McDonald's: From "I'm Lovin' It" to "I'm Promoting the Homosexual Agenda While Alienating My Largest Customer Base"

For those of us who are not familiar with McDonald's most recent assault on family values, the company has donated $20,000 to the anti-family activist group The National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. This is not the first time McDonald's has acted inappropriately, but it should be their last. With the donation, a senior executive (Richard Ellis, VP of Communications) from McDonald's USA has been placed on the board of directors. Following in the pattern of previous anti-family actions such as sponsorship of the sexually-explicit San Francisco Gay Pride Parade, sponsoring training from Out & Equal™ Workplace Advocates for homosexuals on how to aggressively promote homosexuality within the company they work for, and utilizing McDonald's spokesman Bill Whitman to suggest to the Washington Post that those who oppose same-sex marriage are motivated by hate, it is no surprise that the company continues to find new means of promoting the homosexual agenda on a national avenue. Companies such as McDonald's which have become American icons of family values over the decades have seemingly lost touch with their largest customer base to adopt a new vision
of immorality which is contributing to the destruction of the moral fabric of society. It is time to put an end to the "super-sizing" of wickedness. Please join me in boycotting McDonald's (click here) until they understand that our money is not for those who hate and seek to destroy traditional families and traditional values.

The Coke and Crescent?

It looks like Coca-Cola has jumped on the bandwagon of faith...in Allah! For Ramadan this year (September 2008), it seems Coke will be releasing a can design with the internationally known symbol of Islam: The Star and Crescent. Adorning the national flags of at least 11 Islamic countries, these symbols have become part of Coca-Cola's marketing scheme to appeal to Muslims, but not any other faith group. Granted, Jews can drink "Kosher" Coke, but where is the Star of David during Chanukah? What about the Cross of Christ during Christmas? Although I think this kind of commercialization of Christendom would be both tacky and inappropriate, it still causes one to question why preference is given to Islam, particularly during the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the United States. Looking back to the question of Christmas, it is true that Santa Claus has been a common marketing ploy for Coca-Cola cans and bottles throughout the years. In fact, the modern-day image of Santa (particularly red and white) was popularized by Coca-Cola in the 1930's (although they did not create him nor were they the first to depict him in such a manner). These details aside, the depiction of a fat, old elf taking on the attributes of God (omniscience, omnipresence, immortality [as eternality], etc.) are no consolation to the Christian community, but rather an offense to the message of the Gospel. Sadly, none of this matters to Coca-Cola who is only out to make a buck. If you don't think this is the case, you'll have to take my word as I have worked for the company twice and held 3 different positions (in either sales or distribution). As a final point, can Muslims even drink Classic Coke? As far as I can tell, the only flavors considered Halal are Vanilla Coke, Diet Vanilla Coke, and Cherry Coke.

Gay from Birth?

The question of the debate over homosexuality between the secular and Christian world is not a question of whether or not homosexuality is genetic. We can both agree that heterosexuals have a natural inclination to be attracted to members of the opposite sex; however, this inclination does not justify the sins of fornication or adultery. This is a question of our response to a Holy God Who has communicated through both general (in nature) and special (the Bible) revelation that homosexuality is an abomination. This does not make the fornicator or the adulterer any less guilty in the eyes of God, but it does call into question our response to God. Whether an individual desires sex prior to an appropriate marriage covenant, sex in addition to an appropriate marriage covenant, sex with animals, or sex with members of the same sex, all of these have been classified as sinful attitudes/behaviors by Scripture and necessitate the need for fallen men and women to repent in obedience to their Creator. While I believe the research that has been presented thus far to be found quite wanting, even if there was an apparent "gay gene" (which I find to be incredibly unlikely considering that God created man and woman "very good"), this in no way relinquishes the responsibility of apparent homosexuals to live a life of celibacy. This raises the question of marriage itself; but again, our response to a Holy God is paramount and we find the parameters of the covenant of marriage defined and established by the Word of God. This means that marriage is reserved for one man and one woman for the duration of the life of either party. In the midst of a sinful, fallen world, God's standards seem much too high for us. The fact of the matter is, they are too high for any human being to meet. This is only a reminder of the completeness of our depraved sinfulness and the necessity for a perfect Savior in Christ Jesus.

Do Recent Fossil Finds Support Evolution?

If the conclusion is that Evolution is being further supported with each new find, then it would appear that there is not much evidence to support this position, even more specifically that there is NO primary evidence to support the theory (that is, all intermediate fossils, progressing from less to more complex, which give rise to interspecies variation, are completely absent from the fossil record; additionally, there is no Precambrian evidence that properly addresses the apparent Cambrian Explosion from an evolutionary standpoint; in fact, the Cambrian Explosion is better explained by Theistic Evolution, of which I disagree, than Gould’s Punctuated Equilibrium, of which I also disagree). If the conclusion is that Creation is being further supported with each new find, then it would appear the evidence of polystrate fossils, no Precambrian simple to complex fossils, and preserved dinosaur soft tissue is much more indicative of a global flood approximately 4,000 years ago.

It would appear that much speculation is occurring to support Evolution. The fossil record is of significant importance to the evolutionist. One interesting point addressed by the RATE team is that the geologic column, from which the evidence of the fossil record comes, does not actually exist. Similar strata can be found in different places of the world, but the geologic column, as presented in textbooks, is not found anywhere on planet Earth. This seems to be further complicated by polystrate fossils and the supposed stasis found by both hermit crabs and other sea life (such as sharks, etc.). These evidences are much more supportive of a worldwide flood than a series of random events leading from a single-celled organism to the complexity of life we see about us today.

Biblical Worldview: Ancient Superstition or Viable Scientific Mindset?

The idea that evidence does not interpret itself seems to be the most appropriate when approaching the question of origins. To review evidence that supports either the presupposition of “millions of years” in accordance with evolutionary biology or the presupposition of “In the beginning God” in accordance with Biblical theology, we should always be able to free the evidence from any presuppositional biases of the interpreter. While most evolutionary biologists and other scientists influenced by these pretend that they have no presuppositional bias, the complete avoidance of the question of God and manipulation of data findings to support their own preconceived conclusions makes it painfully obvious that this is just not the case. When considering the age of the earth, finding evidence that supports an age approximate to 6,000 years in accordance with the Biblical account is not unusual at all. In fact, it would appear that dating the age of the earth beyond this time frame is done only as an attempt to reconcile the worldview of secular humanism with the propaganda of evolutionary biology. The leap of faith that must be undertaken in order to create links between missing information, exaggerated hypotheses, and an aversion to the authority of a divine Creator is critical for the promotion of a secularized evolutionary agenda that attempts to remove the responsibility of individual sin.

Looking to some of the response to the previous question, it seems more surprising that many more scientists do not believe in a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis, rather than questioning why any do at all. While the systematized silencing of any voice of opposition to the theory of evolution seems more dogmatic these days than the forced conversion found in Islamic countries, the promotion of “professional suicide” for scientists opposed to evolutionary biology and the ridicule of individuals such as Richard Dawkins of those supporting Intelligent Design/Creation Science should not ever hinder the minds of those who are more interested in the truth than the brainwashing of secular humanism. With both the circular reasoning (evolutionary biologists who support “millions of years” because other scientific fields document “millions of years” because evolutionary biology teaches “millions of years”) and immature response of supposed brilliant minds (Richard Dawkins can be seen answering the question of “What if you’re wrong?” with the question, “What if YOU’RE wrong?” on websites such as YouTube), it is no small feat of ignorance to simply disregard a literal Genesis based solely upon an individual’s presupposition that “there is no God”. I am amazed at the “creationists are stupid” rhetoric thrown out by evolutionists incapable of hearing any criticism to their methods or demonstrating a capability to see beyond the tips of their own noses.

Movie Review: March of the Penguins

Although March of the Penguins is a documentary of sorts distributed by National Geographic Feature Films, I was pleasantly surprised to see that the feature itself had no major evolutionary overtones. Even the introduction mentions the penguins’ mating pattern as an event occurring for thousands of years (which is possible in consideration of a creationist worldview and post-flood animal activity). While the narrator, Morgan Freeman, does reference the continent (Antarctica) as having floated further away from the others toward the South Pole over time, and this likely to support the idea of Pangaea (the theory that the continents originally all were connected and floated apart over time [which is absurd, because if you removed the waters from the Earth you would find the continents are still connected and any continental shifting or rearrangement can be accounted for by the Flood]), he does not dwell on this point, but rather quickly moves on. While this is the case for the feature film, one of the special features called Of Penguins and Men has a massive amount of propaganda supporting both evolution and global warming. As most will likely not watch this, I can at least be satisfied with the feature itself (March of the Penguins).Looking over the different elements of a penguin chick’s survival beyond their first year, and propagation of the species in general, there are several factors to consider:

An adult Emperor Penguin’s ability to survive the long trek from the sea to the mating grounds

The capability of the adult to find a suitable mate

The transferability of the fertilized egg from the mother to the father

The mother’s ability to survive the long trek from the mating grounds to the sea to feed

The mother’s ability to survive predators during feeding to make it back to the mating grounds

The father’s ability to survive the sub-zero temperatures, frozen winds, and dark winter

The father’s ability to starve and wait for the mother’s return to the mating grounds

The transferability of the chick from the father to the mother in the frozen climate

The father’s ability to repeat the sequence the mother has regarding food, survival, and return

The chick’s ability to avoid predators

The father and mother’s ability to take turns feeding the chick while he grows

The chick’s ability to feed and avoid predators for the first 4-5 years in the sea prior to mating

The chick’s ability to repeat the mating process over the next 15-20 years until death

Considering the preceding list, it is easy to identify the factors that are associated with "luck." Predators, accidents occurring during transfer of the egg/chick, and the timing of both parents in making the long trek back and forth between the sea for feeding and the mating grounds all play a part in whether or not the chick will survive.

If we are to consider how natural selection plays a part in the successful survival of the egg/chick and continued propagation of the species, the point is that nature is doing the selecting for the fittest to survive. This means that issues which are really factors related to luck (“wrong place at the wrong time”) are under normal conditions considered elements of natural selection. This would include predators, aging, surviving the weather conditions, finding a mate (with nearly every male coupling due to an outnumbering by females this does not seem to be a major concern), etc. It seems that the survival of the egg/chick relates to behavior and "luck" more than it could to genetics. The choices of when to travel, how much practice to have to prepare for egg/chick transfer, how much the parents eat in order to battle loss of body mass and starvation (females lose 1/3 of their body weight by the time the egg is laid while males lose ½ of their body weight prior to the mother’s return from feeding after the winter), how the parents and chick avoid predators, etc., all have a much more apparent effect on the survivability of a new penguin than anything else. While these factors can be attributed to either instinct or learned behavior by modeling other penguins, it does not seem that they are directly influenced by genetics. The overarching theme of survival for the Emperor Penguin seems to be God's hand in the breeding habits and "luck" of factors in individual penguins lives.

The Value of Human Life in the Evolution/Creation Debate

In consideration of the value of human life and how this issue relates to both an evolutionary and creationistic worldview, we come to the case of Carrie Buck. Becoming pregnant at the age of 17, Carrie was committed by her foster parents to the Virginia Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded on the grounds of feeblemindedness, incorrigible behavior and promiscuity (although her pregnancy occurred after having been raped by her own foster parent’s nephew). Carrie’s mother, Emma, had likewise been committed to the Virginia Colony for the Epileptic and the Feeble-minded after being accused of immorality, prostitution, and having syphilis. It seems apparent that the sexual deviancy so commonplace in our contemporary society was grounds in the early 20^th century to label one as insane, mentally retarded, or “feeble-minded”, regardless of if this deviancy was a forced act by another. Sadly, to make certain the family did not reproduce, Carrie’s younger sister Doris was secretly sterilized after being hospitalized for appendicitis. Doris was unaware of this procedure having occurred, until the 1980’s, after many years of attempted child-bearing with her husband. Amazingly, US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. had this to say in 1927 regarding Carrie Buck:

“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

Later in life, and after actual investigation, there was an obvious consensus that Carrie was a woman of normal intelligence. Additionally, her daughter Vivian (the child she bore from the rape) was an average student who excelled in deportment (behavior).

Looking at this background from the practice of sterilization in support of eugenics, it seems Justice Holmes gives a common response from those in favor of evolutionary thought: That it is “better for all” if we prevent those we deem “unfit from continuing their kind” from ever giving birth at all. We see this in the racist sentiments of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, who said, “It is said that a fish as large as a man has a brain no larger than the kernel of an almond. In all fish and reptiles where there is no great brain development, there is also no conscious sexual control. The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.” Interestingly, the placement of Planned Parenthood clinics in poor, ethnic minority neighborhoods and the comparable ratios of abortions amongst ethnic minorities (particularly blacks) to those of whites only serve to further support the racist hatred of such individuals as Sanger. We also see the common response of Justice Holmes in the tens of millions of abortions performed in the United States since the US Supreme Court decision regarding Roe v. Wade in 1973, especially with regard to the higher percentages of abortions performed upon children with debilitating disease and mental/physical disabilities. Considering all these things, when our presupposition is that all life originated through random mutation, natural selection, and other evolutionary processes, our conclusion can only necessitate a eugenic of sterilization for the weak, the destruction of human life at will (to include abortion, euthanasia, and genocide), and any other means to promote the survival of the fittest.

Opposing all these points, the Biblical view of Creation gives value to human life and necessary order in the world. First, we must understand that there is a hierarchy to Creation. This hierarchy includes human relationships in the family and Church (Genesis 2:21-23, Genesis 3:16, 1 Corinthians 11:7-9, 1 Timothy 2:11-14) as well as the distinguishing of man above the rest of Creation for the purpose of dominion and fruitful multiplication of the human race (Genesis 1:26-28). In light of these Scripture passages, we can also understand that human life has value because murder is a direct assault against the image of God, hence God Himself. This is supported by the existence of the sixth commandment in Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17. If human life has value as the express image of God, if our existence has a hierarchical order in which we relate to one another and the rest of the created world, and if the destruction of human life is always a sin (whether by means of abortion, euthanasia, eugenics, etc.), than that value which is inherent in human life only comes from a Creator. This view must therefore be diametrically opposed to a meaningless existence grounded in random chance, making certain that the evolutionary and creationistic views of the value of human life are, just as their theory of origins, mutually exclusive from one another.

A recap on Hell in response to annihilation:

Concerning annihilationism, we must consider a few things. First, we can understand that Sheol in the Old Testament was used to mean the place of the dead. This is true for both the righteous and the wicked as we can understand from verses such as Genesis 37:35 (Jacob), Psalm 16:10 (David/Christ), Proverb 5:5 (Immoral Woman), Isaiah 38:10 (Hezekiah), and Hosea 13:14 (Unrepentant Israel/Ephraim/Samaria). Secondly, we must understand that in Christ’s argument with the Sadducees over the resurrection (Matthew 22:23-33), He proved His point by the tense of a single verb (eiÎmið, the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb). Because we understand through this passage that there is life after death, and because we understand that up to this point both the righteous and the wicked were sent to Sheol (Hades in the New Testament; see Acts 2:25-28 and the cross-reference of Psalm 16:8-11), this supports the fact that both the righteous and the wicked endure after death, as opposed to the annihilation of the wicked. Christ’s illustration of the rich man and Lazarus also support this conclusion in Luke 16:19-31 by demonstrating the division in Sheol/Hades up to this point between the enduring righteous and enduring wicked. Reconciling the place of Lazarus (Abraham’s Bosom) with such verses as Ephesians 4:8-9 and Luke 23:43, we find that Abraham’s Bosom is synonymous with Paradise. As a final point, the final destination of the wicked (to include Satan, his angels/demons, the Antichrist/Beast, the False Prophet, Hades, and Death) is an everlasting (both ultimate AND enduring) Gehenna (Hell). We see this truth in verses such as Revelation 19:20, 20:10, and 20:12-15.

Women Pastors?

While postmodern culture said goodbye to Biblical values long ago, this does not determine how Christians are to live out their convictions regarding the Word of God. In light of the past 40+ years of feminism, equality between the sexes has slowly evolved from meaning “equal value” to “sameness”. Although the Bible sees men and women as equal, it does not see us as the same, assigning Biblical roles for both men and women. We see this in the Creation (Genesis 2:21-23, 1 Corinthians 11:7-9, 1 Timothy 2:13-14), the Fall (Genesis 3:16), and church order (1 Timothy 2:11-12). Apart from the differentiation of roles related to the preceding points, men and women are in fact equal as it relates to value and the process of being saved through Christ (Genesis 1:27-28, Galatians 3:26-28). While these Biblical principles seem confusing to those who do not believe the Word of God, no one is confused about the natural principle that only a woman gives birth or that only a man can be a father (unless you implant a secular worldview which has no understanding of gender whatsoever). The Biblical principles only become confusing as individuals approach the Bible with contempt for God and His Word, not believing the plain meaning of what is said, nor understanding through context that even with the removal of cultural issues (such as hair length, head coverings, apparel, etc.) God still demonstrates His plan of gender roles and a Biblical hierarchy in the home and Church. This is accomplished without the degradation of either sex, but rather the fulfillment of their God-given purposes as equally valuable before God.

What is Man?

In spite of all the effort to develop theories of anthropology from those holding a secular or non-Christian worldview, none have accurately addressed the definition and purpose of man as demonstrated by the Bible. Considering this, there are several points one can come to understand regarding the doctrine of man as represented in Scripture. First, due to sin, all men are primarily and absolutely depraved (Romans 3:23, Jeremiah 17:9). This being true, we can in no way please God in and of ourselves: We are not spiritually injured, but spiritually dead (Isaiah 64:6, Romans 3:10-18). An important point to understand about how centrally and completely man is fallen is by considering how holy, perfect, and gracious our God is (1 Corinthians 1:25, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 5:8). Understanding the nature of man and how man is comparable to God his Creator, Biblical anthropology is a two-sided coin which also addresses the fact that man is the crown of God’s creation, having been made in His image (Psalm 8:4-5, Genesis 1:26-27). Realizing how God has created man and how man has demonstrated his capacity and tendency toward sin, this completed picture should cause sinful man to properly view himself in light of a holy God. When this realization is accomplished, man begins to understand his need for a Savior in Jesus Christ and purpose in life to accomplish the plan and will of God for him (Luke 13:3, Romans 6:23, John 14:6, Romans 8:28, 12:2). So then, man is defined by sin, yet redeemed and able to fulfill his purpose in and by obedience to Christ.