Category Archives: Culture

Viral Bill Nye ‘Science Guy’ Video Claims Fertilized Eggs Are Not Humans; Pro-Lifers Push Back

(Christian News Network) “As an ultrasound tech, I can tell you from scanning a 5.5 week old ‘fertilized egg’ that I see its heartbeat. At 9 weeks, it’s forming limbs. And [at] 15, I can see the sex in some and the legs, arms, organs—and yes, its a baby, fully,” wrote Melissa Crise.”

A video on social media of Bill Nye, known as “The Science Guy,” asserting that fertilized eggs are not humans, has gone viral and has caused pro-lifers to push back against his claims.

In the video, recently shared by Big Think and having 33 million views as of press time, Nye remarked that eggs accept sperm all the time, but that in order for a fertilized egg to develop, it must attach to the uterine wall. View article →

Source: Viral Bill Nye ‘Science Guy’ Video Claims Fertilized Eggs Are Not Humans; Pro-Lifers Push Back

Advertisements

Winter Olympics Promotes Homosexuality As Principle 6 Is Pushed

(Steve McConkey – 4 Winds USA) Olympic skater Adam Rippon and skier Gus Kenworthy are promoting homosexuality as normal behavior. They are the first openly gay Winter Olympians from the United States.

They have been verbally attacking Vice President Mike Pence. Kenworthy recently appeared on the Ellen Degeneres show criticizing Pence. Hillary Clinton praised the gay athletes and said she will be focusing on them as she watches the Games.

“Adam Rippon and Gus Kenworthy will be used by the Olympic Committee and the press to further the sin of homosexuality,” states 4 Winds Christian Athletics President Steve McConkey. “The Olympic Committee has promoted transgenders, intersex athletes without proper testing, and same sex marriage. View article →

Source: Winter Olympics Promotes Homosexuality As Principle 6 Is Pushed

The Liberal Problem in America

American Thinker

The liberal sun is setting in the West, and all that remains for its worshippers is an unbearable sorrow for the power they have lost, of bewilderment and anger, a sense of the lengthening shadows of their irrelevance, and a gathering realization that, from having dwelt within the deep corruption of the Obama administration, they have nothing to offer the people but their old socialist handbooks, their consuming hatred for the new president, and a roiling temper of revenge.

View Article

SICK: Artist Who Painted Obama’s Official Portrait Known For Painting Blacks Beheading Whites

The artist who painted former President Obama’s portrait for the Portrait Gallery, part of the Smithsonian Institution, has an interesting past. While reviewing previous works by artist Kehinde Wiley, it was discovered that he has a great fondness for painting black women beheading white women. Both beheading pieces are titled “Judith beheading Holofernes”, referencing a story in the Book of Judith, which involves a beautiful woman who seduces an invading general before he is able to destroy their land, gets him drunk, and then decapitates him.

Typical artists from the Rennaissance era have placed Judith in the role of a scriptural savior, “a type of the praying Virgin or the church or as a figure who tramples Satan and harrows Hell.” Given the historical context and how Wiley recreated it in his works, is hard to interpret his use of this theme as anything other than a blatant statement of racism; black women are the powerful angels of the earth, conquering the white devils.

Can you imagine for a second if George W. Bush, or any other former president, decided on a painter who was famous for depicting white people killing black people to paint his official portrait? It’s hard to imagine, right? Yea, that’s because it’s disgusting and backward.

Users on Twitter expressed outrage at commissioning an artist with such obvious racist leanings to paint the portrait of an American president:

The Obama portrait “artist” Kehinde Wiley is shown here with one of his works, a black woman beheading a white woman.

These CANNOT be the official Obama White House portraits. They just can’t. NOTHING is this awful on purpose. pic.twitter.com/RtgScx2WM1

It gets worse. The artist (Kehinde Wiley) who painted Obama’s portrait has a penchant for depicting black women beheading white women. pic.twitter.com/wDFPqdwcdN

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Also by Obama portrait painter Kehinde Wiley: This darling little number. I just LOVE how he blended the floral notes with the beheading of the white kid.

Obama portrait painter @kehindewiley, undoubtedly in the name of “artistic license”, butchered history by depicting Caravaggio’s classic “Judith Beheading Holofernes (1602)” as a vile image of a black woman decapitating a white woman. @seanhannity @RealJamesWoods

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Kehinde Wiley the man who painted @POTUS44 presidential portrait has paintings showing blacks beheading whites

These portraits are hideous, unartistic, and make absolutely no sense. Absolutely uninspired. pic.twitter.com/pvYksrNlcI

Eye of the beholder. I like them. What disturbs me is the other art by this artist, African-American women holding the decapitated heads of white women. pic.twitter.com/UrUOqSWJj1

View image on Twitter

 

The post SICK: Artist Who Painted Obama’s Official Portrait Known For Painting Blacks Beheading Whites appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

‘Gender identity’ does not erase biological reality, columnist insists – despite trans backlash

A columnist for The Times has raised concerns about the promotion of the transsexual agenda, warning against aggressive campaign tactics used by activists.

Keep on reading: ‘Gender identity’ does not erase biological reality, columnist insists – despite trans backlash

Visit Website

CultureWatch: Five More Really Dumb Christian Copouts

Getting a biblically balanced outlook on various issues is often quite difficult to achieve. Usually we have a lot of muddled and misguided thinking in our churches when it comes to so many contentious social and moral issues of the day. I was reminded of this again when I penned a piece on the case of a public figure and his sex scandal.

The number of rather worrying thoughts that believers offered to this in various places is a concern. It seems many believers just are not thinking as straight or as biblically as they should be. Let me focus on five main mistaken notions that too many Christians have offered on this and related matters.

We should not expect non-Christians to be ethical

I think such a notion is not at all biblical or helpful, and I have often written on this. But I need to do it once again. A few quick prefatory remarks:
-Yes, pagans need salvation and need to be prayed for.
-God’s common grace applies to everyone, and as Paul makes clear, we all have a fundamental – if fallen – sense of right and wrong within us (See Romans 1).
-Not all sins should be crimes, and not all crimes are sins.
-Yes, a separation of church and state, properly understood, is vital.

But the idea that we cannot expect non-Christians to act ethically is just silly when we stop to think about it for a moment. If this were true, and we applied it across the board, then we would:
-not expect non-Christians to obey traffic lights (nor expect judges and courts to penalise them for doing so);
-not continue any prolife work – after all, pagans cannot be expected to act ethically here;
-not have sought to stop Hitler – he is just doing what we would expect a pagan to do;
-not seek to stop a rapist in action, since he cannot help it: he does not have the Spirit of God.
On and on it goes.

We should only preach the gospel to non-Christians, and not expect them to do right

The truth is, Christians of course should always do both: present the gospel to others AND be salt and light. It is not one or the other but both – always! If we really believed the church has nothing to say to non-Christians in terms of ethics, then again, consider how this would play out:
-We would have to say that the Old Testament prophets who chewed out pagan nations for their unethical actions were simply wrong.
-We would have to say that John the Baptist was simply wrong to rebuke the unethical actions of Herod – and he did not bother to say a word about Herod’s faith or lack thereof.
-We would have to say that Wilberforce was entirely wrong to stand against the unethical slave trade, and it was all a waste of time. He should have just dealt with the salvation of people and preach the gospel. (He actually rightly did both.)

Hopefully you get my drift. I reject the notion that because a person is not a believer, we must just sit down and shut up when it comes to ethics and morality. I for one just don’t buy it! Right and wrong matters, and we expect all people to some extent to comply. That is why we have police, courts, laws, judges and the like.

We are all sinners, so who am I to judge?

This is such a foolish and unbiblical notion. Sure we are all sinners – tell us something we don’t know. But the whole point of the gospel is to deliver us from our own sin, and then for us to encourage others to do the same. The truth is, we ARE called to judge. We are to be salt and light, and Jesus said we should discern where folks are at.

Jesus said we can judge people by their fruit, so we are to be fruit inspectors. We are to test all things, use biblical discernment, judge between right and wrong, and so on. The idea that we can never call out any sin, whether in another person or in society at large, because we are not yet perfect is as ludicrous as it is unbiblical.

Sure, as it’s been said: we should be hard on ourselves while soft on others. There is some truth to this, but only to a certain extent. Yes, we should deal mercilessly with ourselves when it comes to sin and disobedience, and be gracious – when appropriate – to others as they struggle.

But Paul seems to point us in a somewhat different direction: he was certainly hard on himself (“I am the chief of sinners” – 1 Timothy 1:15), but he could also be very hard on those who were sinning in the congregation (“I have handed such a one over to Satan…” – 1 Corinthians 5:5).

We should not talk about sin – just grace and forgiveness

Um, the simple truth is this: grace and forgiveness make absolutely no sense if we do not first talk about sin. One simply has to look at how the prophets talked, how Jesus talked, and how the disciples talked. They talked about sin all the time, and the need for forgiveness.

Sure, they all extolled the wonderful grace of God, but they knew that receiving it is dependent on repentance. Returning to the particular politician in question in my previous article, some folks pointed out that he said it was a mistake and he felt bad about it. Great, but that is NOT biblical repentance. Let me make this as clear as I can:
-If a murderer says his many murders were a mistake and he feels bad about them, but he continues to keep murdering people, is that biblical repentance?
-If a thief says his many burglaries and robberies were a mistake and he feels bad about them, but he continues to keep stealing from people, is that biblical repentance?
-If an adulterer says his adultery is a mistake and he feels bad about it, but he continues in the adulterous relationship with his young lover, is that biblical repentance?

As far as I know, this politician is separated from, but still married to, his first wife. So in this case real repentance would mean immediately breaking off this adulterous affair, and seeking to make things right with his wife and children – and his God! It seems to me that this would be the bare minimum of true repentance.

To be honest, it bothers and baffles me greatly that so many Christians effectively seem to be defending sin and sinners. That is not how biblical Christians should be operating. Yes, we are all sinners and we all need God’s grace daily. I get that – big time. But trying to excuse sin or minimise it is not how we move forward.

People might change, so we should just cut them some slack

Of course people can change. But it is not our job to speculate about what might be happening in a person’s life twenty years in the future. Our job is to discern where folks are at now, especially when they are running for, or involved in, public office. We are to inspect fruit now, not guess about what a person might possibly become one day in the future.

If we took this train of thought to its logical conclusion, we would:
-not have fought Hitler. After all, people could have said back in 1940, ‘one day he might become a terrific chap, so we better leave him alone now’.
-not seek to work against the abortionists and fight for the unborn, because maybe the abortionists one day will turn a new leaf.
-not speak out against any corruption in politics – or elsewhere. These folks might change in the future, so we need to relax and just hope for the best.

The fact that people can and do change – by God’s grace – is NOT the issue here. The issue is that real evil exists now, and we as believers need to continue to insist that character counts – always. Thus if a person cannot be trusted to stay true to his wedding vows, why should we expect him to stay true to his political vows? For the believer, principle should always trump mere pragmatism.

While we can always hope for better outcomes for folks in the future, we can only deal with where people are at now, especially when it comes to things like leadership. It would do absolutely no good to appoint a hardcore thief to the church treasury job now in the hopes that maybe in twenty years’ time he will get saved, change his ways, and stop pilfering from the church coffers!

There are plenty more such examples of confused thinking that keep arising when someone points out blatant public – and private – sin. It is disturbing that so many Christians seem to be so much in the dark about certain basic biblical truths.

As such, it seems that this particular series of articles may have to continue for some time to come!

[1522 words]

The post And Five More Really Dumb Christian Copouts appeared first on CultureWatch.

Turning schoolkids into Marxists

American Thinker

BLM’s thirteen principles are a hodgepodge of black power dictums, Marxist-based collectivism, and identity politics. One of the more disturbing principles listed is the group’s commitment to “disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.” “Our children” are part of the “collective who care for one another,” it states.

View Article

The philosophical contradictions of the transgender worldview

(Ryan T. Anderson – Public Discourse) People say that we live in a postmodern age that has rejected metaphysics. That’s not quite true. We live in a postmodern age that promotes an alternative metaphysics. As I explain in When Harry Became Sally, at the heart of the transgender moment are radical ideas about the human person—in particular, that people are what they claim to be, regardless of contrary evidence. A transgender boy is a boy, not merely a girl who identifies as a boy. It’s understandable why activists make these claims. An argument about transgender identities will be much more persuasive if it concerns who someone is, not merely how someone identifies. And so the rhetoric of the transgender moment drips with ontological assertions: people are the gender they prefer to be. That’s the claim.

Transgender activists don’t admit that this is a metaphysical claim. They don’t want to have the debate on the level of philosophy, so they dress it up as a scientific and medical claim. And they’ve co-opted many professional associations for their cause. Thus the American Psychological Association, in a pamphlet titled “Answers to Your Questions about Transgender People, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression,” tells us, “Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identitygender expression, or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.” Notice the politicized language: a person’s sex is “assigned at birth.” Back in 2005, even the Human Rights Campaign referred instead to “birth sex” and “physical sex.”

The phrase “sex assigned at birth” is now favored because it makes room for “gender identity” as the real basis of a person’s sex. In an expert declaration to a federal district court in North Carolina concerning H.B. 2, Dr. Deanna Adkins stated, “From a medical perspective, the appropriate determinant of sex is gender identity.” Dr. Adkins is a professor at Duke University School of Medicine and the director of the Duke Center for Child and Adolescent Gender Care (which opened in 2015). Adkins argues that gender identity is not only the preferred basis for determining sex, but “the only medically supported determinant of sex.”  Every other method is bad science, she claims: “It is counter to medical science to use chromosomes, hormones, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, or secondary sex characteristics to override gender identity for purposes of classifying someone as male or female.”

This is a remarkable claim, not least because the argument recently was that gender is only a social construct, while sex is a biological reality. Now, activists claim that gender identity is destiny, while biological sex is the social construct.

Adkins doesn’t say whether she would apply this rule to all mammalian species. But why should sex be determined differently in humans than in other mammals? And if medical science holds that gender identity determines sex in humans, what does this mean for the use of medicinal agents that have different effects on males and females? Does the proper dosage of medicine depend on the patient’s sex, or on his or her gender identity?

But what exactly is this “gender identity” that is supposed to be the true medical determinant of sex? Adkins defines it as “a person’s inner sense of belonging to a particular gender, such as male or female.” Note that little phrase “such as,” implying that the options are not necessarily limited to male or female. Other activists are more forthcoming in admitting that gender identity need not be restricted to the binary choice of male or female, but can include both or neither. The American Psychological Association, for example, defines “gender identity” as “a person’s internal sense of being male, female, or something else.”

Adkins asserts that being transgender is not a mental disorder, but simply “a normal developmental variation.” And she claims, further, that medical and mental health professionals who specialize in the treatment of gender dysphoria are in agreement with this view.  View article →

Source:

How Facebook, Amazon and other Information Technology Giants are: – Invading our Privacy – Programming for Addiction – Embedding Godless Philosophies – Eric Barger

Part 2 of “Home Invasion”

One of the most disconcerting pieces of information that I came across in preparing this article is that, besides the various Amazon Echo home units I discussed in part one, there is a home unit, the Echo Look, that Amazon suggests users place in their bedrooms.

Amazon’s own web page about this unit announces “Echo Look | Hands-Free Camera and Style Assistant with Alexa—includes Style Check to get a second opinion on your outfit.”[1]

Yes, it is a camera that allows Amazon’s programmed Artificial Intelligence (i.e., A.I.) to offer its advice on your clothing selection, color coordination, and overall apparel for the day!

View Article

Barna Update | Gen Z: Your Questions Answered

Barna just unveiled a landmark study of Gen Z at a live event (and national webcast) last month in Atlanta. Throughout the event we asked for viewers to submit their own questions about Gen Z. We received an overwhelming response and weren’t able to get to all of them. So we’ve decided to address some of your most common and burning questions about Gen Z right here.

Read more