7/3/15

From Mark Copeland... FAITH IS THE VICTORY!" In Overcoming Fear


                        "FAITH IS THE VICTORY!"

                           In Overcoming Fear

INTRODUCTION

1. In preparing His disciples for His imminent arrest, trial, and 
   crucifixion, Jesus sought to reassure them by expressing His own confidence:

   "Indeed the hour is coming, yes, has now come, that you will be
   scattered, each to his own, and will leave Me alone. And yet I 
   am not alone, because the Father is with Me. (Jn 16:32)

2. Though troubling days were ahead, Jesus offered them hope that in 
   Him they too could have peace, for He had overcome the world:

   "These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace.
   In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I 
   have overcome the world." (Jn 16:33)

3. Jesus demonstrated through His death and resurrection that He had 
   indeed overcome the world, and now such victory is offered to His disciples...
   a. To those who believe, their faith can be the victory to overcome
      the world! - 1Jn 5:4-5
   b. As we have already seen, faith in Jesus helps us in overcoming 
      sin, anxiety, boredom, depression, despair and discontent
   -- Through His actions, past and present, and through His teachings,
      Jesus helps those who believe in Him to overcome the world!

4. Such victory also includes overcoming "fear"...
   a. Whether real or imagined
   b. Which like some forms of anxiety (e.g., panic disorders), can 
      have a debilitating effect on peoples' lives

5. Not all fear is harmful, however; there is to be a place in the 
   heart of the Christian for the right kind of fear...
   a. Jesus taught us whom to fear - Mt 10:28
   b. Paul wrote of the need for a "fear and trembling" - Php 2:12; cf.2Co 7:1

[When we properly understand Whom to fear, and how faith in Jesus 
dispels the wrong kind of fear, then we can overcome any fear or phobia
that would rob us of the peace Jesus offers.  With that in mind, let's
examine the subject of fear...]

I. UNDERSTANDING FEAR

   A. FEAR DEFINED...
      1. According to the American Heritage dictionary:
         a. A feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence
            or imminence of danger
         b. Extreme reverence or awe, as toward a supreme power
      2. As the above definition suggests, there are two different 
         kinds of fear...
         a. One is wrong, which we are addressing in this lesson
         b. The other is necessary, as stressed in the Book of Proverbs
            1) The "fear of the Lord" is the beginning of knowledge 
               - Pr 1:7
            2) The "fear of the Lord" will cause one to hate evil 
               - Pr 8:13
            3) The "fear of the Lord" will prolong life - Pr 10:27
            4) The "fear of the Lord" provides strong confidence and is
               a fountain of life - Pr 14:26-27
            5) The "fear of the Lord" prompts one to depart from evil 
               - Pr 16:6
            6) The "fear of the Lord" leads to a satisfying life, and
               spares one from much evil - Pr 19:23
            7) The "fear of the Lord" is the way to riches, honor, and
               life! - Pr 22:4
         c. The value of fearing God, as expressed by others:
            1) "The remarkable thing about fearing God is that when you
               fear God, you fear nothing else, whereas if you do not
               fear God, you fear everything else." (Oswald Chambers)
            2) "The right fear is the fear of losing God." (Meister Eckhart)

   B. THE WRONG KIND OF FEAR...
      1. Fear which is groundless
         a. Many social and specific phobias fall into this category
         b. Here is a list of the most common fears, and the percentage
            of people which fear them...
                     Top 12 Fears                 Scientific Name
            1) Speaking before a group (40%)        Topophobia
            2) Heights (30%)                        Acrophobia
            3) Insects and bugs (20%)               Entomophobia
            4) Financial problems (20%)             Atephobia
            5) Deep Water (20%)                     Bathophobia
            6) Disease (20%)                        Phathophobia
            7) Death (20%)                          Thanatophobia
            8) Flying (20%)                         Aerophobia
            9) Loneliness (15%)                     Monophobia
           10) Dogs (10%)                           Cynophobia
           11) Driving/riding in a car (10%)        Ochophobia
           12) Dark (10%)                           Nyctophobia
               -- Charles J. Givens, Super-Self (Simon & Schuster,1993), p. 288.
         c. Such fears are often the result of misinformation
         d. "FEAR is False Education Appearing Real" (Denis Waitley)
      2. Fear that makes problems seem greater than they really are
         a. "Fear makes the wolf bigger than he is." (German proverb)
         b. "Fear makes man believe the worst" (unknown)
         c. With exaggerated fears of the problems we face, we think
            them overwhelming
      3. Fear that prevents us from enjoying the blessings we have
         a. "He who fears death cannot enjoy life." (Spanish proverb)
         b. "Who lives in fear will never be a free man." (Horace,65-8 B.C.)
         c. Certainly one who fears cannot be at peace and know true joy
      4. Fear that hinders our ability to be of service to God
         a. "Fear is the sand in the machinery of life." (E. Stanley Jones)
         b. Fear of people, fear of failure, often hinder Christians in
            their service; e.g., personal evangelism
      5. Fear that motivates us to disobey God
         a. Certain fears often prompt us to do things which are
            displeasing to God
         b. For example, in a poll of teenagers, among other things
            they feared:
            1) Failing in School - 44%
            2) Loneliness - 33%
            3) Not Having a Boyfriend/Girlfriend - 30%
            4) Rejection - 28%
         c. Such fears have often led young people to cheat, get in
            with the wrong crowd, give in to improper sexual advances
         d. Similar fears have prompted many adults to lie, cheat on
            the job, commit adultery, enter unscriptural marriages,etc.
         e. Fear of rejection, fear of persecution, etc., has led some
            Christians to denounce their faith in God

[Unless we can overcome the wrong kind of fear, the devil will have
many weapons in his arsenal to use against us.  If we are going to be
victorious over him and also overcome the world, then we will have to
understand how...]

II. FAITH IN JESUS HELPS US TO OVERCOME FEAR

   A. JESUS TAUGHT THAT FEAR IS INDICATIVE OF LITTLE FAITH...
      1. When His disciples were fearful of the storm at sea - Mt 8:23-27
      2. When Peter faltered as he went to Jesus walking on the water 
         - Mt 14:25-33
      3. As Jesus taught them not to have fearful anxiety concerning
         the necessities of life - Lk 12:27-32
      -- As someone put it: "Fear is simply unbelief parading in disguise."

   B. JESUS ADDRESSED OUR WORST FEARS...
      1. The fear of what we might face in this life
         a. Jesus promised, "I am with you always, even to the end of
            the age." - Mt 28:20
         b. With such a promise, we can take courage, as Joshua was 
            encouraged to do - cf. Josh 1:9
         c. With the Lord at our side, what can man do? - cf. He 13:5-6
         d. The worst that can happen is death, and Jesus addressed that...
      2. The fear of death
         a. His own victory over death frees us from the fear of death 
            - cf. He 2:14-15
         b. Thus Paul could face death with great confidence, even 
            anticipation - Php 1:21-23
      3. The fear of what comes after death
         a. Jesus comforted His disciples with the promise of lies 
            ahead - cf. Jn 14:1-3
         b. Thus Paul could look forward to what he would receive 
            - 2Ti 4:6-8 (note that it was because he had "kept the faith"!)
      -- When we've overcome these fears through faith in Jesus, other
         fears will seem petty!

CONCLUSION

1. Where there is faith, fear cannot abide...
   a. "Feed your faith, and your fears will starve to death."
   b. "Fear knocked at the door. Faith answered. No one was there."
   c. "Fear and faith cannot keep house together; when one enters, the
      other departs."
   -- Vern McLellan, The Complete Book of Practical Proverbs and Wacky
      Wit (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1996)

2. Here is how Harry Emerson Fosdick contrasted fear and faith:

   "Fear imprisons, faith liberates; fear paralyzes, faith empowers;
   fear disheartens, faith encourages; fear sickens, faith heals; 
   fear makes useless, faith makes serviceable_and, most of all, 
   fear puts hopelessness at the heart of life, while faith rejoices
   in its God."

3. If anyone gives us reason to have faith in God, it is Jesus...
   a. Through His signs and wonders, which God worked in Him
   b. Through His own resurrection from the dead, proclaiming Him to be
      the Son of God
   c. Through the words of His inspired apostles, whose overwhelming 
      testimony gives us reasons to believe in who Jesus was and what
      Jesus taught

So if we wish to overcome fear, faith in Jesus Christ is the victory!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

Hidden Hittites by Kyle Butt, M.A.




https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=888

Hidden Hittites

by  Kyle Butt, M.A.

Almost fifty times in the Old Testament, we can read about a people known as the Hittites. They were major players in Jewish history, and were listed as one of the nations that the children of Israel needed to conquer when entering the Promised Land (Joshua 11:3-4). Also, King David had among his army a valiant Hittite named Uriah, who was murdered by David because the king had committed adultery with his wife, Bathsheba. Without a doubt, the Old Testament frequently mentions the Hittites as a very real group of people. But for many years in secular history and in archaeology, the Hittites were as invisible as men from Mars. No solid archaeological evidence could be found that verified the existence of the Hittites. For this reason, many people scorned the biblical record and insisted that the absence of information concerning the Hittites proved that the Bible was filled with incorrect material.
However, the year 1876 saw many people changing their minds about both the Hittites and the Bible. An archaeologist, Hugo Winckler, visited a city in Turkey named Boghaz-Köy. Upon excavating portions of the city, he found a breathtaking number of human artifacts—including five temples, many sculptures, and a fortified castle. But more important, he found a huge storeroom filled with over 10,000 clay tablets. After completing the difficult task of deciphering the tablets, it was announced to the world that the Hittites had been found. The sight at Boghaz-Köy had been the Hittite capital city, Hattusha (see Price, 1997, p. 83).
All the people who had used the absence of archaeological evidence about the Hittites to mock the Bible’s accuracy were shamefaced and silent, and another small piece of evidence was added to the ever-growing mass of facts verifying the Bible’s accuracy.

REFERENCES

Price, Randall (1997), The Stones Cry Out (Eugene OR: Harvest House).

Dragonfly Flight and the Designer by Dave Miller, Ph.D.



https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1796

Dragonfly Flight and the Designer

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

More proof of the existence of the Master Designer comes from research conducted by Z. Jane Wang, professor of theoretical and applied mechanics at Cornell University (Gold, 2006). Centering on flying systems and fluid dynamics, Dr. Wang notes that the best way to learn about flight is by first looking at what happens naturally. Interesting. In order for the complex human mind to comprehend the principles of flight, that mind must focus on the natural order—the Creation. So mind must learn from that which, according to evolutionists, came into being and developed without any mind. Intelligence is dependent on non-intelligence. Who can believe it?
Reporting her findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dr. Wang observed that her research calls into question the conventional wisdom that ascribes to airplanes (human inventions) more flight efficiency than the flying creatures of the natural realm. Dragonflies, for example, are “a marvel of engineering” (Gold, 2006). “Marvel of engineering”—without an Engineer? So claims the evolutionist—despite the irrationality of such a conclusion.
Indeed, the dragonfly possesses four wings, instead of the standard two, enabling it to dash forward at speeds approaching 60 kph. Its unusual pitching stroke allows this amazing insect to hover and even shift into reverse. According to Wang: “Dragonflies have a very odd stroke. It’s an up-and-down stroke instead of a back-and-forth stroke.... Dragonflies are one of the most maneuverable insects, so if they’re doing that they’re probably doing it for a reason” (Gold, 2006, emp. added). “For a reason”? But doesn’t “a reason” imply a reasonable mind behind the reason that thinks and assigns a logical rationale to specific phenomena?
The more scientists study dragonflies the more they are impressed with these “marvels of flight engineering” (“How Do Things...,” n.d.). They appear to twist their wings on the downward stroke, creating a whirlwind of air that flows across the wings, facilitating the lift that keeps them flying. Even more amazing, one Australian scientist, Akiko Mizu­tani, of the Centre for Visual Science at the Australian National University, has studied dragonflies at length in the past few years. She observes that, while chasing its prey, dragonflies “shadow their enemies in complex manoeuvres that military fighter pilots can only dream of. Their tricks create the visual illusion that they’re not moving” (as quoted in “How Stealthy...,” 2003, 2398:26, emp. added). In fact, according to Dr. Javaan Chahl, the quick aerial movements allow the dragonfly to disguise itself as a motionless object (“Military Looks to Mimic...,” 2003, emp. added). These insights are not lost on the military establishment. They recognize the incredible implications for technological development—from the ability of fighter aircraft to approach the enemy undetected, to greater maneuverability, to enhanced helicopter logistics. Indeed, “scientists believe the insect’s flight control could have applications in new planes and helicopters” (2003). Is it any wonder that one of the very first helicopters produced was named “Dragonfly” (“Sikorsky...,” 2003)? If no one considers the helicopter as the product of time and chance, why would any reasonable person believe that the insect to which scientists are looking for an understanding of principles of flight evolved from mindless, mechanistic forces of nature?
If the human mind, with all of its complexity and ingenious design, is necessary to engineer flight capability (e.g., airplanes), what must be said for the Mind behind the human mind? If scores of intelligent scientists must expend vast amounts of time, energy, intention, deliberation, knowledge, and thought in order to discover the secrets of the “efficient motions” of the dragonfly, what must have been required to create that dragonfly in the first place? Mindless, non-intelligent, unconscious, non-purposive “evolutionary forces”? Ridiculous! Time and chance do not and cannot account for the amazing design found in insects like the dragonfly. The only logical, plausible explanation is that dragonflies were designed by the God of the Bible, and they testify to His wisdom: “You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created” (Revelation 4:11).

REFERENCES

Gold, Lauren (2006), “On the Wings of Dragonflies: Flapping Insect Uses Drag to Carry its Weight, Offering Insight into Intricacies of Flight,” Cornell University Chronicle, February 19, [On-line], URL: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Feb06/AAAS.dragonflies.lg.html.
“How Do Things Fly?” (no date), Boeing, [On-line], URL: http://www.boeing.com/compan yoffices/aboutus/wonder_of_flight/dragon.html.
“Military Looks to Mimic Dragonflies” (2003), ABC News, June 5, [On-line], URL: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200306/s872489.htm.
“How Stealthy Insects Outsmart Their Foe” (2003), New Scientist, 2398:26, June 7.
“Sikorsky HO2S-1/HO3S-1G ‘Dragonfly’” (2003), USCG Homepage, [On-line], URL: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/WEBAIRCRAFT/AC_Sikorsky_HO3S.html.

Australopithecus Sediba: Evolutionary Game Changer? by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.



https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4195

Australopithecus Sediba: Evolutionary Game Changer?

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

The media has already deemed the find an “evolutionary game changer.” In a South African cave in 2008, two sets of fossils were discovered by paleontologists that they allege may be from a transitional creature—a “missing link” between modern man and the ancient ancestor he allegedly shares with modern apes. According to ABC News, and several other news outlets, scientists have proclaimed the fossilized creature an evolutionary “‘game changer’ in understanding human evolution,” potentially being the “best candidate yet for the immediate ancestor of our genus, Homo” (Potter, 2011). Scientists have deemed the fossil species containing the fossil find, Australopithecus sediba. The fossils of special interest in the find includes a “foot, hand, and parts of the pelvis and skull” (Potter). The cave wherein the fossils were found was dated, using uranium-lead dating combined with paleomagnetic and stratigraphic analysis (evolutionary dating techniques), to be 1,977,000 years old, which caused scientists to give the same age to the fossils. According to evolutionists, this age predates “the earliest uncontested evidence for Homo in Africa” (Pickering, et al., 2011, 333[6048]:1421).
Lee Berger of the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa holding the cranium of Australopithecus sediba
The truth is, as we have documented time and time again (e.g., Harrub and Thompson, 2003; Thompson, et al., 2002), the fossil evidence that is desperately needed to prove the theory of evolution is simply not there. As ABC News writer, Ned Potter, admitted in the article splashing the fossil find, researchers know that “[t]here is a gap in the fossil record, so far unexplained” (2011). This admission ultimately results in the media and many scientists jumping to quick conclusions when a hopeful find is made, as is the case in this instance. One would think that scientists and media personnel would be more cautious, remembering the many blunders that have been made by paleontologists over the years in their quick claims to have found missing links, including Java Man, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Flipper Man, and Orce Man (cf. Thompson and Harrub, 2002). Potter conceded that “researchers in the past have made many finds that turned out to be dead ends” (2011). That is certainly an understatement. Some scientists appear to be getting the picture. Science writer and biologist, Michael Balter, admitted that “few scientists are ready to believe” that these fossils represent the immediate ancestor of the genus, Homo (2010, 328[5975]:154). After all, caution must be taken when all of the hype and alleged “game changer” status of the species is based entirely on only a foot, hand, and small parts of a pelvis and skull.
It is important to watch for small—but significant—disclaimers that appear throughout evolutionary literature and the media’s coverage of fossil finds, like the present specimen. While some evolutionists use decisive terminology when discussing macroevolution, as if it has been proven to be true (e.g., Potter quotes Darryl De Ruiter of Texas A&M University as saying, “It’s strong confirmation of evolutionary theory,” 2011, emp. added), the truth is, it is an unproven theory, and those “in the know” in the evolutionary community realize this problem. In fact, it is a theory that will never be proven, (1) since there is no evidence in the fossil record that transitional evolution between kinds of living organisms ever occurred, (2) since the scientific evidence indicates that life cannot come from non-life, much less could the laws governing that life write themselves into existence, and (3) since no one was around to witness the origin of life, even if atheistic evolution were true, which means the question of origins is ultimately immune to the test of empirical science. Some, at least, like Potter, have learned to use more cautious terminology when discussing evolution and the fossil record. Phrases such as “may be,” “might,” and “could be” are important, because they highlight the fact that the speaker or writer, in this case, is stating an assertion or conjecture—not a proven fact. Such words highlight the fact that even the evolutionists themselves know they have not proven their case and that their belief in evolutionary theory is a blind belief—not based on the facts.
Disclaimers are often skipped over by Americans when reading about science, because the climate in America—as promoted in large part by many in our school system—lends itself to believing scientists no matter what. A person is pressured to believe scientists, whose theories can pretty much be taken as “gospel,” regardless of the evidence. They are demi-gods. Their “maybes” are equivalent to the common man’s certainty. This unquestioning, blind belief should never have been granted to the scientific community, and especially not in the last 50 years. As morality and ethical integrity in America erodes, less and less confidence should be placed in the “elite” minds of our society, who are often biased against the truth because of the desire for prestige, money, and because of the desire to eliminate that which gives them accountability in their personal lives.
If macroevolution ever occurred, there should be millions of transitional fossils, if not billions, documenting the evolution of the various species, including man. Darwin, himself, believed that “the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous” (1956, p. 292). After well over a century of fossil digging and analyzing the geologic strata, such proof has simply not come forth, and frankly, that truth puts to rest the General Theory ofEvolution. Finding only sporadic, questionable fossils, that even the evolutionary community itself cannot agree upon, only further proves the fact that evolutionary theory is inadequate in explaining what is seen in the fossil record. The evolutionary community is in constant chaos and disagreement over fossils and the fossil record. If the evolutionary community cannot agree with itself, how can the student, listener, or reader be expected to believe what they allege?
One of the two sets of allegedly two-million-year-old bones from
Australopithecus sediba found in South Africa
Years ago, many in the evolutionary community began to reject all australopithecines, which would include sediba, as being ancestral to man at all. Lord Solly Zuckerman, the famous British anatomist who studied australopithecines for over 15 years, concluded that if man did descend from an ape-like ancestor, he did so “without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation” (1970, p. 64). The late evolutionist, Ashley Montagu, said, “[T]he skull form of all australopithecines shows too many specialized and ape-like characters to be either the direct ancestor of man or of the line that led to man” (1957, emp. added). Based largely on the nature of Orrorin tugenensis teeth, Martin Pickford, evolutionary geologist from the College de France in Paris, and Brigitte Senut, French evolutionary paleontologist of France’s National Museum of Natural History, believe that all australopithecines should be placed in a side branch of the “evolutionary tree” leading to Orrorin tugenensis and dying out 1.5 million years ago, rather than in the evolutionary line leading to Homo sapiens (cf. Senut, et al., 2001; Balter, 2001; Schuster, 2001).  If it be the case that the australopithecines do not lead to man—and it is—then Australopithecus sediba is totally irrelevant in a discussion of human evolution altogether, regardless of the media hype.
Time will tell whether the majority of evolutionists themselves deem this new find to be of importance to them, but regardless, the truth will still stand firm: if evolution is true, it should not be so hard to verify it. If atheistic explanations for the origin of the Universe were true, we should be witnessing the spontaneous generation of life and matter all over the place, or at least once somewhere, as well as witnessing transitions between kinds of living organisms. But true science simply does not support such things. [NOTE: See Butt, 2010 for more on Australopithecus sediba]

REFERENCES

Balter, Michael (2001), “Early Hominid Sows Division,” ScienceNOW, February 22, http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2001/02/22-03.html.
Balter, Michael (2010), “Candidate Human Ancestor from South Africa Sparks Praise and Debate,” Science, 328[5975]:154-155, April.
Butt, Kyle (2010), “Australopithecus Sediba: Another Relative We Never Had,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2872.
Darwin, Charles (1956 edition), The Origin of Species (London: J.M. Dent & Sons).
Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2003), The Truth About Human Origins (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Montagu, Ashley (1957), Man: His First Two Million Years (Yonkers, NY: World Publishers).
Pickering, Robyn, Paul H.G.M. Dirks, Zubair Jinnah, Darryl J. de Ruiter, Steven E. Churchill, Andy I.R. Herries, Jon D. Woodhead, John C. Hellstrom, and Lee R. Berger (2011), “Australopithecus sediba at 1.977 Ma and Implications for the Origins of the Genus Homo,” Science, 333[6048]:1421-1423, September 9.
Potter, Ned (2011), “Evolutionary ‘Game Changer’: Fossil May Be Human Ancestor,” ABC News, September 8, http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/fossils-south-africa-called-evolutionary-game-changer/story?id=14474976#.TmouXw8wezs.email.
Schuster, Angela M.H. (2001), “Special Report: Ancient Ancestors?” Archaeology, 54[4]:24-25, July/August.
Senut, Brigitte, Martin Pickford, Dominique Gommery, Pierre Mein, Kiptalam Cheboi, Yves Coppens (2001), “First Hominid From the Miocene,” Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Science, Series IIA-Earth and Planetary Science, 332[2]:137-144, January 30.
Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2002), “No Missing Links Here…,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1353.
Thompson, Bert, Brad Harrub, and Eric Lyons (2002), “Human Evolution and the ‘Record of the Rocks,’” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=153.
Zuckerman, Solly (1970), Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger).

Christian Morality Is...UnChristian? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.



https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1756

Christian Morality Is...UnChristian?

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

In their ongoing attempt to withstand the massive assault on traditional moral values, Christians recently experienced a momentary victory when NBC decided to cancel one of its programs after airing only three episodes. The program featured a troubled, pill-popping Episcopal priest as its main character, a wife who relied on midday martinis, a 16-year-old daughter who was a drug dealer, a 16-year-old adopted son who was sexually active with the bishop’s daughter, and the priest’s lesbian secretary who was sleeping with his sister-in-law (“NBC Pulls Plug...,” 2006). The fact that the program ever saw the light of day speaks volumes concerning the degeneracy of the entertainment industry. The pious post-whimpering by the show’s supporters further demonstrates the audacious, militant gall possessed by those who wish to inundate American society with obscenity and moral filth. The show’s creator is quoted as having condemned the opposition to the program as “censorship, pure and simple—and that is both un-Christian and un-American” (Brown and Jackson, 2006, emp. added).
It is one thing to be honest and straightforward about one’s moral bankruptcy. If the Hollywood crowd does not believe in God, they ought to have enough gumption to say so. If they believe that “morality” and “right and wrong” are relative, fluid, and determined solely on the basis of subjective, personal preference, they ought to have the courage to admit it. If they believe their “barnyard morality” lifestyles and their sick preoccupation with illicit sex is superior, let them openly declare it. But, no, they seem to feel the need to disguise their thoroughgoing hedonism with pious, high-sounding claims of moral superiority—even to the point of chiding American Christians with being “un-Christian and un-American”! And, of course, to really bolster one’s righteous airs, one must throw in a frenzied appeal to “censorship!”—a term that now conjures up images of medieval torture chambers inflicted on the persecuted, oppressed, deprived population of Hollywood.
As usual, social liberals are self-contradictory, hypocritical, and guilty of the very thing of which they accuse others. If liberals have a right to set forth their perverted machinations via the media, does it not logically follow that those who disagree have the same right to express their disagreement? If liberals have the right to say: “We are for homosexuality, abortion, and pornography,” then, on the same basis, Christians have the right to say: “We are against homosexuality, abortion, and pornography.” If opposing sexual immorality on television is “censorship,” what shall we call the conspiratorial success in banning Christianity from the classroom, the government, the community, and, yes, the entertainment industry? Indeed, in their incessant drive to celebrate and normalize use of drugs and alcohol, pre-marital sex, and homosexuality, the Hollywood crowd is skilled at launching an intolerant, abusive tirade against their opponents by denouncing them as demonic censors. Yet, even they have their limits. They have not yet stepped forward and publicly endorsed television programming that celebrates bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and necrophilia. Will they endorse scenes in which the actors actually kill each other (as long as the acts are consensual)? No, since they, too, “draw lines”—and thereby are guilty of the very “censorship” as they, themselves, have defined the term.
Further, the claim that opposing obscene television programming is “un-Christian” is laughable, not only because the Hollywood crowd is hardly qualified to define what constitutes Christian behavior, but because they have demonstrated a longstanding hostility, even hatred, toward Christianity and Christian morality. Their definition of “compassion” is as warped and distorted as it can possibly be. Likewise, to label opposition to obscenity as “un-American” flies directly in the face of historical fact. From the Founders and Framers down through American history (until the last 50 years), the vast majority of Americans recognized immorality when they saw it. They knew the difference between right and wrong based on the moral framework of the Bible—and the courts upheld that value system (e.g., People v. Ruggles [1811]; The Commonwealth against Sharpless [1815]; Updegraph v. The Commonwealth [1824]; City Council of Charleston v. Benjamin [1848].
Indeed, in 1848, the Supreme Court of South Carolina articulated the standard that characterized America for the first 185 years:
What constitutes the standard of good morals? Is it not Christianity? There certainly is none other. Say that cannot be appealed to and...what would be good morals? The day of moral virtue in which we live would, in an instant, if that standard were abolished, lapse into the dark and murky night of pagan immorality (City Council of Charleston..., emp. added).
The court’s words were prophetic. We are literally witnessing American civilization in the throes of pagan immorality—spearheaded by, among others, a sizable segment of the entertainment industry.
In reality, this entire issue comes down quite simply to whether a Supreme Being exists Who has the right to legislate the moral behavior of His creatures. If so, then He has already given humans a moral framework—a standard of behavior to which all humans are accountable. In that case, “censorship” occurs only when a person attempts to oppose or stifle that which God does not want stifled (an apt description of precisely what the Hollywood crowd endeavors to do). Consequently, suppressing evil and immorality is not “censorship”! Rather, it is righteous, heroic, spiritually courageous, American, and very Christian!

REFERENCES

Brown, Jody and Fred Jackson (2006), “NBC Closes the Book on Daniel,” AgapePress, January 24, [On-line], URL: http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/242006a.asp.
City Council of Charleston v. Benjamin (1848), 2 Strob. L. 508 (S. C. 1848).
The Commonwealth v. Sharpless (1815), 2 Serg. & Rawle 91; 1815 Pa. LEXIS 81.
“NBC Pulls the Plug on ‘Book of Daniel’” (2006), World Net Daily, January 23, [On-line], URL: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48476.
The People v. Ruggles (1811), 8 Johns 290 (Sup. Ct. NY.), N.Y. Lexis 124.
Updegraph v. The Commonwealth (1824), Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, [On-line], URL: http://80-web.lexis-nexis.com.library.fhu.edu:2048/universe/document? _m=083294452aab2484abf17cb283bb244a&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkVb&_md5 =d6703819f222838c8fe93f045ebc0282.

From Gary... What lies beyond knowledge


I confess, it took me awhile to get this one!!!  But, when I did, I really liked it. For some reason, the bottom frame almost dares you to understand.  And the longer I look at the picture(s) the more I get it!!!  Just goes to show you- anyone can be dense!!!  But, even the most brilliant among us can't know everything.  We, as human beings, are limited by our corporeal bodies and finite understanding of both life and the universe we live in. As proof, I offer the following passage...

1 Corinthians, Chapter 2 (WEB)
1 When I came to you, brothers, I didn’t come with excellence of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God.  2 For I determined not to know anything among you, except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.  3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling.  4 My speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,  5 that your faith wouldn’t stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.  6 We speak wisdom, however, among those who are full grown; yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, who are coming to nothing.  7 But we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the wisdom that has been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds for our glory,  8 which none of the rulers of this world has known. For had they known it, they wouldn’t have crucified the Lord of glory.  9 But as it is written, 
“Things which an eye didn’t see, and an ear didn’t hear,
which didn’t enter into the heart of man,
these God has prepared for those who love him.”

God is... smarter, wiser, more insightful, more powerful, more gracious, more understanding and has a greater scope of comprehension than what we can possibly imagine. And even this is an extremely limited list!!!  And to top it all off, God is SPIRIT, so I guess the answer to that dog's question is GOD!!!

Since these things are true, I can't wait to see what the emboldened part above really means!!!