Walking Therein

The Homesteading Carnival and - ?Dumbledore

Just a note to let you know Amanda has the Homesteading Carnival #21: A Little Bit of Everytihng Edition up over at My Learning Experience.

And, have you heard about this:

If you are a Superman fan and you think you might know some trivia - or if you just want to win something, take a look at this! Click the S!

****************************************************************

WARNING: Mature subject matter: If you think you should, please ask your Dad or Mom before reading any further.

Also a thought: On the news that Ms. JK Rowling "astounded" her fans by announcing that a main character in her Harry Potter series is a homosexual headmaster wizard, a few things came to mind...

#1: Though I know kids will continue to read her books, upon the release of her final book, she needs a new audience. What better way to gain a new readership than to include another whole demographic?

#2: And, I haven't heard much about her and her books in the US lately... even though halloween is right around the corner... what better time for the queen of kids witchcraft stories to make such a statement and gain media attention?

It's all about money, honey. Like most things.  Do you have an opinion?? Why has this just surfaced? I wonder if this was really planned from the start... and if not, I wonder whose marketing idea it really was:

Many fans were thrilled with the announcement.

"This is a victory for homosexuality the world over," one wrote. "Dumbledore is iconic, and I can't wait for all those little children to hear about this. I am so insanely proud of [Rowling] for doing this."                  Rowling Lets Dumbledore Out of the Closet

Some other links:

Dumbledore was gay, JK tells amazed fans

Rowling Says Dumbledore Is Gay

This was quite a week for gay focus and children... after Gov. Schwarzenegger passed ps legislation.

 What say you???

blessings! -Jacque

Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?

  Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?

As Christians we must understand that whatever opposes God’s Word or departs from it in any way is a danger to the very cause of truth. Passivity toward known error is not an option for the Christian. Staunch intolerance of error is built into the very fabric of Scripture. And tolerance of known error is anything but a virtue.

Jesus clearly and unashamedly affirmed the utter exclusivity of Christianity. He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Obviously, that sort of exclusivity is fundamentally incompatible with post-modern tolerance.

Truth and error cannot be combined to yield something beneficial. Truth and error are as incompatible as light and darkness. "What fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols?" (2 Corinthians 6:14-16).

We can’t tell the world, "This is truth, but whatever you want to believe is fine, too. It’s not fine. Scripture commands us to be intolerant of any idea that denies the truth.

Lest anyone misunderstand, I’m not defending dogmatism on any and every theological issue. Some things in Scripture are not perfectly clear. But the central teachings of Scripture (in particular, those things related to the way of salvation) are so simple and so clear that even a child can understand.

All the truth that is necessary for our salvation can be easily understood in a true way by anyone who applies common sense and due diligence in seeking to understand what the Bible teaches. And that truth — the core message of Scripture — is incompatible with every other system of belief. We ought to be dogmatic about it.

No wonder post-modernism, which prides itself on being tolerant of every competing world-view, is nonetheless hostile to biblical Christianity. Even the most determined post-modernist recognizes that biblical Christianity by its very nature is totally incompatible with a position of uncritical broad-mindedness. If we accept the fact that Scripture is the objective, authoritative truth of God, we are bound to see that every other view is not equally or potentially valid.

There is no need to seek middle ground through dialogue with proponents of anti-Christian world-views, as if the truth could be refined by the dialectical method. It is folly to think truth given by divine revelation needs any refining or updating. Nor should we imagine that we can meet opposing world-views on some philosophically neutral ground. The ground between us is not neutral. If we really believe the Word of God is true, we know that everything opposing it is error. And we are to yield no ground whatsoever to error.

“This article originally appeared in Pulpit Magazine, an online magazine of the Shepherds’ Fellowship, Grace Community Church.” 

"This article originally appeared here at Grace to You."  © 1996-2007. Grace to You. All rights reserved.

blessings! -Jacque

The Dangers of Creationism in Education, s'il vous plait

As unbelievable as it may seem, there is something to worry about. As time comes to an end, more will see the truth. As more people *really* look at Creation, they will see the truth.

Take the time to read through it. You won't be disappointed that you did. Most of the points he makes are true, because, well, Creation is true, and they are worried about it!

There is actually more than this; you can read the rest HERE.

Doc. 11297
8 June 2007

The dangers of creationism in education

Report
Committee on Culture, Science and Education
Rapporteur: Mr Guy LENGAGNE, France, Socialist Group

---

Summary

The theory of evolution is being attacked by religious fundamentalists who call for creationist theories to be taught in European schools alongside or even in place of it. From a scientific view point there is absolutely no doubt that evolution is a central theory for our understanding of the Universe and of life on Earth.

Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes.

The Assembly calls on education authorities in member States to promote scientific knowledge and the teaching of evolution and to oppose firmly any attempts at teaching creationism as a scientific discipline.

A.       Draft resolution

1.       The Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist theories within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.

2.       Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist theories are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.

3.       The prime target of present-day creationists, most of whom are Christian or Muslim, is education. Creationists are bent on ensuring that their theories are included in the school science syllabus. Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to being a scientific discipline.

4.       Creationists question the scientific character of certain items of knowledge and argue that the theory of evolution is only one interpretation among others. They accuse scientists of not providing enough evidence to establish the theory of evolution as scientifically valid. On the contrary, they defend their own statements as scientific. None of this stands up to objective analysis.

5.       We are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which, the better to impose religious dogma, are attacking the very core of the knowledge that we have patiently built up on nature, evolution, our origins and our place in the universe.

6.       There is a real risk of a serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs and ideals and what has to do with science, and of the advent of an “all things are equal” attitude, which may seem appealing and tolerant but is actually disastrous.

7.       Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The “intelligent design” theory, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does not deny a certain degree of evolution but claims that this is the work of a superior intelligence and not natural selection. Though more subtle in its presentation, the doctrine of intelligent design is no less dangerous.

8.       The Assembly has constantly insisted that science is of fundamental importance. Science has made possible considerable improvements in living and working conditions and is a not insignificant factor in economic, technological and social development. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is built on facts.

9.       Creationism claims to be based on scientific rigour. In actual fact the methods employed by creationists are of three types: purely dogmatic assertions; distorted use of scientific quotations, sometimes illustrated with magnificent photographs; and backing from well-known scientists, most of whom are not biologists. By these means creationists seek to appeal to non-specialists and sow doubt and confusion in their minds.

10.       Evolution is not simply a matter of the evolution of humans and of populations. Denying it could have serious consequences for the development of our societies. Advances in medical research with the aim of effectively combating infectious diseases such as AIDS are impossible if every principle of evolution is denied. One cannot be fully aware of the risks involved in the significant decline in biodiversity and climate change if the mechanisms of evolution are not understood.

11.       Our modern world is based on a long history, of which the development of science and technology forms an important part. However, the scientific approach is still not well understood and this is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism, synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights.

12.       The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that the advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy.

13.       All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, as his predecessor Pope John-Paul II, today praises the role of the sciences in the evolution of humanity and recognises that the theory of evolution is “more than a hypothesis”.

14.       The teaching of all phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies. For that reason it must occupy a central position in the curriculum, and especially in the science syllabus. Evolution is present everywhere, from medical overprescription of antibiotics that encourages the emergence of resistant bacteria to agricultural overuse of pesticides that causes insect mutations on which pesticides no longer have any effect.

15.       The Council of Europe has highlighted the importance of teaching about culture and religion. In the name of freedom of expression and individual belief, creationist theories, as any other theological position, could possibly be presented as an addition to cultural and religious education, but they cannot claim scientific respectability.

16.       Science provides irreplaceable training in intellectual rigour. It seeks not to explain “why things are” but to understand how they work.

17.       Investigation of the creationists’ growing influence shows that the arguments between creationism and evolution go well beyond intellectual debate. If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists. It is part of the role of the Council’s parliamentarians to react before it is too late.

18.       The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities, to:

18.1.       defend and promote scientific knowledge;

18.2.       strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;

18.3.       make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;

18.4.       firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution by natural selection and in general resist presentation of creationist theories in any discipline other than religion;

18.5.       promote the teaching of evolution by natural selection as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculum.

19.       The Assembly welcomes the fact that, in June 2006, 27 Academies of Science of Council of Europe member states signed a declaration on the teaching of evolution and calls on academies of science that have not yet done so to sign the declaration.

Thank you, Dana for brining it to our attention!

blessings! -Jacque

Review of Evan Almighy

I truly had no interest in this movie when it came out. Let me re-phrase that: WE had no interest in seeing this movie. We really aren't into the quote-unquote comedies of today. They really aren't that funny to us. The humor usually is geared toward what non-believers think is funny, so it is either offensive in a God-mocking way or immature in its humor. Potty humor, sensual funnies are more than unappealing to me- especially for our children. If it makes you blush, there's a reason for that, isn't there?

I will leave you with a review from someone who is far more interested in it and better-versed in what is good or bad about it: Answers in Genesis.

Some of the Review reads:

But few¹ mentioned the one point that originally caused me to shy away from both films—the fact that God, who cannot be looked on by sinful flesh, is personified by a man (Morgan Freeman). Not the incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ, who walked among and fellowshipped with people, but God the Father, who is so holy that even Moses wasn’t able to look at Him. And yet, we have here a man portraying the holy and righteous Creator of the universe and sovereign Savior of the world. I guess I'll have to join the ranks of other “stick-in-the-mud” reviewers that brought out this point and were chided with “c’mon, lighten up … it’s entertainment.”

The Ark

Of course, one of the more obvious relevant-to-AiG points to discuss is about the Ark.

On the positive side, the ark that Evan builds follows the dimensions given in the Bible—it’s not your typical fairytale ark. In fact, according to interviews with the cast, the size of the real Ark (which was built for the film in a subdivision in Virginia) blew them away.⁴ And the rounded bow and stern portrayed in the movie somewhat resembled the “new” Ark shape depicted in the Creation Museum, and featured in the previous issue of Answers magazine.

 

On the not-so-positive side

• There were several uses of the phrase, “Oh my God” and the like. (Not to mention the whole portraying-a-holy-God thing, as mentioned above.)
• “Jack*ss” was used in reference to an animal and a person.
• There’s an unnecessary reference to reproductive organs.
• There was some “potty humor” (what would you expect with a film filled with animals?).
• Evan is shown coming out of his front door naked, albeit behind strategically placed bushes.

To sum up, should we be wise stewards of God’s creation? Yes. Should we love our neighbor more than we love ourselves? Yes, of course. Should we give a cup of cold water in the name of Christ to a thirsty traveler (an “act of random kindness”)? Yes. Should Christians see the movie? …

He then goes on to talk about making it an outreach opportunity.

The review can be found HERE.

Blessings!

    Jacque