text:
Gun control is about the defense of life. Those who consider themselves religious or pro-life must be invited to see that the desire to prevent gun-related deaths is part of the religious defense of the dignity of all life. To put the matter bluntly, if one is in favor of protecting the unborn--and advocate for them, march in protest on their behalf, donate money to pro-life groups and encourage voting for legislators who protect the unborn—one should be equally in favor of protecting those lives six and seven years out of the womb, the ages of several of the children murdered last week in Connecticut.
I am not a political person. I do not follow political campaigns or the ins and outs of various pieces of legislation as closely as some of my friends do. And I don't know which politicians have supported and opposed stricter gun control laws. But I am a religious person. Many of my political opinions, then, are formed by my religious ideals: for example, a commitment to help the poor and marginalized, a desire for a peaceful world, and a respect for the sanctity of life from natural conception to natural death.
That is why I believe that gun control is a religious issue. It is just as much of what many religious people call a "life issue" or a "pro-life issue," as is abortion, euthanasia or the death penalty (all of which I oppose), and programs that provide the poor with the same access to basic human needs as the wealthy (which I am for). There is a "consistent ethic of life" that views all these issues as linked, because they are.
All these issues, at their heart, are about the sanctity of all human life, no matter who the person is, no matter at what stage of life the person is passing through, and no matter whether or not we think that the person is "deserving" of life. The issues just mentioned are of course different. To take the most obvious example, the agonizing decisions surrounding euthanasia, with which loving families are sometimes confronted, are not to be equated with the twisted decisions of a mass murderer. But they are all, in one way or another, actions that impinge on the sanctity of human life. God gives life to every person, and that life is holy.
In the wake of last week's tragedy in
But our deeply felt revulsion over these crimes, our sadness over the violent death of young children, and our sympathy for family and friends of the victims, is more than an invitation to prayer. Deep emotions are one way that God encourages us to act. Simply praying, "God, never let this happen again" is insufficient for the person who believes that God gave us the intelligence to bring about lasting change. It would be as if one passed a homeless person and said to oneself, "God, please help that poor man," when you could have helped him yourself. It may help to frame the situation by using the old moral category of a "sin of omission," something that you should have done but failed to do. What will God say to us if we fail to do this? And last week's shootings, like many mass murders, could have been made less likely if the shooter did not have such easy access to firearms and ammunition. (Why, I wondered reading the reports last week, did one household need so many guns?)
Religious people need to be invited to meditate on the connection between the more traditional "life issues" and the overdue need for stricter gun control. The oft-cited argument, "Guns don't kill people, people do," is unconvincing. Of course people kill people; just as people also procure abortions, decide on euthanasia and administer the death penalty. Human beings are agents in these matters. The question is not so much how lives are ended, but how to make it more difficult to end lives. Over the years the government has legislated minute instructions on safety features for automobiles, to increase their safety for the driver, passengers, and others on the road. Surely it is not beyond us to summon up the moral courage to intelligently regulate guns and rifles.
Pro-life religious people need to consider how it might be made more difficult for people to procure weapons that are not designed for sport or hunting or self-defense. Why would there be opposition to firmer gun control, or, to put it more plainly, laws that would make it more difficult for mass murders to occur? If one protests against abortions clinics because they facilitate the taking of human life, why not protest against largely unregulated suppliers of firearms because they facilitate the taking of human life as well?
There are some cogent arguments against restricting access to firearms. People enjoy guns for sport and hunting. The Second Amendment permits the private ownership of guns (though I doubt that the need for a "well-regulated militia" envisioned by the framers of the Constitution translates into such easy access to assault weapons or the need for multiple guns in a house with children or adolescents.) But there is nothing to say that more stringent gun control laws that could lessen the frequency of such horrible crimes cannot be judiciously balanced with constitutional rights.
But the Christian outlook on this has less to do with self-defense and more to do with the defense of the other person. Jesus asks us to love our enemies, not to murder them; to pray for them, not to take vengeance; and he commends the peacemakers among us, not those advocating for more and more and more weapons.
Was Jesus naïve? I wonder. I often marvel how some Christians can say that in one breath, and proclaim him as the Son of God in the next. Apparently, some believe that the Second Person of the Trinity didn't know what he was talking about. But Jesus lived in a violent time himself, under the heel of Roman rule in an occupied land, when human life was seen as cheap. Jesus witnessed violence and was himself the victim of violence--the most famous person to suffer the death penalty. It was not only divine inspiration but also human experience that led him to say: Blessed are the peacemakers.
In July, I wrote almost the precise words in a column after the shootings in a theater in
I don't have an easy answer for this life crisis: I'm not an expert in the types of rifles and automatic weapons that are used as assault weapons, which models are used most often by murderers, which ones are designed to penetrate body armor of police, and so on. But clearly there are some regulations that would lessen mass murders, and still preserver people's Second Amendment rights and their desire to hunt for sport.
E.J. Dionne, a columnist respected by many individuals of all political stripes, had a thoughtful suggestion for how to begin: "We should begin with: bans on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons; requiring background checks for all gun purchases; stricter laws to make sure that gun owners follow safety procedures; new steps to make it easier to trace guns used in crimes; and vastly ramped-up data collection and research on what works to prevent gun violence, both of which are regularly blocked by the gun lobby." Those who would oppose any regulations on the basis that it is impossible to stop person-on-person violence, it seems to me, are giving into the least religious of reactions to problems: despair.
Last week's shootings absolutely horrified me, and reminded me of the need for religious people who stand for life, and for churches who stand for life, to stand for life at all times. Why haven't I written as much on other life issues? Because the Catholic Church's stance on most of those issues is very well known. By contrast, religious people have seemed relatively silent on this other life issue. Perhaps it is the kairos, as Jesus said: the right time, in this case for religious people to pray about these issues in a new light.
Frankly, I wish the same intensity that is brought to bear on abortion could be brought to bear on this issue. Perhaps it is because the church's teaching on this often goes unnoticed. As far back as 1975, the U.S. Catholic bishops called for "effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society." For those who would, and have, answered by saying that abortion takes more lives, I would say that this is not a matter of numbers. Every single life is sacred.
Some on the political right may object to my stance on firmer gun control. Some of the political left will object to my stance on abortion. But that doesn't bother me, because I am not political. I am religious. And so I am for the sanctity of life. And when I think of my seven-year-old nephew and what a bullet would do to his body, I can hardly bear it. Therefore, I am for stricter gun-control laws that will protect lives, not end them.
If you want to defend life, defend it. At all times. And in all places. In the womb and in an elementary school.
Show Comments (42)
Comments (hide)
As a gun owner, I deplore gun violence. I WOULD support stronger laws and enforcement of current laws that keep guns out of the hands of anyone who would use a gun to commit mayhem or murder. I also deplore and despise the NRA for being part of the current problem, instead of part of a current solution. HOWEVER, there seems to be larger issue that no one is recognizing or addressing. Remove the word "gun" from this talking point. Consider, instead, the culture of VIOLENCE in this country. It permeates everything in our society. It's rampant in movies, on TV, video games, and nightly news. It's difficult to consume any kind of media, including much advertising, without ingesting at least a dose. If you look at the Middle East, much of what's directed at civilians is now and has been car bombs. Oklahoma City and Boston were bombings. Actually, bombings are more destructive than a few guns, when it's one sick person as a perpetrator. Sad fact is, it takes a sick person - whether pulling a trigger or detonating a device. We'd be better served to address the problem of general violence in all forms, rather than expending so much energy on a fraction of the total problem. Besides, if guns were totally removed from society, is it rational to believe violence overall would cease?
Several FB friends de-friended me when I said about the most recent mass shooting, Pray, and then DO SOMETHING. It is so important to understand that praying is essential, but taking action as a moral human being is also essential. Action informed by an informed conscience and prayer--for me, this means gun control! Thank you, Mr. President!!
Excellent article. I completely agree: No one can call themselves pro life with integrity unless they wholeheartedly support gun control. The best argument for sane restrictions on gun is the Constitution itself. As the preamble makes
clear, the purpose of the constitution is "to insure domestic tranquility." A professor at Biola University lays out the case pretty well, and also addresses Christians who think that the Bible supports
unrestricted access to guns. Check out his argument on Thegoodbookblog at Talbot School of Theology (Biola University). It is by Hubbard, and is entitled "See the Welfare of the
City: The Biblical Argument for Gun Control." Pretty convincing--and
controversial from the comments. Here's the link if anyone is interested:
While I personally have no problem with repeating what we did in the ten year span beginning in 1994, banning assault rifles, yet as an increase rather than a decrease in mass killings occurred during this decade long ban, I see no reason to expect it would be different this time around. In considering what might be a wise course of action, perhaps we should look to the example of President Obama and our senators and congressmen.
Sidney Friends, the Quaker religious school where Obama's and many congressmen's children attend school, has no less than 11 armed guards protecting these children from such harm. Perhaps that's one reason why killers have bypassed such schools, preferring instead schools and public targets that they knew were gun-free zones.
In the case of the recommendations of our president and our congressmen, perhaps we should attend not so much to what they say as to what they do. And should we wish to address the root cause of the problem, allowing religious instruction in schools as Norway and other European countries do might well provide the sense of self-control and social responsibility that would assuage the sort of social isolation that troubles many of these young male killers.
That '90s ban was pretty weak stuff--there were so many assault weapons already in the manufacturing process and on store shelves that it was meaningless.
But, really, are you advocating 11 armed guards per school? Be prepared to pay higher taxes. BTW, Columbine had an armed guard; Fort Hood was a military base for gosh sakes (sorry for the strong language). That is not the answer.
Re.: Europe and religious instruction: a double "really?!" on this whopper! Conservatives malign Europeans for being a Godless people. All of a sudden it's religious instruction that is saving them from gun violence! In Norway only 32% of the population believes in the existence of God. Jeesh.
According to the FBI, there were 14,612 homicides in the U.S. in 2011. Of these, a grand total of 323 murders were committed with any kind of rifle. Murders committed by assault or semi-automatic rifles were fewer. More than five times that number were committed with knives. More than twice that number were committed with bare hands.
I do not know much about guns, have never owned one and only fired a real one when in the military. In the military I was not required to carry a weapon but was assigned a hand gun which I never used or even practiced with except during a few short sessions while in officer training in the Navy. Actually I abhor guns and would only have one under extreme circumstances. I do know some gun owners and a couple who collect them who have several. They feel comfortable with guns, I do not.
In reading about this situation from a pro-life consideration, my reaction is that firmer gun control is anything but a pro life policy. I am not sure what is meant by "firmer"or "stricter" gun control but if it means the elimination of hand guns from our society, I believe more people will die, not less. The evidence seems to point to that and for an extremely comprehensive discussion of this read
This article discusses in detail, such terms as "automatic", "semi-automatic", "assault" and other concepts used in the debate as well as some of the history on the subject. I suggest anyone wanting to comment on this topic, read it.
The discussion points to concealed carry as the safest form of gun control with strict instruction and control of who gets permission. It seems to prevent the most deaths of any policy though nothing is foolproof. And there are schools in this country where concealed carry takes place so it is feasible. So is the pro life position, CCW. The debate should be rational, not emotional.
If America, and Fr. Martin, are saying that gun control is a pro-life issue, then it is fair to point out that many gun-control advocates embrace the Culture of Death via their either support of or wink-wink toward abortion.
With all this talk about "protecting children", are we just talking about protecting those who were lucky enough to have been born?
It truly is "rich" for those who support abortion to point out that those in favor of the 2nd Amendment are somehow not "pro-life enough". The pile of bodies that the pro-abortion crowd stands on is monstrously larger than the pile of that any pro-gun ownership crowd stands on.
America Magazine supports and embraces ALL of the tenets of the sexual revolution, which IS the Culture of Death, and then has the gall to sieze on gun control as a "pro-life" issue? As Scrooge said to Bob Crachit, "I'll retire to Bedlam".
This issue is really hitting a nerve, e.g., "America Magazine supports and embraces ALL of the tenets of the sexual revolution, which IS the Culture of Death."
The desperate tone of these pro-gun lobby comments gives me hope that, at long last, there is a real opportunity for serious gun control.
Happy holidays! Merry Christmas!
Vince - if the tone is "desperate", are you saying that America *doesn't* support all that that?
To be open - I have a little .22 pea shooter that has been fired twice. Ever. I don't own anything else, and certainly don't hunt.
But also to be open and honest - I'm not "against" the banning of "assault weapons", but the idea that somehow that would prevent wackos from going off the deep end is laughable. It might make us all "feel" better and make us think we're all doing "something", but will it prevent this stuff? I don't think so.
Of course I don't believe that AMERICA "supports & embraces the Culture of Death." That's why I wrote that they didn't.
Please read some of the scholarship on gun control (I provided a couple of links above). It's not much of a dialogue or debate when one side is citing facts and the other raw self-assertion.
And I believe that America Magazine *does* support the Culture of Death, so we'll not see eye to eye on that one.
The question was not whether gun control qualifies as a "pro-life" issue. What some of us would take issue with is a magazine that supports Democrats and their agenda - the Culture of Death - taking the "pro-life" wording and applying it to gun control.
I don't see how you can say "We're pro-life, but only on this issue; abortion and birth control and the sexual revolution are all okay with us". That's like someone lobbying for ending all welfare programs and calling it "social justice".
Why do you think "abortion and birth control and the sexual revolution are all okay" with AMERICA? I think what you mean is that you don't agree with the way they address these issues. You do know that you can be pro-Life and not embrace the Republican Party's call for the immediate re-criminalization of abortion? In fact, given the posturing and lack of considered policy on this issue the GOP really doesn't have a pro-Life strategy.
So, no, we don't see eye-to-eye--but to label this magazine as a proponent of "the Culture of Death" is inaccurate at best.
Overruling Roe v. Wade is not recriminalizing abortion. Allowing the voters in the states to decide democratically what they want their abortion laws to be is not re-criminalizing abortion. Requiring parental consents, waiting periods, education and informed consent are not recriminalizing abortion. Requiring doctors and hospitals to give medical care to living fetuses who survive the abortion procedure is not recriminalizing abortion. Cutting off funding for Planned Partenthood, the largest abortion business in the country, is not recriminalizing abortion. Who is "posturing" here?
Actually all those things you outline are re-criminalizing abortion. It's a process and these are all important steps toward the full re-criminalization, i.e., denying access and place substantial barriers in the way of women seeking abortions.
But let's pretend that they aren't and all those things do come about. Many states would keep abortion legal. What next? Would you stop there? Of course not--please be forthright and admit that you seek re-criminalization. If you do then you must support the criminal prosecution of women who undergo abortions. Please lay out a plan for how this would work.
Vince, just be honest. You are in favor of the status quo, which eventuates in about 750,000 aborted children a year in the U.S. It's okay. You're allowed to say it.
Please don't answer questions with a question. You made the claims about AMERICA magazine and broad claims about the pro-Life movements so you are the one to defend the claims.
I'll ask you what I ask all those self-identified with the pro-Life movement: what are you doing to stop abortion? A march? May a pro-Life Mass or donation to a politician or some fund? Thirty years on from the ROE decision, and the 750,000 p.s. figure you cite, that doesn't seem like much.
I'll give gun control serious consideration when Catholic Democrats start standing up to the Party on abortion. Until that happens any argument made from a pro-life stance by Democrats is empty.
Fr. Martin, I am sorry. You may be religious rather than political, but the obvious political leaning of America damages the credibility of your statements.
I will admit I have been asking lately, "Are we simply too broken for guns?" Most of us are not, but as long as some of us are, and a long as those few are going to use guns with such tragic ends then we need to at least have the discussion.
The middle ground would seem to be not to ban certain weapons, but to take a closer look at who has access. Background checks are actually ineffective in recent tragedies. Perhaps we need mental health screenings and mandatory safety courses in order to purchase certain weapons.
The discussion needs to happen, but if this magazine is going to argue for greater gun control from a pro-life point of view, then it also needs to call on its left-leaning readers to stand up for the unborn in the Democratic party.
Mr. McGrane is right: It is hard to take seriously a Catholic magazine which tells its readers to support gun control legislation as a "pro-life issue" while it remains virtually silent about the Democratic Party's zealous pro-abortion agenda.
It is also curious to claim, as Fr. Martin does, that numbers don't matter when it comes to prioritizing pro-life issues (i.e., , abortion versus guns). Every life is valuable, so the massacre of a few dozen victims by deranged gunmen demands the same response as the systematic, willful destruction of 750,000 lives per year by abortion? Huh? That is a non-sequitur. I can agree that every life is valuable. That is why the destruction of 40 MILLION lives under Roe v Wade is a more pressing issue than the tragic shooting of a few hundred or a few thousand unfortunate murder victims by mentally ill gunmen. When it comes to "social justice," issues, numbers seem to be all important, as Fr. Martin likes to point out. But numbers are suddenly deemed irrelevant when anti-abortion activists use them to justify their priorities? That's an interesting mental slight of hand.
Yes, we need discussion and action to try to prevent New Town tragedies. But that need pales in comparison to the monstrous evil of abortion in this country, By failing to stand up to the abortion party, America magazine has lost much of its credibility as a Catholic publication.
Let me see if I have this correct: you'll address a serious moral issue only if some Catholic magazine takes your exact view of another serious moral issue?
Wow. That fails on so many levels.
Schools are gun free zones by law and we have turned the schools into lock down safety zones. Despite laws, we still have these situations. States with very restrictive gun laws have higher incidents of gun violence than states with right to carry. Obama administration did not go after the violations of already existing gun laws at much lower rate than did W. Bush. Obama administration cut funding on school safety by over 200 million dollars last year. Obama administration had their justice and ATF departments putting guns on the street which resulted in gun deaths in a horrible sting gone bad. 30,000 gun deaths had over 17,000 of them as suicides. Who does not believe someone trying to kill themselves will find another way. of the 13,000 homicides, how many would have found another way to kill if gun was not readily available. Of those with guns, many were by those who were released from jail for other crimes. If we have more gun laws and do not enforce them and keep the people in jails and out of society, why bother other than to create problems for law abiding citizens? Why not pass a law that says the use of a gun in a crime or the possession of a gun by someone not legally able is now a federal crime and it means life in prison? This seems like a good start.
Greta Green claims that "States with very restrictive gun laws have higher incidents of gun violence than states with right to carry."
According to the University of Pennsylvania's Firearm & Injury Center, however, states that have the highest gun ownership and loosest gun laws also often have the highest rates of gun death. Their "resource book" (http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/) addresses the other myths the gun lobby churns out.
(1) Whenever a person advocates for or against changes in our laws and public policies, one is by definition taking a political position. Advocating for political change is not made "non-political" merely because one claims to be inspired by religion. It is disengenuous to call such positions "non-political." (2) Automobiles kill thousands of people in the U.S., but we don't see America Magazine publishing columns calling for stricter controls on cars, or chiding people in the Pro-Life movement for failing to taking up that cause. Why not? According to this column, it is "not a matter of numbers" and "every single life is sacred." Yet, you have nothing whatever to say about cars, knives, bats, swords, or any other objects that are regularly used to kill people! Could it be that gun control just happens to be a pet political issue for the political left ? And so, what does this tell us about the columnist's allegedly "non-political" views or his supposed "consistent" approach to valuing the sanctity of life? (3) Is mass murder by deranged gunmen an intolerable evil? Of course. There is an intellectually honest, democratic and politically legitimate way for gun control advocates to address the Constitutional roadblock: i.e., persuade our citizenry that that the Second Amendment no longer adequately serves the needs of modern society and needs to be changed through a constitutional amendment.
Gun control is a "pet project" for the political left? I didn't know that.
As for the cars=guns argument, we do have "automobile control"--they are much more regulated than guns in the USA. Actually, we shouldn't be driving for a number of reasons, mostly having to do with the environmental damage of cars but automobile travel serves compelling societal and individual interests. Assault weapons do not.
Vince Killoran: I didn't say "cars = guns." I wrote, accurately, that cars kill thousands of people. E.J. Dionne and James Martin, S.J., do not write columns criticizing the "car lobby" or telling members of the anti-abortion movement that they are essentially hypocrites if they don't support the elimination of cars. The value of gun ownership is debatable. And, as I understand it, the shooter in New Town, CT, did not use an assault weapon.
As far as I understand he fired a Bushmaster AR-15. Your criticism of Fr.Martin and America is lame. 20 kids were just executed one by one, with the others watching bullets penetrating their friends before it was their turn. We are, well, most of us, are reacting in an appropriate manner to this tragedy. So is America Magazine. As for cars, they should be phased out as they are an impractical and ecologically destructive technology. It also makes people nasty. If you go through America's archives, you may very well find criticism of the automobile. But stop trying to change the subject.
You made the argument that case that the banning of guns was the same as banning cars. Please re-read my previous comment. You've made a fallacy of false equivalency.
p.s. Please review the information on the three guns used. The Bushmaster is identified as a .223-caliber assault rifle (designed for military and police use with a 30-round magazine).
I for one would welcome firearms ownder control based on the model of owning and driving a car. Written test and practical exam before one can legally use the instrument. Registration. Regular license updates. Mandatory insurance. All enforced vigorously.
Can any 2nd Amendment purist tell me how this infringes on your rights? Do you believe that regularly testing, registering, licensing, and insuring the use of firearms in the same fashion as we do the use of automobiles is "too much government interference", or does not address to most common sense public safety standards???
And I must agree with Vince. The primary function of an assault weapon is to cause harm or to threaten harm...come on, it's right in the name of the object!!! Cars, baseball bats, axes, fountain pens, etc. can all be used as weapons, but it ain't what they're built for.
Thank you for this
I'm a teacher, and the mother of a kindergartener, so this tragedy hits home on multiple levels. I want to thank Fr. Martin for this piece, which I'm sharing widely.
To all those who think that arming teachers and administrators is the answer, I can only clutch my head in frustration and amazement. I teach at a high school with about eighty classrooms. Are these people proposing a gun in each classroom? Eighty guns on a campus – that is supposed to make us more safe? It's only a matter of time before a student gets hold of one, and accidentally (or, God forbid, intentionally) harms or kills someone. Imagine the tragedy if a student whom a teacher doesn't know slinks up to a classroom and the teacher gets freaked out and fires. And what about when I am out sick? Should the substitute have access to the weapon in my absence? And though my credential training was rigorous, it did not include firearms training along with information about ESL and adolescent psychology. Are teachers then supposed to go through the kind of training received by the military and law enforcement officials? Because if we have that added responsibility, we should get a heck of a lot more pay than we do now (we should anyway, but that's a separate topic).
The whole suggestion is ludicrous, on every level. We need stronger gun control. And this is not politicizing a tragedy, and it's not a knee-jerk response to what happened last Friday. I can trace my pro-gun-control stance back to being eight years old and seeing news reports of the attempted assassination of President Regan. That leaves an impression. And I feel a personal responsibility to those sweet children and their heroic teachers to do whatever I can to be a part of the solution.
It worked very successfully in Israel when their schools were being constantly attacked by terrorists.
You can't defend life in a public school if you don't have anything to defend it with. Chicago and Washington DC have some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the world (and have had for some time) and also have some of the highest gun-related crime rates. By your reasoning, good Catholic policeman should give up their guns and not use deadly force to bring down a bank robber who is killing bank employees. Faulty reasoning. By comparison, a shooting rampage in Mississippi was stopped when an assistant principal retrieved his handgun from his car and confronted the shooter, who was planning to shoot many more people. What needs to happen is that good Catholics need to stop voting for the liberals who want the government to control every aspect of our lives while promoting behavior that is directly opposed to Catholic teaching.
The liberals tell you it's okay to have sex with as many people of either sex as you want and that we, the taxpayers should pay for your contraceptives. They teach that no one's actions should be judged, not only by other people's actions, but by any One Truth. They teach that you shouldn't have to do anything so menial as work to receive food and shelter and cell phones and flat-screen tv's. Still, Catholics vote them into office. So they produce a kid who's been told all of his life that he should be able to do whatever he feels like he wants to do. And that kid is a miserable kid because God put in each of us the desire to be one of His own, which requires following His rules which in turn requires discipline. So the kid is a ticking time bomb, and eventually the bomb goes off.
And now, since the moral depletion of many of our young people is almost complete, you want to go one step further and let the ticking time bomb kill as many as he wants without those innocent children having the benefit of armed protectors. Look at actual facts. GUN LAWS DO NOT KEEP GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS. Chicago and Washington DC are only a couple of many examples of that.
You just keep your head in the sand, and keep telling Catholics that it's not a mortal sin to vote for the people who have created this environment. I wouldn't want to have to look Jesus in the eye when my time comes and try to justify that.
I didn't expect to read Fox talking points here. Colombine had an armed police man.We are not talking liber v. conservative here so omit those snarky comments about liberals and sex, etc. When you generalize about Liberals you display a lack of thought.
If we mandatorily arm everybody then we will be 100% safe. Right?
Teachers packing heat?! Why stop at schools? Why not make it mandatory that clergy, mall employees, postal workers strap on a weapon? My favorite suggestion was the one made in the aftermath of the Colorado movie theater shooting: movie goers, the argument went, should have all had guns to respond to the maniac. Can you imagine a darkened theater with shots going off in all directions? More mayhem and death.
As the debate over gun control is renewed in coming weeks there will be plenty of misinformation recycled from the gun crowd. One of the most persistent is that Australia's crime rate soared with control measures. It's not true, but the internet is filled with the myth. See the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center's research findings setting the record straight (http://unspun.bootnetworks.com/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/).
One actual fact is that, since Australia banned semiautomatic weapons, and bought them from the gun owners, there have been no mass killings. To say that isolated cities that ban guns are ineffective is only to attest to the fact that they are islands in a sea of automatic weapons. Another problem is disparity in wealth in the US, with so many people in various levels of economic stress. If this were not the case, gun deaths might decrease just due to the improved overall mental health.
Dear Ms. Breaux:
Gun control laws do not mean that the police won't be able to carry guns.
James Martin, SJ
Incidents like this make people question the existence of God. We should, all of us, at least be moved to question the present status of gun regulation. I am speaking as a gun owner.
Since God is banned from our public schools, not sure why someone should question where God was in school shooting.
God was present in that school that day.
God was watching all, and making a place at His table for twenty holy innocents without spot, and six courageous warrior saints who tried to protect them.
God was waiting to extend his mercy to one terribly damaged young man and to his mother.
Rest eternal grant to them, O Lord, and may perpetual light shine upon them. May they rest in peace. Amen.
This is a factual error. What is banned in the schools is mandatory prayer organized by a public entity, namely the school district or state or federal government. There is prayer all the time in the schools, only done by individuals. Imagine the hue and cry from hard-right fundamentalists if the school district, offering individual students the chance to offer a daily prayer during the school announcements over p.a. or closed-circuit television, had a student say, "Today our prayer comes directly from the Bible: Hail Mary, full of grace ..."
Further, unless the new catechism says otherwise, God is everywhere, including places where there is no organized public prayer. Claims about the absence of God having some effect in this horrible event are stuff and nonsense.


text: This tool is just for pulling, not cutting, frets. Its spring-loaded flush-ground 1/2" jaws are small enough for a better bite. It helps reduce wood chip-out, and does a better job of getting under frets and lifting them than wider cutters. Comfortable rubber-coated handles. Chip-free fret jobs: try the Fret Puller with our Chip Stoppers, and forever change the way you remove frets. Works on stainless frets, too!All of our tools are suitable for use on stainless-steel fretwire, with the exception of our Fret Tang Nippers. Modern stainless-steel fretwire is known to be harder than the traditional nickel-silver blends, but our own shop experience indicates the wire does not cause premature wear of files or sandpapers.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
iHerb Customer Reviews
Savings of: $9.99 (50% off)
Good value
Posted by Reviewer1244090 on Jan 23, 2007
I've been happy with all the products I've used from Source Naturals; the Resveratrol doesn't cause any stomach discomfort, etc.
Excellent service.
Posted by Reviewer1825977 on Jan 29, 2008
Top quality products and service, as usual. Many thanks.
Posted by Reviewer1637793 on Jul 09, 2008
Source Naturals manufacturing quality
Posted by Reviewer2227857 on Jun 26, 2008
I have always been impressed by the consistent quality of manufacturing I've found with Source Naturals products. Sturdy design yet easy to swallow and to digest, the pills all have a long shelf life with no deterioration in quality or potency. The Resveratrol is a new product to me, but I noticed the same quality with this as with the other Source Naturals products that I buy.
Posted by Reviewer1312191 on Jan 14, 2009
it's really too early for me to judge the product.
need more time to evaluate
Posted by Reviewer2520911 on Jan 24, 2008
don't know yet, still taking
Items 31-36 of 36 total
« Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next »


text:
Extended maintenance of Ruby 1.9.3 ended on February 23, 2015. Read more
Raised by transcoding methods when a named encoding does not correspond with a known converter.
Commenting is here to help enhance the documentation. For example, code samples, or clarification of the documentation.
If you have questions about Ruby or the documentation, please post to one of the Ruby mailing lists. You will get better, faster, help that way.
If you wish to post a correction of the docs, please do so, but also file bug report so that it can be corrected for the next release. Thank you.
If you want to help improve the Ruby documentation, please visit Documenting-ruby.org.


text:
Earlier this year, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton launched the Strategic Dialogue with Civil Society. On June 30, 2011, Secretary Clinton continued that dialogue with civil society leaders in Vilnius, Lithuania. Secretary Clinton said:
"Thank you very much, Minister Azubalis, and thank you for Lithuania's leadership with the Community of Democracies and with the OSCE. It's a real privilege for me to be with all of you this evening for this Civil Society Strategic Dialogue. I know that around this table and in this audience are men and women of extraordinary courage and commitment. And as the minister said, we thought it was important to expand our dialogues beyond governments, and in fact to engage in an ongoing discussion with civil society at the same level that we do with governments around the world.
"The foreign minister joined me in Washington for this launch of a Strategic Dialogue with Civil Society in February. And I want to introduce the team of people who have helped to lead this effort with me: our Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Michael Posner; Tomicah Tillemann, our Special Advisor on Civil Society and Emerging Democracies; and others from our State Department in Washington, because what we hope is that this is an ongoing networking and discussion that can assist those of you who are on the front lines, doing the hard work of creating space for freedom, democracy, and opportunity.
"In Krakow last July, when we met with the Community of Democracies, I spoke then about the critical importance of civil society and the many challenges facing civil society, but I don't think -- I'll speak for myself; I certainly did not foresee all of the changes that would occur in just half a year. We saw in Tunisia the beginning of a great movement for freedom, and we saw one of the most efficient authoritarian regimes give way to citizens demanding their basic rights. In Egypt, we saw a peaceful movement based on simple ideas of dignity and democracy, and a call for transformative change. And yet, at the same time, we have seen governments unleash brutal waves of repression against civil society around the world. We've seen staggering violence directed against activists in Syria and other parts of the Middle East. From Belarus to Bahrain to Burma, we've seen crackdowns and arrests. And there have been numerous efforts to enact regulations and legislation to restrict and even eliminate your work.
"I know that some of you are here at great personal risk, and I know you have left behind family, friends, and colleagues who continue that work at great personal risk. We come together today with our own causes and interests but as part of a community of shared values and a common commitment to human rights and freedoms. Because you are on the front lines, you understand better than any of us what is facing you, what you need from us, what tools could help you do the work that lies ahead. So for the next hour, I want to hear from you.
"In Krakow last year, we made specific commitments to strengthen civil society and we've made some progress. Together, we have refocused the UN Human Rights Council on Defending Civil Society by seeing the passage of a historic resolution creating the first special rapporteur on freedom of assembly and association. We've convinced regional organizations like the Organization of American States to take up this cause. We've made strides in marshalling diplomatic pressure around the world to stand against civil society being put under threat. Canada has led a working group in the Community of Democracies, and five times we've come together when draft legislation anywhere threatened civil society, and five times the laws were not enacted.
"Because technology both empowers and endangers your work, we are giving activists new tools to try to circumvent the many obstacles that governments are putting in your way. The United States has invested $50 million in supporting internet freedom and we've trained more than 5,000 activists worldwide. Right next door, there's another one of our so-called tech camps, where we are training several dozen activists from around the world to be able to use technology and avoid being shut down by governments using technology against them. We are also increasing our funding to the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law so that when countries propose repressive laws, civil society has access to world class legal expertise. And finally, together with a consortium of NGOs, led by Freedom House and involving a dozen other countries, we created a fund called Lifeline. This fund will provide legal representation, cover medical bills arising from abuse, facilitate visits to activists in jail, and help replace equipment that is damaged or confiscated as a result of harassment.
"So those are some of the promises we made and the promises we've kept, but we know there's so much more to be done. You are changing your countries from within, and our priority is to do all we can to support you. So I look forward to hearing about what's working and what's not working, what we can do better, what we should stop doing, what we should do more of. And I thank you all for being with us as we take this time to take stock of where civil society is across the world."
You can also read the Secretary's remarks here, and more about the Lifeline Fund here.


text:
Here's how RW members rated this race in the past (91 votes).
In short: A great friendly race in a superb setting.In full: Great value for money. Friendly atmosphere and a good race to take the family to as playing field and rec right next to the start. Superb scenery and a lot of the route shaded. Not completely flat and the sharp bend and climb near the end caught me out. Would definitely do again.Date of review: July 6, 2009
In short: Pretty, small and friendly, good as an introduction to the areaIn full: As I live in nearby Guildford, it was worth making the short trip over, especially as the start time is a very civilised 11:00. A portion of the race is along the old Guildford to Horsham line and is mercifully shaded. It moves onto rough roads between two farms and includes a hilly bit of trail before a steep climb up the embankment (sorry if I offended the marshall with my language when I saw that) and back home. Nice touches like adding an extra water station because of the heat and a well organised start.The only improvement I would suggest is that the organisers note in the race pack where the alternative car parks are located in Cranleigh. The recommended one near the leisure centre was full when I arrived.Date of review: July 6, 2009
In short: Very nice. Modest size of event contributed to friendly atmosphere. Well signed and marshalled. A bit warm, but well timed spots of rain helped. Very pleasant route.Date of review: July 5, 2009
In short: Great scenery, well organised - will be back next year!In full: This was my first 10k and I thoroughly enjoyed it!The scenery was great, each km was clearly marked, water stations at 4km and 7km, friendly race marshals and small enough event with a well placed finish line to ensure friends and family could see you cross the line.I will be signing up to do it again next year!Date of review: July 5, 2009
In short: Glorious , loved it !In full: Great race , well organised , lots of markers , beautiful surrey countryside will probably be back again .Date of review: July 5, 2009
In short: Loved it - it's not pb for the distance but maybe make it one for th terrain..it's not flat and a few stones tried to trip me along the way, loved it In full: Need to get there early for parking which was a bit of a nightmare, well organised race...great scenery, runs along farmland, woodland, old railway etc etc not a pb course, for me at least but loved it, especially the finish which had a little downhill which ade me feel like I was flying :-)Date of review: July 5, 2009
In short: Fantastic RaceIn full: A lovely place to run, a well organised event and I can't wait until next year.Date of review: July 5, 2009
In short: Lovely flat race with some shae for a hot dayDate of review: July 5, 2009
In short: Very well organised, very friendly helpful marshals, good route, great first race for me!Date of review: July 5, 2009
In short: see you next year!!!In full: this is the 2nd year that i have done this race,and i bettered last years time by 4 mins!!!Date of review: July 5, 2009
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Click here
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
Injury Clinics
About Runner's World


text:
Coach USA bus accident closes Route 60
David E. Lancaster
David E. "Hotel Mel" Lancaster, 66, of Dunkirk died unexpectedly Monday morning (April 22, 2013) at home.
He was born April 29, 1946 in Dunkirk, the son of the late Eric and Virginia (Woelfle) Lancaster.
A lifelong Dunkirk resident, Mr. Lancaster had been employed as a steel worker at Roblin Steel in Dunkirk.
He was a member of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Church, First Ward Falcon Club, and Fourth Ward Falcon Club.
He enjoyed camping and sports and was an avid Oakland Raiders and New York Mets fan.
Survivors include his wife, Rosemary (Mizwa) Lancaster whom he married June 15, 1974; two sons, Brad (Audrey Pacos) Lancaster and Brett (Amber) Lancaster, both of Dunkirk; three sisters, Jackie (Dan) Forman of Dunkirk, Virginia Wachter of De Land, Fla; and Diane Connelly of Columbus, Ohio; one brother, Paul (Chris) Lancaster of Blacksburg, Virginia; four grandchildren, Meghan, Kelsey, and Kayleigh Lancaster and Bryson Pacos; and several nieces and nephews.
Funeral services will be held Friday morning at 11 o'clock in the McGraw-Kowal Funeral Home. Deacon Michael Anderson will officiate. Calling hours will be held Thursday from 2-4 and 7-9 p.m. at the funeral home. Flowers gratefully declined.


text:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
John, I put this page in favorites and will be trying it out next pizza time. Thanks for the post.Don
I am new to posting on this forum but have read a lot of the different techniques and recipes. I have tried Peter Taylor's Raquel and Jeff Verasano's percentages/techniques and gotten good results. I wanted to ask you why you changed the hydration so drastically and what you perceive the difference to be in the taste and texture of your dough that makes you say it is better. I am baking on a stone in a conventional electric oven which I think tops out at 550. I wondered if your recipe (with oil and honey) is more geared toward regular kitchen ovens (since Jeff and Peter tried to make a dough which performed optimally in a high temperature oven). Also, I have my own starter going well and have tried to limit myself to using that alone now instead of that and IDY which I started out with. I still see most recipes use IDY alone or with starter and not as many recipes with just starter.By the way, I live in Tampa, so I get to eat a Raquel about once every couple of weeks at Peter's Wood Fired Pizza and Wine Bar. During my "off weeks" I will make my own at home.My latest attempt at dough was sort of a combination of the Raquel, Jeff V's, and your previous one with higher hydration. I used Jeff's mixing method and did the cold fermentation. Today's I tried without reballing and will try one tomorrow with a reball in the morning. This is the first time I have included oil and honey and I was a little disappointed that there was not a significant difference in texture. Don't get me wrong, it was very good. I just expected the additional ingredients to make more of a difference.Flour: 100% (2/3 KABF and 1/3 KASL)Water: 66%Starter: 10%Salt: 2.7%Oil: 2%Honey: 2%7 min. at 550.
I experimented many, many months with 72% and up hydrations and thought that I had tweeked and poked every which way to come up with an easy, consistent, dough. I was personally satisfied to the point where I was going to stop and call it good and go on to other doughs. My starting point, was a 62% dough using the same percentages of other ingredients and using the same techniques I had been using. The resulting doughs were very similar to the high hydrations, but were much simpler to work with. I also found them even more tender...which I adore.My only complaint these last months has been that I get tired of having to let a dough sit for 4 days to get the excellent texture I adore, and of course the flavor also improves with time. All of my doughs can be baked in my home oven from as low as 550 degrees to over 610 degrees. I cannot comment on your doughs as you are mixing and matching methods and I don't know how long your doughs ferment etc.But, I have come up with a breakthrough this week!!!! I decided to try using prefermented flour in a batch to see what results I would get. This week I prefermented 33% of my flour by making a 100% hydration poolish (dash of yeast) which set out at room temperature for 15 hours. I then added the remaining ingredients and mixed per my recipe. The following pizza has been in the fridge 2 days, it was reballed the night before baking, and was warmed up 2 hours prior to bake. The texture is like the texture of a much longer fermented dough, and flavor boost is huge because of the poolish. This will be my new standard.John
Sorry about hijacking your thread. I just get so inspired by other poster's experiments and how they relate to my own!Your latest method sure produced a great looking crust!
John,I was thinking about your recent breakthrough with your prefermented flour batch. As I posted before your pie looked excellent. I wanted to ask you a question though, as why you think the dough ball has to be reballed, with a lower hydration. Do you think you would have got the same texture and taste if the dough ball wasnt reballed? If not, why do you think a reball makes a difference?Norma
NormaAs luck would have it, I happen to have some pictures of my first poolish attempt with this dough...I didn't have time to reball it because I was out of town, but I wanted to taste it so bad I simply took it out, warmed it up and used it. I think the pictures tell you the whole story. While the pizza was delicious, it had huge blisters, and the bottom just looks and feels entirely different from what I would consider a perfect result. I wish I had the knowledge to analyze why this is but I'm sorry...I just don't. Like I've said many times...I am more of an observer of what happens. Also, I have found this dough rises alot in the refrigerator container, and reballing just helps me manage it better. Also remember that my original starting point, many, many pizzas ago was a Reinhart recipe where reballing was a matter of process in his method.John
As I said above, I tried one dough ball without reballing and then a second with reballing. I would have doubted there would be much difference if I hadn't seen and tasted it myself. While the un-reballed dough was tasty and had a good texture, the dough I reballed about 7 hrs. before use was definitely better. It was crispier on the surface, more tender on the inside, had more oven spring, and kept these qualities longer as it cooled (some pies are great when hot out of the oven but get tough too quickly as they cool). It even looked better with amazing "char" for a 550 oven. The only other difference between the reballed and the other was that the reballed had been in the refrigerator for 6 days whereas the other was 4 days.The drawback is that the reballed dough is not as extensible, so it is a small trade-off of texture/taste vs. ease of use. Perhaps if I reballed 24 hrs. before this would be not be an issue.
John,Thanks for keeping the pictures, because then other members and I could see what your results were without a reball. Your pictures of the crust sure do have huge blisters on the rim. I would venture to say there would be different members that would like those huge blisters. It looks like your crumb was still really moist. I am about like you, I like to observe and see what happens. It is interesting to hear that your new poolish Reinhart dough still rises a lot with a lower hydration. I remember that many, many pizzas ago the Reinhart recipe did call for reballing as part of the process.Your poolish Reinhart dough, might lead me to some more experiments. I do really like the benefits of a preferment, but still dont know how that will work out for market. I have also liked the Reinhart doughs a lot, but wanted to get away from a reball. Guess there is no way around the reball. I will have to see if I can figure out a formula that I can try at market again. I doubt I will be able to make your dough work at market, but only time will tell. What kind of flour did you use for your poolish lower hydration Reinhart dough?I have enjoyed all your experiments and getting to see your results. Norma


text:
Born Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, in Yonkers NY, considers herself a pop singer/songwriter, activist and actress. She was an attendee of catholic school but claims she found her true self in the New York underground. Lady Gaga released her debut Album, The Fame in 2008, producing two sleeper hits, "Just Dance" and "Poker Face," both being nominated and winning, respectfully, for Best Dance Recording at the 52nd Grammy's. The Fame Monster was her second release with lead single, "Bad Romance" creating her huge fan base called "Little Monsters." Her next single, "Telephone" and "Alejandro" brought its share of controversy and award nominations. She tours this year in support of her album, Artpop with the Artrave: The Artpop Ball Tour. This will be a spectacle in music, dance and song, with tickets selling out already, don't miss this opportunity to see Lady Gaga live. Score with TicketCity - the place to go for Lady Gaga concert tickets.
In support of her third studio album, Born This Way, Lady Gaga toured with her ensemble of costumes, sets, and little monsters fans club. The show was divided into a five-part concert, with political overtones of discrimination, government control and she also touched on self-love. Props scattered the stage as she performed on a mechanical horse from a medieval castle. Like in most her shows, the "Monster Pit" was part of the show as well as her elaborate costume changes. She opened the show with "Highway Unicorn," Government Hooker" and "Bad Romance."
The US tour begins at the Roseland Ballroom in New York City on March 28 and ends at the Staples Center in Los Angeles on July 21, and then she returns to Europe. The tour is being billed as "a celebration and a poetic musical journey." It displays an intentional "lack of maturity and responsibility" by comparison to the darker nature of her previous tour, Born This Way. Don't expect silky ballroom gowns and confetti, Lady Gaga has will blow your mind with technology, fashion and amazing music. Songs include ""Dope," "Applause" and "Gypsy." Expect the unexpected!
Top cities to host will be New York City opening with 7 shows, CONSOL Energy Center in Pittsburg on May 8, TD Garden in Boston on June 30 and United Center in Chicago on July 11. She makes three stops in Texas, including San Antonio at the AT&T Center, Houston at the Toyota Center and Dallas at the American Airlines Center on July 14, 16 and 17th. She hits Paris, France, Assago, Italy, and Barcelona, Spain on November 8.
With her many number one hits, you are sure to hear, "Aura" "Tea" "Mary Jane" "Holland" "Paparazzi" and "Gypsy".
Thanks for keeping us on our toes! We will get you an answer as soon as we can, in the meantime enjoy $15 off your next $150 order by clicking here.


text:
Not many presidential elections find their way to the big screen ― presidential biopics like Nixon and Lincoln tend to focus on their actual time in office.
But with sound bites, social media, and memes galore, three of the most recent elections are easily adapted to the big screen. HBO's recount chronicled the controversy surrounding Florida ballots back in 2000, while Game Change starred Ed Harris as John McCain and Julianne Moore as an inept Sarah Palin. Now, the most recent election is becoming an HBO movie, too.
Find out more after the jump!


text:
So the recent FOH group seems to have been very successful with some great work being acheived about the place. However, the group seems to have been disbanded in the midst of August time.
Perhaps we could arrange a new meeting to discuss, with those who are enthusiastic, what can be done around the place to make The Forest more excellent.
The remit of the meeting would include all things relating to the appearance of the building- posters, paint, colours, flowers, candles lampshades, murals etc.
There are some suggestions in the "job left unfinished" thread below this one and seems to be people keen to get murals painted about the place.
Who's keen?
I propose meeting on Sunday the 14th September to gauge interest and discuss ideas but that's just an arbitrary date so feel free to suggest another...


text:
Intelligent speed adaptation
A new GPS for my vehicles has a feature that my old one didn't – it lets me know when I am exceeding the speed limit by comparing my speed with the speed limit for most roads and highways. If I exceed this speed, the speed I am traveling at turns to red on my GPS.
Intelligent Speed Adaptation, also known as Intelligent Speed Assistance and Speed Alerting, is any system that constantly monitors vehicle speed and the local speed limit on a road and implements an action when the vehicle is detected to be exceeding the speed limit. According to information in the November issue of "Status Report" from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), this technology to help drivers avoid speed-related crashes uses GPS to link a vehicle's position to digital maps that include speed limits to determine if a vehicle is exceeding them by a preset amount, which drivers can specify in some cases. Some newer systems use cameras to read speed limit signs. What happens next depends on the ISA. The most common scenario involves an audible or visual alert telling the driver to slow down. Some ISA systems give a haptic (having to do with sense of touch) alert via the accelerator that makes it increasingly harder for the driver to depress the pedal. Intervention systems can reduce engine throttle to automatically decelerate a vehicle, according to the report.
In field studies, advisory ISA systems are sometimes coupled with economic incentives to not speed. Researchers who conducted the first naturalistic driving study of ISAs in the U.S. concluded that drivers who received modest cash incentives for not speeding were more likely to abide by posted limits than drivers of vehicles with ISAs limited to providing speed alerts, according to the IIHS. This has implications for the use of intelligent speed adaptation systems in conjunction with insurance premiums to significantly improve traffic safety. Wouldn't many drivers drive at speeds closer to the posted limits if they received lower insurance rates? Apparently, the answer is yes.
For instance, in Denmark, researchers from Aalborg University and Copenhagen University evaluated an ISA combining speed advisories with insurance discounts and found that linking an ISA to incentives can reduce speeding, according to the article from "Status Report". The calculated proportion of distance above the speed limit dropped from 13 percent in the baseline period to just below 4 percent in the study period. When drivers turned off the system, speeding relapsed to the baseline level.
Meanwhile, I'll just keep my eye on my GPS's speed indicator and see how long I can drive with the indication in black. That will have to be incentive enough.
For more articles on traffic law and safety, go to the traffic safety board's web site at: www.franklincony.org and click on "Traffic Safety Board" under departments then look for Did You Know articles under "services."


text:
Quinnipiac Withstands Vermont Comeback
from press release
BURLINGTON, Vt. – Lauren Matuszczak
scored three times and added an assist to help the Quinnipiac
Bobcats outlast the Vermont Catamounts, 12-11, and give QU its
first win of the year in non-conference women's lacrosse action at
Moulton Winder Field on Sunday afternoon.
Quinnipiac won the first eight draws of the game and built a 7-1 lead with 15:45 remaining in the first half. The Catamounts rallied, scoring three straight tallies, including a pair of goals 20 seconds apart, to turn the momentum to the UVM side. Emma Kelley's second goal of the rally sliced the lead to three with 8:32 left.
Matuszczak pushed Quinnipiac's lead back to four with her second goal of the half at the 6:08 mark, but the Catamounts received goals from Sydney Mas and Lauren Johnson to close out the stanza and headed into the break trailing by two, 8-6.
Vermont scored the first four goals of the second half to climb back in the game. Mas converted an 8-meter shot at the 24:22 mark to even the score at 8-8. Just over two minutes later she shoved the Catamounts in front, 9-8, when she wheeled around from the back of the net and beat QU goalkeeper Noelle Martello high.
The Catamounts would take a 10-8 lead on Megan MacDonald's goal at the 20:37 mark. MacDonald received a feed at the top of the 8-meter fan, made a couple moves and drove right down the middle of the QU defense to the cage.
Quinnipiac turned the tide back in its favor, rattling off four straight goals to regain the lead. Lianne Toomey scored twice and Marissa Caroleo added two assists in the spurt. Sarah Allen scored what proved to be the game-winner at the 6:07 mark. Caroleo had an 8-meter attempt, but elected to pass to Allen who fired in a low shot to beat UVM goalkeeper Laura Barber for what proved to be the game-winner.
MacDonald allowed UVM to climb back within one at the 4:35 mark, but Quinnipiac won the draw following MacDonald's goal and was able to run out the clock the rest of the way and hold off the Catamounts.
Mas led UVM in scoring for the second straight game with three goals and one assist. Emma Kelly and MacDonald also netted a pair of goals.
Barber finished the game with eight saves in the Vermont net, while Martello made nine stops for Quinnipiac.
Vermont falls to 2-4 overall, while Quinnipiac moves to 1-3 on the season.
The Catamounts will be back in action on Wednesday (March 16) at Siena at 3 p.m.
NOTES: Vermont outshot Quinnipiac 28-25 in the game and 14-7 in the second half … The Bobcats won the draw 14-11 … UVM forced QU into 25 turnovers in the game.
comments powered by Disqus


text:
Dance Zone: Stepping out for fun
MARQUETTE – Dance Zone of Marquette celebrated its third anniversary with a live band and numerous free dance workshops on Sept. 28, but if you didn't attend, that doesn't mean you missed out on all the fun.
"Our Mission is to make dancing available to the Marquette area," Sklar said. "Our focus is ballroom, but we have much more than that."
Participants can learn a wide variety of dance forms, everything from Contra, Hula, Square dancing, International dance to Zumba and much more. Classes are held weekly and live bands come in for certain events each month.
"A lot of the things we do are free like our Sunday night ballroom lessons," said owner Marge Sklar.
The Steppin' Out Ballroom Dance Club meets on Sunday every week at 7 p.m. and offers free dance lessons. The NMU International Dancers also meet weekly, on Tuesdays at 7 p.m. These lessons prepare people for the monthly special dances and whatever types of dance occasions they want to attend, said NMU student Ben St. Aubin.
Dance Zone features local live bands once a month for ballroom dancing and once monthly for contra dance. Their many bands include Black Pearl, Blue Champagne, A Little Bit of Outlaw, Julie and Dave Williams, Derrell Syria and All Strings Considered.
While dance studios in the area typically focus on children, Dance Zone is unique in that it offers its classes to adults. Children are still welcome to family dances held, but the majority of lessons are for adults and teens. Anyone is welcome with any skill level.
"They should come and have a good time," Sklar said. "Where else can you go and learn the tango?"
Dance Zone offers the only square dancing classes in the area as well as several unique forms of Zumba. They offer zumbatomics for children 4 to 12 years old, Zumba Gold for seniors and Zumba toning.
"I like to modify the classes to the people that are here," Zumba instructor Alesia Maki said. "If it is a bunch of new people, I will do easier moves or simplify the moves I already have."
Maki is having a Zumbathon from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. Oct. 12 at the Baraga Gym. Tickets are $10 in advance and $15 at the door. Tickets can be purchased at Second Skin, Dance Zone or from Maki. All proceeds go to Breast cancer research.
Dance Zone is all about coming together as a community to have a great time. They hold family dance nights on the first and third Fridays of the month at 7:15 p.m. where parents and children can dance together. They also let Northern Michigan University organizations as well as community organizations use Dance Zone at no cost to hold dance events. They will even stage dance-themed parties there.
"We had a princess ballroom dance party here for a tenth birthday," Sklar said. "We had some students from Steppin' Out help and we had a lot of fun."
They offer individual lessons for a fee or people can come to group classes, some of which are free. If you are getting married, Dance Zone offers private dance lessons and wedding choreography. Zumba classes are $8 a class or $40 for 10 classes.
"Mention this article and you can get the first class for free," Maki said. The class is open to anyone who wants to try it."
For more information, call 906-236-1457 or visit www.dancezonemqt.com. Dance Zone is located at 1113 Lincoln Ave, Marquette. For more information about Alesia Maki and Zumba visit www.alesiamaki.zumba.com/
h other times by appointment.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This feature is part of a paid advertising package. Businesses interested in being featured on the In Business page may call Larry Doyle at 228-2500, extension 258.


text:
Felt - Light Grey
0.118 inches
What is it
100% pure wool which is air-permeable, sound-absorbing, insulating and dirt-resistant due to its natural oils.
Design notes
Incredibly resilient and retains its unique properties for decades. It is wear resistant, cuts with a clean edge and does not fray. The colors are vibrant and non toxic. It can be drycleaned to reduce the burnt smell but it pays to test a sample first. Raster engraving is not recommended.
Typical uses
Commonly used as a material for crafts, jewelry, rugs, table mats, coasters, insulation, sound dampening etc
Environmental info
Consists of 100% pure wool and thus, it is renewable and ecologically unobjectionable.
Adhesives, joints & fastenings
Can be joined with typical fabric and sewing techniques.


text:
Fed-up residents are helping deputies with leads.
By NICOLE HUTCHESON
Published May 6, 2007
LARGO - In law enforcement circles there's a saying: The community is the eyes and ears of the police.
And that vigilance is exactly what authorities say resulted in 18 recent drug-related arrests in Ridgecrest.
The Pinellas County Sheriff's Office beefed up its patrols of the Largo neighborhood after a community meeting in April.
At that meeting, residents expressed concerns about a spike in drug behavior and the safety of their neighborhood. Soon after, the Sheriff's Office launched an investigation.
"We were hearing the main problems, as they see it, were drug sales and the spin-off property-type crimes that come with it, " sheriff's Capt. Wayne Morris said.
Residents complained of having their homes burglarized or having lawn mowers or other items stolen from their property.
Ridgecrest, an unincorporated area just south of the Largo city limits, has seen a spike over the years in street-corner drug sales, Morris said.
But, in recent months, the problem escalated.
"In the past they could do a sweep and that would take care of it, " Pinellas County Commissioner Calvin Harris said. "Now it's requiring a lot more attention."
The breaking point
Community members say the problem became even more alarming in March.
For more than 20 years, the Ridgecrest Community Center had hosted a daily senior luncheon. Anywhere between 30 and 50 seniors from across the county were bused into the center on 119th Street for the lunch through the Neighborly Services program.
But in March, program organizers and participants grew leery after they heard gunfire near the center.
"The staff were frightened, and it just wasn't a safe place to be anymore, " said Denise Doman, the program's nutrition services director.
Doman now hosts the lunch at St. Paul Lutheran Church in Clearwater.
"We feel remorse that we had to leave the area, " Doman said. "And the clients feel remorse; it's been a place they'd gone for many, many years."
Edward "BeBe" Hobson, associate pastor at Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church in Ridgecrest, said losing the senior luncheon opened a lot of eyes to the severity of the problem in the neighborhood.
"This was an embarrassment, " Hobson said. "We were allowing these drug dealers to make us lose programs for our community."
A few weeks later, Hobson scheduled a community meeting at his church to discuss the crime problem. Fliers were circulated, and deputies were invited. About 150 people showed up.
Residents told how their safety had been violated. Some had been robbed on the way to their cars. Others had items stolen from their yards. A few had been robbed at gunpoint in their homes.
"That meeting made people begin to feel like they're not in it by themselves, " said Hobson, who works for YouthLife, a nonprofit outreach program for middle- and high-school-aged children.
A neighborhood watches
The meeting also changed the relationship between the community and law enforcement, said Morris.
"They have seen enough and they're willing to do whatever it takes, " Morris said.
Community members supplied law enforcement with tips and leads.
They also rallied to show that they had no intention of turning their streets over to criminals.
Every year, Greene Chapel AME Church, another church in Ridgecrest, hosts a community march. This year, pastor Bernard Smith decided to hold it on Good Friday - April 6. The march included about 20 church leaders and dozens of residents, and he made a point to take the march to drug-ridden corners.
"I think God honored that march because we were hoping that something would happen, and it did, " Smith said.
Meanwhile, sheriff's officials said they gathered evidence.
Of the 18 peopled arrested on drug-related charges from April 27-29, 12 were male, six female. They ranged in age from 17 to 54. Ten others were arrested on charges that they had outstanding arrest warrants, possessed drug paraphernalia or were driving under the influence.
Law enforcement officials and community members say the recent bust is just the beginning of what's to come.
"People are now writing down tag numbers and calling the cops, " Hobson said. "We hope the word will get out: 'Don't try to buy drugs in Ridgecrest because people are serious about cleaning up the neighborhood.' "
Nicole Hutcheson can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.com or 727445-4162.
Fast Facts:
What's next
Sheriff's officials say their investigation is continuing. Ridgecrest will hold another open forum on crime at 7 p.m. Tuesday at Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church, 13225 118th St. N, Largo. Call (727) 585-9080.
[Last modified May 5, 2007, 19:04:21]
© 2011 · All Rights Reserved · Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South · St. Petersburg, FL 33701 · 727-893-8111
Contact Us | Join Us | Advertise with Us | Subscribe to the Times
Privacy Policy | Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright


text:
The apostle Paul closed his first epistle to Timothy by urging the young pastor to guard the deposit of truth that had been entrusted to him, "avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge" (1 Timothy 6:20-21). In the King James Version, the text famously speaks of "science falsely so called."
Over the course of human history, all kinds of speculative ideas have been falsely labeled "science" and mistakenly accepted as true and reliable knowledge by otherwise brilliant people. The now-discredited dogmas of older scientific theories are numerous—and in some cases laughable. They include alchemy (the medieval belief that other base metals could be transmuted into gold); phrenology (the Victorian belief that the shape of one's skull reflects character traits and mental capacity); astrology (the pagan belief that human destiny is determined by the motions of celestial bodies); and abiogenesis (the long-standing belief that living organisms are spontaneously generated by decaying organic substances). All those false beliefs were deemed credible as "science" by the leading minds of their times.
Consider just one of those—abiogenesis. Popularly known as "spontaneous generation," this idea has long been, and continues to be, one of the archetypal expressions of "science falsely so called." It is also one of the most persistent of all demonstrably pseudoscientific fictions. The notion that aphids arise naturally from dew on plant leaves, mold is generated automatically by aging bread, and maggots are spontaneously begotten by rotting meat was more or less deemed self-evident by most of humanity's brightest intellects (such as Alexander Ross; see below) from the time of Aristotle until 1861, when Louis Pasteur conclusively proved that non-living matter cannot spawn life on its own.
[Note: Alexander Ross, an early seventeenth-century Scottish writer and intellectual, harshly criticized Sir Thomas Browne for questioning the dogma of spontaneous generation. Under the heading "Mice and other vermin bred of putrefaction, even in mens bodies," he wrote: "He doubts whether mice can be procreated of putrefaction. So he may doubt whether in cheese and timber worms are generated; Or if Betels and wasps in cowes dung; Or if butterflies, locusts, grasshoppers, shel-fish, snails, eeles, and such like, be procreated of putrefied matter, which is apt to receive the form of that creature to which it is by the formative power disposed. To question this, is to question Reason, Sense, and Experience: If he doubts of this, let him go to Egypt, and there he will finde the fields swarming with mice begot of the mud of [the Nile]." Arcana Microcosmi, (London: Newcomb, 1652), book 2, chapter 10, 156.]
It is one of the great ironies of scientific history that the first edition of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published exactly two years before Pasteur's famous experiments proved that life cannot arise spontaneously from non-living matter. The publication of Darwin's book marked the apotheosis of evolutionary theory, and it was rooted in the basic presupposition that under the right circumstances, life can spring on its own from non-living matter. In other words, two years before abiogenesis was scientifically debunked, it was in effect canonized as the central dogma of modern secular belief about the origins of life. The discovery that fleas don't magically form out of decomposing dander on the backs of dirty dogs did not dissuade most in the scientific world from embracing the theory that all life in the universe arose by itself out of nothing. The belief that life spontaneously came from non-life remains to this day the great unexplained (albeit easily disprovable) assumption underlying the dogma of evolution.
The irony of that is utterly lost on many in the scientific community today, where evolution has become an article of faith—unshakable faith, it turns out.
Evolutionists have conveniently "solved" the problem of abiogenesis by repeatedly moving their estimates of the earth's age backward toward infinity. Given enough time, it seems, anything is possible. Trying desperately to keep the biblical concept of eternity at bay, evolutionists have thus devised an alternative kind of infinitude. Every time a challenge to current evolutionary theory arises, geologists and astronomers dutifully tack billions and billions of eons onto their theories about the earth's age, adding however many ancient epochs are deemed necessary for some new impossibility to be explained.
In the introduction to my 2001 book, The Battle for the Beginning, I suggested naturalism had become the dominant religion of contemporary secular society. "Religion is exactly the right word to describe naturalism," I wrote. "The entire philosophy is built on a faith-based premise. Its basic presupposition—a rejection of everything supernatural—requires a giant leap of faith. And nearly all its supporting theories must be taken by faith as well" (The Battle for the Beginning, Nashville: W Publishing Group, 2001, p. 11).
Here, then, is a classic example of what I was talking about: the typical evolutionist's starting point is this notion that life arose spontaneously from inanimate matter sometime in eternity past. That requires not merely the willful suspension of what we know for certain about the origins of life and the impossibility of abiogenesis—but also enough deliberate gullibility to believe that moving-target estimates of the earth's antiquity can sufficiently answer all the problems and contradictions sheer naturalism poses.
Meanwhile, in the popular media, evolutionary doctrine and ever-expanding notions of prehistory are being promoted with all the pious zeal of the latest religious sect. Watch the Internet forums, programs on the Discovery Channel, interviews and articles published in the mass media, school textbooks, and books aimed at lay readers—and what you will usually see is raw assertions, demagoguery, intimidation, and ridicule (especially when the subjects of biblical theism and the Genesis account of creation are raised).
But question the dogma that all life evolved from a single spontaneously-generated cell, point out that the universe is full of evidence for intelligent design, or demand the kind of proof for evolutionary origins that would ordinarily pass scientific muster, and the ardent evolutionist will simply dismiss you as a heretic or a bigot of the worst stripe. What they are tacitly acknowledging is that as far as they are concerned, evolution is a doctrine that must be received with implicit faith, not something that can be scientifically demonstrated. After all, the claims of true science can always be investigated, observed, reproduced, tested, and proved in the laboratory. So to insist that evolution and so-called "deep time" doctrines must be accepted without question is really just a tacit admission that these are not scientific ideas at all.
Consider these quotations from typical evolutionist writers:
But as those statements themselves show, evolution is a dogma, not a demonstrable "fact." I stand by the position I took in The Battle for the Beginning: "Belief in evolutionary theory is a matter of sheer faith. [It is] as much a religion as any theistic world-view" (The Battle for the Beginning, p. 12).
I'll go even further: science cannot speak with any authority about when the universe began, how it came into being, or how life originated on earth. Science by definition deals with what can be observed, tested, measured, and investigated by empirical means. Scientific data by definition are facts that can be demonstrated by controlled, repeatable experiments that always yield consistent results. The beginning of the universe by its very nature falls outside the realm of scientific investigation.
To state the case plainly: there is no scientific way to explain creation. No one but God actually observed creation. It did not happen by any uniform, predictable, observable, repeatable, fixed, or natural laws. It was not a natural event or a series of natural events. The initial creation of matter was an instantaneous, monumental, inexplicable miracle—the exact opposite of a "natural" phenomenon. And the formation of the universe was a brief series of supernatural events that simply cannot be studied or explained by science. There are no natural processes involved in creation; the act of creation cannot be repeated; it cannot be tested; and therefore naturalistic theories purporting to explain the origin and age of the universe are unverifiable.
In other words, creation is a theological issue, not a scientific one. Scripture is our only credible source of information about creation, because God Himself was the only eyewitness to the event. We can either believe what He says or reject it. But no Christian should ever imagine that what we believe about the origin of the universe is merely a secondary, nonessential, or incidental matter. It is, after all, the very starting point of God's self-revelation.
In fact, in its profound brevity, Genesis 1:1 is a very simple, clear, and unequivocal account of how the universe, the earth, and everything on the earth came to be: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That is not an ambiguous statement. Until Darwinian evolution undertook a campaign to co-opt the story of creation and bring it into the realm of naturalistic "science"—and especially before modernist skepticism began to seep into the church—no one who claimed to be a Christian was the least bit confused by the Genesis account.
Christians should not be intimidated by dogmatic naturalism. We do not need to invent a new interpretation of Genesis every time some geologist or astronomer declares that the universe must be older than he previously thought. Nor should we imagine that legitimate science poses any threat to the truth of Scripture. Above all, we must not seek ways to circumvent the clear meaning of God's Word, compromise our trust in the Creator, or continually yield ground to every new theory of falsely-so-called science. That is precisely what Paul was warning Timothy about.
Sadly, it seems evolutionary thinking and qualms about the Genesis account of creation have reached epidemic levels among professing Christians in recent decades. Too many Christian leaders, evangelical schools, and Bible commentators have been willing to set aside the biblical account of a relatively young earth in order to accommodate the ever-changing estimates of naturalistic geologists and astronomers. They have thrown away sound hermeneutical principles—at least in the early chapters of Genesis—to accommodate the latest theories of evolution.
When I encounter people who think evolutionary doctrine trumps the biblical account of creation, I like to ask them where their belief in the Bible kicks in. Is it in chapter 3, where the fall of Adam and original sin are accounted for? In chapters 4-5, where early human history is chronicled? In chapters 6-8, with the record of the flood? In chapter 11, with the Tower of Babel? Because if you bring naturalism and its presuppositions to the early chapters of Genesis, it is just a short step to denying all the miracles of Scripture—including the resurrection of Christ. If we want to make science the test of biblical truth rather than vice versa, why would it not make just as much sense to question the biblical record of the resurrection as it does to reject the Genesis account? But "if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! . . . If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable" (1 Corinthians 15:17-19).
You have 3000 characters
remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted.
Email me when someone posts a comment.
Off topic I realize, but driving home today I caught the "Bible Answer Man" broadcast. I hadn't listened to Hank in a long time...anyway, he seems to have gone full speed into old earth theistic evolution...perhaps I am wrong, but he had a guest on talking about the Cambrian explosion and how life forms found in that layer of the geologic column were fully developed, etc. All well and good, but the point was that life had changed over time from then until now, implying millions of years of progress to get from then until now...Hank was also talking about understanding the Bible by looking at the "book of nature". Well, I have thought that in the past as well, but we must be careful and look through the lens of revelation from God's word, not just scientific investigation.
Has anyone heard or know this about Hank Hannegraaf?
You have 3000 characters
remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted.
Email me when someone posts a comment.
It wouldn't surprise me. Hank is a Preterist; if he can't understand the end of Scripture, then I'm not surprised that he has the beginning confused as well.
You have 3000 characters
remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted
Very good article !
We need more of that !
Now that Hovind is in jail, I am glad JM is talking loud and clear on the Creation issue.
I wish Mark Driscoll would read that article, pray over it and repent from his old earth views.
Anyway God bless you all from a very nice part of our created Young Earth (the Dominican Republic)
As part of Answers in Genesis's list of bad arguments/common misconceptions/misunderstandings - http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use - they include
"The phrase "science falsely so called" in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution."
Things such as alchemy, phrenology etc, were never rigorously tested scientific theories and have no comparison to modern science. It wasn't a case of millions of well-trained people all simultaneously misinterpreting the data, it was just that they didn't have any data to work with and so reached erroneous conclusions. They weren't using science to find out how the natural world works, they were relying to a large extent on 'intuition', historical traditions and what they thought sacred texts taught. As soon as the scientific data started to come in to indicate that these views were wrong, they were eventually abandonded (although still not quite - http://www.geocentricity.com/).
Quick comment this morning, pressed for time. Mark, I agree with Chris Schwenk comments re: Hank as a Preterist. Plus, as you mentioned Mark, Hank has adopted a full-court press towards theistic evolution in the last several years.
Additionally, this "book of nature" is something Hugh Ross promotes, claiming it is the 67th book of the Bible, so to speak. The second way God has revealed Himself to us. As you know, Ross is a 'progressive creationist'.
Hank seemed to reject any form of evolution as late as 2006:
I wonder if his position on the matter has evolved . . . or devolved?
Hi Folks: It seems to me that people are still worried about what others think their level of intelligence is. As soon at a person's character is attacked and they are represented as fools because they are not "scientific" (by this they mean Evolutionist), they run for cover. I understand it, I don't agree with it, but I understand that folks want to be perceived as intelligent. (My own bane for years)
People who want to be thought of as intelligent will often go to great lengths to cover their own feeling of inadequacy. They may even agree with things they do not believe or have been taught. I had an Aunt who felt her memory may have been effected (and hence her intelligence) in some way by her husband who died from Alzheimer's. And she went to great lengths to show that she had not been effected by that disease. (She did not need to because she was always brilliant, but she "felt" that need. She died at 96 with memory intact.) Satan uses this "feeling" very effectively against us, so we must be humble enough to know where our "knowledge" fails and where reality is beyond our ability to comprehend. We often think we know more then we really do. My challenge is to be child enough to ask God for wisdom, (because I know that He is, and is a rewarder of them that seek him), and humble enough to say "I don't know and I'm just not that smart (to be able to see things that I have no evidence of and refute "known" error in love. Wisdom is, after all, known of her children). I don't know about you-all, but when I see the wonder of creation and it's complexity and diversity it awes me. I know that there is no force in this universe that could have brought it about by chance.
To be clear, probably Hank is thinking more along the lines of "progressive creationism" than theistic evolution...but it seems to me to be a horse of a different color...
This is off topic, but I believe I may have encountered a cousin to the slippery slope of discounting the Genesis account of creation in a "Christian" arena while in Hong Kong recently. It was during a trip to the Noah's Ark museum. There were topics on Genesis with different species. I was a bit tired and can't remember to a fault, but seem to remember there was no definitive statement of a young earth and just speculative statements that left things up for ones own thinking of young and old as they showed rocks and other things.
That being said, they did an excellent job on describing Noahs Ark and man's wickedness that resulted in God sending the rains. The slippery slope cousin from above I do remember is that I liked the Noah's Ark presentation, but left very disappointed. At the end they gave a politically correct social gospel of kumbaya about the "falsely so-called" pseudoscience and sister of evolution - global warming. They put on a big environmental propaganda piece about global warming and how man needs to be in "harmony" with the earth and each other... but can't recall ever seeing the only way to peace - which is through repentence and coming to faith in Christ as Lord and Savior. Sorry for the pun, but they really missed the boat on that one especially considering they probably had peoples attention.
This post, oye, lots of issues with it. Maybe I'll address some later.
#5 Lois: "Additionally, this "book of nature" is something Hugh Ross promotes, claiming it is the 67th book of the Bible, so to speak. The second way God has revealed Himself to us."
Actually, the "book of nature" is something the Belgic confession (and Paul in Romans 1) promotes (See "Article 2: The Means by Which We Know God" here http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/BelgicConfession.html). Saying it's the "67th book of the Bible" is, admittedly, a bit creepy, and J.Mac. does some good correcting of that in "The Battle for the Beginning." But nevertheless, the two books notion runs deep in the Reformed tradition, and it need not compromise the authority of scripture. All it says is just what Francis Schaeffer said: when all is know about science and scripture, there can be no final conflict. General and special revelation are, at bottom, harmonious in every way since they are both, at bottom, revealed by the same God, though clearly not on equally perspicuous footing (special revelation is superior because of its clarity on issues not revealed in nature, like matters pertaining to salvation).
Your use of a puerile description - "a bit creepy" - for Ross' (and others') view of nature as the "67th book of the Bible" is telling.
This particular view is not the same as that of general (natural) revelation (Romans 1: 19,20), as progressive creationists like to suggest. It is not the same as what the Belgic Confession "promotes". It is not harmonious with "special revelation" in the manner presented by adherents of this view. It is indeed a "compromise of authority of scripture", your explanations and understanding of such as presented in your post notwithstanding.
~ICR 'Acts & Facts', Vol. 32, No. 6, ICR June 2003
The 67th Book of the Bible? The Slippery Slope of Progressive Creationism
by Mark D. Rasche
Today's guest minister's sermon mentioned MIRACULOUS CREATION (something out of nothing) and MIRACULOUS PROVIDENCE (preparation beforehand).
He spoke of the earthquake which broke open the doors & bonds which held the prisoners including Paul & Silas after they had been praying & singing. (Acts 16:26) He called this a miracle of providence. On the way home, I discussed this with my husband. He said it "could have been" a frequency which caused the iron to give way (like a certain frequency shatters glass.) OK. That is a naturalistic/providential explanation for how that happened. So I said, "Then explain to me how only the 1st born of all of Egypt (including livestock) was killed during the 10th plague on Egypt?" Garrett, there's one for you! I don't believe that can be explained providentially. So, I will accept that there are miracles of providence (also mentioned was the 3 ½ year drought brought on by Elijah's prayer/God acted through natural means.) But the plague which distinguished only the 1st born of Egypt must have stumped even Pharoah's magicians. This is not found in the first 3 chapters of Genesis (which have been argued against being taken literally), but in Ex 12:29-32. So can we take it literally? If so, how do you explain the miracle? It is certainly an act of judgment by God.
Now I believe the judgment God gave in Gen 3:23-24 (setting an angel with a flaming sword at the entrance to the garden) was MIRACULOUS & not explainable by naturalistic means, while the judgment/curse He proclaimed against the serpent, the woman, & the man in Gen 3:14-19 was an act using PROVIDENCE, so I can see both used in Genesis 3, but providence used for CREATION (Gen 1), NO! The only providence I see in Gen 1 is that God created the sun before vegetation, thus providing for the needed photosynthesis, & God provided vegetation before the animals & man, thus providing a food source for them. That order of creation may be seen as providential, but the actual creation itself was totally miraculous, unexplainable naturalistically. "God said…" That's enough for me! :)
*Shauna Bryant*
I remember watching a special (either Discovery or History channel I believe) in which they dealt with 'natural' explanations for the miracles in the Bible - including the exodus from Egypt and the fire coming down from heaven. They presented natural explanations for them all. From the river turning to blood (the fish got sick and died), the frogs(population explosion from aberrant weather patterns-that darn Global Warming keeps popping up!), the death of the firstborn (he ate more they say!), the parting of the sea (a tsunami in the exact right spot at the exact right time....yeah.) Even the 'properties' of the ark (magnetic metals, radiation, electromagnetic properties that seemed to make it float, etc) In discussing this program with another person (an unbeliever) I asked them to explain then, the order and manner in which these 'natural coincidence' events took place to confirm the Word of God. God may after all, use His own Creation to enact His miraculous Providence. The response was that the events naturally happened and 'the ancients' wove a colorful story around them to 'prove' their own God. Evidence to unbelievers will not matter - they will always talk around it. That's why we believe by faith. As Carol wrote "God said..." and that's enough for me too.
In fact, as I had the above conversation it occurred to me that it was much easier to believe and see the providential acts of God, then to try and explain them all away........"in order".......as "natural chance".
To me, that is so much more than just 'not believing', that is flat out rejecting. Knowingly turning one's back on God. May the man who hardens his heart towards God, realize his lost state and repent, because when man has hardened his heart towards God for the final time...God cements it (as in Pharaoh's case).
The created (and that includes science because God created it) will never be able to explain the Creator.
Romans 11:33-36 "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."
or browse by Topic or