The Wisdom Chronicle

The Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon

  1. WHICH IS BETTER? “Distinguishing between the effects of marijuana and cigarettes on the brain: would you rather get in an airplane where the pilot had just smoked a cigarette or a joint?” — D. Prager
  2. ABSTAIN FROM POT If one abstains from substance abuse up until the age of twenty-one, the chances one will ever have a substance abuse problem are next to zero.”

Excerpt From: William J. Bennett & Robert A White. “Going to Pot.”

  1. DOWNFALLS “If good taste would permit, we might easily mention scores of men, well known to the American people, who climbed to great heights of achievement under the stimulating influence of their wives, only to drop back to destruction AFTER money and power went to their heads, and they put aside the old wife for a new one.”

Excerpt From: Hill, Napoleon. “Think and Grow Rich.”

  1. LOVE IS…“It’s unloving to keep truth from people, especially if that truth has eternal consequences.” — F. Turek
  2. “SMART” PHONE? “There’s more code and sophisticated nanomachinery in just one of your forty trillion cells than in your smartphone and probably every other gadget you own. If the code and nanomachinery in your smartphone requires intelligence, wouldn’t the far superior technology inside of you also require intelligence?”

Excerpt From: Turek, Frank. “Stealing from God.

  1. BACKSLIDING KIDS?

Q: “How do you interpret Proverbs 22:6 (KJV), which says, “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it”? Doesn’t that verse mean, as it implies, that the children of wise and dedicated Christian parents will never be lost?”

A: The Proverbs were never intended to be absolute promises from God. Instead, they are “probabilities” of things that are likely to occur. Solomon, who wrote the wonderful book of Proverbs, was the wisest man on the earth at that time. His purpose was to convey his divinely inspired observations on the way human nature and God’s universe work. A given set of circumstances can be expected to produce a set of specific consequences. Unfortunately, several of these observations, including Proverbs 22:6, have been lifted out of that context and made to stand alone as promises from God. If we insist on that interpretation, then we must explain why so many other proverbs do not inevitably prove accurate. For example:

“Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth” (10:4). (Have you ever met a diligent—but poor—Christian? I have.)

“The blessing of the Lord brings wealth, and he adds no trouble to it” (10:22).

“The fear of the Lord adds length to life, but the years of the wicked are cut short” (10:27). (I have watched some beautiful children die with a Christian testimony on their lips.)

“No harm befalls the righteous, but the wicked have their fill of trouble” (12:21).

“Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed” (15:22).

“Gray hair is a crown of splendor; it is attained by a righteous life” (16:31).

“The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord” (16:33).

“A tyrannical ruler lacks judgment, but he who hates ill-gotten gain will enjoy a long life” (28:16).

We can all think of exceptions to the statements above.

Those who believe that Proverbs 22:6 offers a guarantee of salvation for the next generation have assumed, in essence, that a child can be programmed so thoroughly as to determine his course inevitably. If they bring him up “in the way he should go,” the outcome is certain. But think about that for a moment. Didn’t the Creator handle Adam and Eve with infinite wisdom and love? He made no mistakes in “fathering” them. God in His love gave Adam and Eve a choice between good and evil, and they abused it. Will He now withhold that same freedom from your children? No. Ultimately, they will make their own choices.”

Excerpt From: Dobson, James. “Your Legacy.”

  1. HOW BIG CHANGE HAPPENS “Strange, is it not, how the great changes, such as the American Revolution, and the World War, often have their beginnings in circumstances which seem unimportant? It is interesting, also, to observe that these important changes usually begin in the form of a DEFINITE DECISION in the minds of a relatively small number of people.”

Excerpt From: Hill, Napoleon. “Think and Grow Rich.”

  1. FEARING GOD “He does not delight in the strength of the horse; He takes no pleasure in the legs of a man. The LORD takes pleasure in those who fear Him” (Psalm 147:10–11). In this passage, fear doesn’t mean shaking in your boots or being scared. This fear is standing in awe of who God is, knowing His power and respecting it to the point of total obedience to Him. God promises us that if we fear Him, He will be pleased with us.

Excerpt From: Lee, Richard. “In God We Still Trust: A 365-Day Devotional.”

  1. NOT SURE? [When asked, “How can you believe in a God you cannot fully explain?”] ANS: “We need to grasp that it is not only believers in God who believe in concepts they do not fully understand. Scientists do as well. It would be just as foolish and arbitrary to dismiss believers in God as having nothing to say, because they cannot ultimately explain the nature of God, as it would be to dismiss physicists because they do not know what energy is. And yet that is exactly what often happens.”

Excerpt From: John C. Lennox. “Against the Flow.”

  1. PERSONALITY “A well-developed sense of humor reveals a well-balanced personality. Maladjusted people show a far greater tendency to miss the point in a funny remark. They take jokes personally. They take things that are meant to be enjoyable much too seriously. The ability to get a laugh out of everyday situations is a safety valve. It rids us of tensions and worries that could otherwise damage our health.

You think I’m exaggerating the benefits? If so, maybe you’ve forgotten another proverb: “A joyful heart is good medicine, but a broken spirit dries up the bones” (Prov.  17:22). Isn’t that eloquent? Literally, it says, “A joyful heart causes healing.

Excerpt From: Charles R. Swindoll. “Dear Graduate.”

 

/by
God's Crime Scene

God’s Crime Scene

, , , ,

It’s about 2 a.m. on an August morning in 1979. A beautiful young nurse by the name of Lynne Knight is living in a bungalow behind a larger house in Torrance, California. As two police officers approach her door, they notice a chair overturned in the entryway and bloody footsteps leading back to the rear bedroom. Each officer has his gun drawn, not sure what to expect.

When they switch on the light, they witness the worst murder scene of their careers. Ms. Knight is lying on her bed, undressed. Her throat is deeply severed, and her lifeless body, which had been stabbed repeatedly, is covered in blood.

Under her body is 18 inches of twisted wire strung between two small pieces of wood that had been sawed off from an old broomstick. Although they’ve never seen one in person before, the officers immediately know it’s a garrote—a homemade weapon used to strangle someone in order to commit a murder quietly.

The killer tried to murder Lynne with the garrote, but couldn’t complete the evil act because she fought back. So the killer stabbed her to death and left the garrote behind in a panic.

Could the garrote lead the cops to this monster? Not soon enough. For nearly three decades, the case went cold until cold case homicide detectives J. Warner Wallace, and Rick Glass got involved in 2007. They dusted off the evidence left in a box at the Torrance PD, and Wallace made it his personal mission to analyze every aspect of the garrote. It turned out to be the key to the murder trial that took place last summer in the same LA courtroom where O.J. Simpson was tried. And there was a familiar face in this trial. The defendant, Doug Bradford, hired O.J. lawyer Robert Shapiro to be his defense attorney.

While Bradford was a former lover of Knight, there was no eyewitness or DNA evidence to link Bradford to the murder. And there were several other suspects in the case, some of whom had since died. Wallace, Glass, and LA District Attorney John Lewin had an uphill battle to convince a jury of twelve that Bradford had indeed committed the crime. There would be no conviction unless all twelve agreed.

But Wallace, Glass, and Lewin had been down this road before. They earned convictions on every cold case they had brought to trial so far. Three of those cases were so intriguing that NBC’s Dateline featured them. This case was no different: Keith Morrison and his Dateline crew were filming the case in an episode they called “The Wire.”

Although Dateline didn’t know it going in, their confidence was rewarded: on August 14, 2014, this LA jury returned a guilty verdict. Robert Shapiro, perhaps aware he had been out argued, didn’t even show up for the verdict. Doug Bradford is now serving a life sentence after being free for 35 years.

How did they get the conviction?

They began by asking the question, all detectives ask at a death scene: can this death be explained by staying inside the room, or does it require us to look outside the room? Obviously, this death was a murder and required a suspect outside the room. Had this been a suicide, natural death, or accidental death, the event could be explained by staying inside the room.

Then Detective Wallace used some very ingenious methods to link the garrote back to Bradford. (You can watch the entire Dateline explanation here.) He linked the effect (the garrote) back to the cause (Bradford).

Now Wallace is employing the same investigative principles he uses to solve cold case murders to eight of the greatest questions we ponder as human beings. He does this in his insightful new book, God’s Crime Scene. In the book Wallace seeks to discover if we can stay inside the room (the natural world) or must go outside the room (the supernatural world) for the causes of the following effects:

  • The origin of the universe
  • The fine-tuning of the universe
  • The origin of life
  • The origin of new life forms and biological machines
  • Consciousness
  • Free will
  • Objective Moral Values
  • Evil

Each of the eight chapters starts with the details of a real criminal case and then applies the principles to the question at hand (the Lynne Knight case is in Chapter 4).

Wallace was a committed atheist until age 35. Now he is a highly skilled author and speaker who presents a unique case for the Christian worldview across the country. Columnist Mike Adams and I have recently teamed with J. to equip Christian youth and their parents with the case for Christianity through a dynamic new College Prep program. I can tell you that audiences are captivated by the way he applies forensic principles to build the case for Christianity.

But don’t think Wallace just tows the party line. Since he is a cold-case homicide detective, Wallace presents you with the evidence pro and con, and then leaves you to draw your own conclusions. He does a masterful job of laying out the evidence and even illustrates that evidence with over one hundred of his own drawings, which clarify and summarize some potentially difficult subject matter. (Who said a serious book can’t have pictures?)

God’s Crime Scene is an engaging and very readable work that investigates some of life’s most important questions. I highly recommend you get it regardless of your religious viewpoint. I can’t guarantee you’ll be convicted, but your thinking will be challenged.

 

Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and frequent college speaker who hosts a weekly TV show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations around the nation.  His books include I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist and Stealing from God:  Why atheists need God to make their case.

/by

The Wisdom Chronicle

The Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon

  1. LISTEN “As his career at CNN was winding down, Larry King – the king of interviews – told Esquire magazine, “I never learned anything while I was talking.” “Let the wise listen,” King Solomon said, “and add to their learning” (Proverbs 1:5 NIV).

Excerpt From: DeMoss, Mark. “The Little Red Book of Wisdom.”

  1. FREEDOM/REALITY INSEPARABLE “Horace Greeley, one of America’s leading nineteenth-century newspaper editors, reminded his fellow citizens of what many of the Founding Fathers of the previous generation had emphasized: “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”

Similarly, as Joshua prepared the children of Israel to begin their conquest of Canaan, he reminded them that their success depended upon keeping God’s Word in their hearts and

minds and on their lips. He went on to challenge the people of Israel—and the challenge applies to us today, to us as individuals, as families, as a nation—to make an important choice: “Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve. . . . But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” (Joshua 24:15). This choice is foundational to the moral and spiritual resolve that will give us success in all we set out to accomplish as individuals and as a

nation.”

Excerpt From: Lee, Richard. “In God We Still Trust: A 365-Day Devotional.”

  1. TIME TO LIVE “I’ve often told people to check their birth certificate and to imagine the number 700,000 is in the corner of your birth certificate. That’s your net worth — the amount of hours the average person has to live, and how you invest those hours is completely up to you.

One of the most rewarding things in life is getting rid of what you don’t need. Most people

think they need more — but the truth is they really need less. They need to be simpler. They need to get back to what makes them tick. They need to point toward what they really need and really want so they have focus and direction.”

Excerpt From: Reiman, Joey. “Thinking for a Living.”

  1. TAKE ACTION “Musicians say that the hardest part of practicing is taking the instrument out of the case. To begin is to be half done! This is what we need to do with our ideas. And how do you create great ideas? How do you make them really happen? By taking action on them. Action is the great separator. It separates the rich from the poor, the winners from the whiners, and the ideas from the “I did its.” Action gets things done.

Equally important as the passion to take action is the persistence to see it through. The world is full of people with good ideas, but often the difference between those who achieve great success and those who don’t is the persistence to overcome obstacles, resistance, and rejections.”

Excerpt From: Reiman, Joey. “Thinking for a Living.”

  1. BEST ACHIEVEMENT “My most brilliant achievement was the ability to be able to

persuade my wife to marry me.” — SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL

  1. “ENTHUSIASM” In Greek, “entheos” meaning, “God in.”
  2. GRAVITY OF THINGS “Everyone knows about gravity. It’s the force that keeps us on planet earth. Otherwise, we’d float away into space. Now, what you may not realize is that the mass of the earth is what creates gravity.

Simple physics. The more mass, the more pull. The more pull and attraction, the harder it is to break free. Our culture encourages us to accumulate things, to have options, to focus on ourselves. The problem is that the more things we accumulate, the more mass we create. And the more mass, the more pull. Soon we cannot pull ourselves away from the things we’ve accumulated because they have such a hold on us. They control us; we do not control them. We attempt to break free, but the pull is too strong.

I have found that the life of limited options is a life of freedom. Free from the gravitational pull of things…free to see more clearly the life that God has given to us and free to produce more joy

because we focus less on ourselves and more on others. We have less to divert our attention away from the things that matter.”

Excerpt From: Battaglia, Joe. “The Politically Incorrect Jesus.”

  1. NO CREDIT “The man who discovered America was poorly rewarded for his efforts. Christopher Columbus made the mistake of looking for gold and keeping his mouth

shut. Amerigo Vespucci didn’t. Amerigo was 5 years behind Christopher. But he

did two things right. First, he positioned the New World as a separate continent, totally distinct from Asia. This caused a revolution in the geography of his day.

Second, he wrote extensively of his discoveries and theories. Especially significant are the five letters of his third voyage. One (Mundus Novus) was translated into 40 different languages over a 25-year period. Before he died, Spain granted him Castilian citizenship and gave him a major state post.

As a result, the Europeans credited Amerigo Vespucci with the discovery of America and named the place after him. Christopher Columbus died in jail.”

Excerpt From: Al Ries & Jack Trout. “Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind.”

  1. CROWD “Never take your cues from the crowd.” — Unknown
  2. DETERMINATION “We need to keep in mind the difference between natural sight and supernatural vision. When we look at life with vision, we perceive events and circumstances

with God’s thoughts. And because His thoughts are higher and more profound than mere horizontal thinking, they have a way of softening the blows of calamity and giving us hope through tragedy and loss. It also enables us to handle times of prosperity and popularity with wisdom.

I often remind myself of those familiar words in 2 Timothy 4:2, “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season.” That’s a nice way of saying, “Hang tough! Do it when it comes naturally and when it is hard to come by. Do it when you’re up, do it when you’re down. Do it when you feel like it, do it when you don’t feel like it. Do it when it’s hot, do it when it’s cold. Keep on doing it. Don’t give up.”

That is persistence and determination. Staying at it. Hanging tough with dogged discipline. When you get whipped or when you win, the secret is staying at it.”

Excerpt From: Charles R. Swindoll. “Dear Graduate.”

/by
Are Christian High School Seniors Really Ready for College

Are Christian High School Seniors Really Ready for College?

,

We have sent this year’s graduating seniors off to college hoping that we as parents and teachers have prepared them for the challenges of college life. We gave them the best education we could, prodded them when they wanted to goof off instead of study, made college visits, wrote recommendations, and helped them write admissions essays. But have we prepared them for the most serious confrontations to their faith that they will face on the university campus?

College can be a dangerous place for the spiritual life of Christian students. What if your child is assigned a Hindu roommate who sets up a shrine to his or her god in the dorm room? Or, what about the increasingly common situation in which your student ends up rooming with someone who self-identifies as homosexual? Showing Christ’s love to persons with whom we disagree is not the only issue. The question is whether your student is prepared to navigate the intimacy of a dorm room setting with a roommate of the same sex who affirms same-sex attraction.

Hickory Grove Christian High School students in Charlotte, NC with apologist J. Warner Wallace

Hickory Grove Christian High School students in Charlotte, NC, with apologist J. Warner Wallace

Peers aren’t the only source of pressure. Many college professors believe that Christian students are naïve and misguided, and see it as their job to disabuse them of their backward, bigoted Christian notions. How will your student respond when an English professor insists that a sentence has no inherent meaning but rather the reader endows the text with meaning? Will your student be swayed by the philosophy professor who insists truth and morality are relative to culture, or by the New Testament professor who argues that the gospels are full of errors and their accounts about the life and words of Christ cannot be trusted?

Just so you don’t think I am exaggerating about the frontal attack Christian students face a mere twelve weeks after high school graduation, let me share what a former student told me happened the first week she entered college orientation.

Mrs. Scribner,

I just wanted to let you know how much you were right! (Not that there was ever a question:)) I went to college orientation last week and they taught us about tolerance and not pushing your beliefs on others. ‘Your beliefs are your beliefs and let’s keep them that way’ was a major thing. We had to play a ‘get to know you’ game and we were asked about religion. I freely told people I was a Christian and afterward definitely got the cold shoulder. This was at the end of the day so I had already made some friends, but after I told them that it was almost as if the [person] that they had met earlier had ceased to exist. When our group leader talked to us about accepting everyone as they are and not trying to change them it was almost like he was talking directly to me. A couple of the students made it their personal mission to either offend me or change my beliefs; I’m not sure which they had in mind. One made a comment and started out with, ‘Let’s say God  ACTUALLY exists. . . .’  I was most upset by the fact that they were allowed to attack me like this. Not that I would have, but had I made a mean comment about their atheism or unitarianism I feel certain I would have gotten in trouble. I’m already sickened by the double standards and a school hasn’t even started yet!! 

Fortunately, this student was not swayed by the hostile attitudes of teachers and students. In high school apologetics class, we had talked many times about this inevitable reality of college life. Not only was she not swayed, but she was also ready to exercise her apologetics muscles in conversations. She shared one example in which she talked with someone who raised difficult spiritual questions.

I immediately thought back to apologetics and I was ready to discuss! He asked really good questions and at first, I was nervous about answering them. I took a deep breath and remembered my training! I began to ask him questions about what he specifically believed. I used the ‘what do you mean by…?’ question multiple times. I was so excited that I could keep up and even ask questions that took [him] a minute to answer! I just wanted to thank you for everything. You have not only shown me the information but how to use it most effectively. I honestly think your class was the most important one I will ever take. It answered some of my questions and also gave me more. I now have the ability to think for myself and the confidence that I actually know what I’m talking about!!

Now, to be honest, if you asked most of my students what they thought of the apologetics course, they would describe it is far less glowing terms. Studying the evidences for Christianity is hard work, sometimes tedious, and even doubt provoking, as students grapple with questions they have never before asked. Nevertheless, my prayer is that while students may not recall all that we have studied, they will remember that we talked about the questions with which they are later faced, and know where to go for answers.

I applaud this young woman for her perceptive recognition of the disparity between espoused tolerance and the way that students are perceived and treated once they self-identify as Christians. She also was willing to practice what she had learned in class, which requires a willingness to take risks. She even employed effective communication skills in dialogue.

Her story affirms my own conviction that before leaving high school, Christian students need to learn and practice sharing the rational evidences from science, history, philosophy, and logic, for the truth claims of Christianity. Apologetics is not a luxury but a necessity. In fact, a Christian student’s education is incomplete if it has not included focused study of the rationale for Christianity’s claims that:

  • the existence of objective truth and morality is undeniable.
  • the evidence for the God Who created the universe in its entirety and created humans as new and distinctly unique beings in His own image is morally, scientifically, and philosophically overwhelming.
  • Jesus Christ’s deity, miracles, atoning death, and physical resurrection were forecasted in the Old Testament and confirmed in the New Testament.

How do we accomplish this overwhelming task? Parents can proactively teach how to analyze and evaluate truth assertions made by diverse worldviews and share evidences for the truth of Christianity. Church student leaders can incorporate apologetics courses in discipleship plans. Teachers in Christian schools can integrate not only the biblical worldview but also the rationale for that view vertically from pre-K through 12th grade and horizontally across disciplines. We’ll talk more about how to integrate apologetics at home, church, and school in upcoming posts. For now, a good place to start is by equipping yourself as a parent or teacher of elementary, middle school or high school students. Get a good apologetics primer such as I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist and dig in so that you can start the dialogue.

/by

El amor no ganó, fue redefinido

“El amor ganó” es el hashtag elegido por aquellos que apoyan la última decisión de la Corte Suprema, la cual se aprobó en este organismo legislativo con una votación de 5-4. Sí no estás contento con ella, entonces eres solamente un malvado intolerante que debe callarse y apoyar la nueva legislación. Olvida el hecho que tienes argumentos muy racionales para mantener el matrimonio como la unión de un hombre y una mujer. Por ejemplo, un matrimonio sin género cambia el acuerdo cultural de matrimonio, cambiando la búsqueda del bienestar infantil a la realización de deseos románticos adultos. La maternidad y paternidad definitivamente tienen género. Todos los niños merecen un papá y una mamá, asimismo una cultura que respalde eso. El amor no ganó.

¡Esto hace que olvides prestarles atención a los niños, ellos quedan en un segundo plano! Si no cambias tu posición intolerante (que en realidad no lo es) muchos miembros de “el amor ganó” buscarán que seas despedido, multado, demandado, caigas en bancarrota y seas forzado a violentar tu conciencia hacia Dios. ¡También las iglesias! (¡Vaya, si este es “el amor”, cómo podrá ser el odio!)

Cada bando en este tema piensa que el otro está equivocado. Se hace un juicio moral, sin importar si estas a favor o en contra de la redefinición del matrimonio. La moralidad siempre es legislada (o impuesta judicialmente). Por lo tanto, ¿cuál es la moralidad correcta?

La Corte Suprema nos lo ha informado. Cinco jueces han impuesto su propia moralidad, la cual exalta la homosexualidad al punto de virtud en nuestra sociedad. Ellos han establecido que el estado no puede solamente permitir el comportamiento homosexual (una posición neutral); sino que ahora debe promoverlo garantizando beneficios, y en palabras del Juez Kennedy: “dignidad” a través de una más “profunda” unión del matrimonio.

Los que no estén de acuerdo con esta nueva moralidad impuesta por la Corte son, en la práctica, los nuevos pecadores motivados por la “falta de respecto” y la “animosidad” (“animosidad” viene de la Decisión Lawrence del juez Kennedy – precedente citado por él mismo para justificar su propia animosidad hacia los oponentes del matrimonio sin género). Sí, desafortunadamente la Corte Suprema ensucia a todos los oponentes de su nueva moralidad con la misma intolerancia jurídica que dice detestar.

Esto plantea una pregunta muy seria, la cual es central para esta decisión y cualquier otra que hagamos en la política. ¿Cuál es el estándar? ¿Bajo qué estándar juzgamos que algo es bueno, y su opuesto como malo? ¿Bajo qué estándar cinco jueces han decidido exaltar la homosexualidad al punto de virtud y declarar que cualquier oposición a esa postura es “animosidad” y “falta de respeto”?

El estándar debía ser la Constitución (la cual realmente fue aprobada por el Pueblo, y no la inventada que va “evolucionando” en las mentes de jueces motivados políticamente), es fácil ver el por qué esta Corte está equivocada. Cuando la 14va Enmienda fue aprobada en 1868, el comportamiento homosexual era un delito en todos los estados, y las mujeres y afroamericanos no tenían el derecho al voto. Si la cláusula de “protección igualitaria” de la 14va Enmienda ni siquiera podía asegurar el derecho al voto para las mujeres, ¡tampoco les aseguraba el derecho de casarse entre mujeres!

Incluso bajo la mismas palabras de Kennedy hace dos años en la Decisión Windsor, el matrimonio es un asunto estatal y no federal (a menos que una ley viole la prohibición de discriminación racial de la 14va Enmienda, lo cual no era el caso en esta oportunidad). ¡Ahora de repente, dos años más tarde, Kennedy junto con su mini legislatura, decide que todos, incluido él mismo, han estado interpretando de manera equivocada la 14va Enmienda durante 147 años!

¿Quieres darle a las mujeres y a los afroamericanos el derecho al voto? Entonces realiza una enmienda a la Constitución (lo cual hizo el Pueblo). ¿Quieres hacer el matrimonio un asunto federal en lugar de uno estatal, y cambiarlo en una institución sin género? Entonces el Pueblo debería hacer también una enmienda.

Pero la Corte ha decidido ignorar esto. Kennedy junto con su séquito anti-democracia ha decidido que ellos son el nuevo estándar. No la Constitución. No el Pueblo. No Dios o su ley natural, la cual nos da la verdad autoevidente que las relaciones homosexuales y heterosexuales son radicalmente diferentes en muchas maneras, sobre todo por su capacidad para engendrar y criar niños.

Las opiniones personales de cinco jueces, no elegidos, ahora comprenden el nuevo estándar que 320 millones de personas deben obedecer. Irónico, dado el hecho que en 1992 el juez Kennedy escribió que todos tienen “el derecho de definir su propio concepto de existencia, de significado, del universo, y del misterio de la vida humana”. Ahora el juez Kennedy y su séquito han abandonado esa contraproducente y relativista psicología barata para imponer sobre todo el país un nuevo absoluto –su propia definición del matrimonio. Incluso si tú apoyas el matrimonio sin género, el hecho que cinco personas no elegidas piensen que sus opiniones personales son el estándar para el resto de nosotros, debería atemorizarte.

Si cinco personas pueden ignorar la Constitución y redefinir la institución que mantiene unido el fundamento de la civilización –la familia biológica con padre y madre–, entonces ninguna ley o libertad está segura. Eso incluye la Libertad de Expresión y la Libertad de Religión. (Ellos vendrán por estas también).

“Oh, pero tenemos la Declaración de Derechos”, podrías pensar. “Ellos no pueden anularla”.

Ellos ya lo han hecho hasta cierto punto. Pregúntale al pastelero o al florista: ¿cómo la 1ra Enmienda  sobre la Libertad de Religión les está funcionando en este momento en su pastelería o floristería?

Con este grupo no importa lo que diga la Constitución realmente. No importa que leyes apruebes o lo que significan las palabras. No importa el hecho que deberíamos ser gobernados bajo el gobierno de la ley y no por caprichos de hombres. Los caprichos de cinco personas ahora son supremos –a menos que los gobernadores decidan invocar la 10ma Enmienda y anular esta decisión para sus respectivos estados, lo cual deberían hacer. ¿Habrá algún gobernador que pueda salvar a este país de una corte tipo imperial? ¿Habrá algún Andrew Jackson en la mansión de algún gobernador?

Las palabras de John Adams no podrían ser más precisas: “Nuestra Constitución fue creada para el pueblo moral y religioso. Es completamente inadecuada para cualquier otro tipo de gobierno”.

El amor no ganó – los dioses inmorales de la Suprema Corte simplemente cambiaron su definición.

 

El Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) es un galardonado autor y frecuente orador universitario que presenta un programa de televisión semanal en DirectTV y un programa de radio que se transmite en 186 estaciones de todo el país. Sus libros incluyen I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (No tengo suficiente fe para ser ateo) y Stealing from God:  Why atheists need God to make their case (Robando a Dios: ¿por qué los ateos necesitan a Dios para presentar su caso?).

Traducido por Erick Jimenez.

/by

The Wisdom Chronicle

The Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon

  1. CANDIDATES “Noah Webster (1758–1843) was known as the “Father of American Scholarship and Education” and author of the famous Webster’s dictionary. He also had opinions about government leaders: In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not

the particular sect [party] of the candidate—look to his character. . . . It is alleged by men of loose principles or defective views of the subject that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualifications for political stations. But the Scriptures teach a different doctrine. They direct that rulers should be men “who rule in the fear of God, able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness.”

Excerpt From: Lee, Richard. “In God We Still Trust: A 365-Day Devotional.”

  1. WE BECOME WHAT WE THINK “For as he thinks within himself, so he is” (Prov. 23:7).

The secret of living a life of excellence is merely a matter of thinking thoughts of excellence. Really, it’s a matter of programming our minds with the kind of information that will set us

free. Free to be all God meant us to be. Since the mind holds the secrets of soaring, the enemy of our souls has made the human mind the bull’s-eye of his target. His most insidious and strategic moves are made upon the mind. By affecting the way we think, he is able to keep our lives on a mediocre level.

And what is God’s ultimate goal?—To take “every thought captive.” When He invades those lofty areas, His plan is to transform the old thoughts that defeat us into new thoughts that encourage us. He has to repattern our whole way of thinking. And He is engaged in doing that continually because old habits are so hard to break. God’s offer is nothing short of phenomenal! Remember it? It is “taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).”

Excerpt From: Charles R. Swindoll. “Dear Graduate.”

  1. SERVICE ECONOMY “During the gold rush, the people who made the most money were the ones selling the shovels.”

Excerpt From: Brunson, Russell. “DotCom Secrets.”

  1. LEADERS ARE DREAMERS “If you don’t dream, your leadership is seriously limited. To make things even more complicated, those who refuse to dream the impossible are always in the majority. Those who choose to live by sight will always outnumber those who live by faith.

So once you’ve decided to live differently, let God be your guide and hang tough—follow your dreams with determination.”

Excerpt From: Charles R. Swindoll. “Dear Graduate.”

  1. 705. CHRISTIANS USE FORCE? “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting.” (John  18:36).

So it was abundantly clear to the Roman governor that Jesus posed no revolutionary threat whatsoever. Pilate would have known that Jesus meant what he said, because he would have been in receipt of the report of the circumstances surrounding his arrest. In particular he would have known that when one of Jesus’ disciples, Peter, had taken a wild sweep with a sword and cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant, Jesus had told Peter to put his sword away, and healed the ear.

Anyone who uses force of any kind to impose Christ’s message on people is acting in defiance of Christ’s explicit commands. In other words, they are engaging in anti-Christian activity. Their claim to be followers of Christ is, therefore, proved to be spurious. The existence of counterfeit money does not prove that the real and genuine thing does not exist, even though it may make it harder to find.”

Excerpt From: John C. Lennox. “Against the Flow.”

  1. FAMILY “This triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.”

–G. K. Chesterton

  1. “Sow a thought, reap an act.

Sow an act, reap a habit.

Sow a habit, reap your character.

Sow your character,

reap your destiny.”

–Unknown

  1. BIBLES VS. IPHONES “It is so easy to forget how Scripture got into our hands in the first place. John Wycliffe and William Tyndale laboured hard in dangerous conditions to give us the Bible in English. Betrayed by an Englishman, Tyndale was burnt alive in Belgium. Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer were burnt alive in Oxford. These courageous men were determined to get the Scriptures to the people. Their efforts lit a fire in the hearts of men and women throughout the world, encouraging and inspiring even the humblest of them to study the Bible on their own and listen for the voice of God, rather than bow to some oppressive external ecclesiastic authority. What would they think if they were to see Bibles, now freely available by dint of their sacrificial labours, sitting unread on so many shelves?

We all love to stay in touch. That’s why mobile phones now outnumber Bibles in the hands and pockets of Christians up and down the land (even allowing for the fact that phones have Bibles in them!). But however important it may be to hear from others, surely hearing from God is our priority.”

Excerpt From: John C. Lennox. “Against the Flow.”

  1. CHARITY “[We] tend to give more freely when we have less to hold on to. Among the members of eleven primary Protestant denominations in the U.S. and Canada, people gave smaller percentages of their income in 2000 (2.6 percent on average) than in 1933, during the Great Depression (3.3 percent).”

Excerpt From: DeMoss, Mark. “The Little Red Book of Wisdom.”

  1. GOLDEN RULE OR GOLDEN CALF? “Much like Moses’ experience at Mt. Sinai (Exodus 32), people begin to look elsewhere for their significance and security when God’s presence leaves the camp. Without leadership based on God’s moral law, many of us will

clamor for gods fashioned to fit our lifestyles and cravings. We worship the idols we’ve created to give us meaning to life. Ironically, we’ve replaced the Golden Rule for golden calves.

To the person worshiping the golden calf, the only future is today. Just as the Israelites did not want to wait any longer for Moses to come down the mountain with a word from God, neither do we. We’re more interested in making our own gods and then putting words in their mouths to

satisfy what we want to hear.

So, look around you. Are you living out the Golden Rule, or dancing around the golden calf? God may not be politically correct in the public square. But, without Him, that square soon fills up with people dancing around idols of their own creation. King David has something to say about those types of people in the Psalms…that those who create God in their own image, made out of stone and wood, will ultimately be like them (Psalm 115).

Hollow. Hard. Unbending.

Ultimately, we wind up worshiping ourselves. That’s a scary thought.”

Excerpt From: Battaglia, Joe. “The Politically Incorrect Jesus.”

/by

¿Por qué sabemos que nuestro universo y todo lo que contiene tuvo un comienzo?

Mi carrera como Detective de Casos Congelados (Cold-Cases) se desarrolló gracias a tener el razonamiento correcto basado en la evidencia acerca de los sospechosos que traje a juicio. Hubo momentos en los que mi certeza fue establecida y confirmada por la naturaleza acumulativa y diversa de la evidencia. Déjame darte un ejemplo. Es genial cuando un testigo ve el crimen e identifica al sospechoso, pero es aún mejor si tenemos pruebas de ADN que colocan al sospechoso en la escena. Si el comportamiento del sospechoso (antes y después del momento del crimen) también delata su participación, y además sus declaraciones en las entrevistas son igualmente incriminatorias, el caso es aún mejor. Casos como éstos se vuelven más y más razonables a medida que crecen tanto en profundidad y diversidad. Ahora no solo tenemos cuatro evidencias diferentes que apuntan a la misma conclusión, sino que además estas evidencias son de cuatro categorías diferentes. El testimonio del testigo ocular, el ADN forense, los comportamientos y las admisiones apuntan todos a la misma inferencia razonable. Cuando tenemos un caso acumulativo y diverso como este, nuestras inferencias se vuelven más razonables y más difíciles de negar ¿Por qué me tomo el tiempo para describir esta aproximación evidencial para conclusiones razonables? Debido a que una metodología similar se puede utilizar para determinar si todo en el universo (todo el espacio, el tiempo y la materia) vino de la nada. Tenemos buenas razones para creer que nuestro universo tuvo un principio, y esta inferencia es establecida por un caso acumulativo, diverso y basado en evidencia:

Evidencia Filosófica (de la Imposibilidad de la Regresión Infinita)

Imagina una pista de carreras lineal con una línea de salida y de llegada. Ahora imagina que eres un nuevo recluta de la policía y te pedí que te pongas los zapatos de pista y que te coloques en la línea de salida para una prueba de entrenamiento físico (EF). La meta está a 100 metros de distancia. A medida que colocas los pies en la línea de salida y te preparas para correr, levanto la pistola de salida. Justo antes de disparar, sin embargo, me detengo y te digo que muevas la línea de salida 2 centímetros atrás. Un poco molesto, haces eso. De nuevo apunto la pistola al cielo – solo para ordenar que, una vez más, muevas la línea de salida 2 centímetros hacia atrás de nuevo. Molesto, retrocedes la línea. Imagínate que esto continúa. Pregunta: ¿Alguna vez llegaras a la meta? No. A menos que haya un principio, nunca llegarás a la meta. De manera similar, el tiempo también requiere un principio para que cualquiera de nosotros pueda llegar a un final; a menos que el tiempo tenga un principio, no podemos llegar a la línea de meta que llamamos “hoy”.

Evidencia Teórica (de las Matemáticas y la Física)

Los cálculos de Albert Einstein relacionados con la Teoría General de la Relatividad indicaron en 1916 que el universo era dinámico (ya sea expandiéndose o contrayéndose). Sin embargo, la noción de un universo estático era tan común en el momento que Einstein aplicó una “constante” matemática a sus cálculos para mantener la naturaleza inmutable y uniforme del universo que él esperaba (Einstein se refirió más tarde a este esfuerzo como “el mayor error que cometió en su vida”). Los cálculos de Einstein sugirieron que el universo no era eternamente antiguo e inmutable. Alexander Friedmann, un matemático ruso que trabajó con las teorías de Einstein en la década de 1920, desarrolló un modelo matemático que predijo un universo en expansión. De esta conclusión se infiere que el universo debe haber tenido un principio a partir del cual se estaba expandiendo.

Evidencia Observacional (de Datos Astronómicos)

Vesto Slipher, un astrónomo americano que trabaja en el Observatorio Lowell en Flagstaff, Arizona, pasó casi diez años perfeccionando su comprensión de lecturas en el espectrógrafo. Sus observaciones revelaron algo notable. Si un objeto distante se movía hacia la Tierra, sus colores espectrográficos observables se desplazan hacia el extremo azul del espectro. Si un objeto distante se está alejando de la Tierra, sus colores se desplazan hacia el extremo rojo del espectro. Slipher identificó varias “nebulosas” y observó un “corrimiento al rojo” en sus colores espectrográficos. Si estas “nebulosas” se alejan de nuestra galaxia (y entre sí) como Slipher observó, debieron haber estado alguna vez bien agrupadas. En 1929, el astrónomo Edwin Hubble publicó sus propios hallazgos, verificando las observaciones de Slipher y demostrando que la velocidad a la que una estrella o galaxia se aleja de nosotros aumenta con la distancia de la Tierra. Esto una vez más confirmó la expansión del universo.

Evidencia Térmica (de la Segunda Ley de la Termodinámica)

Imagínate que entras a una habitación y observas a un coche de policía de juguete a cuerda moviéndose. Cuanto más tiempo lo ves moverse, más lento se mueve. Te das cuenta de que el coche está por detenerse, es decir, de que la cantidad de energía utilizable está disminuyendo. Es razonable inferir que le dieron cuerda al coche recientemente antes de tu entrada a la habitación. El hecho de que el coche aún no estaba completamente sin cuerda indica que le dieron cuerda recientemente. Si al coche le hubieran dado cuerda mucho antes, esperarías encontrarlo inmóvil al momento en que entras a la habitación. De manera similar, el hecho de que nuestro universo aún exhiba energía útil a pesar de que la Segunda Ley de la Termodinámica dicta que estamos camino a una “muerte térmica” cósmica – indica un principio. En caso contrario, si el universo fuera infinitamente antiguo, nuestro cosmos debería haber quedado sin energía utilizable en el presente. Podemos inferir razonablemente que alguna vez tuvo “mucha cuerda” y estuvo lleno de energía.

Evidencia Cuantitativa (de la Abundancia de Helio)

Como astrónomo, Sir Fred Hoyle estudió la manera en que los elementos se crean dentro de estrellas. Él fue capaz de calcular la cantidad de Helio creado si el universo surgió de la nada. El Helio es el segundo elemento más abundante en el universo (El Hidrógeno es el primero), pero con el fin de formar Helio por fusión nuclear, las temperaturas deben ser muy altas y las condiciones deben ser extremadamente densas. Estas habrían sido las condiciones si el universo surgió de la nada. Los cálculos de Hoyle relacionados con la formación de Helio coinciden con nuestras mediciones de Helio en el universo hoy en día. Esto, por supuesto, es consistente con el universo que tiene un momento de principio.

Evidencia Residual (de la Radiación de Fondo de Microondas)

En 1964, dos físicos estadounidenses y radio-astrónomos, Arno Penzias y Robert Wilson detectaron lo que ahora se conoce como “radiación de eco”, ganadora de un Premio Nobel por su descubrimiento en 1978. Numerosos experimentos y observaciones adicionales han establecido desde entonces la existencia del fondo de radiación de microondas, incluyendo los datos del satélite “Cosmic Background Explorer” lanzado en 1989 y del Observatorio Espacial Planck lanzado en 2009. Para muchos científicos, este descubrimiento solo confirmó la creencia de que el universo tuvo un principio. Si el universo saltó a la existencia, expandiéndose a partir de un estado de calor, densidad y expansión tremendos, deberíamos esperar encontrar este tipo de radiación cósmica de fondo.

Hay muchas líneas diversas de evidencia que apuntan a la misma inferencia razonable. A medida que juntamos la evidencia filosófica de la imposibilidad de la regresión infinita, la evidencia teórica de las matemáticas y la física, la evidencia observacional de datos astronómicos, la evidencia térmica de la Segunda Ley de la Termodinámica, la evidencia cuantitativa de la abundancia de Helio y la evidencia residual de la radiación cósmica de fondo, reconocemos rápidamente la naturaleza diferente de estas variadas formas de evidencia. Eso es lo que hace que el caso sea tan poderoso. Al igual que mis casos criminales, cuando múltiples líneas divergentes de evidencias apuntan todas a la misma conclusión, puedes confiar en que tú estás haciendo una inferencia correcta. La evidencia para el comienzo del universo es decididamente diversa.

Jim Universo Comienzo

¿Por qué sabemos que nuestro universo y todo lo que contiene tuvo un comienzo? – ¡Si no lo sabias, ahora lo sabes!

 

J. Warner Wallace es autor de Cold-Case Christianity, tiene una trayectoria de más de 25 años como policía y detective, posee un Master en Teología por el Seminario Teológico Golden Gate Baptist y es profesor adjunto de Apologética en la universidad de BIOLA.

Traducido por José Jimenez Chilavert.

/by

Why Doesn’t Everyone See Late-Term Abortions as Morally Wrong?

In the interest of trying to provide some moral clarity, I want to examine the type of abortion scenario for which it should be straightforward to morally assess. My thesis in this article is thus narrow in scope but still significant in that some pro-choice advocates take a strong stance that abortion is to never be restricted and is never morally wrong. If it can be shown that this view is mistaken it may awaken folks to more carefully examine other scenarios as well. Here is my simple argument:

  1. If it’s generally wrong to kill a newborn baby, then it’s wrong in many cases to kill a full-term baby.[1]
  2. It’s wrong to kill a newborn baby.

Thus, it’s wrong in many cases to kill a full-term baby in the womb.

I’ll not be arguing for premise 2 as I’m interested here only in convincing those who already believe it’s wrong to kill newborn babies. I’m not trying to assess all possible cases of abortion but am merely wanting to examine whether or not it’s morally permissible to kill a baby that is fully matured but still in the womb. Also, my thesis deals merely with morality – it’s a separate question how this impacts laws.

Consider that many babies are born prematurely and yet have no adverse long-term health impacts. So if one thinks that it’s morally wrong to kill a baby that has been born say a month or so prematurely why think it’s morally permissible to kill an unborn human baby that is has developed for 40 weeks? In this scenario both babies are healthy and were not the product of rape or incest and were born into or would be born into reasonably loving families.[2]

Many arguments by pro-choice advocates fail in this scenario. For example, some claim that the life of the unborn is not worth protecting because it’s smaller or less well developed than humans that have been born. My youngest son Kevin was 10 pounds 6 ounces at birth and my wife’s labor was medically induced. He definitely stood out in the nursery at the hospital – the song “one of these things is not like the others” comes to mind. So when my wife went into the hospital that morning, would it have been wrong to kill Kevin? There are plenty of “preemie” babies that are probably healthy enough now that had a birth weight a small fraction of what Kevin weighed while in the womb. Was it really morally justified to kill my son Kevin just before birth but would be considered murder to kill one of the babies in the neonatal intensive care unit? Was Kevin less of a human person than a baby already born just because he hadn’t traveled a half foot down the birth canal? Is there anything developmentally that happens in the last minutes of pregnancy or during delivery that suddenly endows the baby with self-awareness or cognitive abilities sufficient to go from no protection of life to full protection. It should concern pro-choice advocates that their arguments that the unborn lack attributes worthy of protection seem to apply equally well to toddlers or adults in a coma, etc. In this scenario unborn Kevin was more developmentally advanced and certainly much larger than preemie babies.

What about the mother? Does her right over her body trump the rights of the baby inside of her? Isn’t it the case scientifically that mother and fetus are distinct organisms anyway? A pregnant lady is not four-legged. In this scenario I’ve proposed note that the Mom has already carried the baby to full-term and endured most of the sacrifices that pregnancy entails. She can deliver the baby and deliver it up for adoption and be at least as well off as if she had to recover from surgically aborting a full-term baby. Are there negative impacts to the Mom from delivering the baby sufficient to override the rights of the baby to live? If the mother decides to keep the baby, isn’t it possible that the child becomes a treasure and joy to the mother? Isn’t there a maternal instinct to protect one’s offspring that may have negative impacts emotionally on the mother if she ends the life of her child?[3] Science supports the notion that mothers generally have strong desires to protect their babies – it would be surprising if there were no negative psychological impacts on Mom to end the life of her full-term baby.

My final question to those who advocate abortion without restrictions[4] – do you really think it would have been morally acceptable for your Mom to kill you minutes before you were born? Do you really want to encourage a moral principle that would have so prematurely ended your own existence?

____________________________________________________

[1] I say ‘generally’ wrong to avoid controversial scenarios – e.g. the only way to stop a terrorist from detonating a nuke that will kill a million people would somehow necessitate the death of an infant. Likewise I say ‘wrong in many cases’ because I want to examine only whether or not there are ‘some’ cases where abortion is immoral.

[2]This is not a merely hypothetical scenario since 7 states and the District of Colombia allow abortions at any time during pregnancy and without restrictions.

[3] Whether this instinct is put there by God and/or evolution is irrelevant to my argument. Certainly natural selection favors whatever encourages mothers to preserve the lives of their offspring.

[4 One should not infer that I favor abortion just because I’m choosing to examine a specific scenario in this blog.

/by
On the Wrong Side of God, Evolution & Humanity

On the Wrong Side of God, Evolution & Humanity

We’ve been told that people who want to maintain the man-woman definition of marriage are “on the wrong side of history.” Perhaps they are correct. Maybe “history,” which is determined largely by how people behave, will continue to move toward defining marriage as genderless in the 90 percent of governments that still maintain the natural definition. But what’s the take-away? Jump on the bandwagon?

Remember, Moses was on the wrong side of the golden calf. And Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was on the wrong side of Dred Scott — the 1857 Supreme Court decision that declared blacks were “so far inferior that they had no rights.” Being on the wrong side of some popular moral assertion doesn’t mean your position is wrong.

Now that five judges say that same-sex marriage is a new “right,” let’s ask a more foundational question. Where do rights come from? Specifically, where does the right to same-sex marriage come from?

If you say that rights come from governments or constitutions, how can they really be rights? Isn’t a right something you have regardless of what a government says? For example, if same-sex marriage is really a right, then you actually possess that right even if you live under a government that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage. You may not be able to exercise it, but you have it nonetheless.

Moreover, if there is no overarching moral standard that transcends human governments, then how we could prosecute Nazi soldiers for violating the rights of others? The Nazis were just following their government.

The truth is, rights don’t come from men or governments. Instead, “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,” as our Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence. In fact, that was the entire point of the Declaration — the government of King George was usurping the rights of colonists, so we declared our independence.

Some argue that evolutionary theory provides us with a right to same-sex marriage, but one doesn’t even have to challenge evolutionary theory to see that something is wrong with that argument. If natural selection has a goal of survival and reproduction, then how could same-sex marriage help with that? Such marriages are an agreement to stay in a sterile and medically unhealthy relationship — the exact antithesis of survival. In fact, if everyone lived faithfully in same-sex marriage, the human race would end quite quickly. (I’m not saying that same-sex marriage laws would accomplish this, just that the observation shows a real moral and consequential difference between natural marriage and same-sex marriage).

An even more basic problem with the evolutionary argument is that moral rights don’t result from evolutionary processes. Rights are prescriptive and come from an authoritative person. Evolutionary processes are descriptive and have no authority to tell you what to do. How does a mutating genetic code have the moral authority to tell you how you ought to behave or how you ought to treat others?

The truth is, just as history describes what does happen and not what ought to happen, biology describes what does survive, not what ought to survive. Why should humans survive as opposed to anything else? And which humans? Mother Theresa? Hitler?

Those who want to follow evolutionary theory are led to a dark place. Murder would be OK if it helped you survive, thrive and better reproduce. Rape would be OK because if it helped propagate DNA.  And a society might justify exterminating the weak and undesirables to improve the gene pool and help the desirables survive. In fact, Hitler used evolutionary theory to justify just that. Homosexuals were many of his victims.

So if rights don’t come from governments or evolution, then where do they come from? To truly be rights, they can only come from an authoritative being whose nature is the very standard of perfect Goodness. That’s what we mean by God.

Without God, there is no authoritative moral standard beyond humanity, which means that every action or behavior is merely a matter of human opinion. The murder of Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals? It’s just your opinion against Hitler’s opinion. Child crucifixions? It’s just your opinion against that of ISIS. Freedom of speech? That’s just your opinion against that of a dictator. Gay bashing is bad? Again, just your opinion.

The same holds true with any supposed right, including the right to same-sex marriage. While you can get five judges to assert it is a right, without God, it is just an opinion (thus the Court’s judgment is aptly named).

But couldn’t God approve of same-sex marriage?

The major religious books state just the opposite. So does the Natural Law derived from God’s nature. Thomas Jefferson called this “Nature’s Law,” from which we get “self-evident truths,” including the truth that people “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Same-sex marriage is not one of those self-evident truths. In fact, Jefferson and other politically incorrect Founding Founders called homosexual acts “crimes against nature” because such acts go against the natural design of the body and frustrate the goal of perpetuating humanity. This observation is not based on bigotry but on biology. (It’s ironic that our Founding Fathers were more apt to follow science than today’s secular left who ignore science when they insist that biological gender is changeable and sexual behavior is not. The exact opposite is true!)

The issue of slavery does not invalidate Jefferson’s judgment. Jefferson understood that slavery was wrong and admitted so, even if he succumbed to the temptation to keep his slaves throughout his life (it was Darwin who believed in the “favored races”). Simple observation tells us that every race of human is fully human. And nature tells us that mixed-race marriages lead to healthy offspring. Indeed, experience has shown that bigger gene pools are healthier than smaller ones. The natural law that points away from homosexual relationships also points away from racism.

Since real rights can only come from God, if you want to insist same-sex marriage is a right then you must assume that God is for same-sex marriage. But then you must also assume the implausible notion that God wants you to harm your own health and that of the human race by contributing to its extinction. How’s that for love? Don’t be fruitful. Don’t multiply. Don’t survive. Same-sex marriage is not only on the wrong side of God and nature; it’s on the wrong side of humanity.

So if not from governments, evolution or God, where does the “right” to same-sex marriage come from? Our imaginations. Perhaps well-intended imaginations, but imaginations nonetheless.

 

Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and frequent college speaker who hosts a weekly TV show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations around the nation.  His books include I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist and Stealing from God:  Why atheists need God to make their case.

/by

The Wisdom Chronicle

The Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon

  1. BIBLE WISDOM: POLITICS? “A wise man’s heart inclines him to the right, but a fool’s heart to the left.” (ECCL 10:2)
  2. TAKE A CHANCE “If you want the fruit, you have to go out on a limb.”

–Joey Reiman

  1. SLOW DOWN “Woody Allen once said he took a speed-reading course and read War and Peace in twenty minutes. “It involves Russia,” he quipped. Too many of us read, write, and have relationships at that speed. And at breakneck speed, one is bound to have an accident.”

Excerpt From: Reiman, Joey. “Thinking for a Living.”

  1. COINCIDENCE? For CHRISTIANS, coincidence is just God’s way of staying anonymous. [See Romans 8:38] — Unknown
  2. CITY VS. NATURE “Does it make sense as well that when we surround ourselves with less of God’s creation (clean air, trees, grass, lakes and rivers, and creatures) we remove an aspect of God’s presence from our lives?

I’ve come to believe that this is one of the prime reasons we have such chaos in cities, crime is more prevalent, there is less peace, and liberal thinking is dominant.

If we strip away the things of nature that by design communicate a sense of order, tranquility, and transcendence, then society will gravitate toward the antithesis of those things—disorder, stress, and focus on self, which breeds selfishness. Without a God to embrace, we create our own gods to fill that vacuum in our souls for which we’ve been hardwired.”

Excerpt From: Battaglia, Joe. “The Politically Incorrect Jesus.”

  1. WORDS “The Lord’s Prayer contains 56 words; the Gettysburg Address, 266; the Ten Commandments, 297; the Declaration of Independence, 300; and a recent U.S. government order setting the price of cabbage, 26,911.

At the state level, over 250,000 bills are introduced each year. And 25,000 pass the legislatures to disappear into the labyrinths of the law.”

Excerpt From: Al Ries & Jack Trout. “Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind.”

  1. CANT TAKE IT “Man is born with his hands clenched; he dies with them wide open. Entering life, he desires to grasp everything; leaving the world, all he possessed has slipped away.”

–Jewish Talmud

  1. LAST HOPE “Richard Wurmbrand (1909–2001), a Romanian evangelical Christian minister and author who spent a total of fourteen years imprisoned in Romania for his faith, founded the Voice of the Martyrs, an interdenominational organization working with and for persecuted Christians around the world. In 1967, he shared his view of America: “Every freedom-loving man has two fatherlands; his own and America. Today, America is the hope of every enslaved man, because it is the last bastion of freedom in the world. Only America has the power and spiritual resources to stand as a barrier between militant communism and the people of the world. It is the last dike holding back the rampaging floodwaters of militant communism. If it crumples, there is no other dike, no other dam; no other line of defense to fall back upon.

America is the last hope of millions of enslaved peoples. They look to it as their second fatherland. In it lie their hopes and prayers. I have seen fellow-prisoners in communist prisons beaten, tortured, with fifty pounds of chains on their legs—praying for America . . . that the dike will not crumple; that it will remain free.”

Excerpt From: Lee, Richard. “In God We Still Trust: A 365-Day Devotional.”

  1. SUCCESS “If you are greatly gifted, you may be able to do marvelous things that would cause the public to be swept up in your skills and in your abilities. In the process of your growing, you will find great temptation to make a name for yourself, to make a big splash, to gain attention, to get the glory, to strut around, to increase your fees, to demand your rights, and to expect kid-glove treatment. People are talking about you!

Let me remind you that if you’re in life only for yourself, you’ll have no endurance. On that precarious top of the ladder, you’ll always have to maintain your balance by maneuvering and manipulating, lying, deceiving, and scheming.

But if you’re committed to kingdom-related excellence, when you go through times of testing, you can count on kingdom endurance to get you through.”

Excerpt From: Charles R. Swindoll. “Dear Graduate.”

  1. DISCIPLINE “General Norm Schwarzkopf (of Operation Desert Storm fame) once said: “Shined shoes save lives.”

Norm went on to explain that in the heat of battle, the fog of war, under pressure, the undisciplined die. So it is in business.”

Excerpt From: Brunson, Russell. “DotCom Secrets.”

 

/by