And so we shelve God and put him in the same category as Santa. We’ll believe in anything else, or nothing at all. As long as we maintain our cynicism and disbelief in the God of the Bible, the devil is pleased. I find it interesting and disturbing that the older people get, the less likely they are to receive Christ as savior and Lord. It’s as if sin grips our hearts tighter and tighter as time goes on, hardening our hearts and pushing us deeper into our skepticism, making it tougher and tougher to believe. This is why Jesus says,

Unless you are converted and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child—this one is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Matt 18:3-4 (HCSB)

My experiences in reading the Scriptures to my son has reminded me that our churches need to be very active and intentional in sharing the truths of Scriptures with children. We need to invest more resources and energy and attention to the ones that often receive the least amount of attention. More importantly, fathers and mothers of young children need to be mindful not to miss the incredible opportunity we have to tell our little ones about the Lord and the accounts of His works that have been laid down in the Bible. They won’t only enjoy these exciting tales chronicling God’s works in history, but they might even actually believe them.

Do you ever wonder what goes through the minds of, supposedly, grown people who are supposed to be leading kids in a positive direction, but act like delinquent middle schoolers themselves? Check out how this 46 year-old "coached" his students in Georgia:

"A public school coach in Marietta, Ga., drove students around the area in his pickup truck, instructing them to thrash Christmas displays after dark," [the Catholic] League said. During their Dec. 8 vandalism spree, 46-year-old John Hayes and several middle school students damaged a number of Christmas displays, let the air out of inflatable figures and rearranged plastic reindeer into X-rated sexual positions. According to the WGCL TV, Hayes has been charged with trespassing, contributing to the delinquency of minors and reckless conduct. [From Crosswalk]

Yeah, Merry Christmas to you, too, Coach.

Labels: Christmas, crime, David C. Price, vandalism

Strangely beautiful. I have a brother buried there, so there is something very special to me about this.

Labels: David C. Price

Free condoms should be given away in pubs, clubs and taxis to reduce the levels of unwanted pregnancies and sex infections, experts say.

Research by the University of Southampton found strong links between binge drinking and unsafe sex.

The poll of 520 people attending sexual health clinics found 76% said they had unprotected sex due to drinking.

And those with sex infections drank 40% more on average, the International Journal of STD and Aids reported.

Let's look at this again:

People are drinking too much so they're getting drunk. By getting drunk, they're having unprotected sex because they're too drunk to know the difference. Because they're having unprotected sex, they're having babies and contracting sexual diseases. Therefore, give them condoms and they won't have unprotected sex and, thereby, prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexual infections.

Hey, Genius...if they're too sloshed to know they're having sex, they're not going to be able to put on a condom...that is, unless the taxi drivers are going to volunteer for that, too. Sheesh!

Full article here.

Labels: David C. Price

From the BBC: Scientist Richard Dawkins, an atheist known worldwide for arguing against the existence of God, has described himself as a "cultural Christian".

He told the BBC's Have Your Say that he did not want to "purge" the UK of its Christian heritage.

I must admit that I was completely surprised by this admission that Dawkins considers himself a "cultural Christian," not because it makes him a Christian, but because he gives credence to the fact that Christian societies are most certainly better ones. We need to be clear on the former point, though: Do not read into this that Dawkins is really, in any way, calling himself a Christian. He simply supports the influence and expressions of it. In other words, he likes the results of Christianity, but thinks it's all still a figment of someone's imagination. So, if it works, great, but don't expect much more from it than that.

In the article, Dawkins explains that he does not want to put an end to Christian tradition. In fact, he states, "[Britain] is historically a Christian country. I'm a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims. So, yes, I like singing carols along with everybody else. I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history. If there's any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists."

The last point he makes is arguable to say the least, but is this a case of wanting to have it both ways? Perhaps. I simply think Professor Dawkins is...how should I say...delusional. He claims to "fully recognise the full historical and cultural significance [of Christianity] in our country." He even goes so far as to say, "We should all be aware of that and celebrate that." The question I have is "why?"

If Christians are suffering from some sort of "God delusion," why would we want to celebrate delusional behavior in any form? How delusional must it be to encourage people to live in a fantasy world? The reality is, even Dawkins understands that true Christianity leads to the kind of society that everyone wants to live in. However, if there is nothing of substance behind it, it cannot last. As a matter of fact, the further we get away from Judeo-Christian influence, the more dangerous and out of control culture becomes. The reason is that simply embracing common morality doesn't work. Without a transcendant law-giver; a universal morality, there is no "common morality," but instead, man can determine whatever "rules" he chooses. In other words, one society could say that citizens killing one another on a whim is wrong while another deems it perfectly acceptable. Who is "right"? Simple...both. There is no "right."

The argument often comes back that no society would choose such rules since we naturally do that which promotes the common good of man; sort of the old survival of the species theory. However, that assumes that the survival of the species is desirable by all. Mass murderers and terrorists might have a different idea of "good." Again, what is the common "good" of man? It all depends on who is defining it. We certainly cannot limit it to just mass murderers and psycho-terrorists. Many governments, even today, have pretty broad ideas of what is good, killing people for what most in the West consider insane. Just look at what one culture wanted to do to a woman who mis-named a teddy bear! Hmm, common good, huh? She was actually lucky. She only got off because of the governmental pressure placed on their leaders to release her. Don't forget, we're talking about the Western government shaped by Judeo-Christians values are the ones who pushed for the release.

I want to go on record as saying I am absolutely against social Christianity which emphasizes mere actions as opposed to a heart transformation brought on because of a personal relationship with Christ (unfortunately, our churches today are full of social Christians!), but when society loses its Christian influence, it eventually dissolves into Relativism. This is the philosophy in which morality is based on the individual's own ideas of what is good and right, thereby leaving no basis for that which is actually and objectively good for that society. (For more of my comments on the subject of Relativism, use it as a keyword in the search Espresso Roast feature on this blog). Mr. Dawkins seems to realize this, to at least some degree, making even is own "godless delusion" hard to actually live with.

Read the complete BBC article here.

Labels: atheism, Christianity, culture, Darwin, David C. Price, Evolution, God, religion

David Frum (National Review Online), believes Mitt Romney has made a huge mistake commenting on the content of his faith. He says that by answering the question of "Do you believe in Jesus," he has opened up the door for "What do you believe about Jesus?" along with other questions Romney will have great difficulty answering satisfactorily, especially for orthodox Christians.

In trying to dodge questions about the content of his particular faith, he has, in fact, open the floodgate of such questions. Frum concludes that by Romney bringing to the center his particular belief in Jesus rather than keeping the argument focused on his commitment to being the best president possible, he has engaged in a game in which he cannot win.

I tend to agree with him and believe we may see a dramatic drop in Romney's position as these questions begin to flood in. Why is this important? Because we understand that belief in Christ must be centered in the person of Jesus as revealed through Scripture. Just any Jesus won't do and, like it or not, what you believe about Him shapes your worldview and, ultimately, who you are as a person...and a president.

Read Frum's post here.

HT: Between Two Worlds

Labels: David C. Price, politics

Here's an article my dad wrote about "The Golden Compass" that he allowed me to post here. Rick Reeder is the Director of Missions for the Caldwell/Lyon Baptist Association based in Princeton, Kentucky. He was recently elected Second Vice President of the Kentucky Baptist Convention, and as been involved in ministry for about 30 years. He can be contacted by email at: bro_rickreeder@bellsouth.net
--Kim

The Golden Compass: Leading Children in the Wrong Direction
By Rick Reeder

By now, most people with children, and many with grandchildren, will have heard of the movie starring Nicole Kidman, "The Golden Compass". If not, you will. What may have escaped many, including myself until recently, is the sinister theme of the movie, and especially the book series that it is based on. The trilogy of books (I hear there may be a fourth) was originally published under the title "Northern Lights" and written by British author Philip Pullman, a self-avowed atheist. As a matter of fact, given the many years the books have been around, and the awards that they have won, it is amazing to me that we are just now hearing of this. So what are others who have been following his work saying about him? Peter Hitchens, a writer for "Mail On Sunday" said, in 2002, that Pullman is the writer "the atheists would have been praying for, if atheists prayed." Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League has produced a pamphlet entitled, "The Golden Compass: Unmasked" and says that this series "sells atheism to kids". "Evangelical groups like The Christian Film and Television Commission, run by Ted Baehr, and James Dobson's Focus on the Family say they're taking a wait-and-see approach to the movie, although Baehr has plenty to say about the literary version of the series...Baehr said. "We'll put out writings on the book. Children who buy into this are going to be trapped in a sad, desperate world." So let's consider what the story is actually about.

I was so curious about this, that I rented the first of the three books on audio and listened to all 14 hours of it. It is a compelling tale of 12 year old girl, Lyra, who stumbles onto intrigue and adventure of another world. Even in her fantastical world, armored bears can talk, there are witches and angels who fly and other strange creatures. And in this adventure, the Northern Lights, or Aurora Borealis, play a significant role in the setting of the story. Everyone has what is called a demon, in the form of an animal which appears to be one's conscience, or soul. But animals do not have a demon. So they are immune to what humans have to endure. There are many dangerous near death encounters for Lyra and others who are helping her discover the mystery of the Dust (the verdict is out on what this represents, and Pullman has not said) and how to stop its affect on humans. She comes into possession of an alethiometer, or the Golden Compass. With the right intuitive gifts, she learns how to read it, thereby being able to discern if people are telling the truth (aletheia in Greek means "truth or true"). This gives her an edge over others in her quest to see what the adults are up to, and why so many children are turning up missing. She finds that the adults are experimenting with the children to discover how to reverse the effects of the "dust". Well, you get some of the picture.

I must admit, as I write this and remember the story line of the book, it would be very enticing to a child, and difficult for a parent to resist giving in to the temptation to satisfy a begging son or daughter who wants to see this movie. But I think you should resist, and I will tell you why. Pullman says that his works are an atheist answer to C.S. Lewis' books, such as "Chronicles of Narnia", that try to teach Christian ideals to children. According to the entertainment section of foxnews.com, Pullman is quoted as having said in an interview, referring to the Chronicles of Narnia, "I hate them with a deep and bitter passion..." and has called the series "one of the most ugly and poisonous things" he's ever read. In case you think I am reading too much into this movie, consider that there has been a backlash from both atheists, and people of faith. The atheists and fans of Pullman are steamed and accuse him of caving in to the religious right for allowing the anti-God themes to be muted in the movie itself, since these themes are so prevalent in the books. The faith community is sounding the warning bell because of the not so subtle attempt to raise the interest level of the book series through the movie, so that parents will rush to the bookstores and rip these books off the shelves for their children this Christmas and beyond. There seems to now be an attempt to distance Pullman from the movie version of the books.

On the website http://www.bridgetothestars.net/, dedicated to the movie, the bio section on Pullman says that "He seems quite bent on having absolutely nothing to do with the film adaptations that are currently being written and produced by New Line Cinemas..." But that does not seem right, since he is said to be a co-screenwriter on the film. I suppose it could be "technically" true. Maybe he wanted the movie to present his more overt aversion to the idea of God, religion, etc.

Don't misunderstand my position. I believe there is a lot in organized religion, especially the unbiblical kind, which is dangerous and distracting to the truth of the Bible, and the glorious gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. But these books, promoted for discussion in public schools, in video games, and now in movies, are not the correct forum for a child to get his or her view of God, Heaven, Hell, salvation and eternal things. Especially when in the end, the "authoritative" God is killed. Do we really want to contemplate what our society will be like with a generation of children growing up with no respect for God or the Bible and think they just might be able to pull off a "God homicide"? Who among us thinks children should come to the place where their consciences may be assuaged from guilt for wrongdoing (or as the Bible says, sin) by just doing away with God? There is enough of that going on without parents being duped into aiding and abetting the quest for a dead God.

I can tell you, the research I have done tells me that this is not a movie you want your children to see. You might be interested to know at this point that Mike Cherry, owner of the Capitol Cinema in Princeton has had similar concerns about the movie, and has decided not to run the film, although it could mean a loss of revenue to his business. I want to applaud him for this decision, which shows what a real conscience check can do for you. I'm glad that he was more concerned about children being led astray than losing some money. Of course, I was not surprised of his decision. I am sure that in the long run, a commensurate reward will follow. You might want to let him know that you appreciate what he did.

One final word. I think it would be a good time to remember the words of the Lord Jesus concerning leading children astray, or keeping them from Christ. Here is what Jesus said, "Permit little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, 'Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God like a little child shall in no way enter it.'" (Luke 18:16-17). Again, He said, "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hung about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." (Luke 17:2) If the Golden Compass sends just one of these youth or children in the wrong direction, I sure would not want to be Mr. Pullman.

Labels: Kim Reeder

Dangerous, my friends, dangerous. In an Associated Press article, another over-zealous player has yet again "guaranteed" a win over the undefeated New England Patriots:

Defensive back Anthony Smith is so certain the Pittsburgh Steelers will end the New England Patriots' unbeaten season, he is guaranteeing a win Sunday in Foxborough.

The Patriots (12-0) may have the perfect record, Smith said Wednesday, but it should be New England that is worried about the Steelers (9-3) rather than the other way around.

``People keep asking me if we're ready for the Patriots,'' Smith said. ``They should be asking if they're ready for us.''

I love this, though, because immediately after making this kind of prediction, he qualifies it:

Is Smith so confident that he is willing to copy one of former Pittsburgh linebacker Joey Porter's familiar motivational ploys by guaranteeing the Steelers will win?

``We're going to win,'' Smith said. ``Yeah, I can guarantee a win. As long as we come out and do what we got to do. Both sides of the ball are rolling, and if our special teams come through for us, we've got a good chance to win.''

Get that? He guarantees it as long as the Steelers come out and do what they've got to do. Translation: as long as we play well enough to win, I'll guarantee a win. Actually, he even backs off of it and then says they've got a chance to win. The only thing that comes to mind as a response is, "Duh!" What kind of guarantee is that? Any team that does what they need to do to win will win. If special teams comes through?

OK, so we've got this dude saying that as long as both sides of the ball are rolling (i.e. as long as both offense and defense are playing well) and as long as special teams are playing well, they'll win. Uh, offense, defense, special teams...yep, that's everybody. So, as long as everybody is playing well, they'll (have a chance to) win. Gotcha.

Fortunately for the Steelers, not everybody on the team is making such brilliantly thought through statements:

Despite Smith's abundant optimism, no other Steelers are designating Sunday as guaranteed win day. Linebacker James Farrior, cautioning that Smith hasn't been in the NFL long and may not realize what he is saying, doesn't think the Patriots will pay any attention.

He better hope they don't. Now, the Steelers may win (that is, of course, if all the Steelers are getting it done and the Patriots don't show up), but I wouldn't bet on it.

What do the Patriots think? Safety Rodney Harrison, asked by Fox Sports Radio about the comments, answered, ``Who was it?'

Told it was Smith, Harrison said, ``Never heard of him.''

That's about right.

Labels: David C. Price, sports

Though I in no way agree with the writer of this article, I think it important for us to read them. I think it supports my position of being careful in how we "protest" particular cultural expressions. Again, our boycotts tend to make advances in the "battle" but do they not hurt the Christ-position in the war against darkness?

I think it important for us to re-evaluate what our intended goals are in protests and boycotts and is it worth the price we pay in our influence and in communicating love to a world that is looking for it anywhere they can find it.

Perhaps that's why they look for love in the darkness...they can't see the light in us.

December 5 Addendum: Here is an excerpt of an article by Albert Mohler offering a good perspective on the movie:

A good first step would be to take a deep breath. The Christian faith is not about to be toppled by a film, nor by a series of fantasy books. Pullman has an agenda that is clear, and Christians need to inform themselves of what this agenda is and what it means. At the same time, nothing would serve his agenda better than to have Christians speaking recklessly or unintelligently about the film or the books.

This is about the battle of ideas and worldviews. While Christians will not celebrate the release of this film, we should recognize the mixture of challenge and opportunity that comes with millions of persons watching this film and talking about the issues it raises. When the movie is mentioned in the workplace, in school, on the playground, or in the college campus, this is a great opportunity to show that Christians are not afraid of the battle of ideas.

HT for Mohler article: Tim Ellsworth

Labels: Christianity, culture, David C. Price, Jesus