Why was Obama so soft on sexual predators?

The Daily Caller ran the first part of a new series based upon opposition research by Obama's 2004 opponent for the US senate, Jack Ryan. Ryan had to prematurely drop out of the race due to a scandal in his personal life, but his game plan for criticizing Obama based on his actual record is still with us and folks, There's GOLD in them thar' hills!

You can peruse the article at your leisure in order to examine the voting record of a dedicated, hard-core leftist radical for yourself, but one particular point brought up in Ryan's research stunned even me... "

"In 1999, Obama was the only member of the state Senate to vote against a bill that would have prohibited convicted sex abusers who had targeted family members or persons younger than 18 from getting out of jail early for “good behavior.” Two years later, he would vote “present” on the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act, which was designed to toughen laws on prisoners and criminals.

Obama summarized his feelings on new crime legislation in an interview with the Copley News Service in 1999. “It’s very hard for elected officials to resist a bill that enhances penalties for drug offenses because nobody’s pro-drug,” Obama said at the time. “For the same reason, it’s very hard to vote against a bill that makes life tougher on sex offenders. Nobody likes sex offenders.”

So it's plain to see that this ideologically driven president has no problem placing his preferred worldview over the safety of others. Too bad Ambassador Christopher Stevens had to find this out the hard way.

Has Samson account been independently verified apart from the Bible?

From yesterday's Christian Post we read...

"Israeli archaeologists recently discovered a coin, dating from the 11th century before Christ. It depicted "a man with long hair fighting a large animal with a feline tail." Ring any Old Testament bells?

The coin was found near the Sorek River, which was the border between the ancient Israelite and Philistine territories 3,100 years ago. Sound vaguely familiar?

The archaeologists thought so, too. While Shlomo Bunimovitz and Zvi Lederman of Tel Aviv University don't claim that the figure depicted on the coin is proof that Samson actually existed, they do see the coin as proof that stories about a Samson-like man existed independently of the Bible.

Stated differently, the story of Samson was not the literary invention of a sixth-century B.C. scribe living in Babylon, as has commonly been assumed by mainstream biblical scholarship."

It does seem to support the narrative of the Samson account. I admit that I'm not up on 'mainstream biblical scholarship', but I hope this latest discovery gives critics of the Bible pause to reflect upon what the science of archeology is proving about the reliability of this important, ancient document.

Why is Obama hiding his school records from Columbia?‏

Former libertatrian vice presidential candidate Wayne Allyn Root (above) has written a smashing article detailing the evasion of Obama and his handlers about releasing his college records from when he (allegedly) attended Columbia University. Below are some juicy excerpts to pique your interest...

"If anyone should have questions about Obama’s record at Columbia University, it’s me. We both graduated (according to Obama) Columbia University, Class of ’83. We were both (according to Obama) Pre-Law and Political Science majors. And I thought I knew most everyone at Columbia. I certainly thought I’d heard of all of my fellow Political Science majors. But not Obama (or as he was known then- Barry Soetoro). I never met him. Never saw him. Never even heard of him. And none of the classmates that I knew at Columbia have ever met him, saw him, or heard of him.

But don’t take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that Fox News randomly called 400 of our Columbia classmates and never found one who had ever met Obama.

Now all of this mystery could be easily and instantly dismissed if Obama released his Columbia transcripts to the media. But even after serving as President for 3 1/2 years he refuses to unseal his college records. Shouldn’t the media be as relentless in pursuit of Obama’s records as Romney’s? Shouldn’t they be digging into Obama’s past–beyond what he has written about himself–with the same boundless enthusiasm as Mitt’s?

The first question I’d ask is, if you had great grades, why would you seal your records? So let’s assume Obama got poor grades. Why not release the records? He’s president of the free world, for gosh sakes. He’s commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. Who’d care about some poor grades from three decades ago, right? So then what’s the problem? Doesn’t that make the media suspicious? Something doesn’t add up...

If you could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records I believe you’d find that:

A) He rarely ever attended class.

B) His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.

C) He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.

D) He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

If you think I’m “fishing” then prove me wrong. Open up your records Mr. President. What are you afraid of?"

Indeed, why not release them? I must admit that when I first heard of recent clamorings from the Obama camp that Romny release more tax records than he already has, it was the biggest display of chutzpah I had ever seem. Obama has an entire laundry list of records he refuses to release. I figured, 'Why not challenge Obama to let independent documents experts examine the original of the obviously fake long form birth certificate he touts as genuine and Romney should offer to release more tax information then and only then'. Wayne Allyn Root might be onto something here people.

Quite possibly the worst atheist argument out there

One of the silliest excuses for an argument raised by historically inept atheists is to question the actual existance of Jesus of Nazereth as an actual, historical figure. I've encountered this complete nonsense line of questioning before and I personally find it to be staggeringly dishonest. If youre going to deny the existance of Jesus Christ, then you might as well through out all of recorded history if that is your standard.

Proving the old adage that even a stuck clock is right twice a day, I actually find myself in complete agreement with a piece that appeared in The Huffington Post yesterday. Craig S. Keener does a masterful job of carving up this canard and I love how he does it...

"Contrary to some circles on the Internet, very few scholars doubt that Jesus existed, preached and led a movement. Scholars' confidence has nothing to do with theology but much to do with historiographic common sense. What movement would make up a recent leader, executed by a Roman governor for treason, and then declare, "We're his followers"? If they wanted to commit suicide, there were simpler ways to do it.

One popular objection is that only Christians wrote anything about Jesus. This objection is neither entirely true nor does it reckon with the nature of ancient sources. It usually comes from people who have not worked much with ancient history. Only a small proportion of information from antiquity survives, yet it is often sufficient...

Josephus, the only extant first-century historian focused on Judea, mentions both Jesus and John the Baptist as major prophetic figures, as well as subsequently noting Jesus' brother, James. Later scribes added to the Jesus passage, but the majority of specialists agree on the basic substance of the original, a substance now confirmed by a manuscript that apparently reflects the pre-tampering reading. Josephus describes Jesus as a sage and worker of wonders, and notes that the Roman governor Pilate had him crucified. On the cause of crucifixion Josephus remains discreet, but mass leaders were often executed for sedition -- especially for being potential kings. Perhaps not coincidentally, Jesus' followers also insisted, even after his death, that he was a king. Josephus was not a Christian and does not elaborate, but his summary matches other sources.

Writing even earlier than Josephus, Syrian philosopher Mara bar Sarapion claimed that Jesus was a wise Jewish king. Tacitus later reports on events from 31-34 years after Jesus' ministry, associating Roman Christians with him and noting that he was executed under Pontius Pilate. These and other sources provide only snippets, but they address what these sources cared about. By comparison, Tacitus mentions only in passing a Jewish king on whom Josephus focused (Agrippa I); nor was Tacitus interested even in Judea's Roman governors. Tacitus's mention of Pilate in connection with Jesus' crucifixion is Roman literature's only mention of Pilate (though Pilate appears in Josephus and an inscription)."

I believe that when Keener writes (re: Josephus) that "Later scribes added to the Jesus passage", he is referring to Josephus definatively mentioning Jesus as 'the Christ' in his writings.

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day." Josephus, Antiqities, 18.3.3

If I'm not mistaken, there are absolutely no copies of Antiquities that that do not contain this specific reference to Jesus as the Christ. None at all going back to the very earliest manuscript copies that we have and thus there are no contradictory writings that exist concerning this passage, it is merely theorized that the relevant passage up above was interpolated later. (Although I think it's a reasonable theory).

Check out Keener's entire article if you get the chance, it's quite good if you have an interest in this sort of thing. Also, if anyone would like to discuss these particular writings of Josephus, I think this entry by Tektonics would be a good place to start.

Miracle in the Muslim world continues

CBN is reporting on a topic I have raised here before, that of the phenomenon of large numbers of Muslims in the Muslim world who are converting to Christianty through a dream oo vision that they experience...

"Several years ago, Ali took the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca known as Hajj.

"Of course when I went to Mecca I was going there in order to pay hommage to the Kabba and to fulfill the requirements in Islam," he recalled.

But the trip became more of a spiritual journey than he could ever imagine.

"That night I saw Jesus in a dream. First, Jesus touched my forehead with his finger. And after touching me, He said, 'You belong to me,'" Ali recalled.

"And then He touched me above my heart," he continued. "'You have been saved, follow me. You belong to me,' he said."

Ali's story in Mecca was told and dramatized in a DVD called "More Than Dreams." (above image)

"I decided I'm not going to finish the Hajj, the pilgrimage. Whatever it takes, I'm going to follow that voice," he explained.

The film documents and dramatizes Ali's story and several other Muslims who came to faith in Jesus through a dream or vision."

I recall years ago reading an account in one of Lee Strobel's books (I forget which) regarding a certain Muslim, professional woman in the banking industry, living in a predominately Muslim country. She was not finding fulfillment and answers through the teachings of Islam and her heart yearned for something else. Then one day when leaving work, she suddenly asked, seemingly out of nowhere, 'Is it you I need Jesus?'. She hadn't been raised in a culture that takes Christianity seriously and she couldn't explain how such a thought suddenly came upon her and she eventually became a Christian.

Strobel's book went on to hypothesize that perhaps God has the ability to break through cultural barriers and meet people where they are, regardless of environment and upbringing. The underlying impression here would seem to be that those who truly seek Him will find Him. He will find a way and come to you, if that's what is necessary, in order to take you home to Him.

What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? Changing societal views on rape

Awhile back I did a series of entries based upon the fantastic book, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? by D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe which examines how Christ has affected culture in so many different ways. We often take for granted the changes that came about in western civilization since the founding of the early church and today's article that appears in Real Clear Science highlights how Chrisianity affected the prevailing mindset of the world before Christ in regard to forcible rape.

"Helle Møller Sigh, a researcher at the Department of Culture and Society at Aarhus University, has studied the Danish versions of the Norse Laws, which were written down between the 1170s and the 1240s.

“We’re seeing a change in the legislation, in which rape goes from being a violation against the household – the woman’s husband or her father – to being listed as a separate crime which violates the woman,” she says.

“This is in no small way due to the influence of the Catholic Church, which wanted to create a peaceful and civilised society and help the weak, including women.”...

The reason the church was interested in changing the perception of rape was that this enabled it to point out that the crime was a violation against the woman. In this way the church could ensure that the rapist was convicted of the violation, something which made society more civilised.

The church had a ‘peace ideology’. This meant, for instance, that there was a wish to replace the right to take the law into your own hands with a fine system, and that the weak people in society should be helped.

“And of all people, it’s fair to say that women back then were among ‘the weak’,” says Sigh."

How far we have fallen as a society when we take the institution that is historically responsible for elevating the status of women to a level much higher than we typically see in the non-Christian world and accuse it of waging a 'War on Women'© simply for wishing to protect the unborn. Kennedy and Newcombe's book is filled with many other examples of these types of changes that Christianity brought to the world and is a great read if this subject matter interests you.

McCracken: Gays won't save the UMC

Kudos to Sky McCracken over at The United Methodist Reporter for bringing some clarity to the issue of Christians considering the compromise of God's word in the name of feel-goody emotionalism. You can check out the entire article at your leisure, I'll just highlight the first point he wished to make for our purposes here...

"1. Changing the stance on homosexuality in the United Methodist Church will not stop the loss of membership in the denomination.

It’s at best a red herring and at worst a lie to espouse otherwise. The Southern Baptist Church continues to lose membership; they are in their fifth year of decline, and they have a very decisive, very clear statement on their opposition to homosexuality.

On the other side of the issue, the Episcopal Church also has a very decisive and clear statement on homosexuality, where they bless and celebrate same-sex unions as they do male-female marriages, even though doing so separated them from the Anglican Communion. Did it help them gain members? Their membership is now lower than it was in 1939.

The loss of membership in both denominations, as well as in the UMC, can reasonably point to one reason: failure to make disciples. We can blame society, we can blame the president and Congress, we can even blame MTV. But we can’t blame our stances on homosexuality.

The fact that I hold an orthodox view on this issue and agree with my denomination’s stance doesn’t let me off the hook for anything – that has nothing to do with a failure to make disciples in the name of Jesus Christ. As Dallas Willard reminds us, we are more often guilty of the Great Omission: once we baptize folks, and/or they have been converted to follow Christ, we seem to forget the rest: “teaching them to do everything that [Jesus] commanded you.” That’s discipleship. We have failed at discipleship, and have for several generations."

Perhaps McCracken is right and the chickens are indeed coming home to roost concerning this particular matter via failure of imparting discipleship. Already, several prominent ministers in Minnesota are letting it be known that they will not be helping out in the campaign against legalizing homogamy in that state. Perhaps the Church is undergoing a down-sizing at this moment in which there will hopefully be a meaner, leaner version of adherents in the years to come.