My name is Everette Hatcher III. I am a businessman in Little Rock and have been living in Bryant since 1993. My wife Jill and I have four kids (Rett 24, Hunter 22, Murphey 16, and Wilson 14).
23 While dining with a ruler, pay attention to what is put before you. 2 If you are a big eater, put a knife to your throat; 3 don’t desire all the delicacies, for he might be trying to trick you.
4 Don’t wear yourself out trying to get rich. Be wise enough to know when to quit. 5 In the blink of an eye wealth disappears, for it will sprout wings and fly away like an eagle.
6 Don’t eat with people who are stingy; don’t desire their delicacies. 7 They are always thinking about how much it costs.[a] “Eat and drink,” they say, but they don’t mean it. 8 You will throw up what little you’ve eaten, and your compliments will be wasted.
9 Don’t waste your breath on fools, for they will despise the wisest advice.
10 Don’t cheat your neighbor by moving the ancient boundary markers; don’t take the land of defenseless orphans. 11 For their Redeemer[b] is strong; he himself will bring their charges against you.
12 Commit yourself to instruction; listen carefully to words of knowledge.
13 Don’t fail to discipline your children. The rod of punishment won’t kill them. 14 Physical discipline may well save them from death.[c]
15 My child,[d] if your heart is wise, my own heart will rejoice! 16 Everything in me will celebrate when you speak what is right.
17 Don’t envy sinners, but always continue to fear the Lord. 18 You will be rewarded for this; your hope will not be disappointed.
19 My child, listen and be wise: Keep your heart on the right course. 20 Do not carouse with drunkards or feast with gluttons, 21 for they are on their way to poverty, and too much sleep clothes them in rags.
22 Listen to your father, who gave you life, and don’t despise your mother when she is old. 23 Get the truth and never sell it; also get wisdom, discipline, and good judgment. 24 The father of godly children has cause for joy. What a pleasure to have children who are wise.[e] 25 So give your father and mother joy! May she who gave you birth be happy.
26 O my son, give me your heart. May your eyes take delight in following my ways. 27 A prostitute is a dangerous trap; a promiscuous woman is as dangerous as falling into a narrow well. 28 She hides and waits like a robber, eager to make more men unfaithful.
29 Who has anguish? Who has sorrow? Who is always fighting? Who is always complaining? Who has unnecessary bruises? Who has bloodshot eyes? 30 It is the one who spends long hours in the taverns, trying out new drinks. 31 Don’t gaze at the wine, seeing how red it is, how it sparkles in the cup, how smoothly it goes down. 32 For in the end it bites like a poisonous snake; it stings like a viper. 33 You will see hallucinations, and you will say crazy things. 34 You will stagger like a sailor tossed at sea, clinging to a swaying mast. 35 And you will say, “They hit me, but I didn’t feel it. I didn’t even know it when they beat me up. When will I wake up so I can look for another drink?”
“But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.”
Isaiah 59:2
Outline
Introduction
They Had Bloody Hands
They Had Lying Lips
They Had Wicked Hearts
A Diet of Deception
A Web of Wickedness
The Web of Pornography
The Web of Drugs and Alcohol
The Web of Sexual Immorality
III. A Trashing of Truth
Conclusion
Introduction
Be finding in your Bibles the book of Isaiah chapter 59; and when you’ve found it, would you look up here, and may I tell you as you’re finding it that our beloved United States of America is in a crisis. And the title of the message today: “A Nation in Crisis.” One by one, the lights of decency and the lights of hope are being blown out in America. And it seems that Americans are content to have scoundrels in leadership so long as they give us prosperity. But one day, calamity will come. One day, we will face perhaps international terrorism, perhaps unparalleled economic reversal, perhaps natural disasters over which we have no control whatsoever. And then we will fill our churches, and we will turn our eyes upward. And we will dial 911, but there will be no answer: the line will be dead. First Samuel chapter 8, verse 18, says, “And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.” (1 Samuel 8:18) You’ll cry out; you’ll say, “O God, have mercy.” You’ll pray, and your prayers won’t be answered. Why is that?
Well, look in Isaiah chapter 59, verse 1: “Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:”—God is not palsied, and God is not deaf—“but”—verse 2—“your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness. None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity.” (Isaiah 59:1–4) Now, what is Isaiah saying to a sinful nation of that day? God is well able to hear your prayers. It’s not that He cannot hear your prayers; it is that He will not hear your prayers because your sin has created a barrier between you and a holy God. And Isaiah tells us what the sin of that day was and how it tracks and parallels the sin of our day.
They Had Bloody Hands
First of all, look in verse 2. They had bloody hands. America is swimming in an ocean of blood. A modern holocaust has stained and flooded America. The blood of some thirty million preborn babies cries out from the ground against us since 1972, that horrendous Roe v. Wade ruling when nine men dressed in black robes said that a little preborn babies can be treated as a piece of protoplasm. And we in America are now killing babies at the rate of four thousand a day. Notice what Isaiah said: “Your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you.” (Isaiah 59:2) Verse 3: “Your hands are defiled with blood.” (Isaiah 59:3)
When you ask a politician about abortion, he’ll dodge the issue. He’ll tell you, “That’s a moral decision. It is a religious decision. That’s not a proper subject for politics, and that needs to be studied in the church between the priest, the rabbi, and the pastor. It is a personal decision, not a political decision.” But if the priest, the rabbi, or the pastor speaks about it, they’ll rise up and say, “Why doesn’t he stay out of politics?” And meanwhile, the babies die. And we are swimming in an ocean of blood, and the violence of our day has surpassed the days of Noah, the days of Lot. King Herod is in the background today. One man has wisely said, “Today we’re living in the day where twelve-year-olds are having babies, fifteen-year-olds are killing each other, seventeen-year-olds are dying of AIDS, and eighteen-year-olds are graduating from high school with a diploma they can’t read.” That’s where we are in America today: bloody hands.
They Had Lying Lips
But then he goes on to say not only bloody hands, but lying lips. Again, look, if you will, in verse 3: “Your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness.” (Isaiah 59:3) I’ve been watching the news programs lately, and we’ve been talking about lies in high places and low places. And the going merchandise among those news programs is, “Well, everybody lies. What’s so rare about lies? Everybody lies.” U. S. News & World Report in a report said this: “Governmental officials dissemble; scientists falsify research; workers alter career credentials to get jobs.” And then the magazine asks, “What’s going on here? The answer, a growing number of social critics fear, is an alarming decline in basic honesty.”
They Had Wicked Hearts
Bloody hands. Lying lips. Number three: wicked hearts. Look, if you will, in verse 4: “None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity.” (Isaiah 59:4) It’s terrible to raise teenagers today, because we have a day of moral ambivalence; we have a day of ethical fogginess. What are we being told today? We’re being told that adultery is really no big deal: everybody does that. Friend, I want to tell you, if a man will not keep a sacred vow before Almighty God to his wife, I wouldn’t trust him to keep any promise anywhere anytime. We’re being told today that private morality can be disconnected from public service. That’s not what God’s Word says. Ecclesiastes chapter 10, verse 1 says this: “Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour.” (Ecclesiastes 10:1) Dead flies in the ointment, friend; something stinks in America.
Theodore Roosevelt, a man of yesteryear, won his first major election back in 1898. He was elected governor of New York. About that time, Theodore Roosevelt wrote something that’s so pertinent to our day and our age. I want you to listen to it. It sounds like it was written for today, but listen to it. He says, “No community is healthy where it is ever necessary to distinguish one politician among his fellows because ‘he is honest.’ Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest we have no right to keep him in public life, it matters not how brilliant his capacity, it hardly matters how great his powers of doing good service on certain lines may be.” Now what Teddy Roosevelt said was, “If he’s not honest, then he’s just simply disqualified.”
Again, Teddy Roosevelt said this: “If a man lies under oath or procures the lie of another under oath, if he perjures himself or suborns perjury, he is guilty under the statute law. Under the higher law, under the great law of morality and righteousness, he is precisely as guilty if, instead of lying in a court, he lies in a newspaper or on the stump; and in all probability the evil effects of his conduct are infinitely more wide-spread and more pernicious. The difference between perjury and mendacity is not in the least one of morals or ethics. It is simply one of legal forms.” Now what he is saying is the same thing that Jesus said when He said, “[When you speak] let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay.” (James 5:12) It doesn’t matter whether you’re under oath or whether you’re not under oath.
We’re being told today that somehow public approval validates wrong behavior. This same Isaiah, whose book we’re reading, said in Isaiah chapter 5, verse 20, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”(Isaiah 5:20) We’re being told that if a man is approved by society, that that is good. It is not good, no matter how many times we take a poll. We’re being told that a lie about adultery is permissible and that a lie while under oath is not acceptable. And Jesus said, “Let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay.” (James 5:12)
Now, what has brought about this condition? Why is it that Isaiah’s people came to a place where they would look up to God and say, “God have mercy on us,” and God said, “No, I’m not going to hear your prayer”? What brought about bloody hands, lying lips, and wicked hearts? Three things—I want you to see them right here in this text.
A Diet of Deception
Number one: The people had been feeding on a diet of deception. Look in verse 5: “They hatch [viper’s] eggs, and weave the spider’s web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper.” (Isaiah 59:5) Now if you’ll look at verse 5, and link verse 5 to verse 4, you’re going to find out that those viper’s eggs, those snake eggs that he’s talking about that are hatched in hell’s incubators, they are devilish lies and philosophies that are being hatched—were hatched in Isaiah’s day and also being hatched in our day—lying, poisonous philosophies that are being swallowed down by adults and by youth alike. Our world, our nation, is on a snake egg diet—a diet of deception. The incubators that hatch those eggs are materialism, humanism, New Ageism, liberalism. They’ve hatched these out. The old granddaddy serpent who has spawned and fertilized these eggs is Satan himself because he is a liar, and the father of all lies. (John 8:44) There are certain philosophical underpinnings that are so incipient in American life today that are poisoning our educational, our philosophical, our religious, and political outlook.
And our young people are going to public schools, and each morning they’re served a snake egg omelet. They swallow these things down. You see, dramatic changes have taken place in America, and in twenty years—twenty years that most of us have lived through—there has been a complete reversal. From 1962 to 1982, let me tell you what has happened in twenty years. In 1962, the Supreme Court ruled that voluntary prayer in public schools is unconstitutional. Now they tell us that our children must be in the public schools, but they say, “You cannot have voluntary prayer. We’ll put you there, but you cannot pray.” That’s 1962. Then, in 1963, the same court dismantled classroom Bible reading: no room for the Bible in our halls of education. Then, in 1980, the posting of the Ten Commandments was declared unconstitutional. Now when kids are bringing guns to school, we cannot post on the walls of our schoolrooms, “Thou shalt not kill.” (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17) In 1982, the court prohibited the teaching of biblical creation. In twenty years, God has been expelled from our public schools and been told not to return. Now abortion, infanticide, euthanasia all become possible in a world where you believe that man is the creation of some blind, evolutionary force; that he is not created in the image of God, but he has evolved from some primordial ooze.
So, what do we have today? What is it like? Well, today, children, if they go to school, must receive parental permission before a school-based clinic can prescribe an aspirin. But yet in America a little teenage girl can be given an abortion—abortion guidance counsel, and the abortion itself—without the parents even knowing that this is taking place. That is in America. School-based clinics dispense birth control devices and parental counseling without notification or approval. What is happening in America is that our kids are being served snake eggs everyday. Prayer is out; policemen are in. Bibles are out; values clarification is in. The Ten Commandments, yes, they’re out; but rape and armed robbery, gang warfare, murder, and cheating are in. Creation instruction is out; evolution and blind chance is in. Corporal punishment is out; disrespect and rebellion are in. Traditional values are out; unwed motherhood is in. Abstinence is out; condoms and abortion are in. Learning is out; social engineering is in. History is out; revisionism is in. Is it any wonder that the suicide rate of our teenagers is soaring, runaway statistics are soaring, promiscuity problems, violent crime? Our kids are not being raised in a society, in a school, that says that they have rights that are given to them, unalienable rights given by Almighty God, but they are told that the universe itself exists—not that it was created—and the wisdom that built this great nation is being laughed at.
But here’s the sad thing. Look, if you will, in verse 5: “They hatch [viper’s] eggs, and weave the spider’s web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth,”—now, watch that—“and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper.” (Isaiah 59:5) When you come against these things and try to stamp them out, all you do is create more snakes. To stamp out these snake eggs is not the answer.
A Web of Wickedness
Now not only is there a diet of deception, but that is compounded by a second thing in America that makes our nation a nation in crisis: not only a diet of deception, but a web of wickedness. Look again in verse 5, if you will. He says here in verse 5, “They … weave the spider’s web.” I got down my encyclopedia and read something about spiders. I don’t know whether you have a love affair with spiders or not. I don’t. But spiders weave a web—almost invisible, very sticky. And the purpose of that web is to catch an unsuspecting insect who will fly into that web and become entangled in that web where the spider can come out and wrap him out in more strands of that web. Then the spider injects poison into the body of that insect, and the spider sucks that insect dry.
Now Satan has woven some webs, and he is poisoning and sucking dry the generation of young people today. Satan has a network—are you listening to me?—a web of evil that is absolutely terrifying, and our young people can hardly see the web. They don’t understand it.
The Web of Pornography
There’s pornography, for example: the web of pornography. “Pastor Rogers, does pornography lead to degeneracy?” Pornography is degeneracy. That’s what it is. Our kids today can get on the Internet and watch unspeakable, unmentionable things, even in school, as they can access these things. At home they can pick up the phone, dial-a-porn, and listen to lesbian sexual activities, sodomy, rape, incest, bestiality, or sex with other children. There are more adult bookstores in America today than there are McDonald’s restaurants. Pornography is a multibillion-dollar industry. That is a web, and so many kids and adults alike are being caught in it.
The Web of Drugs and Alcohol
Satan has his web of drugs and alcohol—a deadly trap. America is filled today with walking dead, whose lives have been sucked dry by the spiders of alcohol and drug abuse. I read recently where students spend 5.5 billion dollars on alcohol: more than they spend on nonalcoholic drinks like Pepsi or Coke or 7 Up and books put together—on alcoholic beverages! Now these Madison Avenue people come into the living room through their beer ads, and through their sports ads, and they’ll have these boys, as I’ve said before, out there on the bass boat somewhere hoisting a six-pack, and one of them smiles and says to the other one, “It doesn’t get any better than this.” Boy, they’re right: it always gets worse. “It doesn’t get any better than this.” And we have a generation of walking dead, who have been sucked dry, embalmed, by alcohol.
The Web of Sexual Immorality
There’s a sticky web of immorality. Young people are being told today there are no fixed standards of right or wrong, and the media, or entertainment, has created the myth that premarital sex, extramarital sex, and homosexuality are on the same level as chastity, monogamy, and heterosexuality. And in our so-called sex education classes in many of our schools they have a threefold goal—and that is to teach children how to fornicate without guilt, without catching a disease, and without conceiving a baby. That’s called “sex education” today.
How would you like your child to go to school and hear what some are being taught? Here’s what they’re being taught. Here’s the textbook. Quote: “Premarital sexual intercourse is both acceptable for men and women if they are involved in a stable, loving relationship. It has been suggested by some marriage counseling authorities that all couples should live together before they’re married.” How would you like that for education? Or listen to this: “Often, promiscuity is labeled as bad by persons who do not accept this type of behavior. As with other patterns of sexual behavior, one should not pin ‘good’ or ‘bad’ on a practice.” Here’s another: “Morality is individual; it’s what you think it is. Your conception of what is right or wrong morally is an individual decision.”
May God have mercy upon us when these tell us we cannot pray, we cannot read God’s Word, we cannot post the Ten Commandments, but we can denigrate God’s Word and God’s law. And kids today talk about “going all the way.” My God, that’s the one thing they don’t do. They haven’t gone all the way. They go a little further when they catch a disease along the way; a little further when a baby is conceived and they have to tell their father or mother; a little further if they decide to murder that baby. But they really haven’t gone all the way until they stand before a holy God who says, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”; (Exodus 20:14) a holy God who says, “Flee fornication.” (1 Corinthians 6:18)
III.A Trashing of Truth
Friend, we are in a terrible situation. What has brought about this crisis in America? Number one: a diet of deception. Number two: a web of wickedness. Number three: the trashing of truth. Fast-forward to verse 12: “For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us: for our transgressions are with us; and as for our iniquities, we know them; In transgressing and lying against the Lord, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood.” Now, watch this: “And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off:”—why has judgment been turned away backward? Why does justice wait in the wings? Here it is—“for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey.” (Isaiah 59:12–15) That is, when you stand up and speak against it, you become the bad guy.
Listen. I have been preaching too many years for me not to know that I am the heavy today; I am the bad guy today; I’m making myself a prey when I say “This is wrong” when I speak against these things. When you call for justice, when you call for truth, you become the guy in the black hat. That’s the state to which we have come today. But notice what he says. He says there’s a traffic jam. Justice, equity, cannot come through the streets, because “truth is fallen.”And all of the traffic is backed up, because “truth is fallen in the street.” (Isaiah 59:14)
Well, what caused truth to fall? Notice truth is not dead. There is a traffic jam. Judgment, justice, and equity cannot enter. It’s not that truth is nonexistent. You can’t ever murder truth. It is not that truth is dead. Truth will not die. But truth has stumbled. Truth is lying prostrate on the ground. Why? Well, she has been knocked down in America by doctors of philosophy. She has been tripped up in America by dishonest politicians. And she has been chloroformed by liberal preachers. And she’s lying there in the street. May I say with all of the unction, function, and emotion of my soul; God help me to say it: The job in America today is to put truth back on her feet. That is the job in America: to put truth back on her feet. And I really believe there is not a lot wrong in America that could not be put right quickly, dramatically, if across America, in the pulpits of America, from sea to shining sea, this Sunday and every Sunday, a generation of preachers would open the book of truth and preach “Thus saith the Lord God Almighty” without fear or failure.
We’re in a situation today that’s in a crisis. Why did God write a Bible? He calls that Bible “the Word of truth.” Why did God send the Holy Spirit? He calls the Holy Spirit “the Spirit of truth.” How does God describe Himself? He describes Himself as “the Truth.” Who is Jesus? Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6) What is the church? The church is called “the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15) The Apostle John said, “I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.” (3 John 1:4) We can get facts from the Internet. There’s a difference between facts and truth. Knowledge may double; truth will never double. There is eternal truth. Truth is what food is to your body, light is to your eyes, and melody is to your ears.
Now, do you know what most of us want to do? Most of us want to be stamping out snake eggs. Most of us want to be sweeping down spider’s webs. But, friend, you stamp out a snake egg: just more snakes. You sweep down a spider’s web—you’ve done it before: it’s back the next morning, is it not? We need something that will slay the snake and destroy the spider—and that is truth. Only truth can keep this daddy serpent from spawning those eggs. Only truth can keep that spider from weaving those sticky webs. We need to lift up truth in America today, to put truth on her feet. And I want to call upon you and every believer to rededicate himself to the truth. Parents, teach your children to live the truth, to love the truth, to tell the truth, to know the truth, and to believe the truth. Jesus said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” (John 17:17)
Conclusion
Let me give you a proverb here, and I’m almost finished—Proverbs 23, verse 23: “Buy the truth, and sell it not.” (Proverbs 23:23) There is a prize to possess: it is truth. There is a price to pay: you must buy the truth. You must study it, pore over it, live it, know it. And you must preserve the truth. Don’t let anybody take the truth from you. That truth is in God’s Word. The early Christians did not argue over the Bible. They loved it. They believed it. They expounded it. They poured it forth as white-hot lava.
Now, one by one, person by person, family by family, city by city, church by church, we’ve go to take America back. My heart is broken over snake eggs, spider webs, and traffic jams. What about you? I’m not talking about the person sitting next to you. What about you? Are you right with God? Do you think it’s somebody else’s problem? What about your home? What about your business relationships? Have you been feeding on snake eggs? Some right now are wrapped up in spider’s webs. There’s only one thing that will set you free. Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32)
I want to tell you, the truth is today that God loves you. The truth is today that Jesus Christ died for you. He carried your sins to the cross, and with His blood, He paid your sin debt. The truth is that He walked out of that grave, and He has ascended to high hills of glory. The truth is that one day—soon and very soon, I hope—He’s coming again. And the truth is, if you will believe on Him and trust Him, He will save you. I promise you on the authority of the Word of God not only will have save you, but—praise His holy name—He will satisfy you. What you’re longing for, you’ll never find, until you find it in the Lord Jesus. And not only will He save you, and satisfy you; He will sanctify you. He’ll begin to make you more and more and more and more and more like Him. Now when you come to Jesus, you’re not going to sprout wings and get a halo right away; you’ll have to grow. But this saving Jesus is the satisfying, sanctifying Jesus. And I’ll tell you something else: He will secure you. He will keep you. It’s not a matter of your holding on to Him; He’ll hold you—if you truly give Him your heart and your life.•[1]
[1] Rogers, A. (2017). A Nation in Crisis. In Adrian Rogers Sermon Archive (Is 59:1–15). Signal Hill, CA: Rogers Family Trust.
30 The sayings of Agur son of Jakeh contain this message.[a]
I am weary, O God; I am weary and worn out, O God.[b] 2 I am too stupid to be human, and I lack common sense. 3 I have not mastered human wisdom, nor do I know the Holy One.
4 Who but God goes up to heaven and comes back down? Who holds the wind in his fists? Who wraps up the oceans in his cloak? Who has created the whole wide world? What is his name—and his son’s name? Tell me if you know!
5 Every word of God proves true. He is a shield to all who come to him for protection. 6 Do not add to his words, or he may rebuke you and expose you as a liar.
7 O God, I beg two favors from you; let me have them before I die. 8 First, help me never to tell a lie. Second, give me neither poverty nor riches! Give me just enough to satisfy my needs. 9 For if I grow rich, I may deny you and say, “Who is the Lord?” And if I am too poor, I may steal and thus insult God’s holy name.
10 Never slander a worker to the employer, or the person will curse you, and you will pay for it.
11 Some people curse their father and do not thank their mother. 12 They are pure in their own eyes, but they are filthy and unwashed. 13 They look proudly around, casting disdainful glances. 14 They have teeth like swords and fangs like knives. They devour the poor from the earth and the needy from among humanity.
15 The leech has two suckers that cry out, “More, more!”[c]
There are three things that are never satisfied— no, four that never say, “Enough!”: 16 the grave,[d] the barren womb, the thirsty desert, the blazing fire.
17 The eye that mocks a father and despises a mother’s instructions will be plucked out by ravens of the valley and eaten by vultures.
18 There are three things that amaze me— no, four things that I don’t understand: 19 how an eagle glides through the sky, how a snake slithers on a rock, how a ship navigates the ocean, how a man loves a woman.
20 An adulterous woman consumes a man, then wipes her mouth and says, “What’s wrong with that?”
21 There are three things that make the earth tremble— no, four it cannot endure: 22 a slave who becomes a king, an overbearing fool who prospers, 23 a bitter woman who finally gets a husband, a servant girl who supplants her mistress.
24 There are four things on earth that are small but unusually wise: 25 Ants—they aren’t strong, but they store up food all summer. 26 Hyraxes[e]—they aren’t powerful, but they make their homes among the rocks. 27 Locusts—they have no king, but they march in formation. 28 Lizards—they are easy to catch, but they are found even in kings’ palaces.
29 There are three things that walk with stately stride— no, four that strut about: 30 the lion, king of animals, who won’t turn aside for anything, 31 the strutting rooster, the male goat, a king as he leads his army.
32 If you have been a fool by being proud or plotting evil, cover your mouth in shame.
33 As the beating of cream yields butter and striking the nose causes bleeding, so stirring up anger causes quarrels.
Intimacy with the Lord and His Word is the key to understanding everything. Through the Lord’s instruction and by His grace, we grow to understand Him, understand ourselves and the “”thoughts and intents of our heart”” (Hebrews 4:10). But there is more.
The Bible describes for us all types of people and how we should understand and relate to them. Proverbs is particularly helpful in this regard. Here’s one of the most tragic kinds of men, described in Proverbs.
11 There is a kind of man who curses his father and does not bless his mother. (BITTER) 12 There is a kind who is pure in his own eyes, yet is not washed from his filthiness. (HYPOCRITICAL) 13 There is a kind—oh how lofty are his eyes! And his eyelids are raised in arrogance. (PROUD) 14 There is a kind of man whose teeth are like swords and his jaw teeth like knives, to devour the afflicted from the earth and the needy from among men. (ANGRY, VIOLENT, REACTIVE). (Proverbs 30:11-14, emphasized words are mine)
This passage describes a particularly calloused, rebellious, bitter kind of man. I have met a few men like this in my life. Hardened by many past hurts, they carry an unusual, deep-seated bitterness. And bitterness always springs up, causes trouble and defiles many (Hebrews 12:15).
If you don’t understand them at the core, you are completely baffled by their behavior. There reactions are so different from yours that you are stunned. You will react in certain ways until you realize, “”Oh, I see, this is the kind of man described in Proverbs 30 … the bitter, hypocritical, proud, violent man,”” and deal with them accordingly.
If you see this man properly, you can evaluate him as God does and respond to Him with the truth, yet grace with which God always responds. You will realize it is not against you that he rails, and your heart will have pity on Him and seek to share the gospel with Him, knowing that it is the only thing that can help him.
Forgiveness for such a man, even if his attacks are directly against you, will come easier. You will have no need to take revenge when he lashes out at you for you realize it is coming from a deep root in his soul. This understanding (and your response) does not excuse his behavior, but helps you understand it and respond spiritually, not humanistically.
I have been thinking this week about a man that is exactly like this that I know. Until I understood him at the core, I was frustrated and angry. Now, for the last many years I have prayed for him. I had a dream one night that he had been saved and was eating at my table.
He comes often to my mind for some reason, and I am praying for him when I think of him. By God’s grace, I will continue to pray for this picture to be realized in this man’s heart and life.
I am not holding myself up as above him. I’m just illustrating that the Word of God has helped me understand him, and this adjustment, thankfully, changed my attitude and then behavior towards him. Before this adjustment, I was falling into anger and bitterness towards him myself!
Now I understand that, but by the grace of God, I could become just like Him.
Ecclesiastes 8-10 | Still Searching After All These Years Published on Oct 9, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 7, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _______________________ Ecclesiastes 11-12 | Solomon Finds His Way Published on Oct 30, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 28, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. (I have posted John MacArthur’s amazing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. (I have posted John MacArthur’s amazing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. (I have posted John MacArthur’s amazing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. (I have posted John MacArthur’s amazing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. (I have posted John MacArthur’s amazing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Tagged Gene Bartow, John Wooden | Edit | Comments (0)
Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. (I have posted John MacArthur’s amazing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. (I have posted John MacArthur’s amazing […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. It is tough to guard your […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Over and over in Proverbs you hear the words “fear the Lord.” In fact, some of he references are Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10;14:26,27; 15:16 and many more. Below is a sermon by John MacArthur from the Book of Luke on 3 reasons we should fear the Lord. What does it mean to fear […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Uncategorized | Edit | Comments (0)
Ecclesiastes 6-8 | Solomon Turns Over a New Leaf Published on Oct 2, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 30, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _____________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Ecclesiastes 1 Published on Sep 4, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 2, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _____________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I hope to show how […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Ecclesiastes 1 Published on Sep 4, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 2, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _____________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I hope to show how […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Ecclesiastes 8-10 | Still Searching After All These Years Published on Oct 9, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 7, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _______________________ Ecclesiastes 11-12 | Solomon Finds His Way Published on Oct 30, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 28, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Ecclesiastes 6-8 | Solomon Turns Over a New Leaf Published on Oct 2, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 30, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _____________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Ecclesiastes 4-6 | Solomon’s Dissatisfaction Published on Sep 24, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 23, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider ___________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I hope […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Ecclesiastes 8-10 | Still Searching After All These Years Published on Oct 9, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 7, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _______________________ Ecclesiastes 11-12 | Solomon Finds His Way Published on Oct 30, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 28, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Ecclesiastes 8-10 | Still Searching After All These Years Published on Oct 9, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 7, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _______________________ Ecclesiastes 11-12 | Solomon Finds His Way Published on Oct 30, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | October 28, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Tom Brady “More than this…” Uploaded by EdenWorshipCenter on Jan 22, 2008 EWC sermon illustration showing a clip from the 2005 Tom Brady 60 minutes interview. _______________________ Tom Brady ESPN Interview Tom Brady has famous wife earned over 76 million dollars last year. However, has Brady found lasting satifaction in his life? It does not […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Adrian Rogers: How to Be a Child of a Happy Mother Published on Nov 13, 2012 Series: Fortifying Your Family (To read along turn on the annotations.) Adrian Rogers looks at the 5th commandment and the relationship of motherhood in the commandment to honor your father and mother, because the faith that doesn’t begin at home, […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Ecclesiastes 1 Published on Sep 4, 2012 Calvary Chapel Spring Valley | Sunday Evening | September 2, 2012 | Pastor Derek Neider _____________________ I have written on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the subject of the meaning of our lives on several occasions on this blog. In this series on Ecclesiastes I hope to show how secular humanist man […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Adrian Rogers – How to Cultivate a Marriage Another great article from Adrian Rogers. Are fathers necessary? “Artificial insemination is the ideal method of producing a pregnancy, and a lesbian partner should have the same parenting rights accorded historically to biological fathers.” Quoted from the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, summer of 1995. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)
Tom Brady “More than this…” Uploaded by EdenWorshipCenter on Jan 22, 2008 EWC sermon illustration showing a clip from the 2005 Tom Brady 60 minutes interview. To Download this video copy the URL to http://www.vixy.net ________________ Obviously from the video clip above, Tom Brady has realized that even though he has won many Super Bowls […]
22 Choose a good reputation over great riches; being held in high esteem is better than silver or gold.
2 The rich and poor have this in common: The Lord made them both.
3 A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions. The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
4 True humility and fear of the Lord lead to riches, honor, and long life.
5 Corrupt people walk a thorny, treacherous road; whoever values life will avoid it.
6 Direct your children onto the right path, and when they are older, they will not leave it.
7 Just as the rich rule the poor, so the borrower is servant to the lender.
8 Those who plant injustice will harvest disaster, and their reign of terror will come to an end.[a]
9 Blessed are those who are generous, because they feed the poor.
10 Throw out the mocker, and fighting goes, too. Quarrels and insults will disappear.
11 Whoever loves a pure heart and gracious speech will have the king as a friend.
12 The Lord preserves those with knowledge, but he ruins the plans of the treacherous.
13 The lazy person claims, “There’s a lion out there! If I go outside, I might be killed!”
14 The mouth of an immoral woman is a dangerous trap; those who make the Lord angry will fall into it.
15 A youngster’s heart is filled with foolishness, but physical discipline will drive it far away.
16 A person who gets ahead by oppressing the poor or by showering gifts on the rich will end in poverty.
Sayings of the Wise
17 Listen to the words of the wise; apply your heart to my instruction. 18 For it is good to keep these sayings in your heart and always ready on your lips. 19 I am teaching you today—yes, you— so you will trust in the Lord. 20 I have written thirty sayings[b] for you, filled with advice and knowledge. 21 In this way, you may know the truth and take an accurate report to those who sent you.
22 Don’t rob the poor just because you can, or exploit the needy in court. 23 For the Lord is their defender. He will ruin anyone who ruins them.
24 Don’t befriend angry people or associate with hot-tempered people, 25 or you will learn to be like them and endanger your soul.
26 Don’t agree to guarantee another person’s debt or put up security for someone else. 27 If you can’t pay it, even your bed will be snatched from under you.
28 Don’t cheat your neighbor by moving the ancient boundary markers set up by previous generations.
29 Do you see any truly competent workers? They will serve kings rather than working for ordinary people.
How to Be the Father of a Wise Child Proverbs 1:1-5, 20-22
HOW TO BE THE FATHER OF A WISE CHILD | PROVERBS 1:1-5, 20-22 | #1932 So what has happened in the last years? Well, prayer is out, policemen are in. Bibles are out, values clarification is in. The Ten Commandments are out, rape and armed robbery, gang warfare, murder and cheating are in. Instruction that tells us that we were created in the image of God is out, evolution is in. Corporal punishment is out, disrespect and rebellion is in. Traditional values are out and unwed motherhood is in. Abstinence is out and condoms and abortion are in. Learning is out and social engineering is in. History is out and revisionism is in. And the problem primarily, believe it or not, is with fathers. Arrogant fathers who fail to accept their responsibility. I want to talk to dads today, and I want to tell you how not to be the father of a fool. How to be the father of a wise child. Now go back to these three categories of persons that we looked at here in verse 22, and let me describe them more carefully and I think you’ll recognize some children that you know. First of all, let’s think of the ignorance of the simple. How is he described? Look if you will in Romans 1 verse 22, “How long ye simple ones will ye love simplicity?” That’s his first mark. He loves his simplicity. He enjoys being a child. He enjoys the carefree life. He doesn’t like any serious thoughts. One teenager said, “I am worried. My Dad slaves away at his job so I won’t have to need for a thing and so I can have a college education. My mom spends every day washing and ironing and picking up my things and looking after me. And she takes care of me when I’m sick.” His friend said, “You’re worried? What are you worried about?” He said, “I’m afraid they might try to escape.” The children just love having everything done for them, the carefree simple life. That’s the life of the simple.
HOW TO BE THE FATHER OF A WISE CHILD | PROVERBS 1:1-5, 20-22 | #1932 there, out there on the front porch is a guy 17 feet tall. You’re looking in his knee caps. And let’s say he has a voice like thunder. And he begins to talk to you and tell you what to do. My soul! Well, if he’s that big and sounds like that, one thing you sure do hope is that he’s gentle, don’t you? That’s what the children want out of their dad; somebody who’s gentle. Oh, they want a dad they can look up to. They want a dad who’s the strongest, wisest, smartest, fastest, richest, goodest dad. I know goodest is not a word. The best dad in all the world! But they want him to be gentle! Touch them, hug them, show other non-verbal language. Be transparent. Let them know of your fears, and your joys, and your disappointments, your failures, and your goals. They already know you’re not perfect; they just don’t want you to be a phony. And then, be available to them. Oh, l wish l had more time for that, but just take it as a priority that you’re going to be available to your child. You say, “Pastor Rogers, very frankly I’m not adequate for what you’ve just described.” I know you’re not. I’m not adequate. Listen to me, none of us has what it takes to be this kind of a dad or mom. That’s the reason we need Jesus isn’t it? That’s the reason we need the Lord. That’s the reason we’ve got to have Christ in our hearts! Because the Christian life is not difficult, it is impossible. So there’s only one who can do it and that’s Jesus. But He will do it in us and through us if we’ll let Him. So the best thing you can do for your children is to love God will all of your heart. Give your heart to Jesus. Let’s bow our heads in prayer. Heads are bowed and eyes are closed. If you would like to be saved today, to be a child of God, if you’d like to know that your sin is forgiven, if you would like to know that Heaven is your home, if you would like to have the power and wisdom that Jesus alone can give, I want to help you to invite Christ into your heart and trust Him. Would you pray like this? “Dear Lord, I need You. I need to be saved. I’m a sinner. My sin deserves judgment. But l need mercy, not judgment. I want You to forgive me, God. I want You to cleanse me. I want You to save me. Lord Jesus, You said if I would trust You, You would save me. I trust You right now, right this moment. I don’t ask for a sign. I don’t look for a feeling. I just stand on Your Word, and I receive You now as my Lord and Savior. Come into my heart, forgive my sin, save me Jesus.” Pray that prayer. Pray it. Pray it from your heart. “Save me, Jesus.” Pray it. Ask Him to save you. “Save me, Jesus.” Did you ask Him? By faith, pray this way, “Thank You for saving me, Lord Jesus. I receive it by faith, like a little child. You’re now my Lord and Savior. Give me the courage to make it public. In Your name I pray, Amen.”
I have been corresponding with hundreds of skeptics for over 30 years now. Sadly I have noticed that we have lost some of these gentleman in the last two years. i wanted to pause and take a look at all of these scholars and remember their works. Below I have linked past posts I done on them and you can access these posts by clicking on their names highlighted in blue. (Dr. Wilson seen below)
I have had the honor of corresponding with Harvard’s Edward O. Wilson and I really enjoyed reading many of his books and have visited several times the museum that he help put together at Harvard. (Dr. Wolpert seen below)
I am interested in biology too and had the honor of corresponding with Professor Lewis Wolpert (who told me his son is a born again believer like I am). Also I have an interest in economics and had the opportunity to correspond with the great Australian economist Geoff Harcourt (Dr. Harcourt seen below)
One of my favorite writers for many years has been Steven Weinberg who I found out about in 1979 after reading WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop. In the post below, Dr Weinberg rightly points out that you are not saying much if you only use the word GOD to mean only nature’s scientific laws!! Dr. Weinberg cuts through all the wordplay that people do so often!!! Read about it below.
The last email I sent these gentlemen was from my hospital bed two years ago tonight and here it is below:
July 22, 2020
Dear …,
Back on February 20, 2020, I emailed and wrote about 200 skeptics that I have been corresponding with for up to almost 30 years in some cases. I wrote the following words:
I have been blessed not have any health concerns for my first 58 years of life. However, on February 19, 2020, I was told by a cardiologist that a few months back my heart was attacked by a virus and now I have Congestive Heart Failure and my heart is operating at 40% of what it was earlier.
If the Lord blesses me with some type of recovery, I hope to continue to read the works of skeptics and correspond with them in the future.
Unfortunately, my recovery has been anything but easy and I have suffered 3 heart attacks. Today on July 22nd I am undergoing quadruple heart bypass surgery and I wanted to get this off to you before the operation this morning.
I have been blessed the last few months to interact with Ricky Gervais the famous British comedian who recently wrote and acted in the excellent NetFlix series AFTER LIFE which I highly recommend and I have even done many blog posts discussing the episodes. In fact, Rickylikedtwo of my blog posts about AFTER LIFE that were put on twitter and they got over 17,000 views each. AFTER LIFE is about Tony Johnson (played by Ricky) whose wife Lisa has died six months earlier. Ricky has decided to live life the way he wants to even if it means being rude when he feels like it and his so-called “super power” is that if he doesn’t get over his depression then he can go back to the original plan of killing himself.
Since Tony has rejected all religious and moral principles he says things like this below indicating that he thinks life is meaningless:
Here’s what’s what, humanity is a plague. We’re a disgusting, narcissistic, selfish parasite, and the world would be a better place without us. It should be everyone’s moral duty to kill themselves. I could do it now. Quite happily just go upstairs, jump off the roof, and make sure I landed on some c**t from accounts
Season one of AFTER LIFE reminded me a lot of Solomon searching for the elusive meaning to life UNDER THE SUN in ECCLESIASTES. Therefore, on Saturday April 18, 2020 at 6pm in London and noon in Arkansas, I had achance to ask Ricky Gervais a question on his Twitter Live broadcast which was “Is Tony a Nihilist?” At the 20:51 mark Ricky answers my question. Below is the video at this link: https://youtu.be/Zxg6dnhbsjU
Atheists like Ricky and his good friend Richard Dawkins need evidence and in this series of posts on AFTER LIFE have examined many of the historical claims of the Bible and also the accuracyof Old Testamentprophecies. Did you know that Isaac Newton spent about a third of his time in his favorite book of the Bible which was Danieland he was particularly interested in chapter 9.
Thank you for you time! Hope all is well with you and yours.
The John Lennon and the Beatles really were on a long search for meaning and fulfillment in their lives just like King Solomon did in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Solomon looked into learning (1:12-18, 2:12-17), laughter, ladies, luxuries, and liquor (2:1-2, 8, 10, 11), and labor (2:4-6, 18-20). He fount that without God in the picture all […]
______________ George Harrison Swears & Insults Paul and Yoko Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds- The Beatles The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking […]
The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA Uploaded on Nov 29, 2010 The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA. The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis […]
__________________ Beatles 1966 Last interview I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. In this […]
_______________ The Beatles documentary || A Long and Winding Road || Episode 5 (This video discusses Stg. Pepper’s creation I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about […]
_______________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _____________________ I have included the 27 minute episode THE AGE OF NONREASON by Francis Schaeffer. In that video Schaeffer noted, ” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.” How Should […]
Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 ___________________________________ Today I will answer the simple question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC SECULAR HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? This question has been around for a long time and you can go back to the 19th century and read this same […]
____________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: __________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 […]
Love and Death [Woody Allen] – What if there is no God? [PL] ___________ _______________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis Schaeffer […]
___________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer […]
and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.
Harry Kroto
_________________
Below you have picture of Dr. Harry Kroto:
______________
I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:
I have seen full many economists since I first commenced to roam, But nowhere yet such an economist have I seen.
Modified from Banjo Patterson, an Australian poet Geoff greatly admired.
Geoff and his twin brother John were born in Melbourne on the 27th of June 1931. Geoff attended the University of Melbourne where he flourished while studying accounting and economics, achieving first class honours, and subsequently a M. Com. While at the University of Melbourne, he was exposed to the economics of Keynes and the Cambridge School, which exerted a profound influence on all his subsequent work. During this time, he met and married Joan Bartrop, the love of his life, with whom he had four children: Wendy, Robert, Tim, and Rebecca, whom Geoff referred to as his “balanced growth path.”
Geoff was awarded a PhD scholarship to study at Cambridge, where he was supervised by Nicholas Kaldor and Ronald Henderson. He absorbed the atmosphere and the intellectual stimulation of being among the great Cambridge economists. Joan Robinson, in particular, was an important influence. Geoff attended her lectures, and closely studied her 1956 magnum opus The Accumulation of Capital, which had a deep effect on his subsequent development; Geoff, with Prue Kerr, would edit and write the introduction for the third edition of the book. He was awarded a PhD in 1957 for his thesis, “a study of the implications of the use of historical-cost accounting procedures to set prices and dividends, and levy taxes in a period of inflation”.
Cambridge became Geoff’s centre of gravitation. He returned often, before moving there permanently in 1982 to take up a University Lectureship. In 1990 he become a Reader in the History of Economic Theory, until retiring in 1998, when he was made an Emeritus Reader. He was a Fellow at Jesus College during that time, and its President from 1988-89 and 1990-92. In between, he was appointed to a lectureship at the University of Adelaide in 1958, and then to a personal Chair in 1967, and Professor Emeritus in 1988. After his retirement from Cambridge, he became a visiting Professorial Fellow and then an Honorary Professor at the School of Economics at the University of New South Wales, where he spent his last decades. In the light of this, it is not surprising that Geoff regarded himself as “an Australian Patriot and a Cambridge Economist” (Harcourt 1995).
Geoff received many significant awards during his life, and in 2018 he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia for his “eminent service to higher education as an academic economist and author, particularly in the fields of Post-Keynesian economics, capital theory and economic thought.”
Geoff was driven by a strong commitment to social justice, which also informed his academic and policy work. He had a life-long commitment to equity and equality, working towards alleviating poverty and against social and racial discrimination. He also had a great love of sports, both as player and spectator, particularly Australian football and cricket. In honour of his passion for Australian football, many of his papers are written in four quarters.
Geoff had a gift of putting people at ease, talking to anyone, from the Crown Prince to awestruck students, while displaying his mischievous sense of humour. He was genuinely interested in everyone he met. Geoff loved jokes and didn’t really mind their origins. I fondly remember Geoff and I driving from Cambridge to Canterbury for a conference. On the way down I told Geoff a joke, on the way back he told it to me. Needless to say, his telling was a substantial improvement.
Geoff’s contribution to economics, both theory and policy, was outstanding. In over 30 books and 400 articles, numerous lectures, seminars, and interviews he had a significant impact on the discipline. Geoff made economics more humane, and humanised the “dismal” science. His contributions to economics covered a broad range of areas from esoteric pure theory to applied policy, always with the aim of trying to make the world a better place. He provided original insights, and was able to explain difficult and complex ideas in an accessible form, while often showing his sense of humour.
In his important article and subsequent book on the Cambridge capital controversies, Geoff provided a masterful guide to one of the most technical debates in economics; Cambridge University Press is publishing a 50th anniversary edition of the book later this year, with a new preface by Geoff, and afterwords by Avi Cohen and Tiago Mata.
T he capital theory controversies were a series of debates in the 1950s-1970s on high theory, between economists mainly based in Cambridge, England (Joan Robinson, Piero Sraffa, Luigi Pasinetti) and at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts (Paul Samuelson, Robert Solow). Although the debates were ostensibly about the problem of measuring capital, they were ultimately about the nature and meaning of capital, and the question of the most appropriate way to analyse a contemporary capitalist economy. Geoff unravelled the debates so that they became intelligible, with both clear style and humour, evident particularly in the chapter and section titles, such as the section pointing to an error by Kaldor titled ‘Excuse me, Professor Kaldor, but your slip is showing’.
Geoff was a founder and major contributor to post-Keynesian economics throughout his intellectual life – culminating in his books, The Structure of Post-Keynesian Economics and the two volume The Oxford Handbook of Post-Keynesian Economics. He enriched economics by making it more accessible through his clear, and often humorous, writing style and in his many biographical essays. These went behind the masks of economists to reveal not only their economic insights, but also the people that developed those insights. This is especially apparent in his definitive biography of Joan Robinson, co-written with Prue Kerr.
Underlying his theoretical contributions lay the importance of policy, on which Geoff not only wrote copiously, but also acted by advising governments and commenting on contemporary issues. He believed that academics in general, and economists in particular, have a duty to advocate policies which would lead to a better world. Associated with writing and advocacy was a belief in a “need for direct action if other more orthodox means proved ineffective” (Harcourt 2011, p.124) – which Geoff displayed with his important role in Australia’s anti-Vietnam War movement.
Everyone who knew Geoff values the wonderful human being he was, as well as being a world-class economist. He enriched the lives of everyone around him. On a personal note, Geoff was my teacher, colleague, collaborator, mentor, and most importantly a very warm and dear friend. Geoff welcomed me into his academic and family life, and I share the immense sense of loss at the passing of such an inspiring human being. Geoff will be greatly missed. He was a true scholar and gentleman, and the world is so much a better place because of him.
Peter Kriesler, University of New South Wales
References and further readings
Harcourt, G.C. (1969): “Some Cambridge controversies in the theory of capital”, Journal of Economic Literature, 7, 369 – 405.
Harcourt, G.C. (1972): Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harcourt, G. C. 1995, “Recollections and reflections of an Australian patriot and a Cambridge economist” Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review, 48, 225-254
Harcourt, G.C. (2006): The Structure of Post-Keynesian Economics: The Core Contributions of the Pioneers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harcourt, G.C., Kerr, P. (2009): Joan Robinson, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Harcourt, G. C. 2011 “Post-Keynesian theory, direct action and political involvement” Intervention8 (1) 117 – 128
Harcourt, G. C. and Kriesler, P. 2013 ( eds) The Oxford Handbook of Post-Keynesian Economics. Volume 1: Theory and Origins, and Volume 2: Critiques and Methodology. New York, Oxford University Press
Robinson, Joan (2013) The Accumulation of Capital 3rd Edition, in the Palgrave Classics in Economics Series, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK
BELOW IS A LETTER I WROTE TO DR HARCOURT AND BELOW THAT IS HIS RESPONSE:
December 25, 2014
Dr. Geoff Harcourt, c/o Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, GPO Box 1956, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia,
Dear Dr. Harcourt,
I saw that you were a longtime professor at Cambridge but I couldn’t get a good address for you there so I sent this letter to Australia.
I wonder if you got to meet my hero in the field of Economics and that is Milton Friedman. If you get a chance you need to check out his film series FREE TO CHOOSE and it has a lot to say about England.
I spent a whole summer in England in 1979 and it was a very interesting experience for several reasons. I was part of the organization OPERATION MOBILIZATION and we were an Christian Evangelical group that in that summer went to the homes of Muslims and Hindus and shared the gospel with them in the Manchester area. I also spent some time in London and got to attend All Souls Church, Langham Place, and hear the famous John Stott preach and I got to meet Michael Baughen who was the pastor (or Rector as you would say in England) at the time. Three noteworthy events during that time and one was attending a MANCHESTER UNITED soccer game. Secondly, I met several people who had recently visited with Cat Stevens and they told me he had recently converted to Islam and changed with name to Yusuf Islam.Cat Stevens had performed the song “Morning Has Broken” a few years earlier and it was one of my favorite songs. Thirdly, I got depressed in August because the sun only came out about 4 or 5 times that whole summer in England.
SINCE YOU ARE INTO SOCCER (BRITISH FOOTBALL LIKE ALL BRITS ARE) THEN YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH “EVERTON GOAL KEEPER TIM HOWARD?” He lives in Collierville, Tennessee in his off season time and my niece often sees him at the fitness club where they both belong. We are big fans of the sport. YOU NEED TO GET OUT AND SEE THAT MOVIE about Stephen Hawking called THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING because it was really good!!!
On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto who I have been corresponding with and it said:
and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.
Harry Kroto
__________________________
There are 3 videos in this series and they have statements by 150 academics and scientists and I saw that you were featured in this film series. I have been responding to some of the statementsconcerning God and I plan on responding to what you have said on this issue too.
Today I am writing you for two reasons. First, I wanted to appeal to your Jewish Heritage and ask you to take a closer look at some Old Testament scriptures dealing with the land of Israel. Second, I wanted to point out some scientific evidence that caused Antony Flew to switch from an atheist (as you are now) to a theist. Twenty years I had the opportunity to correspond with two individuals that were regarded as two of the most famous atheists of the 20th Century, Antony Flew and Carl Sagan. (I have enclosed some of those letters between us.) I had read the books and seen the films of the Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer and he had discussed the works of both of these men. I sent both of these gentlemen philosophical arguments from Schaeffer in these letters and in the first letter I sent a cassette tape of my pastor’s sermon IS THE BIBLE TRUE? (CD is enclosed also.) You may have noticed in the news a few years that Antony Flew actually became a theist in 2004 and remained one until his death in 2010. Carl Sagan remained a skeptic until his dying day in 1996.
You will notice in the enclosed letter from June 1, 1994 that Dr. Flew commented, “Thank you for sending me the IS THE BIBLE TRUE? tape to which I have just listened with great interest and, I trust, profit.” It would be a great honor for me if you would take time and drop me a note and let me know what your reaction is to this same message.
Robert Lewis noted that many orthodox Jews believed through the centuries that God would honor the ancient prophecies that predicted that the Jews would be restored to the land of Israel, but then I notice the latest film series on the Jews done by an orthodox Jew seemed to ignore many of these scriptures. Recently I watched the 5 part PBS series Simon Schama’s THE STORY OF THE JEWS, and in the last episode Schama calls Israel “a miracle” but he is hoping that Israel can get along with the non-Jews in the area. Schama noted, “I’ve always thought that Israel is the consummation of some of the highest ethical values of Jewish traditional history, but creating a place of safety and defending it has sometimes challenged those same ethics and values”. There is an ancient book that sheds light on Israel’s plight today, and it is very clear about the struggles between the Jews and their cousins that surround them. It all comes down to what the Book of Genesis had to say concerning Abraham’s son by Hagar.
Genesis 16:11-12 (NIV)
11 The angel of the Lord also said to her:
“You are now pregnant and you will give birth to a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the Lord has heard of your misery. 12 He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.”
The first 90 seconds of episode 5 opened though by allowing us all to experience the sirens and silence of that day in Spring, each year, when Israel halts to mark the Holocaust and I actually wept while I thought of those who had died. Schama noted, “”Today around half the Jews in the world live here in Israel. 6 million people. 6 million defeats for the Nazi program of total extermination.”
After World War II Schama tells about the events leading up to the re-birth of Israel. Here again Schama although a practicing Jewish believer did not bring in scripture to shed light on the issue. David O. Dykes who is pastor of Green Acres Baptist Church in Tyler, Texas has done just that:
The nation of Israel was destroyed in 70 A.D…Beginning in the early 20th century Jews started trickling back into Palestine at the risk of their lives. Then after World War II, the British government was given authority over Palestine and in 1948, Israel became a nation again through the action of the United Nations…This should not have come as a surprise to any Bible scholar, because this regathering of Israel is predicted many times in scripture. The prophet Amos wrote in Chapter 9:
14 And I will bring back the exiles of My people Israel, and they shall build the waste cities and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards and drink the wine from them; they shall also make gardens and eat the fruit of them.
15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be torn up out of their land which I gave them, says the Lord your God.
Some people think the Amos prophecy was referring to the return of Israel after their Babylonian captitvity in 586 B.C. But the nation was uprooted in 70 A.D. And notice God said they would “NEVER AGAIN TO BE UPROOTED.”
Even the preservation of their language is a miracle. For centuries, Hebrew was a dead language spoken nowhere in the world. But within the last century, this dead language has been resurrected and now millions of Israelis speak Hebrew...Have you noticed how often Israel is in the news? They are only a small nation about the size of New Jersey.
I have checked out some of the details that David O. Dykes has provided and they check out. Philip Lieberman is a cognitive scientist at Brown University, and in a letter dated in 1995 he told me that only a few other languages besides Hebrew have ever been revived including some American Indian ones along with Celtic.
Also Zechariah 12:3 also verifies the newsworthiness of Israel now: And in that day I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all peoples; all who lift it or burden themselves with it shall be sorely wounded. And all the nations of the earth shall come and gather together against it.
I do think that Isaiah also predicted the Jews would come from all over the earth back to their homeland Israel. Isaiah 11:11-12 states, “And in that day the Lord shall again lift up His hand a second time to recover (acquire and deliver) the remnant of His people which is left, from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Pathros, from Ethiopia, from Elam [in Persia], from Shinar [Babylonia], from Hamath [in Upper Syria], and from the countries ordering on the [Mediterranean] Sea. And He will raise up a signal for the nations and will assemble the outcasts of Israel and will gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (Amplified Bible)
I was reading THE BOOK OF DANIEL COMMENTARY (CambridgeUniversity Press, 1900) by the Bible critic SamuelRolles Driver, and on page 100 Dr. Driver commented that the country of Israel is obviously a thing of the past and has no place in prophecy in the future and the prophet Daniel was definitely wrong about that. I wonder what Dr. Driver would say if he lived to see the newspapers today?
In fact, my former pastor Robert Lewis at Fellowship Bible Church in his sermon “Let the Prophets Speak” on 1-31-99 noted that even the great Princeton Theologian Charles Hodge erred in 1871 when he stated:
The argument from the ancient prophecies is proved to be invalid because it would prove too much. If those prophecies foretell a literal restoration, they foretell that the temple is to be rebuilt, the priesthood restored, sacrifices again offered, and that the whole Mosaic ritual is to be observed in all its details, (Systematic Theology. [New York: Charles Scribner & Sons, 1871; reprint Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1949], 3:807).__
Robert Lewis went on to point out that the prophet Amos 2700 years ago predicted the destruction of Aram, Philistia, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab and Israel, but at the end of the Book he said Israel would one day be returned to their land and never removed. We saw from Isaiah 11:11-12 that the Lord “will assemble the outcasts of Israel and will gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.” And that certainly did happen after World War II. I corresponded with some secular Jewish Scholars on this back in the 1990’s such as Irving Kristol and Daniel Bell but they dismissed these type of Old Testament prophecies. In his letter of September 23, 1995, Daniel Bell wrote, “As to the survival of the Jewish people, I think of the remark of Samuel Johnson that there is nothing stronger than the knowledge that one may be hanged the next day to concentrate the mind–or the will.”
After looking at the accuracy of Old Testament, I want to turn my attention to the accuracy of the New Testament. Recently I was reading the book GOD’S NOT DEAD by Rick Broocks and in it he quotes Sir William Ramsay who was a scholar who originally went to Palestine to disprove the Book of Luke. Below is some background info on Ramsay followed by his story.
Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (15 March 1851, Glasgow –20 April 1939) was a Scottisharchaeologist and New Testament scholar. By his death in 1939 he had become the foremost authority of his day on the history of Asia Minor and a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament. From the post of Professor of Classical Art and Architecture at Oxford, he was appointed Regius Professor of Humanity (the Latin Professorship) at Aberdeen. Knighted in 1906 to mark his distinguished service to the world of scholarship, Ramsay also gained three honorary fellowships from Oxford colleges, nine honorary doctorates from British, Continental and North American universities and became an honorary member of almost every association devoted to archaeology and historical research. He was one of the original members of the British Academy, was awarded the Gold Medal of Pope Leo XIII in 1893 and the Victorian Medal of the Royal Geographical Society in 1906.
William Mitchell Ramsay was born on March 15, 1851 in Glasgow, Scotland. His father was a lawyer, but died when William was just six. Through the hard work of other family members, William attended the University of Aberdeen, achieving honors. Through means of a scholarship, he was then able to go to Oxford University and attend the college there named for St. John. His family resource also allowed him to study abroad, notably in Germany. It was under one of his professors that his love of history began. After receiving a new scholarship from another college at Oxford, he traveled to Asia Minor.
William, however, is most noted for beliefs pertaining to the Bible, not his early life. Originally, he labeled it as a ‘Book of Fables,’ having only third-hand knowledge. He neither read nor studied it, skeptically believing it to be of fiction and not historical fact. His interest in history would lead him on a search that would radically redefine his thoughts on that Ancient Book…
Some argue that Ramsay was originally just a product of his time. For example, the general consensus on the Acts of the Apostles (and its alleged writer Luke) was almost humouress:
“… [A]bout 1880 to 1890 the book of the Acts was regarded as the weakest part of the New Testament. No one that had any regard for his reputation as a scholar cared to say a word in its defence. The most conservative of theological scholars, as a rule, thought the wisest plan of defence for the New Testament as a whole was to say as little as possible about the Acts.”[1]
It was his dislike for Acts that launched him into a Mid-East adventure. With Bible-in-hand, he made a trip to the Holy Land. What William found, however, was not what he expected…
As it turns out, ‘ole Willy’ changed his mind. After his extensive study he concluded that Luke was one of the world’s greatest historians:
The more I have studied the narrative of the Acts, and the more I have learned year after year about Graeco-Roman society and thoughts and fashions, and organization in those provinces, the more I admire and the better I understand. I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it here [in the Book of Acts—KB]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and of justice.[2]
Skeptics were strikingly shocked. In ‘Evidence that Demands a Verdict’ Josh Mcdowell writes,
“The book caused a furor of dismay among the skeptics of the world. Its attitude was utterly unexpected because it was contrary to the announced intention of the author years before…. for twenty years more, book after book from the same author came from the press, each filled with additional evidence of the exact, minute truthfulness of the whole New Testament as tested by the spade on the spot. The evidence was so overwhelming that many infidels announced their repudiation of their former unbelief and accepted Christianity. And these books have stood the test of time, not one having been refuted, nor have I found even any attempt to refute them.”[3]
The Bible has always stood the test of time. Renowned archaeologist Nelson Glueck put it like this:
“It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which conform in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible.”[4]
1) The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (1915)
2) Ibid
3) See page 366
4) See page 31 of: Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev (1959)
Thank you again for your time and I know how busy you are.
President Carter with Adrian and Joyce Rogers in 1979 at the White House:
____
Adrian Rogers in the White House pictured with President Ronald Reagan below:
________
Adrian and Joyce Rogers with President Bush at Union University in Jackson, TN:
________________________________________________
Adrian Rogers pictured below on national day of prayer with President Bush.
________
2-11-15
gch@unsw.edu.au
Dear Mr. Hatcher,
Your letter and CD-R have reached me. Before we go any further, I must ask you to correct your impression that I’m an atheist, and that I am an Englishman. You are wrong on both scores. May I refer you to my volume of selected essays on Skidelsky’s Keynes and Other Essays published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2012, especially my autobiographical essay which originally appeared in the American Economist in 1998, which sets out my economic, political and religious views….Of course, I know the work of Milton Friedman, though we never met and he never answered the only letter I ever sent him asking for a short account of the influences on him when he was an undergraduate or graduate student. I asked him this information for a paper I published in the History of Political Economy on all the Nobel prize-winners in economics up to Debreu.
The John Lennon and the Beatles really were on a long search for meaning and fulfillment in their lives just like King Solomon did in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Solomon looked into learning (1:12-18, 2:12-17), laughter, ladies, luxuries, and liquor (2:1-2, 8, 10, 11), and labor (2:4-6, 18-20). He fount that without God in the picture all […]
______________ George Harrison Swears & Insults Paul and Yoko Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds- The Beatles The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking […]
The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA Uploaded on Nov 29, 2010 The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA. The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis […]
__________________ Beatles 1966 Last interview I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. In this […]
_______________ The Beatles documentary || A Long and Winding Road || Episode 5 (This video discusses Stg. Pepper’s creation I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about […]
_______________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _____________________ I have included the 27 minute episode THE AGE OF NONREASON by Francis Schaeffer. In that video Schaeffer noted, ” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.” How Should […]
Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 ___________________________________ Today I will answer the simple question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC SECULAR HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? This question has been around for a long time and you can go back to the 19th century and read this same […]
____________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: __________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 […]
Love and Death [Woody Allen] – What if there is no God? [PL] ___________ _______________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis Schaeffer […]
___________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer […]
Proverbs 1:20-22 (Program 1932, Air dates 08.12.2012 and 08.19.2012)
___________
_________________________________________
IV.
WHAT PARENTS CAN DO TO NOT RAISE A FOOL
Expound truth.
Proverbs 1:1-4
Deuteronomy 6:2-24
Expose sin.
Proverbs 19:15
Proverbs 21:11
Ecclesiastes 8:11
Expel scorners.
Proverbs 13:20
Proverbs 22:10
Express love. (Proverbs 3:12)
Be gentle.
Be transparent.
Be available.
______________________
Adrian Rogers: ” I have four great kids but if I had to do it over I would teach them the Proverbs over and over and over.”
Proverbs 1;1-6
1-6 These are the wise sayings of Solomon, David’s son, Israel’s king— Written down so we’ll know how to live well and right, to understand what life means and where it’s going; A manual for living, for learning what’s right and just and fair; To teach the inexperienced the ropes and give our young people a grasp on reality. There’s something here also for seasoned men and women, still a thing or two for the experienced to learn— Fresh wisdom to probe and penetrate, the rhymes and reasons of wise men and women.
Deuteronomy 6:2-24
The Message (MSG)
6 1-2 This is the commandment, the rules and regulations, that God, your God, commanded me to teach you to live out in the land you’re about to cross into to possess. This is so that you’ll live in deep reverence before God lifelong, observing all his rules and regulations that I’m commanding you, you and your children and your grandchildren, living good long lives.
3 Listen obediently, Israel. Do what you’re told so that you’ll have a good life, a life of abundance and bounty, just as God promised, in a land abounding in milk and honey.
4 Attention, Israel!
God, our God! God the one and only!
5 Love God, your God, with your whole heart: love him with all that’s in you, love him with all you’ve got!
6-9 Write these commandments that I’ve given you today on your hearts. Get them inside of you and then get them inside your children. Talk about them wherever you are, sitting at home or walking in the street; talk about them from the time you get up in the morning to when you fall into bed at night. Tie them on your hands and foreheads as a reminder; inscribe them on the doorposts of your homes and on your city gates.
10-12 When God, your God, ushers you into the land he promised through your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to give you, you’re going to walk into large, bustling cities you didn’t build, well-furnished houses you didn’t buy, come upon wells you didn’t dig, vineyards and olive orchards you didn’t plant. When you take it all in and settle down, pleased and content, make sure you don’t forget how you got there—God brought you out of slavery in Egypt.
13-19 Deeply respect God, your God. Serve and worship him exclusively. Back up your promises with his name only. Don’t fool around with other gods, the gods of your neighbors, because God, your God, who is alive among you is a jealous God. Don’t provoke him, igniting his hot anger that would burn you right off the face of the Earth. Don’t push God, your God, to the wall as you did that day at Massah, the Testing-Place. Carefully keep the commands of God, your God, all the requirements and regulations he gave you. Do what is right; do what is good in God’s sight so you’ll live a good life and be able to march in and take this pleasant land that God so solemnly promised through your ancestors, throwing out your enemies left and right—exactly as God said.
20-24 The next time your child asks you, “What do these requirements and regulations and rules that God, our God, has commanded mean?” tell your child, “We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt and God powerfully intervened and got us out of that country. We stood there and watched as God delivered miracle-signs, great wonders, and evil-visitations on Egypt, on Pharaoh and his household. He pulled us out of there so he could bring us here and give us the land he so solemnly promised to our ancestors. That’s why God commanded us to follow all these rules, so that we would live reverently before God, our God, as he gives us this good life, keeping us alive for a long time to come.
Proverbs 19:15
Life collapses on loafers; lazybones go hungry.
Proverbs 21:11
Simpletons only learn the hard way, but the wise learn by listening.
Ecclesiastes 8:11
The Message (MSG)
11 Because the sentence against evil deeds is so long in coming, people in general think they can get by with murder.
___________
The best thing for a young person is to see what the consequences of his actions are. It is good to take a child down to the courts to see punishments being given to those who were drunk driving. Also going down to the jails and seeing people who have broken the law being put behind bars, or going down to the hospital and seeing those who have overdosed on drugs could be helpful for the simpleton to see.
_______________
Proverbs 13:20
Become wise by walking with the wise; hang out with fools and watch your life fall to pieces.
Proverbs 22:10
Kick out the troublemakers and things will quiet down; you need a break from bickering and griping!
_____________
Bring in your children’s friends into your house so you can observe them and then tell the scorner to hit the road. Your children can not fly like an eagle if he is surrounded by turkeys!!!! If your child is naive then will be influenced by peer pressure. Peer pressure is good if your kid is surrounded by good kids.
________________
Proverbs 3:12
But don’t, dear friend, resent God’s discipline; don’t sulk under his loving correction. It’s the child he loves that God corrects; a father’s delight is behind all this
________________
IF I HAD TO PICK ONE KEY VERSE THEN IT WOULD BE THIS:
Proverbs 13:20
Become wise by walking with the wise; hang out with fools and watch your life fall to pieces.
I have read articles for years from Dan Barker, but recently I just finished the book Barker wrote entitled LIFE DRIVEN PURPOSE which was prompted by Rick Warren’s book PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE which I also read several years ago.
Dan Barker is the Co-President of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, And co-host of Freethought Radio and co-founder of The Clergy Project.
On March 19, 2022, I got an email back from Dan Barker that said:
Thanks for the insights.
Have you read my book Life Driven Purpose? To say there is no purpose OF life is not to say there is no purpose IN life. Life is immensely meaningful when you stop looking for external purpose.
Ukraine … we’ll, we can no longer blame Russian aggression on “godless communism.” The Russian church, as far as I know, has not denounced the war.
db
—
In the next few weeks I will be discussing the book LIFE DRIVEN PURPOSE which I did enjoy reading. Here is an assertion that Barker makes that I want to discuss:
A universe with a god is more complicated than one without it.
Dan, you think that without God we EVOLVED, but how is that a simpler explanation than that God created the creation?
During the 1990′s I actually made it a practice to write famous atheists and scientists that were mentioned by Adrian Rogers and Francis Schaeffer and challenge them with the evidence for the Bible’s historicity and the claims of the gospel. Usually I would send them a cassette tape of Adrian Rogers’ messages “6 reasons I know the Bible is True,” “The Final Judgement,” “Who is Jesus?” and the message by Bill Elliff, “How to get a pure heart.” I would also send them printed material from the works of Francis Schaeffer and a personal apologetic letter from me addressing some of the issues in their work. My second cassette tape that I sent to both Antony Flew and George Wald was Adrian Rogers’ sermon on evolution.
_____________________________________
——
Below is the video of Rogers’ sermon on Evolution.
I think that Antony Flew may have pondered this quote from George Wald which was in Adrian Rogers’ sermon.
Dr. George Wald of Harvard:
“When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility…Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion — that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God…I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generationarising to evolution.” – Scientific American, August, 1954.
Adrian Rogers said the lack of an answer for the origin of life was a big reason Rogers rejected evolution. Rogers noted, “Evolution offers no answers to the origin of life. It simply pushes the question farther back in time, back to some primordial event in space or an act of spontaneous generation in which life simply sprang from nothing.”
I actually had the chance to correspond with George Wald twice before his death. He wrote me two letters and in the first one he suggested that he was just using hyperbole when he made the assertion that is quoted by Dr. Rogers. He also suggested the religion of Buddhism although he said he was not a Buddhist himself, but he thought that would be closest to the truth which he thought was atheism. This does seem to contradict what Flew says of Wald’s views in the 1990’s. Flew contended concerning Wald:
In later years, he concluded that a preexisting mind, which he posits as the matrix of physical reality, composed a physical universe that breeds life: ‘the stuff of which physical reality is constructed is mind-stuff. It is mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life…’
Notice the quote in Antony Flew’s book: The Nobel Prize-winning physiologist George Wald once famously argued that “We choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance”
A heavier read but an excellent look at the philosophical implications of modern scientific discoveries is “There is a God: How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind” by Anthony Flew with Roy Abraham Varghese (Harper One, 2007). This book is available for about €10 on http://www.amazon.co.uk.
Here is a taster of what the book contains:
Chapter 4 “A pilgrimage of reason”
“The leaders of science over the last hundred years, along with some of today’s most influential scientists, have built a philosophically compelling vision of a rational universe that sprang from a divine mind” (Anthony Flew).
One could say that this vision was prompted by a response to three big questions –
(a)How did the laws of nature come to be?
(b)How did life as a phenomenon originate from non-life?
(c)How did the universe, by which we mean all that is physical, come into existence?
Chapter 5 “Who wrote the laws of nature?”
The important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature, but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and “tied together”. Einstein spoke of them as “reason incarnate”. The question we should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion.
We can put the issue this way:
(a)Where do the laws of physics come from?
(b)Why is it that we have these laws instead of some other set?
(c)How is it that we have a set of laws that drives featureless gases to life, consciousness and intelligence?
Chapter 6 “Did the universe know that we were coming?”
“The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense knew we were coming” (Physicist Freeman Dyson).
In other words, the laws of nature seem to have been crafted and fine-tuned so as to move the universe towards the emergence and sustenance of life.
Chapter 7 “How did life go live?”
How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and “coded chemistry”?
How can self-reproduction arise by natural means from a material base?
Why does living matter possess an inherent goal or end-centred organisation that is nowhere present in the matter that preceded it?
“Life is more than just complex chemical reactions. The cell is also an information-storing, processing and replicating system. We need to explain the origin of this information, and the way in which the information processing machinery came to exist”. (Paul Davies, physicist and cosmologist)
The Nobel Prize-winning physiologist George Wald once famously argued that “We choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance”
Chapter 8 “Did something come from nothing?”
Here, Flew notes how modern cosmology has placed the need to explain the universe centre stage again.
“No matter how you describe the universe – as having existed for ever, or as having originated from a point outside space-time, or else in space but not in time, or as starting off so quantum-fuzzily that there was no definite point at which it started, or as having a total energy that is zero – the people who see a problem in the sheer existence of Something Rather Than Nothing will be little inclined to agree that the problem has been solved” (John Leslie).
In other words, “the universe is something that begs an explanation” (Richard Swinburne).
Chapter 9 “Finding space for God”
Flew formerly argued that the very concept of God is incoherent because it presupposes the idea of an incorporeal omnipresent spirit. In this (unsatisfactory) section, he discusses his new thinking on the subject.
—
In 1994 and 1995 I had the opportunity to correspond with the famous evolutionist Dr. Ernst Mayr of Harvard. He stated in his letter of 10-3-94, “Owing to your ideological commitments, it is only natural that you cannot accept the cogency of the scientific evidence. However, to a person such as myself without such commitments, the story of the gradual evolution of life as reconstructed by chemists and molecular biologists is totally convincing.”
I responded by pointing out three points. First,Scientific Naturalism is atheistic by definition. Second, many great scientists of the past were Christians, and that did not disqualify their observations and discoveries. Third, the fact that evolution is true does not rule out God’s existence (Harvard’s own Owen Gingerich and many others such as Francis Collins hold to a Creator and evolution).
Let me just spend some time on my second point.Francis Schaeffer in his book “HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE?” stated that according to Alfred North Whitehead and J. Robert Oppenheimer, both renowned philosophers and scientists of our era (but not Christians themselves), modern science was born out of the Christian world view. Whitehead said that Christianity is the “mother of science” because of the insistence on the rationality of God. In the article, “Christianity and Technological Advance – The Astonishing Connection,” by T. V. Varughese, Ph.D, he observed:
Without question, “technology” has now become the new magic word in place of the word “science.” Since technology represents the practical applications of science, it is clearly consumer-oriented. Herein is bright economic promise to all who can provide technology.
In terms of technology, our present world can be divided into at least three groups: countries that are strong providers of technology, both original and improved; countries that are mass producers because of cheaper labor; and countries that are mostly consumers. Without a doubt, being in the position of “originating” superior technology should be a goal for any major country. The difficult question, however, is “how.”
An obvious place to start suggests itself. Why not begin with the countries that have established themselves as strong originators of technology and see if there is a common thread between them? The western nations, after the Renaissance and the Reformation of the 16th century, offer a ready example. Any book on the history of inventions, such as the Guinness Book of Answers, will reveal thatthe vast majority of scientific inventions have originated in Europe (including Britain) and the USA since the dawn of the 17th century. What led to the fast technological advances in the European countries and North America around that time?
The answer is that something happened which set the stage for science and technology to emerge with full force. Strange as it may seem, that event was the return to Biblical Christianity in these countries.
According to Alfred North Whitehead and J. Robert Oppenheimer, both renowned philosophers and scientists of our era (but not Christians themselves), modern science was born out of the Christian world view. Whitehead said that Christianity is the “mother of science” because of the insistence on the rationality of God.[1] Entomologist Stanley Beck,though not a Christian himself, acknowledged the corner-stone premises of science which the Judeo-Christian world view offers: “The first of the unprovable premises on which science has been based is the belief that the world is real and the human mind is capable of knowing its real nature. The second and best-known postulate underlying the structure of scientific knowledge is that of cause and effect. Thethird basic scientific premise is that nature is unified.”[2] In other words, the epistemological foundation of technology has been the Judeo-Christian world view presented in the Bible…
Perhaps the most obvious affirmation that Biblical Christianity and science are friends and not foes comes from the fact that most of the early scientists after the Renaissance were also strong believers in the Bible as the authoritative source of knowledge concerning the origin of the universe and man’s place in it.[4] The book of Genesis, the opening book of the Bible, presents the distinctly Judeo-Christian world view of a personal Creator God behind the origin and sustenance of the universe (Genesis 1:1; Colossians 1:17; etc.).
Among the early scientists of note who held the Biblical creationist world view are Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), and Samuel Morse (1791-1872) – what motivated them was a confidence in the “rationality” behind the universe and the “goodness” of the material world. The creation account in Genesis presents an intelligent, purposeful Creator, who, after completing the creation work, declared it to be very good (Genesis 1:31). That assures us that the physical universe operates under reliable laws which may be discovered by the intelligent mind and used in practical applications. The confidence in the divinely pronounced goodness of the material world removed any reluctance concerning the development of material things for the betterment of life in this world. The spiritual world and the material world can work together in harmony.
References –
Francis A. Schaeffer: How Should We Then Live (Revell, 1976), p. 132.
Henry M. Morris, Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Baker, 1991), p. 30.
Schaeffer, p. 131.
Henry M. Morris, Men of Science, Men of God (Master Books, CA, 1988), 107 pp.
Many of these great scientists of the past were before Darwin, but not all of them. However, all of them were acquainted with secular philosophies and some were in fact opponents of Darwinism (Agassiz, Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Dawson, Virchow, Fabre, Fleming, etc). Many of them believed in the inspiration and authority of the Bible, as well as in the deity and saving work of Jesus Christ. They believed that God had supernaturally created all things, each with its own complex structure for its own unique purpose. They believed that, as scientists, they were “thinking God’s thoughts after Him,” learning to understand and control the laws and processes of nature for God’s glory and man’s good. They believed and practiced science in exactly the same way that modern creationist scientists do.
And somehow this attitude did not hinder them in their commitment to the “scientific method.” In fact one of them, Sir Francis Bacon, is credited with formulating and establishing the scientific method! They seem also to have been able to maintain a proper “scientific attitude,” for it was these men (Newton, Pasteur, Linnaeus, Faraday, Pascal, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Kepler, etc.) whose researches and analyses led to the very laws and concepts of science which brought about our modern scientific age….
To illustrate the caliber and significance of these great scientists of the past, Tables I and II have been prepared. These tabulations are not complete lists, of course, but at least are representative and they do point up the absurdity of modern assertions that no true scientist can be a creationist and Bible-believing Christian.
Table I lists the creationist “fathers” of many significant branches of modern science. Table II lists the creationist scientists responsible for various vital inventions, discoveries, and other contributions to mankind. These identifications are to some degree oversimplified, of course, for even in the early days of science every new development involved a number of other scientists, before and after. Nevertheless, in each instance, a strong case can be made for attributing the chief responsibility to the creationist scientist indicated. At the very least, his contribution was critically important and thus supports our contention that belief in creation and the Bible helps, rather than hinders, scientific discovery.
_______________
My relatives live 3 miles from Spring Hill, Tennessee. When the new General Motors plant opened there I got to go see it. What if I had said, “The assembly line created a beautiful Saturn automobile!” Hopefully, some would have corected me by responding, “The assembly line did not create the automobile. It was first designed by the General Motors engineers in Detroit.” ASSUMING EVOLUTION IS TRUE, IT WOULD STILL ONLY BE THE MECHANISM. DOES EVOLUTION ACCOUNT FOR THE DESIGNER?
________________
TABLE ISCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS
DISCIPLINE
SCIENTIST
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY
JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY
LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS
ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS
JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY
ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY
GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE
CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS
ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS
JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS
JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS
MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS
LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS
HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY
MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS
GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY
WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS
ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS
GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY
LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY
JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS
LEONARDO DA VINCI(1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY
MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS
BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY
LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY
WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS
LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY
JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY
BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY
MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY
DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY
JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY
RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY
JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS
JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS
JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY
NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY
CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS
LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS
HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY
GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
______________
TABLE IINOTABLE INVENTIONS, DISCOVERIES OR DEVELOPMENTS BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS
________________ ________ Antony Flew – World’s Most Famous Atheist Accepts Existence of God Uploaded on Nov 28, 2008 Has Science Discovered God? A half-century ago, in 1955, Professor Antony Flew set the agenda for modern atheism with his Theology and Falsification, a paper presented in a debate with C.S. Lewis. This work became the most […]
____________ Jesus’ Resurrection: Atheist, Antony Flew, and Theist, Gary Habermas, Dialogue Published on Apr 7, 2012 http://www.veritas.org/talks – Did Jesus die, was he buried, and what happened afterward? Join legendary atheist Antony Flew and Christian historian and apologist Gary Habermas in a discussion about the facts surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Join the […]
_______ ________ Does God Exist?: William Lane Craig vs Antony Flew Uploaded on Dec 16, 2010 http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com – William Lane Craig and Antony Flew met in 1998 on the 50th anniversary of the famous Copleston/Russell debate to discuss the question of God’s existence in a public debate. Unlike Richard Dawkins, Flew was one of the most […]
_________________ Antony Flew on God and Atheism Published on Feb 11, 2013 Lee Strobel interviews philosopher and scholar Antony Flew on his conversion from atheism to deism. Much of it has to do with intelligent design. Flew was considered one of the most influential and important thinker for atheism during his time before his […]
____ Does God Exist? Thomas Warren vs. Antony Flew Published on Jan 2, 2014 Date: September 20-23, 1976 Location: North Texas State University Christian debater: Thomas B. Warren Atheist debater: Antony G.N. Flew For Thomas Warren: http://www.warrenapologeticscenter.org/ ______________________ Antony Flew and his conversion to theism Uploaded on Aug 12, 2011 Antony Flew, a well known […]
__________ Discussion (1 of 3): Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas Uploaded on Sep 22, 2010 A discussion with Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas. This was held at Westminster Chapel March, 2008 Debate – William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens – Does God Exist? Uploaded on Jan 27, 2011 April 4, 2009 – Craig […]
________ William Lane Craig versus Eddie Tabash Debate Uploaded on Feb 6, 2012 Secular Humanism versus Christianity, Lawyer versus Theologian. Evangelical Christian apologist William Lane Craig debates humanist atheist lawyer Eddie Tabash at Pepperdine University, February 8, 1999. Visit http://www.Infidels.org andhttp://www.WilliamLaneCraig.com ________________ Antony Flew on God and Atheism Published on Feb 11, 2013 Lee […]
___________ Does God Exist? Thomas Warren vs. Antony Flew Published on Jan 2, 2014 Date: September 20-23, 1976 Location: North Texas State University Christian debater: Thomas B. Warren Atheist debater: Antony G.N. Flew For Thomas Warren: http://www.warrenapologeticscenter.org/ ______________________ Antony Flew and his conversion to theism Uploaded on Aug 12, 2011 Antony Flew, a well known […]
_____________ Antony Flew on God and Atheism Published on Feb 11, 2013 Lee Strobel interviews philosopher and scholar Antony Flew on his conversion from atheism to deism. Much of it has to do with intelligent design. Flew was considered one of the most influential and important thinker for atheism during his time before his death […]
___________ Does God Exist?: William Lane Craig vs Antony Flew Uploaded on Dec 16, 2010 http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com – William Lane Craig and Antony Flew met in 1998 on the 50th anniversary of the famous Copleston/Russell debate to discuss the question of God’s existence in a public debate. Unlike Richard Dawkins, Flew was one of the most respected […]
___________ ________ Jesus’ Resurrection: Atheist, Antony Flew, and Theist, Gary Habermas, Dialogue Published on Apr 7, 2012 http://www.veritas.org/talks –Did Jesus die, was he buried, and what happened afterward? Join legendary atheist Antony Flew and Christian historian and apologist Gary Habermas in a discussion about the facts surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Join […]
___________ ________ Antony Flew – World’s Most Famous Atheist Accepts Existence of God Uploaded on Nov 28, 2008 Has Science Discovered God? A half-century ago, in 1955, Professor Antony Flew set the agenda for modern atheism with his Theology and Falsification, a paper presented in a debate with C.S. Lewis. This work became the most […]
________ Antony Flew on God and Atheism Published on Feb 11, 2013 Lee Strobel interviews philosopher and scholar Antony Flew on his conversion from atheism to deism. Much of it has to do with intelligent design. Flew was considered one of the most influential and important thinker for atheism during his time before his death […]
Discussion (2 of 3): Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas ______________ Atheist Lawrence Krauss loses debate to wiser Christian Published on Sep 13, 2013 http://www.reasonablefaith.org More of this here The Bible and Science (Part 02) The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Scientific Evidence) (Henry Schaefer, PhD) Published on Jun 11, 2012 Scientist Dr. Henry “Fritz” Schaefer gives a lecture […]
Discussion (1 of 3): Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas Uploaded on Sep 22, 2010 A discussion with Antony Flew, N.T. Wright, and Gary Habermas. This was held at Westminster Chapel March, 2008 ______________________ Making Sense of Faith and Science Uploaded on May 16, 2008 Dr. H. Fritz Schaefer confronts the assertion that one cannot believe […]
__________ Robert Jastrow on God and the Big Bang Published on Jun 26, 2012 Henry “Fritz” Schaefer comments on a popular quote made by scientist Robert Jastrow. Jastrow (who Carl Sagan was too scared to debate) is an agnostic but believes that the Big Bang leaves room for the existence of God. ____________ William Lane Craig […]
Is Richard Dawkins a secular bigot? Maybe the best person to address this was the famous atheist Antony Flew who left his atheism in 2004. Flew Slams Dawkins… Labels: Books, Religion & Society By Regis Nicoll|Published Date: August 25, 2008 …as a “secular bigot.” After the world’s most influential atheist stunned the atheist community with his book There Is a […]
Today I am going to look at H.J. Blackham and the artist featured today is Arturo Herrera. Herrera’s art interests me because it is based on the idea that accidental chance can bring about something beautiful and that is the same place that materialistic modern men like Blackham have turned to when they have concluded […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
On March 17, 2013 at our worship service at Fellowship Bible Church, Ben Parkinson who is one of our teaching pastors spoke on Genesis 1. He spoke about an issue that I was very interested in. Ben started the sermon by reading the following scripture: Genesis 1-2:3 English Standard Version (ESV) The Creation of the […]
At the end of this post is a message by RC Sproul in which he discusses Sagan. Over the years I have confronted many atheists. Here is one story below: I really believe Hebrews 4:12 when it asserts: For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the […]
In today’s news you will read about Kirk Cameron taking on the atheist Stephen Hawking over some recent assertions he made concerning the existence of heaven. Back in December of 1995 I had the opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan about a year before his untimely death. Sarah Anne Hughes in her article,”Kirk Cameron criticizes […]
In this post we are going to see that through the years humanist thought has encouraged artists like Michelangelo to think that the future was extremely bright versus the place today where many artist who hold the humanist and secular worldview are very pessimistic. In contrast to Michelangelo’s DAVID when humanist man thought he […]
_________ Antony Flew on God and Atheism Published on Feb 11, 2013 Lee Strobel interviews philosopher and scholar Antony Flew on his conversion from atheism to deism. Much of it has to do with intelligent design. Flew was considered one of the most influential and important thinker for atheism during his time before his death […]
Richard Dawkins tweeted on 7/20/2022: The other excellent article by Jerry Coyne today. Some anthropologists want to stop identifying the sex of ancient skulls because we don’t know how they self-identified!
This article about conflicts in anthropology involving gender and ethnicity comes from the website of Jonathan Turley, whose name I’d heard before but whose work and politics I didn’t know. His Wikipedia bio doesn’t give much clue into his politics (to be truthful, I didn’t look hard for it, since it seemed irrelevant to the story), I wondered simply because he cites a right-wing website below.
But Turley is no weirdo: here’s one bit from his Wikipedia bio:
Turley holds the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School, where he teaches torts, criminal procedure, and constitutional law. He is the youngest person to receive an academic chair in the school’s history. He runs the Project for Older Prisoners (POP), the Environmental Law Clinic, and the Environmental Legislation Project.
I am assuming, then, that what he describes and quotes is accurate, and will give my views accordingly. Here’s the article at hand, which relates to the last article we had about ethnicity (which, of course, reflects ancestry). Click screenshot to read:
The conservative site College Fix quotes various academics in challenging the identification of gender and notes the campaign of the Trans Doe Task Force to “explore ways in which current standards in forensic human identification do a disservice to people who do not clearly fit the gender binary.”
Let’s take sex and ancestry separately. Turley’s prose is indented.
On gender and sex:
University of Kansas Associate Professor Jennifer Raff argued in a paper, “Origin: A Genetic History of the Americas,” that there are “no neat divisions between physically or genetically ‘male’ or ‘female’ individuals.” Her best selling book has been featured on various news outlets like MSNBC.
. . . However, Raff is not alone. Graduate students like Emma Palladino have objected that “the archaeologists who find your bones one day will assign you the same gender as you had at birth, so regardless of whether you transition, you can’t escape your assigned sex.”
Well, given that sex is pretty close to a complete binary in humans, and is reflected and diagnosable in our bones bones—hence “Lucy“, A. afarensis, was female and “Turkana Boy“, H. ergaster was male—you determine biological sex from skeletons, not gender.
Is that a problem? I don’t see how. Even if our hominin relatives or ancestors did have concepts of gender beyond male and female, there are genuine scientific questions to be answered by studying biological sex from ancient remains. What was the ratio of males to females in various places, and if it differed much from 50:50, why? If someone’s remains are associated with items, like Ötzi the hunter (actually a mummy), one can conclude something about ancient cultures and the possibility of differential sex roles. Is it important for scientists to debate whether Ötzi identified himself as a “they/them” given that we’ll never know the answer? Or are we forbidden to inspect the genitals? (He was a biological male).
Now it is of sociological value to determine whether our ancestors identified as “men and women” and saw only two genders, but if we can’t do that, it’s ludicrous to say that we shouldn’t identify remains on the basis of biological sex—a lot easier to do! I won’t give a list of scientific questions that can be addressed by knowing the sex of a fossil hominin, but there are lots, and yet some anthropologists want to stop all such research because hominins may not have had gender roles that matched their biological sex.
On ancestry and ethnicity:
Likewise for ancestry. It’s sometimes possible to guess one’s ethnicity from skeletal morphology, but it’s much more accurate to do DNA sequencing. (Sequencing of fossil DNA can tell us both biological sex and which group of either ancient or modern humans you most resemble genetically.) Yet some anthropologists want to stop that research, too. Turley:
Professors Elizabeth DiGangi of Binghamton University and Jonathan Bethard of the University of South Florida have also challenged the use of racial classifications in a study, objecting that “[a]ncestry estimation contributes to white supremacy.” The authors write that “we use critical race theory to interrogate the approaches utilized to estimate ancestry to include a critique of the continued use of morphoscopic traits, and we assert that the practice of ancestry estimation contributes to white supremacy.”
The professors refer to the practice as “dangerous” and wrote in a letter to the editor that such practices must be changed in light of recent racial justice concerns.
“Between the devastating COVID-19 pandemic and the homicides of numerous Black Americans at the hands of law enforcement officials, we have all been reminded about the fragility of life, and the failures of our society to live up to the ideals enshrined in the foundational documents which established the United States of America over two centuries ago. Tackling these failures seems overwhelming at times; however, changes can be enacted with candid and reflexive discussions about the status quo. In writing this letter, we direct our comments to the forensic anthropology community in the United States in hopes of sparking a discussion about the long-standing practice of ancestry estimation and changes that are frankly long overdue.”
Once again, research is supposed to be squelched for ideological reasons. Yet estimating ancestry of remains can answer lots of interesting questions. One, for example involves DNA sequencing of Neanderthals and modern humans. I would consider these to be different, long-diverged ethnic groups of a single species, not different species, for they could interbreed where they lived in the same area and also produce fertile hybrids.
That’s just a guess, but without sequencing their DNA, we wouldn’t know not only that they hybridized, but also that many of us still carry some ancient DNA from Neanderthals. Where did the Denisovans belong? (We don’t know whether they were a different species of hominin from modern humans or simply an “ethnic group.”) What about H. erectus? Did they die out without issue, or are they related to any modern populations? Do any of their genes still hang around in H. sapiens? (I don’t think we’ll answer these questions.)
It is the sequencing of DNA of people from different geographic areas (“races” if you will, but call them whatever you want) that has helped us unravel the story of human migration, how many times we left Africa and when, and when different groups established themselves in places like Australia and Polynesia, or crossed the Bering Strait into North America. DNA and estimation of ancestry has immensely enriched the story of human evolution and migration. That’s all from “ancestry estimation”, and you don’t even need a concept of “race” to answer these questions—only a concept of “ancestry” and “relatedness”. Nor does this research contribute to white supremacy, though of course some racists may coopt it.
In the interests of woke ideology, in other words, some anthropologists want to shut down two promising lines of research. I call that misguided and, indeed, crazy. If you despise white supremacy like most of us do, you don’t get rid of it it by banning anthropological genetics. If you want sympathy for people whose gender doesn’t match their biological sex, you don’t get it by stopping researchers from determining the biological sex of ancient human remains.
As the Wicked Witch of the West said, “Oh, what a world! What a world!”
Made for Comedy Ricky Gervais has 50 year old plumber choose to identify as a 8 year old girl (Plus HUMANIST award taken away from Richard Dawkins)
After Life 2 – Man identifies as an 8 year old girl
4:20 am 4/10/21
In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as.
Discuss.
—
4/12/21 12:46pm
I do not intend to disparage trans people. I see that my academic “Discuss” question has been misconstrued as such and I deplore this. It was also not my intent to ally in any way with Republican bigots in US now exploiting this issue .
American Humanist Association criticises academic for comments about identity using ‘the guise of scientific discourse’, and withdraws its 1996 honourAlison FloodTue 20 Apr 2021 08.56 EDT
The American Humanist Association has withdrawn its humanist of the year award from Richard Dawkins, 25 years after he received the honour, criticising the academic and author for “demean[ing] marginalised groups” using “the guise of scientific discourse”.
The AHA honoured Dawkins, whose books include The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion, in 1996 for his “significant contributions” in communicating scientific concepts to the public. On Monday, it announced that it was withdrawing the award, referring to a tweet sent by Dawkins earlier this month, in which he compared trans people to Rachel Dolezal, the civil rights activist who posed as a black woman for years.
“In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black,” wrote Dawkins on Twitter. “Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss.”
Dawkins later responded to criticism, writing: “I do not intend to disparage trans people. I see that my academic ‘Discuss’ question has been misconstrued as such and I deplore this. It was also not my intent to ally in any way with Republican bigots in US now exploiting this issue.”
Among his critics was Alison Gill, vice president for legal and policy at American Atheists and a trans woman. She said Dawkins’ comments reinforce dangerous and harmful narratives. She said: “Given the repercussions for the millions of trans people in this country, in this one life we have to live, as an atheist and as a trans woman, I hope that Professor Dawkins treats this issue with greater understanding and respect in the future.”
In 2015, Dawkins also wrote: “Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.”
In a statement from its board, the AHA said that Dawkins had “over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalised groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values”.
The evolutionary biologist’s latest comment, the board said, “implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient”, while his “subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity”.
“Consequently, the AHA Board has concluded that Richard Dawkins is no longer deserving of being honored by the AHA, and has voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award,” said the organisation.
The Guardian has reached out to Dawkins for comment.
Last year, the author JK Rowling returned an award given to her by the Robert F Kennedy Human Rights organisation, after its president, Kennedy’s daughter Kerry Kennedy, criticised her views on transgender issues. “I am deeply saddened that RFKHR has felt compelled to adopt this stance, but no award or honour, no matter my admiration for the person for whom it was named, means so much to me that I would forfeit the right to follow the dictates of my own conscience,” said Rowling in a statement at the time.
Tribute to Horace Barlow
Steven Dakin @StevenDakin
Elegant & important psychophysics from @TheKwonLab. Retinal ganglion cell dysfunction (not death) limits contrast sensitivity in glaucoma. Sidenote: credit to late/great Horace Barlow for the equivalent noise paradigm.
—-
November 2, 2019
November 2, 2019
Dr. Horace Barlow, Cambridge CB3 9AX, England
Dear Dr. Barlow,
I have enjoyed reading the book OUTGROWING GOD by your friend Richard Dawkins, and he certainly has much respect for you great grandfather Charles Darwin. However, he has not studied the Bible as extensively as Darwin did because many of Dawkins’ criticisms of the Bible don’t seem to be valid. For instance, on page 53 he states:
Genesis says Abraham owned camels, but archaeological evidence shows that the camel was not domesticated until many centuries after Abraham
Some Biblical texts, such as Genesis 12 and 24, claim that Abraham owned camels. Yet archaeological researchshows that camels were not domesticated in the land of Canaan until the 10th century B.C.E.—about a thousand years after the time of Abraham. This seems to suggest that camels in these Biblical stories are anachronistic.
Abraham’s Camels. Did camels exist in Biblical times? Camels appear with Abraham in some Biblical texts—and depictions thereof, such as The Caravan of Abram by James Tissot, based on Genesis 12. When were camels first domesticated? Although camel domestication had not taken place by the time of Abraham in the land of Canaan, it had in Mesopotamia. Photo: PD-1923.Mark W. Chavalas explores the history of camel domestication in his Biblical Views column “Did Abraham Ride a Camel?”published in the November/December 2018 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. Although he agrees that camel domestication likely did not take place in Canaan until the 10th century B.C.E., he notes that Abraham’s place of origin was not Canaan—but Mesopotamia. Thus, to ascertain whether Abraham’s camels are anachronistic, we need to ask: When were camels first domesticated in Mesopotamia?
Chavalas explains that the events in the Biblical accounts of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs (Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and Israel and Rachel) have been traditionally dated to c. 2000–1600 B.C.E. (during the Middle Bronze Age). Camels appear in Mesopotamian sources in the third millennium B.C.E.—before this period. However, the mere presence of camels in sources does not necessarily mean that camels were domesticated.
The question remains: When were camels domesticated in Mesopotamia?
In his examination of camel domestication history, Chavalas looks at a variety of textual, artistic, and archaeological sources from Mesopotamia dating to the third and second millennia. We will examine five of these sources here:
1. One of the first pieces of evidence for camel domestication comes from the site of Eshnunna in modern Iraq: A plaque from the mid-third millennium shows a camel being ridden by a human.
2. Another source is a 21st-century B.C.E. text from Puzrish-Dagan in modern Iraq that may record camel deliveries.
3. Third, an 18th-century B.C.E. text (quoting from an earlier third millennium text) from Nippur in modern Iraq says, “the milk of the camel is sweet.” Chavalas explains why he thinks this likely refers to a domesticated camel:
Having walked in many surveys through camel herds in Syria along the Middle Euphrates River, I believe that this text is describing a domesticated camel; who would want to milk a “wild camel”? At the very least, the Bactrian camel was being used for dairy needs at this time.
4. Next, an 18th-century B.C.E. cylinder seal depicts a two-humped camel with riders. Although this seal’s exact place of origin is unknown, it reputedly comes from Syria, and it resembles other seals from Alalakh (a site in modern Turkey near Turkey’s southern border with Syria).
5. Finally, a 17th-century text from Alalakh includes camels in a list of domesticated animals that required food.
Although domesticated camels may not have been widespread in Mesopotamia in the second millennium, these pieces of evidence show that by the second millennium, there were at least some domesticated camels. Thus, camel domestication had taken place in Mesopotamia by the time of Abraham. Accordingly, Chavalas argues that the camels in the stories of Abraham in Genesis are not anachronistic.
Learn more about the history of camel domestication in Mark W. Chavalas’s Biblical Views column “Did Abraham Ride a Camel?” published in the November/December 2018 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.——————
Subscribers: Read the full Biblical Views column “Did Abraham Ride a Camel?” by Mark W. Chavalas in the November/December 2018 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.
—-
Francis Schaeffer noted concerning Charles Darwin’s loss of faith:
This is very sad. He lies on his bunk and the Beagle tosses and turns and he makes daydreams, and his dreams and hopes are that someone would find in Pompeii or some place like this, an old manuscript by a distinguished Roman that would put his stamp of authority on it, which would be able to show that Christ existed. This is undoubtedly what he is talking about. Darwin gave up this hope with great difficulty.
Dr. Barlow you have an advantage of 150 years over your great grandfather and the archaeologist’s spade has continued to dig. Take a look at this piece of evidence from the book WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? by Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop:
TRUTH AND HISTORY (chapter 5 of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?)
In the previous chapter we saw that the Bible gives us the explanation for the existence of the universe and its form and for the mannishness of man. Or, to reverse this, we came to see that the universe and its form and the mannishness of man are a testimony to the truth of the Bible. In this chapter we will consider a third testimony: the Bible’s openness to verification by historical study.
Christianity involves history. To say only that is already to have said something remarkable, because it separates the Judeo-Christian world-view from almost all other religious thought. It is rooted in history.
The Bible tells us how God communicated with man in history. For example, God revealed Himself to Abraham at a point in time and at a particular geographical place. He did likewise with Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel and so on. The implications of this are extremely important to us. Because the truth God communicated in the Bible is so tied up with the flow of human events, it is possible by historical study to confirm some of the historical details.
It is remarkable that this possibility exists. Compare the information we have from other continents of that period. We know comparatively little about what happened in Africa or South America or China or Russia or even Europe. We see beautiful remains of temples and burial places, cult figures, utensils, and so forth, but there is not much actual “history” that can be reconstructed, at least not much when compared to that which is possible in the Middle East.
When we look at the material which has been discovered from the Nile to the Euphrates that derives from the 2500-year span before Christ, we are in a completely different situation from that in regard to South America or Asia. The kings of Egypt and Assyria built thousands of monuments commemorating their victories and recounting their different exploits. Whole libraries have been discovered from places like Nuzu and Mari and most recently at Elba, which give hundreds of thousands of texts relating to the historical details of their time. It is within this geographical area that the Bible is set. So it is possible to find material which bears upon what the Bible tells us.
The Bible purports to give us information on history. Is the history accurate? The more we understand about the Middle East between 2500 B.C. and A.D. 100, the more confident we can be that the information in the Bible is reliable, even when it speaks about the simple things of time and place.
TRUTH AND HISTORY (chapter 5 of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?, under footnote #94)
So the story goes on. We have stopped at only a few incidents in the sweep back to the year 1000 B.C. What we hope has emerged from this is a sense of the historical reliability of the Bible’s text. When the Bible refers to historical incidents, it is speaking about the same sort of “history” that historians examine elsewhere in other cultures and periods. This borne out by the fact that some of the incidents, some of the individuals, and some of the places have been confirmed by archaeological discoveries in the past hundred years has swept away the possibility of a naive skepticism about the Bible’s history. And what is particularly striking is that the tide has built up concerning the time before the year 1000 B.C. Our knowledge about the years 2500 B.C. to 1000 B.C. has vastly increased through discoveries sometimes of whole libraries and even of hitherto unknown people and languages.
There was a time, for example, when the Hittite people, referred to in the early parts of the Bible, were treated as fictitious by critical scholars. Then came the discoveries after 1906 at Boghaz Koi (Boghaz-koy) which not only gave us the certainty of their existence but stacks of details from their own archives!
The author as publicist. Darwin, above, wrote to influential scientists worldwide, begging their attention to his new book. This is from his letter to Asa Gray. The photograph of Darwin is by his son, William Erasmus Darwin, and was sent to Asa Gray in 1861. It, and Darwin’s letter, are in the Gray Herbarium. ARCHIVES AT THE GRAY HERBARIUM, HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Of the several thousand letters that charles darwin wrote during his lifetime, few were more important than one he sent on September 5, 1857, to Harvard botanist Asa Gray. Darwin wrote in his semi-legible scrawl: “I will enclose the briefest abstract of my notions on the means by which nature makes her species….I ask you not to mention my doctrine.” Asa Gray thus became the first person in North America to learn about Darwin’s ideas on natural selection.
Darwin revealed his theory to the general public two years later in his revolutionary book, On the Origin of Species. Its publication prompted fierce debate in this country. On one side arose Gray, Darwin’s friend and supporter, a taciturn man best known as a cataloguer and collector of plants. In opposition stood Gray’s Harvard colleague Louis Agassiz, a charming, brilliant lecturer and the most popular scientist in the land. Harvard thus became the most important battleground in the initial American engagement with natural selection.
~~~
Asa Gray was Fisher professor of natural history at Harvard from 1842 till 1873. Although he was originally trained as a medical doctor, his passion was plants. His reputation as a taxonomist helped him establish one of America’s premier collections of dried plants, which contained material from collectors who had traveled in the United States and around the world. By the early 1860s, his personal herbarium totaled almost 200,000 specimens.
Gray and Darwin’s epistolary relationship began in 1855, when Darwin wrote Gray. As usual with Darwin, he was humble, and he wanted information. The Englishman asked the American about alpine plants in the United States and their relationship to plants in Europe and Asia. During the next few years, Gray used his vast collection to provide much-needed information on two topics essential to Darwin’s theory–the distribution of plants, and variation in wild, non-domesticated species.
Gray in 1865. His copy of Origin, with marginalia, is in the Gray Herbarium. ARCHIVES AT THE GRAY HERBARIUM, HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Despite Gray’s world renown as a botanist, his colleague Louis Agassiz, professor of zoology and geology, commanded most of the scientific attention in Cambridge. Respected by scientists and liked by the general public, Agassiz was also friends with the Boston literati, among them Ralph Waldo Emerson, James Russell Lowell, and Oliver Wendell Holmes. Of Swiss origin, Agassiz had made his mark in science in 1840 with his best-known book, Études sur les glaciers. In it he proposed the then-unorthodox theory that great glaciers had once covered and carved northern Europe.
Agassiz first came to this country in 1846, to present a series of lectures in Boston. As many as 5,000 people a night attended his talks on subjects as diverse as fossil fishes, the Ice Age, and embryology. In 1847, Harvard wooed him away from Europe. The most important North American scientific periodical of the day, the American Journal of Science, reported, “Every scientific man in America will be rejoiced to hear so unexpected a piece of news.” In the following years, Agassiz continued to make science accessible to the public through lectures, books, and articles.
~~~
On November 11, 1859, Darwin began the arduous task of gaining support for the imminent publication of Origin of Species. (Not that sales mattered to him financially; he was independently wealthy. Nevertheless, he would receive two-thirds of the net profit!) Like any modern author, he asked his publisher, John Murray of London, to send presentation copies to potential reviewers.
He also wrote personal notes to 11 of the most important scientists of the day. The majority of these letters acknowledged that the recipient would not support Darwin’s theory of natural selection. In one letter he wrote: “How savage you will be, if you read it, and how you will long to crucify me alive!!” But Darwin also tried to push the veracity of his theory by writing later in the same letter, “I am fully convinced that you will become year after year, less fixed in your belief in the immutability of species.”
Two of Darwin’s November 11 letters crossed the Atlantic to Harvard. One went to Asa Gray and the other to Louis Agassiz. The letters are now preserved in the Gray Herbarium Library and the Houghton Library.
Agassiz’s letter is short, only three sentences. Darwin knew that Agassiz would not agree with his theory. He wrote: “As the conclusions at which I have arrived on several points differ so widely from yours,…I hope that you will at least give me credit, however erroneous you may think my conclusion, for having earnestly endeavored to arrive at the truth.” Agassiz did not reply to Darwin, who did not send him another letter until 1868.
In contrast, the letter to Gray (at top right) covers almost two full pages. Again Darwin is humble, and seeks out Gray’s approval, but he is also proud of the book. “If ever you do read it, & can screw out the time to send me…however short a note…I should be extremely grateful,” he writes. In a postscript Darwin adds “…I cannot possibly believe that a false theory would explain so many classes of facts.”
Agassiz, about 1861, and a page from his copy, at the Museum of Comparative Zoology. ERNST MAYR LIBRARY OF THE MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Agassiz and Gray received their copies of Origin in late December. Gray peppered the margins of the small green book with “Yes,” “Well put,” and numerous exclamation points. He clearly approved of Darwin’s overall tone and reasoning. On the other hand, Agassiz’s marginalia range from “This is truly monstrous” to “The mistake of Darwin…” to “A sentence likely to mislead!”– notes that he elaborated on later in his more formal criticism of Darwin and his theory.
Professionally, the two men generally kept their comments about each other’s reaction to Darwin’s theory on a high level. Personally, they remained distant, indulging in a few caustic remarks to friends. On January 5, 1860, for example, Gray wrote a detailed letter about the American response to Origin of Species to the English botanist Joseph Hooker. In describing his own feelings, Gray wrote: “It is crammed full of most interesting matter–thoroughly digested–well expressed–close, cogent; and taken as a system it makes out a better case than I had supposed possible.” Several paragraphs later he described a much different response from Agassiz: “…when I saw him last, [he] had read but part of it. He says it is poor–very poor!! (entre nous). The fact [is] he growls over it much like a well cudgeled dog [and] is very much annoyed by it.”
~~~
Agassiz launched his public attack on Darwin at the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Boston’s most important learned society. He told the group gathered on January 10, 1860, that modern species and fossil species had no genetic relationship. This tenet was central to the theory of special creationism, which held that God had created each and every species in its current location. Species did not change through time, but they did become extinct. Great catastrophes, like floods or the glaciers described by Agassiz in Études, had periodically destroyed life on earth. The fossil record indicated at least 48 successive periods of change, according to Agassiz.
He clarified his position a month later and condemned one of Darwin’s pivotal themes–variation within species. America’s foremost zoologist denied the “existence of varieties, properly so called, in the animal kingdom.” Instead, Agassiz viewed variation within species as merely a stage of growth or a cycle of development. God had created the species; therefore they were immutable. In addition to this line of attack, Agassiz categorically rejected Darwin’s use of domesticated animals as an example of change over time.
By mid summer Agassiz had clearly defined his position: he stood resolutely on the side of special creationism and against Darwin. Agassiz realized that some would question his statements, but knew that “after mature examination of the facts they would be generally received.” In July 1860, he concluded his review of Origin of Species in the American Journal of Science by writing, “I shall therefore consider the transmutation theory a scientific mistake, untrue in facts, unscientific in its methods, and mischievous in its tendency.”
Gray began his public defense of Darwin, also in the American Journal of Science, with a positive review of Origin in the March 1860 issue. He wrote that Darwin’s ideas on variation within plants and animals were “general, and even universal.” He supported the English naturalist’s use of domesticated animals as examples, and believed that Darwin’s various associations of facts “[seem] fair and natural.”
Although Gray vigorously defended Darwin and natural selection in this review, in a three-part series in the Atlantic Monthly, and throughout the springtime debates at Boston’s learned societies, he, like Agassiz, maintained a link between a supreme power and natural selection. Gray did not support Agassiz’s brand of special creationism, but did believe “that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines” by the hands of a creator. Natural selection occurred, but God played some not clearly defined role in the process.
Darwin never supported these statements on the role of a higher power. He wrote Gray: “I grieve to say that I am in an utterly hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result of chance; & yet I cannot look at each separate thing as a result of Design.”
Darwin did, however, realize the importance of Gray’s thesis in the developing battle between religion and science. (The bishop of Oxford popularized this debate in June 1860 by asking Darwin’s main supporter in England, Thomas Huxley, “Was it through his grandfather or his grandmother
that he claimed his descent from a monkey?”) With Darwin’s assistance, Gray’s Atlantic pieces, which contained his most cogent explanations for natural selection and Design, reached England as a small pamphlet bearing the Darwin-suggested motto, “Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology.”
Despite Gray’s strong religious feelings, he was at heart a scientist. Unlike Agassiz, he could separate his faith and his science. Gray ultimately concluded that “The work [Origin] is a scientific one…and by its science it must stand or fall.”
~~~
For Gray, 1860 was the most important year of the Darwinian debate. He would continue occasionally to write and speak out on the subject, but never as vigorously as during the first eight months of the decade. The controversy had taken him away from his beloved plants. He returned to his work of identifying and cataloguing, and to the next edition of his and John Torrey’s Manual of Botany. In 1864 he donated his library and plant specimens to Harvard; they became the nucleus of the Gray Herbarium. He continued to correspond with Darwin, whose work began to address many botanical problems, including carnivorous plants. They remained friends until Darwin died in 1882.
As a committed anti-evolutionist, Agassiz continued to oppose Darwin for the rest of his career. He presented three lecture courses and published 21 articles and three books between 1861 and 1866 extolling special creationism. None of these, however, were in professional or scientific journals. Despite his growing popularity with the general public, Agassiz’s influence in the scientific debate over evolution faded. When he died, in 1873, he was one of the last, and certainly the most important, of the scientists who subscribed to special creationism.
Ironically, Agassiz is one of the main reasons that Harvard remains a center for evolutionary studies. The worldwide scope of the animal and fossil collections at the Museum of Comparative Zoology, which Agassiz established and directed, combined with the specimens housed in the Gray Herbarium, facilitate ongoing research into questions of natural selection and speciation. In spite of their differences, both Gray and Agassiz shared a profound respect for the scientific method. Their rigorous examination of plants and animals laid the groundwork for the eventual acceptance of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Freelance writer David B. Williams likes to explore the historical as well as the natural parts of natural history. His “Lessons in Stone,” a geological tour of Harvard buildings, appeared in the November-December 1997 issue.
I found Dr. Barlow to be a true gentleman and he was very kind to take the time to answer the questions that I submitted to him. In the upcoming months I will take time once a week to pay tribute to his life and reveal our correspondence. In the first week I noted:
Today I am posting my first letter to him in February of 2015 which discussed Charles Darwin lamenting his loss of aesthetic tastes which he blamed on Darwin’s own dedication to the study of evolution. In a later return letter, Dr. Barlow agreed that Darwin did in fact lose his aesthetic tastes at the end of his life.
In the third week, I look at the life of Brandon Burlsworth in the November 28, 2016 letter and the movie GREATER and the problem of evil which Charles Darwin definitely had a problem with once his daughter died.
On the 4th letter to Dr. Barlow looks at Darwin’s admission that he at times thinks that creation appears to look like the expression of a mind. Francis Schaeffer discusses Darwin’s own words in 1968 sermon at this link.
My Fifth Letter concerning Charles Darwin’s views on MORAL MOTIONS Which was mailed on March 1, 2017. Francis Schaeffer discusses Darwin’s own words concerning moral motions in Schaeffer’s 1968 sermon at this link.
6th letter on May 1, 2017 in which Charles Darwin’s hopes are that someone would find in Pompeii an old manuscript by a distinguished Roman that would show that Christ existed! Francis Schaeffer discusses Darwin’s own words concerning the possible manuscript finds in Schaeffer’s 1968 sermon at this link
7th letter on Darwin discussing DETERMINISM dated 7-1-17 . Francis Schaeffer discusses Darwin’s own words concerning determinism in Schaeffer’s 1968 sermon at this link.
8th letter responds to Dr. Barlow’s letter to me concerning Francis Schaeffer discussing Darwin’s own words concerning chance in Schaeffer’s 1968 sermon at this link.
9th letter in response to 11-22-17 letter I received from Professor Horace Barlow was mailed on 1-2-18 and included Charles Darwin’s comments on William Paley. Francis Schaeffer discusses Darwin’s own words concerning William Paley in Schaeffer’s 1968 sermon at this link.
10th letter in response to 11-22-17 letter I received from Professor Horace Barlow was mailed on 2-2-18 and includes Darwin’s comments asking for archaeological evidence for the Bible! Francis Schaeffer discusses Darwin’s own words concerning His desire to see archaeological evidence supporting the Bible’s accuracy in Schaeffer’s 1968 sermon at this link.
11th letterI mailed on 3-2-18 in response to 11-22-17 letter from Barlow that asserted: It is also sometimes asked whether chance, even together with selection, can define a “MORAL CODE,” which the religiously inclined say is defined by their God. I think the answer is “Yes, it certainly can…” Francis Schaeffer discusses Darwin’s own words concerning A MORAL CODE in Schaeffer’s 1968 sermon at this link.
12th letter on March 26, 2018 breaks down song DUST IN THE WIND “All we do, crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see, Dust in the Wind, All we are is dust in the wind, Don’t hang on, Nothing lasts forever but the Earth and Sky, It slips away, And all your money won’t another minute buy.”
In 13th letter I respond to Barlow’s November 22, 2017 letter and assertion “He {Darwin} clearly did not lose his sense of the VALUE of TRUTH, and of the importance of FOREVER SEARCHING it out.”
In 14th letter to Dr. Barlow on 10-2-18, I assert: “Let me demonstrate how the Bible’s view of the origin of life fits better with the evidence we have from archaeology than that of gradual evolution.”
In 15th letter in November 2, 2018 to Dr. Barlow I quote his relative Randal Keynes Who in the Richard Dawkins special “The Genius of Darwin” makes this point concerning Darwin, “he was, at different times, enormously confident in it,
and at other times, he was utterly uncertain.”
In 16th Letter on 12-2-18 to Dr. Barlow I respond to his letter that stated, If I am pressed to say whether I think belief in God helps people to make wise and beneficial decisions I am bound to say (and I fear this will cause you pain) “No, it is often very disastrous, leading to violence, death and vile behaviour…Muslim terrorists…violence within the Christian church itself”
17th letter sent on January 2, 2019 shows the great advantage we have over Charles Darwin when examining the archaeological record concerning the accuracy of the Bible
In the 18th letter I respond to the comment by Charles Darwin: “My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts, but why this should have caused the atrophy of that part of the brain alone, on which the higher tastes depend, I cannot conceive….The loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness.” Francis Schaeffer discusses Darwin’s own words on his loss of aesthetic tastes in Schaeffer’s 1968 sermon at this link.
In 19th letter on 2-2-19 I discuss Steven Weinberg’s words, But if language is to be of any use to us, we ought to try to preserve the meanings of words, and “God” historically has not meant the laws of nature. It has meant an interested personality.
In the 20th letter on 3-2-19 I respond to Charles Darwin’s comment, “At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep [#1] inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons...Formerly I was led by feelings such as those…to the firm conviction of the existence of God, and of the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that [#2] whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, ‘it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion which fill and elevate the mind.’ I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. [#3] But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said that I am like a man who has become colour-blind.” Francis Schaeffer discusses Darwin’s own words concerning his former belief in God in Schaeffer’s 1968 sermon at this link.
In the 21st letter on May 15, 2019 to Dr Barlow I discuss the writings of Francis Schaeffer who passed away the 35 years earlier on May 15, 1985. Francis Schaeffer discusses Darwin’s own words at length in Schaeffer’s 1968 sermon at this link.
In the 22nd letter I respond to Charles Darwin’s words, “I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe…will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.” Francis Schaeffer discusses Darwin’s own words about hell in Schaeffer’s 1968 sermon at this link.
In 23rd postcard sent on 7-2-19 I asked Dr Barlow if he was a humanist. Sir Julian Huxley, founder of the American Humanist Association noted, “I use the word ‘humanist’ to mean someone who believes that man is just as much a natural phenomenon as an animal or plant; that his body, mind and soul were not supernaturally created but are products of evolution, and that he is not under the control or guidance of any supernatural being.”
In my 24th letter on 8-2-19 I quote Jerry Bergman who noted Jean Louis Agassiz (1807-1873) is regarded as one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. A founding father of the modern American scientific establishment, Agassiz was also a lifelong opponent of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Agassiz “ruled in professorial majesty at Harvard’s Museum of Comparative Zoology.”
In my 25th letter on 9-2-19 I respond to Charles Darwin’s assertion, “This argument would be a valid one if all men of ALL RACES had the SAME INWARD CONVICTION of the existence of one God; but we know that this is very far from being the case.” Francis Schaeffer discusses Darwin’s own words concerning MORAL MOTIONS in Schaeffer’s 1968 sermon at this link.
In my 26th letteron 10-2-19 I quoted Bertrand Russell’s daughter’s statement, “I believe myself that his whole life was a search for God…. Indeed, he had first taken up philosophy in hope of finding proof of the evidence of the existence of God … Somewhere at the back of my father’s mind, at the bottom of his heart, in the depths of his soul there was an empty space that had once been filled by God, and he never found anything else to put in it”
In my 27th letter on 11-2-19 I disproved Richard Dawkins’ assertion, “Genesis says Abraham owned camels, but archaeological evidence shows that the camel was not domesticated until many centuries after Abraham.” Furthermore, I gave more evidence indicating the Bible is historically accurate.
and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.
Harry Kroto
__________________________
There are 3 videos in this series and they have statements by 150 academics and scientists and I hope to respond to all of them. Wikipedia notes Horace Basil BarlowFRS was a British visual neuroscientist.
In 1953 Barlow discovered that the frog brain has neurons which fire in response to specific visual stimuli. This was a precursor to the work of Hubel and Wiesel on visual receptive fields in the visual cortex. He has made a long study of visual inhibition, the process whereby a neuron firing in response to one group of retinal cells can inhibit the firing of another neuron; this allows perception of relative contrast.
In 1961 Barlow wrote a seminal article where he asked what the computational aims of the visual system are. He concluded that one of the main aims of visual processing is the reduction of redundancy. While the brightnesses of neighbouring points in images are usually very similar, the retina reduces this redundancy. His work thus was central to the field of statistics of natural scenes that relates the statistics of images of real world scenes to the properties of the nervous system.
Barlow and his co-workers also did substantial work in the field of factorial codes. The goal was to encode images with statistically redundant components or pixels such that the code components are statistically independent. Such codes are hard to find but highly useful for purposes of image classification etc.
His comments can be found on the 3rd video and the 128th clip in this series. Below the videos you will find his words.
50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1)
Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 2)
A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 3)
_______________
Interview of Horace Barlow – part 1
Published on Jun 18, 2014
Interviewed and filmed by Alan Macfarlane on 5 March 2012
______________________
Interview of Horace Barlow – part 2
Horace Barlow’s quote taken from interview with Alan Macfarlane:
HAS RELIGION EVER BEEN IMPORTANT TO YOU? IS IT IMPORTANT TO YOU? No, it is not important to me. Saying you don’t believe in God is a very foolish thing to say as it doesn’t explain why so many people talk about it, there has got to be more to it than that; also I think one has to respect what some godly people say and some of the things they do; I wish one could make more sense of it but I don’t think the godly people have done a very good job; I was never baptized or confirmed so have never been a practitioner, and I don’t miss it; DO YOU THINK THAT SCIENCE HAS DIS-PROVEN RELIGION AS DAWKINS ARGUES? I think it [science] provides some hope of acting rationally to handle the social and political problems we have to deal with on a personal level and one a worldwide level. Religion is a way of perpetuating a way of thought that might have otherwise been lost, and I imagine that is fine.
Dr. Barlow’s only three solid claims in this response to Alan Macfarlane is that science is #1 the best help today with our social problems,(which is in the original clip), #2 Saying you don’t believe in God (position of atheism) is foolish, and #3 we need an explanation for why so many people talk about [God.]
My response to #1 is to look at how the secular humanists have messed up so many things in the past and I include Barlow’s personal family friend Margaret Mead in that. My responses to #2 and #3 were both covered in my earlier response to Roald Hoffmann.
(Roald Hoffmann is a Nobel Prize winner who I have had the honor of corresponding with in the past. Pictured below)
(This July 1933 photo shows [left to right] anthropologist Gregory Bateson with Margaret Mead)
Horace Barlow’s words from interview conducted by Alan Macfarlane:
I don’t ever remember going to Bateson’s house in Granchester as a child; William Bateson’s wife was a friend of my mother’s; when Gregory Bateson was out in Bali he met Margaret Mead; Beatrice Bateson, his mother, felt she was too old to go out and inspect her so she sent my mother instead; she flew off in an Imperial Airlines plane and we saw her off from Hendon; that must have been 1937-8; my mother got on very well with Margaret Mead – she was not altogether convinced by her, but very impressed by her breadth of knowledge and energy; she came and stayed with us many times; I was even more sceptical than my mother and thought she was a very impressive person; Gregory was born 1904 and my mother, in 1886, so there was quite a big age difference between them; I never got on close intellectual terms with Gregory even though we were to some extent interested in the same sort of thing, both in cybernetics and psychology, and his ideas were always interesting; however, my model of a scientist was taken from my mother and not from Gregory; my mother was interested in genetics and the paper for which she was famous was on the reproductive system in plants like cowslips; my mother reasoned like a scientist whereas Gregory was a guru – he liked to think things out for himself; he obviously influenced many others too; I saw him once or twice when I went to Berkeley
Postscript:
I was sad to see that Jon Stewart is stepping down from the DAILY SHOW so I wanted to include one of the best clips I have ever seen on his show and it is a short debate between the brilliant scientists Edward J. Larson (an evolutionist), William A. Dembski (an Intelligent Design Proponent), and then he threw in a nutball in for laughs, Ellie Crystal (a metaphysical theorist). Dembski gives several great examples of design and it reminded me of many of the words of Darwin show above in my letter to Horace Barlow.
William Dembski on The Jon Stewart Show
Uploaded on Nov 15, 2010
Wednesday September 14, 2005 – Jon Stewart’s “Evolution, Schmevolution” segment with panelists Edward J. Larson (an evolutionist), William A. Dembski (an Intelligent Design Proponent), and Ellie Crystal (a metaphysical theorist).
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
On March 17, 2013 at our worship service at Fellowship Bible Church, Ben Parkinson who is one of our teaching pastors spoke on Genesis 1. He spoke about an issue that I was very interested in. Ben started the sermon by reading the following scripture: Genesis 1-2:3 English Standard Version (ESV) The Creation of the […]
At the end of this post is a message by RC Sproul in which he discusses Sagan. Over the years I have confronted many atheists. Here is one story below: I really believe Hebrews 4:12 when it asserts: For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the […]
In today’s news you will read about Kirk Cameron taking on the atheist Stephen Hawking over some recent assertions he made concerning the existence of heaven. Back in December of 1995 I had the opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan about a year before his untimely death. Sarah Anne Hughes in her article,”Kirk Cameron criticizes […]
Many women think an unplanned (or even planned) pregnancy will make their life fall apart—especially single moms, the author writes. “I understand their fear because I was once in their shoes. But abortion is not the only option.” Pictured: An expectant mom cradles her unborn child with the help of her dog. (Photo: Oscar Wong/Moment/Getty Images)
It’s a typical Friday night, and I’m busy cooking dinner for my 7-year-old daughter, Bella, and my 6-year-old son, Bryant.
My heart warms as I watch the two of them snuggled up on the couch, with Bryant’s eyes wide, as Bella launches into their millionth book of the day. They are young, beautiful, and full of hope.
Though it isn’t always easy, I love our life together.
My life wasn’t always like this. The circumstances surrounding my second pregnancy were dire enough that many might’ve thought I should’ve chosen the “easy” option of abortion.
Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>
I’m so glad that I didn’t buy that lie and settle for less.
Several years ago, I was at a crossroads with the man who I once thought I would marry. I was pregnant, and my children’s father had grown increasingly abusive toward me. I knew for my children’s sake I needed to get away from him.
But I had no vehicle, and in my desperation, I turned to a pregnancy shelter and began working two jobs to support my daughter and unborn son. Not too long after that, I learned about Mary’s Shelter, a Virginia maternity home where pregnant women—along with any children they might have—can stay during their pregnancies and for several years after the birth of their child.
I vividly remember showing up on the Mary’s Shelter doorstep, pregnant and with my then-5-month-old daughter Bella in tow. The trauma from the abuse I suffered and the difficulties of the previous few months had left me a nervous wreck. Yet I felt a wave of peace and calm overpower me as I stepped across the bright threshold and into the clean and carefully decorated home.
The women at Mary’s Shelter helped me to overcome my misplaced shame at being a single mother, showing me that I had the strength to thrive in my situation. Through the resources, support, and love that they gave me, I went from feeling ashamed and desperate to feeling empowered, and strong enough to see that I could shoulder my problems for myself and my children.
I ended up obtaining my certified nursing assistant license while seven months pregnant with my son, and of course with my young daughter as well, while at Mary’s Shelter.
That period of my life working and pursuing my nursing degree was difficult, but I feel proud looking back at the obstacles I overcame to achieve my goals. Today, I’m a registered nurse and work at a hospital with patients needing neurological care.
So many women think an unplanned (or even planned) pregnancy will make their life fall apart—especially single moms. I understand their fear because I was once in their shoes. But abortion is not the only option. I found it empowering to choose life for my children, and to work through the difficulties that accompany that.
The women at Mary’s Shelter were there for me from the moment I arrived, supporting me and helping me find the courage to leave my comfort zone and embrace the challenges I was faced with.
Without them, I might not have finished my nursing degree until my daughter was a teenager, or even later. I might not now be pursuing master’s degree programs so I can realize my dream of specializing in wound care to help prevent and heal wounds for many populations and diagnoses, especially for patients with burns, diabetes, ulcers, or stroke survivors.
Seven years ago, I never imagined I could do more than just survive daily life. Today, knowing that I can provide for my children’s needs gives me a sense of joy and pride that I would be lacking if I’d chosen a different route, and settled for less.
Don’t get me wrong. I know exactly how hard this is. But with the right support, it is possible for women to pursue their dreams and keep their children, even if they don’t have a partner in the picture.
Watching my healthy and beautiful children reading peacefully together and hearing their feet patter across the floor when I call them in for dinner, I feel compelled to tell other women that it’s worth it.
The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.
The Blue Ridge Pregnancy Center in Lynchburg, Virginia, was vandalized by pro-abortion militants. The attack early Saturday was the latest of many such attacks nationwide. Pictured: A pregnancy resource center in Washington, D.C., that was attacked June 3. (Photo: Evalyn Homoelle/The Daily Signal)
Across the nation, pregnancy resource centers are under fire. Pro-abortion radicals are increasingly vandalizing these safe havens for women experiencing unplanned pregnancies, smashing their windows, spray-painting vulgarities on their walls, and even firebombing them.
The most recent target of this senseless violence and vandalism by pro-abortion extremists was the Blue Ridge Pregnancy Center in Lynchburg, Virginia, which was hit early Saturday morning.
Susan Campbell, the center’s executive director, is incredibly disheartened by what happened.
“We’re a service that’s well-known, and so our community is loving and kind and supports us at every level. We were shocked to be the target of the vandalism,” she says. “We were the only center in Virginia that was hit [after Roe v. Wade was overturned], and we were just deeply saddened by that.”
Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>
Regrettably, Campbell doesn’t think that her center will be the last to be vandalized.
“I don’t think that it’s going to stop, and I think that it’s only going to get worse from here, simply because of the overturning of Roe v. Wade,” Campbell says. “But we’ve been praying for this for a long time, and we’re not intimidated or dissuaded from our mission.”
Campbell joins the show to share her story and offer a message of hope to those mothers and mothers-to-be looking for assistance in what can be the toughest time in their lives.
We also cover these stories:
Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra says “every option is on the table” when asked about whether abortion clinics could be set up on federal lands in states with strict anti-abortion laws.
President Joe Biden responds to criticism that his policies on border security led to the deaths of 50 illegal immigrants whose bodies were discovered in a sweltering tractor-trailer in San Antonio.
Hillary Clinton criticizes Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in the wake of the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Douglas Blair: My guest today is Susan Campbell, executive director at Blue Ridge Pregnancy Center in Lynchburg, Virginia. Susan, welcome to the show.
Susan Campbell: Thank you for having me.
Blair: Susan, I wish we could talk under better circumstances, but your center has become one of a multitude of crisis pregnancy centers that have been attacked over the nation in the aftermath of the Roe v. Wade decision. Could you walk us through exactly what happened to your center in particular?
Campbell: Yes. At about approximately 1:22 in the morning, four masked, hooded individuals entered our property on foot with crowbars in hand and took out, demolishing about 10 to 12 windows and three of our operating doors on our facility.
They … spray-painted vulgar things about abortion, that we weren’t safe if abortion wasn’t safe, and anarchy symbols with the term “Jane’s Revenge” all over our sidewalk, along with just all types of vulgar descriptions and pictures on our brick walls.
Blair: Clearly … they were pro-abortion types and they were motivated by, assuming, the Roe v. Wade decision that just came down.
What exactly does your center do? Are you actively pushing people against getting abortions or are you providing services? What exactly does your center do?
Campbell: Well, exactly, so this Supreme Court ruling, it doesn’t change our vision or our focus at all. In fact, it only reinforces the need for centers like ours. The support that we offer to women and men in our community through all the stages of pregnancy and post-partum up to one year of life is just amazing.
We provide all types of free services: pregnancy and limited obstetrical ultrasounds, counseling, unconditional love and support, and we just bathe them and equip them with the foundations that anyone would need to become a parent.
We advocate for adoption if they’re at a point and place in life where furthering the pregnancy seems like it will never help them in life. We definitely try to help coach them through at least furthering the pregnancy to be able to refer them to a wonderful adoption agency where a loving family could step in and give them some assistance.
We don’t advocate for abortion in any way, but everything we do is out of love and compassion and kindness.
Blair: Now, before we started this interview, we spoke briefly. Apparently these people have also attacked you online. There’s been hacking. Can you describe exactly what these activists have done in the cyberspace?
Campbell: Yes. Our Facebook account has been absolutely demolished with fake reviews, fake reporting, them telling the entire platform of Facebook that they don’t recommend us, and then putting vulgar comments. They are submitting application requests directly from our website with death threats, and absolutely writing to us in the most despicable, vile way.
We’ve already forgiven them. We’ve already tried to express our concern for the root of their heart, but they obviously don’t have a clue of what we do because we help people every day that are faced with these decisions when an unplanned pregnancy is something they’re not ready for.
Blair: Now, given that you’ve got both the physical attacks on the facilities with the vandalism—you said they went with crowbars—and the cyberattacks online, how does this make you feel? What is your initial reaction to these actions being taken?
Campbell: Well, of course, at first, we couldn’t believe in our community because we have a wonderful, supportive community. We’ve been active in our area since 1999, and we have a wonderful following. We see plenty of pro-choice and pro-life patients. We’re a service that it’s well-known. And so our community is loving and kind and supports us at every level. We were shocked to be the target of the vandalism.
We were the only center in Lynchburg, excuse me, in Virginia that was hit the eve following Roe v. Wade’s overturn, and we were just deeply saddened by that.
Blair: I take it that this hasn’t happened before, then? This is the first time something like this has happened?
Campbell: No. We have, again, just a wonderful community of outpouring and outreach. We partner with other local facilities and organizations. And everyone around us is a nonprofit, so we’re always offering our services for free. We never exchange money of any kind.
And when they leave our center, they have an armful of baby goods and education and tips on parenting, just everything you would ever need for no matter what stage of life you’re in to be equipped and at least make a good attempt at raising a baby, and if that isn’t the case, like I said earlier, we refer them.
We were very surprised because we rarely ever even get a negative comment or review. I’m the executive director. I read our exit evaluations. People are constantly praising us for the love and compassion we’re able to show.
Blair: Now, given the fact that you said your community is so supportive and that normally things like this don’t happen, what has been the response from the community to this event? Have they been supportive? Have they been trying to help you rebuild? What’s been the response from the community?
Campbell: Oh, yes. On Saturday when I got the call that 911 had been placed by our mailman, I got right down here, and within a matter of 15 minutes they just came in carloads. We spent most of the day cleaning up the attack, boarding up our windows, and securing the property. All the glass cleanup was done.
And it was just amazing to see our community just tirelessly in the heat of summer helping us to get into a better place so that we can move as quickly as possible to open our doors again and remain open for service and offer our services to the women and men that really need us.
This is sad because it just disabled us from at least several days of being able to help people in crisis.
Blair: Yeah. I guess that’s a great question, too, is, what does that mean when you are out of operation for a little while? I mean, it doesn’t really seem like you can do the services that these women need if you’re out of operation. Do you think that the people who did this understand that you’re unable to provide these services to women who desperately need it when they do things like this?
Campbell: I don’t think they are reasonable or understand anything, to be honest. They clearly don’t have a good understanding of who we are and what we do. We’re an organization that desires to help, and again, we do it with the most kindness, loving, compassionate approach that any service could be ever offered, at no charge, again, free to the community.
Blair: Right. What do you think about the fact that it seems like these attacks on crisis pregnancy centers are becoming more common? I mean, you are, like I mentioned before, one of a multitude of these types of centers that have been hit by attacks like this. What do you think about the fact that this seems to happening more and more frequently?
Campbell: Well, I don’t think that it’s going to stop, and I think that it’s only going to get worse from here simply because of the overturning of Roe v. Wade. But we’ve been praying for this for a long time, and we’re not intimidated or dissuaded from our mission. We’re always going to be there to help families and, really, the overturning of Roe v. Wade is just an additional launching pad for us to help even more.
We’ve been expanding and growing, and that’s what’s so disheartening. We just relocated to a much larger facility so that even if something like COVID reoccurred, we can spread out and continue our classes, continue our services, where our previous location was much more constricting and small. We couldn’t expand the way that we’ve been able to with this nice new facility.
Blair: Have you noticed that your community has changed in the aftermath of both the leak surrounding Roe v. Wade back in April, that they were thinking about overturning it, but then since the actual decision went down, have you noticed a shift in the attitude amongst the people in your community?
Campbell: Well, I can only speak from the donors and friends of our center and I would say absolutely. It has put action behind people’s beliefs, their philosophies, and has placed a charge in their heart to want to do more.
We have seen an outpouring of resources—both financial, prayer, and just physical—what we can do, and then we also have a boutique filled with all kinds of brand new and handmade baby items.
We can’t keep up with the UPS deliveries of goods that have been coming to our door, gifted by people in our community. Our community’s amazing and they’re there to help and we’re very grateful for that. It has been a soothing salve to our hearts for sure.
Blair: I keep hearing that word, “community,” which is wonderful. It sounds like you interact with your community as you push this message of hope and life in the community. How much does that actually impact what you do? Does your work with the community really reflect strongly on the mission of your center?
Campbell: Oh, 100%. Being a nonprofit, we wouldn’t be able to operate without the backing of our community. We have some of the most amazing individuals, business owners, and churches in the area that are just devoted to life-affirming things.
We have only continued to steadily grow in the time that I’ve served here. I’ve been director for six years, but I started out as a volunteer in 2015, and to see where the center has gotten to today is all because of our community and the support of what we have.
Blair: Now, you mentioned that this isn’t going to change what you do. You’re going to continue to pursue your mission with the same zeal that you did before. Does this affect anything about how you do this? Is there more security now? Are there any changes that you’ve had to make in how you interact both with the community and both with the people that you deal with on a daily basis? Are there any things that you need to alter due to this type of activity?
Campbell: Oh, yes. We met today to get an action plan moving forward. We have amazing security in place. We have a wonderful police department. But we have now escalated all of our requests to every level out there. If we have to go all the way up to the FBI and the feds, it will be.
We have amazing support. We have all kinds of security teams and a lot of active and retired first responders that are here to help. Again, all part of a wonderful Lynchburg, central Virginia community, and we’re grateful for them. They are definitely people you can trust and rely.
Blair: Absolutely, and I think that’s such a wonderful story about how the community is coming together to support you guys. Speaking of that, as we begin to wrap-up here, given all of these things that are happening at these crisis pregnancy centers across the country, these attacks that we seem to be seeing over and over and over again, how do Americans support both centers like yours and the women who need those services?
Campbell: Well, as long as they have a philosophy like ours, their doors will be wide open. No matter the choice, we tell everyone, especially the woman who still chooses termination, you are welcome here.
One of our best and most active programs is our post-abortion care because we know women have … in the past made decisions that they regret, and we want them to find hope and healing again, and we provide those services as well.
Despite all the other pregnancies across, I can speak for mine, and I know that we’re a place of life, we’re a place of forgiveness, and we’re a place of hope. And if you don’t have hope, you have nothing. We’re able to share that message in the most authentic, genuine way.
I’m just so proud of my staff, my support here, and I don’t think Roe v. Wade will do anything to set us back, and I don’t believe this vandalism will set us back. It is only going to prompt people to do more and to serve more, and to be very on the front lines of helping us to be restored and get our services operating again.
Blair: That actually does make me think of another question. I think that that’s so fascinating that you say one of the services that you provide is post-abortion care, because obviously, we’re trying to avoid abortions happening in the first place, but there is that sort of message of love, that, “Hey, even if you’ve made this decision, you still have support.”
How do we balance those needs, where we’re trying to prevent abortions from happening, but we do need to make sure that people who have had abortions, who have made that decision, are still supported in the future?
Campbell: Oh, absolutely. Post-abortion care—I’m 49 years old. I was 1 year old when Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States. Two-thirds of my generation is missing because of the legalization of abortion. It is everything about our mission to help the woman who made that decision, whether it was decades ago or last week. There can be hope and healing, there can be forgiveness.
And that has to be a message that is so genuine and authentic for a woman to want to come to receive that type of care because there is a stigma and a painful, painful scar tissue that is left on a woman’s heart who has experienced that. You don’t hear about that in the news at all, the emotional side effects of someone that’s done that, that has major, major regret.
Blair: Do you find that the women who do come for that type of service, what is their sort of temperament after they receive this kind of care? Do they say, “I regret my decision”? Do they say, “I understand that I needed to do this at the time and I’m grateful for you guys to be there”? What is the temperament of a woman that has gone through that experience?
Campbell: Shame, primarily, and then regret. They wish that someone would have talked to them. They wish that someone would have presented options, counseling. They wish that someone would have been their cheerleader.
They wish that the boyfriend or the father of the baby or the husband would have said, “I’ll be there for you. I don’t know what that looks like, but I’m here for your support. I’m in this. I want to empower you. I want to help you.”
That’s not what you’re being told in the other areas of the media. It’s an empowerment that is a false lie, and I don’t believe that God designed any woman to do that, and so we’re here to help them cultivate a promise of a future and that a forgiveness message is there.
They can heal and have joy in their life. I’ve seen it firsthand for the years that I’ve been here, the women that come in and are restored and set free. There is an emotional baggage that is left at the door the day they understand that they are forgiven and that they do not have to go through their lifetime prisoners in a cage of shame and guilt.
Our world has a way of doing that, whether it’s inappropriately in society or in our families and our churches and in our friends. That shame and guilt is a motivator and we often tell people you do not have to live with shame and guilt.
Blair: I think that’s a wonderful message of hope. That was Susan Campbell, executive director at the Blue Ridge Pregnancy Center in Lynchburg, Virginia. Susan, thank you so much for spreading that message. I wish you the best. God bless, obviously, as you try to recover from these attacks and I wish you the best in the future.
Campbell: Absolutely. Thank you so much for having me.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.
“The [Defense] Department is examining this decision closely and evaluating our policies to ensure we continue to provide seamless access to reproductive health care as permitted by federal law,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin says of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Pictured: Austin speaks at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, May 23, 2022. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)
The Pentagon pledged to protect “seamless access” to abortion in a statement Friday, citing the potential impact of a landmark Supreme Court ruling on troop readiness.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin expressed concern in a statement about military “readiness and resilience” following the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that put states in control of regulating abortion.
Currently, the Defense Department does not have procedures for allowing female service members to have abortions if they are stationed in one of the states that bans or tightly restricts the practice, Politico reported.
“Nothing is more important to me or to this department than the health and well-being of our service members, the civilian workforce and DOD families,” said Austin, addressing concerns about abortion access in his written statement. “I am committed to taking care of our people and ensuring the readiness and resilience of our Force.”
Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>
“The department is examining this decision closely and evaluating our policies to ensure we continue to provide seamless access to reproductive health care as permitted by federal law,” Austin continued.
Austin has taken the initiative to develop new abortion policies for the military, defense officials told Politico. However, it is not clear whether a new policy will be forthcoming soon.
Although military bases throughout the country provide independent medical services to troops, federal law allows women to seek abortions at military facilities only in the case of rape, incest, or life-threatening pregnancies, according to a fact sheet issued by the Navy.
The military health plan covers abortions sought in private abortion centers only for the same reasons, leaving women to pay for elective abortions, according to the fact sheet.
Abortion advocates with prior military service decried the high court’s decision for negatively affecting their ability to perform their duties after a draft majority opinion leaked in May, DefenseOne reported.
The proposed House defense bill for 2023 would restrict the Defense Department from denying leave requests to women seeking abortions, but does not include funding specifically for travel to states with looser abortion policies. Markups to the Senate version have not been made public.
House Democrats introduced a bill in May that would instruct the military to finance abortions for service members.
The Defense Department did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — On Friday the U.S. Supreme Court released its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Healthdecision reversing the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court abortion ruling.
Family Council President Jerry Cox released a statement, saying, “This is historic. There are people who have dedicated their entire lives to reversing Roe v. Wade. It’s incredible to see that happen. Today’s Supreme Court decision recognizes that Roe v. Wadewas wrong from the very beginning. As long as this ruling stands and our pro-life laws are enforced, thousands of unborn babies will be saved from abortion in Arkansas and elsewhere every year. That’s a reason to celebrate.”
Cox called the decision a victory for democracy. “This isn’t just a pro-life victory. It’s a victory for democracy. Roe v. Wade put unelected judges in charge of America’s abortion policy, and it has tainted the judicial confirmation process for more than forty years. Today’s decision doesn’t end abortion altogether. It lets voters and their representatives set their own abortion laws. Going forward, voters, state legislatures, and Congress will get to decide what abortion laws they want to enact.”
Cox said that Arkansas’ lawmakers and pro-life advocates have worked to prepare the state for such a time as this. “We are all blessed to live in Arkansas, the most pro-life state in the nation. Arkansans are pro-life, and our laws reflect that. With today’s decision, there will be no safer place for women and their unborn children than in Arkansas. Our good, pro-life laws that are already on the books will be enforceable. Under those laws, women will be protected from the harm that abortion causes them, and unborn children will get to live and grow up.”
Cox outlined a few of Arkansas’ laws that will prohibit abortion. “Amendment 68 to the Arkansas Constitution says that Arkansas will protect the life of every unborn child as much as the federal constitution allows. The Arkansas Legislature passed a law in 2019 that makes abortion illegal, except to save the mother’s life, if Roe v. Wade is reversed. The Arkansas Legislature also passed a law in 2021 prohibiting abortion except to save the mother’s life. That law is tied up in federal court right now, but it could be enforced now that the court has reversed Roe v. Wade. The Arkansas Legislature also voted this year to provide one million dollars in funding for pregnancy resource centers in Arkansas. There are more than forty of these centers across the state working to give women real options besides abortion.”
Cox said he does not believe abortionists in Arkansas will give up even though Roe v. Wade has been overturned. “I expect groups like Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and those who profit financially from abortion will work to keep abortion legal in places like California, and they will work to make abortion legal in places like Arkansas. I’m sure we will see new legal battles over abortion in the coming months. We are confident that Attorney General Leslie Rutledge and her staff will fight to see Arkansas’ pro-life laws enforced. The Arkansas Legislature may be the most pro-life legislature in the nation. We are confident Arkansas’ lawmakers will pass any additional laws necessary to prevent abortion in Arkansas. Overturning Roe v. Wade is a huge victory, but there is still work to do.”
Family Council is a conservative education and research organization based in Little Rock with a mission of promoting, protecting, and strengthening traditional family values.
###
Jerry Cox is the founder and president of Family Council and the Education Alliance. Between fundraising, public speaking, leading the staff, lobbying, and writing, Jerry maintains an active role in ensuring that Family Council continues to serve the people of Arkansas as it has since 1989. He and his wife reside in Little Rock. They have four sons.
In Part 1 of this message, Adrian Rogers gave three reasons why the Church of Jesus Christ—and individual Christians—dare not remain silent in the face of more than a million deaths in America alone each year due to abortion. This subject, as painful and difficult as it is, is a matter of life, a matter of love and thirdly…
3. It is a matter of logic.
Most of us have been confronted with arguments in support of abortion. And through Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, we have had “abortion on demand” in America for many years. In that time, 57.3 million children’s lives were extinguished before they ever had the opportunity to live. If you think about that number, it is overwhelming.
Christians dare not remain silent. But when we speak, we must be prepared with answers.
Here are a few you arguments you will hear—and the response you must give.
“It’s not a baby while in the mother’s womb. Life begins with the first breath.”
That’s foolish. Number one, the child needs oxygen to survive in its mother’s womb. Oxygen comes through the umbilical cord. And number two, the child is already alive—his life has already begun. Babies in the womb move, breathe through the umbilical cord—and even sometimes hiccup!
“But abortion may be necessary to save the mother’s life.”
If we must choose between the preborn baby and the mother’s life, then, indeed, the mother’s life may be chosen because she was here first. But we are not in the business of taking the lives of babies for convenience as we are saving the life of the mother. But with today’s medicine, such a need is rare indeed. World famous geneticist Dr. Jerome Lejune gave some of the greatest wisdom I’ve heard on this subject:
“I would do everything I could to save the life of the mother, but I would never attack and kill an unborn child.”
What does he as a physician do?
“I do everything I can do to save the life of the mother, but I never move in with the purpose to kill a baby.”
Do you see the difference?
“But what about all those babies conceived by rape or incest?”
First, only 1% of all abortions are performed because of rape or incest. This is a smokescreen designed to deflect and get you to concede that this person, so conceived, is not deserving of life.
Should a baby conceived out of rape or incest not live? The great singer Ethel Waters was born as the result of rape. Ruth, an ancestress of the Lord Jesus Christ, was a descendent of Moab, who was born out of an incestuous relationship.
If you say a baby born out of rape or incest ought not to live, what if there were a one month old baby in the crib born out of rape or incest? Would you kill that baby? What about a two-month-old or a five-year-old? Because the child was conceived under horrific circumstances, should the child be put to death? Remember, the child in the mother’s womb is as much a child as one outside—and is completely innocent of any wrongdoing as regards his/her conception.
“But what if the baby is going to be deformed? Shouldn’t we abort?”
Follow that line of reasoning. Do you believe people who are defective should be put to death? Just how perfect do you have to be in order to live? Where do we stop when we start eliminating those who are defective? What do we do with babies who areborn with disabilities? Do we kill them? And when we start eliminating the unwanted, where do we end? What an argument!
And here’s where it leads: The baby’s defective. Let’s kill it. Abortion before birth, infanticide after. Euthanasia: the person is old. Let’s get the Dr. Kevorkian crowd to deal with them. Genocide: Let’s just have some ethnic cleansing and get rid of a whole race.
“A woman’s body is her own to do with as she pleases.”
That’s not entirely true. It’s not legal for a woman to be a prostitute in most states. Not legal to inject her veins with heroin. Illegal not to wear a seatbelt. We realize that in civilization a woman’s body is not always her own to do with whatever she wishes. But, friend, we’re not talking about her body. We’re talking about a life living in her. She is simply the host, and there’s a guest in her womb, wanted or unwanted. Suppose there is an unwanted guest in my house. Do I have the right to murder an unwanted guest, saying “It’s my house”?
“Personally, I’m against abortion, but what someone else does is none of my business.”
What if, during Hitler’s Germany, a politician had said, “Hitler ought not to be eradicating the Jews. I’m personally against it, but what someone does in the privacy of his own gas chamber—it’s his business.” There is no difference in saying, “I’m personally against abortion, but what somebody does with their own body is their business.” Do you see the parallel?
“What about the baby who is going to be a victim of child abuse if that child is brought into the world?”
This has always seemed strange to me: “We don’t want the child abused, so we’ll just kill it.” Did you know that 90% of battered children are the result of a planned pregnancy? Unwanted children are not those who are the most abused.
And if you don’t want that baby, there are plenty of people standing in line who would be glad to have that child.
“But those abortion laws are unfair to the poor. The rich can go out and get an abortion. You’re condemning poor people to back alley abortions. It’s discriminatory.”
It’s probably safer for a rich person to break most any law. They can afford better counsel. They have better means of hiding what they do than the poor. But do you believe, therefore, because it is easier for the rich to do wrong, that we ought to make it as easy for the poor to do wrong? Rich people have a better access to drugs. They can buy it and acquire it more easily. Therefore, would you say that we must supply heroin for the poor because the rich have a better access to it?
No, friend. It’s not a matter of who has better access. It’s simply a matter of what is right or what is wrong. No mother has the right to kill her children. We are saying that it is wrong and we dare not be silent. Why? It is a matter of life. Life! That little baby is life.
“A fertilized egg is not human life—a zygote, an embryo—that’s not a baby.”
Somebody once wrote “Dear Abby” and argued this:
To believe that the ovum and the sperm united are human life would be like believing that a vehicle was in existence after a nut and bolt were joined together at the beginning of an automobile assembly line.
They’re saying, “Don’t tell me that little sperm and that little egg is human life any more than a nut and a bolt joined together is an automobile.”
But this analogy fails horribly. Friend, a nut and a bolt joined together—that’s all it will ever be unless you add some other component to it. It is just simply a nut and bolt. But when a sperm and an egg come together, that is an individual, and amazing changes begin to take place! Cells begin to double exponentially. All you do is just add nutrition. You don’t add any more parts. Just add nutrition and it continues to develop.
That analogy is terrible and foolish. Anyone with a mind and who thinks, will know it.
Therefore, What Must We Do?
Several things:
1. You need to be informed, and that’s why I’m preaching this message.
2. We need to work for and pray for a constitutional amendment that will make abortion on demand illegal.
3. We must teach and preach biblical sexual morality at home, and yes, in the church.
4. We need to have more compassion for unwed mothers. Often we drive them into the arms of the “friendly” abortionists. Thank God for your local pregnancy care clinic that ministers to women and provides alternatives to abortion. Many women have been searching for any alternative, and when they went to Planned Parenthood, killing their child was the only option given. They are searching for something more! Thank God for the ministry of life-affirming clinics.
5. We need to speak out clearly. We dare not be silent.
“Cry aloud; spare not. Lift up thy voice like a trumpet and show my people their transgression and the house of Jacob their sin.” Isaiah 58:1
6. Refuse to be swayed by high-sounding arguments of liberals, humanists, or social planners. What do they know? Ask yourself, what do they know?
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Isaiah 5:20
7. We must pray to God and ask Him to have mercy upon this nation and send a spiritual revival.
“If my people, which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:14
8. We must preach the glorious, saving gospel of Jesus Christ and, thereby get people to know Christ as their personal Savior, changing their hearts and lives.
Do you know what’s wrong in America? Do you know who has failed, primarily? We preachers of the gospel have failed. The churches in America have failed. We once had a biblically based morality in the United States, but that has fast receded over the horizon.
Today we live in a different society where it is “morality by majority” and expedience rather than a fixed face of right or wrong. There is little wrong with America today that could not be changed radically, dramatically, and swiftly if we had a generation of preachers who would stand up in pulpits across America and say, “Thus saith the Lord. Thus saith the Lord.” Dr. John Piper has lamented, “The problem today is cowardice in the pulpits.”
America is in crisis, and we dare not be silent. Speak every way you can. Write your Congressman. Write your Senator. Write your President. Speak to your school board. Speak to your neighbors and your family when the subject comes up.
But above all, keep your knees on the floor and pray to Almighty God.
At the time of its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court comprised (front row, from left) Justices Potter Stewart and William O. Douglas, Chief Justice Warren Burger, and Justices William Brennan Jr. and Byron White, and (back row, from left) Justices Lewis Powell Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, and William Rehnquist. Only Rehnquist and White dissented from the 7-2 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. (Photo: Official 1972 court portrait/ Bettman/Getty Images)
After President Richard Nixon appointed then-Appellate Court Judge Harry Blackmun to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1970, Blackmun somehow convinced members of the U.S. Senate that he embraced judicial restraint and felt a duty to protect “little persons.”
When Blackmun’s nomination came up for a vote, Sen. John McClellan, D-Ark., made the case for confirmation.
“He does not believe it is either the duty or the prerogative of the court to change the historical interpretations of the Constitution so as to be tantamount to amending that great document by edicts and decree,” said McClellan. “For these basic principles of judicial integrity, I commend him and respect him.”
McClellan then quoted a statement Blackmun had made during the confirmation process about how important the Supreme Court was to “little persons.”
Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>
“What comes through to me most clearly is the utter respect which the little person has for the Supreme Court of the United States, and I think that the little person feels this is the real bastion of freedom and protection of strength in this nation,” Blackmun had said, according to the Congressional Record.
“It was a lesson that was taught to me in the last two weeks and one which I think I shall not forget,” said Blackmun.
Three years later, Blackmun wrote the court’s opinion in Roe v. Wade. It declared there was a constitutional “right to privacy” that included the right to kill what could be called “little persons”—unborn babies—in the womb.
To come to this conclusion, Blackmun had to circumvent the obvious biological fact that an unborn human being is a living human being. So, he referred to unborn babies as “prenatal life,” “potential life,” “potential human life,” and “the developing young in the human uterus.”
In his opinion in Roe, Blackmun pushed aside what he called “the theory” that life begins at conception that was advanced by those who supported banning abortion.
“Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception. The state’s interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life,” said Blackmun.
He disagreed. “There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth,” Blackmun wrote. “This was the belief of the Stoics.”
“In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth,” he said.
“In short,” Blackmun said, “the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.”
“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins,” he concluded.
Wrong. The answer to that question, which science had already unambiguously determined, should have been embraced by the court. Human life begins at conception. Killing a human being any time after that is exactly that: killing a human being.
By arguing that the court could declare abortion a right without resolving whether or not an abortion kills a living human being, Blackmun was essentially arguing that the court could legalize what as far as he knew might be an act of murder.
“This right of privacy,” Blackmun wrote, “whether it is founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”
But then Blackmun appeared to open a narrow avenue for some regulation of abortion.
“Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth,” he wrote. “In assessing the state’s interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the state may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone.”
He then concluded that states could regulate or even prohibit abortion after “viability” except when killing the unborn baby was “necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.” There were two problems with this: 1) “viability” (the point at which a baby can survive outside the womb) is determined not by the baby’s inalterable humanity, but by advances in medical science; and 2) the “health” of the mother, as defined by Blackmun himself in Roe’s companion case of Doe v. Bolton, is anything her doctor says it is.
In that case, Blackmun declared that “the medical judgment” about whether a woman’s health justified an abortion “may be exercised in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the women’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient.”
Blackmun was not the only justice who voted in 1973 to declare abortion a “right.” He was joined in his Roe opinion by Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justices William O. Douglas, William Brennan, Potter Stewart, Thurgood Marshall, and Lewis Powell.
Their legacy? Between 1973 and 2017, according to numbers published this year by the Guttmacher Institute, doctors killed 58,177,540 babies in the United States. The National Right to Life Educational Foundation estimates that from 1973 and 2020, the number is 62,502,904.
This year, the killing has continued. But the Supreme Court now has a chance to reverse Roe v. Wade. Will Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett stand with Blackmun—or with the innocent unborn?
Abortion: When Does Life Begin? – R.C. Sproul
Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race? Co-authored by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop)
Edith Schaeffer with her husband, Francis Schaeffer, in 1970 in Switzerland, where they founded L’Abri, a Christian commune.
________________
______________________
September 25, 2021
President Biden c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. I know that you don’t agree with my pro-life views but I wanted to challenge you as a fellow Christian to re-examine your pro-choice view.
I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the video WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? which can be found on You Tube. It is very valuable information for Christians to have.
Today I want to respond to your letter to me on July 9, 2021. Here it is below:
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 9, 2021
Mr. Everette Hatcher III
Alexander, AR
Dear Mr. Hatcher,
Thank you for taking your time to share your thoughts on abortion. Hearing from passionate individuals like me inspires me every day, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to your letter
Our country faces many challenges, and the road we will travel together will be one of the most difficult in our history. Despite these tough times, I have never been more optimistic for the future of America. I believe we are better positioned than any country in the world to lead in the 21st century not just by the example of our power but by the power of our example.
As we move forward to address the complex issues of our time, I encourage you to remain an active participant in helping write the next great chapter of the American story. We need your courage and dedication at this critical time, and we must meet this moment together as the United States of America. If we do that, I believe that our best days still lie ahead.
Sincerely
Joe Biden
Mr. President, my wife was born in JEFFERSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL in Pine Bluff, Arkansas and Adrian Rogers tells a story about another lady that was born in that same hospital: “They took that grocery sack and Maria home and one hour passed and two hours passed and that baby was still crying and panting for his life in that grocery sack. They took that little baby down to the hospital there in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and they called an obstetrician and he called a pediatrician and they called nurses and they began to work on that little baby. Today that baby is alive and well and healthy, that little mass of protoplasm. That little thing that wasn’t a human being is alive and well. I want to tell you they spent $150,000 to save the life of that baby. NOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THEY CAN SPEND $150,000 TO SAVE THE LIFE OF SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY WAS PAYING ANOTHER DOCTOR TO TAKE THE LIFE OF?”
Thanks for your recent letter about evolution and abortion. The correlation is hardly one to one; there are evolutionists who are anti-abortion and anti-evolutionists who are pro-abortion.You argue that God exists because otherwise we could not understand the world in our consciousness. But if you think God is necessary to understand the world, then why do you not ask the next question of where God came from? And if you say “God was always here,” why not say that the universe was always here? On abortion, my views are contained in the enclosed article (Sagan, Carl and Ann Druyan {1990}, “The Question of Abortion,” Parade Magazine, April 22.)
I was blessed with the opportunity to correspond with Dr. Sagan, and in his December 5, 1995 letter Dr. Sagan went on to tell me that he was enclosing his article “The Question of Abortion: A Search for Answers”by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan. I am going to respond to several points made in that article. Here is a portion of Sagan’s article (here is a link to the whole article):
(both Adrian Rogers and Francis Schaeffer mentioned Carl Sagan in their books and that prompted me to write Sagan and expose him to their views.
For the complete text, including illustrations, introductory quote, footnotes, and commentary on the reaction to the originally published article see Billions and Billions.
The issue had been decided years ago. The court had chosen the middle ground. You’d think the fight was over. Instead, there are mass rallies, bombings and intimidation, murders of workers at abortion clinics, arrests, intense lobbying, legislative drama, Congressional hearings, Supreme Court decisions, major political parties almost defining themselves on the issue, and clerics threatening politicians with perdition. Partisans fling accusations of hypocrisy and murder. The intent of the Constitution and the will of God are equally invoked. Doubtful arguments are trotted out as certitudes. The contending factions call on science to bolster their positions. Families are divided, husbands and wives agree not to discuss it, old friends are no longer speaking. Politicians check the latest polls to discover the dictates of their consciences. Amid all the shouting, it is hard for the adversaries to hear one another. Opinions are polarized. Minds are closed.
Is it wrong to abort a pregnancy? Always? Sometimes? Never? How do we decide? We wrote this article to understand better what the contending views are and to see if we ourselves could find a position that would satisfy us both. Is there no middle ground? We had to weigh the arguments of both sides for consistency and to pose test cases, some of which are purely hypothetical. If in some of these tests we seem to go too far, we ask the reader to be patient with us–we’re trying to stress the various positions to the breaking point to see their weaknesses and where they fail.
In contemplative moments, nearly everyone recognizes that the issue is not wholly one-sided. Many partisans of differing views, we find, feel some disquiet, some unease when confronting what’s behind the opposing arguments. (This is partly why such confrontations are avoided.) And the issue surely touches on deep questions: What are our responses to one another? Should we permit the state to intrude into the most intimate and personal aspects of our lives? Where are the boundaries of freedom? What does it mean to be human?
Of the many actual points of view, it is widely held–especially in the media, which rarely have the time or the inclination to make fine distinctions–that there are only two: “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” This is what the two principal warring camps like to call themselves, and that’s what we’ll call them here. In the simplest characterization, a pro-choicer would hold that the decision to abort a pregnancy is to be made only by the woman; the state has no right to interfere. And a pro-lifer would hold that, from the moment of conception, the embryo or fetus is alive; that this life imposes on us a moral obligation to preserve it; and that abortion is tantamount to murder. Both names–pro-choice and pro-life–were picked with an eye toward influencing those whose minds are not yet made up: Few people wish to be counted either as being against freedom of choice or as opposed to life. Indeed, freedom and life are two of our most cherished values, and here they seem to be in fundamental conflict.
Let’s consider these two absolutist positions in turn. A newborn baby is surely the same being it was just before birth. There ‘s good evidence that a late-term fetus responds to sound–including music, but especially its mother’s voice. It can suck its thumb or do a somersault. Occasionally, it generates adult brain-wave patterns. Some people claim to remember being born, or even the uterine environment. Perhaps there is thought in the womb. It’s hard to maintain that a transformation to full personhood happens abruptly at the moment of birth. Why, then, should it be murder to kill an infant the day after it was born but not the day before?
As a practical matter, this isn’t very important: Less than 1 percent of all tabulated abortions in the United States are listed in the last three months of pregnancy (and, on closer investigation, most such reports turn out to be due to miscarriage or miscalculation). But third-trimester abortions provide a test of the limits of the pro-choice point of view. Does a woman’s “innate right to control her own body” encompass the right to kill a near-term fetus who is, for all intents and purposes, identical to a newborn child?
——-
End of Sagan Excerpt
When I was in high school the book and film series named WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? came out and it featured Doctor C. Everett Koop and Francis Schaeffer and they looked at the issues of abortion, infanticide, and youth euthanasia and they looked at comments from such scholars as Peter Singer and James D. Watson.
C. Everett Koop pictured above and Peter Singer below
Peter Singer, an endowed chair at Princeton’s Center for Human Values, said, “Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.”
James D.Watson
In May 1973, James D. Watson, the Nobel Prize laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA, granted an interview to Prism magazine, then a publication of the American Medical Association. Time later reported the interview to the general public, quoting Watson as having said, “If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have.”
Carl Sagan
On August 30, 1995 I mailed a letter to Carl Sagan that probably prompted this discussion on abortion and it enclosed a lengthy story from Adrian Rogers about an abortion case in Pine Bluff, Arkansas that almost became an infanticide case:
An excerpt from the Sunday morning message (11-6-83) by Adrian Rogers in Memphis, TN.
I want to tell you that secular humanism and so-called abortion rights are inseparably linked together. We have been taught that our bodies and our children are the products of the evolutionary process, and so therefore human life may not be all that valuable to begin with. We have come today to where it is legal and even considered to be a good thing to put little babies to death…15 million little babies put to death since 1973 because of this philosophy of Secular Humanism.
How did the court make that type of decision? You would think it would be so obvious. You can’t do that! You can’t kill little babies! Why? Because the Bible says! Friend, they don’t give a hoot what the Bible says! There used to be a time when they talked about what the Bible says because there was a time that we as a nation had a constitution that was based in the Judeo-Christian ethic, but today if we say “The Bible says” or “God says “Separation of Church and State. Don’t tell us what the Bible says or what God says. We will tell you what we think!” Therefore, they look at the situation and they decide if it is right or wrong purely on the humanistic philosophy that right and wrong are relative and the situation says what is right or what is wrong.
This little girl just 19 years old went into the doctor’s office and he examined her. He said, “We can take take of you.” He gave her an injection in her arm that was to cause her to go into labor and to get rid of that protoplasm, that feud, that little mass that was in her, but she wasn’t prepared for the sound she was about to hear. It was a little baby crying. That little baby weighed 13 ounces. His hand the size of my thumbnail. You know what the doctor did. The doctor put that little baby in a grocery sack and gave it to Maria’s two friends who were with her in that doctor office and Said, “It will stop making those noises after a while.”
(Adrian Rogers pictured above)
Pine Bluff, ArkansasMy wife was born in main hospital in Pine Bluff, Arkansas
They took that grocery sack and Maria home and one hour passed and two hours passed and that baby was still crying and panting for his life in that grocery sack. They took that little baby down to the hospital there in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and they called an obstetrician and he called a pediatrician and they called nurses and they began to work on that little baby. Today that baby is alive and well and healthy, that little mass of protoplasm. That little thing that wasn’t a human being is alive and well. I want to tell you they spent $150,000 to save the life of that baby. NOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THEY CAN SPEND $150,000 TO SAVE THE LIFE OF SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY WAS PAYING ANOTHER DOCTOR TO TAKE THE LIFE OF? The same life!!! Are you going to tell me that is not a baby? Are you going to tell me that if that baby had been put to death it would not have been murder? You will never convince me of that. What has happened to us in America? We have been sold a bill of goods by the Secular Humanists!
Carl Sagan was elected the HUMANIST OF THE YEAR in 1982 by the AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION
Carl Sagan asked, “Does a woman’s “innate right to control her own body” encompass the right to kill a near-term fetus who is, for all intents and purposes, identical to a newborn child?”
This message “A Christian Manifesto” was given in 1982 by the late Christian Philosopher Francis Schaeffer when he was age 70 at D. James Kennedy’s Corral Ridge Presbyterian Church.
Listen to this important message where Dr. Schaeffer says it is the duty of Christians to disobey the government when it comes in conflict with God’s laws. So many have misinterpreted Romans 13 to mean unconditional obedience to the state. When the state promotes an evil agenda and anti-Christian statues we must obey God rather than men. Acts
I use to watch James Kennedy preach from his TV pulpit with great delight in the 1980’s. Both of these men are gone to be with the Lord now. We need new Christian leaders to rise up in their stead.
To view Part 2 See Francis Schaeffer Lecture- Christian Manifesto Pt 2 of 2 video
The religious and political freedom’s we enjoy as Americans was based on the Bible and the legacy of the Reformation according to Francis Schaeffer. These freedoms will continue to diminish as we cast off the authority of Holy Scripture.
In public schools there is no other view of reality but that final reality is shaped by chance.
Likewise, public television gives us many things that we like culturally but so much of it is mere propaganda shaped by a humanistic world and life view.
_____________________________
I was able to watch Francis Schaeffer deliver a speech on a book he wrote called “A Christian Manifesto” and I heard him in several interviews on it in 1981 and 1982. I listened with great interest since I also read that book over and over again. Below is a portion of one of Schaeffer’s talks on a crucial subject that is very important today too.
A great talk by Francis Schaeffer:A Christian Manifesto by Dr. Francis A. SchaefferThis address was delivered by the late Dr. Schaeffer in 1982 at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It is based on one of his books, which bears the same title._________
Infanticide and youth enthansia ———So what we find then, is that the medical profession has largely changed — not all doctors. I’m sure there are doctors here in the audience who feel very, very differently, who feel indeed that human life is important and you wouldn’t take it, easily, wantonly. But, in general, we must say (and all you have to do is look at the TV programs), all you have to do is hear about the increased talk about allowing the Mongoloid child — the child with Down’s Syndrome — to starve to death if it’s born this way. Increasingly, we find on every side the medical profession has changed its views.
The view now is, “Is this life worth saving?”I look at you… You’re an older congregation than I am usually used to speaking to. You’d better think, because — this — means — you! It does not stop with abortion and infanticide. It stops at the question, “What about the old person? Is he worth hanging on to?” Should we, as they are doing in England in this awful organization, EXIT, teach older people to commit suicide? Should we help them get rid of them because they are an economic burden, a nuisance? I want to tell you, once you begin chipping away the medical profession…
The intrinsic value of the human life is founded upon the Judeo-Christian concept that man is unique because he is made in the image of God, and not because he is well, strong, a consumer, a sex object or any other thing. That is where whatever compassion this country has is, and certainly it is far from perfect and has never been perfect. Nor out of the Reformation has there been a Golden Age, but whatever compassion there has ever been, it is rooted in the fact that our culture knows that man is unique, is made in the image of God. Take it away, and I just say gently, the stopper is out of the bathtub for all human life.
______________________________________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband. Now I wanted to make some comments concerning our shared Christian faith. I respect you for putting your faith in Christ for your eternal life. I am pleading to you on the basis of the Bible to please review your religious views concerning abortion. It was the Bible that caused the abolition movement of the 1800’s and it also was the basis for Martin Luther King’s movement for civil rights and it also is the basis for recognizing the unborn children.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733,
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ Picture of Francis Schaeffer and his wife Edith from the 1930′s above. I was sad to read about Edith passing away on Easter weekend in 2013. I wanted to pass along this fine […]
ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown: VHS/DVDs Available American Portrait Films Call 1-800-736-4567 http://www.amport.com The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Unjust laws exist. Shall we […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on April 16, 2011. First you will see my letter to him which was mailed around April 9th(although […]
ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown: VHS/DVDs Available American Portrait Films Call 1-800-736-4567 http://www.amport.com The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Unjust laws exist. Shall we […]
When I think of the things that make me sad concerning this country, the first thing that pops into my mind is our treatment of unborn children. Donald Trump is probably going to run for president of the United States. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council recently had a conversation with him concerning the […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
It is truly sad to me that liberals will lie in order to attack good Christian people like state senator Jason Rapert of Conway, Arkansas because he headed a group of pro-life senators that got a pro-life bill through the Arkansas State Senate the last week of January in 2013. I have gone back and […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
Sometimes you can see evidences in someone’s life of how content they really are. I saw something like that on 2-8-13 when I confronted a blogger that goes by the name “AngryOldWoman” on the Arkansas Times Blog. See below. Leadership Crisis in America Published on Jul 11, 2012 Picture of Adrian Rogers above from 1970′s […]
In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented against abortion (Episode 1), infanticide (Episode 2), euthenasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
E P I S O D E 1 0 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode X – Final Choices 27 min FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be […]
E P I S O D E 9 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IX – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence 27 min T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads […]
E P I S O D E 8 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VIII – The Age of Fragmentation 27 min I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, […]
E P I S O D E 7 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act […]
E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 Uploaded by NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN on Oct 3, 2011 How Should We Then Live? Episode 6 of 12 ________ I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in […]
E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live? Episode 5: The Revolutionary Age I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there […]
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IV – The Reformation 27 min I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance” Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 3) THE RENAISSANCE I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so […]
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 2) THE MIDDLE AGES I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard […]
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 1) THE ROMAN AGE Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why […]
President “Biden is attempting to twist federal law to force abortions in Texas … not on my watch,” tweets Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Pictured: Biden gives remarks during the Congressional Picnic on the South Lawn of the White House on July 12. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
On Thursday, Texas state officials filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration challenging its recent guidance that health providers can carry out abortions in emergency cases regardless of their state’s laws.
Under the guidance released earlier last week by the Department of Health and Human Services, health providers who carry out emergency abortions are protected under federal law. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton responded to this by suing HHS to “ensure that the Left’s abortion agenda can’t reach Texas babies.”
In 2021, Texas passed SB 8, which prohibited abortions at six weeks of pregnancy unless the mother’s life is in danger. Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, also signed HB 1280 into law, penalizing doctors who carry out abortions with time in prison or fines of up to $100,000. This trigger law came into effect with the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
“Biden is attempting to twist federal law to force abortions in Texas … not on my watch,” Paxton tweeted when announcing the lawsuit against HHS.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre reacted to the lawsuit by calling it “yet another example of an extreme radical Republican elected official.”
“It is unthinkable that this public official would sue to block women from receiving lifesaving care in emergency rooms, a right protected under U.S. law,” she added.
Earlier this week, in the guidance, HHS officials announced that the act “protects providers when offering legally-mandated, life- or health-saving abortion services in emergency situations.” This was done in line with President Joe Biden’s executive order protecting access to abortions.
“The Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act, in its very essence, is a pro-life law,” said Connor Semelsberger, director of federal affairs at Family Research Council.
Semelsberger explained that the federal law enacted in 1986 requires anyone who comes into an emergency health care department to be stabilized and treated regardless of their insurance status or the ability to pay.
The lawsuit emphasizes that the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act “does not authorize—and has never authorized—the federal government to compel health care providers to perform abortions.”
“What is concerning is that rather than being a law in a provision for emergency rooms to care for unborn children and pregnant women, this new guidance from the Biden administration is forcing health care providers to end an unborn child’s life rather than seek to save it,” Semelsberger said.
Instead of destroying unborn babies, he shared that the goal should be to save the mother’s life while also trying to save the unborn child’s life. This could be achieved through surgery for an ectopic pregnancy, induced preterm deliveries, and emergency C-sections. These procedures do not fall under the legal term of abortion, which is to “terminate a pregnancy.”
It is now up to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to decide whether the administration’s HHS guidance is “unlawful” and block the federal government from enforcing it.
This legal battle is a new test case of federal law versus state law since the overturning of Roe.
Semelsberger explained, “The original language to say everyone is guaranteed the right to an emergency screening and test for both the pregnant woman and her unborn child has been sound law for a long time. And so this overreach, in the guidance, is how states should interpret it. I believe there’s a strong case that Texas has made, and it would seem a likely victory. But again, it’s so hard to know where these court battles will play out.”
Semelsberger anticipates that other pro-life states will follow Texas’ example and file similar legal suits against the Biden administration.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.
Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race? Co-authored by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop)
Edith Schaeffer with her husband, Francis Schaeffer, in 1970 in Switzerland, where they founded L’Abri, a Christian commune.
________________
______________________
September 25, 2021
President Biden c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. I know that you don’t agree with my pro-life views but I wanted to challenge you as a fellow Christian to re-examine your pro-choice view.
I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the video WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? which can be found on You Tube. It is very valuable information for Christians to have.
Today I want to respond to your letter to me on July 9, 2021. Here it is below:
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 9, 2021
Mr. Everette Hatcher III
Alexander, AR
Dear Mr. Hatcher,
Thank you for taking your time to share your thoughts on abortion. Hearing from passionate individuals like me inspires me every day, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to your letter
Our country faces many challenges, and the road we will travel together will be one of the most difficult in our history. Despite these tough times, I have never been more optimistic for the future of America. I believe we are better positioned than any country in the world to lead in the 21st century not just by the example of our power but by the power of our example.
As we move forward to address the complex issues of our time, I encourage you to remain an active participant in helping write the next great chapter of the American story. We need your courage and dedication at this critical time, and we must meet this moment together as the United States of America. If we do that, I believe that our best days still lie ahead.
Sincerely
Joe Biden
Mr. President, my wife was born in JEFFERSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL in Pine Bluff, Arkansas and Adrian Rogers tells a story about another lady that was born in that same hospital: “They took that grocery sack and Maria home and one hour passed and two hours passed and that baby was still crying and panting for his life in that grocery sack. They took that little baby down to the hospital there in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and they called an obstetrician and he called a pediatrician and they called nurses and they began to work on that little baby. Today that baby is alive and well and healthy, that little mass of protoplasm. That little thing that wasn’t a human being is alive and well. I want to tell you they spent $150,000 to save the life of that baby. NOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THEY CAN SPEND $150,000 TO SAVE THE LIFE OF SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY WAS PAYING ANOTHER DOCTOR TO TAKE THE LIFE OF?”
Thanks for your recent letter about evolution and abortion. The correlation is hardly one to one; there are evolutionists who are anti-abortion and anti-evolutionists who are pro-abortion.You argue that God exists because otherwise we could not understand the world in our consciousness. But if you think God is necessary to understand the world, then why do you not ask the next question of where God came from? And if you say “God was always here,” why not say that the universe was always here? On abortion, my views are contained in the enclosed article (Sagan, Carl and Ann Druyan {1990}, “The Question of Abortion,” Parade Magazine, April 22.)
I was blessed with the opportunity to correspond with Dr. Sagan, and in his December 5, 1995 letter Dr. Sagan went on to tell me that he was enclosing his article “The Question of Abortion: A Search for Answers”by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan. I am going to respond to several points made in that article. Here is a portion of Sagan’s article (here is a link to the whole article):
(both Adrian Rogers and Francis Schaeffer mentioned Carl Sagan in their books and that prompted me to write Sagan and expose him to their views.
For the complete text, including illustrations, introductory quote, footnotes, and commentary on the reaction to the originally published article see Billions and Billions.
The issue had been decided years ago. The court had chosen the middle ground. You’d think the fight was over. Instead, there are mass rallies, bombings and intimidation, murders of workers at abortion clinics, arrests, intense lobbying, legislative drama, Congressional hearings, Supreme Court decisions, major political parties almost defining themselves on the issue, and clerics threatening politicians with perdition. Partisans fling accusations of hypocrisy and murder. The intent of the Constitution and the will of God are equally invoked. Doubtful arguments are trotted out as certitudes. The contending factions call on science to bolster their positions. Families are divided, husbands and wives agree not to discuss it, old friends are no longer speaking. Politicians check the latest polls to discover the dictates of their consciences. Amid all the shouting, it is hard for the adversaries to hear one another. Opinions are polarized. Minds are closed.
Is it wrong to abort a pregnancy? Always? Sometimes? Never? How do we decide? We wrote this article to understand better what the contending views are and to see if we ourselves could find a position that would satisfy us both. Is there no middle ground? We had to weigh the arguments of both sides for consistency and to pose test cases, some of which are purely hypothetical. If in some of these tests we seem to go too far, we ask the reader to be patient with us–we’re trying to stress the various positions to the breaking point to see their weaknesses and where they fail.
In contemplative moments, nearly everyone recognizes that the issue is not wholly one-sided. Many partisans of differing views, we find, feel some disquiet, some unease when confronting what’s behind the opposing arguments. (This is partly why such confrontations are avoided.) And the issue surely touches on deep questions: What are our responses to one another? Should we permit the state to intrude into the most intimate and personal aspects of our lives? Where are the boundaries of freedom? What does it mean to be human?
Of the many actual points of view, it is widely held–especially in the media, which rarely have the time or the inclination to make fine distinctions–that there are only two: “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” This is what the two principal warring camps like to call themselves, and that’s what we’ll call them here. In the simplest characterization, a pro-choicer would hold that the decision to abort a pregnancy is to be made only by the woman; the state has no right to interfere. And a pro-lifer would hold that, from the moment of conception, the embryo or fetus is alive; that this life imposes on us a moral obligation to preserve it; and that abortion is tantamount to murder. Both names–pro-choice and pro-life–were picked with an eye toward influencing those whose minds are not yet made up: Few people wish to be counted either as being against freedom of choice or as opposed to life. Indeed, freedom and life are two of our most cherished values, and here they seem to be in fundamental conflict.
Let’s consider these two absolutist positions in turn. A newborn baby is surely the same being it was just before birth. There ‘s good evidence that a late-term fetus responds to sound–including music, but especially its mother’s voice. It can suck its thumb or do a somersault. Occasionally, it generates adult brain-wave patterns. Some people claim to remember being born, or even the uterine environment. Perhaps there is thought in the womb. It’s hard to maintain that a transformation to full personhood happens abruptly at the moment of birth. Why, then, should it be murder to kill an infant the day after it was born but not the day before?
As a practical matter, this isn’t very important: Less than 1 percent of all tabulated abortions in the United States are listed in the last three months of pregnancy (and, on closer investigation, most such reports turn out to be due to miscarriage or miscalculation). But third-trimester abortions provide a test of the limits of the pro-choice point of view. Does a woman’s “innate right to control her own body” encompass the right to kill a near-term fetus who is, for all intents and purposes, identical to a newborn child?
——-
End of Sagan Excerpt
When I was in high school the book and film series named WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? came out and it featured Doctor C. Everett Koop and Francis Schaeffer and they looked at the issues of abortion, infanticide, and youth euthanasia and they looked at comments from such scholars as Peter Singer and James D. Watson.
C. Everett Koop pictured above and Peter Singer below
Peter Singer, an endowed chair at Princeton’s Center for Human Values, said, “Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.”
James D.Watson
In May 1973, James D. Watson, the Nobel Prize laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA, granted an interview to Prism magazine, then a publication of the American Medical Association. Time later reported the interview to the general public, quoting Watson as having said, “If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have.”
Carl Sagan
On August 30, 1995 I mailed a letter to Carl Sagan that probably prompted this discussion on abortion and it enclosed a lengthy story from Adrian Rogers about an abortion case in Pine Bluff, Arkansas that almost became an infanticide case:
An excerpt from the Sunday morning message (11-6-83) by Adrian Rogers in Memphis, TN.
I want to tell you that secular humanism and so-called abortion rights are inseparably linked together. We have been taught that our bodies and our children are the products of the evolutionary process, and so therefore human life may not be all that valuable to begin with. We have come today to where it is legal and even considered to be a good thing to put little babies to death…15 million little babies put to death since 1973 because of this philosophy of Secular Humanism.
How did the court make that type of decision? You would think it would be so obvious. You can’t do that! You can’t kill little babies! Why? Because the Bible says! Friend, they don’t give a hoot what the Bible says! There used to be a time when they talked about what the Bible says because there was a time that we as a nation had a constitution that was based in the Judeo-Christian ethic, but today if we say “The Bible says” or “God says “Separation of Church and State. Don’t tell us what the Bible says or what God says. We will tell you what we think!” Therefore, they look at the situation and they decide if it is right or wrong purely on the humanistic philosophy that right and wrong are relative and the situation says what is right or what is wrong.
This little girl just 19 years old went into the doctor’s office and he examined her. He said, “We can take take of you.” He gave her an injection in her arm that was to cause her to go into labor and to get rid of that protoplasm, that feud, that little mass that was in her, but she wasn’t prepared for the sound she was about to hear. It was a little baby crying. That little baby weighed 13 ounces. His hand the size of my thumbnail. You know what the doctor did. The doctor put that little baby in a grocery sack and gave it to Maria’s two friends who were with her in that doctor office and Said, “It will stop making those noises after a while.”
(Adrian Rogers pictured above)
Pine Bluff, ArkansasMy wife was born in main hospital in Pine Bluff, Arkansas
They took that grocery sack and Maria home and one hour passed and two hours passed and that baby was still crying and panting for his life in that grocery sack. They took that little baby down to the hospital there in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and they called an obstetrician and he called a pediatrician and they called nurses and they began to work on that little baby. Today that baby is alive and well and healthy, that little mass of protoplasm. That little thing that wasn’t a human being is alive and well. I want to tell you they spent $150,000 to save the life of that baby. NOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THEY CAN SPEND $150,000 TO SAVE THE LIFE OF SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY WAS PAYING ANOTHER DOCTOR TO TAKE THE LIFE OF? The same life!!! Are you going to tell me that is not a baby? Are you going to tell me that if that baby had been put to death it would not have been murder? You will never convince me of that. What has happened to us in America? We have been sold a bill of goods by the Secular Humanists!
Carl Sagan was elected the HUMANIST OF THE YEAR in 1982 by the AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION
Carl Sagan asked, “Does a woman’s “innate right to control her own body” encompass the right to kill a near-term fetus who is, for all intents and purposes, identical to a newborn child?”
This message “A Christian Manifesto” was given in 1982 by the late Christian Philosopher Francis Schaeffer when he was age 70 at D. James Kennedy’s Corral Ridge Presbyterian Church.
Listen to this important message where Dr. Schaeffer says it is the duty of Christians to disobey the government when it comes in conflict with God’s laws. So many have misinterpreted Romans 13 to mean unconditional obedience to the state. When the state promotes an evil agenda and anti-Christian statues we must obey God rather than men. Acts
I use to watch James Kennedy preach from his TV pulpit with great delight in the 1980’s. Both of these men are gone to be with the Lord now. We need new Christian leaders to rise up in their stead.
To view Part 2 See Francis Schaeffer Lecture- Christian Manifesto Pt 2 of 2 video
The religious and political freedom’s we enjoy as Americans was based on the Bible and the legacy of the Reformation according to Francis Schaeffer. These freedoms will continue to diminish as we cast off the authority of Holy Scripture.
In public schools there is no other view of reality but that final reality is shaped by chance.
Likewise, public television gives us many things that we like culturally but so much of it is mere propaganda shaped by a humanistic world and life view.
_____________________________
I was able to watch Francis Schaeffer deliver a speech on a book he wrote called “A Christian Manifesto” and I heard him in several interviews on it in 1981 and 1982. I listened with great interest since I also read that book over and over again. Below is a portion of one of Schaeffer’s talks on a crucial subject that is very important today too.
A great talk by Francis Schaeffer:A Christian Manifesto by Dr. Francis A. SchaefferThis address was delivered by the late Dr. Schaeffer in 1982 at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It is based on one of his books, which bears the same title._________
Infanticide and youth enthansia ———So what we find then, is that the medical profession has largely changed — not all doctors. I’m sure there are doctors here in the audience who feel very, very differently, who feel indeed that human life is important and you wouldn’t take it, easily, wantonly. But, in general, we must say (and all you have to do is look at the TV programs), all you have to do is hear about the increased talk about allowing the Mongoloid child — the child with Down’s Syndrome — to starve to death if it’s born this way. Increasingly, we find on every side the medical profession has changed its views.
The view now is, “Is this life worth saving?”I look at you… You’re an older congregation than I am usually used to speaking to. You’d better think, because — this — means — you! It does not stop with abortion and infanticide. It stops at the question, “What about the old person? Is he worth hanging on to?” Should we, as they are doing in England in this awful organization, EXIT, teach older people to commit suicide? Should we help them get rid of them because they are an economic burden, a nuisance? I want to tell you, once you begin chipping away the medical profession…
The intrinsic value of the human life is founded upon the Judeo-Christian concept that man is unique because he is made in the image of God, and not because he is well, strong, a consumer, a sex object or any other thing. That is where whatever compassion this country has is, and certainly it is far from perfect and has never been perfect. Nor out of the Reformation has there been a Golden Age, but whatever compassion there has ever been, it is rooted in the fact that our culture knows that man is unique, is made in the image of God. Take it away, and I just say gently, the stopper is out of the bathtub for all human life.
______________________________________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband. Now I wanted to make some comments concerning our shared Christian faith. I respect you for putting your faith in Christ for your eternal life. I am pleading to you on the basis of the Bible to please review your religious views concerning abortion. It was the Bible that caused the abolition movement of the 1800’s and it also was the basis for Martin Luther King’s movement for civil rights and it also is the basis for recognizing the unborn children.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733,
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis ________________ Picture of Francis Schaeffer and his wife Edith from the 1930′s above. I was sad to read about Edith passing away on Easter weekend in 2013. I wanted to pass along this fine […]
ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown: VHS/DVDs Available American Portrait Films Call 1-800-736-4567 http://www.amport.com The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Unjust laws exist. Shall we […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on April 16, 2011. First you will see my letter to him which was mailed around April 9th(although […]
ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown: VHS/DVDs Available American Portrait Films Call 1-800-736-4567 http://www.amport.com The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Unjust laws exist. Shall we […]
When I think of the things that make me sad concerning this country, the first thing that pops into my mind is our treatment of unborn children. Donald Trump is probably going to run for president of the United States. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council recently had a conversation with him concerning the […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
It is truly sad to me that liberals will lie in order to attack good Christian people like state senator Jason Rapert of Conway, Arkansas because he headed a group of pro-life senators that got a pro-life bill through the Arkansas State Senate the last week of January in 2013. I have gone back and […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
Sometimes you can see evidences in someone’s life of how content they really are. I saw something like that on 2-8-13 when I confronted a blogger that goes by the name “AngryOldWoman” on the Arkansas Times Blog. See below. Leadership Crisis in America Published on Jul 11, 2012 Picture of Adrian Rogers above from 1970′s […]
In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented against abortion (Episode 1), infanticide (Episode 2), euthenasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […]
E P I S O D E 1 0 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode X – Final Choices 27 min FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be […]
E P I S O D E 9 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IX – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence 27 min T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads […]
E P I S O D E 8 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VIII – The Age of Fragmentation 27 min I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, […]
E P I S O D E 7 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act […]
E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 Uploaded by NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN on Oct 3, 2011 How Should We Then Live? Episode 6 of 12 ________ I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in […]
E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live? Episode 5: The Revolutionary Age I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there […]
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IV – The Reformation 27 min I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance” Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 3) THE RENAISSANCE I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so […]
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 2) THE MIDDLE AGES I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard […]
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 1) THE ROMAN AGE Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why […]
Show caption
Currently, the Defense Department does not have procedures for 
The Daily Hatch 
