President Obama's Town Hall and Gun Rights

Okay, in light of the tragedy at UCLA this last week the President’s Town Hall clip responding to the gun control issue has been making its rounds again. I’ll address each claim. I am not trying to shut down the conversation with a wall of text. I only hope to inform people unaware of the state of gun rights in California and in politics. I would be more than happy to address any particular point in more depth.

Democrats are not “hell bent on taking away folks guns.”

Not according to some places where Democrats speak freely. There are some bold Democrats who will propose outright confiscation. What I have yet to see are any gun control/safety advocates speak against such measures to prove they do not support confiscation. For all I know there are many “gun safety” advocates who approach their goals over time.

Gun Violence Restraining Order was passed after the Isla Vista Rampage. The original text allowed any person to make a claim against another to have their weapons confiscated. The law that passed only allowed family members to make such a claim. AB 2607 is currently on route to the governor’s desk to expand the list of people who can make the claim to include: employers/employees and teachers. Given the state of Civil Discourse in society does anyone seriously think this addition would not be abused?

There are several new gun laws also at the governor's desk to be signed that require gun owners to turn in certain types of previously legal firearms and their accessories. Here is a list of all the gun laws headed to the governor’s desk this year. It might be worth noting the only anti-gun law that didn’t make it through the CA legislature was a ban on all semiautomatic firearms.

More guns have been sold since he’s been president, ever.

This is true. This is due to the rallying cry Democrats start after every mass shooting to put forward gun control. Anytime something people want that is threatened to be banned is believed to be banned, there is a surge. Most calibers have been reasonable to find at their pre-surge prices the .22 Long Rifle rimfire cartridge has gone from about $.02/ea to $.12/ea. Yes, a 6x price per round increase, this is my conservative estimate of what one can find in bulk online sales. If we are talking regular price retail, then it is closer to $.16/ea.

He has never proposed confiscation.

Following the Umpqua killings President Obama lauded the Australian model. Australia required by law many lawful gun owners to turn in their firearms. This endorsement was not an isolated incident. Democrats have frequently lauded the policies in the UK and Australia as positive policies.

We should treat guns like cars.

The President described how seatbelt laws, airbags, DUI crackdown, road design, and the ability to study the events lead to reduced auto deaths. The President wanted to approach gun deaths like public health.

This is a common comparison. Except that every driver’s training class begins to remind us potential drivers that driving is a privilege. If one believes what the Supreme Court said in 2008, then gun ownership is a fundamental right, not a privilege. A more appropriate issue to compare public safety and gun rights would be other fundamental rights such as: speech, religion, assembly, association, unreasonable searches and seizures, self incrimination, etc. See Incorporation of the Bill of Rights for a better list.

Suspected terrorists can buy guns, compares to no fly list.

The President looks at the no fly list a an effective tool, there have been numerous problems with the administration of such a thing. The ACLU has a pretty clear position on watchlists. This at least is a better comparison to driving cars, as the right to freely move between the states is a fundamental right. Then again, this only questions the legitimacy of watchlists in general. If a person has not been charged with a crime or been adjudicated through Due Process, should a fundamental right be lost? The most telling of the President’s response. By his language, he does not think of the 2nd Amendment as an incorporated fundamental right. There is a long history with President’s disagreeing with the Court and he is fine to do so, but he ought to be forthright about such positions.

Can Christians Believe in Evolution?

As I was joyfully approaching the end of my current read when I got to thinking again. Something I noted in the midst of the 14 essays contained in the book was virtually all of the contributors never pronounced any stance on what they believed. They only stated they did not believe in evolution in its current state or under the present evidences of support. Myself being clearly defined as a young Earth creationist found that somewhat disconcerting. I find it necessary to explain some terms so we are speaking and reading the same language.

First, by reference to evolution, this pertains to macro-evolution and the guidance by survival of the fittest. I in no way attempt to argue against bacteria adapting and "evolving" as some phrase it, to antibiotics, or that the peppered moths did not change in quantity in relation to the air quality during the observations of the peppered moths in the UK. Second, what on earth is a young earth creationist? Within the camps of creationist, those that believe the Genesis account of creation, there are young Earth and old Earth. The young Earth creationists believe the Earth and the universe is somewhere between 6,000-10,000 years old, while old Earth creationists hold to the billions of years suggested by evolutionary theory. As I go along any other choice vocabulary I happen to describe I'll be sure to define.

As I mentioned in the opening paragraph, the majority of the contributors did not explain what they believed. The editor and contributor of the book, Willaim Dembski, mentioned he was a creationist but I am unsure if he is in the young earth or old earth camp. I know I have written several other blogs about the topic as a whole and you may start to notice as I have learned from the number of books I have read so far on the topic, it is a vast topic. Something I have definitely noticed there are not many books about young earth creationism by very many people with decent credentials showing that they have a functioning brain. I would say Answers in Genesis is one of the main forces for the young earth theory.

Why this is I think is very understandable. In the scientific community there are very few (by proportion) people that have actively stated that they have disagreements with evolutionary theory. In fact, it is even mentioned in Darwin's Black Box if you are a beginning scientist whom wishes to have a career to be silent about your reservations/disagreements. To publicly state that you may have disagreements about the evolutionary theory is in the same breath to kill one's scientific career. Every intellectual I have read so far started believing the theory and after time, tenure and critical thinking they changed their beliefs. In addition to having a red letter on their white collar to much of the community discredits their further science. So unless someone plans on working for a creation science organization to pursue a career in science it is any wonder that there are so few scientists who actively pursue young earth science. A further difficulty in having a greater number of young earth scientists is the limitation of opportunities. By the nature of young earth science, it is related to the Genesis account (they would be Christians) whereas the intelligent design theory while many of the proponents are Christians the actual theory only pertains to an intelligence, be it God, aliens, or some other form of intelligence.

I asked it in the title and it was not a rhetorical question, “Can Christians believe in evolution?” The simple short answer, I do not believe so. Then again you knew I would never answer something so simply. In order to fully answer that question it begs the prior question of what one believes the Bible is? If it is the literal Word of God (take into account that the books of prophecy and poetic books like Psalms, Song of Solomon, and Proverbs use metaphors) or if it is merely a book of stories and legends. Anyone who has looked can easily find the historical proof Jesus of Nazareth existed, be it the direct ancient manuscripts which composes the Bible, the writings of the ancient Jewish historian Tacitus, Jesus’ existence has been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. What about the history of the Old Testament? Namely Genesis since that seems to be the key book in this topic.

I think we can biblically figure out if those that wrote the bible believed in the Genesis account of creation. Through a simple search on Biblegateway there are 24 results, allow me to dive into some of them:
In Matthew 13:34-36 Jesus refers to creation in such a way as a specific time. This is also confirmed in Matthew 25:33-35, Mark 10:5-7, and John 17:23-25 just to start. One of my favorite passages, Romans 1:19-21 Paul refers to Creation as the starting point people knew about God and chose to exchange God for something else. Paul mentions creation several other times in Romans, in those terms it was in reference to all the created things. In 2 Corinthians 5:16-18, we are described as new creations when we are in Christ, the logical implication is that before we were in Christ we were old creations. I think that is worth mentioning that we are described as created things, one would reasonably think that to be referred to as something that was created that the event of Creation was believed as such. Galatians 6 also mentions that we are new creations.
Creation is mentioned as an actual event multiple times in Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, and Revelations. Does it make sense that if the authors of scripture believed creation happened, it did? If that is true then I think it would make sense for us also to approach our origins in a similar way.

The other major point about creation being necessary to Christianity is one's belief of original sin. Did sin and death enter the world the moment the fruit from Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was eaten? Be it those that say Christianity is compatible with evolution claiming that it was guided by God or those that take Psalm 90:4 out of context to claim creation was not 7 literal days, day being 24 hours not thousands of years. If sin did not usher death into this world first, alternative theories are saying that at the point in the world when God pronounced the world and all creation to be very good death was present. It also contradicts Romans 5:12-21, Romans 6:15-17. As those passages clearly state, sin is the prerequisite of death. That doesn't mention there for those that want to believe the Day-Age Theory (a day is like a thousand years) there are certain issues of science to answer, such as how did plants survive without the sun. After all plants were created on day 3 while the sun and moon (light to govern the day and light to govern the night) were created on day 4.

So what is the gist of all this? A person can call themselves a Christian and believe whatever they want. However, to be a Christian, is to believe the Bible as the Word of God. I do not think a Christian can believe evolutionary theory as it is in its current form, ie without acknowledgement of God. Those who claim the two beliefs can be compatible negate to mention in order for their faith and idea of science to be compatible, either the Christian doctrine or the evolutionary doctrine must compromise.

Re: Infamous Dr Laura Letter

In my years of forums and internet surfing I have seen this letter pop-up several times and have answered it in-depth on several occasions so this time it is being saved.

Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When people try to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them:
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9).The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
Unless you are Jewish, you don't need to give sacrifices to God in the form of previously living animals. Jesus was the last sacrifice to be given that cost blood. Romans 12 tells us how we can be living sacrifices if you would like to know how to sacrifice to God.

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
Take into account also that Christ did not come for social revolution, which was within the culture of the time; and looking at the guidelines given, the Hebrews were to protect the slaves. Ephesians 5 also gives instructions on how masters and slaves should behave. In addition, Romans 13 explains how we should respect the governing bodies over us; that is until they attempt to interfere with God's laws. We are to follow the laws of the land after God's laws; I doubt the author of this letter was able to sell his daughter legally.

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev.15:19-24).The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Aside from that being one of the cleanliness laws that protected the people from diseases that they had not known about, it might also imply that the woman would be your wife. Sorry to burst your bubble on that one, I think if you can't tell when you're wife is on her cycle then you have no business being her husband. That or you two should be able to communicate well enough to disclose that kind of information.

d) Lev.25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
Mexico, Canada and the United States all have laws regarding human servitude, after God's standards have been met, meet the governments. Sorry you can't own slaves either. For more explanation refer to the answer for question B.

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
The group being addressed where all Jewish, they shared common faith. If you and your neighbor share the common faith that practices Orthodox Judaism in that form you might have a case. For anyone that does not share your faith we are not to enforce our punishments upon people that do not share our values. That is something faiths other than Christianity teach.

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev.11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Aside from that being a poorly written sentence the idea behind it is false. The Hebrew words translated as "abomination" are two different words expressing the difference in emphasis. There are numerous parts throughout scripture that describe homosexuality as a sin, I think Romans 1:18-2:1 explains it all the best. The restriction on shellfish is another on the cleanliness issues to protect the people from disease since they didn't happen to have a refrigerator nearby.

g) Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I don't think you need to worry about approaching the altar of the Lord in that form now. Christ was the new covenant and what he represented completely voids or expands upon all of these issues to what really matters.

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
It did not state that trimming your hair is an offense punishable by death. That appears to be a law to be set apart from the people that lived in the region. As far as today’s application, I am hard-pressed to see any relevance with our relationship with Christ and our uni-brows.

i) I know from Lev.11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
That is about the skin from dead animal not cured leather. In addition that is also a cleanliness commandment. Apply this rule to the New Testament in relation to Christ being the new Covenant and you can play all the football you like, just don't make it your god.

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread cotton/polyester blend. He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev.24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

J) SEE reference to the New Covenant. Also refer to part E

Final note: Whoever wrote this letter clearly had no intention to seek the truth of Scripture or attempted to obtain true questions. There is nothing wrong with questioning scripture and the message, just do so with a true heart that is open to the truth. I am not sure what is more sad, the person that wrote this first, or the people that continually repost it because they too have never attempted to understand the Bible for even its historical, cultural, or social information. Don't let this hinder your trust in Scripture, anyone can look up obscure verses out of context, and they can just as easily be snuffed by reading the context and knowing Christ. This letter is clearly an attempt to add dissention and disbelief by questions which were never attempted to be understood.

Response to a "You can be a Gay Christian" article

You can be a Gay Christian article

This one is a response to the article above. As a preface it is important to establish that scripture does not offer any less condemnation to a sexually immoral life of a homosexual than a heterosexual. Too often churches will attack and rally against homosexuals without addressing the rampant divorce, infidelity, and lust that goes on within its own walls. Christians are not here to judge the world, in 1 Corinthians Paul mentions that we should “judge our own” for the sake of the gospel, it is not the churches’ reign to turn the homosexuals into heterosexuals it is the churches’ job to introduce people to Jesus, the Jesus in the Bible.

First Premise: I agree most people don't know the Word of God nor treat it as such, however I am not one of those people and I do know the Word fairly well and have the resources to understand it, in addition I have the Holy Spirit in me to guide my studies among other things.

As I recall Jesus talks about sex on numerous occasion, such as defining lust and addressing the situation with the woman caught committing adultery to name a couple. Jesus was very clear in defining lust that sexual sin occurs far before the physical realm. The Jewish prophets did not mention homosexuality, okay they are prophecies the books of the law did mention it, and I will get there on that point. That does not mean the epistles have not addressed this issue.

In response to the claim “homosexuality as it is known today” is never mentioned in scripture, I refer to Romans 1 when Paul describes how people exchanged the truth and continued to exchange they get to the point of "exchanging natural desires for unnatural ones... men being enflamed with lust for one another".

Second Premise: I agree that misinterpretations have lead to many deaths and bad things, the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition are among some of the worse things the church has lead. I do not believe we should go about killing homosexual or abortionists as some "Christian" organizations promote, I think that is far from sharing the love of Christ.

Third Premise: I agree being open to the truth of Scripture we must be actively seeking, new truth... I am not entirely sure about that new truth being the same truth found in Scriptures and the same God since the beginning of existence. I don't think we should condemn people with their sins; that is God’s duty. Sin affects every person, how we deal with it makes all the difference. What I see in this site and in other debates with similar resources are people arguing that they can live the lifestyle they want to and be Christians. That is like me saying I can look at all the porn I want to without it affecting my relationship with Christ, or me saying that I can get drunk every night and be a good Christian. If we think God is not interested in these intimate details of our life then we are not believing in the personal God described throughout the Scriptures. God knows the hairs on our head, how could something as important as this, which has such a huge role in our lives not be important to God?

Fourth Premise: Interesting claim, it starts out claiming that God is not interested in our sex lives, I disagree. The bible is a guide to human life on the earth that we do not belong on (See 1 Peter, We are a chosen people, royal priesthood ect..) I don't see how showing spots in the scriptures that are controversial helps the argument that this is going for, is it trying to divert our attention or what? Keep the focus on the issue at hand.

Fifth Premise: I believe the Word of God literally, I think when God said it is "good" that was a comment on how it should be done. Take note that during creation everything created was "good" but when Adam had Eve as his partner they were "Very good".

Interesting claim that the destruction of Sodom was not related to the homosexuals raiding Lot's home to have sex with the angels; other resources say they wanted to "know" the guests, which in Hebrew is true. The only part they failed to mention is that "know" was the same Hebrew word used when Adam "knew" Eve and she got pregnant. Anyways, I think that is wishful thinking to say that the group of men wanting to rape the Angels had nothing to do with God's judgment on the city. God did make a covenant with Abraham if 10 righteous people could be found the city would be spared, which 10 could not be found, so yes the city was not to be spared. I take the crowd of lustful men as one of the many traits of the evil city, not a separate incident the eve of its destruction.

The approach to Leviticus is funny, at least to me. Once again pointing out other ways we follow or don't follow the Books of the Law correctly and it tries to downplay its message by adding the condemnation of shellfish and playing with pigskin. I have never felt a need to argue for the validity of the laws in the Books of the Law seeing that was the old covenant, Jesus is the new covenant. I understood the Law as an implicit message that the Jews would need to see how impossible it was to do all of those things and rely on God to forgive them of their sins. In the same way we look back to the Messiah to save us, they should have looked forward to the Messiah to save them.

Wow, I am impressed it does address Romans 1:26-27, I disagree with the reason Paul wrote those 2 verses that the link suggests. The links says that those behaviors were behaviors used to honor the Greek gods and that is why they were condemned. I very much disagree, if you look at the greater context of that passage you see that it is talking about people exchanging the Truth of God for something different. Each paragraph people exchange the Truth of God and what they exchange it for gets more debauched each time. I can identify that with my own battles against sin. When I battle it is something that for the most part can be seen as harmless, but that little bit of sin gets me to want more; that is how sin works. We give in to a little bit and as we give in it goes further and further. Jeffery Dalmer provided a good example, he started with pornography and that drove him to pedophile to murder to cannibalism ect...

The bit about the further mentions of homosexuality being different, well I understand that it was common at the time for older men to have sexual relationship with young people, both boys and girls. This was a social thing for the empire, I like to take special note that as that practice became widely accepted in the Roman empire, the empire collapsed, I site that as the social breakdown being the primary problem of the empire breaking down. The final point in that premise was pretty much saying that the condemnation of homosexuality was not as it is in this culture. I still think Romans 1 best explains and describes why people are homosexual and what God thinks of it.

Premise Six: Homosexuality did not exist until the 19th century... that is if you believe that the descriptions at Sodom was not homosexuality. As well as the mentions of homosexuality in the Epistles as not actually being homosexuality.

Premise Seven: My studies of Scripture has lead me to believe that in order to follow God I must give up my desire to do things that I want to do. This is where I have the most disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle, it promotes the idea to do what people want. With this line of thinking it is hard to find real reasons against homosexuality in the secular atmosphere, but in the Christian lifestyle I cannot see a place for it. It is a behavior that people want hold onto and do, that selfish attitude is what waves my mental flags that this is not a good thing spiritually. Based on my studies of the Bible, love is expressed by us living our lives for God, not for ourselves and abandoning our selfish desires. Every sin in humanity is selfish in someone way or another, selfishness is the root of sin.

Premise Eight: I am not arguing people for their rights, I am arguing if homosexuality is consistent or inconsistent with the Christian life. Marriage is something created by God, don't touch it. As far as rights as a person, I think they already have that until someone infringes on their rights.