Creation vs Evolution; Part 1

An Unbalanced Debate

Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

Part 1 of a 3 part series discussing the evil fruit of evolution and the dangers of it's infiltration into the Christian church.

In our present evil age, there is a war over the minds, hearts, and souls of a very fallen humanity. The Lord desires to lure us out of a self imposed darkness into his light, but the world, guided by the evil one, seeks to extinguish that light. As believers in Christ we accept that the Bible is authoritative, that it is timeless, and that it is without error, because it is given by inspiration of God. One of the ways the evil one seeks to dim that light is by undermining the authority of the Bible with a toxic lie called evolution. This lie has brought death with it, on a scale that is difficult to grasp due to it's breadth.

Evolution (the belief that all life arose by chance without God) obviously contradicts the Genesis account of creation (also called Intelligent Design). No unbiased person reading Genesis would come to the conclusion that it was secretly hinting at evolution, yet some within the church in order to accommodate popular culture, have cast aside the obvious literal interpretation of Genesis in favor of an artificial “symbolic” interpretation. The Genesis account, they argue, is figurative, like a parable, and not literal, but this “interpretation” introduces several more toxic lies. Not only did Jesus speak of the creation account as factual history but if there was no “literal” Adam and Eve, then there was no literal original sin to be atoned for. This would mean that Jesus was crucified for a mere parable and not to atone for our sins.

Self determination:

“Sovereignty” is the right to rule, judge, reward and punish. The Bible teaches that God has sovereignty over the whole earth and that he will one day judge the living and the dead, punishing some and rewarding others. We like to imagine that we sustain ourselves but this is not true, as it is God, who causes the sun to shine, the to rain fall, and the food to grow. Referring to God, one of Job's friends said:

If it were his intention and he withdrew his spirit and breath, all mankind would perish together and man would return to the dust. Job 34:14 – 15:

Just as parents gives birth to children, provide for them, and so have authority over them, so God's authority over humanity is based upon the fact that he both created and even now sustains us. Evolution denies God's supernatural creation, and therefore denies his claim to sovereignty over humanity. If God did not create us, then we owe him nothing, and we are free to do as we please, rather than as he wills.

Right and wrong:

If evolution is true, then there is no meaningful argument for “right and wrong” so your ethics can change according to your circumstances, or what is called “situational ethics”. Thomas Huxley, known as “Darwin's Bull Dog”, was an enthusiastic early champion of evolution. His grandchildren, Aldous and Julian, stated that one of the reasons they accepted evolution was because it liberated them from the commonly held beliefs of right and wrong:

"For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."

(Aldous Huxley, noted author)

"I suppose the reason we leaped at the origin of species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."

(Sir Julian Huxley, President of the United Nation's Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organization (UNESCO).)

Hopelessness and Meaninglessness:

The flip side of this liberating coin is perhaps even more dangerous. We are made in God's image and God calls us his children. Evolution denies that divine spark in humanity and reduces us to only a more evolved “animal” with no special meaning or purpose.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Genesis 1:26

God made Adam and Eve ruler of the earth and gave them very simple instructions.

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Genesis 1:28

The earth and everything in it was created for our benefit and God intended for us to rule the earth as his children with the command “fill the earth and subdue it”. The Lord never gave any indication that we needed to stop at a certain number of people, nor did he suggest that we should play god and regulate the world population ourselves. The Lord plainly stated Israel's borders when they entered the promised land, in the same way, If the earth's population was something we were supposed to regulate then God would have said so. On the contrary, we know that The Lord is fully capable of controlling the world population himself and will regulate it as he sees fit.

Part 2: Environmentalism, Communism, Racism and Eugenics

Creation vs Evolution; Part 2

Environmentalism, Communism, Racism and Eugenics

Environmentalism:

While evolution diminishes the value of humanity to being no more than an animal, a new heresy is rising as a fruit of evolution that views humanity not as rulers, nor as equals, but as a “planetary cancer”. This highly toxic and radical ideology, is the environmentalist movement whose “environmentally friendly” advocacy has set the stage for the deaths of millions of people worldwide. This video clip called "The Cure for Planetary Cancer" from the 02/27/2009 broadcast of "The Hal Lindsey Report" does an excellent job of making this point very clear.

The earth's population is now about 6.5 Billion people, but environmental groups argue that the earth can only support 500 Million people and want to eliminate the “excess” 6 Billion (that's 12 out of every 13 people). Environment groups are advocating abortion, sterilization, and “environmental” regulations that lead to the deaths of thousands if not millions of people. Consider the following example.

Malaria is an infectious disease, transmitted to people by mosquitoes, and it is responsible for the deaths of an estimated 3 Million people each year who are mostly young children and pregnant women. Malaria costs the continent of Africa an estimated $12 Billion a year. In 1939 DDT was discovered to be a highly effective pesticide dramatically slashing the number of new cases of malaria. DDT is safe, effective and inexpensive and was so successful at controlling malaria that DDT is the only pesticide to have ever been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. But then in the 1970's, based upon bad science, the environmental movement successfully banned DDT.

As a result, world wide cases of malaria skyrocketed because alternative pesticides were not as cheap, safe or effective. A watch dog group called junkscience.com has a “malaria clock” showing the estimated number of new infections and deaths. Since it's ban, over 30 years ago, 14 Billion people have become infected with malaria, and of those, nearly 100 million have died (especially in Africa). Environmental groups argue that there are alternative pesticides but as many African's only earn $1 a day, they can not afford the far more expensive alternatives.

I saw a YouTube video showing how people in Africa had trained a species of very large African rats to sniff out landlines and mark the spot. The rats were not heavy enough to detonate the mines, but animal rights activists were cursing them for using trained rats:

I'd rather see some kid or better, a bunch of kids get ripped and blown to shreds than see an animal get killed.

OK, i dont like to see anything die, but i find humans worthless compared to the life of an animal. HUMANS put HUMANS's lives in danger, animals didnt. WHats the big deal, they skin dogs for fur, why not skin a human for fun, huh?

The animal rights activists showed the most chilling callousness to human suffering I can remember seeing.

Evolution has opened the door to unimaginable death, and destruction though it is not usually recognized as a contributing factor. Atheists like to cite war based upon religion (such as the crusades) but they seem completely ignorant of the death and destruction brought because dictators and governments were following the principles of evolution to their logical conclusions.

Communism:

The Chinese considered evolution so central to communism that religions and rival moralities were ruthlessly exterminated as being incompatible with communist ideologies and plans.

In 1947, Bishop O'Gara was imprisoned by the Chinese Communists and wrote from his prison cell. A number of them were "hopeless" to the new regime and were executed. Those considered "salvageable" had to attend a week-long class as the new "People's Republic" was born. His letter described the retraining classes. He does not refer to Marxist philosophy, redistribution of wealth, or even basic socialist principles, but rather Darwinian evolution. This was what was considered the first vital step towards a cooperative communist populace. Eliminate God the Creator, eliminate original sin, replace God with the State.... The Chinese relied upon Charles Darwin's theory of evolution to undermine the religious foundation of millions of faithful. Those too strong to crack were eliminated. (Terry Jackson, The Devolution of Evolution)

Evolution's evil fruit have cost the lives of millions. An estimated 50 million died under the Chinese Communism and an estimated 20 million more died in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin.

Lest you think that what happen in China and the Soviet Union are are exceptions to the rule, consider this:

Fascism and Eugenics (also called Social Darwinism):

"The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consistently sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."

(Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist)

"If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile" (Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf" 1924)

Long before WW II, Hitler openly promoted evolution and the idea that the Aryan (German) race was “the Master Race”. Hitler secretly created the T-4 “Eugenics” program which killed 275,000 “unfit” people and forcibly sterilized 400,000 more. Hitler even instituted the Lebensborn (Fount of Life) program which encouraged "racially pure" women to mate with "racially pure" men (often SS officers). The Nazi Eugenics poster featured here says:

"This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too."

Racism:

Some have argued that this is an unfair application of Evolution and is not actually an underlying theme within evolution. But is it? Please consider these quotes by Darwin himself and his “bulldog” Thomas Huxley:

"The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." (Charles Darwin, 1881, 3 July, "Life and Letters of Darwin, vol. 1, 316")

"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man.....it is simply incredible to think that.....he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites." (Thomas Huxley, 1871, Lay Sermons, addresses and reviews)

Eugenics in America:

Some will feel insulated believing that these things could not have happen on American soil but that is not true. Hitlers eugenics of the 1930's were an expanded version of what the United States was doing since 1907. 33 states has compulsory sterilization laws and between 1907 and 1981, over 65,000 people were forcibly sterilized as part of state level “eugenics” programs.

The 1936 Nazi poster at right says "We do not stand alone": and shows the flags of other countries with, compulsory sterilization laws (including the USA). The woman is holding a baby and the man is holding a shield inscribed with the title of Nazi Germany's 1933 compulsory sterilization law.

The US Supreme Court in an 8 to 1 decision, declared that states had a right to sterilize a citizen they deemed unfit in the infamous “Buck v. Bell” case of 1927. in his court opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. (Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.)

He concluded with his infamous comment “Three generations of imbeciles are enough”. Evolution has only one commandment, survival of the fittest, anything less is blasphemy.

Part 3: Many Infallible Proofs:

Creation vs Evolution; Part 3

Many Infallible Proofs:

Creation and evolution can't both be true, at least one of them must be wrong. The Lord has left a trail of many infallible proofs that he created all life and there is a large body of scientific evidence that favors divine creation and that refutes evolution.

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible." (Charles Darwin, "The origin of species by means of natural selection")

"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully." (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life's complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did." (Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner)

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution." (Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University.)

The enemy within:

Churches should be leaders in defending the authority and historical accuracy of the Bible but unfortunately some churches are part of the problem.

One pastor of a large mega church told hundreds of teenagers to accept without question whatever the “reigning paradigm” of science was and mocked those who questioned evolution from the pulpit. The reckless nature of these statements become apparent when we remember that “Eugenics” was the reigning paradigm of science in it's day.

Another pastor went so far as to start a campaign “ADD YOUR VOICE TO THIS EVANGELICAL APOLOGY TO DARWIN”. This pastor, eulogized Darwin as a “hero” for “revealing the unity of all living things”, praising him as “a tender soul”, and suggesting the absurd portrayal of Darwin as a liberator of the oppressed.

The religious authorities of his day held great power in England. Anglican clergymen practiced “natural theology” as a hobby–the only real biology of his time. The doctrine of a static and special creation of each species independent of the others under-girded the social order: everything forever in its proper place, gender, race and class, right up to her majesty, the Queen. This doctrine supported the notion that slaves belonged in the fields and women in the parlor, serving tea. Darwin’s nerdy findings were going up against the powers and the principalities of his time. (Ken Wilson, apologies to the memory of Charles Darwin)

This knight-in-shining-armor portrayal of Darwin is disturbing and completely fictional. Darwin's comments about higher races eliminating lower races has already been stated but Darwin's writings also reveal his belief in the supremacy of one sex over the other as well.

"The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by mans attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than the woman. Whether deep thought, reason, or imagination or merely the use of the senses and hands.....We may also infer.....The average mental power in man must be above that of woman." (Charles Darwin, "The descent of Man, pg. 566")

Yet, in what seemed to be a choreographed effort to milk the reader for sympathy, this pastor lamented the death of 3 of Darwin's 8 children, describing him as “a broken heart”, who suffered “a crushing blow” by the “cruel and drawn out” death of a child.

Childhood death was quite common in that day (and still is in Africa), even Abraham Lincoln lost 3 of his 4 children before they reached adulthood. While the loss of a child is understandably tragic, it has nothing to do with “if” Darwin should get an apology from Christendom or not. This pastor even refused to allow any critical discussion of Darwin:

“I won’t post any comments that say anything nasty about Darwin–not on his birthday”.

His Birthday?... Rather than a genuine apology, the entire article seemed to be just a cattle prod to shame evangelicals into abandoning creation.

Going against the flow of popular culture is difficult and some shrink back from the battle, fearing the scorn or craving the acceptance of those considered wise in the eyes of the world.

Conclusion:

There is far too much evidence to discuss here and that is not the point of this article. Rather than point out specific evidence against evolution, I hope to bring to light the reasons WHY evolution is so toxic, not just to Christian faith but to humanity itself. It takes time to carefully weigh the evidence on the balance scales of our minds and it takes time to learn how to debate with others, speaking firmly but respectfully. If you are aware of the deadly fruit of evolution's evil seeds then the answers to the questions: should I research creationism, should I debate evolution, become self evident.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)

I have included a list of resources for those who would like to research more into the scientific evidences supporting special Divine creation and refuting Darwinian Evolution.

There are numerous educational videos and books available on the ICR and AIG websites.

Resources:

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR): http://www.icr.org/

Answers in Genesis (AIG): http://www.answersingenesis.org/

ICR radio: http://www.icr.org/radio/stationfinder/

Creation Ministries International: http://creationontheweb.com/

Periodicals:

Creation: quarterly magazine, 56 pages (glossy) http://creationontheweb.com/

Answers Magazine: (AIG) published quarterly http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Videos:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

Save the whales but damn the children

The 1st commandment is to love The Lord you God with all you heart, mind, soul and strength. The 2nd commandment is like the 1st: To love you neighbor as yourself. Jesus said that all the law and prophets hang on these 2 commandments. These commandments are pure, simple and perfect.

When a car tire is out of balance, it literally destroys itself. When our priorities are out of balance, we can destroy not just ourselves but others as well. Fame, wealth and beauty are highly esteemed in our culture but the sparkle is merely fools gold. Like cotton candy, these things have has an appearance of substance but they do not satisfy. The list of celebrities with self destructive lifestyles continues to grow. Heath Ledger's recent death is but one example in a long list of lives claimed by the emptiness promises of this world.

It is one thing when an unbalanced life destroys itself but it is entirely another matter when an unbalanced life destroys others. I have watched with growing grief and alarm as animal rights environmentalists, viciously malign, destitute and starving peoples around the world, to prevent them from hunting food to sustain their families or to use to barter for clothes, comfort or medicine. Environmentalists, far from the destitution of Africa, indoctrinate our young in an ideology that will forcibly deny food to needy children in the name of environmentalism.

I viewed a YouTube video recently showing how people in Africa were using trained rats to seek out land mines in mine fields. Using their keen sense of smell, and tethered on a very short leash between 2 men, the rats could safely locate the mines without detonating them. I wished them well in their quest to reclaim their land from the horrors of war. but was grieved and angered to see environmentalists curse them, with profanity drenched tirades objecting to using the rats in a dangerous situation. Here is a few brief samples:

I'd rather see some kid or better, a bunch of kids get ripped and blown to shreds than see an animal get killed. But yes, they are definatly to light to trigger the mines.

Whether or not they're 'saving people' I find it disgusting that they choose to use animals to do this.

i find humans worthless compared to the life of an animal. HUMANS put HUMANS's lives in danger, animals didnt. WHats the big deal, they skin dogs for fur, why not skin a human for fun, huh? Yeah, you can report me as spam as you are the higher class scum who thinks your better than everyone else.

Save the whales but damn the children. The godless nature of modern environmental places the value of mere animals on par with the value of the humans whom Jesus died to save. How have we come to tolerate such wickedness? The environmentalists are at a very safe distance from the horrors of war and I wonder how long they would cling to those ideologies if they had to locate the mines themselves. With an estimated 80 million land mines and scant medical care available, I suspect they would quickly be of another opinion.

Matthew 18: 1 - 6:
At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Despite the clear biblical commandment to love thy neighbor, this diseased ideology has even infested the church under the name "Creation Care". Seasoned pastors who should know better, have turned their back on Biblical truth and upon people created in the image of God, to bow the knee to modern environmentalism. Lazarus has been laid at their doorstep, only to be turned away. Churches have been caught up in a heresy that has sought to save all manner of creatures at the expense of human beings created in the image of God. Jesus died to save humanity, not the whales.

A Word Regarding the United States when President Obama takes office

This is a word from The Lord I received on 1/19/2009 from a trusted and respected friend, who asked me to post this and pass it on. I believe it is worth reading, pondering and passing on.

A Word Regarding the United States when President Obama takes office. Given on 1/19/2009

Once when the oath of office has been taken, by the assuming one, then at that very second the hand of God will be removed from this nation. The people have chosen their king. They have turned to the arm of Man to be their savior and not the Lord Jesus. Turned to man, the assumed one who believes he is savior of this country. He who exalts himself as someone special.

Turned to man this man states that only the government will solve the problems of this nation. That the government brings in the Jubilee. The Lord speaks that this is idol worship. This nation has toppled from the heights of blessings because this man is looked on as a savior.

The remnant will not be able to stay the Lord’s judgment any longer. This country was a lamp set on a lamp stand, a city of light on a great hill. No longer. This light of the United States is now a darkness, and Jesus said if the light becomes dark how great is that darkness.

Therefore, the Lord speaks to us to repent and return to the light, the one true well of life and living water.

Colen Poeppelmeyer

1/19/2009

An Evangelical Bridge Too Far; From townhall.com

David R. Stokes
Sunday, December 28, 2008

The recent furor over President-Elect Barack Obama’s selection of California mega-church pastor Rick Warren to pray at the January 20^th inauguration yields a few clues about what evangelicals can expect during the next four years.

On the surface, playing the Warren card appears to be a masterstroke by Obama – one that further demonstrates impressive political skills. A day or so after the election, I was asked by someone about what Mr. Obama would do to prepare for his administration. I replied that I thought he would demonstrate significant savvy by – at least for the time being – ignoring the clamorous pleas from core constituencies, the kind of people who will support and vote for him no matter what. And I suggested he would reach out to those who view him with fear – or at least mild suspicion.

That’s pretty much what number 44 has done. He has confounded those who voted for “real change we can believe in” by putting together a crafty combination of a third Clinton term on most things, and a third Bush term on issues relating to the war in Iraq.

This brings me back to Rick Warren’s upcoming supplication in Washington. Evangelicals – especially younger ones – played a key role in Barack Obama’s ability to counter clear problems with his own church and pastor. They also, in many cases, overtly campaigned for him, his decidedly non-evangelical views on abortion and other traditional values issues notwithstanding.

Mr. Obama is viewed by many evangelicals as a new kind of politician - someone who can bridge the gap, or reach out, or maybe begin a dialogue. Just pick your mantra. But before any kind of modern-day Great Awakening is declared, some should take a serious look at how Rev. Warren’s selection to offer a simple prayer has become such a controversial matter.

Evangelicals, those who take the Bible and their faith seriously, need to realize that when it comes to issues like gay marriage – even abortion – there is not really any middle ground with those on the left, even the so-called Christian left.

Rick Warren has spent a great deal of time and money, investing his ministry in initiatives that are outside of the normal evangelical box. He has worked tirelessly in Africa and elsewhere on the issue of AIDS – and has cultivated a compassionate and understanding persona when it comes to dealing with issues and ministry challenges stemming from same-sex attraction.

What Warren has not done, nor will he ever do, is to reach the point where he declares that homosexual behavior is not sinful. He will not do this because he is a Biblicist.

No matter how understanding evangelicals are and how sincere some are to open a dialogue with same-sex marriage advocates and activists, there can be no real rapprochement without the willingness to change the way the Bible is read and interpreted.

And that would be an evangelical bridge too far.

Conservative evangelicals possess a belief-system rooted in a movement popularized nearly 100 years ago and that reached its peak at the mid-point of the roaring twenties. Fundamentalism - part dogma, part culture, part reaction to culture - and in large measure driven by several key and dynamic personalities - was at its high water mark as a social phenomenon. Though certainly no fan, in fact a persistent critic, of the movement, H. L. Mencken, the caustic journalistic sage of Baltimore, observed its clear influence, writing at the time: “Heave an egg out of a Pullman window, and you will hit a fundamentalist almost anywhere in the United States today.

From 1910-1915 a series of twelve books was published and widely distributed to conservative-minded Christians around the country under the title The Fundamentals. A year before the first edition appeared, a wealthy Californian had been inspired, listening to a sermon by Chicago preacher, A.C. Dixon, to “bring the Bible’s true message to its most faithful believers.” Very soon he developed the concept for the publishing of “a series of inexpensive paperback books, containing the best teachings of the best Bible teachers in the world.” After The Great War (1914-1918), a movement took root, one based on the ideas in The Fundamentals, and that would transcend “various conservative Christian traditions.”

During the 1920s, most of the great protestant denominations experienced internal convulsions over issues raised – sometimes vociferously – by fundamentalists in the ranks. Of particular concern to some was the growing tendency on the part of religious “liberals” to question long-held dogmas of the faith.

Opposite the fundamentalists were the “modernists” – and they openly challenged things seen as precious to true believers everywhere. Harry Emerson Fosdick – a leading modernist protestant pastor – suggested an alternative narrative for the virgin birth. Jesus was likely (in his thinking) fathered by a soldier. The scriptural story could not possibly be true. And the resurrection – well, come on now – really? Rising from the dead – I mean, that’s just too incredible for “modern-intelligent” minds to accept.

And everything depended on what you believed about the Bible itself.

To fundamentalists it was the inspired Word of God. By this they meant the “verbal-plenary inspiration” of scripture. In other words, the “words” were inspired – and the book itself was in its entirety. And when it came to interpretation, fundamentalists opted for what they called, “the historical-grammatical” method – what the words meant in context and back then (think: “strict construction” of the U.S. Constitution – what did the founders and framers mean? Etc.).

Why is it important to know this? Well, because the evangelical movement grew out of fundamentalism. Led by people like Billy Graham and Harold John Ockenga – and schools like Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College – the idea was to keep the solid “doctrinal” stuff – Biblicism and the centrality of Jesus Christ and his “finished work,” while moving away from the strident, often belligerent, methods of the earlier generation of fundamentalists.

A new-breed of evangelical “whiz kids” took the religious Model-T of the fundamentalists and popularized it to a post-war/Cold War nation. They even had a saying in the Youth for Christ movement in those days (where Graham got his start): “Geared to the Times, but Anchored to the Rock.”

Rick Warren and millions of others today remain faithful to these ideas. Though attempts are made to build bridges – to reach out – it is only for the purpose of bringing people to a relationship with Jesus.

Though I hesitate to put words in Rick Warren’s mouth, or speak definitively as to where he stands – I am quite confident that his view of scripture is very much in line with the 1950s evangelicals – even the 1920s fundamentalists. It is a high view of the Bible – inspired of God, interpreted careful, and applied personally.

This is a view commonly shared by conservative evangelicals across the denominational landscape. And it is why some evangelicals need to face the music. No matter how much you try to love, reach out, dialogue, and build bridges, the other guys are not going to be happy short of the abandonment of the Bible as a serious document relevant to our times.

Unless evangelicals are willing to say that the Bible does not call homosexual behavior sinful, no amount of posturing will change anything.

It is sort of like the Israeli-PLO land-for-peace narrative. It will never work because the PLO does not think Israel should exist. Conceded acreage will not assuage that.

Nor will “reaching out” assuage those who believe that anyone who takes the Bible seriously on the matter of homosexuality is, ipso facto, a bigot filled with hate.

The Apostle Paul knew a thing or two about people and bridge building. He told the Corinthians that he was always willing to reinvent himself in order to connect with others. But the connection he desired with others was designed to bring them to a place of faith in Jesus.

Many evangelicals are firmly, optimistically, and sincerely on the Barack-Bridge, but they may soon realize that in order to cross it completely en route to the new promised land of change, they will have to lighten their load and leave some stuff behind.

And among the things discarded will be a lot of Bibles.

Thank you, President Bush

Thank you, President Bush for the service you have performed for our country. Some have forgotten that 9/11 was forcibly thrust upon you, but you have managed to defend US soil despite the 12,000+ attacks carried out worldwide by the Religion Of Peace since 9/11. You squelched the murder and mayhem of the barbarians at our gate who would take away our most cherished freedoms and our sacred right to worship the one true God. The media has badly mistreated you but you stayed the course and did your duty when it was both difficult and unpopular.

I can not say if the invasion of Iraq was a mistake or not. Without a doubt, Saddam was a mass murderer, dispensing genocide and torture to the citizens of Iraq in wholesale numbers and filling neighboring countries with death and fear. You were fully justified in believing that Saddam would have reduced America to ashes if it was in his power to do so. Carefully orchestrated terrorists would claim responsibility when the mushroom cloud appeared over New York and Saddam would have a tidy speech ready to blame the former Soviet block countries for not watching their nuclear stockpiles after the fall of Communism.

Adding insult to injury we discovered that in removing Saddam we also removed the only reason the Saudis were selling us oil for $20 a barrel. After that, we discovered that the Saudis did not consider us an ally but a cow to be milked.

To their undying shame, the media undermined public resolve to stand toe to toe with terrorists by an endless parade of flag draped coffins and grieving mothers. The stories of courage and sacrifice of our fallen heroes was scraped off their shoes like mud by a news media who were more eager to sway elections than to win a war. Freedom will not be long held by a people who have forgotten that the Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of both tyrants and patriots.

The media did their best to lynch you with the “what did Bush know and when did he know it” smear campaign in the wake of 911 but then loudly protested coercive interrogation tactics when terrorist kingpins withheld information regarding imminent attacks. How weak and squeamish we must seem to Islamic mothers who breast feed their children on the glories of Jihad, a martyr's death as a human bomb.

Though 911 will likely define the history around your presidency, you have done more than just protect US soil. Thank you for restoring dignity to the office of the President of the United States which had been made a laughing stock by the dirty politics and cheap sex of one who came before you.

The evil seeds of the housing market crisis were planted more than 30 years ago. A bad idea planted during the Carter years and fertilized during the Clinton years was the The Community Reinvestment Act which forced banks to make good loans to people with bad credit. The liberals may not know how to run a country but they are highly skilled when it comes cover ups and shifting blame.

The media may have been your enemy but I want to believe that history will be your friend. The fairytale aura surrounding President-elect Obama will be short lived. Joe Biden was correct that people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, and Kim Jong-il will quite joyfully put President Obama and his paper thin resume through the shredder. They will not be impressed by his Harvard education, nor by a pretty speech nor will then President Obama have the luxury of voting “present”. Like Neville Chamberlain before him, who's lives will President Obama barter away for an empty promise of “peace in our time”.

The economic crisis will deepen if President Obama enacts his misguided Socialist and Marxist ideologies and all the glitter about “Hope” and “Change” will be shown to be fool's gold. After that many will appreciate the wisdom you brought to the office of President and the fortitude you have shown in the face of dissent and adversity. Well done President Bush, well done.