I have read a lot about David Platt’s first bestseller, Radical, so when I saw his latest book, Radical Together, on the list of books to review for booksneeze.com, I jumped at the chance. Radical Together is meant to explain how to take what David wrote in his first book, Radical, and live them out. To do that David uses a lot of examples by way of illustration, mostly from his mega-church, Brook Hills. ...
As a rule I tend to avoid explicitly Christian films like Facing the Giants, Flywheel, Fireproof (Ok Fireproof wasn’t all that bad.), and To Save a Life. However every now and then I make an exception to that rule. Most of the time I am merely reminded why I maintain the self-inflicted rule in the first place, but every now and then I run across a movie like To Save A Life and it makes up for all the rest. Well, at least it reminds me why I make the ocassional exception. ...
From a comment on Reddit: If libertarians believe that government allowing same-sex marriage is in fact an expansion of government, they should also support the abolition of government-allowed opposite-sex marriage in an attempt to reduce the imposition of government into our lives. I do not see any explanation in this article as to why endorsing the so-called “aberrant” sexual practices is any more imposing than supporting “normative” sexual practices. The issue here is not of endorsement but of proper management of national resources. In this case that resource is new citizens. New citizens can only come about through the sexual activities of a man and a woman. Because that is the only way new citizens are brought about the government has a vested interest in making sure that new citizens are properly cared for by its progenitors (everyone has a mother and a father) and raised in a stable home and given the tools to become well adjusted citizens. Not that any of hat is impossible for a homosexual person, but it has statistically been shown that a child who enjoys the benefit of their biological parents are better off than those who haven’t. In short, we make laws and policies based on the ideal standard, meaning a mother and father and children in a stable home, and not the exceptions to the rule. ...
The federal budget is a hot and devicive debate recently. Battle lines have been clearly drawn between conservatives and liberals but I wonder if both sides really understand the battle each is fighting against the other. So in an effort to help both sides understand one another better, and hopefully have more productive conversations, here are a few things we need to keep in mind. Income The only income the government can collect are taxes from productive citizens. This is what conservative groups like the Tea party are mostly focused on. I wonder how many liberals remember that the tea in Tea Party stood for “Taxed Enough Already”. Their major point of contention is the amount of income the government takes in at the expense of the productive citizens. ...
Mere Environmentalism, by Steven F. Hayward, is a small book, only 78 pages (including notes), but don’t let that fool you. It contains a simple, yet elegant outline to help Christians chart a course through the otherwise turbulent waters of the modern day environmental movement. Steven begins at the beginning, Genesis, and shows how Christians have a cleat theological mandate for responsible stewardship of creation. Steven also takes time to show how this simple stewardship goal has been misconstrued and maligned over history by Christianity’s detractors. In particular, debunking the myth that dominion is synonymous with domination. ...
From an answer on the Quora question “Why do many Americans think that healthcare is not a right?”: First and foremost we need to eliminate God from the discussion of rights. God is an issue of faith and to assert that rights are a product of God infers that those who are not faithful do not have rights and/or societies cannot assign rights. Indigenous societies in America very successfully managed tribal rights for 20,000 years without the need for the Christian definition of God. ...
Marriage against the State: Toward a New View of Civil Marriage, Cato Policy Analysis No. 671 In his report, Marriage against the State: Toward a New View of Civil Marriage, Jason writes, Although privatizing all aspects of marriage may well be appealing, such an approach would result, at both state and federal levels, in much greater government interference in family life, higher taxes for married couples, invasions of privacy, difficulties related to child custody, and other negative consequences. In some areas, marriage is a defense against state power, and such a defense should not be lightly discarded. However, marriage should be decoupled from the tax code by adopting a flat tax; the Defense of Marriage Act should be repealed; and Congress should adopt language making it clear that civil and religious marriage are not the same institution, and that the existence of marriage as a legal category is neutral with respect to religion. Wherever possible, marriage penalties and bonuses in the tax code and welfare system should be eliminated. ...
Even if you dislike Ayn Rand’s moral philosophy of objectivism, and her subsequent exaltation of free market capitalism, you should appreciate this movie. Atlas Shrugged is about everything that Hollywood is currently against and as a result needed to be privately funded for $10 million. A fraction of the cost of what most A-list actors charge. There were some minor alterations to Ayn Rand’s massive 1000+ page tome. The time-frame has been set in the not-too-distant future, 2016, and current events and trends were used to set the stage for the dystopian future. But while the overall story may have been given a contemporary polish, much of the core storyline has remained in tact. As someone who hasn’t read the book yet, the first installment of three managed to accomplish the director’s goal of enticing newcomers to pickup the book and read it. ...
A lot of effort has gone into making the homosexual lifestyle appear normal. And because of that little, if any, information is given about the real health risks homosexuals face. These risks fall into several categories. Levels of Promiscuity Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that “Gay liberation was founded . . . on a ‘sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,’ and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a ‘communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.’” Rotello’s perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984. ...
A friend of mine recently asked me what I made of John 1:11-13: He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. ...