He is glorious! The heavens declare it.

Further to my post of earlier today, here are a couple of photos of the “happenings in the sky,” the Moon and Venus.

 

Thanks to Leigh for the pictures.

A Psalm 19: 1-4 Alert

See this short article from NASA, and take some time this afternoon and at dusk to examine the sky for what they report will be visible today.

HT:  my Dad

Nationalized banks. That’s nothing. How about nationalized prayer?

Back around the time of the inauguration of President Barry Obama, I posted a couple of videos, one showing the prayer offered at the first inaugural celebration event, by the unrepentant and actively homosexual Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, and then one showing the opening prayer that was offered by Rick Warren at the actual swearing in.  It was and is my opinion that the Robinson invocation, in all its weirdness, was a peace offering to the GLBTQ lobby, who were so outraged over the early-on selection of Warren to have the larger stage event, given his support of California’s Proposition 8 that defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

Well, it seems the posturing around prayer has much deeper roots than one might have speculated simply based on the selection of the inauguration week pray-ers.  Now it seems that any and all prayers offered at events “starring” Barry must be vetted by the White House before their delivery.  Read about it at U.S. News and World Report and at Al Mohler’s commentary. 

This matter is significant when you have the president of a Christian seminary finding a basis for agreement with a notorious atheist who seeks generally to rid our nation of any references to religion, and especially Christianity.

With each day that goes by, I am actually more optimistic about the 2010 and 2012 elections.  I am given to believe that Barry might actually be a one term president!

The times have really changed!

After almost 25 years of working at the headquarters of three different corporations, I left my last job working for someone else in 2000.  During some of those 25 years, computers were those monstrous machines that resided in large highly air conditioned dungeons, secured with locked doors and managed by people who spoke a language that used mostly English words, but which were strung together in unintelligible sentences.

Somewhere along the line, desktop and laptop computers and all of the productivity they offer became mainstream.  At first, only “special people” rated their personal and individual use.  But before long, there was probably something wrong with you, if you did NOT have one.

At any rate, after computers became pretty much standard office equipment, I can well remember when investing “company time” sending personal emails, or checking a sport score, or the weather back where the folks live, was considered a real fundamental breach of trust between an employee and his/her employer.

Well, it seems the times have really changed.  And I confess, those changes have been realized to a degree that I had no idea existed.  I’ll concede that I am perhaps a little naive, but wow!  I mean…WOW!  The statistics around this matter are mind-blowing! 

Read this Washington Times editorial about one of the latest moral lapses existing in American business and then Al Mohler’s commentary on it.  Both are excellent reads and I suspect you will be surprised at what you learn. 

As I struggle with the possibility that the current economic situation may require that I go back to work in a corporate environment, I shudder to think that this sort of moral corruption awaits.

This sounds about right.

A recent Ellison Research study found that 22% of respondent prefer one brand of toothpaste and use it only.  Similarly, 19% prefer one brand of toilet paper, and use over all other brands.  16% of respondents said they prefer one religious denomination over all others, and “use” it exclusively.  Conclusion…surveyed people have a stronger preference for what they use to clean their mouths and their bottoms, than for the institutions that serve to teach about the salvation of their souls.

But this sounds about right to me.  I have contended for some time, including in couple of articles at this site, that the last 25 or so years have brought with them the diminishing of religious denominations and the flourishing of faithful individual congregations.  Some of these congregations, might ”network” with other like-minded groups of believers, but those networks sometimes include congregations that bear a different ”brand” on the sign outside their places of worship.  Religious liberalism has brought with it the presumably unintended consequence of the destruction of the overarching institutions which their leaders represent and the elevation of the local body of believers, even among so-called connectional denominations.  I am convinced from personal experience and observation that the parent churches among the Presbyterians (USA), the United Methodists, the Episcopal Church (USA) among others, are nearly rotten to the core. 

Yet, there remain faithful individual congregations among them that still are unwavering in their belief in such essential “first order” theological matters as the authority and accuracy of scripture (particularly as it relates to the subject of qualifications for the office of elder in a church, and the clear teaching of the Bible on such matters as sexual immorality, both homosexual and heterosexual),  the sufficiency and exclusivity of Christ’s atonement for sin, the Trinity, and the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ. 

It is the apparent uncertainty, or dismissal of these core doctrines that have resulted in the irrelevancy of denominations, while adherence to them has caused individual collections of faithful believers at the local congregational level to thrive.

It seems to beg the question…”Do the facts not speak for themselves and are the metrics of membership loss and indeed even entire congregational loss not obvious to everyone, particularly the people who sit in the seats of authority among these old and dying institutions of faith?”  It seems so plainly obvious, that it speaks not so much to ignorance, but perhaps more to a sordid sort of defiance.

Sperately, but not unrelated, check out this link and be sure to look at both the “Breakdown of Religious Belief” and the “Topography of Faith”.  The map is almost too cool.  Roll your mouse over the map of the US and look at the stats to the right.

He’s a what?

Check out this video from CNN aired on February 16, 2009.

One can only imagine what Bill Clinton was intending to mean when he made this claim.  The theological label he assigns to himself is so odd, particularly in light of the way in which he qualifies it, that I am left scratching my head wondering what he was intending to say about himself.

On a theological basis alone, Calvinism and “works” are essentially polar opposites.  So to assert that he has to work because he is a Calvinist, strains any sort of comparison. 

If however, he is clumsily trying to make some claim of a “Puritanical work ethic”, I struggle to square the reality of  the high moral standards of the Puritans with the ethical lapses and moral failures that accompany Bill Clinton.

What is he getting at?  Any ideas what this man means when he says he is a Calvinist?

HT: Sandra Dabney

Darwin vindicated?

Today, February 12, 2009 is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin the father of the Theory of Evolution and the author of On the Origin of Species.  His theory, presented as fact, and taught virtually everywhere outside of strictly Christian education settings, rejects out-of-hand, God’s role in creation as clearly revealed in the Bible.  He is certainly no hero of mine.

But perhaps I have been too hasty in my judgment of him.  Based on this evidence, is it possible he should be vindicated?  Is evolution true?

I mean, was THIS going on before Michael Flatley?

Those guys are good!  But look at what it has evolved into.  Clothes and even shoes!

And then, there is this, where it appears that the female of the species has been allowed to come out of the trees, or exit the cave, in order to perform.

Listen carefully to what they are saying now.

The old saying goes…

Q:  How do you know when a politician is lying?
A:  When his (her) lips are moving!

Congressional democrats and their three traitorous republican Senatorial co-conspirators (Spector, Snow and Collins) are gushing over the passage of the $800 billion “recovery and reinvestment act.”

Among the supposed benefits of this enormous bill is employment.  A timely and enticing offer in the face of continued job losses, as reported by first time applications for unemployment benefits.  Throughout the process of debate in congress, Barry Obama and his surrogates, along with the usual voices on Capital Hill, kept suggesting the creation of somewhere between 3 and 4 million jobs.

Now that the bill is near final passage, if you listen carefully, the rhetoric has changed to something along the lines of “create or save 3.5 million jobs.”  Did you catch that subtle slight-of-hand?  

How do you suppose the spendthrifts in Washington are going to measure “saved jobs”?  Lost jobs are relatively easy to count based on the standard used today, applications for unemployment benefits.  But employers are not required to report jobs that they retain that MIGHT have eliminated.  It is not even something they would measure internally.  And, employed persons are not required to report jobs they DON’T lose.  Simply stated, “saved” jobs is a metric that is impossible to calculate. 

And there in lies the magic for the elected elite.  It sounds good, cannot be measured and therefor refuted, and they will take credit for doing something good, in spite of it all.  Is there any wonder why the growing dissatisfaction with Congress as guaged by their approval ratings?

So folks, the fix is in.  No matter what the actual outcome may be, you can virtually count on the success of this bill, at least with respect to employment.  In fact, I would almost be willing to guess that the final results will look something like this…

3,500,001 jobs were either created or SAVED buy the Porkulus bill of 2009.

Do “All Dogs Go To Heaven”?

“All Dogs Go To Heaven” is the franchise brand for a couple of animated movies and a short-lived television series, none of them having much to do with heaven, and more to do with dead dogs that come back to life.  In the case of the first movie, the main character returns to earth to exact revenge on his killer.  The second movie and television series were weak sequels although they had big name actors “playing” the voices of the characters.  But the title raises an interesting question for me.  Do all dogs go to heaven?

Sure, it is comforting to think that our beloved, well mannered, obedient pets go to heaven.  But ALL dogs?  How about the berserk dog that, with little or no provocation, attacks and mauls a child.  How about domesticated dogs that run in packs that look like the animal kingdom’s equivalent of Westsiders, Bloods and Cris, killing livestock for what appears to be the sport of it.  Do these dogs go to heaven?  Can anyone describe the regenerative process of these “bad boy” dogs?  Is there any scriptural basis for the belief that all dogs go to heaven?  Is there a scriptural basis to believe that ANY dog goes to heaven?  I’ve looked around, but scripture generally deals unfavorably with dogs since they were not regarded as lovable house mates 2,000 + + years ago, like they are today.  And since pets don’t seem to be too common in Bible accounts, what are we to make of our sensitivities to our four-legged or feathered, or gilled friends.  What do we make of the silence of scripture with regard to the fate of our departed pets?

The theology surrounding the eternal state of deceased dogs is an area that I have not given a lot of thought to.  Sure, we have had family pets that have died, but the impending loss of the family pet that everyone generally regards, and even calls “my” dog, has made this a much more relevant issue.

Two weeks ago we discovered a fairly large growth on the gum of my little black Labrador, Halle.  The next day the vet shared her suspicion that it was melanoma.  The day following, a biopsy was taken and by early last week, it was confirmed that it was not only melanoma, but a malignant form.  Bummer!

Monday this week, we took Halle to a veterinary specialist who advised that he could remove part of her jaw bone and do chemotherapy to try to prolong quantity and quality of life.  The price tag was breath taking.  Before making a decision to consent to any such radical and expensive surgery, I asked that an X-ray be done to see if there were any metastases in her lymph system or lungs.  Unfortunately, there were several mets in her lungs, meaning that this growth on her gum, found only two weeks ago, is a fast-spreading fatal menace.  Short of a miraculous intervention by God Himself, Halle will be gone way too soon.  Much sooner that I could have ever imagined for an otherwise healthy dog.  I don’t like it.  I can confirm that I am treading water in the midst of the first two of Elisabeth Kubler-Ross’ “Stages of Grief”…denial, shock, isolation and anger.  I am pissed! 

So, do all dogs go to heaven?  I readily concede the attractiveness of what might be a false comfort in pop-theology, which might suggest that if our beloved pets gave us joy in this life, why would a loving God withhold that joy from us in heaven?  But, is there any real Biblical evidence to believe this is true?  I am not being snarky, or cynical here.  I REALLY hope it IS true.  The reality that Halle is going to be gone soon, is painful.  Really painful.  And I would love to be able to attach some confident hope for the future to ease the present pain of her passing.  I would love to know that my little Lab will be hanging out in paradise with her creator until I get there.  I would love to know that I will get to see her again when I get to heaven myself.

Isaiah 11: 6-9 uses prophetic imagery to describe a state that is most unlike the one we live in today.  Isaiah tells of fierce predatory animals living peaceably with what would normally be their prey.  Some scholars view this as symbolic of the reconciliation of national and ethnic enemies who will no longer war under the reign of Jesus in HIS kingdom.  Others use this view as support for the idea that the transformation of the earth will extend to the animals and the natural order we know now, will be suspended.  In either case, it appears that animals are a part of either the earth under the millennial reign of Christ, or perhaps the new heaven and new earth, or maybe both.  But this passage stops well short of suggesting that a pet who dies in 2009, will be present in eternity. 

Perhaps a more relevant question would be, “will I even care about a former pet when I am in the actual presence of the one true God, the creator of the universe and His son, my savior?”  When I am finally liberated from the distractions and affections of this world, will it even remotely cross my mind that I once had a dog named Halle?  If the immensely significant one-flesh union I have with Leigh, and the love I have for her, ordained by God for this present life, is no longer in-force in heaven, is there any reason to think that the love I have for a dog on earth will matter after the consummation?

This is a challenge to several of my readers who are now, or who are in training to be pastors.  Help me sort this out!  I’m serious.  It would be a huge help to me.

Great insight on the Porkulus Bill

Charles Krauthammer writes a great article at the Washington Post about the hypocritical reaction of Barry Obama to the failure by Congress (as of this writing) to pass the enormous, bloated, non-stimulative- stimulus bill.