Thursday, April 27, 2017

Global Warming: A Twist to the Story

This week has provided one more twist to the story of man-made climate change. Former energy department secretary, Steven Koonin, has revealed that bureaucrats within the Obama administration were intentionally blowing climate data out of proportion for the sake pushing the President's agenda. To some, this would appear to be a shocking surprise. To those of us following the history of the global warming, it comes as no surprise.

The idea of global warming started off as a genuine scientific pursuit, but quickly evolved into a full blown political issue devoid of science.

No one proves this better than Al Gore. Al Gore first learned about global warming from a professor of his named Roger Revelle, who was one of the most significant figures in the climate change movement of the late 1900s. Revelle, at the beginning of his investigation, observed the gradual warming of the earth and correlated it to possible contributing factors, chief among them was CO2 output. Towards the end of his life, Revelle noticed that the data was no longer conforming to his original hypothesis that man-made CO2 increases were major factors in the world's climate. Revelle eventually renounced his belief in global warming. Al Gore's response to Revelle's renunciation was to call his former mentor senile. Why did Gore refuse to take his mentor's conclusion seriously?

In his infamous documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore discusses the impending threat of global warming. Aside from the reality that he predicted that our coastlines would be submerged under 20 feet (or something in that range) of water by now, the trained ear quickly understands what the purpose of his documentary truly was: political propaganda.

A clear political message is preached throughout the documentary. He opens up by chastising the Bush administration for Katrina, scolds Congress for their lack of seriousness in their approach to environmental issues, and gives a series of epic sob stories that lead into Gore's political solutions to the dire climate threat. If sound science is measured by its ability to predict future events, An Inconvenient Truth fell flat on its face, as Rush Limbaugh's Al Gore Countdown to Armageddon Clock reached zero.

Man-made global climate change is only supported through dishonest efforts to enforce stronger government regulations on businesses and the lives of private citizens. This latest hoax can be added to the list: Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth, East Anglia University's Climategate controversy, and the fudging of the 97% consensus of scientists that is frequently used to invalidate dissenters. The 97% is a figure that is taken after removing most of the scientists that do not believe in global warming from the study.

Nonetheless, man-made climate change is the narrative of our day. It has become secular dogma, of which heretics are intellectually exiled from the mainstream of society. It has been said that if you want a research grant, for any given project, somehow include support for man-made climate change  and the grant will be given. Did I mention that Al Gore and numerous CEO's are asking for $15 trillion to fight global warming? Why is the campaign not to stop global warming, if they are so concerned? And why is there not a greater number of people questioning this outrageous sum of money? Like any good dogma, despite the overwhelming evidence against it, it remains as "truth." I challenge you to see that there is more to the story than a pursuit for the betterment of "our" planet earth.


Thursday, April 20, 2017

Trump: Blue Dog

Since the Presidential primaries, particularly the Republican primaries, people have been trying to figure out the governing principles of Donald Trump. Some would say he is a Democrat, who is sabotaging the Republican party. Some would say he is just a businessman. For the past few months, I have been proposing an idea that explains Donald Trump in an understandable way.

Donald Trump is a Blue Dog Democrat. I would contend that most people do not understand the term, so I can explain it to you now. A Blue Dog Democrat is a Conservative Democrat. Joe Lieberman, Al Gore's running mate in the 2000 Presidential Election, has been considered by many to have been the last of them in the world of politics. They have effectively been driven out of the Democrat party.

Speaking of houses, with the ever softening stances of Conservative Republicans in the House and the Senate, my theory is that the Blue Dog Trump found an opportunity to move into a new home. The truth is that Donald Trump sounds more conservative than most Republicans of today with the exceptions of Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Jim Jordan, and a few others. Because there is still a conservative presence inside of the Republican party, Donald Trump has restored the tradition of legitimate debate to Congress! Before Donald Trump, the Republicans and Democrats were in favor of finding ideological commonality, rather than standing up for the core values of their party. Now, with a blue dog in the White House, real debate can go on, once again. The parties can share common ground, but fight for the best of our country.

I am not an expert, but I believe Trump fits the bill. Compare Trump's message to Joe Lieberman, John F. Kennedy, and Theodore Roosevelt (an early progressive that later became significantly more liberal) and you will see what I mean. Regardless, when you start hearing Trump referred to as a Blue Dog in the ensuing months, you will know that you heard it here first.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

The Bible and Science

In 2013, I published a book titled, The World That Then Was. The title comes from 2 Peter 3:6, "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (KJV). The premise of the book is that we, the intellectuals of the postmodern era, have forgotten where we have come from. We have started accepting a false history of the world; therefore, denying the existence of God. By accepting a false  premise from the start, we begin misinterpreting scientific evidence to try to prove that there is no God, and by default, no purpose for our lives.

Within the pages of my book, I give verifiable evidence that the events in the Bible, the events at the beginning of time, did indeed happen. It was a quest to find the answers, but it is of great value. Do we believe post-modern teachings, or do we use the evidence to strengthen our faith in the one true God of all creation? I think you should see the evidence for yourself.

I want to give you a few fascinating pieces from my book, and today will be about the Genesis Flood...

Have you ever been taught in school that the Bible does not support scientific evidence for the creation of the world? Perhaps, in college, professors challenged the accuracy and validity of the Holy Scriptures. I remember at Cleveland State university, my biology professor said that there was no evidence, whatsoever, that the world had ever been totally submerged under water (in an attempt to falsify the Genesis Flood). Instead of providing evidence that the world had never been flooded, he actually provided evidence that supported the Bible. As he began to discuss the evolution of life, he taught that the ocean levels used to be so high that the continents were submerged beneath them. Evidence for this reality came in the form of fossils of whales, fish, and "prehistoric marine reptiles" that appeared at remarkably high altitudes above sea level. The water levels were once at high altitudes, during a flood, creating these fossils.

How can a biology professor go from saying that there is no evidence for the Genesis Flood to saying that the entire world used to be submerged beneath the oceans? The assumption is that he was in support of the scientific evidence, but not in support of the Bible. The fascinating point is that we can support both! Instead of believing such intellectuals, lets look at the evidence, as we also look at the Word of God.

What other points in the Bible can we see verified through science? Are there more teachings in the classroom that go hand-in-hand with the Scriptures? Perhaps, the same evidence that professors are using to disprove the Bible should actually be evidence to support it.

If you are interested in this discussion and wish to see more examples, evidence, and deeper insights, you can purchase my book, The World That Then Was, at, or at my website

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Liberal Doctrine and the Atonement

In The Bible and Politics series, I have covered many issues in order to help you see what the Word of God teaches, in regard to many of the political topics that are important in our world today. Often times, we believe that we have the answers for bettering society and bringing unity and peace to the world. However, we need to look toward the Creator in order to find these answers.

The issues I have reviewed so far have largely shown that Biblical Christian values are inherently conservative. By definition, conservatives derive their values from absolute principles while liberals arrive at their principles through enlightenment. Along with the liberal belief in enlightenment comes a redefining of reality. Below I have outlined common truths about liberalism, and have added an interesting twist. I want you to see how the doctrine of the Atonement is in harmony with the highest ideals of liberal teachings.

This week is Holy Week, and we celebrate the Atonement.The atonement refers to the sacrifice Jesus offered up, in himself, on the cross 2000 years ago. The purpose of Jesus' sacrifice was to take the sins of the entire human race upon himself, so that mankind could have peace with God. This doctrine, in every way, should appeal to the senses of even the most ideological of liberals. Here's why:

  1. Fairness is a high priority in liberal politics. This is often manifested through the idea that there should be a redistribution of wealth. Through Jesus' death, God's forgiveness was distributed to the entire human race. We are all equal in God's eyes.
  2. Liberal thought often displays sympathy for the offender, acknowledging that upbringing and other factors outside of a person's control contribute to him or her committing crime. The atonement acknowledges this truth through its premise that everyone's wrong-doings is the result of original sin.
  3. Because some people are in worse circumstances than others, liberals believe that punishment for crimes ought to be dampened or intensified based on one's intentions. The atonement takes this to the extreme by totally forgiving the offender for anything he or she may have done.
  4. Liberal theology is very much based on symbolism through different narratives. The symbolism presented through the image of Jesus hanging on the Cross, in the place of mankind, is one of the most artistically brilliant scenes in history. Such symbolism has even been applied in different artwork and even figures of speech.
  5. Liberal theology praises the progressive enlightenment of individuals. Through the atonement, people are made into a new creation, indicating that the individual's eyes have been opened to reality. It is said that, through the Holy Spirit, those who believe in Jesus are being conformed to His likeness. They are going through the process of sanctification, which is directly applied through the atonement and progressively applied throughout the believer's life.
  6. As a bonus, the atonement even delivers on Friederick Nietzsche's famous quote, "God is Dead." One thing that had to happen for the atonement to become a reality was for Jesus to die; in fact he had to be tortured and killed at the hands of his creation. And yet, the beauty of the story was that God, slain by the hands of wicked men, rose from the dead in power and glory.
The doctrine of the atonement should resonate with liberals. The genuine presentations of love and compassion throughout the Bible, and the love displayed by the church, leads to good works, charitable works. Because of the atonement, both conservatives and liberals should be drawn to the Gospel message through Jesus Christ because it was the intersection of all conflicting ideas. Through Jesus and his sacrifice on the Cross, we have peace with God and should all the more have peace with on another.

Saturday, April 8, 2017

The Bible and Free Speech

Freedom is one of the major themes throughout the New Testament and the entire Bible. "It is for freedom that Christ set us free" (Galatians 5:1).Upon these words an entire nation was born.  That nation is the United States of America.

One of the freedoms of this country is the Freedom of Speech. The freedom of speech is a right that is guaranteed to Americans through the Constitution. We can define this freedom as the right to speak one's views without being held back. As Christians and as a nation we value people. Therefore, people deserve respect and to be treated as human beings. We all have something to offer the world through our words and our actions, as we are all created uniquely in the image of God. We must grant such freedom to our fellow Americans.

Now that we know what is freedom of speech, let's talk about what is not freedom of speech. It can be summed up in two words: political correctness. Political correctness is an attempt to standardize proper and improper speech, so that people begin to believe that they cannot speak their minds. It is an attempt to get a society to believe that it is too disrespectful and possibly dangerous for people to share their views on topics, such as life, politics, and God. Specifically, it is an attempt to say that dissenting against the ruling class is a threat and completely unacceptable in our society.

But, what does the Bible say about the freedom of speech? And how can a conservative Christian speak out against the ills that plague our society, while showing love and grace? You may be surprised to see the many examples that we can learn from in Scripture. Let's take a look.

It can be argued that it is the Bible that brought about freedom of speech. In the Old Testament,  the law teaches that all people are equal, whether the person is a king or a homeless man. This is an important principle regarding the freedom of speech. In most societies, speech is limited by those in power, in order to have complete control. The Bible teaches that no one is above the law. Therefore, all people can be scrutinized.

In a more specific manner, though, the freedom of speech is displayed in the New Testament. In Acts chapter 4, we see that Peter and John are arrested for preaching about Jesus. Upon their release, they were commanded to no longer speak about Jesus (Acts 4:18). Peter and John refuse to comply with their demands, insisting that they must preach in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:20). In doing this, they displayed the freedom of speech as a right given by God, not by human authorities.

Within the world of Christianity, the overwhelming number of Christians would agree that it is always the right thing to share Jesus with people. But what about more extreme examples of freedom of speech?

The Bible teaches that a believer should let no unwholesome speech come from his or her mouth (Ephesians 4:29). It teaches to speak to one another in a manner that is spiritually edifying (Ephesians 5:19). But there are also many examples, particularly in the New Testament of disagreements, debates, and legal disputes. How do verbal conflicts play out throughout the entirety of the Bible.

As a disclaimer, I am not advocating for name-calling, bullying, or heavy handed chastisement against people. Nonetheless, these are real examples from the Bible of how verbal conflict was engaged by righteous people.

The first example is the prophet Elijah as he contended with the prophets of Baal. The contest involved calling upon their respective gods to perform a miracle. Since the prophets of Baal failed to produce a miracle, Elijah mocked them and their false god, even asking them if their god failed to perform this act because he was sleeping or busy doing something else (1 Kings 18:27).

In the New Testament, when John the Baptist was approached by the Pharisees and Sadducees, he called them a brood of vipers and asked them how they expected to escape the wrath of God (Matthew 3:7). Jesus called king Herod a fox, in reference to Herod's deceptive and sly manner. Jesus calls the Pharisees hypocrites, blind guides, and white washed graves in Matthew 23.

Throughout his writings, Paul speaks strongly, as well. In Galatians, Paul delivers a powerful blow to the Judaizers who were preaching that a believer must be circumcised before they could participate in the Christian faith. Paul, in frustration and righteous anger, stated in writing that he wished these people, in relation to their teaching would display the fullness of their so-called spirituality through circumcision by going the full way and cut it off (Galatians 5:12).

In the book of James, James the brother of Jesus wrote, "With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be" (James 3:9-10). The above examples might sound like they are crossing the line that James set in place, but in reality the things that these people said were words against evil deeds, rather than words against individuals. The person spoken against, in each example, just so happened to be guilty of committing evil deeds.

In Matthew 5:22, Jesus says that calling people names puts a person in danger of hell fire. He uses the examples of raca, which means turkey brains, and you fool!. Clearly, Jesus was teaching that people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, for the sake that everyone is created in the image of God.

Ultimately, freedom of speech does not mean letting your words fly wildly from your mouth and exercising restraint does not mean that a person is robbing him or herself of the freedom of speech. Freedom is a concept that is maximized through proper boundaries and respect towards others. When exercising freedom becomes abusive against other people's liberties, such as speech, it is no longer an exercise of freedom. It is an exercise of tyranny, even if it's only on a small scale. Tyranny not only enslaves those being oppressed, but also the oppressor who is enslaved by his own lust for power.

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

The Bible and Global Climate Change

Global climate change is one of the most talked about issues of the 21st century. It is considered to be a developing situation that may cause catastrophic changes to our world, as we know it. Climate experts claim that the increasing temperatures, could bring about a climate in which we cannot exist. Many of the leading experts in this field are very concerned; however, Bible-believing Christians are not. In fact, many Christians are opposed to the idea of global warming. Why? After all, if we recognize the possibility of global climate change, also called man-made climate change, we could change the course of this world by simply altering our lifestyles. Right?

As Christians, our worldview and our view on climate change differ significantly from that of an atheist. Psalm 24:1 states that "The earth is the Lord's and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it." Everything on earth belongs to God and he uses all things for his purposes. The idea that mankind is able to manipulate the climate, especially unintentionally, suggests that the world is not so much under the control of God, but under the control of mortal beings. For those who do not believe in God, the idea of man-made climate change is complimentary to their worldview.

In Genesis 1:28, God creates mankind and states, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Atheists believe that mankind's use/abuse of the world's resources  has led to worldwide climate change; however, Genesis 1:28 states that mankind was meant to subdue the earth. This means that mankind was supposed to master its resources and use them for the good of the human race.

Genesis teaches us that mankind is to have dominion over the animals of the earth. Atheists believe that humans and animals are essentially the same in value. The only difference, to atheists, is that mankind is more evolved than the animals. This secular view of life puts animal life at the same level as human life. Christians care much for wild life and all of God's creation, but God cares for mankind above all. Humans were created in His image. Thus, mankind's first priority should be the livelihood of the human race.

The Bible commands us to be fruitful and multiply. This point is another in which atheists and Christians disagree, in relation to global climate change. Atheists believe that a large part of the climate crisis is due to the overpopulation of our planet. They believe that it was millions of years ago that overpopulation of the earth lead to the killing off of the dinosaurs. Before the idea of man-made climate change, they had difficulty explaining the disappearance of the dinosaurs. Now, it is common for atheists to teach that overpopulation led to global climate change, which led to dinosaurs becoming extinct, and other creatures emerging. Going back to the Christian perspective, let's ask ourselves, "What was God's plan?" God's plan was and is for mankind to be fruitful, multiply, and to subdue the earth that He created for them.

Christians believe that humanity will exist until the end of time because God has a special plan and a purpose for His most important creation. Atheists seem to believe that mankind will go extinct. Whether it is through evolution or some global catastrophe, atheists are prone to believe that mankind will go the way of the dinosaurs. We do not have such control. It is in God's hands, and He will bring all his good work to fulfillment according to His glory and in his time. The world and all that is in it is in God's hands, not our own.

God created a global catastrophe in the past that wiped out the majority of the human race, but he preserved a small number of people who survived so that his plan could reach its fulfillment. Since that catastrophe, he has promised never to flood the entire world again and destroy all of life on earth. Ironically, such a flood would have had an enormous impact on the global climate. But, humanity survived the effects.

From a Christian perspective, the earth is a strong and adaptable system that cannot be destroyed by mankind. From the atheists point of view, the earth exists in a delicate balance. If the slightest change occurs within an environment, it could lead to catastrophic global consequences. The difference is like night and day. Do you believe it is man or it is God that maintains the balance in this world, in which we live? If you believe it is man, then you may find it is quite an impossible task.

Saturday, April 1, 2017

The Bible and Building the Wall

Many Christians are skeptical about the idea of building a wall. The Christian  mission is without borders. Our message, the message of Jesus Christ, is to be spread throughout the world. In sharing this message, we are to embrace a culture that is not of this world: A Kingdom Culture, if you will. A world without walls would allow for the heavenly kingdom to invade the nations of the world with very little restriction, at least in terms of travel. Furthermore, we are called to love all people, law abiding or law breakers. Considering all of these truths of Christianity, how could we support the idea of protecting our borders? Let's remember a few important facts about walls, as presented in the Bible.

If you have not read my blogs from the Bible and Politics series yet, I will need to clarify a few points about applying the Word of God to our present times. The New Testament teaches us how we ought to relate to one another, as it focuses on interpersonal relationships. The Old Testament teaches us how law and order are necessary to maintain a functional and civilized society. The Old Testament Law was specifically written to help the Israelites to establish and maintain a Godly nation. We can turn to these sections of the Bible for direction when it comes to matters like national security.

One of the most memorable stories about a wall comes from the book of Nehemiah. The story took place after Jerusalem had been ravaged and pillaged. A man named Nehemiah lamented its destruction and, particularly, the destruction of its wall. The destruction of its wall represented its feebleness and defenselessness against those who sought to do the Israelites harm. That is precisely the concern we should have when people enter our country at will and unvetted. It results in foreigners taking advantage of the documented citizens of a nation. The nation of Israel could not have existed without certain boundaries that separated them from other cultures. The same holds true about America.

In those days, all nations needed walls. The only exception to this would be the Greek City-State of Sparta where all of its residents were elite soldiers. For all other nations, walls had to be erected to prevent infiltration. Another story about a wall in the Bible is that of Jericho. The walls of Jericho were unconquerable. Yet, we remember how Jericho was defeated, God leveled its walls and Israel easily overtook the people of Jericho. Imagine, however, had Jericho had no walls to begin with!

In the New Testament, Jesus told a parable concerning his Second Coming. He said it would be "like a thief in the night." He went on to explain that if you knew when a thief was going to arrive at your home, you would make yourself ready so that you would catch the thief when he arrived. In the same way, we need to be ready for Jesus' return. This example was referring to spiritual matters, but it is, once again, using boundaries and common sense to exemplify a greater truth. A home has boundaries and serves as a source of protection for its inhabitants.

The most simple way to understand why America could use a wall is the same reason why people lock their doors at night. You don't want to grant someone access to your home without first granting permission. Locks and walls provide appropriate barriers to prevent people from entering before granting them access. And, of course, the real issue is not merely preventing people from living alongside you, it's the harm an unauthorized intruder would cause you, your family, and/or your possessions if nothing barred his or her entry. Walls are not a matter of cruelty, they are a matter of practicality.

The liberal progressives want no borders. They want no borders, that is, until they start erecting walls around their homes. The elite class has no problem building walls around their homes and allowing armed guards to escort and accompany their children to school. When it comes to your security, you are on your own in their, so- called, borderless and perfect utopia.

Conservatives believe that nations cannot exist without borders and when the national security of a nation is at risk, sometimes a wall is necessary.

Truth be told, even the Kingdom of Heaven has walls. The walls designate that it is God's Kingdom and that only certain people are granted entry. There is even a parable told where certain people attending a wedding feast, put on by a king, throws people out because they were not dressed appropriately. This was a parable told by Jesus concerning who would be granted access and who would be denied entry into Heaven.

I close with the words of Jesus from John 10:1, 9-10: "I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber...I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full."