The entire post is at What’s Up With That. It is semi-technical, but the last few paragraphs explain it well. And you never really ask “what a ‘cultural’ fact” dished out to you is based on. In this case, 14-fish!
…A couple of points stand out here. First, their 22 kg cutoff seems way too low. According to their own data, there is little difference between mercury levels in tuna up to about 40 kg. This means that there will be errors in the adjusted mercury for fish less than 40 kg or so. Second, most of the blue 2008 data is low-weight fish (blue dots) … and as a result, the adjusted mercury levels of the 2008 data will be overestimated. Finally, this preponderance of light weight fish in 2008 is also the reason that the mercury adjustment, rather than reducing the spread of the 2008 data, actually increased the spread of the data.
So to summarize. The 1971 mercury data is statistically indistinguishable from the 1998 data, and the fish have about the same weight distribution. Together, these two groups comprise 94% of the data. They show no change in mercury levels over that twenty-seven year period.
They’ve built their entire claim of an increase in mercury on a mere 14 fish, 6% of the data, which are significantly lighter in weight than the other 94% of the sample. And as Figure 5 shows, it is likely that their adjusted mercury content is overestimated. Fourteen small-fry fish are all they have to hold up their claims? Really? This is almost to the level of the One Yamal Tree farrago.
And in any case, the idea that there would be absolutely no increase in mercury levels for nearly thirty years and then the mercury would jump significantly over the next ten years doesn’t pass the laugh test.
One of the main topics is the 97% consensus of scientists who agree man is the main prognosticator of global warming. Below are some links to many articles refuting this unscientific [if it were true] consensus:
No matter what you think of the following long and short lists… the bottom line is this, WAY more than 75-Climatologists think that man is either not the main contributor to global warming at all, or that global warming is not a catastrophe waiting to happen:
He mentioned most of the experts KNOW how CO2 affects climate. He says he does not and doesn’t think they do either. This has nothing to do with the supposed “consensus” of experts — 97% — who “say” it is driven by mankind. This is known as anthropogenic global warming, of AGW. The myth of the 97% started with ONLY 75-out-of-77 climatologists saying they believe man is the primary cause.
Yes, you heard me correctly, seventy-five.
Another study has undergrads and non-specialists (bloggers) search through many articles in peer reviewed journals, and noting that a large majority supported the AGW position. The problem was that they were not specialized in the field of science… AND… they only read the abstracts, not the peer reviewed paper itself. Many of the scientists behind the papers “said” to support AGW rejected that idea. So the specialists THEMSELVES said their papers cannot be read to support the AGW position.
Another study (pictured in the graph above) tries to save an earlier one with tainted information based on abstracts — a very UNSCIENTIFIC way to get to consensus (that is, relying on abstracts). Not only was this study based on abstracts, again, non specialists categorized them. Yet another study was merely based on search parameters/results. Here is more info (mainly links) for the not-faint-of-heart.
In reality, nearly half of specialists in the fields related reject man causing climates change.
And a good portion of those that do reject the claim that it is detrimental to our planet.
Only 13% saw relatively little danger (ratings of 1 to 3 on a 10-point scale); the rest were about evenly split between the 44% who see moderate to high danger (ratings of 4 to 7) and 41% who see very high or grave danger (ratings of 8 to 10). (Forbes)
Here is a list of scientists with varying views on the cause of “Climate Change,” and here is a list of 31,000 who stand against man as the primary cause.
(Click Graph To See Previously Hidden Data)
We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts. Essentially it was pal-review by an activist group with a strong bias towards a particular outcome as demonstrated by the name “the consensus project”.
Look at the views in column 1, then look at the % in the rightmost column: 52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic. One common categorization would categorize the other 48% as ‘deniers’.
So, the inconvenient truth here is that about half of the world’s largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals don’t think humans are “mostly” the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming the rest will probably get smeared as “deniers”
I wish to note, that, the truth was not a 97% consensus, but that about half disagreed with man causing it. Which is about the same percentage Dr. Happer says on CNBC:
Even the “Father of Climatology” (so all the programs in universities are because of him) says it’sB.S.
…There’s another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you’re an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 — maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn — you’re not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.
Yet another figure of importance that doesn’t get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find — in other words, you are severely underemployed — the government doesn’t count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.
There’s no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie…
TAIPEI, Taiwan — A Taiwanese commercial flight with 53 passengers aboard clipped a bridge shortly after takeoff and crashed into a river in the island’s capital of Taipei on Wednesday morning.
Taiwan’s Central News Agency said at least 10 people were being taking to safety after the incident but gave no immediate information about the other passengers and crew aboard the TransAsia Airways flight.
Taiwanese media posted pictures of the plane in the water several dozen meters (yards) from the shore in the Keelung River.
CNA said the flight from Taipei to the outlying island of Kinmen lost contact with flight controllers at 10:55 a.m. and the fuselage landed in the Keelung River near the city’s downtown Sungshan airport.
The plane was identified as a French-made twin-engine turboprop ATR 72 with a two-pilot air crew.
The plane’s fuselage was seen half-submerged in the shallow river, with passengers and rescuers standing on the hull and swimming in the water.
In a recent interview by Dinesh D’Souza (President of Kings College at the time, as well as being a favorite author of mine) of physicist Stephen Barr (Professor of Particle Physics at the Bartol Research Institute and the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Delaware). What was otherwise a good interview and overview of philosophical naturalism’s metaphysical positions in contradistinction to true science and religion’s metaphysical outlook, took a historical turn for the worse when Augustine was used as defense in the “old-earth/young-earth” debate.
In this next portion you will hear the portion of the interview I wish to weigh in on. We pick up the conversation as it happens coming in from the break:
The problem with Dr. Barr’s summation is that he has failed to take into account that people’s views on matters change over time. (This wasn’t intentional… we are finite beings and cannot know all things to bring to bare in conversation.) For instance, R.C. Sproul (evangelical scholar, professor, and President of Ligonier Ministries) mentioned that through most of his teaching career he accepted the old-age position. However, late in his career he changed his position to that of the young earth creationists.
For most of my teaching career, I considered the framework hypothesis to be a possibility. But I have now changed my mind. I now hold to a literal six-day creation, the fourth alternative and the traditional one. Genesis says that God created the universe and everything in it in six twenty-four–hour periods. According to the Reformation hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1–2. The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days. [emphasis in original, indicating these words are part of the Confession] (pp. 127–128).[1]
ST. AUGUSTINE (PART 1)
Similarly, Augustine, early in his life, was very allegorical[2] in his attempt to interpret and define Scripture and events in it. Later however, he changed his position in much the same way Dr. Sproul did. Therefore, to quote Sproul or Augustine as old-earth creationists supporting the views of professor Barr would not do the position justice.
As his theology matured, Augustine abandoned his earlier allegorizations of Genesis that old-earth creationists and theistic evolutionists have latched onto in an attempt to justify adding deep time to the Bible. Furthermore, he always believed in a young earth (painting by Sandro Botticelli, c. 1480)
An example of Augustine’s allegorical uses comes from the journal Church History by way of Mervin Monroe Deems (Ph.D., past Samuel Harris Lecturer on Literature and Life at Bangor Theological Seminary, Maine) in which he points out Augustine’s use of allegory in interpreting “paradise” in Genesis:
But let us get back to the Paradise of Genesis. As Augustine put it, “. .. some allegorize all that concerns Paradise itself”: the four rivers are the four virtues; the trees, all knowledge, and so on. But to Augustine these things are better connected with Christ and his Church. Thus, Paradise is the Church; the four rivers, the four gospels; the fruit-trees, the saints; the tree of life, Christ; and the tree of knowledge, one’s free choice. And he closes the paragraph thus:
These and similar allegorical interpretations may be suitably put upon Paradise without giving offense to anyone, while yet we believe the strict truth of the history, confirmed by its circumstantial narrative of facts.[3]
To put this closing remark in slightly updated English, it reads as follows:
No one should object to such reflections and others even more appropriate that might be made concerning the allegorical interpretation of the Garden of Eden, so long as we believe in the historical truth manifest in the faithful narrative of these events.[4]
To be clear, Augustine was still holding to the literal meaning in the Genesis narrative even during his use of allegory in rendering extra meaning to the idea of paradise in Genesis. Again, professor Deems:
Augustine’s approach to the scriptures was gradual. At the time that he came across the Hortensius he turned to the Scriptures, only to turn away again, for in his estimation they could not compare with the writings of Cicero. Later at Milan following the advice of Ambrose he started to read Isaiah but found this too difficult and turned to the Psalms. The period of retirement and the months immediately following, which produced the philosophic treatises, were devoted to the classics rather than to the Bible. But increasingly Augustine studied and meditated upon the Scriptures, with the result that his writings are filled with Scriptural quotation and references…. The use of allegory by Augustine was not only a means of making Scripture say something, it was also a technique for bringing Scripture down to date, by forcing ancient words to minister, through prophecy, to the weaving of present patterns of behavior or through the summoning to higher ideals. But it was also dangerous for it came close to making Scripture say what he wanted it to say (through multiplicity of allegories of identical Scripture), and it prepared the way for Catholic or Protestant, later, to find in Scripture what he would.[5]
And this is key, as Professor Benno Zuiddam (Benno Zuiddam is research professor [extraordinary associate] for New Testament Studies, Greek and Church History at the faculty of Divinity at North West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa) points out,
As Augustine became older, he gave greater emphasis to the underlying historicity and necessity of a literal interpretation of Scripture. His most important work is De Genesi ad litteram. The title says it: On the Necessity of Taking Genesis Literally. In this later work of his, Augustine says farewell to his earlier allegorical and typological exegesis of parts of Genesis and calls his readers back to the Bible. He even rejected allegory when he deals with the historicity and geographic locality of Paradise on earth.[6]
The professor points out as well that from Augustine’s City of God, we can begin to see this literalism in the evolution of his responses to pagans. Dr. Zuiddam asks:
3) Isn’t it obvious from his City of God (De Civitate Dei) that Augustine believed that God created Man 6000 years ago?
Not quite, but a young earth definitely. Augustine wrote in De Civitate Dei that his view of the chronology of the world and the Bible led him to believe that Creation took place around 5600 BC [Ed. note: he used the somewhat inflated Septuagint chronology—see Biblical chronogenealogies for more information.]. One of the chapters in his City of God bears the title “On the mistaken view of history that ascribes many thousands of years to the age of the earth.” Would you like it clearer? Several pagan philosophers at the time believed that the earth was more or less eternal. Countless ages had preceded us, with many more to come. Augustine said they were wrong. This goes to show that theistic evolutionists who call in Augustine’s support do so totally out of context. All they allow themselves to see is his symbolic use of “day” in Genesis, and a very difficult philosophical doctrine of creation with ideas that develop. “Wonderful!” they think, “Augustine really supports our post-Darwinian theories!” It takes a superficial view of Genesis and Augustine to arrive at such conclusions. His instant creation, his young earth and immediate formation of Adam and Eve rule out Augustine’s application for this purpose.[7]
An example of this can be seen here with Augustine himself saying:
“They are also still being led astray by some false writings according to their claim to the history of the times many thousands of years to take, as we do from the Bible to calculate that since the creation of man, not quite six thousand years have expired ” (XII, 11).[8]
Non-literalist Professor James Barr (Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England) in a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984 wrote this:
Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.[9]
As one can see from here and following the links to the larger articles, Dr. Stephen Barr may want to revise his position on some of the church fathers and their views in regards to the age of the earth and hence creation. A good resource for reading their thoughts on the matter — the early church fathers that is — can be FOUND HERE.
[1] Tas Walker, “Famous evangelical apologist changes his mind: RC Sproul says he is now a six-day, young-earth creationist,” Creation Ministries International, published May 21st, 2008, found at URL:
Allegory is primarily a method of reading a text by assuming that its literal sense conceals a hidden meaning, to be deciphered by using a particular hermeneutical key. In a secondary sense, the word “allegory” is also used to refer to a type of literature that is expressly intended to be read in this nonliteral way. John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress is a well-known example of allegorical literature, but it is doubtful whether any part of the Bible can be regarded as such. The parables of Jesus come closest, but they are not allegories in the true sense. The apostle Paul actually used the word allegoria, but arguably this was to describe what would nowadays be called “typology” (Gal. 4:24). The difference between typology and allegory is that the former attaches additional meaning to a text that is accepted as having a valid meaning in the “literal” sense, whereas the latter ignores the literal sense and may deny its usefulness altogether. Paul never questioned the historical accuracy of the Genesis accounts of Hagar and Sarah, even though he regarded them as having an additional, spiritual meaning as well. Other interpreters, however, were often embarrassed by anthropomorphic accounts of God in the Bible, and sought to explain away such language by saying that it is purely symbolic, with no literal meaning at all. It is in this latter sense that the word “allegory” is generally used today.
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Gen Ed., Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005), cf. Allegory, 34-35.
[4] Saint Augustine, City of God (New York, NY: Image Books, 1958), 288; or, Book XIII, 21 (emphasis added).
[5] Mervin Monroe Deems, “Augustine’s Use of Scripture,” Church History Vol. 14, No. 3 (Sep., 1945), 188-189 (emphasis added).
[6] Benno Zuiddam, “Augustine: young earth creationist — [How] theistic evolutionists take Church Father out of context,” Creation Ministries International, published October 8th, 2009, found at URL (emphasis added):
May I remind those who may not understand this critique that it [the critique] has nothing to do with said physicists faith. This is merely a challenge to his understanding of a historical figure and where he [Stephen Barr] separates his understanding of Augustine and what Augustine believed. We know Augustine, from his later writings specifically, rejected the spiritualistic aspect he once placed on the Genesis account and accepted the plain understanding as paramount. This critique neither places young-earth creationism as a litmus test for faith or some standard one must reach to be “holier” than thee. One may wish to read myfootnote #18to understand my position on this.
THREE OLD EARTH CHURCH FATHERS
This is an update to respond not in the intended spirit of unity in the Body of Christ – but in response to the misinformation that CONTINUES to permeate this debate. The article posted in an Apologetics group on Facebook was this one:
The short answer is “yes,” when good church history is shared within the debate. When bad points of history are inserted into the debate, a pause and reflection and secondary debate needs to be undertaken. (you can enlarge the picture below by clicking it. It is just to show I have the books some of the following quotes are coming from.)
ST. AUGUSTINE (Part 2)
ANSWERS IN GENESIS notes the following, “[Augustine] believed that God created everything in an instant and that He described it for us as being completed in six normal days for the sake of our understanding.” They continue with the quote:
Perhaps we ought not to think of these creatures at the moment they were produced as subject to the processes of nature which we now observe in them, but rather as under the wonderful and unutterable power of the Wisdom of God, which reaches from end to end mightily and governs all graciously. For this power of Divine Wisdom does not reach by stages or arrive by steps. It was just as easy, then, for God to create everything as it is for Wisdom to exercise this mighty power. For through Wisdom all things were made, and the motion we now see in creatures, measured by the lapse of time, as each one fulfills its proper function, comes to creatures from those causal reasons implanted in them, which God scattered as seeds at the moment of creation when He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation.
Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Vol 1, translated by John Hammond Taylor (New York, N.Y.: Paulist Press, 1982), 141-142.
Continuing, AIG notes:
“Augustine believed the genealogies given in Genesis to be literal chronologies and that the pre-Flood patriarchs lived to be around 900 years” — The City of God, Book 15, Chapters 11–12 (read here)
He also stated, “Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man” — Augustine, The City of God, translated by G. G. Walsh and G. Monahan (1952), Book 12, Chapter 11, p. 263. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press.
One summary of Augustine’s work the writer comments: “Interestingly, Augustine supports a young earth or at least a young humanity view, believing man was created 5000 years previously” (Whole Reason – scroll down to 4 Books 11-14: The Origins of the City of God)
One must remember that Augustine believed, wrongly, that all six days of creation happened on one day. But he did not ascribe long ages before or after that, that we know. Don Batten adds to this thought: “Even Augustine cannot remotely be used in support of old-earth beliefs. Even though he allegorized the Days of Creation (and lots of other passages—he was no Hebrew scholar), he tried to compress the days into an instant, which is diametrically opposite to what long-agers claim!”
In another critique of James Mook’s chapter in the young earth creationist book, Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth, Dr. John Millam admits the following:
By my own research, none of the fathers taught an old earth.
And Dr William Dembski opines as well:
Let me concede that young earth creationism was largely the position of the church from the Church Fathers through the Reformers
(Via Moonbattery) Cover your ears. It turns out that instrumentation, harmony, melody, and even listenability are all aspects of the misogynistic patriarchy applied to music. But womyn are free of that now. Introducing feminist music:
THE saint of last resort is amoral and does not judge.
More than any other reason for Santa Muerte’s enthusiastic support among those in need, her unwillingness to stand in judgment stands out.
“Since she’s not an official Christian saint, you can ask her for things that maybe you wouldn’t otherwise ask a canonised saint for,” Professor Chesnut, author of Devoted to Death: Santa Muerte, the Skeleton Saint, told NBC last year.
“She’s got a reputation as a very prompt miracle worker. That, I would say, is the number one reason for her mushrooming cult.
(See more in the linked story below as well as here.)
Someone I know got a tattoo recently and I couldn’t join the chorus of praises bestowed on him.
In fact, I posted the following under his pictures of the tattoo:
All you have to do in Google images is type in “gruesome killing by drug cartel,” and you will vividly see what worshiping death gets you… but here in America, we commercialize it and support it via “pop-culture.” Sorry I couldn’t *pat* you on the back Chris, but many along the border of Mexico would shake their head at this type of stuff. Shake their head that American’s safe in their suburban areas do not at-the-least reject images that are used in a cult of death that affect soo many lives in Mexico.
But your real concerns are your hatred of Ronald Reagan, as you have made clear multiple times on my FB. You have emphasized the important fight against evil… not symbols used to behead women and children… you know… Republicans.
One story I followed was a brave young woman who stood up to evil she knew she could not succeed against, but took the job anyway!
Erika Gandara was a former radio dispatcher for the police department in the town of 9,000, which is just across the U.S. border, one mile from Fabens, Texas. The previous police chief was murdered and decapitated; his head was found in an ice chest. Gandara, 28, a single woman with no children, was the only applicant for the job and its salary of $580 per month.
One policeman was murdered during Gandara’s first week on the job. By the time she became chief, the entire force of eight patrolmen had either been killed or fled. She was the sole law enforcement representative in a Juarez valley town that was part of the war between competing drug cartels for access routes into the U.S.
Relatives feared for her safety and urged Gandara to keep a low profile. But she refused, posing with her rifle for newspaper interviews. Then, at 6 a.m. on December 23, 10 gunmen pulled up to her residence, dragged her out of the house and set the home on fire. She has not been seen or heard from since….
Wo to them that call evil good. Though some limit this statement to judges, yet if it be carefully examined, we shall easily learn from the whole context that it is general; for, having a little before reproved those who cannot listen to any warnings, he now proceeds with the same reproof. It is evident that men of this sort have always some excuse to plead, and some way of imposing on themselves; and, therefore, there is no end to their reproachful language, when their crimes are brought to light. But here he particularly reproves the insolence of those who endeavour to overthrow all distinction between good and evil.
The preposition ל (lamed), prefixed to the words good and evil, is equivalent to Of; and therefore the meaning is, They who say OF evil, It is good, and OF good, It is evil; that is, they who by vain hypocrisy conceal, excuse, and disguise wicked actions, as if they would change the nature of everything by their sophistical arguments, but who, on the contrary deface good actions by their calumnies. These things are almost always joined together, for every one in whom the fear of God dwells is restrained both by conscience and by modesty from venturing to apologize for his sins, or to condemn what is good and right; but they who have not this fear do not hesitate with the same impudence to commend what is bad and to condemn what is good; which is a proof of desperate wickedness.
This statement may be applied to various cases; for if a wo is here pronounced even on private individuals, when they say of evil that it is good, and of good that it is evil, how much more on those who have been raised to any elevated rank, and discharge a public office, whose duty it is to defend what is right and honourable! But he addresses a general reproof to all who flatter themselves in what is evil, and who, through the hatred which they bear to virtue, condemn what is done aright; and not only so, but who, by the subterfuges which they employ for the sake of concealing their own enormities, harden themselves in wickedness. Such persons, the Prophet tells us, act as if they would change light into darkness, and sweet into bitter; by which he means that their folly is monstrous, for it would tend to confound and destroy all the principles of nature.
John Calvin and William Pringle, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 186–187.
There is a correction to a misapplied quote at around the 23:00 mark [and after]. I attributed two-separate quotes to a single person. Here is the corrected attribution:
“Everyone’s still reeling from the decision,” Marylou Sudders, executive director of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (MSPCC), said yesterday.
“Ultimately, the only losers are the kids,” said Maureen Flatley, a Boston adoption consultant and lobbyist.
Take note as well that I designated the geographical home of the Danbury Baptist’s as the state of Virginia. In fact, they hailed from Connecticut. [Around the 25:40 mark].
In this talk back-and-forth about some recent Christian based movies [like “Persecuted” and “God’s Not Dead“] frank discussion about some real world examples of attacks on the faith are exemplified.
While “persecution” is more intense in other parts of the world, the beginnings of the battle for a few decades now here in America are an important front to the battle to keep secular thinking at bay. Secularism looks to subvert and replace the Judeo-Christian ethos as the predominate religion/worldview, and has succeeded in many places to do so.
Why is this Battle important? Especially in America? One reason is the influence and impact we have and have had on the world in respects to creating a maximum amount of freedom in the history of the world, as well as protecting those freedoms. For instance, Dr. Grudem points out the following:
Although there were some forms of democratic government in local areas in ancient and medieval history (such as ancient Athens), when the United States began as a representative democracy in 1776, it could be called the “American experiment,” because there were at that time no other functioning national democracies in the world. But after the founding of the United States, and especially in the twentieth century, the number of functioning national democracies grew remarkably. The World Forum on Democracy reports that in 1950 there were 22 democracies accounting for 31% of the world population and a further 21 states with restricted democratic practices, accounting for 11.9% of the globe’s population. Since the turn of the century, electoral democracies now represent 120 of the 192 existing countries and constitute 58.2% of the world’s population.
Therefore, when people today complain to me that they don’t want to get involved in politics because they think that politicians are too corrupt (or arrogant, greedy, power-hungry, and other forms of being “unspiritual”), I want to remind them that although democracy is messy, it still works quite well, and all the alternative forms of government are far worse. We should be thankful for those who are willing to be involved in it, often at great personal sacrifice.
It was a story that captured national attention last week: a Colorado baker claimed that a civil rights complaint was filed against her after she refused to make a cake that included the words “God hates gays.” But now the Christian activist who she accused of making that request is speaking out, claiming that he never asked for that specific message to be written on the cake.
Bill Jack, founder of Worldview Academy, a Christian organization, told the Christian Post that the words “God hates gays” were never part of his request of Azucar Bakery in Denver, Colorado, and that he, instead, had asked for two Bible-shaped cakes that included references to Psalm 45:7 and Leviticus 18:22, among other Bible verses.
It is true, however, that the cakes were to include an image representing his opposition to gay marriage as well as a statement that “Homosexuality is a detestable sin.”
“I requested two cakes each in the shape of an open Bible. On the first cake I requested on one page, ‘God hates sin – Psalm 45:7,’ and on the facing page, ‘Homosexuality is a detestable sin – Leviticus 18:22′,” Jack told the Christian Post. “On the second cake I requested on one page, ‘God loves sinners,’ and on the facing page, ‘While we were yet sinners Christ died for us – Romans 5:8.’”
For the record, I support gay bakers/photographers refusing to participate in celebrations that are against their personal position/conscious on gay-relationships… JUST AS I AM for Christian bakers/photographers who wish not to provide services for specific celebrations that are against their conscious or religious beliefs.
I don’t know anything about this guy who did this… he is the head of a Christian organization of some sort. BUT, if he were doing this to make a point, he chose poorly if in fact the phrase discussed is the one he chose. God loves gay men and women. And He wishes they would turn from their sin to the embrace of their savior… JUST like the heterosexual.
HOWEVER, that being said, to make the point and show that government intrusion into the contractual freedoms in the 1st Amendment and the business owner and costumer relations, the stronger point that would have said this in a more loving way and probably still gone to court would be something like this:
▼ God Hates Sin: Homosexual Relations are Sin.
Or you could say you are getting the cake for a gay family member with this inscription on it:
▼ “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” ~ Leviticus 18:22
Be creative for God’s sake.
...UPDATE
It was brought to my attention that the media may be running with a story that has been embellished a bit. (Embellished by the media and their own “pro-LGBT” leanings, or by the owner/employees of the bakery. Either way, “Lucy! ~ you gotta some splainin’ to do”.) Some articles seem to portray the Azucar Bakery’s pastry chef, Lindsay Jones, and owner, Marjorie Silva, either not remembering fully the phrase wanted on the cake or offering different versions of the same event. For instance, Out Front notes:
“He wanted us to write God hates …” she trails. “Just really radical stuff against gays.” … “He wouldn’t allow me to make a copy of the message, but it was really hateful,” Marjorie adds. “I remember the words detestable, disgrace, homosexuality, and sinners.”
The man filed a discrimination complaint Colorado’s Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA). Silva received a letter from the agency and had to reply to it. This is her reply, in part:
I can … tell you that the customer wanted us to draw two males holding hands … with a big ‘X’ on them. I told him that we do not like to discriminate in this bakery, we accept all humans and that the message and drawing is extremely rude.
So the bakery owner may be changing her story to get more sympathy from the media who will be more-than-happy to oblige. OR, the media is making this up original phrase “God Hates Gays” up whole clothe.
~ Hat-Tip to Marco C.
The bottom line is this however, God wants everyone to turn from their sins, whether straight or gay. Sin, in fact, is not partial to any one’s tastes or proclivities. And I know dealing with my “natural man” has been a long and tough road, and will continue as such till I am standing before my savior — glorified by His finished work at Calvary and by no might of my own. Many gay persons who are religious and bow to the evidence of Jesus and Who He Is, change their lives drastically for their God. These battles create mature men and women of the faith, full of reliance on God and a growing wisdom of the grace afforded them (James 1:2-7).
“This is a free speech issue, and we support freedom of speech. It’s also a religious or conscience issue — the government should not force people to violate their core beliefs,” Johnston told the outlet. ”Just as a Christian baker should not be required to create a cake for a same-sex ceremony, this baker should not be required to create a cake with a message that goes against her conscience.”
[Note that “they” do not change their lives… they remove themselves from the equation as much as they can by allowing the Holy Spirit to indwell them and build up the “New Man” in them… this “removing oneself” from the equation is also by the might of the indwelling of this new miraculous nature that fights the old man. So by God alone are we changed.]
AGAIN, if this guy was making a point… he did so poorly and thus reduced his effectiveness to make a serious impact. Many on my side of the fence do not think well on these issues. I may even agree with their basic premise while simultaneously understanding that in their fallen nature they may not have expressed themselves as they had hoped — upon further reflection. (I can always improve in this area as well.) Nor those receiving the intended message [expressed well or not expressed well] may themselves be unregenerate in the life changing power of the Lambs blood, thus putting a worse spin or intention on what was said:
The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so (Romans 8:7)
This re-wording I noted above would have gotten more gay men and women I am acquaintances with on board… even if they disagree with the message.
The point of the above is that it shows the bankruptcy of decisions against bakers and photographers who for religious purposes choose not to bake for same-sex wedding celebrations or take photographs for such events. Special rights creates categories of people that are not protected equally under the law. You can see how these growing number of groups are butting heads. This thinking is anathema to these United States:
LIKE the lesbian shirt company owners that are FOR same-sex marriage but realize freedom is under attack when a Christian shirt maker refused to make shirts for a gay-pride event. These two women “get it,” as do the cohorts at Gay-Patriot.
We are all adults and know the Constitutional doesn’t protect people from “personal offense.” IN OTHER WORDS, the Constitution basically says “people will be offended.” Read it… that is, READ about the First Amendment (here and here).
