Out of Town

It's been a while since I've posted anything on this blog. I was out of town for the last week. I went to California for my grandmother's funeral. It was a sad time for obvious reasons, but it was also really fun to see A LOT of family I had either never seen or hadn't seen in a long time. The picture on the left is all of my dad's brothers and sisters (minus 1 who had already left and 3 who have passed away). Needless to say, I have a big family. My grandmother had over 30 grandchildren.

It may be some time until I post again. My family is moving to Oregon to start a new ministry position. Pray that the move and the transition goes well. Take care everybody and thanks for reading!

Thanks

I promised myself I would do my best not to get involved in character assassination on this blog. All I have to say is: Thank you David Stern for the worst ending to an NBA season I've seen in my 20+ years as an avid basketball fan. You and your man Stu have completely ruined the integrity of these playoffs. If this is the direction the NBA is heading, I am deeply saddened.

I don't say this as a Suns fan who feels cheated, I say it as a basketball fan who feels cheated. Once again, thanks.

Education?

Brokeback Mountain is truly one of the most wicked movies to ever hit the mainstream. The story of homosexual cowboys was an obvious attack on the family and morals in general by the liberal movie makers in Hollywood. If you look on the bottom of the picture, you'll see this tag line for the movie: "Love is a force of nature." A homosexual relationship is not love, it's sin. However, that tag might be very appropriate, considering sin is the nature of fallen man. Enough about the movie.

An article on Foxnews.com tells the story about the family of a 12 year old girl who is suing the Chicago Board of Educators because a substitute teacher showed this movie to her class. When I was 12, my teacher showed the Little Mermaid. How stupid can people involved in public education actually be? I guess it never occurred to this sub that a movie theater wouldn't let a 12 year old in to watch an R-rated movie. Apparently, this teacher didn't want these children to be deprived of the "entertainment," so she decided to bring it to them. Stories of wickedness and stupidity from the public school cease to amaze me. It's no wonder the average young person in America is as warped as they are. With this kind of indoctrination, what more could you expect?

What Did He Say?

Ayman al-Zawahri (pictured here) is al-Qaeda's second in command. An article on Foxnews.com quotes this man saying some of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. The article references Zawahri's mockery of a Congressional bill that would set a date for the pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq. Zawahri said (prepare to laugh...hard), "This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap." He went on to say that they are asking Allah to allow the troops to stay until 200,000 to 300,000 are killed.

Fact check:

1. al-Qaeda did not set a trap for us in Iraq.
2. Destroying the American forces in Iraq is an impossibility for the terrorists.

Does anybody else find these statements comical? It sounds to me like a little bit of reverse psychology. I get it Mr. Zawahri, pretend like you're against the troop pull out, then maybe the West will be for it. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Let me put it in perspective here. Just over 3000 U.S. soldiers have been killed since March 2003 when we went into Iraq. I don't count that as a trivial thing at all. God bless their sacrifice and their families. This means we have lost about 750 troops per year in Iraq. At the current rate, that would mean we would have to stay in Iraq for the next 262 years in order for Zawarhi to get his wish of 200,000 (that was the low figure) U.S. casualties. If he really wanted the high figure (300,000 U.S. casualties), that would mean we'd have to stay for another 396 years. Do you think Zawahri and his buddies really want that? I don't think so. He is truly a raving lunatic.

Meet Hiasl

That's pronounced "HEE-zul." This is the animal at the center of an effort being made by activists in Austria to pronounce the chimp a person. If that doesn't cause your jaw to drop the moment you hear that, you have some serious issues. Click here to read the article about Hiasl for yourself. I looked at Dictionary.com to find the definition for the word "person." The first definition goes like this: a human being, whether man, woman, or child. The second definition goes like this: a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. There, that settles it. The chimp is not a person. Hiasl may be an extremely smart animal, but he is not a person.

The "activists" who are fighting on Hiasl's behalf are a part of the human race who have some of the most twisted philosophies on life and morals that you will ever find. They speak of the animal's rights to life, not to be tortured and freedom. Most civilized societies have laws protecting animals from pointless torture. What these "activists" don't realize is that there are millions of people around the world who don't have these rights...and they're fighting for a chimp! Most of the arguments they use to "prove" that Hiasl is a "person" could apply to my old dog. However, it would be quite ridiculous to argue that my dog was a "person."

The part of the article that really fires me up is when it refers to the Seattle-based international initiative called the Great Ape Project. Their goal is to extend "fundamental moral and legal protections" to apes. Isn't it funny how liberals can develop morals so quickly when we're talking about protecting apes. The irony is that we live in a country that doesn't extend "fundamental moral and legal protection" to unborn human beings. We're talking about calling an ape a person before we call an unborn baby a person. Again, if this whole situation doesn't cause your jaw to drop, you've got some serious issues.

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him..." - Genesis 2:27

John Phillips on the Sovereignty of God

I have enjoyed reading John Phillips commentary on Galatians. I'm working on an adult Sunday school series on Galatians and Phillips' commentary has been a help so far. It is the deepest commentary I've read from him to this point. I've learned a great deal about the history of the Galatian region and the origins of the Hebrew Talmud. Those were things I didn't expect to learn about, but I should have known there'd be a few surprises in a 224 page commentary on a book of the Bible that only has 6 short chapters. I wanted to note something here that he wrote regarding the sovereignty of God from Galatians 1:15:

"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace..."

John Phillips wrote:

"At no time, however, did this overruling will of God infringe on Paul's personal sovereignty and accountability as a moral human being. God persuades, but he does not push. He convicts, but He does not coerce. He does not arbitrarily impose His will on the human will. Yet, at the same time, He never loses control of human affairs. His omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience enable Him to gather events into His hands with the greatest ease. From our perspective, events take place in a time sequence because we live in a time sequence, but God transcends time. He lives in the eternal present tense of time. He is the I AM. From God's standpoint, all of the events of time take place simultaneously. God can call the things that are not as though they are, because He does not have to wait for the future to reveal the end of a sequence of events nor wait for a specific moment of time to come before imposing His will upon that moment."

I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Phillips. A Calvinist would choke at these statements and, quite frankly, that's fine. I have been reading many arguments regarding Calvinism lately and I find that the more I read their arguments the more I am settled on the fact that I disagree with that theological system. The most interesting thing I found regarding Dr. Phillips' statements is that I have been thinking about this same thing for a long time. He mentioned that God "lives in the eternal present tense of time." If a Calvinist would grasp that and apply that to the Bible, all of the verses they use to argue God's sovereignty in salvation would suddenly have quite a different meaning. I've been working on a thesis, of sorts, regarding Calvinism to post on this blog. I was going to mention something in that post nearly identical to what Dr. Phillips wrote here.

As I have looked at both sides of the argument I have learned a great deal, especially where I should stand on the matter. Stay tuned for that post. Until then, ponder this thought.

The Passing of a Great Man

Dr. Lee Roberson passed away on Sunday. I had the privilege of hearing him preach one time while I was in college at WCBC. God certainly used this man in a great way. Several mightily used men of God have died in the last few years and it's a reminder to me that my generation must pick up the torch. I'm also reminded that I don't have forever to serve the Lord.

Dr. Roberson influenced me through his influence on others. I wish I would have had the opportunity to be mentored by him in a greater way. I'm thankful to God for the testimony and service of this dear man.