Friday, February 05, 2010

Odd Cat Behaviour?

It must think this is the best way to drink (maybe the owners have let it dehydrate?), or the owners are really old and have the heater blaring.

J Vernon McGee on Tithing -- Good Stuff ~ "I believe when you do that, you will give more than a tenth"

Church Burnings in Texas

John Stewart on Blogger Headlines -- Funny Stuff, and I Am Guilty Of It

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Blogs Must Be Crazy
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealth Care Crisis

A Short Critique of Emergent Heresy of Tim King That "Oozes" Forth

One should read this update/caveat to these posts for the whole story.

(For More Discussion, See: Emergents Claim We Don't Need to Convert People to Christianity)

It is interesting that they come out of the shoot with eschatology. This is one of the big ones for emergents. In this video, Tim King talks about "ego" and marrying it to theology. I would agree, however, the ego is placing man as a "co-creator" of this "kingdom-now" theology. For instance, in a book I read on the subject (The Emergent Church, by Bob DeWaay; and/or A Time of Departing: How Ancient Mystical Practices are Uniting Christians with the World Religions, by Ray Yungen) they quoted in part from another heretical book entitled, A Is for Abductive: The Language of the Emerging Church. In it we find this brash definition which I impart to the reader in its entirety from my copy: 
E is for Eschaton
The end of entropy.
In the postmodern matrix there is a good chance that the world will reverse its chronological polarity for us. Instead of being bound to the past by chains of cause and effect, we will feel ourselves being pulled into the future by the magnet of God's will, God's dream, God's desire. This magnetic "future-natural" orientation differs wildly from the mechanistic modern view of the world set in motion by a Prime Mover who made and wound up the clock long ago and ever since has let it unwind naturally, occasionally intervening with a small correction.
This new vision sees the universe as only partially created, an unfinished symphony, a masterpiece in progress. In this eschatology we are invited to be part of God's creative team working to see God's dream for the universe come true (in other words, working to see God's will be done on earth as in heaven). In this way our relationship with God is more than interactive; it is collaborative. It is more than just a matter of God interacting with us; it is a matter of God inviting us to be creative partners (subcontractors, if you will) in the construction of a world as it could be from the world as it is so far.
In the new eschatology, modern charts, bizarre predictions (a tired and tiring game for anyone who knows church history), and apocalyptic novels pretending to something more than purely fictional status will be left behind. (See Hope.)
As people who are being pulled toward an "all-things-new" world to come, we bear the fresh scent of the approaching spring, not the stale cologne of the fading winter.
  • Leonard Sweet, Brian D. McLaren, and Jerry Haselmayer, A Is for Abductive: The Language of the Emerging Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), cf. Eschaton, 113-114.
Yes, you read that right, they think they can stop entropy. I do not have the time or will to explain all that is above (get Bob Dewaay's book if you want to see a more in-depth overview of this topic), however, much of the home-church movement and the rash of videos put out about home church movements believe the above in a "postmodern matrix." I consider it a miracle in my mind's eye that God, for the entire history of mankind, has made Himself eminent and coming. We are to be like the servant who watches for the return of his master (Luke 12:30). The Apostles did it, the Church Fathers acted like it, the Reformers knew it, I practice it. Again, it is truly a miracle that God puts on man's heart the idea that the end is near and that man's life is not in control by himself, that something outside of man truly controls it (James 4:13-15).
The men in the video raise themselves up to the level of God and live in their "creative" moment rather than give to God what is God's because they are giving all to Caesar. Which brings me to world religions, another aspect of this "new" movement that is all the rage.
Popular books such as the Ragamuffin Gospel, Celebrating Discipline, Velvet Elvis, Irresistible Revolution (see my critique), or DVDs like Be Still -- you have these "contemplative stars" up and coming that mention that these various beliefs share a grand-story. Many of these books mentioned promote the idea that salvation can be found in these other constructs. I had one pastor drop off an armful of books to me (yes, I said a pastor), some of them being the above, and if you take them as a whole, you get the following:
1.     that the first three miracles in John were inserted by writers to “woo in pagans,” as they are themselves adopted from pagan stories (so John lied to save souls... the "greater good" thing, or, the church at a later date corrupted Scripture in order to save souls, so which parts of Scripture are not corrupted?);
2.     the Virgin Birth was also a deep seated fear of sexuality and not really a miracle;
3.     books that teach that penal substitution as a vile doctrine;
4.     that Hell is not a place for persons to be placed after a future judgment, and that Hell is actually here now and that we must bring in God’s Kingdom (separate from that future judgment);
5.     these books say we do not have the Gospel right yet;
6.     they teach that travelling to Buddhist temples and practicing meditative techniques in these temples is Christian;
7.     they show that many of the practices rejected by the Reformers are in fact useful to the Christian;
8.     they show that Yoga can make one closer to God and to realize and experience the “divine;”
9.    they teach that the doctrines of the Trinity, nature of Christ, nature of Scripture, and the nature of marriage are “still on the table,” doctrinally;
10.  teach that Paul was really communicating Platonism and not bringing us Scripture;
11.  on-and-on.

If that is not an attack on the essentials, then I don't know what is. In The Ragamuffin Gospel for instance, the author, Brennan Manning recommends or practices the following:
1.       that he attends Mass regularly,
2.       that he believes it is wrong for churches to require that homosexuals repent before they can be members,
3.       that he promotes the use of mantras to create a thoughtless state of silent meditation,
4.       that he spent six months in isolation in a cave and spends eight days each year in silent retreat under the direction of a Dominican nun,
5.       that he promotes the dangerous practice of visualization,
6.       that he quotes very approvingly from New Agers such as Beatrice Bruteau (who says, “We have realized ourselves as the Self that says only I AM ... unlimited, absolute I AM”) and Matthew Fox (who says all religions lead to the same God),
7.       and that he believes in universal salvation, that everyone including Hitler will go to heaven.

(I must quickly note that I do not believe that Catholics are not saved  or damned for merely being Catholic. A Catholic is saved by whom he or she believes Christ is in comparison to say, the co-redemptrix or co-mediatrix of the Virgin Mary. That being said, what the emergent's are doing is rejecting what the Reformation stood for and relegating our "protests" - where we get Protestant from - to a non-essential in their "postmodern matrix." Catholics have a similar "kingdom now" theology that infects their theology and places the Church as a body politic into a very ego-centered co-creator mode where the church will, in one sense, reverse entropy as they do not have a proper understanding of Daniel's last week, as do the Word of Faith movement. // I must also point out that for a church that has its people studying Beth Moore, this is a great opportunity to deal with her unhealthy view of generational sin and taking Scripture out of its intended historical, theological expression and personalizing it or twisting it to the degree she does. I know, opening your Bible a few more times is sooo horrible [17:10-15])  
In her book When Godly People Do Ungodly Things (2002), Beth Moore recommends contemplative Roman Catholic Brennan Manning, to wit., she says of Manning that his contribution to our generation “may be a gift without parallel” (p. 72) and calls Ragamuffin Gospel “one of the most remarkable books” (p. 290). So one can see how close to home this entire movement is hitting. I laughed when the interviewer brought up Thomas Merton! Here I must post a portion of my chapter for a proposed book on the subject, enjoy:

In a November 2004 Christianity Today article written by Andy Crouch, titled “Emergent Mystique,” Bell said, “We’re rediscovering Christianity as an Eastern religion, as a way of life” (emphasis added). Thomas Merton, a Catholic monk, predated Bell in his popularizing of interspirituality by “[opening] the door for Christians to explore other traditions, notably Taoism (Chinese witchcraft), Hinduism and Buddhism.”[1] In fact, Merton said that he saw “no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity,” saying that he intended “to become as good a Buddhist as [he] can.”[2], [3] It seems at first glance that the emergent movement is missing a theological focal point. Unfortunately, Brian McLaren does not believe that we, as a church body politic, have even reached a consensus of what orthodoxy is.

In that same Christianity Today article, Brian McLaren is quoted as saying that he does not “think we’ve got the gospel right yet.... I don’t think the liberals have it right.[4] But I don’t think we have it right either. None of us has arrived at orthodoxy.”[5], [6] Agreeing apparently with Brian McLaren that we have yet to get the gospel right is David G. Benner, who says that the “spiritual climate is ripe... [for]... Jesus seekers across the world are being prepared to abandon the old way of the written code for the new way of the Spirit. Paul told us long ago we've been freed by the gospel to live a new way, but we've not known what it is or how to do it.”[7] McLaren says we do not have the Gospel right yet... Benner says we do not have it right either, yet, we should look to Eastern mysticism to get it correct? I don’t think so. Not only do these authors deny that the Gospel has been known or lived in the past, they teach that orthodoxy has yet to be formulated. Yet in a self-refuting manner they seem to accept universalism as an orthodox doctrine. Universalism is the idea that every “act of worship is accepted by the divine regardless of the theological cloak in which it is hidden[,] since all persons posses divinity within, all deserve the love of the Supreme.”[8] This universalism is pointed out in an excellent book entitled, Reforming or Conforming? Post-Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church:[9]

The gospel, according to the emergent thinkers, is not about individual conversation. It is not about how people get “in.” It is about “how the world will be saved from human sin and all that goes with it....”[10] This sounds close to the mark until we examine more thoroughly what is meant by the terminology. Their concept of “world” does not simply involve humans who don’t believe in Christ. The emergent gospel is not just bringing unbelievers to the Savior for the forgiveness of sin and the imputation of God’s righteousness. There is more, as Rob Bell informs us:
Salvation is the entire universe being brought back into harmony with is maker. This has huge implications for how people present the message of Jesus. Yes, Jesus can come into our hearts. But we can join a movement that is as wide and as big as the universe itself. Rocks and trees and birds and swamps and ecosystems. God’s desire is to restore all of it.[11], [12]

McLaren continues the thought: “Is getting individual souls into heaven the focal point of the gospel?” I’d have to say no, for any number of reasons. Don’t you think that God is concerned about saving the whole world?... It is the redemption of the world, the stars, the animals, the planets, the whole show.”[13] According to McLaren, “The church exists for the world - to be God’s catalyst so that the world can receive and enter God’s kingdom more and more.”[14]

When asked to define the gospel, Neo (the main philosophical character in McLaren’s novels) replies that it could not be reduced to a little formula, other than “the Kingdom of God is at hand.”[15] Narrowing this definition is not easy, but McLaren gives some insight when he writes,
I am a Christian because I believe that, in all these ways, Jesus is saving the world. By the “world” I mean planet Earth and all life on it, because left to ourselves, un-judged, un-forgiven, and un-taught, we will certainly destroy this planet and its residents.[16]

In Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones’ book, The Emergent Manifesto of Hope, we find an emphasis on this universalism:
In summary, we give the following statement of our understanding about the widening scope of salvation:
Not only soul, whole body!

Not only whole body, all of the faithful community!

Not only all of the faithful community, all of humanity!

Not only all of humanity, all of God's creation![17]

In order to accomplish their understanding of the above, much must change in Christian theology, are these emergent leaders up for the task? It seems so:
And as a part of this tradition, I embrace the need to keep painting, to keep reforming. By this I do not mean cosmetic, superficial changes like better lights and music, sharper graphics, and new methods with easy-to-follow steps. I mean theology: the beliefs about God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation, the future. We must keep reforming the way the Christian faith is defined, lived, and explained.[18]

Brian McLaren declares his allegiance to this change as well:
...believing that our message and methodology have changed, do change, and must change if we are faithful to the ongoing and unchanging mission of Jesus Christ. In other words, I believe that we must be always reforming, not because we've got it wrong and we're closer and closer to finally “getting it right,” but because our mission is ongoing and our context is dynamic. From this viewpoint “getting it right” is beside the point; the point is “being and doing good” as followers of Jesus in our unique time and place, fitting in with the ongoing story of God's saving love for planet Earth.[19]  

Similarly, at a 2004 seminar entitled, “A New Theology for a New World,” at the Emergent Convention
in San Diego, Tony Jones said:
We do not think this is about changing your worship service. We do not think this is about... how you structure your church staff. This is actually about changing theology. This is about our belief that theology changes. It’s not just the method that changes.[20]

[1] Wayne Teasdale, The Mystic Heart: Discovering a Universal Spirituality in the World’s Religions (Novato, CA: New World Library, 1999), 39.
[2] Patrick Hart, ed., Thomas Merton Monk: A Monastic Tribute (Collegeville, MN: Cistercian Publications, 2005), 88. Full quote:
There were so many points of contact with Zen Buddhist teaching in all this that I couldn't help asking whether he thought he could have conic to these insights if he had never come across Zen. "I'm not sure," he answered pensively, "but I don't think so. I see no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity. The future of Zen is in the Nest. I intend to become as good a Buddhist as I can."
[3] “New Agers ‘see themselves as advanced in consciousness, rejecting Judeo-Christian values and the Bible in favor of Oriental philosophies and religion.’ Walter Martin, The New Age Cult,” Mark Water, World Religions Made Simple: Tough Questions, Clear Answers (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2002), 173.
[4] While these authors and pastors try not to be labeled as “liberal,” that is exactly what they are. In an interview with Rob Bell (audio of which can be found at Fighting for the Faith... right around forty minutes into the program) where he is praising the TNIV -- a gender neutered Bible -- Rob himself says he is in the middle of the progressive movement: “My name is Rob Bell, I’m a pastor in Grand Rapids Michigan, the epicenter of progressive culture.”

This can also be found as well under iTunes free podcasts under Fighting for the Faith, dated at 9-1-09, the podcast is titled, “What is Rob Bell Going To Do Now That The TNIV is Going to Be Discontinued?” One of the founders of the emergent movement, Mark Driscoll notes as much as well:
Emergent liberals range from those on the theological fringe of orthodoxy to those caught up in heresy that critiques key evangelical doctrines, such as the Bible as authoritative divine revelation; God as Trinity; the sinfulness of human nature; the deity of Jesus Christ; Jesus' death in our place to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross; the exclusivity of Jesus for salvation; the sinfulness of homosexuality and other sex outside of heterosexual marriage; and the conscious, eternal torments of hell. Some emerging house churches are also emergent liberal in their doctrine. Emergent liberals are networked by organizations such as the Emergent Village, which is led by author and theologian Tony Jones (Jones is no longer a youth pastor but is involved at Doug Pagitt's church), along with other prominent emergent leaders such as Pagitt, Karen Ward, and Tim Keel. The most visible emergent liberal leaders are Brian McLaren and Rob Bell. Emergent liberals are commonly critiqued as those who are merely recycling the liberal doctrinal debates of a previous generation without seeing significant conversion growth; they are merely gathering disgruntled Christians and people intrigued by false doctrine. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, offers this critique:
  • When it comes to issues such as the exclusivity of the gospel, the identity of Jesus Christ as both fully human and fully divine, the authoritative character of Scripture as written revelation, and the clear teachings of Scripture concerning issues such as homosexuality, this [emergent liberal] movement simply refuses to answer the questions."
Religion Saves + Nine Other Misconceptions, 217.
[5] Andy Crouch, “Emergent Mystique,” 37-38.
[6] A caveat here: if he does not think liberals have it right, and then says he does not have it right either... is he then saying he is on the conservative side of the issue? If he is on the right, then where does that leave people like D. A. Carson, Millard Erickson, or myself for that matter? I guess I do not fit within what he considers orthodox... maybe we’re “fascists” of sorts?
[7] David G. Benner, Sacred Companions: The Gift of Spiritual Friendship & Direction (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 9 (emphasis added).
[8] David K. Clark and Norman L. Geisler, Apologetics in the New Age: A Christian Critique of Pantheism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1990), 70-71.
[9] Gary L. W. Johnson and Ronald N. Gleason, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), 285.
[10] Brian McLaren, The Last Word After That: A Tale of Faith, Doubt, and a New Kind of Christianity (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005), 69.
[11] Bell, Velvet Elvis, 109-110.
[12] A humorous aside: could you imagine bickering back-and-forth with God if Job co-opted everything God created? As God would point out how small Job was in comparison to His creation, Job would respond, “no, I am part of this wide and big universe, I am not tiny! I am bigger, in fact, than that Behemoth you just showed me.
[13] Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christian: A Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2001), 184.
[14] Ibid., 121.
[15] Ibid., 151.
[16] Brian Mclaren, A Generous Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2004), 106.
[17] Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones, An Emergent Manifesto of Hope (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007), 82-83 (emphasis added).
[18] Bell, Velvet Elvis, 12 (emphasis added).
[19] McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 214. I should point out that we can never really be good, this humanistic goal is not Biblical.
[20] Charlie H. Campbell, The Emerging Church & the Battle for Truth, DVD (can be found at:, 26:50 into the presentation.

I guess, upon reviewing the above, if you don't think that there will be a great falling away (2 Thessalonians 2:3), and you believe that doctrine is ever reforming and changing, and that there is no solidity to Christian culture throughout the ages, then you can simply reject all of these critique and say that we are all "heresy hunters," similar to the leaders in the Word Faith movement simply labeling their objectors and therefore not dealing with their arguments. I regret that I can say this, but I had a pastor defend (straight faced) the conservative nature of the following "theologian" when I pointed out that he had said the following: 
...Anyway, my point in all this is that the doctrine of the Trinity is still on the table. Some people, it seems to me, would like for us to no longer debate certain "sacred" doctrines -- the Trinity, the nature of Christ, the nature of scripture, the nature of marriage etc. And these persons tend to get very jumpy when emergent-types discuss these sacrae doctrinae, especially in books and at conferences that are being taped. "This is dangerous," they say.

I say it's dangerous to stop talking about these things, and it leads to a hegemony among those who already control the seminaries, colleges, magazines, radio stations, conferences, publishing houses, and magazines. We will continue to debate such things.

And furthermore, didn't some famous theologian once say, "None of us is truly orthodox"? Who was that, anyway?
(Tony Jones - Theoblogy)
(I am happy to say however, that this pastor is on the road to orthodoxy.) This zeitgeist is behind much of these "teachers," and it is infecting many churches as I speak. Unity in the name of ecumenical progressiveness. I prefer Scripture where we are told in Jude 3 by the Apostle that he "felt [he] had to write and urge you [us] to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints." This seems vastly different the the anthropogenic fundamentalism (ego-centric) we find in the emergent thinking. King talks about not "drawing lines" and not feeling like you need to convert the "Sufi, or whatever religion we are dealing with." However, Jesus drew lines in the sand, literally (John 8:1-11), making people turn in apparent shame, not to mention Jesus mentioning that even homes will be split over this "once and for all delivered faith" (Luke 12:49-56). Right after this mentioning of this hyper ecumenism King describes God in a pantheistic way. Pathetic!

Ahhh, King says at the end that they are bringing a "new earth." I didn't listen to the whole video, I listened to a short bit, stopped it, wrote, and then proceeded in this manner. Here at the very end we find this idea of "co-creators" ("little gods" in Word of Faith jingo) bringing a "new earth," or, utopia of sorts, to mankind. And Tim King applies "egoism" to us? Again, as I watch this video series from time-to-time I have a reoccurring feeling that God uses irony (or the persuading demons that the OT and NT talk about), because the "Ooze" seems a fitting name for what "oozes" forth from this video channel.

The Big Three


Thursday, February 04, 2010

Mel Gibson Cusses at Interviewer When He Thought the Mic Was Off

(Caution, Language)

What Is The #1 Killer of Black People? (AIDs? Heart Disease? Violence?)

Jesse Duplantis on the Tower of Babel Never Being Built -- I "Respectfully" Disagree

I will not deal with Jesse contradicting Scripture, and hence God, when he says: "God said they built it." This is more of a historical dealing with the topic... and I must say, much of this is not me, it is Grant Jeffrey. This was in a debate via the internet and was before my proper referencing ability. Enjoy.

Language Roots: Myth or historical Remembrances
TOWER OF BABEL; true history, ancient fairytale?

The Greek historian, Herodotus, about 500 B.C., described the structure, which then consisted of a series of eight ascending towers, each one recessed in turn, with a spiral roadway running around it as a means of climbing to the top.  Babylonian legend (of which we’ll get to) asserted that it had originally been built by Nimrod, which coincides with the Biblical record.  In fact, the region, about ten miles southwest of Babylon’s center is still called Birs Nimroud.  The structure as Herodotus described it was more than seven hundred feet tall, of which three hundred feet remain to this day.

The descendants of Noah built this tower.  The list of primeval nations in Genesis 10, “the Table of Nations”, is by far the most complete and accurate listing of the tribes and nations of antiquity.  One of the world’s greatest archaeologists, William F. Albright, called it “an astonishingly accurate document.”  It lists the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth (the three sons of Noah) and indicates what regions they settled. Many historical documents from many cultures trace back their ancestry to these three “sons of Noah.” The ziggurats, and pyramids, and bow & arrow, as well as boomerangs being used and built by every culture on every continent is a hint to mankind all living together at one time; and having common technology.



Many scientists who study the origin of languages, known as philologists, have concluded that it is probable that the thousands of dialects and languages can be traced back to an original language in man’s ancient past. Professor Alfredo Trombetti (Italian linguist) claims that he can prove the common origin of all languages. Max Mueller, one of the greatest oriental language scholars, declared that all human languages can be traced back to one single oriental language. Chinese is the most ancient (although probably not the original [root] language), fully recorded, still used, language around, going back to over 3,000 years ago.
(click to enlarge)




Ancient History 101:
The French government sent Professor Oppert to report on the cuneiform inscriptions discovered in the ruins of Babylon.  Oppert translated a long inscription by King Nebuchadnezzar in which the king referred to the tower in the Chaldean language as Barzipp, which means “Tongue-Power.”  The Greeks used the word Borsippa, with the same meaning of Tongue-power, to describe the ruins of the Tower of Babel.  This inscription of Nebuchadnezzar clearly identified the original tower of Borsippa with the Tower of Babel described by Moses in Genesis. King Nebuchadnezzar decided to rebuild the base of the ancient Tower of Babel, built over sixteen centuries earlier by Nimrod, the first King of Babylon.

Nebuchadnezzar rebuilt the city of Babylon in great magnificence with gold, silver, cedar, and fir, at great cost on top of a hard surface of baked clay bricks. These bricks were engraved with the seal of Nebuchadnezzar.  At the base of the Tower of Babel is this inscription by King Nebuchadnezzar that, in his own words from thousands of years ago, confirm one of the most amazing events of the ancient past.


The tower, the eternal house, which I founded and built.  I have completed its magnificence with silver, gold, other metals, stone, enameled bricks, fir and pine.  The first which is the house of the earth’s base, the most ancient monument of Babylon; I built and finished it.  I have highly exalted its head with bricks covered with copper.  We say for the other, that is, this edifice, the house of the seven lights of the earth the most ancient monument of BorsippaA former king built it, (they reckon 42 ages) but he did not complete its headSince a remote time, people had abandoned it, without order expressing their words.  Since that time the earthquake and the thunder had dispersed the sun-dried clay.  The bricks of the casing had been split, and the earth of the interior had been scattered in heaps.  Merodach, the great god, excited my mind to repair this building.  I did not change the site nor did I take away the foundation. In a fortunate month, in an auspicious day, I undertook to build porticoes around the crude brick masses, and the casing of burnt bricks. I adapted the ciruits, I put the inscription of my name in the Kitir of the portico. I set my hand to finish it.  And to exalt its head.  As it had been done in ancient days, so I exalted its summit.”

This inscription was translated by Professor Oppert. In addition, Mr. William Loftus translated this fascinating inscription in his book, Travels and Researches in Chaldea and Sinai; this incredible inscription confirms the Biblical accuracy of one of the most fascinating stories in the Book of Genesis.

The pagan king Nebuchadnezzar confirms in his own words the incredible details that a “former king built it, but he did not complete its head,” confirming the truthfulness of the Genesis account that God stopped the original builders from completing the top of the Tower of Babel.  Most significantly, King Nebuchadnezzar’s inscription declares that the reason the original king could not complete the tower was because, “Since a remote time, people had abandoned it, without order expressing their words.”  In other words, they lost the ability to control their language and communication!

Compare the statement of Nebuchadnezzar, “A former king built it, but he did not complete its head. Since a remote time, people had abandoned it,” with the words of Moses in Genesis 11:7; “So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.”  Even more startling is the phrase of the pagan king where he declared that the reason they could not complete the top of the “Tongue-tower” was that the “people had abandoned it, without order expressing their words.”

The following is a must read article:

Yes, I believe in the literal story of the Genesis account of the Tower of Babel.  Population and language studies, independent from the Bible, confirm this amazing story.

"But Is It Life?" -- Planned Parenthood, Sean James, and Al Joyner Get It Wrong (Maafa21 Video Trailer at the Bottom)

"We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."

~ Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood ~

One of the best articles by Prager. It is amazing how this is working its way out almost daily in our little confined work area we all the “pit.” We have a glowing example of many years of work by the left-leaning establishment that is often called “higher education,” which has turned out a zombie of non-thought who would rather use the seven words below in Dennis Prager’s article, or extreme cases (mentally ill or deformed babied in utero for showing why abortion is good, or a bad foster care story -- when there are more stories in the positive typically than the negative) to make a point.

Even at my friends site you will often here a horror story about a child not having health-care and then the label, “Bush doesn’t care about the children.” These are non-statements. There is no critical thinking involved.

When talking about abortion, for instance in our “pit,” I hear some story and then I merely respond, “that’s fine, but that doesn’t deal with whether the ‘fetus’ is a life or not.” Then I hear some grand tail about a women’s choice, and I respond, “that’s great, but that doesn’t deal with the issue of whether the ‘fetus’ is a life or not.” That is the question. Then the “you’ll never know what it is like” line comes out, referring to me being a man, ergo, I cannot have as valid an input on the matter, to which I responded/respond with examples of people who do have the personal capability to respond. Like Norma McCorvey, who was “Jane Roe” in Roe v. Wade (1973), she wrote a book that is pictured here (as well as a DVD).
I brought up Gianna Jessen, who was herself a survivor of an abortion, her story (and book, as well as) are very compelling, and often, when young university minds are being steeped in feminist philosophies, rarely is there ever time taken to study or reflect on the other side of the issue, as I was told after I asked a this question, “so at 24-years old you have looked at both sides of the issue and all the evidence and arguments and have concluded that you are right and there is no evidence left to compel you,” the response was “yep!”

A great 40-minute video can be found here. This presentation is rational, well thought out, and rarely responded to by the Left.

Another personage that I typically bring up is Bernard Nathanson, who
as a younger man, he had been strongly pro-choice, and he performed an abortion on a woman who had become pregnant by him. He later gained national attention by then becoming one of the founding members of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America. He worked with Betty Friedan and others for the legalization of abortion in the United States. Their efforts essentially succeeded with the Roe v Wade decision. He was also for a time the director of the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health (CRASH), New York's largest abortion clinic. Nathanson has written that he was responsible for over 75,000 abortions throughout his pro-choice career.

He likewise wrote a book. Is he someone who would have some valuable input on the matter? Of course, his sex has nothing to do with it… unless you’re sexist. Dr. Nathanson is best known for his “Silent Scream” video (it is very dated), where a baby is shown being aborted via ultrasound images. What the video details is as the abortion procedure gets under way, the baby starts to literally scream, except there is no air to carry the cries of agony and pain. The entire video is linked above, but I will show the poignant part here. CAUTION, this is GRAPHIC, as it is ending a perfectly viable life... unless you are pro-choice, then this is just like any other operation -- like removing your appendix, or tonsils:

I doubt the person in conversation with me has done much in the way of reading and contemplating this issue much beyond what she deems to be liberating feminist theory rebuffing the patriarchy. People who are protecting their emotional belief very rarely go out and pick up a book like Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, by Francis Beckwith. Which is too bad.

I mentioned Kathy Ireland and her appearance on Bill Maher’s show, Politically Incorrect, where she responded to a question (from a debate a few years back):
I am thrilled Cheryl to hear you want to do away with 97-percent of abortions. But unfortunately, a vast majority of secularized America – mainly the left – would be thrown into fits over such a question. It gets to the root of their view self-destructing.

Kathy Ireland, many years ago, was on Bill Mahers Politically Incorrect and the discussion that ensued shows the frailty of the liberal/relativistic position:

Bill Maher: Kathy, why do you oppose a women’s right to choose

Kathy Ireland: Bill, when my husband was going to medical school I underwent a transformation. Because I used to be in favor of abortion. But I noticed when I was reading through some of his medical teaching books, that according to a law in science known as the law of biogenesis, every living thing reproduces after it own kind. That means dog produce dogs, cats produce cats, humans produce humans. If we want to know what something is we simply ask what are its parents. If we know what the parents are, we know what the thing in question is. And I reasoned from that because human parents can only produce human offspring, unborn human fetuses could be nothing but human beings, because the law of biogenesis rules out every other alternative. And I concluded therefore that because human fetuses were part of our family, we should not harm them without justification.

Bill Maher: Well Kathy, that’s just your opinion!

In October 2002, Kathy Ireland made a compelling argument against abortion on the Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes political debate show. Alan Colmes described Ireland's opinions as religious, but Ireland said that her views on abortion do not stem from faith. She asserted that even atheists could realize that abortion is wrong. Kathy told Alan that her belief is founded in science and technology, which she says, "has come a long way since Roe vs. Wade."

Ireland also defended her values as being pro-women, stating, "We need to support these women who are in crisis pregnancy situations." She claimed that because scientific evidence proves that abortion is murder, "I have no choice but to defend the most vulnerable among us."

Cheryl, you may enjoy one of my favorite speakers on the subject. He gave this 40-minute speech at Gordon College; it may enlighten and embolden your view.