not at them, but ultimately as a fist in the face of the living God. They respond in faith and strength. The challenge for Christians in the coming years, however, is in how we will respond to efforts to embarass and marginalize us. I hope we can respond like Paul, a former scoffer, by underscoring that the Gospel is for all who will turn and believe:

“I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.” And perhaps, I pray, also for Dawkins.

So, how willing are you to take part in this type of community? Would you stay, or bolt and run away?

Put Off, Put On

...As the truth is in Jesus, [that you] put off your old self...and put on the new self... Ephesians 4:22, 23

I've been reading medieval Celtic penitentials again. Grim stuff, that. Think of any sin you've ever heard of -- and some you haven't dared imagine -- and one or another of these handbooks for soul-surgeons will tell you how to help your confessor overcome it. This is reading to challenge the seriousness of your faith. The Celtic penitentials appear throughout the period of the Celtic revival -- roughly the fifth through the ninth century -- and give guidance to pastors on how to help the people in their care overcome whatever sin they have come to confess. Paul's injunction not be be overcome by evil, but to overcome evil by good provides the underlying principle for practicing the spiritual discipline of penance (Rom. 12:21). The penitentials -- such as those by Finnian and Cummean -- put it rather differently: contraries are cured by contraries. Behavior contrary to holiness is corrected by taking up, for an appointed time, a regimen of behaviors designed to inculcate holiness.

So whatever the sin, the local pastor, or the confessor's soul friend, was expected to be able to help him get over it and get back on the path of pursuing holiness in the Lord (2 Cor. 7:1). Celtic Christians considered unconfessed, unrepented-of sin to be a detriment, not only to the individual sinner but to the community as a whole. Therefore, they created an environment in which sinners felt free to confess their shortcomings, knowing they would be received with understanding and grace, and counseled as to how they should recover from this setback so that they could get on with following the Lord.

Several things stand out as significant with these handbooks of penance. First is their frequent resort to the Law of God -- in particular, the statutes or case laws of Israel -- for specific guidance in how to counsel restoration. Second is their use of the psalms to cure bad attitudes, sinful speech, and even improper behavior. Celtic Christians recognized the value of praying and singing the psalms as a means of growing the grace of the Lord; singing psalms was often one aspect of a varied prescription of penance.

Third is in the implication that, in Celtic Christian society, the pursuit of holiness was everybody's responsibility. The believers were accountable to one another and maintained "soul-friendships" for the purpose of helping one another to walk the path of righteousness. Sin was not a private matter, and it was nothing to wink at. Sin had to be dealt with, and people had to work together in order to improve the level of spiritual life, both of the individuals and the community. Celtic Christian communities were open, honest, caring, and firm in the conviction that whatever contrary behavior might rear its head, threatening the judgment of the Lord against the community, would be dealt with swiftly and effectively by a prescription of contrary behavior, designed to promote righteousness.

A far cry from our present practice of not talking about sin, of tolerating it because, after all, we're all sinners and God loves us just as we are, and of acting like the pursuit of holiness is not, in the end, the true mark of a "saint."

Friday, October 20, 2006

This follows up on Mr. Bush's comments to us the other week. Do what the Lord leads you to, and if you love it, good things will happen..

SUMMARY: The director/star of a hot new film with unabashedly Christian themes says prayer is the secret to his success.

The new movie Facing the Giants is drawing rave reviews. Since it opened at the end of September, the movie has grossed more than $4 million -- and attendance continues to grow.

Produced by a church-based production company, Sherwood Pictures, and directed by Alex Kendrick, a minister, Facing the Giants is the story of a football coach (played by Kendrick) who has never had a winning season and learns how to face the giant issues of his life.

The low-budget Christian production is getting rave reviews from the moviegoing public, who praise it for its quality and impact.

CitizenLink talked with Kendrick recently about the film and how it came to pass.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Q. A lot of people who have seen Facing the Giants love the film. How did you come up with the idea for doing it? How did you get into the motion-picture business?

A. My brother Stephen and I both serve as associate pastors on the staff of Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Ga. He is the preaching associate when the pastor is away and also teaches some of the classes, and I am the media minister there -- associate pastor of media. I've been there since 1999; Steven has been there since 2001.

Growing up, we wanted to do Christian movies. Our father was in ministry -- he now operates a Christian school -- but we just saw the need for that. In 2002, we read a George Barna survey in which he basically concluded that movies and television were among the top three most influential factors in our culture. The church was not even in the top 10.

Since we already had a desire to make movies, we approached our pastor, Michael Catt, and asked him if he would consider allowing us to try to make a movie. At first he was real skeptical. He said, "Don't movies cost a lot of money?" And we said we would probably need to do a low-budget movie and shoot it digitally.

He said, "OK. The only thing is, I can't allow you to take the money out of the church budget. You're going to have to pray it in." And since we believed God was in it, we began praying, and the Lord, through several members of our church -- unprompted, we never asked for money -- they gave us $20,000 to make the first movie.

Q. A different movie than Facing the Giants?

A. My brother and I wrote this script -- it's called Flywheel. It's about a dishonest used car salesman that comes to Christ and begins changing his ways. We used church members and locations that belonged to members of our church for the movie. Once we were done, we went to our local theater. We only had it on DVD, and we asked the manager of our local theater -- it was a brand new, state-of-the-art theater with 16 screens -- if we could show it there on a weekend. He looked at us like we were crazy. So we asked if he could call the home office of his theater chain, and see what they thought, and he said he would.

So we went back to our church and prayed, and the home office told him that they saw it as an investment in our community in Albany, Ga., and to let us do it for one weekend.

So we took our video projector and put it in their window -- hooked the DVD player up to their sound system and began selling tickets. They thought they would sell a few tickets just to the members of our church. But we ended up having 4,200 people come out.

Q. That's a great turnout for just one theater on one weekend.

A. It was. The local news and the newspaper did stories, and the owners kept prolonging it for six weeks in their theater. We were the second-highest-grossing movie of their 16 screens.

Blockbuster Video picked it up and put a copy in every Blockbuster in North America. Netflix picked it up. And then several Christian television networks -- TBN, FamilyNet, Faith TV, Cornerstone -- all started showing it.

The response was just phenomenal -- literally thousands of e-mails, phone calls, people coming to Christ, people rededicating their marriages. Especially fathers telling us they had rededicated their role as father to the Lord.

We saw a need to continue doing these movies, and so Steve and I prayed again, and we wrote the script for Facing the Giants. We asked the Lord for $100,000 this time, so we could bump up the quality. And He provided it again, without us asking anybody. People would just come up and say, "What are you guys working on now?" and we would tell them we were writing a script for another movie. The word got out, and people said, "What do you need?" So we told them the amount of money we were praying for -- and doctors, contractors, real estate agents and just ordinary members of our church gave us the money.

We rented a high-definition camera this time, and cast the movie out of our church members. Our Sunday School department cooked all the meals -- we never had to buy any food for the crew. We got five guys from Orlando that do commercials professionally to come up and do a "boot camp" for our church members on how to do lights and sound and camera work.

Then we shot Facing the Giants. When we finished it, I edited it on my office computer -- I have a Macintosh -- and we asked the Lord to get it into theaters, instead of it going straight to DVD.

My brother Stephen called Provident Music Group, in Nashville, Tenn., to get permission to use one song in our movie from the group Third Day.

When he called, they said, "Why do you want permission?" And we told them, "We're a church and we've made a movie." And they said, "What do you mean, you're a church and you've made a movie? Churches don't make movies." And we said, "Well, we made a little one called Flywheel, and God just blew it out of the water, and we feel like this new one will really impact the culture."

They told us they wanted to see the movie before they would give their permission. So we sent them a DVD, and they fell in love with it.

The president of Provident, Terry Hemmings, called us up and said, "We're in."

And we basically said, "Who is this, and what are you talking about?" And he said, "This is Provident. Not only can you use the song, but you can have any music you want. And I want to send this to our parent company -- they may want to distribute this in theaters."

We said, "Who is your parent company?" And he said, "Sony Pictures."

We didn't even go knocking on their door -- Sony looked at it and loved it.

We had been praying for 40 theaters. They said, "How about 400?"

So on Sept. 29, it came out -- and we've just been blown away at the response. We've gotten over 500 e-mails that were for professions of faith -- and hundreds more just to say, "This movie blessed us."

I think it's grossed $3.2 million (as of last week). I can't even express to you what the Lord has done with this. I feel like the kids with five loaves and two fish -- and who just watched God do more than we could ask or imagine.

We're now being asked to do more movies, and we feel like we have a third plot, and so we're just trying to take steps of obedience and trust the Lord.

Q. Since you're on more than 400 screens now, is the movie going to go nationwide?

A. Well, this is what they did. The three executives at Sony who thought it was so curious that it made their own families cry also saw that the heart of the movie made people cheer, laugh, cry -- and said to us, "These are the kind of emotions that Hollywood has been going after for years."

And if you go to Yahoo.com and click on "Movies," and look at Facing the Giants from a secular Web site -- people are giving it an A or an F. It's causing that much reaction. Nobody is giving it a C; it's either an A or an F. You can see the difference between the secular perspective and the biblical perspective.

We came out on 400 screens. Now word-of-mouth is getting out, and we're expanding it to about a dozen theaters at a time -- and then, if any theaters are low, we're shifting to other towns.

Sony is watching with great curiosity. They said, "It's interesting that this movie has such high word-of-mouth, and it may have legs for a while." In other words, we may be out for a couple of months, just going from city to city.

Q. The success has got to be gratifying.

A. Yes, especially the reaction. For example, I'll just pull a few from the top of my head. There was a 34-year-old man that wrote in and said, "My entire adult life I have struggled with pornography. I have spent all of my available income on various avenues of that lifestyle."

He said, "I accepted Jesus Christ two weeks before I saw your movie, but I still struggled with it, and I went and saw it, and I believe this is a giant in my own life. When I got home, I took six large garden and leaf bags and filled them with my pornographic videos, DVDs and magazines, and threw them in the Dumpster, even before I took my jacket off. I went inside and I dedicated my life to Jesus Christ. I had already asked Him into my heart, but now I'm beginning to understand what it means to rely on Him each day and to die to myself each day."

I can't tell you what that does for us.

Q. That's absolutely amazing. Alex, the kind of movie you did would not have been possible 10 years ago, would it?

A. I don't think so. We shot it in high-definition video. We did shoot it at film speed, which is 24 frames per second, instead of video speed, which made it easy to transfer to 35 mm film. So it looks like it was shot on film.

But yes, with $100,000 we didn't have money for film stock, so if we didn't like what we we're doing, we just rewound the tape and shot it again. I know that sounds crude, but the digital medium allowed us to do it for $100,000.

Q. Your films are gaining good reviews, but there are other Christian projects coming out now -- and in the days to come. Do you think Christian filmmaking is coming of age?

A. I think so. I think the technology available now will afford more Christian filmmakers to do this. I think what our primary struggle will be is the reputation Christian films have had.

So far, to be honest, Christian films have somewhat of a poor or cheesy reputation, and I admit a lot of that is because of the low-budget nature of them. A movie like The Passion of the Christ is just one in a million.

We took the approach that if God is the best movie director, and the best producer, and the best screenwriter, then we should rely on Him. Not that we shouldn't work hard, but that we should rely upon Him. So every day, the cast and the crew started off every scene in prayer -- and we asked for Ephesians 3:20 -- for Him to do things which were "far above what we could ask or imagine."

But, as far as Christian films, I think you'll see more of these. Our struggle will be presenting them with a level of excellence that is respectable in the wider film world -- whether it's Hollywood or just American culture.

Q. You mentioned that you have the idea for a third movie. Care to tell us about it?

A. I'll say this: I was jogging around the block, and as we did for the first two movies, I asked the Lord for a plot that would impact our culture -- not just be well-liked or be moving, but my brother and I want to impact the culture.

So we approached our pastor, and he said, "Yes, that's what we want to do."

We began praying, and the Lord gave us the direction of marriage to work on, so we have a plot to work on now. And it will be on marriage -- a couple that starts off as non-Christians is heading for divorce -- and then it deals with what the Lord does in their hearts, and how a marriage based on the worldly perspective becomes a marriage based on a biblical perspective.

There are some significant plot twists in there. But we feel like the Lord has given us that plot, and we're very excited to work on that -- hopefully next year.

Q. It sounds great. What advice would you have for somebody who feels the same way that you do -- that they have a call in media, and want to bring Christ to the world through media? What have you learned through all this?

A. We learned that there is a difference between a good idea and a God idea.

It was when we began committing ourselves to prayer and seeking the Lord, He began directing us in very clear and real ways. And as we trusted Him, He opened up the doors to do this. We can see His direction every single step of the way when we made these movies.

As we follow Him, He has blown us away and done more at every step than we were even praying for.

So, I would say -- commit it to prayer; seek the highest level of excellence you're capable of and make sure you wait on God.

The other thing, when it comes to money, we learned that when God gives a vision, that vision breeds passion. People follow passion, and money flows from people. So don't go trying to convince the people to give to you. Seek the Lord first, let Him give the vision, and if it's His, people will buy into it.

FOR MORE INFORMATION
To read Plugged In's review of Facing the Giants, click here.

http://www.pluggedinonline.com/movies/movies/a0002896.cfm

Agree, disagree?
THE DEATH OF THE ARGUMENT FOR MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING Print E-mail
Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
Thursday, 19 October 2006

One year ago, in September 2005, you learned what is actually causing whatever global warming the earth is experiencing.

Solar Warming explained the specific mechanism involved: the sun's increased magnetic activity deflecting the rain of cosmic rays upon the atmosphere, resulting in fewer clouds reflecting sunlight back into space and thus a warmer earth.

This month, scientists at the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen released the results of very well-designed and controlled experiments demonstrating the chemical mechanism of cosmic ray action upon cloud formation.

Folks, this a big deal. These are the results of a controlled experiment by serious scientists, not some GIGO (garbage-in/garbage-out) computer climate modeling. They experimentally demonstrate how the cause of global warming or "climate change" is the sun, not us.

The argument for man-made global warming is dead.

Agree, disagree, why?

I read Dennis Prager's column yesterday on the subject of Muslim taxi drivers’ refusal to pick up airport passengers who are carrying bags of duty-free liquor (for religious reasons) (also touched on in Mark Steyn's book), or blind passengers accompanied by seeing-eye dogs (again because of religious purity issues). This, some commentators say, is an outrageous imposition of one’s religious practices on others.

At first I was outraged (it’s always easy to get angry at Muslims, isn’t it?). But then I thought about those Christian pharmacists who have been fired for refusing, for reasons of conscience, to fill prescriptions for the morning after pill, Christian hospital nurses who get into trouble for refusing to help abortionists kill babies, and Christian medical students who are told they won’t graduate unless they learn how to perform abortions. I reluctantly concluded that the religious rights of Muslim taxi drivers ought to be respected.


Thursday, October 19, 2006

You can be called funny names by old dudes with white hair. Or you can get beaten for your faith. This is not all fun and games..

FAITH UNDER FIRE
Ambush by 'radicals' leaves pastor in hospital
Church leader en route to worship when youths lure him to beating

Posted: October 19, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com


Pastor Bhadikar Barshi after beating by Hindu radicals

A Christian pastor in India is being treated for injuries following an ambush into which he was lured by several Hindu youths, according to officials with The Voice of the Martyrs, the Christian aid organization that reaches out to persecuted Christians worldwide.

The report said Pastor Bhadikar Barshi was on his way to a regular service at his home in the Barshi region of Maharashta state when two youths approached him recently.

"Asking him to join them in a prayer for a friend who had been suffering from a sickness over the past 15 years, the young men walked alongside the pastor for some time," the report said.

Then, a Hindu mob launched the ambush.

The attackers used wooden clubs to beat the pastor, 48, all over his body, including his head where he suffered a severe gash on his right eye, officials reported.

"His chest and back sustained most of his injuries," VOM said. He was hospitalized for treatment, as well as stitches to close a cut on the left side of his forehead.

VOMedical covered the expenses for his eight-day hospitalization, officials said.

Local sources told VOM that the minister was targeted by the violent Hindu faction because of his missionary work. Police reports said officers were looking into the "radical" group whose members attacked Pastor Bhadikar in the region where there is a high level of Hindu opposition to any teaching of the Christian faith.

However, VOM said the pastor "remains faithful in continuing his ministry."

The non-profit, interdenominational ministry works worldwide to help Christians who are persecuted for their faith, and to educate the world about that persecution. Its headquarters are in Bartlesville, Okla., and it has 30 affiliated international offices.

It was launched by the late Richard and Sabina Wurmbrand, who started smuggling Russian Gospels into Russia in 1947, just months before Richard was abducted and imprisoned in Romania where he was tortured for his refusal to recant Christianity.

He eventually was released in 1964 and the next year he testified about the persecution of Christians before the U.S. Senate's Internal Security Subcommittee, stripping to the waist to show the deep torture wound scars on his body.

The group that later was renamed The Voice of the Martyrs was organized in 1967, when his book, "Tortured for Christ," was released.

He was able to return to Romania in 1990, after a Romanian pastor's prays sparked a rejection by Romanians of the dictatorship of Elena and Nicolae Ceausescu, VOM said. It was at that point that Romanian soldiers, "overcome by the conviction of the people, turned on the secret police" and revolted.


Tuesday, October 17, 2006

I didn't pick up on this when the info first broke, but this is pretty cool.. Sometimes, science scares conservative Christians.. Sometimes, scientists should be scared of themselves, and fear God more..

Source: Washington University in St. Louis
Date: September 8, 2006

Modern Humans, Not Neandertals, May Be Evolution's 'Odd Man Out'

Could it be that in the great evolutionary "family tree," it is we Modern Humans, not the brow-ridged, large-nosed Neandertals, who are the odd uncle out?


The most unusual characteristics throughout human anatomy occur in Modern Humans (right), argues Trinkaus, not in Neadertals (left). (Image courtesy of Washington University in St. Louis)


New research published in the August, 2006 journal Current Anthropology by Neandertal and early modern human expert, Erik Trinkaus, Ph.D., professor of anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis, suggests that rather than the standard straight line from chimps to early humans to us with Neandertals off on a side graph, it's equally valid, perhaps more valid based on the fossil record, that the line should extend from the common ancestor to the Neandertals, and Modern Humans should be the branch off that.

Trinkaus has spent years examining the fossil record and began to realize that maybe researchers have been looking at our ancient ancestors the wrong way.

Trinkaus identified fossil traits which seemed to be genetic markers - those not greatly influenced by environment, life ways and wear and tear. He was careful to examine traits that appear to be largely independent of each other to avoid redundancy.

"I wanted to see to what extent Neandertals are derived, that is distinct, from the ancestral form. I also wanted to see the extent to which modern humans are derived relative to the ancestral form," Trinkaus says. "What I came up with is that modern humans have about twice as many uniquely derived traits than do the Neandertals.

"In the broader sweep of human evolution," says Trinkaus, "the more unusual group is not Neandertals, whom we tend to look at as strange, weird and unusual, but it's us - Modern Humans."

The most unusual characteristics throughout human anatomy occur in Modern Humans, argues Trinkaus. "If we want to better understand human evolution, we should be asking why Modern Humans are so unusual, not why the Neandertals are divergent. Modern Humans, for example, are the only people who lack brow ridges. We are the only ones who have seriously shortened faces. We are the only ones with very reduced internal nasal cavities. We also have a number of detailed features of the limb skeleton that are unique."

Trinkaus admits that every paleontologist will define the traits a little differently. "If you really wanted to, you could make the case that Neandertals look stranger than we do. But if you are reasonably honest about it, I think it would be extraordinarily difficult to make Neandertals more derived than Modern Humans."

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Will we say equally great things about your life as it draws to a close many years from now? I hope so..

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.God's Instruments
Celebrating Thirty Years of Ministry

October 10, 2006

Although I obviously don't compare myself to Moses, I think I know how he must have felt in the sunset of his life, standing at the edge of the Promised Land. For I approach the twilight of my own life and ministry at the very moment God is raising up Prison Fellowship for its greatest springtime.

As I look back over the last thirty years, I am overwhelmed by what God has done. In 1976, when it became clear that God wanted me working with prisoners, we incorporated the ministry. But we did not have any grand strategy—simply an eagerness to disciple inmates.

At first we took inmates out of prison, discipled them for two weeks, and returned them to disciple others. It was fruitful, but we soon realized that we could not reach enough people that way.

God gave us the answer at Wisconsin's Oxford Penitentiary. A hard-headed warden balked at our request for an inmate to come to Washington. "If you're so good, bring your program in here," he challenged us. It was winter, and Oxford is in the woods. We knew that he was testing us, so we called his bluff.

That began our first week-long in-prison seminar for ninety inmates—a huge success. These seminars have become the backbone of this ministry, spreading throughout thousands of prisons worldwide.

Over the decades, God continued to lead us, like Angel Tree, which was started by a woman just coming out of prison. I didn't even know about it. Or Justice Fellowship, or the InnerChange Freedom Initiative®, or Operation Starting Line, and Prison Fellowship International, which is now operating in 113 countries. In every instance it was not our strategy but the result of doors clearly opened by God.

In the 1980s we struck out in a new direction. We were evangelizing more people every day, but the prison population continued to climb—the result of cultural moral rot. That meant we not only had to continue evangelizing prisoners, but also speak to the culture about its failure to teach kids during the morally formative years.

Influenced by my study of Abraham Kuyper and Francis Schaeffer, I began writing a column for Christianity Today addressing cultural trends from a biblical perspective. In 1991, we launched BreakPoint, and then the Wilberforce Forum and the Centurions program. Thus began our worldview teaching and equipping ministry.

The great lesson I've learned in these exciting thirty years is that we are merely instruments in God's hands, and that's what gives me such confidence for the future. He has uniquely positioned us to do two things that the Church most needs to be doing: overcoming evil with good (evangelizing prisoners, in our case) and defending the truth—in the face of growing hostility from those who paint Christians as uncaring bigots wanting to impose our will on others. They can't make those labels stick when we are seen laboring on behalf of society's outcasts.

Whenever the Church does these two things—to reach the suffering and speak to the powerful in the culture—it has an incredible power. This was the secret of Wilberforce's great campaign that brought about an end to the barbaric slave trade in England.

For thirty years God has raised up a great army of people willing to love the unlovable and witness to the truth. As the sun rises on our fourth decade, He continues to increase our number. That is why I say Prison Fellowship is in a glorious springtime.

Is this heresy? What could be the impact of many voters doing this for this election cycle (Congress and Presidential)?

between the lines Joseph Farah
WND Exclusive Commentary
Creating markets for leaders

Posted: October 10, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

It's the political season, and many folks who normally hold high standards for leadership start getting weak in the knees.

I know how this works. It happens to me, too. It happened to me, once again, in 2004 – when I cast an admittedly defensive vote to avoid allowing John Kerry to become arguably the most powerful man in the world.

Here's what I mean.

Many of us talk a great game when it comes to constitutional government, freedom, individual rights, national sovereignty and self-government. It's easy to be principled in the abstract. Then elections roll around and we are usually faced with choices that don't move our nation any closer to these ideals.

Typically, we have a Democrat who believes in a "living Constitution" that means whatever the Supreme Court majority says it means, group rights, internationalism and centralized power in Washington with virtually no limits. Then we have a Republican who believes in much of the same, but might take a slower road to hell.

How do we as voters respond?

One argument says we should hold out for principle, while the other suggests we all have to compromise and choose the lesser of two evils.

While I believe there is a time and place for choosing the lesser of two evils, let me suggest a good argument for holding out, sticking to principle, insisting on higher standards, boycotting elections where there is no clear choice, being very selective about the candidates for whom you support.

Since I am talking, I hope, mostly to those who believe in free market economics, let me explain this in market terminology.

If voters always choose the lesser of two evils, it is accurate to say they are not creating a market for excellence in politicians. They are creating a market for mediocrity in politicians.

Let's break it down to a smaller component. Each election, Republicans put up a candidate and Democrats put up a candidate. If 100 percent of Republicans vote for the Republican no matter his strengths or weaknesses, those party faithful are not encouraging the party leadership to find the best and the brightest, are they?

But if 5 percent hold out because a candidate is weak on, say, immigration issues, then the party leadership, if it's smart, will recognize what's happening and respond to the call of the marketplace.

That's the way marketplace politics could work, if it were tried.

You don't even need third parties to make it work, but it helps.

Some people claim you are "wasting your vote" if you sit out an election on principle. I would make the argument that voting for someone who is unfit to govern is the real waste of a vote.

Is it a waste of a dollar if you go to the store, don't see what you want and decide not to spend it?

I don't think so.

But if you spend that dollar just for the sake of spending it, are you likely to see better products – of the specific one you really wanted?

That's how political markets work.

If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, you are not working the political markets. You could say that those who take this course are practicing a kind of socialism. In other words, there's really no competition for your vote. You will seldom have the opportunity to vote for anyone other than Tweedle-dum or Tweedle-dee.

Of course, elections don't represent the only opportunities we have to change the direction of our country. As I point out in my book, "Taking America Back," there are countless, much more important decisions we make every day that are critically important for people who live in a truly self-governing society.

Friday, October 06, 2006

I think you guys have not gone crazy with online activity. That is good. Just as a heads up, use online tools, but know their limitations. Even God walked in the garden of Eden, rather than yell at Adam & Eve from above.

Some youth rethink online communications

By MARTHA IRVINE, AP National Writer 3 minutes ago

CHICAGO - For some, it would be unthinkable — certain social suicide. But Gabe Henderson is finding freedom in a recent decision: He canceled his MySpace account.

No longer enthralled with the world of social networking, the 26-year-old graduate student pulled the plug after realizing that a lot of the online friends he accumulated were really just acquaintances. He's also phasing out his profile on Facebook, a popular social networking site that, like others, allows users to create profiles, swap message and share photos — all with the goal of expanding their circle of online friends.

"The superficial emptiness clouded the excitement I had once felt," Henderson wrote in a column in the student newspaper at Iowa State University, where he studies history. "It seems we have lost, to some degree, that special depth that true friendship entails."

Across campus, journalism professor Michael Bugeja — long an advocate of face-to-face communication — read Henderson's column and saw it as a "ray of hope." It's one of a few signs, he says, that some members of the tech generation are starting to see the value of quality face time.

As the novelty of their wired lives wears off, they're also are getting more sophisticated about the way they use such tools as social networking and text and instant messaging — not just constantly using them because they're there.

"I think we're at the very beginning of them reaching a saturation point," says Bugeja, director of Iowa State's journalism school and author of "Interpersonal Divide: The Search for Community in a Technological Age."

Though he's not anti-technology, Bugeja often lectures students about "interpersonal intelligence" — knowing when, where and for what purpose technology is most appropriate.

He points out the students he's seen walking across campus, holding hands with significant others while talking on cell phones to someone else. He's also observed them in coffee shops, surrounded by people, but staring instead at a computer screen.

"True friends," he tells them, "need to learn when to stop blogging and go across campus to help a friend."

In the meantime, he says, many professors have begun setting their own limits, banning students from surfing the Internet during lectures.

Of course, these forms of communication continue to dominate. In the October issue of the journal Pediatrics, for instance, researchers at Stanford University released findings from an ongoing study of students at an upper-middle income high school in the San Francisco area. One written survey found that the large majority of students were members of at least one social networking site — 81 percent of them on MySpace. They also found that 89 percent of those students had cell phones, most of them with text and Web surfing capabilities.

They are more wired than ever — but they're also getting warier.

Increasingly, they've had to deal with online bullies, who are posting anything from unflattering photos to online threats.

Privacy issues also are hitting home, most recently when students discovered that personal updates on their Facebook pages were being automatically forwarded to contacts they didn't necessarily want to have the information. Facebook was forced to let users turn off the data stream after they rebelled.

Increasingly, young people also are realizing that things they post on their profiles can come back to haunt them when applying for school or jobs.

"Maybe everything we thought was so great wasn't as great as we thought," says Tina Wells, the 20-something CEO of Buzz Marketing, a New York-based firm with young advisers all over the world.

She is among those who wonder if, sometimes, simple face-to-face communication might work better.

In many instances, says 27-year-old Veronica Gross, it does.

"By and large, I would say most of my very geeky social circle prefers face-to-face interaction to mere Internet communication," says Gross, an avid online gamer who is also a doctoral student studying neuroscience at Boston University.

She sees faceless communication as a supplement to everyday interactions, not a replacement. This sentiment also was the conclusion of a study done by the Pew Internet & American Life Project. The study, released earlier this year, found that Internet users tend to have a larger network of close and significant contacts — a median of 37 compared with 30 for nonusers.

Indeed, Steve Miller, a sophomore at Rollins College in Winter Park, Fla., says social networking can be an "extremely effective" way to publicize events to large groups — and even to help build a sense of community on campus.

He joined Facebook as a way to meet people before he started school, but also quickly learned that it had limitations, too.

"I discovered, after meeting many of these (online) friends, that a good Facebook profile could make even the most boring person somewhat interesting," says Miller, who's 19 and now a sophomore.

He's also not always thrilled with text messaging via cell phones, which can be a quick way to say "have a good day" or to coordinate a plan to meet up at a noisy concert.

"Text messaging has become the easy way out," Miller says.

He's had friends cancel a night out with a text message to avoid having to explain. He's also seen some people ask for dates via text to escape the humiliation of hearing a "no" on the phone or in person.

"Our generation needs to get over this fear of confrontation and rejection," he says.

The focus, he and others say, needs to be on quality communication, in all formats.

Back in Iowa, Henderson is enjoying spending more face-to-face time with his friends and less with his computer. He says his decision to quit MySpace and Facebook was a good one.

"I'm not sacrificing friends," he says, "because if a picture, some basic information about their life and a Web page is all my friendship has become, then there was nothing to sacrifice to begin with."

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

To try to accomplish what Philip Johnson did is a high goal. But, keep in mind many in the scientific community still disregard his conclusions based on their knowledge of science. Maybe their perspective is too narrow, or too entrenched..

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Unlikely Champion
Darwin's Nemesis

October 4, 2006

How do you honor a man who started a groundbreaking movement that challenged the scientific establishment and is changing the way the world thinks about the origins of life?

Phillip Johnson's friends came up with a great way to answer that question. In honor of Phil's many accomplishments, they have commissioned and published a collection of essays, in a book titled Darwin's Nemesis. That's the perfect title, because that's exactly what Phil has become over the past fifteen years. This feisty Berkeley law professor became the unlikely spearhead of the intelligent design movement with the publication of his book Darwin on Trial, in which, from the perspective of a skilled lawyer, he examined and cross-examined Darwinism and found gaping holes. His legal and rhetorical training had convinced him that the Darwinists were acting like people with "something to hide." Indeed, they are.

His investigation showed him exactly what they were hiding. As geophysicist Stephen Meyer puts it, the best Darwinists can put forth is "a panoply of euphemism and wishful thinking masquerading as evidence." So Phil dared to start questioning what many believed to be unquestionable and to enlist many scientists to start questioning it as well. The rest, as they say, is history.

Through all the controversy—and just plain mud-slinging—that followed the publishing of Darwin on Trial, Phil has maintained his stance, continuing his lawyerly probing and careful research, and he has kept his good humor and graciousness. In these ways, he serves as a magnificent example to all of us involved in worldview teaching.

Just the list of authors who have contributed to Darwin's Nemesis shows the effectiveness of Phil's approach. It's full of essays by distinguished scientists and philosophers who support the intelligent design movement. And it even includes a couple of articles by critics of intelligent design, including philosophy professor and evolution advocate Michael Ruse—the kind of balance you'd like to see in classrooms. In the contentious debate that surrounds the intelligent design vs. evolution issue, getting the participation of someone like Ruse is a testimony to Phillip Johnson.

There's no doubt that Phil's willingness to encourage the work of scientists and help create a network for them has allowed the movement to flourish. This book really shows just how far the intelligent design (ID) movement has progressed in a relatively short time, despite the best efforts of many Darwinists to shoot it down—because, as is becoming clearer and clearer, ID has the evidence on its side.

But Darwin's Nemesis is far more than a tribute to one man—it's an insightful, enjoyable, highly readable explanation of the intelligent design movement as a whole. And as the passages I've quoted demonstrate, this is very much in keeping with Philip Johnson's practice of keeping the focus on the movement and the questions it is asking, not on himself. The paradox is that by doing this, he has shown how one informed and dedicated individual can literally shape the course of history—just one more lesson from Phil Johnson's work from which we all can benefit, and one more reason why he's one of my personal heroes.

Not sure if you have been reading this blog, or if you have been aware of what's going on in our world. But, if you have heard and read about the pain inflicted upon the Amish in Pennsylvania, pray for them.

And read this article, and be prepared to discuss it tonight. There are a lot, a lot, of things in here that you will benefit from if you understand it.




Gunman said he (did bad things to) girls long ago

Associated Press

QUARRYVILLE, Pa. - The gunman who killed five girls in an Amish schoolroom confided to his wife during the siege that he (did bad things to) two relatives 20 years ago when he was a boy and was tormented by dreams of doing it again, authorities said Tuesday.

....

Holding up a copy of the gunman's suicide note at a packed news conference, Miller also suggested that Roberts was haunted by the death of his prematurely born daughter in 1997. The baby, Elise, died 20 minutes after being delivered, Miller said.

Elise's death "changed my life forever," the milk truck driver and father of three wrote to his wife. "I haven't been the same since it affected me in a way I never felt possible. I am filled with so much hate, hate toward myself hate towards God and unimaginable emptyness it seems like everytime we do something fun I think about how Elise wasn't here to share it with us and I go right back to anger."

The state police commissioner identified the demons in Roberts' head a day after the shooting rampage shattered the sense of calm in Lancaster County's bucolic Pennsylvania Dutch Country, where the Amish live a peaceful, turn-the-other-cheek existence in an 18th-century world with no automobiles and no electrical appliances.

"He certainly was very troubled psychologically deep down and was dealing with things that nobody else knew he was dealing with," Miller said.

During the standoff, Roberts told his wife in a cell phone call from the one-room schoolhouse that he molested two female relatives when they were 3 to 5 years old, Miller said. Roberts would have been around 11 or 12 at the time. Also, in a suicide note left for his family, he said he "had dreams about doing what he did 20 years ago again," Miller said.

Police could not immediately confirm Roberts' claim (about the) two relatives. Family members knew nothing of (issues) in his past, Miller said. Police located the two relatives and were hoping to interview them.

If Roberts felt painfully conflicted about ... little girls, he might have blamed the children themselves and acted out his rage on them, one expert said. He might have considered them "responsible for his downfall," said criminal psychologist Eric Hickey at Alliant International University in Fresno, Calif.

....

"We're quite certain, based on what we know, that he had no intention of coming out of there alive," Miller said.

At the time Roberts' wife received the phone call, she was attending a meeting of a prayer group she led that prayed for the community's schoolchildren.

Church members visited with the victims' families Tuesday, preparing meals and doing household chores, while Amish elders planned the funerals. An Amish woman who helped comfort family members said they were being sustained by prayer.

"It's a tragedy we've never seen before," said the woman, whose father was a church bishop. Like many Amish, she declined to give her name. "They said it was a happy school," she said. "The children were happy, the teachers were happy."

Roberts, from the nearby town of Bart, was not Amish and did not appear to have anything against the Amish, Miller said. He said Roberts was bent on killing girls and apparently figured he could succeed at the serene schoolhouse.

Dwight Lefever, a Roberts family spokesman, spoke at a community prayer service Tuesday evening and said he was at the home of Roberts' father when an Amish neighbor came to comfort the family.

"He stood there for an hour, and he held that man in his arms, and he said, 'We will forgive you,'" Lefever said. "He extended the hope of forgiveness that we all need these days."

Sam Stoltzfus, 63, an Amish woodworker who lives a few miles away from the shooting scene, said his grandchildren were full of questions when they came home from another Amish school.

"They were terrified," said Stoltzfus, whose son took the grandchildren to school Tuesday morning so they wouldn't have to walk by themselves. "They wanted to know: What was wrong with him? Why was he doing that?"

Stoltzfus said the victims' families will be sustained by their faith.

"We think it was God's plan and we're going to have to pick up the pieces and keep going," he said. "A funeral to us is a much more important thing than the day of birth because we believe in the hereafter. The children are better off than their survivors."

___

Associated Press Writer Michael Rubinkam contributed to this report.