Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Freedom of Religion vs. Freedom of Worship

Recently President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and others have been regularly referring to "Freedom of Worship" rather than what the Constitution really says, "Freedom of Religion."

This is a very important distinction and there is significant concern that the shift is deliberate.
Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It’s about the right to dress according to one’s religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don’t go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves—yet “freedom of worship” would protect none of these acts of faith.

Those who would limit religious practice to the cathedral and the home are the very same people who would strip the public square of any religious presence. They are working to tear down roadside memorial crosses built to commemorate fallen state troopers in Utah, to strip “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, and they recently stopped a protester from entering an art gallery because she wore a pro-life pin.

The effort to squash religion into the private sphere is on the rise around the world. And it’s not just confined to totalitarian regimes like Saudi Arabia. In France, students at public schools cannot wear headscarves, yarmulkes, or large crucifixes. The European Court of Human Rights has banned crucifixes from the walls of Italian schools. In Indonesia, the Constitutional Court is reviewing a law that criminalizes speech considered “blasphemous” to other faiths. Efforts to trim religion into something that fits neatly in one’s pocket is the work of dictators, not democratic leaders. So why then have our leaders taken a rhetorical scalpel to the concept of religious freedom?
Good question. If you read only one article this week, please read this entire article onFirstThings.

Friday, February 19, 2010

Being "drunk in the Spirit"

I just came across a great article on "Being drunk in the Spirit" by John Green:



Recently, I watched a videotape containing footage from churches participating in the "Toronto Blessing". I was sickened and disturbed by the occultic and animal-like manifestations which I witnessed. I would like to examine a behavior which I witnessed over and over on this video, in videos from the Brownsville Assembly of God and which I have also seen from time to time in Spirit-filled services in which I have participated. This behavior is commonly labeled 'being drunk in the Spirit'. Those in this state exhibit certain signs; staggering, falling down, slurred speech, impaired mental functioning, and bizarre behavior. People leaving 'renewal' meetings have been reportedly pulled over by police for drunk driving.(1)

Pastor Randy Clark shares that it was hard for him to enter into this experience because of his non-drinking background, and then says "…but my worship leader's a recovering alcoholic. Man, he can get right in there."(2) So being a recovering alcoholic enables you to enter more deeply into the power of the Holy Spirit? Hmmm…. Let us begin our examination by looking for examples of Scriptural precedent.

Acts chapter 2, of course, is the logical starting place. After all, the Spirit-empowered believers there were accused of being drunk. Read chapter 2, and then let us consider these points:

* No drunken behavior mentioned--only the works of God being praised in the varied languages of the crowd.

* Only a small minority--the mockers--accused them of being drunk. It was not a legitimate charge, and Peter flatly denies it

* The prediction of Joel contains no reference to drunken behavior

* Peter, under the power of the Spirit is not at a loss for words. He preaches a clear and powerful call to repentance

* The crowd was orderly enough that thousands could hear Peter without the benefit of a PA system.

Our next stop is Ephesians 5:18, which tells us not to be drunk with wine, which leads to ruin, but to be filled with the Spirit. Again, let us observe:

* This is not comparing the effects of an alcoholic stupor with being drunk in the Spirit. It is a contrast of opposites! Drunkenness removes self-control. The Holy Spirit produces the fruit of self-control (Galatians 5:23)

* Verse 19 lists the results of being filled with the Spirit; praising lips, a praising heart, and a thankful attitude.

What an insult to a Holy God, to attribute drunken behavior to His Holy Spirit! While the Bible never refers to being 'drunk in the Spirit', it contains numerous condemnations of drunkenness, and it does refer to spiritual drunkenness as a judgment from God.
You can read the rest of John Greens's excellent article here.



Unfortunately, the stupidity doesn't end here. There are now people (who claim to be Christians) who promote "huffing" the Bible" (sniffing the Bible like someone would sniff cocaine) and having spiritual sex with Jesus!

It is difficult to determine whether these people are on drugs, starting some new cult, or are just secretly trying to demonstrate how unbelievably gullible and incredibly stupid some Christians (i.e. the ones who believe such nonsense) can be.

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Not enough faith to be an atheist

Some fascinating facts:
"The expansion rate of the Big Bang had to be accurate to within one part in [10 followed by 55 zeros--The actual quotes use scientific notation but as far as I know, that's not possible in blogger]. Any slower and the universe would have collapsed. Any faster and there would be no stars or planetary systems. In either case, life would not be possible."

"The force of gravity had to be accurate to within on part in [10 followed by 40 zeros]. Otherwise, stars could not form, and life would be impossible."

"The mass density of the universe had to be accurate to within on part in [10 followed by 60 zeros]. Otherwise, life-sustaining stars could not have formed."

This comes from The Making of an Atheist by philosopher James S. Spiegel (pg 46), quoting from former atheist philosopher Antony Flew. And all of this was just for conditions for the development of life to be theoretically possible! (Antony Flew was influenced by MIT scientist Gerald Schroeder). The actual appearance of life is much more problematic:

"...two scientists, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, calculated the odds of life emerging from non-living matter to be on in [10 followed by 40,000 zeros]." To put this enormous figure in perspectice, consider that the number of atoms in the known universe is [10 followed by 80 zeros]--a paltry sum by comparison. Moreover, consider the fact that statisticians, as a general rule, consider any 'possibility' less than on in [10 followed by 50 zeros] to be impossible" (Spiegel, 48).I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

Monday, February 1, 2010

The Case for Israel

What you've heard about Israel and what you think you know about Israel may be all wrong.

I just finished reading an outstanding book that asks and answers 32 questions about Israel. For example:

Did European Jews replace Palestinians?

(Short answer: The Palestine to which the European Jews...immigrated was vastly underpopulated, and the land unto which the Jews moved was, in fact, bought primarily from absentee landlords and real estate speculators").

Have the Jews always rejected the two-sate solution?

(Short answer: "As soon as partition into two states or homelands was proposed, the Jews accepted it and the Arabs rejected it").

Have the Jews exploited the Holocaust "at he expense of the Palestinians who bear no responsibility for Hitler's genocide against the Jews?

(Short answer: "The Palestinian leadership with the acquiescence of most of the Palestinian Arabs actively supported and assisted the Holocaust and Nazi Germany...").

Were Jews a minority in what became Israel?

(Short answer: "The Jews were a substantial majority in those areas of Palestine partitioned by the United Nations for a Jewish state").

Has Israel's victimization of the Palestinians been the primary cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict?

(Short Answer: Arab rejection of Israel's right to exist has long been the cause of the problem").

Did Israel create the Arab refugee problem?

(Short answer: "The problem was created by a war initiated by the Arabs").

Has Israel made serious efforts at peace?

(Short answer: "Israel has offered the Palestinians every reasonable opportunity to make peace but the Palestinians have rejected every such offer...").

Was Arafat Right in turning down the Barak-Clinton peace proposal?

(Not only have Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush placed all the blame on Arafat but so have many of Arafat's closest advisers").

Is Israel a racist state?

(Short answer: Every other state in the area...has an officially established religion, Islam, and discriminates both in law and in fact against non-Muslims, especially Jews. Israel, in contrast, is a secular state that is religioiusly and racially pluralistic with freedom of religion for all").

Is the settlement in the West Bank and Gaza a major barrier to peace?

(Short answer: The Arabs and Palestinians refused to make peace before there was a single settlement, and the Palestinians refused to make peace when Ehud Barack offered to end the settlements").

Is there a moral equivalence between Palestinian terrorists and Israeli responses?

(Short answer: "Ever reasonable school of philosophy, theology, jurisprudence, and common sense distinguishes between deliberately targeting civilians and inadvertently killing civilians while targeting terrorists who hide among them").

These are just a few of the questions asked and answered in the book. In each case the short answer is followed by extended documented proof--not from Israeli apologists, but from neutral sources and often from sources ordinarily antagonistic to Israel.

Among other things, the book demonstrates the remarkable inconsistency and hypocrisy of those who continually attack Israel (the author is not hesitant to criticize Israel for its mistakes) while turning a blind eye to so many other nations which have been far, far worse than Israel.

The book is entitled, The Case for Israel by lawyer Alan Dershowitz. It is outstanding and should be at the top of everyone's reading list.