Spirit Versus Spite

Since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, we have seen a very violent and angry reaction from the left. They never believed it could happen. After decades of being told that abortion was a fundamental right found in the Constitution, it was inconceivable to them that Roe could ever be declared null and void.

How has the left reacted? Let’s summarize:

• Pro-aborts everywhere initially reacted with screams and angry rhetoric. They took to the streets, blocking traffic and yelling expletives at anyone and everyone they could possibly blame for Roe’s reversal.
• They proclaimed that this would be a summer of rage, and that they would burn down buildings just to register their anger. (Although there was a little of that, it mostly fizzled away.)
• They began to assault and damage crisis pregnancy clinics around the country that provide counseling and material help to women who choose life. Many clinics were vandalized, some were covered with accusatory graffiti, and a few were fire-bombed. Of course, this is illegal.
• They began harassing the Supreme Court judges at their homes, causing their family members and neighbors to be worried for their safety. Protesting Supreme Court justices are illegal, but the left is willing to do it because they know law enforcement in the area won’t do anything. Oh, and one angry, unstable individual was arrested before he could assassinate Justice Kavanaugh.
• Pro-abort legislators threatened to pack the Supreme Court with a majority of pro-abortion judges. This would make the Court nothing more than a political tool to be used at the whim of the political majority.
• Those same legislators began threatening to impose laws on crisis pregnancy clinics that would make it harder for those clinics to operate. (So much for letting women have a “choice”.)
• Other celebrities on the left have suggested using Federal resources to fly women to states where they embrace abortion and opening abortion clinics in national parks.

In short, the pro-abort forces were exhibiting the Power of Spite: using anger, violence, and twisting of our cherished institutions to prevail, even if it involves illegal or dangerous methods.

Abortion Advocates Loathe Their Enemies

All of this spiteful, illegal reaction takes me back to the early days of the pro-life movement. I wasn’t present and active right after the Roe v. Wade decision was announced. It wasn’t until around the mid-1980’s that I awoke to the horror of abortion and became educated and active.

The young pro-life activists were horrified concerning the fate of the preborn unfortunates who were aborted. We shook our heads in disbelief that anyone would think it right to dismember such innocent and weak human beings. And we knew we had to do something to try to protect preborn life. The question how were we going to respond?

Instead of unleashing anger and outrage everywhere, we realized we needed to: 1) help women in crisis pregnancies choose life, 2) save as many preborn babies as possible through laws and practical help, 3) win the hearts and minds of the public, and 4) do all of it legally.

• We protested peacefully outside abortion clinics. We didn’t know what was allowed and what wasn’t, but we tried to abide by the law and show respect for the law.
• If we encountered women who were going into an abortion clinic, we offered to talk to them or give them directions to where they could discuss all options and get help.
• We opened crisis pregnancy centers where women could go for sonograms and pregnancy counseling, regardless of the decisions those women ultimately made about their pregnancies.
• We began identifying pro-life legislators and voted for them.
• Pro-life legislators began to pass pro-life laws. At first, the movement wanted a Constitutional Amendment to make abortion illegal, but that never seemed to catch on. So, instead of an all-or-nothing approach, pro-lifers began to propose and pass incremental bills that worked on the edges of the abortion question, such as waiting periods, informed consent, etc. The incremental approach has paid off, as shown in the Dobbs decision.
• We invited our pro-abortion foes to debates in public to try to win people over.
• We had public, respectful marches at national and state capitols. We’ve had the longest annual civil rights march in our history

This was not easy for us. It was slow and frustrating. It was often difficult to see any progress. There was a time when that frustration caused some in the movement to become extreme, which led to anti-violent blockages of abortion clinics. A very tiny number decided that, since abortion is actually killing another human being, it was okay to hurt or kill those who commit abortion so they wouldn’t kill any more people. That lasted for a brief period, and then we went back to our slow, methodical approach.

Pro-Life Activists Love Their Enemies (and respect the law)

There were many times I marched in freezing weather in our nation’s Capitol so we could protest the anniversary of Roe v. Wade (since the decision was announced in January). Sometimes we marched in snow. During those marches, I often wondered if it was doing any good. Yet the national March For Life continued on.

And we had many other activities year after year. We prayer-walked, we voted, and we donated to the pro-life clinics. There were many successes and many failures. Yet we persevered. It was the Power of Spirit, using forgiveness, winsomeness, and compassion to work within the law and prevail.

The reason the two groups have had such different approaches is very much due to their very different worldviews. Pro-lifers primarily adopt a worldview which embraces order and stability, patriotism, and the fear of God. And since many pro-life people are Christians, we know that we are commanded in the Scriptures to love our enemies. We can oppose them, but we can’t insult and scream at them, become violent, or vandalize and burn their facilities because the same God who is motivating us is also watching us and judging whether we are acting righteously or not.

Contrast that with the CRT-based worldview of the woke-folk who promote abortion in our society. That worldview says everything is about power – one group against another group – constantly fighting for control. Anything you can do to gain an edge over your opponent is fair game. Canceling, humiliating, and physically fighting is okay. And since there’s no Big Kahuna in the sky watching them, then it doesn’t really matter how you win the culture. The only thing that matters is the end results.

In a democracy, there are many groups vying for the ability to propose and enact laws.  If we are going to continue to live in a democracy, I see 2 very different approaches to winning the culture. One is via malice, violence, and crushing your opponent in the dust. The other is winsome, reasoning, and merciful. Now that we have had both approaches on display, I believe the general public will find our approach more compelling than that of the pro-abortion crowd. We will have to see if that is really true.

The Church of England Skipping Down Broad Street

Many of today’s institutions are being infected by the rampant woke virus. They are often motivated by a desire to please fellow woke folk in the executive suite or by the threat of the ever-present cancel culture. That’s because secular institutions often have no solid moral compass. They are ever in search of what is good and right, which changes with the winds of culture.

Christians who allow themselves to be infected by the woke virus are not so much focused on envy or intimidation. (Well, maybe a little.) Mostly, progressive Christians and Christian institutions – who know what truth is because of the Bible – abandon truth because they are weary of pointing people to the narrow road. It’s much easier to point people to a broader path.

A question was submitted to the legislative body of the Anglican Church in England, asking “What is the Church of England’s definition of a woman?” A senior bishop, Dr. Robert Innes, replied that there is “no official definition” of a woman. He went on to state that “until fairly recently definitions of this kind were thought to be self-evident, as reflected in the marriage liturgy.”

The practice of asking individuals to define “woman” has become a litmus test for identifying the virus in individuals and institutions. This was popularized recently by Matt Walsh in his documentary, “What is a Woman?” (By the way, this is a great video if you can see it on The Daily Wire.) Last week, it was also part of an exchange between Senator Josh Hawley and a Berkeley law professor.

We have come to expect that many have swallowed the rainbow-colored woke Koolaid of acceptance of transgenderism. It’s even in the US military.

But the Church of England’s response is different. Of all institutions, churches and denominations who claim the Bible as inspiration know what a woman is.

Notice that Dr. Innes mentioned that the definition of “woman” has long “thought to be self-evident”. In fact, it was only recently that anyone thought to redefine that concept. After all, human beings were made to be divided into two different version of human: male and female. We have 2 different types of genitalia, two different types of gender hormones, two different roles in the reproductive process, and two different ways we participate in raising children.

We know this is self-evident, which is why the woke folk have to use extensive explanations, intimidation, and even force to make people believe there is anything other than male and female. When you promote a lie, you have to work extra hard to make people believe that lie, even if they only believe it outwardly.

Self-evidentiary reality is a central part of Christianity. Jesus said that he was “the way, the truth, and the life”. Truth is a part of his nature.

And it is evident on Scripture. Genesis 2 describes how God created both male and female. Our record of truth only mentions male and female. There’s nothing in between. Reproduction as crafted by God is only between a man and a woman. This is directly designed by God and is intended for our good. Yet, our culture rejects what God intended for our good. The original couple rejected Eden, God’s paradise for us, and today’s culture rejects what little is left of that paradise by rejecting the institution of marriage instituted in that paradise.

The Church knows better than the culture, but the Church of England nevertheless feigns ignorance.

Innes said it was self evident “as reflected in the marriage liturgy”. That liturgy is drawn directly from Genesis 2:20-24, which said

But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’    for she was taken out of man.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

The Bible specifically states that marriage is just between a man and a woman, and this act is itself a testament that men and women are different. God’s people know what a woman is because the Bible shows man’s need for a life partner. It is that partnership that required the need for woman to be created. It wasn’t the need for reproduction. (The Bible doesn’t mention how reproduction would have occurred without women.)

Innes went on to respond, saying that the Church of England “has begun to explore the marriage complexities associated with gender identity and points to the need for additional care and thought to be given in understanding our commonalities and differences as people made in the image of God.” This gobbledygook simply means that the Anglican Church has bowed it’s knee to the Transgender Autocracy. The Word of God is not paramount within the Church of England. Man’s thoughts and feelings are. Innes and the rest of that Church’s leadership simply don’t want to be seen as being out of step with the sensibilities of modern culture.

What is the width of the door that leads to heaven? It’s small and narrow. And how wide is the door that leads to destruction? It’s wide and broad. Many Christians, tired of pointing people to the narrow gate, think that pointing people to a wide gate will be better, yet it leads to destruction. Christians should know that. The Church of England should know that. And we believers should continue to point people in the right direction.  

I appreciate all those Christians who defied the Church of England and formed the Anglican Church in America to fight off the woke infection. I hope they will be able to convince their former governing body to stand for God’s truth.

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Matthew 7:13-14

As American as “Birthing Person” and Apple Pie

The National Education Association, which seems to be oblivious to the actual educational needs of America’s children, proposed replacing the word “mother” with “birthing parent”. This is primarily to placate the “T” within the LGBT community.

The Transgender Community are the dictators within our nation right now. Their wants and needs take precedence over the needs of all other groups, including children, women and feminists, straight people, and even homosexuals. This has brought about radical changes in prisons, athletics, education, privacy in bathrooms and gyms, healthcare, adoptions, and more. The Trans Autocracy and their allies demand that we all change our lives so that this very small minority of individuals does not experience any discomfort whatsoever. All established norms of working must be overturned to make room for the new King/Queen of public life.

Let me step down off my soap box just a bit here. Whew! Sometimes that can be exhausting. But let me get to what I really wanted to say.

The name “mother” is so very important to our society. Our mother is more than just someone who gave us birth. We all know that a mother is very important to us. A mother cares for us when we are helpless. She holds us when we cry, bandages our boo-boos, and nurses us back to health when we get sick. “Mama” is the first word that comes out of our mouth and is often the last word uttered by a soldier dying from wounds.

I can just imagine Ms. Woke Birthing Partner trying to teach her child their first word.

Mother/birthing person: “Say bir…  You can do it. Say bir…  Birthing person… Bir-bir-bir… Come on…”

Toddler: Cocks their head, looks funny at the mother, and finally says, “Mama!”

A mother has a lifetime responsibility to their child. Obviously, that responsibility is heavily tilted toward the early part of life, but they are someone who have a lifelong presence in our lives. And when we are grown, we look back at our mother as someone we treasure and hold dear, even if we no longer live with them. And when we have children of our own, we want to present them to our mother who now holds the additional title of “grandmother”.

That’s very, very different from someone who simply gave birth to you. “Birthing person” sounds like they gave birth, dropped the child off at an agency, and then drove off to a late supper at Denny’s.

I realize that there are many mothers who failed in many regards to be that loving Mom in the life of their child. (Almost every mother actually feels that they failed to be a good mother, even if that was not the case.) Nevertheless, children hold that image of the loving, wonderful mom inside their heart. They know what that mother would be like, even if their real-life mother was not that. And over the years, most of us begin to overlook small imperfections in our mothers, often elevating them in our eyes even if they did have their failings.

And for those who had truly horrid mothers, my heart goes out to them. They go around with that mother-shaped hole in their heart, longing for a memory – any memory – that would give that mother some right, however small, to be elevated at least a bit in their minds. Some never find that memory, but often we do.

Regardless of imperfections – large and small – within every mother, we all know what a mother is supposed to be like. It’s as if God ordained that in the minds of all children, and we retain that ideal throughout our lives.

Much has been done by the hidden Marxists in plain sight who have undermined the traditional family in American society. Some degradation has also come from other quarters. We have trivialized divorce. We have pushed mothers out of their homes into the workforce so they can “fulfill their dreams” and keep up with the Joneses. The concept of “family” is not what it used to be. Now, a family in popular culture can be any collection of humans and pets who seem to hang out together.

It’s time to push back against the canceling of motherhood. “Mom” will actually never be canceled, although many will fight to do so. Let’s ignore the new “wokelish” language and get back to recognizing Mom.

Galileo, the Rainbow, and Guido

Researchers at Brown University recently came up with some surprising research results. So, of course, the Ivy League School did what any institution committed to science and free speech would do.

They quashed the results.

That’s because the findings upset the Perpetually Offended in the LGBT community. It didn’t please them, so Brown University knew they had to remove the results from their web site, even though it appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, PLOS One.

We know that’s the right thing to do, because that’s exactly  what happened to Galileo:

“Hi, Gal! What’s up? Anything new on that telescope?”

“Oh, hello Cardinal Snooticus. I just discovered that the sun does not revolve around the earth. It’s the other way around.”

“Oh, that can’t be right, Gal! You need to look again. Maybe you’ve got a smudge on your telescope. Yeah, that’s right. It’s a smudge.”

“Well, I don’t know about that. I can only report what I observe, Cardinal.”

“Gal, or perhaps I should say Mister Galileo. I don’t think you are getting the picture. Your scientific results do not sit well with the Church. “

“But that doesn’t matter to me. It’s science.”

“Maybe you should talk to Bishop Guido here. He’s from the Inquisition.”

“Actually, uh, Cardinal, I do think I may have a smudge after all. Never mind. It never happened.”

Of course, we all know that’s not what happened. Western society for centuries has put science in a high position in our culture. Christians of all stripes have learned to consider science as another important source of truth, but not the most important source. (And my apologies to my Catholic friends. This was just a silly story.)

But for people who have abandoned Christianity, there is nothing else that’s authoritative to turn to other than science. Secularists like to say that they count on science, and science alone, as the source of truth. We are constantly reminded of that by celebrities and luminaries, lecturing Conservatives about how we need to just focus on science, not opinion. One of the most recent examples of this was Harrison Ford, who spoke out against the anti-science leaders who are skeptical of climate change.

This is thrown at us all of the time. The Perpetually Offended accuse us of being anti-science. But, at the same time, those same accusers only accept the science they like.

And that’s where the research at Brown University comes back in. It was entitled “Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports”.  The study had a number of interesting findings:

• The parents of many female adolescents reported “outbreaks” of gender dysphoria that were statistically unlikely. These girls never reported any instances of gender confusion until they began to hang out with other girls who engaged in heavy Internet use and binge-watching of videos of transgenders.
• There is a high probability that the outbreaks of gender dysphoria were due to social and peer influence and pressure
• Peer influence in adolescent girls is typically linked with depression, eating disorders, and drug use

These findings do not fit the template put forward by the LGBT community. Their story is that transgender people are “born that way”, and that it’s not a trend you can just try out and adopt because your friends are doing it.

So the Perpetually Offended were offended again. Adopting the same bully tactics they use with practically anything else they object to, they raised a ruckus with Brown University and demanded that the paper be deleted. Brown University complied. These days, it doesn’t take actual death threats to bring universities into compliance with the Perpetually Offended. It only requires the possibility of death threats. Or perhaps a visit from Guido.

Past studies have shown that the vast majority of adolescents who identified as homosexual or transgender as a minor no longer do so as an adult. I think it’s fair to say that it probably would happen to the children in the Brown University study as well.

The earliest American attempt to determine the percentage of adults who are homosexual was a 1948 book by 1948 book by Alfred Kinsey called Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. That study claimed that 10% of the male population was homosexual, but it was based on a count of incarcerated men. It is well understood how “group pressure” in prison often makes those men homosexual, at least while they are in prison. (It should be noted that the 10% figure has been discredited, although it is still repeated throughout the culture. Subsequent studies have shown homosexuals at somewhere between 1.5% to 2.4%.)

Interestingly, a recent survey of Americans showed that most Americans believe the rate of homosexuals in our population is about 21%, which is much, much higher than the actual population. Much of that is probably attributed to the fact that the lifestyle is pushed and promoted throughout the media. That media gives the general impression that homosexuality is more prevalent than it really is.

In addition, there have been a number of recent studies that focused on “sexual fluidity”, or the concept that at least some people can flow between heterosexual and homosexual behavior easily. There certainly are a number of celebrities who appear to have done so, including Drew Barrymore, Elton John, and Anne Heche. But the other studies cited earlier show that the vast majority of people who have ever engaged in homosexual acts will not continue to do so throughout their life.

We are beginning to get a better picture of how homosexuality has become such a “big thing” in our culture. It is a cultural phenomenon that is primarily spread by group pressure. After that pressure is lifted, there is only a very small fraction that remains attracted to the same sex. The homosexual lifestyle has an influence that reaches far beyond the actual population, primarily due to their allies. However, it appears that the vast majority of those who have tried that lifestyle did so because of pressure. It was tried by them and rejected. Let us help those who want to leave that lifestyle. Let us also continue to allow academic freedom to pursue science wherever it leads us. And let us resist the Guidos of this world that pressure us.

Our Imaginary God

I never had a clue. Earlier in our marriage, I was driving on a long trip in our car, and Nancy was sitting in the passenger seat. We went down some very curvy roads in the Appalachian Mountains. Nancy gripped the door handle very firmly. We went around another curve in the road, and I saw her gripping the handle again. “Huh!”, I thought to myself. I don’t remember seeing her do that before. This continued throughout our journey that day. The next day, we were driving at much slower speeds along some city streets. As I made a right hand turn, she gripped the handle again. “Really?”, I thought. The next time I turned, I slowed down much more, so that there was barely any feeling of centrifugal force at all as we turned. Again, she still reached for the handle.

Later that day, I asked her how long she had been doing that.

“For several years”, she said.

And am I driving in a careless way?

“No, not at all”, she said.

So why are you white knuckling the door handle?

She explained that it was just ‘in case something happened’. She didn’t want to be spilled across the front of the car.

Wow! I didn’t realize she did it all the time. I remember seeing her do that a little over the years, but not that much. It was mildly irritating, making me seem like I’m some reckless race car driver. And all during our years of dating and being engaged, I don’t think I ever saw it.

I’m sure there are things Nancy didn’t notice that I did during our dating and engagement. One of them was probably that she didn’t realize how much I love stupid practical jokes. She knew I liked humor, but I don’t think she knew how much of a kick I get out of stupid pranks.

For instance, I had a very phoney looking rubber finger that fit over my pinky finger, with a very large, bloody gash in it. I would sometimes be in another room, scream bloody murder, see Nancy come running over, and I’d show her my terrible – but fake – wound. She would look at me with piercing eyes that said, “An I almost dropped a cake because of this?” Then, she would retreat until the next time I brought out the peanuts that jump out of a can or huge phony sunglasses.

When we were younger, just starting to get to know each other, we had imaginary versions of each other in our heads. To Nancy, I was the suave, debonair man who would sweet talk and charm her every time I came into the room. She probably had no clue that I might have a fake pinky wound on my hand.

Similarly, I saw Nancy as someone who enjoyed every minute of her time with me and was confident of my skills in everything I did. I didn’t realize she was concerned that my driving might cause her to end up going through the windshield.

We each had our imaginary views of what the other person was like. We had our dreamy-eyed thoughts about the one we were in love with.

And then reality hit. We realized that the other person sometimes did things we didn’t understand. Or didn’t agree with. But that was okay. I was still her husband, and she was still my wife. We weren’t perfect, but we still loved and admired each other.

Recently, I saw a movie where a mother was crying. She told her little boy that she didn’t think she was a good mother. (She actually was.) The boy said, “That’s okay. You’re Mom.” His Mom was being Mom, and that was okay, even if she wasn’t perfect, and he loved her.

That applies as well to our view about God.

Recently, authors of “How to Be a Perfect Christian” sarcastically quipped, “The God of the Bible would never do anything you would personally disagree with.” That is a modern-day motto of many people concerning how they think God is. They believe He will only do things they think make sense. He would never do something that challenges their preconceived notions of Him.

Many atheists, agnostics, and unbelievers see God as someone who only does things THEY believe are proper. He must be anti-war. He must be pro-choice. He must think it’s okay to live in sexual immorality. After all, he is all-loving. He doesn’t have any objections to anything, because objections would mean he doesn’t love.

So when they read the Bible, they see only what they want to see. They step over the verses they don’t believe. Because God couldn’t possibly be like that.

Or they just give up on God. If God is like THAT, I just won’t be a Christian.

But if we believe God exists, we will not start with the notions in our mind about who God is and how he behaves. We will let him reveal himself.

He famously told Moses, “I Am that I Am.” There is a lot in that sentence, but one aspect is that God will be who He will be. God said that when he was a burning bush that did not burn up in the fire. No one had ever seen God in that way. Could that really be God? It didn’t fit how Moses understood God to be. But it was God.

Many today who don’t – or won’t – believe in God are really just dealing with their belief in an imaginary God. They start out with who they think God must be. When they find out that He is different, many don’t know what to do. They don’t know how to deal with a real God who acts in ways that run counter to our cardboard cutout of God.

If you truly want to seek God and consider whether the Christian God is true, you need to discard your notions of what you think God is and make Him match up to your expectations. Instead, you need to let him reveal himself to you through God’s Word and allow him to be formed in your mind as He really is.

Hamas rioter: group tricks women, children to enter line of fire

What is the mindset of those who deliberately want to put women and children into harm’s way. No matter what religion you belong to, it’s never right to put innocent lives at risk.

Https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5263044,00.html

The first of two morally bankrupt stories from our culture

Sometimes, the popular culture serves up a story so morally vacuous that I sometimes wonder if we’ve been invaded by aliens. How can anyone be so narcissistic?

This story is about a stripper named Blac China who rose to fame through her “exotic dancing” and “modeling”. (I wonder if ‘Chyna’ is cultural appropriation? But I digress.)

Chyna is apparently pregnant again. This will be her third pregnancy, and it’s by an 18-year-old boy rapper. Chyna apparently really knows how to pick men. She previously got pregnant from two other boyfriends. The first was boyfriend Tyga (Is that really ‘Tigger’ from Winnie the Pooh? If so, he’s got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do.) This happened in 2012. That relationship lasted a few years. 

Chyna was clearly so devoted to her young toddler that she got another boyfriend and had another child in 2016. This relationship also lasted a few years. 

But recently, Chyna decided to be more discriminating, so she looked on a Christian dating site. Is this a thing now, trolling for guys to bed on a Christian dating site? What’s the attraction? That they’re morally straight? That’s a sad reflection on the fact that Chyna went there, and that her new beau was hanging on that site as well. 

We know it must have been a success because she found a new guy named Jay. He’s 18. I’m sure he’s got strong parenting skills, which is obvious in his statement about his relationship with Chyna: 

 “I don’t wear condoms. . . I would not want to f— a b—- I did not want to get pregnant,” he says. “If Chyna got pregnant, I would keep that s— like ‘ohh daddy love you,’ I love that a-“

Hmmm. I think we can all see the admirable qualities of such a man. 

The sad fact of the matter is that Chyna has really no care for those children. To her, they are nothing more than souvenirs of her temporary sexual relationships with the boyfriend-of-the-month. 

Recently, I’ve been reading a book called Primal Loss, in which adults who endured their parents’ divorce as a child get a chance to talk about the pain and suffering they have endured because of that divorce. Children who have parents that come and go suffer for a long, long time. Parents who spend an inordinate amount of their lives focusing on the next relationship inevitably end up neglecting the real needs of their kids. 

Those children deserve to be brought up in a stable home with a father and a mother who are married to each other. Chyna, like many other celebrities, have children as they wish, believing that those kids will be resilient and will never suffer from their mother’s lack of attention and revolving-door relationships. These children suffer real harm because of a self-absorbed mother. 

Those children will never know what it’s like to sit down for a family meal with mom and dad who love each other, help their kids with their homework, and go to their soccer games. Instead, they may get dropped off at some guy’s house for a weekend, while he himself focuses on his next girlfriend. 

Unfortunately, I doubt this will be the end of the story for Chyna. After all, she’s only 29 and there are plenty more teenage guys left on Christian dating sites. 

The worldview of Sexual Autonomy says that the only thing that is important is that one be fulfilled sexually. It doesn’t matter if you have to find a teenager. It doesn’t matter if you get pregnant. It doesn’t matter if this teenager is anything but a good prospect as a father. As long as you can fulfill your wildest sexual dreams, then everything’s okay. Forget about who has to pay for your very limited life goals. 

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/05/01/blac-chyna-having-baby-with-18-year-old-boyfriend-met-on-christian-dating-site.html

‘Smallville’ actress Allison Mack arrested for alleged sex cult involvement | Fox News

It is often a question I ask myself when I hear about a new cult and their beliefs and practices:

Why would they believe/act that way, when it is so different from conventional beliefs and behavior?

I’m this case, the cult Nexium was a financial and motivational personality cult that ended up sex trafficking it’s own female members. They even branded those women, literally, with an iron.

Most cults are a twisting of Biblical concepts, so they feed off of people who believe the cult has finally found the “real truth” about God. Nexium, however, fed off of people with no appetite for God. Instead, it lured people in using things out current culture finds important: money, prestige, and sex.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/04/21/smallville-actress-allison-mack-arrested-for-alleged-sex-cult-involvement.html

Oldest Archaeopteryx Fossil Challenges “Missing Link” Theory

The oldest known fossil of an archaeopteryx has been uncovered in Germany. We have actually known for some time that the archaeopteryx is not an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds. We have known this for quite some time. This article states that clearly.However, that myth continues to be spread by teachers and others who should know better.  

In fact, we have enough such fossils to realize that there are variations between the fossils which may indicate different species. Contrary to popular views of evolution, the fossil record shows that animal species sprung up in history all at once, fully formed, in a number of events known to scientists as fossil “explosions” (such as the “Cambrian explosion”). Instead of finding fossils that slightly change over millions of years, we simply find species that suddenly appear in the fossil record. Archaeopterys is one of them. 

It’s time we let the archaeopteryx “missing link” myth go to sleep. 

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/02/01/oldest-fossil-missing-link-dinosaur-discovered-in-germany.html

I was a committed atheist and then this incredible thing happened to me

It always fascinates me when someone begins to question their way of thinking because life isn’t really working for them the way they are. This young woman was challenged to look into different world religions and something that made sense. 

Do you go through life just accepting whatever your friends say about life? Have you stopped to think about whether they are really satisfied with their life?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/03/25/was-committed-atheist-and-then-this-incredible-thing-happened-to-me.html