Humanity at it Again

I just got out of a Medical Grand Rounds Lecture. The topic - Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Based on the questions afterwards, you got the impression that half the people thought that it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. The other half were totally disgusted. The thrust of the talk was that none of us really know what the nature of the embryo is, therefore we ought to go ahead use embryonic stem cells for research.

Excuse me?

So, to borrow an illustration from Mike Adams, if I were out hunting and I saw a bush shaking off in the distance, and I'm not sure if it's a deer or another hunter, I should just go ahead and shoot.

Other points of the talk:
Scientists are capable of making nuanced philosophical distinctions between universal moral laws and subjective religous sentiment.
Religous conservatives are idiots who oppose everything good for mankind.
If you oppose embryonic stem-cell research, you must be a religous conservative.
Religion is irrelevant to ethics.
They are using embryonic stem cells in Europe, and we should do whatever they do, because Europe has been nothing short of a city on a hill for thousands of years.

When the speaker was done, the moderator got up and said something like, "Let's be honest, this is just a bunch of rationalization for doing something that everyone here is uncomfortable with." Couldn't have said it better myself.

Church in Search of Webmaster

The importance of context.

Luke 4:5-8

5 And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, 6 and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. 7 If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.” 8 And Jesus answered him, “It is written, “‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.’”

(HT: Justin Taylor)

UPDATE: The church has removed the offending quote. In the banner it quoted Luke 4:7 underneath the church name. See the Justin Taylor post for the full story.

A Sorry State of Affairs

I'm always interested when I see people critical of a church based on one impression. I too would hate a church that didn't use the Bible, but this guys blog post demonstrates someone hopelessly caught up in dogmatic analysis of churches.

For example, his lone impression of Harvest Bible Chapel, which he bashes for not using the bible, is based on a one-time attendence of the Good Friday service. First, you can never base any church's standard liturgy or lack their of on a holiday service. That would be the equivalent of basing your view of a church on the Christmas cantata. "They sing too much... didn't use the Bible." Hogwash... it's called special events. Go on a typical Sunday morning and then report back to me. Second, the lack of a "Bible thumping" sermon on a special event is not indicative of an anti-Bible stance. This point is an expansion of the previous point and no less obvious.

And small groups are bad because they make little cell churches.... :)

There is room for analysis of churches, but it's based on their doctrine and not personal opinions on church methodology. I've attended churches of all sizes from 20 to 8000 and God uses each of them and none of them are perfect.

backpewmusings - What does 'Bible Church' mean anymore?

The People Have Spoken

This pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

These people should have been deported or arrested within 24 hours. Only a twisted idea of freedom of speech protects public support of murder and mass-destruction.