Obama "proud" to have gay band perform at his inauguration

The Nonsense of Global Warming

By Paul Johnson

www.Forbes.com October 6, 2008

"It's global warming, of course." That's the Green's [= global warming extremist's] stock response to anything weather-related. Too much sun? "Global warming." Too little sun? "Global warming." Drought? "Global warming." Floods? "Global warming." Freezing cold? "Global warming."

I wish the great philosopher Sir Karl Popper were alive to denounce the unscientific nature of global warming. He was a student when Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was first published and then successfully tested. Einstein said that for his theory to be valid it would have to pass three tests. "if," Einstein wrote to British scientist Sir Arthur Eddington, "it were proved that this effect does not exist in nature, then the whole theory would have to be abandoned."

To Popper, this was a true scientific approach. "What impressed me most," he wrote, "was Einstein's own clear statement that he would regard his theory as untenable if it should fail in certain tests." In contrast, Popper pointed out, there were pseudo-scientists, such as Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Marx claimed to be constructing a theory of scientific materialism based on scientific history and economic science. "Science" and "scientific" were words Marx used constantly. Far from formulating his theory with a high degree of scientific content and encouraging empirical testing and refutation, Marx made it vague and general. When evidence turned up that appeared to refute his theory, the theory was modified to accommodate the new evidence [rather than abandoning it as false]. It's no wonder that when communist regimes applied Marxism it proved a costly failure.

Freud's theories were also nonspecific, and he, too, was willing to adjust them to take in new science. We now know that many of Freud's central ideas have no basis in biology. They were formulated before Mendel's Laws were widely known and accepted and before the chromosomal theory of inheritance, the recognition of inborn metabolic errors, the existence of hormones and the mechanism of nervous impulse were known. As the scientist Sir Peter Medawar put it, Freud's psychoanalysis is akin to mesmerism and phrenology; it contains isolated nuggets of truth, but the general theory as a whole is false.

The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and burning of fossil fuels—the essence of the Green's theory of global warming— has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules.

Those who buy in to global warming wish to drastically curb human economic and industrial activities, regardless of the consequences for people, especially the poor. If the theory's conclusions are accepted and agreed upon, the destructive results will be felt most severely in those states that adhere to the rule of law and will observe restrictions most faithfully...

Thanks to heavy government subsidies, many farmers switched from growing food to biofuel crops—perhaps the most expensive form of energy ever devised. The result has been a world shortage of food, with near starvation in some places, and a rise in the cost of food for everyone...

Marxism, Freudianism, global warming. These are proof—of which history offers so many examples—that people can be suckers on a grand scale. To their fanatical followers they are a substitute for religion. Global warming, in particular, is a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science. If people are in need of religion, why don't they just turn to the genuine article?

...

Why I will not vote for Barack Obama

Although many use pictures (some of them doctored - see above picture), cartoons, or slogans to alienate people from a candidate ("NObama," "Obama Sin Laden," "Obama/Biden/Laden"), we do not think those are acceptable. My reasons for not voting for Barack Obama have more depth, and yet are not complex.

Simply put, as a Christian I am devoted to God and His Word. God is pro-life, Obama takes very much the contrary position.

A very good article written by Robert P. George, who is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, states the following:

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.

The research done by Professor George uncovers things that no Christian would want to be associated with. You may want to read the complete article.* But here's some of the troublesome content:

"It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many "pro-choice" legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a "punishment" that she should not endure. He has stated that women's equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing "pro-choice" about that.

"But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is "pro-choice" rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.

"It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.

"You may be thinking, it can't get worse than that. But it does.

"For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President's restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents' decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.

"But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This "clone and kill" bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.

"Can it get still worse? Yes.

"Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos."

As a Christian, I do not vote with my wallet in my mind, but rather, with the Bible in my hand. I do not only look for what will profit me, but for a leader for the United States that will stand for justice. The rights of the unborn are trampled by Obama at every turn. I can not support a candidate that would do that. I know Jesus wouldn't.

...
Please pass this information on to others who may be thinking of voting for Obama.

To see what abortion really does to an unborn baby, click here.

________________

* http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama%27s%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml

Science vs. Religion in Future Constitutional Conflicts

Debbs McKown wrote an essay in 1984 which was later published in F. D. White & S. J. Billings (Eds.), The Well-crafted Argument: A Guide and a Reader (pp. 587-591). New York: Houghton Mifflin. Professor of philosophy McKown’s main purpose is to warn about a future constitutional conflict between science and religion. As professor of philosophy, he marshals his philosophical training to try proving his premise. Since the Founding Fathers designed an “utterly secular Constitution,” (p. 586) he asserts, they did not provide enough safeguard for the free practice and advance of science. Furthermore, because science opposes Christianity’s religious myths, there is peril that technology “would, one day… be endangered by it” (p. 586). The author goes on to describe religion’s threat to science and chastises Stephen Jay Gould for believing that “science and religion, properly understood, do not conflict” (p. 587). Especially since American fundamentalism’s “blood is boiling at present” (p. 587). McKown also asserts that “creationism threatens biology” (p. 587) and that all major sciences would “be gutted,” “emasculated,” and “suffer substantially,” (p. 587) at the hands of creationists. The author goes on to assert that “Christianity is scientifically unsupported” (p.588). The author insists that speaking about God is philosophically pointless, and the claim to religious experience as validation for religion can render contradictory results that cannot be verified.

McKown then accuses Christianity of historical fraud, asserting that the Gospel stories are suspect because they were written to convince people to believe in Christ. He points to alleged Christian misuse of the Jewish Old Testament to prove Jesus as Messiah, and the “suspiciously different resurrection tales” (p. 589). He surprisingly concludes that the Christ of the New Testament “never had any existence” (p. 589).

McKown claims that if schools were to teach modern science then a wholesale adoption of rational empiricism would be necessary. McKown proposes a 7 step plan of action that includes “the possible use of professional sanctions, to help safeguard the integrity of science instruction in public schools” (p. 590). He also proposes education that would help wean Americans from religion.

After reviewing the article, we concluded that McKown has not effectively proved his claim. His stated title seems to require a more thorough treatment of the Constitution as it relates to the relationship of religion, science and education. One expects to see some treatment of current proposed amendments that may in the future bear on the author’s subject, but none are given. McKown’s claim that the Constitution is “utterly secular” (p. 586) may be contradicted by religious people, but he offers no evidence for his claim.

A surprising claim is the one that asserts that the “useful arts” in the form of “technology” are endangered by religious people (p. 586). This sounds like an unfounded exaggeration, especially considering the churches’ use of technology to disseminate their beliefs. This should have been clarified by the author. McKown sees American fundamentalism as a threat to science (p. 587), but does not define the term. This would have been useful; especially considering the range of meanings that “fundamentalism” has had since its inception into American religious life. He also asserts that creationism is an enemy to all sciences, but fails to comment on the fact that a great amount of modern science discoveries were pioneered by Bible believing scientists. No specific examples are given to show that his assertions are true. I found this trend one of the greatest weaknesses in McKown’s paper. Also, because the range of beliefs in American Christianity is so vast, defining the group that he is addressing would have helped to make his paper intelligible to a general audience.

McKown claims that real religion involves “scriptural literalism,” and because the scriptures are mistaken regarding the nature of the universe, the earth, life and other subjects, then a conflict with science is inevitable. Although by the end of the paper it is obvious that Christianity is the object of his attack, he nowhere declares so. He uses the term “religion” but seems to define it (in his own mind) quite narrowly. This makes the above claim about “scriptural literalism” meaningless, and even wrong, apart from a Christian (fundamentalist?) understanding, especially because many religions in America do not have holy scriptures in the manner Christianity has, and some religions that do actually do not interpret them literally (i.e. those of the Gnostic persuasion and others).

The author’s claim that “Christianity is scientifically unsupported” (p. 588) needed a lot more detail. Declaring in what way it is unsupported; explain what scientific, repeatable experiment had proven it to be so would have been helpful. Some of the gaps in his arguments are quite surprising given the fact that the author is a professor of philosophy. It seems to me that most Christians probably do not have anything against science per se but McKown’s entire paper seems to depend on that supposed fact. The author nowhere defines what he understands as “science,” and this, again, weakens his position. McKown quotes Ralph Alpher approvingly when he states that if there is a god “it will become evident to the scientist” (p. 588). But it seems that if God is defined as the all-powerful, all-knowing Designer and Creator of the universe, His knowledge would be so far above mankind’s that it would be easier for a “scientist ant” (if there was such a thing) to understand man’s science than for a human scientist to understand God’s. McKown contends that Freud had it right when he wrote that “biological research robbed man of his particular privilege of having been specially created, and relegated him to a descent from the animal world.” (p. 588) The author does not interact at all with modern scientific models like Intelligent Design and does not seem to be aware that unproven traditional evolutionism (a la Darwin) has been mostly rejected in favor of other theories like punctuated equilibrium. The author’s dogmatism does not take into account that evolution, far from being a law, is still a “theory” of origins.

The most powerful arguments were expected to be under the heading of “No Support from Philosophy,” but none are given. He asserts that “nowadays, philosophy is not a welcome place to land,” but does not provide a logical argument why that is so. He does not interact with the theories of current Christian philosophical scholars. Interestingly, one of the most publicized debates between atheist and Christian philosophers have rendered results that seem to contradict the author’s position. Prolific British atheist writer Antony Flew and Christian philosopher/historian Gary Habermas debated the subject of the historical fact of the resurrection of Christ and the scholars present, atheists among them, concluded that Habermas won the debate. Some years later Flew abandoned his atheism when the evidence of intelligent design pointed him to the existence of God.

When it comes to historical evidence, the author asserts that Christianity has massively misused the Jewish Old Testament, but again no proof is given. Christians could point out to Isaiah 53 which describes the life and death of Jesus in astonishing detail, even though it was written hundreds of years before he was born. McKown calls the resurrection a “tale” and incredibly decides that Jesus “never had existence” (p. 589), a point of view that had been quite popular in the eighteenth century but finds no modern support. Jewish historian Josephus wrote about Christ in the first century, and Roman historian Tacitus recognizes the existence of the followers of Christ around the same time. Furthermore, it would be interesting to find out what McKown would do to explain the empty tomb and the origin of the Christian church apart from Jesus’ real existence and resurrection. To assert that the Apostles invented Him would not explain their willingness to die as martyrs for their beliefs.

The author hopes for constitutional guarantees for scientific inquiry “equivalent to those enjoyed by religion” (p. 590) and shares his seven step plan to obtain better science education in American schools. One of them suggests “the possible use of professional sanctions, to help safeguard the integrity of science instruction in public schools and to shield science teachers against uninformed [Christian?] Public opinion” (p. 590). It seems to me that if enforced in the way the author envisions this, especially considering he would like some kind of constitutional amendment to guarantee similar results, it would cut off any and all divergent points of view. It would birth a totalitarian system where dissenters could end up losing their professional status and the opportunity to work for public schools unless willing to conform to the current “scientific” regime. Public (paternal?) opinion would not matter and children could be indoctrinated without any opposition. It seems to me that giving that much power to either side (religious or atheistic) would be a grave mistake. Openness to different points of view in the market place of ideas is a better way to guarantee a better science education.

The author ends his paper appealing to “a new and unique source of truth” that can be used to revise “ethical premises” (p. 591), but he does not clarify how and in what way could science, the science of empirical experimentation, provide a basis for an ethical system, when, by definition, ethical systems are not quantifiable in a laboratory. Is he suggesting that a test tube could be the foundation of morality?

Throughout his writing McKown assumes what he wants to (and should) prove. In the end, one is left wondering if the author did not provide evidence for his many assertions because his goal was to make an emotional appeal only, without a scientific basis, or perhaps because he is not informed enough to do so, or whether evidence for his point of view simply does not exist. In the end, his essay is not worthy to be included in an anthology such as The Well-crafted Argument, because there is a patent lack of any such argument in his biased writing.

G. Jorge Medina
Defenders of the Faith
www.defendersweb.com

...

Report on the First Spanish Symposium on Apostolic Pentecostalism

First ever Spanish Symposium on Apostolic Pentecostalism held in the South Texas District of the United Pentecostal Church International.

At Mundo Pentecostal we consider it a privilege and an honor to have hosted the event, which had the participation of at least three Oneness organizations. The Symposium was scheduled to coincide with our V Defenders of the Faith Conference on Apostolic Doctrine, a Spanish event that has given much to talk about in the last few years by hosting a debate on the Oneness of God vs the Trinity in 2003, standing against the false teaching of the divine flesh of Jesus in 2004, and against Preterism in 2005 (the 2005 event lead to the publication of Upholding Our Future Hope: An Apostolic Response to Preterism, published by Word Aflame Press).

The Symposium papers were made available in attractive binders to all attendees, and soon they will be available on CD-Rom in PDF format to all interested ministers.

For our first Symposium we had five presenters, and the event was open to all licensed ministers.

The topics covered:

The Role of Women in the Church, at Home and in Society - Dr. Jorge Mendizabal

An Apostolic Hermeneutic of Matthew 28:19 - Alfonso Suarez

The Apostolic Church and the Use of Mass Media - Octavio Muñoz

Restoring the Ministry of Apostles - Dr. Daniel Gordon

Apostolic Foundations for True Holiness - G. Jorge Medina

The papers were read and then questions and answers were fielded by each speaker. Encouraging the expression of differences of opinion enriched the Symposium and some of the exchanges were lively but respectful. The pastors that attended expressed their gratefulness at the way the subjects were handled and the opportunity to interact with the speakers.

We are grateful to Pastor David K. Bernard, President of Urshan Graduate School of Theology and Pastor J.R. Ensey, former President of Texas Bible College and Chairman of the Apostolic Theological Forum for sending letters to the Conference wishing us success in our endeavors.

This year’s Symposium was an exciting beginning to deeper explorations of our beloved doctrine and our Apostolic heritage in Spanish ministries. Great things are in store in the years to come!


G. Jorge Medina
Founder & Director
Defenders of the Faith
www.defendersweb.com

Video Feed of Defenders of the Faith

To view the Defenders of the Faith Conference through the internet make sure you log in Friday, April 25th at 7:30pm and on Saturday, 26th at 6:00pm (Houston, Texas time).

To visit Mundo Pentecostal's video page click here.

...

Defenders of the Faith Conference 2008

Click to enlarge image


Mark your calendars for April 25 and 26, 2008

Our Defenders of the Faith Conference is not designed for the shallow Christian, but rather for the soldiers of the Cross that want to make an impact in their generation. Those that want to deepen their knowledge of the Word of God and become skilled in the use of the Sword of the Spirit are encouraged to attend.

Friday, April 25th, 2008 - 7:30pm


"Nobody Left Behind"
G. Jorge Medina
Founder & Director of the Defenders of the Faith Conference on Apostolic Doctrine
Authored and compiled the Word Aflame Press published prophecy book Upholding Our Future Hope: An Apostolic Response to Preterism

"How Close Are We To The End?"
Dannie Hood
Evangelist and Prophecy Teacher

A multimedia session outlining the accelerated fulfillment of Bible prophecy in the endtime.

Brother Hood, along with Brother Lee Stoneking, taught a prophecy conference in Houston's Astroarena the year 2000, ministering to thousands of Apostolic Pentecostals. Untold numbers received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Saturday, April 26th, 2008 - 6:00pm

"Why I Left Islam"
Brother Farhad
Ex-Muslim converted to Oneness Pentecostalism

A multimedia session revealing Islam's secret agenda. Find out why this insider asked us not to use his last name.

And later on in the night...

"The Unstoppable Advance of the Oneness Message"

Trinitarian ministers are being baptized in Jesus' Name by the hundreds all over the world. Find out what God is doing and why so many are forsaking their Catholic and Protestant traditions for the revelation of the Name of Jesus.

DVDs, CDs and books on these subjects will be available at the conference.

Place: Mundo Pentecostal sanctuary, 1008 S. Main Street, Pasadena, Texas 77506

Cost: $10 per person

More info: faithdefenders@hotmail.com
or call Mary Mendizabal at 832-755-1775



...

Refuting Preterism - 2 CD Album

CD 1: Has Jesus Already Come in the Clouds?
Refuting Preterism and the AD. 70 Date

CD 2: Has God Rejected Israel Forever?
Refuting Preterism & Replacement Theology

2 Audio CDs $13.99
Shipping & Handling $3.50
Your total will show the shipping charges included ($17.49 dollars).