Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

Marriage on the Decline

September 30th, 2005 Viewed 1754 times
Choosing: painting by first husband, George Fr...

Choosing: painting by first husband, George Frederic Watts, c. 1864 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

At a recent meal, Virtuous Blonde and I were talking about marriage and the continued trend of people cohabitating. Marriage, it seems, is too much of a hassle, especially when you figure that 50% of them are ending in divorce. Logically, if you plan to not be together permanently, why blow a lot of money on a wedding and then turn around and blow money on legal fees and splitting your assets with your ex. Cohabitating seems to give you more of what you want (the companionship) and less of what you don’t want (the fees, expectations, responsibility).

This from London’s Telegraph:

Marriage is in terminal decline, Government figures showed yesterday. Within 25 years nearly half of all men in their mid-forties and more than a third of women will not have walked up the aisle.

In the same period, the number of people cohabiting will have more than doubled to nearly four million.

The figures published in a Population Trends report by Whitehall actuaries prompted fresh warnings from family campaigners that Government policies had marginalised marriage.

Cohabitation was less stable, the campaigners said, ending on average after under three years, with profound implications for any children involved.

Frenzy’s Post

September 30th, 2005 Viewed 1572 times

Check out ‘Frenzy’s post at It’s really great!

A Very Sick Woman

September 28th, 2005 Viewed 1537 times

Jill Stanek

Another not-to-be missed article from Jill Stanek. In Debi does Ohio, Jill talks about how a certain abortion provider is threatening to close all of her operations over a reasonable law. It’s a ploy. Since she would be denying access (she thinks) the government will certainly give in. What’s the law that she’s protesting? A law that would let a woman know what she’s doing:

Wanting to guard her thriving nest egg (pardon the pun), Debi and the ACLU have for seven years been fighting a public health and safety law passed by the Ohio Legislature requiring that abortionists have face-to-face, private, informational meetings with mothers 24 hours before scheduled abortions.

These meetings would include a state-scripted explanation of the procedure, including its risks; a list of abortion alternative agencies; the support obligations of the child’s father and available medical assistance benefits should the child not be prenatally killed; and the characteristics of her child according to his or her current gestational age.

The new law also mandates that abortionists get written consents from at least one parent of minor girls before they abort.

Now it’s the Dem’s turn

September 28th, 2005 Viewed 1641 times

Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin’s article today talks about the latest coverup of Democratic wrong-doing: The illegal seizure of a Repbulican’s credit report.

Why is this such a big deal? Well, other than being illegal, we live in a world today that is jumping on every small thing and making into the worst thing that could ever be done. Also, this is an issue of privacy. We wouldn’t want anyone getting our credit report without our authorizing it.

Here’s some relevant quotes from the article:

Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, a rising star in the party, is considering a Senate bid for the Maryland seat being vacated by Democrat Paul Sarbanes next year. Apparently threatened by the prospect of a strong, popular, black Republican candidate, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee got down and dirty. Two of Schumer’s staffers on the committee, including a former top researcher for David Brock’s left-wing “think tank,” obtained Steele’s confidential credit report by using his Social Security number, which they had reportedly culled from court records.

Under federal law, it is illegal to knowingly and willfully obtain a credit report under false pretenses. The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act imposes a maximum two-year prison sentence for the crime.

The part of this that makes it newsworthy is whose staffers they were: Chuck Schumer, D-NY. He’s supposed to be a big privacy advocate. Keep tuned to this issue, it isn’t going away.

More “Brilliant” Criminals

September 27th, 2005 Viewed 1672 times

From News of the Weird:

(1) Amir Husain, 17, and Anthony Nauman, 18, who allegedly burglarized a home in Mundelein, Ill., in August, were easily tracked down by police after the pair decided to build a Web site and post photos of their loot for sale, along with their contact information. (2) In the early morning hours of a July day on the Eastern Freeway in Doncaster, Australia, when a driver on a restricted permit was stopped for speeding (at the equivalent of more than 120 mph), he told the officer in apparent seriousness that he didn’t realize the police worked that late. (We’re a “24-hour organization,” said a police spokesman.) [WMAQ-TV (Chicago), 8-16-05] [The Age (Melbourne), 8-1-05]

Fatal Flaws?

September 26th, 2005 Viewed 1715 times

It is frustrating to realize that there are those out there that cannot see the truth and proclaim falsehood and attacks in its place. All it takes in certain corners of the web is an article about a Denver tour that is bibilcally based for these people to spout off their mouths in defense of something they did not witness, did not test, and make fools out of themselves. It would be laughable, if not so tragic, that a person could post something stating how terrible it was that a child would not challenge her authority or teacher and yet they refuse to do the same. I’m waiting from the post of the person that went into studying the Creation model with an open mind and found it lacking on scientific grounds. But I digress.

This latest forum had a link to a set of pages that supposedly proved that the the Bible was not inspired by God. I would like to spend a few posts here and there addressing these “flaws.”

Let’s start with what this man calls the Bible’s Fatal Flaws:

Flaw #1:

DT 6:5, MT 22:37, MK 12:30, LK 10:27 Love God.
DT 6:13, PS 33:8, 34:9, 111:10, 115:13, 128:1, 147:11, PR 8:13, 16:6, 19:23, 22:4, IS 8:13, LK 12:5, 1PE 2:17 Fear God.
1JN 4:18 There is no fear in love.

Pretty simple one here. This man assumes only one definition of fear. I can fear or reverence my parents. I can know that they can send me to my room (or whatever punishment here). Yet I can love my parents.  Especially since if I have perfect love for God, I will be doing those things that would please him, which would result in my not having fear of Him.

Flaw #2:

PR 30:5 Every word of God proves true.
1KI 22:23, 2CH 18:22, JE 4:10, JE 20:7, EZ 14:9 God deceives some of the prophets.

In fact, the Scripture says that every word of God is pure. And also, the passages say that God put a lying spirit in prophets. Why? Since an Israelite king decided not to follow God’s clear instruction, God let him be deceived by people that wanted simply to make the king feel good. The problem with this “flaw” is that if God was so decietful, why did he send a prophet to tell the king what was going on? I guess you could be skeptical enough to think that “well, this is the only time that God actually told…” However, the truth is that when a test or temptation is presented, there’s always a way of escape provided.
Ahab chose not to listen to the true prophet, but to false ones.  Furthermore, God makes the statements that there are true prophets of God as well as false prophets, and how to know which is which…

Sex Ed: Yes, Bible, No

September 22nd, 2005 Viewed 1487 times

It’s amazing, isn’t it? If a person doesn’t want their child to hear about homosexuality (a few posts ago) they are thrown in jail, but if they don’t want their child to receive a Gideon Bible– they’re a hero…

Parents of children who attend one London, Ontario, public school are angry because the Gideons wanted to distribute Bibles to their kids. Some fifth-graders received permission slips to take home to their parents: If they wanted a Bible, the parents could check “Yes.” No one was forced to take a Bible. Tom Murphy, cochair of the Lord Roberts School council, argued against allowing the Bible distribution, “Our goal is to maintain that diversity we’ve been trying to get for so long. We don’t want to be privileging Christianity.” (London Free Press, 6/24/05)

Watch out for those Bibles. Kids might get ideas reading them. Now, when it comes to diveristy training bookbags, those are fine.

Oh, and the irony of it: let’s “maintain diversity” while keeping diversity out?

Who Polluted Marriage?

September 22nd, 2005 Viewed 1605 times

I’ve spoken in this space before regarding marriage and what it has become. I believe that a big part of the problem with marriage in these times is the fact that we have allowed it to become all about love and something that I only have while “in love”. Recently we’ve seen yet another example of this mentality, played for us in larger than life celebrities. After 4 months, Kenny Chesney and Renee Zellwinger (don’t know if she ever changed her name) are getting an anullment for “fraud”. Don’t know what it’s all about other than yet another couple bailing out.

This article from What in the World talks about what a liberal believes about the state of marriage in the USA:

Self-avowed liberal Stephanie Coontz rarely agrees with conservative evangelical activist James Dobson, but she says his warnings about the state of marriage are right-on—just too late. “Traditional marriage, with its 5,000-year history, has already been upended,” she says. But it’s not homosexuals who led the charge against the institution, but heterosexuals, she argues. It was heterosexuals who “turned marriage into a voluntary love relationship rather than a mandatory economic and political institution.” Heterosexuals “made procreation voluntary.” They also “subverted the longstanding rule that every marriage had to have a husband who played one role in the family and a wife who played a completely different one.” Homosexuals, Coontz says, “simply looked at the revolution heterosexuals had wrought and noticed that with its new norms, marriage could work for them, too.” She notes that merely banning gay marriage will not return heterosexual marriage to its more stable past. (New York Times, 7/5/05)

Moral Indifference

September 22nd, 2005 Viewed 1336 times
The violence in the film was condemned by some...

The violence in the film was condemned by some critics and praised by others. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It’s amazing, and I think it may be the one thing that actually sticks to Christians in the area of movie going, that we seem to think that one sin is so much worse than the other. I’m talking about the whole violence versus sexual disparity that goes on in Christian’s movie watching. We seem to tolerate a whole lot more violence in the things that we allow to entertain us than other sins that are portrayed. This is reflected in this article from What in the World:

Strictly religious Americans are more likely than their more liberal neighbors to watch films rated R for violence, according to a MarketCast study. The study found something unsurprising, that America is deeply divided over moral issues. However, it also found, according to Variety, that “entertainment choices are largely made separately from moral decisions.” The report concluded that cultural conservatives are “participating in American culture at virtually the same levels as the rest of society.” (6/29/05)

What Do You Know?

September 22nd, 2005 Viewed 1166 times
English: Joel Osteen at Lakewood Church, Houst...

English: Joel Osteen at Lakewood Church, Houston, Texas (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

From What in the World!

Joel Osteen pastors the largest church in America, Houston’s Lakewood Church, which just moved into the arena where the local NBA team used to play. Recently, Larry King interviewed Osteen on his popular CNN program. Osteen said, “I don’t know” 43 times during the conversation. Osteen didn’t know whether or not Satan would be allowed into heaven. He didn’t know if anyone is condemned. He didn’t know if Jews or Muslims or Hindus are going to heaven. He didn’t know what the prosperity gospel is. He didn’t know why God allows tragedies like cancer, birth defects, or 9/11. “I don’t have it in my heart to condemn people,” Osteen said. “I don’t know. I know there is condemnation, but I don’t feel that’s my place.” King asked Osteen, “What if you’re Jewish or Muslim, you don’t accept Christ at all?” Osteen replied, “You know, I’m very careful about saying who would and wouldn’t go to heaven. I don’t know.” He added later, “I’m just going to let God be the judge of that. I don’t know. I don’t know.” Osteen later posted a brief letter of apology on his website, saying, “I believe with all my heart that it is only through Christ that we have hope in eternal life.” (, 6/20/05;, 7/19/05)

Seriously– this man doesn’t seem to want to stand for anything in front of the world. It’s even more hypocritical when you take into account the size of his church and it’s new facilities. I can tell you this much, you wouldn’t find me at his “church”.


Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.