Monday, April 30, 2007
Friday, April 27, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Second Question: Since when does Congress or the American people for that matter have any constitutional power to dictate how the Commander in Chief wages a voted on war once it has begun short of voting him out of office or cutting funds? According to Biden you would think the President is completely beholden to Congress's mood and the public opinion polls on how to conduct the war!
"I really, really, really hope the president understands just how damaging his vetoing this legislation will be, how far behind the American people he'll be and how far behind the Congress's mood he is," said Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.).
Monday, April 23, 2007
Look over the descriptions of the following two houses and see it you can tell which belongs to an outspoken environmentalists.
HOUSE # 1:
A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400,000 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the natural average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt". It's in the South.
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American Southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.
HOUSE #1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tenn. It is the abode of that renown environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.
HOUSE #2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.
Here is the full slide show showing the progress that has been made in the last year.
I can't even begin to say how incredibly ridiculous and completely irresponsible Reid's statement last week that the war is lost really is and how much potential damage it may cause to the war and to our troops. Other than cut and run, can someone please give me one strategy ever given by the Dems to WIN the war? Also, to any libs who read this, I've asked multiple times and have yet to receive an answer. What will happen to the Iraqis and the region if we leave before the country is completely able to stand on its own? Do you really want another Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia where millions will be slaughtered???
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Friday, April 13, 2007
If he does get another show somewhere...and he will...it will be interesting to see what he does as nearly all his "friends" stabbed him in the back while conservatives were his strongest defenders. However, the PC police have taken out a high profile figure in order to scare the rest of us straight. Jackson and Sharpton are making major hay. If they were truly so concerned about injustice, they would be holding a press conference at Duke over the gross abuse of power in that case...don't hold your breath b/c they already did a press conference on the "victims" behalf when they were still presuming guilt on the Duke players before trial. Now Sharpton is saying he will go after Rap lyrics as hard as he went after Imus...don't hold your breath on that one.
This is one of the issues I hope to learn more about while I am in Burundi next month.
It is definitely a book you don't want to read in public if you don't want to cry in public. They are on sale at Starbucks, so next time you pick up a Latte, add this book to your library. You won't be able to put it down, and I promise you won't be the same after reading it.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Congressional overstep: Since when does the Constitution allow the Congress to negotiate foreign affairs, especially with our enemies? Pelosi going over to Syria, to talk to a terror sponsoring dictator is absurd and does nothing to strengthen this nation, but instead does lots to weaken it. Then not only does she presume to speak for the US, she also falsely claimed to speak for Israel. Gotta love Dem foreign policy...hurt the good guys...help the bad guys!
Kerry to debate environment: Apparently now that Kerry isn't running for President in '08 he can "speak the truth on environmental issues." So, if he were running, would he be lying? Actually the answer is he would be saying what the polls tell him to say at any given moment. What conviction! Any wonder why the flip-flop tag stuck?
Imus: As everyone has said, his comment was ridiculous and wrong. And if he weren't a liberal, he would have been fired on the spot as opposed to a two week suspension. However, I for one am not calling for that. Just like Rush should not have been fired for his comments on ESPN and Lott should not have been forced to resign his post after his comments, Imus should not be fired for one mistake if he is truly sorry and does his best to make amends, which it appears that he is doing his best to do. And for Sharpton and Jackson to be leading the charge is the epitome of hypocrisy after all they have done in their lives to ferment racial tensions.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
These are based on logical arguments and nonbiblical sources. I've also shown that even today's skeptical historians hold these facts as accepted as truth. Rarely can something in history be concluded as 100% accurate, so the historian looks for high probability and selects the best explanation of the known facts.
Can any natural explanation account for all these facts as well? Can these facts be explained using other theories in science, history, psychology or philosophy? I say the answer is no. One has to either prove that the facts are wrong or that the logic in the arguments is flawed. Any other theory must be able to withstand the same scrutiny.
Short of that, Jesus's resurrection is the best explanation of the historical facts presented in the previous posts, and therefore, one can conclude with confidence that it was an event that occurred in history. And if it did occur, Christianity is true and all other religions are false.
I understand that my last statement is a very bold statement and some will consider as offensive. While I'm not trying to offend anyone, I'm also not going to apologize for that, but challenge those who feel that way to take a serious look at what has been presented. If you can refute these facts with solid proof then please present then and let's have a discussion about that. If you can't, then maybe you should give serious consideration to the thought that this is true. If anyone wants to discuss this in a less public setting, please feel free to email me. My email is shanecomeaux at msn dot com.
As previously stated, the huge majority of the info I've used for these posts have come from the book entitled, Paul Meets Muhammad in the chapter, "Paul's Opening Statement." It goes into a lot more details than I've done here and "Muhammed" is giving the opportunity to refute each point in his rebuttal. Then they go back and forth with questions from a moderator. I can't recommend this book highly enough.
Friday, April 06, 2007
The creed in 1Cor 15: 3-8 states, "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, then to the twelve, after that he appeared to more than five hundred followers of Jesus at one time, most of whom are still alive, but some have died, after that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to [Paul]"
Scholars date this creed to within 5 years of Christ's death, including atheist scholar Gerd Ludermann in 2004. Many sources in antiquity also attest to the disciples' willingness to die and suffer for this belief that he appeared to them after his death including, Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Dionysius, Tertullian and Origen.
Granted this does not prove their beliefs in this creed were true, but it does prove they believed it so strongly they were willing to endure great suffering and even die for proclaiming it. Liars make poor martyrs.
Paul was an avowed enemy of Christians, yet he became its biggest proponent and as a result spread it throughout the Mediterranean. His testimony is that Christ appeared to him and as a result he changed from persecutor to persecuted. Many oral traditions that even predate the New Testament as well as all of the ancient sources I cited above attest to Paul's testimony of Christ appearing to him thus accounting for his radical change.
Many would have loved to use the fact that during Jesus' life, his own family didn't believe he was the Messiah and many do. However, one brother in particular who started off as a skeptic also had a radical change all the way to becoming a martyr proclaiming his new belief as reported by ancient sources including, Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria.
Boston University scholar and critic, Paula Fredriksen, states, "The disciples' conviction that they had seen the Risen Christ...[is] historical bedrock, facts known past doubting."
So, due to the many Biblical and non-Biblical sources and testimonies that claim Christ appeared to friends, an enemy and a skeptic, we can conclude that he did in fact appear to many after his death.
In the comments of this post, let's try and stick to just the facts and arguments presented in this post. On Sunday, I'll write a final post with the conclusions that are drawn from these three facts.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Three reasons offered as proof:
1. The Jerusalem factor. He was publicly executed (as we proved in the first fact) and buried in Jerusalem. Then that is exactly where his resurrection was first proclaimed. In order for that to have happened his body could not have been in the tomb b/c his Roman and Jewish enemies only would have had to visit the tomb to prove it wrong.
2. His enemies response. They acknowledged the empty tomb. Justin and Tertullian reported that the Jewish leadership were claiming that the disciples had stolen the body to account for the missing corpse which proves the tomb was empty.
3. Claims of Resurrection suggests an empty tomb. If they had only meant Jesus was still alive in a Spiritual sense, the term resurrection would not have been used as that term means bringing the corpse back to life.
Ok...that's fact number two. Any rebuttals with proof that the tomb was not empty?
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Fact: Jesus died by crucifixion.
Four points that prove the case:
1. It is reported as a fact by Christian and non-Christian ancient sources. Besides the Christian sources, Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian and Mara bar Serapion, all non-Christians, report that Christ was crucified.
2. Chances of surviving a crucifixion were extremely slim due to extremely brutal method in which it was carried out. Josephus reports of victims being whipped to the bone. A second-century text, The Martyrdom of Polycarp, describes the crucifixion process as exposing a person's veins and arteries. Finally a first century Roman philosopher named Seneca described crucified victims as being maimed, misshapen, deformed, nailed and having difficult breathing amid prolonged torture. Only one known instance of survival is reported by Josephus and that is after an appeal to the Roman commander Titus to end three crucifixions early and the victims were attended to by Rome's best physicians, even then only one of the three survived.
3. He died from asphyxiation. This is corroborated by the writings of Cicero as the form of death on a cross and concluded as accurate by medical professionals as the way of death during crucifixion according to the book, The Death of a Messiah by Raymond Brown. This is significant in that the normal practice of breaking the legs so they die faster was not needed due to him already being dead (which by the way fulfills an Old Testament prophecy: Num 9:12 & Ps 34:20)
4. A 19th century scholar, David Stauss, noted, if Jesus did somehow survive the crucifixion, no way he could have convinced the disciples he was resurrected. In the book I mentioned yesterday, Paul Meets Muhammad, the author paints this picture, "Jesus half dead in the tomb revives from a coma, gets up and with nail-pierced hands pushes the stone away. There he is met by the guards, beats them up then walks miles on pierced feet to find the disciples. Peter opens the door and sees a completely mutilated and barely alive Jesus and proclaims he is resurrected...more likely he would have said get a doctor."
So, with this strong evidence and without good evidence to the contrary, it must be concluded that Jesus was crucified and that the process killed him. Anyone disagree with this conclusion?
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
These three points are:
1. Jesus died by Crucifixion
2. The empty tomb
3. His bodily appearances after death
As I stated yesterday, if the resurrection of Christ is true, then any religion that denies it (to my knowledge that would be all of them, please correct me on that if I'm wrong) is false. If the resurrection is false, then Christianity is false as that is the foundation of the Christian faith that Christ rose from the dead and as a result conquered sin, death and satan's authority on earth in order for us to have the opportunity to accept that atoning death for our lives.
I will be getting a majority of my information from a book entitled, Paul Meets Muhammad: A Christian-Muslim Debate on the Resurrection. If you have not read this book yet, I HIGHLY recommend it. It is one of the most creative and thought provoking books I've ever read on that topic.
While there is no way these topics can be discussed exhaustively in three short posts, I hope to at least give everyone something to think about and investigate further on their own.
As always, my rules of comments apply...no personal attacks. I will be even more strict than normal on these posts because I want everyone to feel completely free to discuss their ideas without being attacked personally.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Easter celebrates something that is the defining moment of all religions, the resurrection of Christ. If the resurrection is false, then Christianity is false and all other religions have a possibility of being true. However, if the resurrection is true and did happen, then Christianity is true and all other religions are false, especially Islam, which directly attacks the resurrection.
Over the next couple of days, I'll present some points that will hopefully lead to a good discussion in the comment threads. One thing I'll try my best to do is present my side from provable facts and historical records and not say, "the Bible says it therefore it is true." While I absolutely do believe everything in the Bible is accurate and true, I feel that as Christians we too many times neglect science and history because of a false assumption that to use those disciplines is not "religious." At one time in history, people looked to the Church for the latest and greatest new discoveries and intellectual training, but we have given up that role by going to the other extreme of taking everything on faith and faith alone.
To clarify, I'm not in anyway downing faith, because ultimately the final decision to accept Christ or not will be by faith, but we also don't have to completely forfeit all scientific and historical discussions purely because we have our faith. Look forward to hopefully a couple of good discussions.