The Constructive Curmudgeon

Whose Sacrifice?

2009-11-24T14:39:00.005-07:00

"Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"
(John 1:29 New American Standard Bible)

A Hindu festival will sacrifice a quarter million animals to a goddess requiring their blood. Animal rights protester are objecting, of course, and rightly so. But the deeper issue is our need for atonement and new life. This is not provided through animals, but is from God in Christ.

This has been done, and it will not be undone. Jesus Christ came from heaven to earth in order to reconcile us to himself through his freely offered shed blood on the Cross two thousand years ago. We cannot placate God. That is the meaning of pagan sacrifice. However, God can offer himself for us through the sacrifice of himself. That is the glorious good news. That is what Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, Muslims, and all sinful human beings need to know and believe. Then we can offer ourselves a "living sacrifices" for the glory of God and the good of the world. See Romans 12:1-2.

Why Do It?

2009-11-23T20:49:00.003-07:00

Blogs. What's the point?
Facebook. What's the point?
Twitter. What's the point?

You tell me.

Hope from a Pro-Life Activist and Apologist

2009-11-23T20:19:00.003-07:00

This was posted in response to an earlier post of mine. It bears reposting here, since Scott is an expert on this matter:

--------

Doug,

I share your frustration, but the legislative battle is by no means lost. As former Senator Rick Santorum points out, the vote to move forward with debate was inevitable. No majority party is ever going to deny their leader the chance to debate his very own bill. I agree with Santorum: Conservatives put way too much emphasis on this one vote, thus demoralizing our troops when debate was allowed.

However, just because members vote to allow debate does not mean they will vote to close it. In this case, four members of Reid's own party are on record saying they will not vote for cloture on the current Senate bill and Lieberman has said "no way" will he allow a public option. Meanwhile, liberal Dems are saying they will scuttle the bill if it doesn't have one. To make matters worse, Ben nelson has said "no" to any bill that allows abortion funding while many of his lefty colleagues have said "no" if it doesn't. Thus, Reid has a real mess on his hands.

Personally, I think Lieberman is the key. If he is telling us the truth that a public option in any form is unacceptable, the current bill is dead. Nelson might be swayed into going along with a Capp's style amendment (which, unlike the Stupak language, does NOT foreclose on abortion funding, but pretends to), but that still leaves Reid with the Lieberman problem on his right, and the fanatical lib problem on his left.

But let's suppose the bill does get out of the Senate. You still have 19 Dem House members on record saying they will vote against it if the Stupak language is removed. That's precisely why Pelosi had to allow it in the first place.

In short, this thing is not over. Surrender is not an option. Please pass the word along.

Love your work,

Scott Klusendorf

Look Who is in Charge Now

2009-11-23T15:12:00.001-07:00

Witness Eric Holder's frightening incompetence concerning our nation's safety.

Message at Denver Seminary

2009-11-23T11:10:00.000-07:00

My message on "Everyday Spiritual Warfare" is linked here.

Lament

2009-11-22T05:54:00.001-07:00

The American church needs another Kierkegaard (qua ecclesiastical critic, not fideist): Christendom is not Christian. Remember SK's work, Attack on Christendom. She or he will probably come from another country, since we fish don't know what our water is. We do not know what seeking God or suffering for God is.

From National Right to Life

2009-11-21T20:29:00.001-07:00

As National Right to Life has previously noted, Senator Reid's bill [on page 118] would authorize the federal government to pay for any and all abortions through a huge new federal health insurance program, the "public option," and also to subsidize purchase of private plans that cover abortion on demand. President Obama and Reid know that the substance of these abortion-promoting policies is deeply unpopular, so they seek to conceal the reality with layers of contorted definitions and money-laundering schemes. Obama and Reid wanted debate – so now they'll get debate, on their cloaked provisions that would cover abortion on demand in proposed new government-run and government-subsidized insurance plans. Obama and Reid are seeking to block enactment of the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts compromise, adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives on November 7 by a vote of 240-194. This amendment would prevent government funding of elective abortion through the proposed "public option," and would also prevent federal subsidies from paying for private insurance plans that cover elective abortion.

During the weeks ahead, National Right to Life will continue to fight the efforts of President Obama and congressional Democratic leaders to cover abortion on demand in two huge new federal health programs. The Senate bill faces additional 60-vote hurdles in the future. Moreover, a courageous group of pro-life Democrats in the House of Representatives will oppose final approval of health care legislation if the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is gutted or removed.

Defeat: What Now, Christians?

2009-11-21T19:53:00.001-07:00

The Senate--including both Colorado Senators--has disgraced America by voting for statist, socialist, abortion-funded health "care." I think the legislative battle is now lost, but I may be wrong.

Now we must consider prayerfully other ways to resist paying for the killing of the unborn through tax money. This will likely involve suffering and sacrifice for those who care. God have mercy on all of us. To begin, read Francis Schaeffer's book, A Christian Manifesto (Crossway, 1981).

Prayer

2009-11-20T23:51:00.001-07:00

Oh, Sovereign Lord shake the world again; put unquenchable fire in the bones of your blood-bought children; shake down everything evil; stir up all that is good; may zeal for your house and your world consume us, Our Consuming Fire!

No, in the name of God

2009-11-20T04:34:00.002-07:00

These people know where to draw the line on the social issues of the day.

Obama Team Catering to Terrorists, Again

2009-11-19T22:09:00.002-07:00

Holder’s al Qaeda Incentive Plan
By William McGurn
Wall Street Journal, November 17, 2009

When it comes to terrorists, you would think that an al Qaeda operative who targets an American mom sitting in her office or a child on a flight back home is many degrees worse than a Taliban soldier picked up after a firefight with U.S. Army troops.

Your instinct would be correct, because at the heart of terrorism is the monstrous idea that the former is as legitimate a target as the latter. Unfortunately, by dispatching Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al Qaeda leaders to federal criminal court for trial, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder will be undermining this distinction. And the perverse message that decision will send to terrorists all over this dangerous world is this: If you kill civilians on American soil you will have greater protections than if you attack our military overseas.

"A fundamental purpose of rules such as the Geneva Conventions is to give those at war an incentive for more civilized behavior—and not targeting civilians is arguably the most sacred of these principles," says William Burck, a former federal prosecutor and Bush White House lawyer who dealt with national security issues. "It demolishes this principle to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed even more legal protections than the Geneva Conventions provide a uniformed soldier fighting in a recognized war zone."

We don't often speak of incentives in war. That's a loss, because the whole idea of, say, Geneva rights is based on the idea of providing combatants with incentives to do things that help limit the bloodiness of battle. These include wearing a uniform, carrying arms openly, not targeting civilians, and so on.

Terrorists recognize none of these things. They are best understood as associations of people plotting and carrying out war crimes, whether that means sowing fear with direct and indiscriminate attacks on marketplaces, offices and airlines—or by engaging enemy troops without distinguishing uniforms, so that the surrounding civilians essentially become used as human shields. Terrorists reject both the laws of war and the laws of American civil society. To put it another way, they reject both the authority and the obligations their legal rights imply.
None of this seems to bother Mr. Holder. Since he dropped his bombshell on Friday, much commentary has focused on the possibility that KSM might be found not guilty. That, however, is unlikely: Mr. Holder is not a fool, and everyone in the Obama administration appreciates the backlash that would occur if a KSM trial results in an acquittal. Thus, the men he will send for trial will be those against whom he has the most evidence.

The perversity here is that the overwhelming evidence of their war crimes gain them protections denied a soldier fighting in accord with the rules of war.

It even gains them more protections than their associates who attack military targets. This double standard means that the perpetrators of the USS Cole bombing are sent to military tribunals while the perpetrators of 9/11 are sent to federal court.

Andrew McCarthy has a unique perspective on the move to criminal trials. As an assistant U.S. attorney in 1993, he successfully prosecuted Omar Abdel Rahman (the "blind sheikh") for the first bombing of the World Trade Center. Even though the cases were somewhat different—that plot was conceived, plotted and carried out on U.S. soil—Mr. McCarthy says the experience persuaded him that federal trials are a bad way of handling terror.

"At first, I was of the mind that a criminal prosecution would uphold all our high-falutin' rhetoric about the constitution and majesty of the law," says Mr. McCarthy. "But when you get down to the nitty gritty of a trial, you see one huge problem: The criminal justice system imposes limits on the government and gives the defendant all sorts of access to information, because we'd rather have the government lose than unfairly convict a man. You can't take that position with an enemy who is at war with you and trying to bring that government down."

By going down this line, says Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Holder has invited any number of dangers: making the Manhattan courtroom a target for terrorist attack, inviting the disclosure of sensitive intelligence, opening the possibility that some al Qaeda operative will be acquitted and released within the U.S., etc.

Worst of all, he says, is turning the laws of war upside down: Why fight the Marines and risk getting killed yourself or locked up in Bagram forever when you can blow up American citizens on their own streets and gain the legal protections that give you a chance to go free? With this one step, Mr. Holder is giving al Qaeda a ghastly incentive: to focus more of their attacks on American civilians on American home soil.

"It is foolish to think that al Qaeda does not train to our system and look for our vulnerabilities," says Mr. McCarthy. "Remember what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told his captors when we got him, 'I'll see you in New York with my lawyer.' It seems he knows our weaknesses better than our government does."

From The NY Times

2009-11-18T05:53:00.003-07:00

China Holds Firm on Major Issues in Obama’s Visit
By HELENE COOPER

President Obama was confronted, on his first visit, with a fast-rising China more willing to say no to the U.S.

---
Of course! China is economically advancing; the US is economically (and morally) declining. With this President, we are in no condition to stand in and speak out of the bully pulpit (as did Reagan). "The leader of the free world" (as US Presidents used to be called) is making his own country less free and less a force for good in the world.

But God often works in the underground, not in the foreground. The Chinese house church movement may prove to be far more influential than the Chinese civil government or the man sadly shaming the White House today.

To My Senators: On Tax-Supported Abortion

2009-11-17T23:35:00.002-07:00

Senator Michael F. Bennet:

Senator Mark Udall:

I am a taxpaying constituent concerned by the fact that the health care reform bills passed by both the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the Senate Finance Committee would allow federal funds to pay for elective abortions and plans that cover elective abortions.
I was heartened that the House of Representatives voted to adopt the Stupak Amendment, which protects the conscience of the taxpayer on this sensitive issue by banning these funds from paying for elective abortions and plans that cover elective abortions.

I have been following this issue closely and I understand that Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is planning on offering this bipartisan amendment into the Senate health care reform bill.
I am writing to request you to build upon the bipartisan consensus of the House of Representatives and insert identical language into this bill.

The vast majority of Americans do not want federal funds to go towards elective abortions and plans that cover elective abortions.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Please inform me of your decision on how you will vote on this critical issue.

Susan B. Anthony List Activist

Sincerely,
Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.

Converting to Christianity

2009-11-17T23:06:00.002-07:00

Pray for his young convert to Christianity. Her life is in danger if she goes back to her Muslim father. God forbid we wake up to find another Fort Hood, this time with one dead: a 17-year old girl.

An Open Letter to George Will, Also Posted on his Facebook Page

2009-11-17T14:46:00.004-07:00

Mr. Will:

I have great respect for your political and cultural judgments.

I hope you will rethink your position.I do not understand your antipathy to the Intelligent Design movement. I am a philosopher and author who has studied Darwinism and its critics for three decades. The Intelligent Design arguments against the idea that there is no evidence of design in biology are profound, as exhibited by Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Steven Meyer. Perhaps the most profound analysis and argument thus far is Dr. Meyer's magisterial work, The Signature in the Cell (HarperOne, 2009).

I hope you will rethink your position.

Respectfully,
Doug Groothuis
Professor of Philosophy
Denver Seminary

Insane

2009-11-17T06:51:00.003-07:00

The mainstream media is on a tare to exonerate Hasan of religious motivation for which he is responsible. It turns out it is all the military's fault--not because it failed to do anything about Hasan's dangerous Islamic statements and activity, but because it was not "sensitive" enough. Consider the following quotes, I received from "Cyberalert." I do not watch TV myself.

* "The Pentagon has made a real concerted effort to create a military that is culturally sensitive and religiously tolerant, but Muslims in uniform today face a challenge not seen since Japanese-Americans fought in World War II. They taste suspicion from some fellow soldiers who question their loyalty and resentment from fellow Muslims opposed to both American wars."-- Correspondent Bill Weir on ABC's World News, November 6.

"How disturbing is it to you that it looks like various agencies failed to connect the dots on Major Hasan?...We know from the beginning of the Iraq war, the escalation in number of cases of post-traumatic stress disorder. The other fact is, is that the more people go back to these fields, these theaters of war, either in Iraq or Afghanistan, it multiplies the incidence of these kinds of things occurring."-- CBS's Harry Smith questioning Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki on the November 11 Early Show. Hasan never served in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Now consider what the press would do if a Christian soldier turned on his own while shouting, "Praise to King Jesus."

Obama's Strategic Brilliance

2009-11-16T21:01:00.001-07:00

The Deniable Darwin

2009-11-15T21:53:00.000-07:00

Still jamming on my outline for "The Deniable Darwin" talk tomorrow at 11:45 at Auraria Campus (Multicultural Room). How to fit it all in coherently and cogently in 35 minutes?! I thought I was done on Friday. Hope to see some of you there.

How Do You Live?

2009-11-15T18:38:00.003-07:00

More on Chan's new book, Crazy Love by Paul Adams's.

The Deniable Darwin

2009-11-15T16:48:00.002-07:00

Look here for a list of over 600 people with earned doctorates in science who question the adequacy of Darwinism to explain the biosphere.

They signed the following statement:

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Learning How to Fight

2009-11-15T13:46:00.003-07:00

Corrie Ten Boom, Defeated Enemies. Christian Literature Crusade. 16th printing, 2002

This short pamphlet helps equip the Christian for faith and victory in spiritual warfare. The deceased author, a noteworthy teacher and evangelist, presents a basic biblical view of the spiritual topography (God, Satan, and demons) and how to resist the devil and experience freedom and victory through the work of Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Ms. Ten Boom salts the text with many pertinent Scriptures along with accounts of her own dealings with the realm of the demonic. She challenges her readers to know the power of God and to not give the enemy a foothold through any sin, especially that of involvement with the occult. If she were alive today, Corrie would be warning Christians about the spiritual dangers of yoga, since it is a form of Hindu occultism. (On this, see the DVD, "Yoga Uncoiled.") Sadly, many Christians are involved in this ungodly practice and are thus opening themselves to demonic influences.

I recommend this booklet as an encouragement to Christians to lay hold of the power of the blood of Christ in their struggles against their enemy, the Devil (1 Peter 5:8-9; Colossians 2:14-15; 1 John 3:8). For a more advanced treatment of the topic, see Gary Kinamman, Winning Your Spiritual Battles and Ed Murphy, Handbook on Spiritual Warfare.

Question

2009-11-14T19:27:00.001-07:00

Are you a lukewarm Christian?

Another Guru Gone

2009-11-14T18:52:00.002-07:00

I just read in a book review that the Indian guru, Sri Chinmoy, died in 2007. I knew of him first as a teenager when I saw his blissful face and incoherent verses in albums by Carlos Santana and John McLaughlin, two of my guitar favorites at the time. (I still listen with interest to McLaughlin, a jazz virtuoso, but not much to Santana, who chops to get old after a few decades.) At that time, I was intrigued by Eastern thought, not having any real roots in Christianity or logical thinking. I had no idea what Chinmoy actually taught, but he seemed otherworldly and inspired such good music. He and his followers believed he was an avatar, a manifestation of the Hindu God. His teachings were pantheistic and included reincarnation and karma.

I saw Chinmoy in Anchorage, Alaska, some time in early 1975. He spoke to a small crowd, including some adoring followers dressed in Indian garb. He spoke in esoteric epigrams for about twenty minutes. One man became impatient and said, "We want to know what you teach. What is your philosophy?" How Western! He wanted proposition about reality that might be rationally assessed. To this, Chinmoy replied, "I have written many books. I have traveled the world." He then went into a trance, his eyes disappearing into his forehead, and began chanting: Ohm.There it is. You must simply bask in the ambiance of the God-enlightened guru, not ask questions. I was not a Christian at the time, but could not look at him in the eye. It was too strange. The young woman I went when said the opposite, "I couldn't look away."

Now Chinmoy, along with Maharishi and Da Free John (whose deaths I have written about on this blog), is dead. He faces the reality he counterfeited for so long. I thank God that a little over a year I saw Chinmoy, I became a follower of the only Incarnation of God, Jesus Christ, and that thirty three-years after that God's grace is still sufficient for me.

Bernard Ramm on Nietzsche and Evangelicals

2009-11-14T01:00:00.001-07:00

What is the devil’s due Evangelicals can glean from Nietzsche? It is the willingness to be driven like Nietzsche. It is the willingness to spare no pains in the search for truth. It is the willingness. . . .to work into the late hours of the night or to start in the earliest hours of the day; to pick up a new project as soon as we have finished an older one; to grow weary and exhausted in our quest for truth; to have...our eyes watery from too much reading, and our bodies bent over from long, weary hours at the study desk.

No Evangelical whose reading habits are a disgrace to the seriousness of the Christian ministry, or who spends more time before a television set than he does in serious reading in his study has the right to damn Nietzsche from the pulpit to some gruesome place in the Inferno.--Bernard Ramm, The Devil, Seven Wormwoods, and God (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1977), 61-62.

Water on the Moon

2009-11-13T22:01:00.004-07:00

Water on the moon.
Blood on the earth.
Tears on the Throne.
We are not alone.

Listen to that sound:
A Word spoken loud.
But not for the proud.

A Word speaking Truth for
A world needing proof, but
which remains too aloof
to look past the moon
and into that room
where moons are made
and blood is shed
to wake the dead.