News Snippets From All Beats

In a Newsweek article by Sharon Begley titled “Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine,” published on MSNBC.com, Begley sets out to expose opposition to global warming theorists as coming form disingenuous politicians and big business lobbyists. That, she asserts, is the truth behind the denial of the theory: money and politics. But unwittingly, Begley exposes another sort of denial, and that by her own example.  Begley’s article criticizes the findings of others which are not in agreement with the theory as efforts to “reinforce the appearance uncertainty” within the scientific community over the theory of global warming,¹ and belittles their reports as “not empirical research, but critiques of others’ work.”² Such disparaging slights are not cast, however, when studies supporting this theory are seconded by those who happen to agree with them. These concurring opinions result in the reporting on questionable studies as “peer-reviewed.”³

Yet, research conducted by other scientists using ice core samples, and even ancient DNA, produced results that run counter to the global warming theory studies; and research on published studies claiming to prove global warming have pointed out omissions, and even blatant manipulation of the data tables used in those studies.  For instance, the first IPCC report that produced lots of traction for the theory, and successive reports with discredited methodologies.

In reality, there is plenty of misinformation masquerading as fact that can be reasonably questioned and exposed by scientists and non-scientists alike. To wit, Begley’s criticism appears in Newsweek, decidedly not a scientific journal, where she is critical of scientists and others whose investigations disprove global warming. It’s a privilege, it seems, that Begley would reserve for only those who ascribe to the theory.

Begley clearly disapproves of others, like herself, who would logically examine the case, but find the evidence wanting; and she goes so far as to ridicule them by repeatedly referring to them, along with opposing scientists, as members of “the denial machine.”⁴ While they may not be journalists of Begley’s stature, they do include; other journalists, economists, senators, scientists, including Timothy Ball, Climatology professor, Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, and Michael Griffin, a top administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. If only they worked at Newsweek, then they could be relied on.

For an example creating your own agreement, Begley references a Newsweek poll which identified “climate change as the gravest environmental threat,”⁵ and this to imply that there is a groundswell of public intellect which has determined global warming is a fact. It’s not carelessness; Begley is too thorough, and has too much help (Eve Conant, Sam Stein and Eleanor Clift in Washington and Matthew Philips in New York contributed to the article). This is a shell game of using the two terms, meaning two different things, interchangeably to bolster what can’t be supported on its own with the evidence (climate change itself is independent of anthropogenic causes). But it fits the worldview according Begley and Newsweek, and that’s what matters. This is the emerging truth about denial; it has taken over large media conglomerates.

Notes: 

^{1 - 5.} Sharon Begley, “Global Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine,” MSNCB.com, (accessed August 20, 2007). Originally pubublished as  “The Truth About Denial,” Newsweek, August 13, 2007. citations are from the MSNBC title. http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482. 

Anyone familiar with Hank Hanegraaff and the Bible Answer Man radio program is also familiar with Hanegraaff’s dry and even sanctimonious voice that usually remains stable and clam; except when he is provoked into launching a defense of Preterism. On such occasions, the contortions he must go through in wresting the scriptures and bending hermeneutics to give the appearance of a straight line of reasoning gives the listener the impression he is actually in a wrestling match on his side of the microphone. It’s a match he inevitably losses every time, but of course the host of the program never calls it that way.

Fortunately, there are other forums where officiating is more objective.

In “Cracking ‘The Code’ of Preterism: a Review of Hank Hanegraaff’s ‘The Apocalypse Code’ and a Refutation of Preterism” by Ryan Habbena, the tortured exegesis of Hanegraaff, along with the contorted eschatology of Preterism, are given a sound rebuttal. Although the treatment must be cogent, as Habbena’s essay demonstrates, the fact that Preterism is is vulnerable from many points of attack only makes the task of assailing it more difficult from a selective standpoint. Apporaching it is like standing in line at an ice cream counter looking through the display case hoping to narrow your choice before being called on to order.

For instance, the subtitle of Hanegraaff’s book is “Find Out What The Bible Really Says About The End Times And Why It Matters Today,” but if Preterism were true: it wouldn’t matter today. That’s really the test for any eschatology; if there are no end time events, there is no end time study because there is no end times. Habbena points out nearly as much in his essay. In the two practical concerns Habbena voices over the theory of Presterism, where nearly everything connected to end time prophecy is supposed to have happened in A.D. 70, he finds: “It minimizes out future hope and removes a prime source of motivation for godly living.”

It could be added that, thirdly, Preterism entirely removes Israel and the Jew from eschatology; thus removing eschatology from the Bible. The twofold problems derived from this error are applying to the Church what is exclusively Israel’s (which misconstrues what the Church is, and is to do), and portraying the Jews as irrevocably castoff by God leaves them meet for scorn and disdain. For a clear example of the ensuing apostasy where Preterism is practiced, see the Roman Catholic Church. They claim that the promises and blessings regarding Israel have been conferred upon them, they imitate the Levitical priesthood and the mediatorial power of the High Priests, and they have been both complacent and complicit in infamous anti-Semitic atrocities.

Habbena’s essay can be found in Critical Issues Commentary, May/June 2007, at www.cicministry.org.

Viewpoints gleaned by pastors from celebrity globetrotting grow stranger and stranger. Addressing a crowd of concert goers at the Verizon Amphitheater in Irvine California on Saturday, Francis Chan, pastor of Cornerstone Church in Simi Valley, told the story of a talented marathon runner who began his career one night on his birthday while inebriated. After sharing many highlights of the man’s running career, Chan used the inspirational story as an incentive for Christians who might be struggling too long to find God’s will.

According to Chan, they are too worried about making mistakes, and God rewards his people based on the just-do-it scale of good intentions: it doesn’t matter if whether it was God’s will or not, the fact that you acted is what counts. Chan recounted an earlier time in his own life when he boldly proclaimed to some students that God was going to use them all to start a church in a specific area, and that in fact it didn’t turn out that way. Obviously drawing great comfort from the runner’s story for assuaging his conscious, Chan rationalized that it was acting that counted, and that false pronouncements of God’s will were thus mitigated and excused.

The marathon runner in Chan’s example for getting Christians out of the starting blocks and into service did not run the race to obtain Christ, as far as we know. The service Chan pitched was social service in terms of aid to Africa, where Chan has visited. It is a very sad day to see Christian leaders dissuade people from seeking to do God’s will, and encouraging them to run another race.

Read more on Celebrity Christians to Avoid Here 

Much speculation has taken place over end time prophecy passages, and those found in 2 Thessalonians are no exception. Specifically, the verse found in chapter two which states: “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie:” (2Thess 2:11). The purpose for the delusion is for all to be damned who believed not the truth and also had pleasure in unrighteousness. Two components of this verse which have received the most attention as to what their substance might be are the lie and the strong delusion. It has been suggested that “the lie” is exactly that, with the definite article preceding the word lie in the text, and that it is actually a personage: the Antichrist, son of Satan.

Support for this view is lent from the words of The Rejected King: “When he [Satan] speaketh a lie, he seaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it” (John 8:44). Again, the definite article is employed, and it should read: the lie. Indeed, Jesus touches on the aspect of Satan being a father earlier in the passage; and elsewhere Jesus, while He was rejected even though he came in His father’s name, He said that the Jews would receive one in the future as Messiah who came in his own name (John 5:43), but what is the strong delusion God will send, or allow?

Others speculated further that the lie is not only symbolic for a person, but also the worst lie that can be told; namely that Jesus is not the Messiah, and that he, the Antichrist, is. In order to get the world’s population to believe him, he will invoke supernatural deception using fallen angels who will pose as space brothers come to help usher in a new millennium after the departure of those unpopular Christians who have been taken off the earth in the rapture of the Church. Using many signs and lying wonders to work his deception, most will be deceived (2Thess. 2:9).

For excellent treatment on this topic, see “The Upcoming Great Deception” by Stephen Yulish PhD, and “Why are Aliens Green?” at Drywind. To see how pervasive the deception is already being orchestrated, see “UFO sightings bring town to a standstill” in The Dailymail.

At the Campus Crusade for Christ International global students missions conference, speakers showed an alarming use of the new communitarian catch phrases and terminology that are infiltrating Christian circles. Words like “collaboration,” “cooperation,” and “justice” were banded about by speakers with an emphasis on the secular religious quest of finding “common ground.” This is the language of circle-jerk control meetings, or small groups, where members are guided through a process of shedding diverse and conflicting beliefs to arrive at the vaulted, and hallowed, plateau of “common ground.”

The problem in adapted these phrases is that it lends acceptance to the actual processes they represent. These exercises are antithetical to the gospel message, and open Christians to being susceptible to these methods designed, not to circumvent prejudice, but to suspend rendering a righteous judgment based on existing knowledge of God’s word (or at least knowledge of a subject that is already possessed). Such a confidence in facts is too dogmatic for the process of sustained malleability requisite for continual change; the state in which one must be suspended in order to be easily diverted, absent any friction generated from being grounded to a rock of truth.

The cause for this disease is often too much interaction with the world on pretense of being relevant to the extent of becoming unequally yoked together. Cures include: reading more scripture, and concentrating on spreading more salvation message and far less “justice” message. The time is fast approaching when justice is exactly what is going to be meted out, and only the salvation in Jesus Christ will save men from having to receive it.

(read about it in The Christian Post)

This is a News Service of TheNewsBeats.com, All Rights Reserved

Testifying to the heightened demonic activity in this age of deception, a convicted murderer’s last words before being executed Tuesday were cryptic, and creepy. Patrick Knight, known in prison as the “Insane Cajun,” was convicted for the 1991 Texas murders of Walter and Mary Ann Werner. Knight had promised to tell a joke at his execution, and even solicited them from other people over the internet and by mail. When time came to deliver, however, Knight’s humor prove to be eerily dark and provocative.

After acknowledging his pledge to tell a joke, Knight told two jokes. “Death has set me free,” he said, “That’s the biggest joke. I deserve this.” Then Knight added his closer: “And the other joke is that I am not Patrick Bryan Knight and y’all can’t stop this execution now. Go ahead, I’m finished.” Indeed, Knight deserved his punishment. But the question now is did he act alone, and exactly who was set free?

(Read about it at CNN.com)

[For the record: Knight did have a male accomplice who is serving life in prison]