I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
Dr. Frank Turek
TV Host and Award-Winning Co-Author of:
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
(Monday’s at 7 P.M. on DirecTV Channel 37 8)
The O’Reilly Factor,
Hannity & Colmes,
Among the Topics Addressed:
How Can it Be True That There is No Truth?
Three Arguments That God Exists
Einstein’s Evidence for The Greatest Miracle
Dawkins and Hitchens Exposed
Your Questions (The Presenter on the Hot Seat!)
When: Saturday, February 7, 2009
Where: Grace EFC
2005 Estates Parkway, Allen, TX 75002
Don’t Miss this Unique Opportunity to Find out Why it
Takes More Faith to Be an Atheist than it does to be a Christian.
*If you would like Dr. Frank Turek to speak at your church or school then email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
Maybe someone can explain this to me. Most, if not all, Baptist churches and schools teach that creationism is true and evolution is false. Then, why does the largest Baptist university in the world teach that creationism is false and evolution is true?
From the Baylor University website.
From Dr. Timothy J. Dailey.
“A Man and His Horse
In what some call a denial of a basic civil right, a man has been told he may not marry his long-term companion. Although his situation is unique, the logic of his argument is remarkably similar to that employed by advocates of homosexual marriage.
The man claims that the essential elements of marriage–love and commitment–are indeed present: “She’s gorgeous. She’s sweet. She’s loving. I’m very proud of her. … Deep down, way down, I’d love to have children with her.”1
Why is the state of , as well as the federal government, displaying such heartlessness in denying the holy bonds of wedlock to this man and his would-be “wife”?
It seems the state of is not prepared to indulge a man who waxes eloquent about his love for a 22-year-old mare named Pixel.
The Threat to Marriage
The man and homosexual “marriage” proponents categorically reject the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Instead, the sole criterion for marriage becomes the presence of “love” and “mutual commitment.” But once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, it is impossible to exclude virtually any relationship between two or more partners of either sex–even non-human “partners.”
To those who object to comparing gay marriage to widely-rejected sexual preferences, it should be pointed out that until very recent times the very suggestion that two men or two women could “marry” was itself greeted with scorn.
Of course, media stories on same-sex marriage rarely address the fact that redefining marriage logically leads to the man and his mare. Instead, media reports typically focus instead on homosexual couples who resemble the stereotypical ideal of a married couple. Ignored in such reports is social science research indicating that such idealized “families” are utterly atypical among homosexuals.
In this pamphlet we will show the following:
1. Gay marriage threatens the institutions of marriage and the family.
2. Same-sex relationships are not the equivalent of traditional marriage
3. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue
4. Americans overwhelmingly reject gay marriage
5. Gay marriage is not a moral alternative to traditional marriage.
6. Homosexuality is rightly viewed as unnatural.
The “Polyamory” Movement
“Sean has a wife. He also has a girlfriend. His girlfriend has another boyfriend. That boyfriend is dating Sean’s wife.” Description of “polyamory” relationship2
The movement to redefine marriage has found full expression in what is variously called “polyfidelity” or “polyamory,” which seeks to replace traditional marriage with a bewildering array of sexual combinations between various groups of individuals.
“Polyamory” is derived from Greek and Latin roots, and is loosely translated “many loves.” Polyamorists reject the “myth” of monogamy and claim to practice “harmonious love and intimacy between multiple poly partners.”3 Kurtz describes the “bewildering variety of sexual combinations. There are triads of one woman and two men; heterosexual group marriages; groups in which some or all members are bisexual; lesbian groups, and so forth.”4
The polyamory movement took its inspiration from Robert Heinlein’s 1961 sci-fi novel, Stranger in a Strange Land, in which sexual possessiveness (as in marital exclusivity) is portrayed as an evil leading to societal ills such as murder and war. The book helped spawn a number of ill-fated sexual communes, such as ‘s Kerista community, in which members had sexual relations with each other according to a rotating schedule.
The Kerista commune collapsed in 1992, but the polyamory movement has taken hold in academia where, according to First Things, its proponents “are now so influential, if not dominant, in the academic field of marriage and family law.” Scholars enamored with polyamory argue in favor of “a social revolution that would replace traditional marriage and family law.”5
Kurtz concurs that the “gradual transition from gay marriage to state-sanctioned polyamory, and the eventual abolition of marriage itself, is now the most influential paradigm within academic family law.” One prominent advocate of polyamory, David Chambers, professor of law at the , argues: “By ceasing to conceive of marriage as a partnership composed of one person of each sex, the state may become more receptive to units of three or more.”6
The Frat House Concept of “Family”
This radical definition of marriage gives rise to bizarre conceptions of family that include virtually any relationship or social group. In 1990, a task force on family policy led by lesbian activist Roberta Achtenberg defined the family as a “unit of interdependent and interacting persons, related together over time by strong social and emotional bonds and/or by ties of marriage, birth, and adoption.”7
The “frat house with revolving bedroom doors” concept of marriage and the family poses dangers to children.
Polyamory advocates pay scant attention to the dangers posed to children being raised according to this “frat house with revolving bedroom doors” concept of marriage and the family. Yet, this nebulous, free-for-all model of the family looms ahead for our society unless a bulwark is created in the form of a constitutional amendment protecting marriage.
The slippery slope leading to the destruction of marriage as we know it draws ever closer with the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to compel the state legislature to grant homosexual sex partners the legal status of married people. This decision has emboldened public officials in various localities to grant marriage licenses to homosexual couples, igniting a national debate on the question: What is marriage–and where do we draw the limits on who can marry?
Same-Sex Relationships are not the Equivalent of Marriage
A growing body of research indicates that in key respects homosexual and lesbian relationships are radically different than married couples.”
To read more click here.
From John Piper and Desiring God.
“At Barack Obama‘s request, tomorrow in the Lincoln Memorial, , the first openly non-celibate homosexual bishop in the Episcopal Church, will deliver the invocation for the inauguration kick-off.
This is tragic not mainly because Obama is willing to hold up the legitimacy of homosexual intercourse, but because he is willing to get behind the church endorsement of sexual intercourse between men.
It is one thing to say: Two men may legally have sex. It is another to say: The Christian church acted acceptably in blessing Robinson’s sex with men.
The implications of this are serious.
It means that Barack Obama is willing, not just to tolerate, but to feature a person and a viewpoint that makes the church a minister of damnation. Again, the tragedy here is not that many people in public life hold views (like) that lead to damnation, but that Obama is making the church the minister of damnation.
The apostle Paul says,
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves , nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)
What is Paul saying about things like adultery, greed, stealing, and homosexual practice? As Christianity Today, January 2003, p. 48).puts it, “They are ways of sin that, if not repented of and forsaken, will keep people out of God’s kingdom of salvation.” (
In other words, to bless people in these sins, instead of offering them forgiveness and deliverance from them, is to minister damnation to them, not salvation.
The gospel, with its forgiveness and deliverance from homosexual practice, offers salvation. Gene Robinson, with his blessing and approval of homosexual practice, offers damnation. And he does it in the name of Christ.
It is as though Obama sought out a church which blessed stealing and adultery, and then chose its most well-known thief and adulterer, and asked him to pray.
One more time: The issue here is not that presidents may need to tolerate things they don’t approve of. The issue is this: In linking the Christian ministry to the approval of homosexual activity, Christ is made a minister of condemnation. “
Texas, who routinely promotes values antagonistic to yours in nearly every way you can imagine.standards are under attack from those who deny there are any weaknesses in . This effort is spear-headed by one of the most liberal lobbying groups in
Texas’ current science standards specify teaching both “strengths and weaknesses” of science theories and hypotheses, including evolution. It is part of the way scientists operate to critically examine issues in seeking truth. A small but vocal minority of committed Darwinists have removed this “strengths and weaknesses” language from the proposed revision to those time tested standards.
Well-known scientific weaknesses of evolution include the following:
|Send your e-mail to Texas officials. It is now up to the elected (SBOE) to vote on the issue. Please send a polite message letting them know how you feel on this proposal to change the Texas standards.
To send a written letter, the address is:
A generalized feedback form for the TEA is also located here.
Public Testimony information can be found here.
To register for the Jan 21 testimony, you must register IN ADVANCE on Friday, Jan 16, beginning at 8:00 a.m.
You may register at: 512-463-9007 voice,fax, or in person at the William B. Travis Office Building, .
DALLAS RALLY & MARCH FOR LIFE 2009
IT BEGAN IN DALLAS .
LET’S END IT IN DALLAS .
Join thousands of people of faith to stand as a witness against the decision of January 22, 1973, which legalized abortion throughout 9 months of pregnancy and left 50 million dead.
Rally begins at
Noon on Saturday, January 17th, 2009!
Cathedral de Guadalupe
2215 Ross Ave.
Dallas, TX 75201
[ Map ]
Praise & Worship
Procession to Federal Courthouse where originated (1 mile)
Brief Wreath-Laying Service
March concludes with Lunch and Info Fair at First Baptist, Dallas
Speakers (in order of photographs above): Texas State Senator Dan Patrick · Bishop , Diocese of Dallas · Dr. Jack Hatcher, Vice President of Christ for the Nations Institute · Dr. Robert Jeffress, Pastor, First Baptist Church, Dallas
Texans for Life Coalition
Catholic Pro-Life Committee of
Catholics Respect Life
Concerned Women for America of Texas
Downtown Pregnancy Center
From Matt Barber and OneNewsNow.com.
“You’ve probably heard that President-elect Obama has invited openly homosexual Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson to deliver the invocation at an inaugural event on Sunday.
It’s a shame that our next president apparently has so little regard for his Christian constituents that he would give such a high place of honor to a self-styled man of God whose only claim to fame is that he abandoned his wife and children to enter, “loudly and proudly,” a sexually deviant lifestyle expressly condemned by the very Bible he’s ironically called “holy and sacred.”
None of us are without sin; and certainly none are less valuable in God’s eyes than any other. But Christ did command us to repent of our sins and to “go and sin no more.” Not only has Robinson refused to repent of his homosexual behavior — which is unequivocally condemned throughout both the Old and New Testaments as sexual sin — he has further rebelled against God by leading astray countless of his flock who suffer from similar temptation.
A fancy white robe and tall priestly hat does not a man of God make. Robinson may or may not be a believer as he claims; only he and God know that for sure. But what we do know is this: based upon his frequent association with homosexual anti-Christian hate groups like the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and in light of his ongoing counter-Christian sexual crusade, Gene Robinson is little more than a radical homosexual activist in a clergyman’s clothing. In fact, his heretical rebellion against God’s express natural order, coupled with his selfish refusal to surrender his pulpit, has almost single handedly devastated the U.S. Episcopal Church.
Robinson has indicated he will not use the Bible at the event, saying, “While that is a holy and sacred text to me, it is not for many Americans. I will be careful not to be especially Christian in my prayer.”
Unfortunately, Robinson is not especially Christian in much of what he does. After that comment, I wonder if he heard a rooster crow.
While addressing his aberrant sexual appetite for men, Robinson said, “I believe in my heart that the church got it wrong about homosexuality.”
That’s why Christ admonishes us to place His word above that which we feel in our hearts. As Scripture warns: “The heart is deceitful above all things.”
As Gene Robinson prays for Barack Obama on Sunday, I would encourage all Bible believing Christians to pray for Gene Robinson. Pray for the wife and children he left for a lie. Pray that he will repent, “go and sin no more,” bringing others with him to the salvation only Christ can offer. A salvation we all — our nation and our world — so desperately need.”
From Patrick Lee and The Witherspoon Institute.
Others can dissect the theological and factual howlers in these essays. Here I want to correct the assumption made by Meacham and Miller that the case against same-sex “marriage” must be a Biblical one. Instead, both by faith and by reason one can see that genuine marriage must be heterosexual, that sexual acts outside of marriage are immoral, and that the state, therefore, should not declare any same-sex unions “marriages,” nor actively encourage sexual acts outside of marriage.
Consider some facts. “