Stem Cell Ads

Recently you may have seen the following ad with Michael J. Fox on tv...

After watching that ad it makes it hard for me to say this, but I can't condone the research Mr. Fox wishes to have done - not if it means destroying human life. Seeing him sitting there unable to control his body makes me seem like a monster to say those words. I think he deserves the best treatment money can buy. He's a great man. But I can't condone killing thousands of unborn just so he can live.

I'm glad to know that I'm not alone in this thought, though. There are those who are willing to stand up and speak the truth. Recently Kurt Warner put his two cents worth into an ad against the same bill Michael J. Fox is for:

Warner, who led the St. Louis Rams to two Super Bowls and remains a highly popular figure there, joined St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Jeff Suppan, among others, in the television spot against the amendment.

He equates the use of an embryonic stem cell for research to taking a human life.

"I am all for finding a cure for any and every disease known to man," Warner said in an interview with The Associated Press after the Cardinals practiced Thursday, "but there are certain issues that outweigh just finding a cure and doing research, and life is one of those.

"I think life is too sacred to ever take it in any circumstances, even for the cure of a disease or something like that."

The amendment is at the center of the critical race for the U.S. Senate in Missouri. Democrat Claire McCaskill supports the amendment and Republican incumbent Jim Talent opposes it.

Please note there are other avenues worth exploring that do no involve killing unborn babies:
Murder and Hope
More on Stem Cells
Adopt a Snowflake

As a side note, I do not in any way condone Rush Limbaugh's actions in retaliation to Michael J. Fox's ad. They were rude and unjustified. I don't agree with Mr. Fox but I certainly won't support all opposers of the ad if they're going to act like Rush.

Misconceptions of Evolution and Creation

Jim, I'm finally ready to reply to your comments as well as your more recent posts too.

I just want to let it be known that this post by itself in no way proves Creationism. Rather, it is meant to raise questions about the Theory of Evolution and to answer a few questions regarding Creationism (or the Theory of Creationism to be fair). Before throwing speculation at specific quotes found here please read the entire article provided by the original author.

Quotes from Jim italisized-

As Dr, Ham says, same evidence, different interpretation. Only this one actually satisfies what we know is settled science through the fossil record.

What does the fossil record actually tell us? Do they tell us that they were formed over billions of years? Not at all.

Can science help us decide how fast fossils form, and how fast those sedimentary rock layers pile up? That’s what I wanted to know when I signed up for courses like Stratigraphy that deal in part with rates of sediment-layer formation.

Surprisingly enough, just about everybody—creationist, evolutionist, and everyone in between—agrees that individual fossil specimens themselves begin to form very, very rapidly! If a plant or animal just dies and falls to the ground or into the water, it’s quickly broken up and decomposed by scavengers, wind and water currents, even sunlight. Fallen logs, road kills, and dead aquarium fish don’t just become fossils, nor did the millions of bison slaughtered in America’s move west.

Read the rest of this article here.

Okay then, do the fossils tell us how old they are based on where they were found in the earth? Not quite.

It has been claimed that the geological column as a faunel succession is not just a hypothetical concept, but a reality, because all Phanerozoic systems exist superposed at a number of locations on the earth. Close examination reveals, however, that even at locations where all ten systems are superposed, the column, as represented by sedimentary-thickness, is mostly missing. In fact, the thickest local accumulation of rock is only a tiny fraction of the inferred 600-million year’s worth of depositions. The global ‘stack’ of index fossils exists nowhere on earth, and most index fossils do not usually overlie each other at the same locality. So, even in those places where all Phanerozoic systems have been assigned, the column is still hypothetical. Locally, many of the systems have not been assigned by the index fossils contained in the strata but by indirect methods that take the column for granted — clearly circular reasoning. Thus the geologic column does not exist and so does not need to be explained by Flood geology. Only each local succession requires an explanation and Flood geology is wholly adequate for this task.

This is a link on Answers In Genesis pointing to an outside source located here.

The Flood? How would that affect the layers of earth supposedly layed down over millions of years?

Although most people relate the Flood to “forty days and forty nights of rain,” the Bible says that the Flood began when “the fountains of the great deep burst forth.” It seems that most of the water came from below, not from above. Few people realize what a tremendous amount of water is found in molten rock (magma) trapped beneath the earth’s surface! When a hole or crack develops in the solid rock capping the more liquid magma, the pressure release causes the super-super hot water to flash into steam, and “BOOM” we have an upward-outward rush of vapor, gas, dust, and ash, producing a volcanic explosion and/or an outpouring of liquid rock on the surface (lava)! A geologist looking for a way to start a worldwide flood could hardly come up with a better mechanism than breaking up the “fountains of the great deep!”

As the volcanic fountains opened up in what is now the Grand Canyon area, the colossally stupendous force just pushed the pre-Flood or early Flood rock aside and tilted it up. The Precambrian rocks in the inner gorge are indeed cracked and tilted, and igneous intrusions cut across and between them, marking, I am suggesting, the beginning of Noah’s Flood, recorded for our study.

The first Flood current in the area came with such tremendous force that it sheared off the tilted Precambrian rocks in virtually a straight line, producing the so-called “angular unconformity” diagrammed in Fig. 34. Science tells us that the tilt-and-shear could not have happened slowly and gradually. One of the tilted units (the reddish Hakatai Shale) is so soft and crumbly you can dig it out with your fingernails. Another is so incredibly hard (the Shinumo Quartzite) that researchers can barely knock off a piece with a hammer. Had the rocks been tilted up slowly and eroded gradually by rain drops and rivers, the crumbly rock would be all gone, leaving valleys, and the hard unit would stick up in ridges and hillocks. The two different rock types would result in a very wavy contact being formed at the angular unconformity between the tilted layers and the first horizontal unit, the Tapeats Sandstone. Instead, it looks as if the Flood current that eventually deposited the Tapeats came in with such titanic force that the hard and soft rocks were sheared off almost equally in a nearly straight line.

Read the rest of this artice here.

However, the idea that we have to squeeze out of history evidence that dinosaurs walked with humans because [Ham believes]the Bible says so is unwise. Ham is risking misleading other Christians by taking an inexact understanding of biblical creation and using it as a litmus test for belief.

Okay, so I know this comment was directed primarily towards my post on dragons. I recognize that the article was simplistic but it wasn't meant to go into the great intricasies of proof. It was an email meant for those who already share a common view. With that said, what is the evidence for it?

The word ‘Behemoth’ (Job 40:15) is literally a plural form of a common Old Testament (OT) word meaning ‘beast’. However, practically all commentators and translators have agreed that here we have an intensive or majestic plural, so that the meaning is something like ‘colossal beast’. This case is similar to the word ‘Elohim’ (the most common name of God in the OT), which is actually a majestic plural form, but is always used with a singular verbal form, just as is encountered in this passage. Also, we read in verse 19 that Behemoth was the ‘chief of the ways of God’, which suggests that Behemoth was one of the largest (if not the largest) of God’s creatures...

...The interpretation that Behemoth was an elephant is very old and was common among mediaeval scholars. The original KJV-1611 had a marginal note ‘Or, the Elephant, as some thinke [sic]’. But the French Protestant pastor Samuel Bochart in his Hierozoicon (1663), which analyzed the animals in the Bible in great detail, suggested that Behemoth was a hippopotamus, and this has since remained as the most common interpretation. The suggestion of a dinosaur has only arisen in relatively modern times...

...Bearing all this in mind, we will now consider the key clause in Job 40:17a. First of all, here are some of the English translations of the clause that have been done:

* KJV: He moveth his tail like a cedar.
* NASB: He bends his tail like a cedar.
* NIV: His tail sways like a cedar.
* NKJV: He moves his tail like a cedar.
* REV: His tail is rigid as a cedar.
* RSV: He makes his tail stiff like a cedar.
* RV: He moveth his tail like a cedar.

Older translations are also of interest:

* Septuagint (Greek): He sets up/erects (estesen) his tail like a cypress.
* Vulgate (Latin): He ties up/binds (constringit) his tail like a cedar.
* Luther (German, 16th C): His tail stretches (streckt sich) like a cedar.
* Statenvertaling (Dutch, 17th C): According to his pleasure (Als ‘t hem lust), his tail is like a cedar.
* Diodati (Italian, 16th C): He raises (rizza) his tail like a cedar.

As can be seen, the translations have varied significantly! The reason is that the Hebrew verb in this clause is very problematic, so we shall study it in some detail...

To read the read of this article click here.

Days and Yoms and Meanings
The Hebrew word for “day” that is used in Genesis does mean “day” but has more than the one definition “24-hour day”. We say “back in the day” or “in the days of apartheid” when we are really talking about a span of years. 2 Peter 3:8, which quotes a Psalm, reminds us that a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is like a day. It could have been six eras that could range from a day to hundreds of millions of years.

That is a well establish reason that Theological Evolutionists give to bridge the gap between creation and evolution. Does it hold up to Biblical study?

To understand the meaning of ‘day’ in Genesis 1, we need to determine how the Hebrew word for ‘day,’ yom, is used in the context of Scripture. Consider the following:

* A typical concordance will illustrate that yom can have a range of meanings: a period of light as contrasted to night, a 24-hour period, time, a specific point of time, or a year.

* A classical, well-respected Hebrew-English lexicon8 (a one-way dictionary) has seven headings and many subheadings for the meaning of yom—but defines the creation days of Genesis 1 as ordinary days under the heading ‘day as defined by evening and morning.’

* A number, and the phrase ‘evening and morning,’ are used for each of the six days of creation (Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31).

* Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 410 times, and each time it means an ordinary day9—why would Genesis 1 be the exception?10

* Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word ‘evening’ or ‘morning’11 23 times. ‘Evening’ and ‘morning’ appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day—why would Genesis 1 be the exception?12

* In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word ‘night.’ Outside of Genesis 1, ‘night’ is used with yom 53 times—and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the word ‘light’ with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary day.13

* The plural of yom, which does not appear in Genesis 1, can be used to communicate a longer time period, e.g. ‘in those days.’14 Adding a number here would be nonsensical. Clearly, in Exodus 20:11 where a number is used with days, it unambiguously refers to six Earth-rotation days.

* There are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1.15 Alternatively, the days or years could have been compared with grains of sand if long periods were meant.

To read the rest of this article click here.

Trees can’t bear fruit in a day.
God and Science has a webpage explaining how a literal 6 day creation was not the intended meaning of the Genesis narrative. It takes aim at Day #3 - The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. God can do anything but a plant cannot bear fruit in one day. The danger of a highly literal interpretation is that here we make a mistake that an atheist will be quick to point out.

Evolutionists can't make claim to this because the idea behind it is false reasoning. It is based on the presupposition that macro evolution occured. If we take the shackles off our God and allow him to be the God who raised himself (Christ) from the dead, healed the sick, caused a virgin to give birth, made thousands of prophecies that came true, parted the Red Sea, caused a global flood and said "Let there be light" - if we allow this God to exist in our minds - we will find that it is not impossible for this God to create trees that bear fruit in a day.

But the problem is not whether we know for sure that God did it all in 6 24-hour days, the problem....is sin.

Not ironically I agree with you that the problem is sin. But the problem of sin raises questions about whether or not we take a literal or interpretive view of scripture.

I'm going to end with this final piece from Answers In Genesis found here. I think it sums up the rest of what I want to say nicely. I don't like doing pieces this long so if you have any further questions (or rebuttal) that I need to answer please help me out by pointing out one thing at a time. Love you, brother!

For the Christian, which history of death you accept has major theological implications.

1. If a Christian accepts the history of death over millions of years, then when God stated in Genesis 1:31 that everything He had made was ‘very good’, this would mean that death, suffering, violence, and diseases like cancer (as represented in the fossil record) were also ‘very good’. This situation is represented in the following diagram:

This view of history, if consistently applied, would lead to the situation summed up by the heretical Bishop John Shelby Spong:

‘… But Charles Darwin says that there was no perfect creation because it is not yet finished. It is still unfolding. And there was no perfect human life which then corrupted itself and fell into sin … . And so the story of Jesus who comes to rescue us from the fall becomes a nonsensical story. So how can we tell the Jesus story with integrity and with power, against the background of a humanity that is not fallen but is simply unfinished?’4

Bishop Spong accepts the history of death over millions of years. As a result of this, he cannot accept a perfect creation that was marred by sin. Thus, the groaning (death and suffering, etc.) we observe today has continued for millions of years. This is also true of all ‘long-age creationists’. These are those who accept the secular belief in an old world, while opposing evolution in favour of ‘progressive creation’ or ‘intelligent design’.

2. However, if a Christian accepts the history of death as given by a literal reading of the Genesis account, then this history can be represented by the following diagram:

The perfect creation with no death, disease or suffering is described as ‘very good.’ The Bible makes it clear that God does not delight in death. We read in Ezekiel 33:11, ‘Say unto them, As I live, said the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn you, turn you from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel?’ God takes no pleasure in the afflictions and calamities of people (death etc.).

The Bible makes it obvious that death is the penalty for our sin. In other words, it is really our fault that the world is the way it is—God is a loving, merciful God. When we sinned in Adam, we effectively said that we wanted life without God. All of us also sin individually (Romans 3:23). God had to judge sin, as He warned Adam He would (Genesis 2:17, cf. 3:19). In doing so, God has given us a taste of life without Him—a world that is running down—a world full of death and suffering. As Romans 8:22 says, ‘the whole creation groans and labours with birth pangs’. Man, in essence, forfeited his right to live.

However, even though we are sinners, those who have turned from their sin and trusted Christ for forgiveness will spend eternity with their Creator in a place where righteousness dwells—and there will be no more crying, suffering or death.

The true history of death, as understood from a literal Genesis, enables us to recognize a loving Creator who hates death, the enemy that will one day be thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14).

Which history of death do you, the reader, accept? Is it one that makes God an ogre responsible for millions of years of death, disease and suffering? Or is it one that correctly places the blame on our sin, and correctly represents our Creator God as a loving, merciful Saviour who wept at the tomb of dead Lazarus (John 11:35)?

Drunk Driving - Murder?

My brother pointed this article out to me. I had seen this on the news but hadn't heard how the trial had gone.

So, many advocates were cheered when a Long Island, N.Y., jury last week convicted Martin R. Heidgen, 25, of murder for killing two people in a head-on collision with a limousine on July 2, 2005. Still, it was such a rare event that advocates, prosecutors and defense lawyers are still trying to figure out its implications.

Will murder charges help deter drunken driving? Will juries convict these drivers, knowing that they will be in prison for a long time? And is it fair?

The trial certainly did raise questions for the future. The question I'm asking is the last one - is it fair?

At first I leaned towards no. Millions of Americans drive drunk daily and no one gets hurt. They don't do it to intentionally seek harm to someone. They have just lost perspective due to intoxication. It would be hard to tell millions of "voters" that they may need to cut down on their drinking habit because they potentially could get charged with murder.

Then my wife pointed out the vehicular manslaughter is the same whether alcohol is involved or not. If I, being in complete control of my faculties, run a red light and kill an elderly man I could be charged with vehecular manslaughter - regardless of the fact that I am sober.

So why shouldn't a stronger charge be put in place for those who knowingly go out drinking with the intention of driving home later. Its like adding fuel to a fire, you know it will explode. A gun can be used for things other than murder but if pointed at an unarmed person even in fun it could become murder. A knife has many other uses than murder but, again, if in the wrong place at the wrong time the charge could be murder. A car is transportation and if not used properly can result in a manslaughter charge. Add an additional component knowingly and it, in my eyes, is murder.

I acknowledge that this could still be up for debate and would love to hear your comments but currently I agree with the verdict of this trial.

Link
--------------
Alcohol, a Car and a Fatality. Is It Murder?

Tired

Just letting those of you who read this regularly and/or receive the email that I'm having a busy week and may not get to things as quickly as I've done in the past.

Jim, I will be responding to you still so please have patience. Tommy, Rachel and anyone else who may have sent me articles to use I will probably still use them but, as I said, delayed.

God bless!

Video on Drugs and TV

This is a redo. My loving wife pointed out a few errors in my video so I redid it, rerendered it, reuploaded it and remade this post. Not much difference but I didn't want typos.

The following video is the news for today. This video is created by myself using a recent episode of "Heroes" and information from the following article:
Cocaine Epidemic Feared As Cocaine Deaths Nearly Double In Florida Over Past 5 Years

At the Feet of Jesus

When I first started going to church, I really wanted to get involved. I wanted to bring something of myself into the congregation. So I signed up for the Children’s ministry on Sunday nights. I committed myself to spending every Sunday taking care of everyone’s toddlers and infants. At first it was great. There weren’t any problems because I had spent a few summers as a nanny and I knew my way around dirty diapers.

After a while though, I started to feel really empty. I thought that I could go to the other service the church had and still get my time with Jesus and serve in the afternoons. It didn’t always work out that way and more often than not, I’d skip out altogether. I was really missing spending time with the Lord. Not to mention my fiancé at the time who went to both services with me. We would drive home afterwards and he would attempt to tell me about the lesson, but usually I had missed it all and he wasn’t fabulous about relating it to me. (Sorry honey).

I started reading more scripture and found a verse in Luke where Jesus was eating dinner at Mary and Martha’s home. Martha was getting upset because Mary was weeping at the feet of Jesus and not helping in the preparation of the meal. She even goes to the Lord and says that he needs to tell Mary to help her in the kitchen. The Lord replies that Mary has chosen to worship and be with the Lord and that will not be taken away from her.

“As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, "Lord, don't you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!"

"Martha, Martha," the Lord answered, "You are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her."” Luke 10: 38-42

It just happens that the next church service I went to the pastor spoke on this very same scripture that the Lord had put into my heart not two days before. Jesus was trying to tell me not to wear myself so thin that I forget to be with him. That I was so new to the faith I should be learning about Jesus right now and serving later when I am called to it.

I’m not saying that you shouldn’t serve in your church and your community. I’m only pointing out that your acts of service should be done because the Lord has asked you to do them. Not because you are trying to prove to the Lord what a wonderful giving person you are. He already knows you’re wonderful! He created you!

The Question of Dragons

The following was emailed from Answers in Genesis and I thought you may like to read:

Q: Do creationists believe flying dragons were mythical?

A: The pictures of flying dragons we see in movies and books may be a bit fanciful. But they are probably based on memories from people who did see such flying creatures, perhaps pterodactyls.

In the 5th century BC, Herodotus, the famous Greek historian, wrote about the “winged serpents” of Arabia. Their descriptions fit what we know about pterodactyls. Similar reports of such creatures come from Ethiopia and India. And there are people living today in the jungles of Southern Africa who say they’ve seen flying reptiles—though they call them “kongamato.” Even the Bible, in the book of Isaiah, talks about flying serpents that lived with people.

Evolutionists insist that the flying reptiles became extinct with the dinosaurs millions of years ago. But the Bible and ancient records give evidence that such creatures lived with people not so long ago.

Furthermore, it shouldn’t surprise those who believe in the book of Genesis if such a flying reptile was still living today. After all, the Bible says that God created all the land animals on the sixth day of creation.

A Good Witness

Christian Post writes about a teacher who is suing a church for discriminating against her for getting pregnant out of wedlock...

DALLAS (AP) — A church preschool teacher who became pregnant out of wedlock sued her employer, saying she was forced to sign a pledge that she would stop having sex until marriage.

Freda Brown also claims in her federal lawsuit that First Baptist Church of Dallas leaders asked her inappropriate questions and reduced her compensation.

The suit was filed last week after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined that Brown had been discriminated against because of her gender and pregnancy.

A First Baptist spokeswoman referred calls to the church's attorney, John Harrison, who said he had not yet talked to church leaders about the lawsuit.

Brown was not married when she became pregnant with her first child. When the church discovered she was pregnant in May 2005, staff members invited her to a meeting and told her that premarital sex was wrong, according to the lawsuit.

She said she was asked questions about her sex life including, "Were you a virgin when you had sex with the child's father?" and "Why can't you just get married to the child's father?"

At another meeting, Brown said the human resources director told her that she was "not living a Christian lifestyle" and that she would have to sign a statement agreeing not to have premarital sex if she wanted to keep her job.

In June 2005, First Baptist told her that she would be suspended with pay until she had her baby, Brown said. She filed a complaint with the EEOC and was allowed to return to work but she was made a part-time employee and lost insurance benefits, according to the lawsuit.

The EEOC determined discrimination and retaliation did occur. The agency was unable to settle the matter and provided Brown with a "right-to-sue" letter.

First off lets consider that the woman should have known better than to get pregnant outside of marriage and not expect a Christian school to have a problem with this. A lesson for young ladies - don't become a Christian teacher if you can't live up to the expectations of the position!

James 3:1 (New International Version)
Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

The second issue is the way the church treated her. A lesson for the churches with schools. If you want your teachers (and other leaders) to live a lifestyle of righteousness put it in writing and have everyone sign the document before hiring them! It is not fair even by the teachings of Jesus to expect something from someone without letting them know that it is to be expected.

James 3:2 (New International Version)
We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.

Lets put this all together now for if you've noticed these two verses are naturally side by side:

James 3:1-2 (New International Version)
1Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. 2We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.

What more do these two verses say to you?

Link
Teacher Sues Church Over Premarital Sex Issues

Self Abortion is NOT okay!

This makes me angry! I don't think I can even say any more about it until I calm down. Here is what I have for now...

I'm just going to post the first part of this article with these words: Love the sinner hate the sin. I forgive the woman but I do not and will not condone her actions. To top it off I can't believe the courts ruled this way!!

Oct. 19, 2006 — A Virginia judge has dismissed charges today against a young woman who shot herself in order to kill her unborn child in a case that has angered anti-abortion activists.

Tammy Skinner was a poor, desperate 22-year-old with two young children and another one on the way.

* Related: Was Killing Her Own Fetus a Criminal Act?


She said her boyfriend wouldn't pay for an abortion, so she carried her pregnancy to term.

Then she did the unthinkable.

Prosecutors say that on the morning she was scheduled to give birth, Skinner drove to an auto dealer's parking lot, took a gun, and shot herself in the belly, killing the fetus in an act of self-abortion. Skinner was charged with carrying out an illegal abortion.

Is Skinner a criminal?

Today, a Virginia judge said no. The charges were dropped, her case dismissed.

Should he have ruled otherwise?

The law in question states that it is illegal to administer or cause an illegal abortion on an expectant mother.

But Skinner's defense lawyer, Kevin Martingayle, argued that the law did not make it a crime for a mother to cause her own abortion. Ultimately, that argument convinced Circuit Court Judge W. R. Carter.

If someone else had pulled the trigger, he or she would be criminally accountable. Because it was the pregnant woman herself, no crime was committed, the court ruled.

But the Commonwealth of Virginia filed a direct indictment against Skinner, putting her case back in the courtroom.

Skinner's case has legal analysts scratching their heads and anti-abortion activists pounding their fists.

To those activists, this is an unequivocal case of murder coupled with a failure of the courts to catch it.

Link
-------------------
Judge Dismisses Charges Against Woman Who Killed Her Unborn Child

Evolution of the Grand Canyon

Answers in Genesis has a new article out that describes the Grand Canyon from a creationist's perspective...

I must say that I found this article pretty awesome! It is much too long to put everything it had to say on this post. I would like to post a few of my favorite points though and encourage you to go take a look yourself! It will be well worth your time considering it answers some very fundamental questions about the timeline of the earth.

The elevation problem:

Where did the Canyon itself come from? The Flood may have stacked the rock like a giant layer cake, but what cut the cake?

One thing for sure: the Colorado River did not do it. The Colorado River starts about 12,000 feet (ca. 3,500 m) up in the Rocky Mountains of western Colorado. By the time it gets to the Grand Canyon area, it’s at about 5,000 feet (1,500 m). And that’s the problem. Grand Canyon is definitely not a lowland valley. The North Rim of the Canyon is over 8,000 feet (2,500 m) high! For the Colorado River to carve the Canyon, it would first have to hack its way half a mile (over 700 m) uphill! Water just doesn’t do that, especially when there’s the opportunity to flow downhill in a different direction. For this and several other reasons, even evolutionary geologists no longer believe that the River slowly cut the Canyon over 60 million years.

The Mount St. Helen's example:

Less dramatic in scale, but directly and awesomely visible, was an eruption of Mt. St. Helens. We have described the first eruption in May of 1980, as the force of water flashing to steam blew the top 1300 feet (400 m) off the north side of the volcano. More to the immediate point was the explosion in June of 1982. The heat generated from that explosion melted frozen mud, producing a mud flow that filled up the North Fork of the Toutle River. The smoke cleared five days later to reveal that the mud flow had been eroded into a zig-zag main channel with many sharply tapered side canyons. Horizontal bands of sediment, some thick, and some exceedingly fine, lined the walls of the newly formed canyon. Right before our eyes, a small volcano (which never even produced a lava flow) had stacked up horizontal bands of sediment, and cut channels through it, forming a 1/40th size “scale model” of Grand Canyon in just five days! All sorts of features once thought to take millions of years of time were formed, instead, by a lot of water in just five days! And my wife and I got to see it on a dizzying flight down the length of that “Little Grand Canyon.”

Evidence in vast locations:

The asteroid catastrophes some evolutionists postulate are dramatic, and so is the Biblical narrative, as it tells how “all the high mountains under the whole heavens” were once covered with water. If that were so, we ought to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. Grab your pick and shovel and go looking, and what do you find? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth! Right up to sea creatures fossilized in the high Himalayas, it looks like the scientific evidence in God’s world encourages us to trust the Bible as God’s Word!

Once again, I encourage each of you to visit this site and especially this article and read for yourself the awesome wonders of God!

Power Struggle

Today I worked primarily on making the following video. The idea was to take a scene from a popular tv show and teach a lesson through it. Let me know what you think...

Watching Video

Just a reminder to our email subscribers - Videos posted on ChristianEye will not appear within the email. You will need to visit the website to see posted video.

Also, any comments made on the site will not appear in email. We have had some really good comments and discussions on the site. If you are interested in any of the topics you receive be sure to visit ChristianEye to check on comments being left on individual posts.

There are also other updates that take place that will not appear in email. The bottom line is that though the emails are great to give an overview of what's happening on ChristianEye it would be better to stop by the site now and then and stay up to date on everything else you may be missing.

God bless!

World View vs. Word View

[Keri's Post]
Before I accepted Christ, I didn’t have the best self image. I used to see myself as slightly chubby and not terribly attractive. I always believed that if I could just figure out how to use make-up and cover all those pimples on my face then I’d finally be pretty and guys would notice me. I really didn’t think of how God must have seen me...

Our heavenly Father has stamped unsurpassable worth and love on each and every one of his children. Even those who have not accepted him! He loves us so much that we can’t even comprehend it.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. Matthew 10:29-31

If we are worth so much in God's eyes why do we put so little value in what he has to say about us?

I just wanted to share a video with you this week on how different the world’s view is from the Father’s view on your beauty.

My Media

I have dedicated a new blog to images, video and poetry that I have either created or found on the Internet and wanted to share. As this is a branch of the ChristianEye site I will try to keep all items within a Christian genre (but I've already failed!).

I went ahead and added most of my favorite images and videos and back dated them to the time I first introduced them on my private blog. Feel free to take a look and comment when you like. I'm hoping to open this up to others who want to have their works viewed too. Obviously I would not be able to host any video here but I'd be more than willing to share them here....now to decide on a method of delivery *sigh*.

Also, for those of you who get my email, please keep in mind that I do not plan on emailing updates to my Media blog. If you are interested in seeing these items you will need to visit the site regularly!

God bless!

I Pledge Allegiance to the Lamb

I posted this on another blog:

I've been struggling lately with the idea of "rights". I'm a big believer that in most concepts there is a point of balance that should be reached. I don't want to be the person who fights for every little right I have and neglects sharing the "truth in love" with those I come in contact with. But I also don't want to be the pushover that never lifts a finger in our democratic society.

The question becomes what rights do I fight tooth and nail for and what ones do I give up to share Christ's love? It easy with things like giving up my right to be next in line or letting someone get in front of me on the highway when I'm in a hurry to get home. But what about bigger things?...

I won't go into what the post is about. You can visit Moral Science Club yourself if you want to read about it. What I want is to point out that someday soon we may have to truly make a choice between what the world wants and what God wants. We fight for our rights daily but a time may come where we may lose. But in God's hands even though we lose we win eternally!

This video is awesome! "I Pledge Allegiance to the Lamb" is by Ray Boltz. Many of you may know this song but less of you will probably have seen the video before. The song itself is great but I'll admit that I cry every time I try to watch this video. I can't help it. I'm proud of the martyrs of Christ of the past, present and future!

Take the time to watch the video. It took me a lot of time and effort to get this video. Watch and let it speak to your heart! God bless!


(ps...did you SEE his mullet?? hehehe)

Truth Truck Tragedy

In Oklahoma on Saturday two men were arrested in an elite neighborhood for trespassing. They were there praying outside a known abortionist's home...

The two men were driving what is known as the "truth truck" which is plastered on both sides with images of aborted fetuses. They and others were outside this abortionist's home when one of his neighbors came out and put the two drivers under citezens arrest.

According to the pro-life group, police arrested the Truth Truck drivers in Oklahoma City after a group of Christians prayed outside Patel's home; however, the group had not been asked to leave the gated community before the arrests took place. In fact, the pro-life demonstrators report that the police blocked the entrance of the community to prevent the group's exit, and the Truth Truck, with its large image of an aborted baby on each side, seemed to be the focus of certain community members' ire.

"The neighborhood was so incensed by this -- a very affluent neighborhood -- that they had the truck impounded and the two drivers arrested," Newman notes. "We believe that this is an egregious and outlandish constitutional violation," he says, "so we're considering a lawsuit."

This story really has negativity on both sides of the fence. On the one hand I believe abortion is wrong and this group was in their rights to stand outside this man's house and peacefully pray for him until asked to leave. On the other hand I don't know if even I would feel comfortable with a truck with those types of images on it were parked outside my place for everyone and their children to see.

Plus, what's this about a lawsuit?? I think there is a time and a place for legal actions to be taken. In my mind, though, I find it to be a little overboard to be threatening to repay evil for evil.

I'll leave you with two additional thoughts taken from these articles:

According to Operation Rescue president Troy Newman, "We conduct neighborhood prayer walks for abortionists because they live such troubled lives and are in desperate need of redemption through Jesus Christ." Abortionist Nareshkumar Patel has had a number of run-ins with the law, including being under investigation in 1992 after partially burned bodies of aborted babies were found in a field he owned.

Also, in 1993, a patient of Patel's accused the abortion doctor of sexual battery and other offenses. And a reprimand for unprofessional conduct appears on his medical license due to his failure to maintain dispensing records for dangerous drugs.

-*-*-*-

Nowadays, the Operation Rescue spokesman notes, "When you express your views against child killing or even homosexuality, you find yourself at odds with the IRS, the local law enforcement agencies, sometimes even federal law enforcement agencies." Nevertheless, he says his group will continue to conduct these kinds of pro-life events, "even though there is often persecution that accompanies them."

Many of Operation Rescue's prayers for abortionists like Patel have been answered, Newman contends. He says the pro-life activist organization has seen dozens of abortionists stop their practice of killing innocent children in the womb, an outcome he insists is "certainly worth a night in jail."

Links
-------------------
Pro-Life Group Considers Suing Over 'Truth Truck' Drivers' Oklahoma Arrest
Two Men Jailed, Truth Truck Impounded in Oklahoma City

Judging Cardinal Mahony

LOS ANGELES, Oct. 6 — A documentary film featuring an extraordinarily candid interview with a former priest convicted of molesting children has heightened interest among law enforcement officials here in considering a criminal case against Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, says a prosecutor who has been investigating sexual abuse cases involving priests.

The question is whether or not Cardinal Mahony should be held responsible for allowing this activity for over 20 years...

From what I got from the reading it seems that the documentary makes a good case for a follow-up investigation. It does seem reasonable that if the man was moving Father O'Grady around from one church group to another that there had to be reason for it. Its hard to dismiss the fact that similar complaints kept arising where ever they sent this man.

On the otherhand, it wouldn't be the first time a human was too dense to see what was right in from of his/her face. I'm very glad that I am not the one who would have to do the leg work on this one.

So from a Christian perspective what is there to say about this case? Should Cardinal Mahony be put in prison for not reporting this abuse? Consider the following verses but remember to apply them to your own life before applying them to this situation. I think we often point a finger too quick and then realize too late that we ourselves hold the same sin.

2 Cor 13:5 (KJV) Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves...

1 Cor 11:31 (KJV) For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

Eph 5:6 (NIV) Let no one deceive you with empty words...

1 Tim 1:6 (NIV) Some people have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk...

Luke 6:43-44 (NIV) "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit... Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?"

My thoughts lean toward an internal church investigation first. I think we as a church should gather the evidence for and against the Cardinal and bring it to the authorities as a gesture of good faith. Above that if the Cardinal is guilty and is just too ashamed and proud to admit it I think he should come clean so that this isn't drawn out.

With that said I don't necessarily believe he is guilty of any misconduct. I don't have all the facts of the case. I refuse to pass judgement. I only want to show that as Christians we are bound to judge ourselves first before pointing fingers.

Anyone wish to add to this thought? Please comment.

Links
-------------------
Priest makes 'most honest confession' of his life
Deliver Us From Evil Stirs Prosecutor's Interest in Cardinal Mahoney
Film on Pedophile Priest Revives Focus on Cardinal

Science Fiction

The great thing about the human mind is our imagination. It has helped us ask questions about our surroundings and to search out the answers. It also has helped us write some of the greatest works of fiction ever written...

Fiction is not fact, though. Sometimes it can become fact as in the case of Jules Verne's submarines and Isaac Asimov's robots. That is why this realm of fiction is known as Science Fiction. It is based in scientific theory that the author imagines someday could become scientific fact.

But some science fiction is based on theories that have already been proven false or is losing favor with the scientific community. The big bang is one of those theories.

Macro Evolution (not micro evolution) is another one of these theories that has little to no evidence of its ability to change us from one species to another new one. Yet it is a popular theory in such SciFi movies and shows like X-Men, MutantX, Heroes and Smallville.

I love science fiction for helping me expand my mind but I always keep in mind that what I'm watching may be possible science someday but not necessarily. It could also be just fiction.

The following is a video I created to illustrate the above:

Is That Really You, God?

[Keri's Post]
Chris and I have been talking about the subject matter of my posts and how I’m trying to find a topic or a goal like he has. Chris’ goal is to reach people with a Christian perspective on current events. Well, we’ve decided that my goal should be “Baby Christians.” People who are new to the faith might not understand all of the stuff Chris talks about on ChristianEye; they need to start out on the milk before we move them up to steak and potatoes...

“Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men?” 1 Corinthians 3:1-3

The way that I interpret this scripture is that God is telling his followers that they aren’t ready to understand some of the larger concepts. They still need to learn what it means to be Christian, to listen for his voice and learn how to obey. That is what my post is about today learning to obey the voice of the Lord.

Yesterday I went to the store to pick up a few things Chris and I needed for the house. Of course it’s a weekend and I’m a girl, so I did a little bit of browsing as well. I came across a t-shirt that I really liked so I put it in my cart and went to the checkout. I’m always the unfortunate person who gets stuck behind the customer who breaks the check-out machine or needs something special. So I was standing there while she was waiting for a manager to solve whatever pricing problem she had.

This gave me the time to reconsider what was in my cart and make a mental price check. Among the butter, toothpaste and other items there was this T-shirt that was going to cost me $7.95. Here I was at the checkout and I thought, I don’t really need that shirt, why am I getting it? Then because I’ve been practicing praying in all things, I prayed and asked God if I should get this shirt. He told me no, that I didn’t need it and while money isn’t tight for me right now, I need to stop spending frivolously.

Then I did what most Christians do when they get that kind of answer from their heavenly father. I asked the question, “Is that really you God? How do I know that I’m really hearing your voice?” He gently reminded me that there is no way for me to know if it’s really him this time unless I simply obey. I then apologized to the Lord and gave the clerk this t-shirt to put back that I had wanted so badly to begin with, but it wasn’t all that appealing anymore.

This is the way that God teaches you to hear him. He teaches with the littlest decision and smallest detail. Most people would think that this illustration was tiny and insignificant considering all that God can do in our lives. But what may I ask is more significant than learning to hear the Lord and simply obeying him?

Saturday Video Fun!

My wife and I went to a Christian comedian on Thursday. It was really a great time! Sometimes it is just great to hear the truth and laugh about it! I thought it would be nice to share some clips of the two comedians that we saw that night...

(Disclaimer: neither video is a clip of the actual performances last Thursday evening. Both were found on the web and brought to you by YouTube.)

The first comedian was Rich Praytor. He is a professional stand-up comedian and currently performs at churches, camps, conferences, etc.

He also has a few video projects coming out, has his own book and runs a website called Prank 3:16. If you know what Punk'd is you may get a kick out of the Christian "Punk'd" website.



The second, and main, comedian was Chonda Pierce. Chonda Pierce has appeared more than a dozen times on the famous stage of The Grand Ole Opry in Nashville, TN, following in the footsteps of much beloved comedienne, Minnie Pearl. "I may have replaced the gingham dress and price-tag hat with irreverent leather pants, but I have held onto what Ms. Minnie taught me---that comedy can be clean and still be funny!" And it’s Pierce’s own use of personal narrative and everyday stories in her comedy sets that have branded her "The Queen of Clean."

Fast as a Fossil

by Dr. Gary Parker

First published in
Creation: Facts of Life
Chapter 3: The fossil evidence

All the courses I took concerning fossils were taught by professors who firmly believed in evolution. Yet, when it came to the kinds of life we studied, it seemed the actual evidence made it overwhelmingly difficult to believe in evolution and very easy to believe what the Bible says about Creation, Corruption, Catastrophe, and Christ.

But even if you could accept my conclusion, or, at least, consider it reasonable, I’m sure you’d have another question...

When I read this article on AnswersInGenesis it really excited me. I love reading about all the facts behind evolution and how most of them have no grounding whatsoever. So I decided to write on what was said. I found it very difficult to say anything that hadn't been said or in a way that wouldn't confuse the issue.

So this is what I'm going to do. Here is the link to the article and you can read it yourself. I know it isn't a short read but even if you just read the first half you'll come away with good foundation knowledge. The more you read the more you'll have to understand why evolutionist in the media and in schools aren't giving us all the facts.

Here is a small snippet to chew on first:

But even if you could accept my conclusion, or, at least, consider it reasonable, I’m sure you’d have another question:

How fast do fossils form, and how fast do rock layers get stacked up like we see in Grand Canyon? Believe me, those questions bothered me, too! I knew that some believed, for example, that even though God especially created the first of each kind, he “spaced out” His creative activity over a vast period of time, a sort of “progressive creation.”

Can science help us decide how fast fossils form, and how fast those sedimentary rock layers pile up? That’s what I wanted to know when I signed up for courses like Stratigraphy that deal in part with rates of sediment-layer formation.

Surprisingly enough, just about everybody—creationist, evolutionist, and everyone in between—agrees that individual fossil specimens themselves begin to form very, very rapidly! If a plant or animal just dies and falls to the ground or into the water, it’s quickly broken up and decomposed by scavengers, wind and water currents, even sunlight. Fallen logs, road kills, and dead aquarium fish don’t just become fossils, nor did the millions of bison slaughtered in America’s move west.

Most fossils are formed when a plant or animal is quickly and deeply buried, out of reach of scavengers and currents, usually in mud, lime, or sand sediment rich in cementing minerals that harden and preserve at least parts of the dead creatures. Evolutionists and creationists agree: the ideal conditions for forming most fossils and fossil-bearing rock layers are flood conditions. The debate is just whether it was many “little floods” over a long time, or mostly the one big Flood of Noah’s time. In fact, until Darwin’s theory came along, most educated laymen and scientists—including the founding fathers of geology—assumed that fossils were the remains of plants and animals buried in Noah’s Flood.

Read the rest and comment here to discuss what you thought of the piece.

Response to the Back to the Future Theory

Over the past week I've found blog after blog discussing the idea of predestination. Over and over again I find that my views are considered weak and take away too much sovereignty from God. Over and over again I've had to try to explain that I'm not limiting God at all but expanding on how awesome a God he is!...

Jim over at the Moral Science Club posted on his own blog discussing mine. I felt his words were awesome and true revelation. So I'm going to share them word for word! Let me know what you think:

Braintwister - God's Sovereignty and Our Free Will

Christian eye has a fascinating post over at his site. Here is his premise:

Romans 8:30
Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Ephesians 1:5
having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will...
For a long time now I've had a theory about predestination...

I felt now would be a good time to share it. Its a bit hard to grasp for some but for others you will find it quite easy to see my point of view.

[Theory #1] We always talk about how our God is omnipotent (all powerful) in that he created everything in this universe from the quasars and blackholes of the galaxies down to the dimples and freckles on our faces. When we get into trouble or when we are praying we are happy to know that God is omnipresent (all seeing) and will never leave us or forsake us. But I notice that some hate the word "predestination" because if God is omniscient (all knowing) then predestination to them means that he already knows if they are going to accept him as their savior or not and it means nothing is really worth the effort.

[Theory #2 - NOT] Then there are those who limit our God by saying that he chose to hide the future from himself so that we can have free will. I find this hard to believe considering the evidence of the Bible. How many prophecies were given just on the birth and life of Jesus? What is the book of Revelation if not a glimpse into our future? No, God knows what the future holds for us.

[Theory #3] My theory is called "My Back to the Future Theory" because I came to it after watching the above scene so many years ago. I had this thought, "Why can God not just see the future but ALL possible futures? Why can't he see not only those things I did but all the choices I didn't take?"

My thought is that God knows all the choices I could make and he chooses to let me have free will over which choice I will make. He knows all my futures. I don't believe in parallel universes so I don't believe that there is an alternate me living out one of my other choices. I do believe that God has not limited himself to the present nor limited us to a fixed path. That lines up with the Bible.

My thoughts. God sees our predestination and we don't[Paul is speaking from God's perspective].

Since God is omniscient He has all knowledge (He is the I Am).

The question that I'm struggling with most in Chris's theory is if God knows the future then He knows what will happen in perfect sequence in all its nuances. However, if He sees all possible outcomes, things that could happen as a result of our choices, wouldn't that mean He holds knowledge that is useless? Would God see something that didn't happen? Wouldn't that mean God would know something that isn't true?

Truthfully, there can be only one future that actually happens around us and God has already seen it. There is still a mystery there, as Christian eye put it,

if God is omniscient (all knowing) then predestination to them means that he already knows if they are going to accept him as their savior or not and it means nothing is really worth the effort.

I would diverge on the point that it's not really worth the effort. We simply don't know and God does. The point I stumbled over subsequently is abortion. An atheist once challenged me with the question, why would God create a child with a purpose and plan for their life if He knew they'd be aborted? Good question. Hundreds of millions of children have been killed worldwide that apparently did not have a role to play here on earth in God's ultimate plan. God did not "over-rule (sove-reign)" our free will in these abortions. Oddly enough, the only two abortion survivors I've ever read about have Christian ministries. But that's a big net for a handful of fish. Why is God silent?

One possibility is that God lives and those ideas He sent us in the form of the children who were rejected by the world through abortion returned to Him. I'm thinking of Alfred North Whitehead's famous quote, "God is a tender care that nothing be lost." Will those little lambs fulfill their purpose and plan in heaven? Just a thought, which reminds us that we believe death not to be our end.

An idea floated into my head last night during prayer time, I became aware of the fact that I have a contradictory belief; I'm going to die one day but I'm going to live. It's like Abraham's near-sacrifice of Isaac, Abe believed that his son would die and that his son would become a nation. A young Christian has written an interesting article on that kind of faith here. I went around for awhile saying to myself, "I'm going to die! I'm going to live!" There's a mystery there because through Christ we know the final say is the latter, we live.

If God is the I Am then what are we? Wouldn't my moniker be I Am Not? But, He is. He lives and because of that, I do. He is the original but I am a wonderfully made copy who went wrong because of my own free will. If I hold onto my free will like a sailor holding on to the shipwreck, I may drown in my false self. But if the focus of my life becomes I'm with I Am, I belong to Him, then I have truly been set free to ascend to the kingdom of God where God's will finally is revealed to us. There's something I feel like repeating...

"I'm going to die! I'm going to live!"

Here's my summation for now.

I'm going to die
because of my free will.
I'm going to live
because God is sovereign.



Amen.

You pointed out that knowing possible futures would mean that God knows something that isn't true. God himself is Truth and sin is separation from God. With that reasoning we see that if sin separates us from God it separates us from truth making our lives not true. So, yes, I'd have to say the statement that God knows something that isn't true is correct.

God never wanted us to die; he never wanted our children to die. We were never meant to kill each other and to rape each other and to know what sorrow feels like. These things are outside of the Truth. He wanted us to choose him from the beginning that the purpose of our lives would be complete but each and every one of us chose to rebel.

Jim, I'm not sure if you were agreeing with me or just changing the focus but either way I like what you had to say.

I'm going to die
because of my free will.
I'm going to live
because God is sovereign.

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We sin when we make choices contrary to what God has predestined for us. We live again when we give up our selves, lay down our will and pick up the will of God. He made a way out so that we could be brought back to his side and walk the path we were predestined for. Praise God! Awesome post, Jim!

Acceptance for Terrorists?

If a terrorist were to lay down his guns and repent of his actions he may have to pay the penalty of man but I know I could forgive. However, to hear that some are accepting terrorism as just an offspring of our culture and justifying it rubs me the wrong way...

With that said I sometimes have to wonder what the true meaning of being a right winger or a left winger is; or what it means to be a liberal or a conservative. The reason I say that is because though I consider myself a righty and a conservative I often find myself agreeing more with the liberals and leftists. I would never label myself liberal yet this video was made from the viewpoint of liberals and I agree with almost everything that was said!

The video is shaking a finger at those left wingers who have been standing up for the violence of Hezbollah and emphasizing the distorted stories of the fighting in their favor. The author wants to point out that there should be no justifying of terrorism no matter who is implementing it!

Try to watch all 40 minutes of this show first aired in Great Britain (channel 5), but if you can’t watch it all, watch part four at least.

Pastor's Rights during an Election

Lately pastors have been getting into trouble for crossing the line between church and state. The government thinks that during an election year that pastors need to be careful about what they say. The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) felt they needed to clarify the situation...

Since 1994 ADF has been a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation. They have sent out a PDF document to as many churches as they can explaining what can and cannot be said at the pulpit legally:

...The truth is that federal tax law allows a church to spend at least 5% (in some cases, up to 20%) of its total resources on direct lobbying for legislation, which includes both ballot initiatives and referenda. This certainly includes the right of church leaders to urge their congregations to vote for a prolife or pro-marriage law. Plainly stated, there is nothing in federal tax law to prevent a pastor from directly telling the congregation to support legislation that the church believes to be beneficial to the community. On the other hand, IRS regulations do prohibit tax exempt organizations — including churches — from endorsing candidates. However, churches remain free to educate their congregations through distributing voter guides, registering voters, or hosting candidate forums.

Make sure every pastor and youth pastor in your life knows what his rights are. Below is a link to the full PDF document.

Link to document:
------------------------
Pastor's Rights during an Election