Why We Like Jack Bauer.

Since Season 6 of the television series 24 started again, I thought I'd repost this.

Howard Gordon, one of the executive producer of 24 for Day 5 in the life of Jack Bauer said it this way. To the question "Who is Jack Bauer to you? What gets you into his character?" he answers:
"He's a man who's trying to hold his family together and do his job, and be a moral person in an immoral world. He's trying to be a good husband, trying to be a good father, trying to be a good man. It's just difficult to do that. He's squeezed from all sides. He's also a man of action, and doesn't really talk; rather than talk about stuff, he does it. That's an attractive attribute."

Another possibility is offered by J.P. Moreland and Klaus Issler in their newest book, The Lost Virtue of Happiness: Recovering the Disciplines of the Good Life (Page 29). Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2006:

"We are created for drama. We are meant to live dramatic lives as part of a worldwide movement - a divine conspiracy to trample the forces of darkness and replace them with goodness, truth, and beauty... We love movies that feature drama because that is how our own lives should be lived. We are to be dramatic even in the 'little' things that grace the daily routines of our "ordinary" lives. As part of a pursuit of classical happiness, little things and ordinary activities become big and extraordinary pretty quickly."

The context of the book is a bit different than living Jack's life, and is as follows:

"More specifically, to find your self is to find out what life should look like and to learn to live that way. It is to become like Jesus himself and have a character that manifests the radical nature of the kingdom of God and the fruit of the Spirit. It is to find out God's purposes for your life and to fulfill those purposes in a Christ-honoring way.
Remember, the concept of eternal life in the New Testament is not primarily one of living forever in heaven, but of having a new kind of life now. This new kind of life is so different that those without it can be called dead, truly. This is a life of human flourishing; a life lived in a way we were made to function; a life of virtue, character, and well-being lived like and for the Lord Jesus."

As close as I get to Jack Bauer's Adventures

All Brain, No Mind

All Brain, No Mind by Gregory Koukl:

Are we just our brain? Greg responds to a Time article that supports this view.

I read an article in Time magazine from July 17 on the mind and the brain. It's entitled "Glimpses of the Mind." Now that title is somewhat tongue in cheek, of course, because the point of the article really is to campaign for the idea that the mind is merely the brain.

What you have going on inside of your head is just chemical reactions that are governed by very physicalistic processes. That which we mistakenly understood to be the mind or the soul is simply the brain, and if it is anything more than the brain, consciousness is a mere property of the brain that kind of rides on top of the physical substance of the brain, much like wetness rides on top of water. It supervenes upon the brain. It is temporarily produced by the brain and dependent upon the brain, but there is nothing akin to what we would call a soul.

Keep Reading...

The Watchmaker

Minding Words

Words are powerful. They are a bit strange in that, physically, they are nothing more than wind expelled from our lungs, passing through our vocal cords, shaped by the movement of muscles in our mouths. More interestingly, they are the direct expression of our thoughts and what we believe. As free moral agents, we choose to transform the metaphysical what we think, into material sounds that have meaning. At the moment we speak, our thoughts are born into the physical world.

I sat at my desk working in the basement one afternoon, while Gabe and one of his friends were playing a short distance behind me. After a while, I could sense a conflict brewing and it wasn't long until unkind words were exchanged, which had me spin 180 degrees in my chair. After having the boys make apologies and ask forgiveness of each other, I decided to put the dry-erase board to use and teach the boys the power that words have.

I love James' illustrations of the forest set ablaze by a small spark, of the horse moved by a tiny bit in its mouth, and of the ship steered by a small rudder. I put these images on the board as best I could, and explained how little things can cause big things to happen. I then drew kids talking with each other, weapons coming out of their mouths instead of words. One with a sword at the tip of his lips, one with a gun and the other two with a knife and bow and arrow. Gabe and his friend were quick to ask what the kids on the board could possibly be saying to each other. They knew it had to be ugly. I then explained how small words can be as devastating as actual weapons and that they must be chosen carefully. That what they say to others has the same effect as pulling the trigger. To this day these illustrations have stuck in their minds. Thank God for His words to us.

Our words are more powerful than mere physical machinery. Our children need to learn that early on. The most effective warriors among us have trained themselves diligently and are able to transform non-physical thoughts into effective weaponery. Armed to the teeth, they are the ones making a difference in the spiritual warfare we find ourselves in. Their thoughts ricochet in the physical world with ripples that transform lives, for we are engaged in a battle of ideas, expressed by words.

Created in God's image, our ability to bring the non-physical into the physical should have us pause in amazement. Andi and I came from the airport the other day and as we were driving back, a plane with its landing gear out flew low overhead. We were in awe of the minds who invented such complex things as airplanes. Our minds are not equal to our physical brain, and hearing even Christians use the word "brain" interchangeably with the word "mind" is like a misguided missile causing who knows how many confused casualties.

I cringe when I hear such expressions as: "left brain, right brain" "brain freeze" "brainy person" "brain teasers" "brain dead" "thinking in my head" and the like. This stems from a misunderstanding that our thoughts are stored in our physical brain and that all of our abilities are headquartered in, and powered by, silicon-like grey matter. Thoughts cannot be stored in the brain as cells are biological things, matter, atoms with no capacity for emotion, desire or will, and are simply busy regenerating or dying continually. The emotionally charged memory of our first kiss has no physical location in the brain. Rather, our soul are able to recall that memory. It is crucial to know where non-physical thoughts, desires, will, emotions originate in order to be a responsible, self-controlled person. As Christians we believe in this dualism of body and soul, not only because the Bible teaches it but because it makes good scientific sense as well.

As human persons, we have both a soul and a body and they are meant to operate together in tandem. The soul is able to survive the body at death, with access to all of our past memories and in fact our whole personhood. The human body decays, and at death the brain rots but the soul stays intact. At death, our souls seem to be with God in an intermediate state. That is why the "you" cannot just be physical. Your personhood is grounded in the soul and is now with God waiting to be reunited with a new body (1 Corinthians 15).

A malfunctioning body part, a brain with Alzeihmer's for example, does not mean you are that part. In order to illustrate, picture being the driver of a car for a moment. If the alternator stops functioning and the battery dies, or if a tire is removed from the drivetrain, your inability to turn left or right, does not mean that you the driver and the car are the same thing. Likewise, a better fuel, use of synthetic oil or simple maintenance can make your car run better, just as food or exercise is to our bodies. If the car stops running, you can get out of the car. That is why Jesus promises his followers new bodies, as human beings are designed to function with both body and soul. It is unnatural to be disassociated from the body. Death is unnatural, and the body without the spirit dies (James 2:26).

It is even more fascinating to learn how the body develops and functions under the direction of the complex structure of the soul. The best book written on this subject is Body & Soul written by JP Moreland and Scott B. Rae.

"The brain controls 'higher' order, conscious activities, such as thought, reasoning and abstration." says Wikipedia. If the brain controls all that, then I'm at the mercy of my brain and can hardly be responsible for any of my actions, which couldn't be further from the truth. It is the Soul that controls all that.

Mind your words, will ya?

Are you having fun?

Sounds like an innocuous question: "Are you having fun?" I was listening to a lecture by J.P. Moreland, a teacher of philosophy at Biola University and a mentor to me, where he described going to one of his daughters' soccer games one day. After the first half, his little girl's team was loosing by a healthy margin and it was time for the coach to boost the team up and give his pep talk. The girls gathered around him and the coach told them that what really mattered was that they were "having fun." None of the parents seemed to react.

Is "having fun" my foremost thought when I take Camille and Gabe to TaeKwonDo or piano lessons? Just like J.P., I'm expecting my children to master a difficult skill, in the process becoming disciplined, learning to set goals and working hard to achieve them, gaining lifelong valuable knowledge. "Having fun" in the process is a great thing but it is hardly the primary objective. Don't get me wrong, there are activities where having fun is the primary objective.

So I decided to listen and see if this kind of thinking was prevalent. Sure enough, I hear that all the time. Now, there is nothing wrong with having a job you enjoy doing, I love mine. Au contraire, if it's drudgery and a more enjoyable alternative is available, then one should consider it. But is "having fun" really what it is all about? Isn't work primarily about making a living and serving God by doing the best job we possibly can? Isn't it with the sacrifice of hard work that I pay rent, the utilities, the bills, the kid's schools, and more? I am away from my wife and children for 10 hours a day, 5 days a week! Am I really sacrificing all that to "having fun?" No! I'm working, because by the sweat of my brow I will eat (Genesis 3:19). I was at Camille's school for a Halloween party and the class was divided in two teams frantically trying to fill up a jar with jelly beans first. In the middle of the chaos the teacher reminds the kids that winning or losing is not that important, that what matters is that they're having fun. OK maybe filling the jar of jelly beans isn't that important but winning or losing?

"Having fun" is fine but seems so superficial in some situations. It surely cannot be the leading motive that governs our lives. It cannot be our "raison d'être." If it were, the world would be an incredible mess. Besides I always put it in perspective by thinking of the farmer in Cambodia who works his little field. Is he having fun? Maybe...

Can We Live Without God?

Fox News had a program tonight called Can we live without God? being Christmas Day and all.

It was hosted by Lauren Green, a catholic herself. The program started with her asking the big question to a three-person panel, composed of none other than a Rabbi (Marvin Hier, Dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center), a Muslim (Mokhtar Ghambou, Assistant Professor of English at Yale University) and a Catholic (Jeff Cavins, Catholic author, theologian, and media personality, who served as a Protestant pastor for twelve years before returning to the Catholic faith). Sounds like a bad joke yet? These programs are always way too short to be any good. You get a sensible sentence or two, here and there, and you cringe at what people, who are looking for truth, are taking away. The program never allows the time to develop any kind of sound arguments or response. So what you get are short soundbites whether true or untrue left unchallenged for the most part.

After the religious trio segment you were left with the impression that we all share the same One and only God, so why should we be so divided? After all, as the hostess pointed out, the latest poll shows that 92% of Americans believe in God, so why are we so divided? Perhaps it is because each religion says very different things about who God is, and about who Jesus Christ is, in particular. Muslims see Jesus as a good prophet, a holy man but not divine, who never died of crucifixion. Jews see Jesus as a false prophet, perhaps even a charlatan, while Christians believe in Jesus' own words "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Each religion claims very different things about who God is and that is precisely why we're divided. That's OK though, I'd rather be divided than believe that 2+2, 3+5 and 1+8 all equal 4. Division isn't all that bad anyway. Good is divided from evil and most people don't see a problem with that. Somehow people get the idea that because God is love and offers his love freely to all, that he is all things to all people. That somehow defining certain attributes to God is diminishing the Deity. As a reasonable person I cannot come up with a set of attributes and say "this is my God." No, instead I have to look at and wrestle with the evidence as best I can honestly wherever it may take me.

Next came Rev. James A. Forbes Jr., Senior Minister of The Riverside Church in New York. It was painful. Painful to watch him say that he does not believe in using the word "innerant" when talking about, the word of God - the Bible! He did not want to believe that "God spoke through a meagaphone and people wrote what He said." When asked which part of the Bible he disagreed with, he responded that it was not the right question to ask. When pressed on the question of homosexual marriages, he gave the all loving answer that God would simply embrace those people and implied their sin as well. He treated the bible's strong opposition to homosexuality as a thing of the past, and related it to slavery. "We cannot project our values on others as Christians"- quote!. I'm still not sure which God this supposedly Christian leader believed in. What a confusing mess for the viewers, not counting for the people he is supposed to be sheparding. If the words of the Bible are not true, why even bother leading a Christian church? I mean there are some valid questions regarding the validity of scriptures and whether or not there is evidence that the Bible is in fact God speaking to His creation. The evidence is there, I researched it. What bothers me with this guy is he hasn't the foggiest idea what historical Christinanity stands on. Then Fox uses these guys to represent the evangelical Christians in front of the world - Yikes! No wonder people are so confused about what to believe.

Ravi Zacharias (RZIM) briefly addressed The problem of Evil and was by far the most cogent speaker on the issues addressed to him tonight. He explained, the fact that evil happens (cancer killing 5 year old children, the Katrina hurricane, the tsunami, as the host probed) is a constant reminder of our separation from God and our need for Him. This is where I wish the program had spent more time. This Problem of Evil is a seemmingly unsurmountable obstacle to many unbelievers and skeptics, and is an important subject for Christians to know how to address. Much more could be said to build a case to explain why evil exists in the world. The best explanation I've ever read is in the book Hard Questions, Real Answers by William Lane Craig. God made human beings creatures with free will, and therefore created the potential for evil, but not evil itself. His creatures freely chose to turn away from God and are doing evil to this day. That was the case for Lucifer at the beginning of creation, it was the case for Eve then Adam and it is the case today. The next speaker turned away from God because of never hearing satisfying answers to this issue. It is critical for Christians to understand how to answer the problem of evil and I was so glad to see that Ravi was chosen to answer this segment.

Michael Shermer, Skeptic Magazine, to the question Can We Live Without God? takes the stance that we essentially have been living without God. He claims that the Problem of Evil and his encounter with science led him to abandon his belief in God. He further claims that our sense of right and wrong evolved as it is needed for survival and that we have no evidence for God's existence. Although, the problem of evil is an important issue which many Christians are unable to answer effectively, I find Shermer's dilemma interesting. He struggles with a problem which really shouldn't be a problem at all - for him. Afterall, if we are just a composition of atoms which evolved by pure chance, randomness and time, as he believes, why should that issue bother him. I mean stuff happens. If cancer evolved along with human beings; if Tsunamis and hurricanes are part of nature's course, why should he call it evil in the first place. For the skeptic should there be such a term as "evil?" These are random events which just happen naturally in the course of time, as we live and spin aimlessly on this common little planet we just happen to call Earth. In other words, why blame a God or question his existence for things you believe are natural events anyway? For how would the concept of evil evolve? How does something immaterial such as the idea that there is evil come into being from pure physical matter? The fact is, it does not. Evil is the idea that things aren't the way they ought to be. And the concept that things ought to be a certain way should be foreign to skeptics who don't believe in moral absolutes and God. Evil is indeed very real and skeptics know it intrinsically, therefore evil is itself evidence for the existence of God.

Then came Julia Sweeney, writer/comedienne who wrote Letting Go of God. Need I say more? When asked about the universality of moral values, she just replies that our species happens to have a brain and that is what sets us apart. Morality is just a mechanistic device which we use to co-survive. When asked about Faith, she says she prefers to use the words hope, and confidence in community, confidence in the human race, rather the word Faith. Not sure why Faith is such a bad word to use these days. It just means believeing in something we do not see. And believing in something we don't see is something we do all day long. I have faith people won't drive into me head on or swerve erratically when driving down the highway. I have faith my blood will coagulate before I bleed to death. Faith that this chair won't fail me or this laptop won't explode in my face. I'm not sure what I got from that segment with Sweeney, other than people freely choose to live without God. God does not hold a pistol to her temple to make her love him, so I guess I'm not all that surprised.

Next came Story Musgrave, a Cosmonaut, who sees God everywhere, in a grain of sand, in nature. I was so interested in hearing his perspective when the program resumed after commercials since he had a perspective from space few of us will ever have, and then he says "I am God." The idea of a Big Bang theory makes no sense to him and he claims the universe and everything in it always existed, always was. Much like Shermer and Sweeney, it was the unfolding of the cosmos (should I capitalize that?) that created morality. Another painful/weird segment to watch. In response, I would state the obvious that human beings are not God and neither is Mr. Musgrave. The main reason why I get frustrated with these programs is because they don't give Story a chance to explain how he arrives at the conclusion that he is God. Perhaps if people heard the premises on which he builds his conclusion, they may have a chance to see why that cannot be true. Well, without knowing those I won't go there other than to say there are certain things we just simply know and me not being God is one of them.

In the end, the conclusion of the program seemed to be that Christians are arrogant for wanting to push their views on others and that God can only be known by faith, and not reason.

What happened to the historicity of the miracles and resurrection of Jesus Christ? The witnesses? The evidence we see in science such as DNA or the fine tuning of the universe and the physical constants that permit life on Earth? Why is reason always thrown out of the window whenever we ponder such important questions? Do people really think that the belief in God has withstood the test of time by mere faith or have some bright intelligent beings investigated those things over the course of time? It is evident that God created the world around us not only by studying it, but by simply looking at it.

Can we live without God? In the moral sense - Yes, of course we can, and it's not pretty. In the physical sense - No, as God sustains all life. Without God, nothing ever was.

Jesus with Gays and Lesbians

Written in response to http://www.pubtheo.com/page.asp?PID=1354 by Pr. L. Edward Knudson, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Journal of Public Theology.

Jesus did not come to eradicate the law as it was stated in the old testament, He came to fulfill it. In fact in Matthew 5:17-20, one the gospels you so strongly encourage your readers to read, Jesus clearly says "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

That old testament law in Leviticus 18:22 states "The Lord said to Moses... 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.'"

The new testament in Romans 1:27 further reinforces that point by saying "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." and again in 1 Corinthians 6:9 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders." These are New Testament verses and testify to the continuity of what the Bible has to says on the subject throughout.

It is undeniably clear that God hates the sin of homosexuality and while I agree with you that Jesus may well have had dinner with homosexuals, he would have strongly rebuked the sin of homosexuality which is to have sex with persons of your own gender.

It is a disservice to the community as a whole and to homosexuals in particular, to embrace this destructive sin, just as it would alcoholics, drug users or pedophiles. Loving our brothers and sisters was never meant to override God's commands. Love is not the final criterion for all things. Loving our brothers and sisters is much more involved than to share a meal with them.

As we write on blogs to help others, let's keep in mind that anyone who teaches others to "break one of the least of these commandments" is as much at fault as the one who breaks it.

Paul says in 2 Timothy 4:1-3 "In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."

Let's take the task of correcting and rebuking each other seriously and do it "1 Peter 3:15 style"... with gentleness and respect.

The Soul & Abortion

It is crucial for Christians to understand what having a Soul means if abortion is to be defeated.

Americans are reportedly 80% Christians, yet the barbaric acts of abortion are still allowed in this country. How can that be?

I believe a misunderstanding of Genesis 1:28, in which God commands the first couple, Adam and Eve, to procreate is a major cause for the ongoing slaughter of children. Additionally, a lack of thinking about the soul and what it means to be human compounds the problem.

If Christians, and people in general, understood when a person comes into being, they would object sternly to anything that has to do with the destruction of embryos, whether related to abortion or embryonic stem cell research.

So, what does it mean to be human and when does life enter the body? That is the question even the non-believer wonders about. I know most people do not want to murder innocent children. So why is it that over 2,500 children per day are torn apart or chemically burned alive in their mother's womb, while the majority looks the other way?

Genesis 1:28

"be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it."

In Genesis 1:28 God gave Adam and Eve a responsibility to fill the Earth. I believe that God gave humans all they needed to fulfill that mission. He gave both of them a body and a soul with the ability to create both. The body contains the soul which contains the mind, allowing you to have desires, wants, will, thoughts and more. Having been given all that we need from God in the beginning, we are able to create life or not to create life.

For example Andi and I can abstain from having children. With our free will, we can choose not to have sex or we can have surgeries that will prevent us from having children. Unless God decides to perform another miraculous birth, we would never have other children.

Humans are created with a body and a soul. The bible is clear on that. Many times the text refers to doing something "with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deuteronomy 4:29, Deuteronomy 6:5, Joshua 22:5, 1 Kings 2:4, 2 Kings 23:3, 1 Chronicles 22:19, Jeremiah 32:41, Luke 10:27). The soul is the part of you that defines who you are as a person, so you are a soul and you have a body. Cutting a limb or a part of your brain may reduce some of your capacities, but it does not affect who you are as a person in any way, and that's precisely because the soul is a separate entity from the body.

So when does the soul come in? At what point does it come into being and animates the body? If in the beginning God provided all the ingredients for Adam and Eve to create other human beings, then the soul must come in the picture at the exact same time the person comes into being. Not a few days after conception, not at birth.

The successful cloning of Dolly the sheep reenforces the idea that cells carry soulish properties, as animals also have souls. Cloning is basically the taking of genetic material from the nucleus of a donor adult human cell and placing it inside an egg whose nucleus has been removed. Both parts having soulish potentiality, their union under the right conditions creates a new human or animal soul. This is a process called "somatic cell nuclear transfer" in which the egg now contains the DNA from the donor cell. After being treated with chemicals or electric current during cloning, cell division is stimulated. Shortly thereafter, the cloned embryo is transferred to a female uterus until birth occurs.

As J.P. Moreland and Scott B. Rae advance in their book titled Body&Soul:

"...sperm and egg have potentialities to actualize a soul when the proper physical-reproductive conditions exist, whether in natural or technological reproduction. When sperm and egg unite, the two different entities come together and form a new one, and out of the soulish potentialities of sperm and egg a new soul emerges, which then is the driver for the development of the person. (p.304)"

I do not see evidence that God would supervise every Dolly sheep-like experiment or the making of human twins or triplets, and infuse a soul at just the right moment. Instead, the genetic materials carry the new soul's building blocks to create the new person (or the new animal). The soul comes into existence the moment the sperm or genetic material meets with the egg. The union of the soulish materials forms a new person and starts directing the growth process.

This view is consistent with Christianity as it never denies God being the creator and sustainer of all life (Isaiah 46:3-5).

This view also claims that humans are persons (as there is no such things as human non-persons) at every stage of their development. Persons are not defined by their size, location, race, or level of dependency. Their personhood is grounded in the soul. Persons, being intrinsically valuable and equal from conception, have the same unalienable right to life as you and I, and therefore should be fully protected under the law.

However, the law does not protect them right now, much like the law did not protect blacks in America until late in the last century. It took the civil rights movement led by a Christian man to overturn the laws of this country. It is time for Christian men and women to repeat history and start fighting in order to win the freedom of the unborn.

Anne Rice

I thought Anne Rice's "conversion" was interesting since humans are in a constant war of ideas. She has a ton of fans and wrote a new novel called Christ the Lord : Out of Egypt .

CNN Article

Perhaps Harry Potter's novelist J.K. Rowling is next.

Who's the ACLU?

The ACLU claims to be the "nation's guardian of liberty" while at the same time "vindicating" women's rights to choose to have an abortion. What about the child's right to live? What about protecting that life from murder? Science has proven that a fetus with its own DNA, is its own person at conception.

Is the ACLU perhaps blindly misguided by its Director of Development Donna McKay's eight-year association with Planned Parenthood? Or maybe it is Nadine Strossen, President, enforcing the ideas from her book Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights (Scribner, 1995). Or Caroline Fredrickson, ACLU Director of Washington Legislative Office, currently the general counsel and legal director of NARAL Pro-Choice America. Or maybe it comes from the top with Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director, first openly gay man in that post.

The ACLU leadership seems to have a strong bent on defending a woman's right to murder her baby. The title of their position paper "Freedom Is Why We're Here" couldn't say it better. It is the right to gestate in your mother's womb, without having to risk being burned by chemicals or being torn apart alive, that allows you to be here in the first place and enjoy freedom.

The ACLU is an entity that adheres to moral relativism. Do persons become persons when they have a pocket book? At what point can a human being benefit from this self-proclaimed "guardian of liberty"? - It's unclear.

"General" Right to Privacy?

During the confirmation hearings of Judge Roberts, the Senators on the left of the aisle expressed their grave concerns with the nominees' stance on the “right of privacy" of the american citizens. US Senator Joseph Biden D-Del. told the committee “the state has no right to trench our privacy rights” and that he would like the “right of privacy” to “expand, instead of diminish,” that he would like to see the “right to choose to procreate” kept intact. Senator Biden’s worries emerged from Judge Roberts’ refusal, during the hearings, to acknowledge that privacy is a “general” right.

When asked by another Democrat whether he agreed that there is a “general” right to privacy provided in the Constitution, Roberts replied “I wouldn't use the phrase ‘general’ [because] I don't know what that means.''

Senator Biden wishes he would “know more about what he [Roberts] thinks.”

Biden might has well have asked plainly whether Judge Roberts would overturn Roe vs. Wade as the Chief Supreme Court Justice, since this seems to be the “general” concern of his party.

I just want to ask: Privacy to do whatever you want in the privacy of your home? Since when is it legal, let alone moral, to snort cocaine in your home? Can you abuse a child in the privacy of your bedroom? Can you keep your neighbor hostage at gun point in your living room? What is it with the Democrats and their unripe thinking that there is a universal right of privacy?

Killing a child in the womb is murder of the first degree Senator Biden. The child is a person with its own DNA since conception. It’s not a choice and it’s never private.

A quick look here (only for the mature audience) and the “general” concept of right to privacy that the far left liberal democrats are so enamoured with vanishes.

Overturning the Roe v. Wade decision should be our country's first priority.

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor of the Kansas City Star
In response to Lewis W. Diuguid 10/7, Opinion, “Pregnant teens won’t get the support they need.”

Supporting Murder?
By Franck Barfety

Murdering helpless children is wrong, whether by Planned Parenthood abortionists, crazed fathers with double barrel shotguns, or teens in dark alleys (10/7, Opinion, “Pregnant teens won’t get the support they need”). Though every atom in her body is renewed every seven years, Diuguid's friend is as much a person today as she was as a teen or in the womb. Her size, location, race, or level of dependency never had much to do with her personhood. Persons, being intrinsically valuable and equal from conception, have an unalienable right to life as enunciated in The Declaration of Independence and should be fully protected under the law. This includes protection from their parents or accomplices, wherever and however long they connive to kill. Legislation prohibiting transport of a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion without parental consent is a welcome tear in the Roe vs. Wade masquerade.

D’où vient l’univers?

Dans la série Raisonnons Ensemble.

D’où vient l’univers
Peut-il vraiment y avoir un infini passé?

Les scientifiques et les Chretiens sont d'accord - l'univers tel qu'on le connait est arrive soudainement.

Le monde scientifique indique qu'une explosion massive, connue sous le nom de "big bang" (grande explosion) serait a l'origine de l'Univers. L'explosion aurait eu lieu a peut près 13,7 milliard d'années. Si l'on remonte dans le temps, au point précis ou l'univers a explosé, l'univers serait apparu de rien. Notre système solaire, notre planète, notre vie serait le resultat de milliards d'années d'evennement guidés par la chance et le hazard.

Le fait est que rien ne produit rien. Mais l'univers est la. Il ya ceux qui disent que l'Univers a toujours existé mais il est impossible d'avoir une succession infinie de moment passés et arriver à aujourd'hui, car il est impossible de commencer.

La seconde loi thermodynamique nous dis aussi qu'avec le temps, l'univers a tendence à se desorganiser. Par exemple, quelque chose de chaud avec assez de temps prend la même température que la température ambiente. Si vous laissez une tasse de café chaud sur une table et revenez le lendemain, la température du café sera celle de la température de l'air qui l'entoure. La chaleur se sera dissiper. Cette loi s'applique aussi au soleil et pointe vers un univers assez jeune. Certainement pas un univers infini. Ce principe s'applique aussi à l'ordre de l'univers. Laissez a lui même, l'univers, tout ce qui est matière, se désorganise petit à petit. L'univers dans lequel on vit est pourtant très organisé et dépend d'une quantité impressionante de lois physiques.

La seule chose que l'on connaisse qui cause autre chose d'arriver sans rien est notre pensée. Réflechissez un instant à un project que vou aimeriez completer, une cabane, un arc, un avion, ou autre, ou une action que vous aimeriez accomplir. Comme vous planifier le projet dans votre esprit, votre pensée et l'actualisez après. Il est donc semblablement possible d'envisager un esprit supérieur capable de créer l'univers.

Phasminated

This morning, my wife Andi hurried the kids and I outside our home to witness an unusual sight. A stick like bug was hanging on the front spoiler of my car. I was immediately “Phasminated,” as I’d never seen this type of insect (phasmid species) before. While filling up my digital camera, I thought of the evolution/intelligent design debate.

What kind of arguments might a pro-evolution debater attempt to bring to the table (or to the driveway)? That millions of years of slight genetic mutations passed from one generation to the next, triggered by certain events in the environment (natural selection), caused an insect to mutate its body into a stick with the tips of its legs looking like grass in order to escape its predators or to reproduce more effectively? Or better yet, as my mother-in-law so amusingly pointed out, was it that the branch of a tree thought it would be quite fun to detach itself from a boring static trunk and move around the ground like an insect?

Evolution, in a nutshell, says that all things are the by-product of matter meeting up with time and randomness. It does nothing to explain where matter came from in the first place. It does nothing to explain why a vulnerable bug does not become an elephant instead of a stick insect. It does nothing to explain how atoms randomly bring about moral values such as compassion or goodness.

The stick insect is another one of God’s amazing creatures and a reminder of his immense creative diversity.

La Vérité

Dans la série Raisonnons Ensemble.

La Vérité
Peut-il y avoir une seule vérité, ou est-ce que chacun peut avoir sa propre version?

La Logique nous aide à organiser nos pensées afin que nous puissions comprendre, interpréter et agir sur les informations que l’on reçoit. Elle nous permet de déterminer si quelque chose est vrai ou faux. La logique nous rapproche de la verite. « Pourquoi chercher à connaitre la vérité… » diront certains, « …si l’on est satisfait de notre vie ? Après tout, on ne fais de mal à personne. » Je répond que si l’on ne connaît pas la vérité, bien que l’on vie dans le même monde, nous ne vivons pas dans la même réalité, encore moins dans l’ultime réalité, qui est la vraie réalité. Le fait est, que la vérité se fiche de votre avis ou du mien. Elle reste constante quelle que soit notre opinion. Deux exemples :

1. Dans le passé, certaines personnes pensaient que la Terre étaient plate alors que d’autres la pensaient ronde. Leurs croyances n’avaient pourtant aucun impact sur l’ultime réalité que nous connaissont aujourd’hui.

2. Vénérer mon écran vidéo en tant que Dieu de tout mon cœur, et trouver vingt personnes qui le vénèrent avec moi tous les dimanches matins, n’a aucun impact sur la nature de mon écran, encore moins sur celle de Dieu. La vérité est indifférente envers ma croyance, mon degré de croyance, ou le nombre de personnes qui croient à ce que je crois. Le moniteur LCD est tel qu’il est et ne changera pas par rapport à ma croyance. Il est néanmoins important de connaître la vérité à propos de Dieu si l’on veux avoir une relation fructueuse avec lui et non pas l’écran, ou autre objet, ou personne quelconque. Si l’écran n’est pas Dieu, il est clair que ces personnes et moi perdons notre temps.

La vérité est donc indifférente à ce que l’on croit. Mais comment vient on a connaitre la verite? Par l’utilisation de la logique. Nous sommes tous plus ou moins capable d’utiliser la logique dans notre vie de tous les jours. La logique est en quelque sorte, l’ordre que nous donnons a nos pensees qui nous fait par la suite agir d’une certaine facon. Par example, nous ne prennons pas une douche avant de faire de l’exercise et nous ne nous sechons pas les cheveux avant de les laver. Il y a de l’ordre dans chacunes de nos pensees et actions. Il est donc important de reconnaitre et de comprendre la logique dans notre facon de penser.

Un des premiers principes de la logique est La Loi de Non-Contradiction. Cette loi nous dit qu’il est impossible que deux choses contradictoires soit vraies en même temps et au même moment. (A n’est pas non-A). Cette loi n’est jamais déniable, car elle détermine ce qui est vrai et ce qui est faux. Si quelqu’un déclare que cette loi de la logique est fausse, il présume qu’il est possible qu’elle soit vraie, mais c’est cette loi même qui détermine ce qui est vrai et ce qui est faux. La loi de non-contradiction peut être mise en action de cette facon:


Dieu, par sa propre définition, ne peut pas avoir été créer par une personne.

Le moniteur LCD a été créer par une personne.

Donc, le moniteur LCD ne peut pas être Dieu.

Un autre principe est La Loi du Milieu Exclu (soit A ou non-A). Etant donné que la loi de non-contradiction nous dit que quelque chose est soit l’un ou soit l’autre (soit Dieu ou soit le moniteur), il est impossible que quelque chose tombe entre les deux.

Ces lois ne sont pas à débattre. Elles sont établies et reconnues par toute sorte de philosophes, croyant en Dieu ou pas.

Ce qui nous rammene a repondre a notre question « Y’a-t-il une verite ou plusieurs verites ou chacun a sa propre verite? »

Un example simple mais puissant qui nous aide a penser a cette question est le suivant. La somme mathematique de 2+2 est 4 et restera toujours 4. La reponse est universelle. Elle est vrai aujourd’hui telle qu’elle l’etait hier ou il y a 5000 ans et meme avant qu’on ne la decouvre. La reponse est vrai non seulement au Kansas mais aussi a Paris ou n’importe ou dans l’univers. Elle est vrai non seulement pour moi qui y croit, mais aussi pour celui qui se moque d’elle.

Il est clair que la reponse ne peut pas être différente de personne en personne. La vérité ne peut donc pas être personnelle, elle est unique, solitaire, totallement indépendente de notre croyance en elle, et toujours universelle.

Il y a un phenomene recemment qui demande que l’on soit « tolerant. » Le mot tolerant veut simplement dire que l’on puisse echanger nos idees entre nous avec respect sans devoir etre d’accord. Le mot « intolerant » est maintenant utilise incorrectement avec l’idee que si l’on est pas d’accord avec un point de vue, nous sommes intolerants. A chacun sa verite et si vous n’accepter pas ma verite, vous etes intolerant. Utiliser le mot intolerant de cette facon est self-destructif car celui qui accuse l’autre d’etre intolerant l’est lui-même. Soyez donc tolérant des prochaines courtes réponses qui vous donneront j'espère une nouvelle perspective sur la vie en général, votre vie en particulier, et surtout la vérité.

Raisonnons Ensemble

Raisonnons Ensemble

(French for: Let's Reason Together)

« La vérité est si obscurcie en ce temps, et le mensonge si établi, qu'à moins que d'aimer la vérité, on ne saurait la connaître. » - Blaise Pascal.

Il y a un moment dans notre vie ou la vérité essaye de se faire connaître. Ce que l’on décide de faire à ce moment précis change tout.

Entre l’age de 17 et 25 ans je préférais passer mon temps dans l’obscurité, comfortable dans la réalité que j’avais moi-même façonné. La vie me semblait bonne. Du moment que je n’etais pas un criminel ou un drogué, je reussissais a justifier toutes mes actions. Jusqu’au jour où je me suis retrouver face à face avec La Vérité. A l’âge de 25 ans, j’ai du faire un choix – l’admettre ou l’ignorer. J’ai du etre honnête avec moi-même en placant la vérité avant tout -avant mes traditions familiales, mon passé et surtout ma fierté.

J’espère vous encourager à réfléchir sur ce qu’il me semble sont les questions les plus importantes de la vie, et de vous rapprocher de la verité à leur sujet. J’écris donc un chapitre sur chacune des questions suivantes:

1. La Verité - Peut-il y avoir une vérité absolue, ou est-ce que chacun a sa propre version?
2. D’où vient l’univers (peut-il vraiment y avoir un infini passé)?
3. Avons nous évolué par hazard dans cet univers?
4. Pourquoi existons nous?
5. De quoi sommes nous composés? Le corp et l’ame.
6. Est-ce qu’il est possible qu’un Dieu existe et quelles en sont les preuves?
7. Qui a créé Dieu?
8. Quelle est la nature de ce Dieu?
9. Pourquoi Dieu nous a t-il créer?
10. D’où vient le mal?
11. Est-ce que toutes les religions mènent au même Dieu?
12. L’avortement
13. L’homosexualité
14. La peine de mort

Je cherche donc la vérité et pourquoi il est si important de vivre sa vie en cherchant à la connaître et à avoir une relation avec elle. Je pointe vers la logique et l’aide qu’elle nous apporte à répondre à ces questions les plus fondamentales.