Obama recently clarified his position on when life begins (before he had said it was “above [his] pay grade”).  In an interview with ABC News’ This Week program on Sunday, Obama said, “What I intended to say is that, as a Christian, I have a lot of humility…all I meant to communicate was that I don’t presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions.”

His position is quite similar (surprise, surprise) to that of his running mate, Joe Biden:

I’d say, “Look, I know when it begins for me.” It’s a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I’m prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths – Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others – who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They’re intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life – I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society. And I know you get the push back, “Well, what about fascism?” Everybody, you know, you going to say fascism’s all right? Fascism isn’t a matter of faith. No decent religious person thinks fascism is a good idea. [Italics mine]

Both of these guys are trying to say that the question of when a human life begins is a theological one and that they can’t force their opinion on others. The abortion debate has nothing to do with theology and everything to do with biology. You might be able to argue about when a human gets a soul, but you can’t argue about when life begins. It is a scientific fact that life begins at conception. It’s indisputable. Upon conception, a new biological organism exists that did not exist before. That precise point in time is when the life of that human being starts.

These guys do not want to “force their opinion” on others, so they prefer to let millions of unborn children be killed in the womb. Does no one else see a problem with that? Could they be any more lacking in moral conviction? Biden says that he accepts his church’s teaching on abortion, namely that abortion is morally equivalent to murder…and yet he thinks it is okay to sit back and do nothing about it? Nay, to actually remove all legal and economic obstacles that stand in the way? In our “pluralistic society” several decades ago, there were differing opinions as to whether black people were to be considered “persons.” If Obama had been alive at that time, would he have preferred that people not force their opinion on slave owners? Would Biden have insisted that personhood was a theological issue back then? Considering that it was the Republicans that moved to end slavery, maybe so.

Thomas Sowell puts it well:

…Democrats have…suddenly discovered that [Palin's] lack of experience in general — and foreign-policy experience in particular — is a terrible danger in someone just a heartbeat away from being President of the United States.

…this is an incredible argument coming from those whose presidential candidate has even less experience in public office than Sarah Palin, and none in foreign policy.

But the big talking point is that the Democrats’ vice-presidential nominee, Senator Joe Biden, has years of foreign policy experience as a member, and now chairman, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

That all depends on what the definition of “experience” is.

…Senator Joe Biden’s years of service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is even further removed from foreign-policy experience. He has had a front-row seat as an observer of foreign policy. But Senator Biden has never had any real experience of making foreign policy and taking the consequences of the results.

The difference between being a spectator and being a participant, with responsibility for the consequences of what you say and do, is fundamental.

You can read books about crime or attend lectures by criminologists, but you have no real experience or expertise about crime unless you have been a criminal or a policeman.

…As for Senator Obama, his various pronouncements on foreign policy have been as immature as they have been presumptuous.

He talked publicly about taking military action against Pakistan, one of our few Islamic allies and a nation with nuclear weapons.

Barack Obama’s first response to the Russian invasion of Georgia was to urge “all sides” to negotiate a cease-fire and take their issues to the United Nations. That is standard liberal talk, which even Obama had second thoughts about, after Senator John McCain gave a more grown-up response.

We should all have second thoughts about what is, and is not, foreign-policy “experience.”

Well, I thought I might vote for a third party this year, but because John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, I now feel that he is sincere in his promises to appoint constructionist judges to the Supreme Court. So, you’ll see that I now have a McCain-Palin button on my blog. I’m confident McCain is going to stick to his word and that the issue of abortion will be returned to the states within the next eight years. I don’t even really consider it a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils anymore. I’m actually cautiously optimistic about this ticket.

Well, I have to say I am extremely pleased with John McCain’s pick for his VP. Sarah Palin is solidly pro-life, so the choice gives me confidence that McCain is not just paying lip service to pro-lifers. As governor of Alaska and a former mayor, she brings the administrative experience that was lacking in the campaign up until now.

Tom Gross says,

Palin has a record for integrity and for getting the job done matched by very few politicians, as shown by her success in tackling the corrupt Republican party establishment in Alaska, and her highly effective economic program there.

Great insight on the Good Shepherd from my friend John.

Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that their New World Translation, put together by “translators” without any legitimate credentials (the lead translator dropped out of college in his second year), is superior to other translations. The NWT almost completely eliminates references to the deity of Christ. If they are correct and the original Greek text does not show that Jesus is God, then why does the Greek Orthodox Church believe that Jesus is God? Presumably these people are native speakers of Greek (granted, the language has no doubt changed since the New Testament was written, but at least the early Greek Christians would have known something was fishy). If the deity of Christ is not to be found in the original Greek text, why would native Greek speakers be convinced otherwise? Could it be that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ twisting of the meaning will not hold water where the language is actually spoken?

I’ve been having a long chat with a Jehovah’s Witness lately. (I’ve also been busy with work, which is why I’ve not been around much lately.) Anyway, he asked me why I do not worship God the Father only and pointed to John 4:23 (”Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshipers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for, indeed, the Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship him.” –New World Translation).

I replied, “The verse you have cited does not say worship the Father only. Where are you getting ‘only’ from?” He responded with Matthew 4:10 (”Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”–NWT). So I answered, “Yes, and Jehovah is a triune God, so this verse does not prove that we should worship only God the Father and not God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.”

I also pointed out that Jesus is worshipped many times in the New Testament, and God commands the angels to worship him using the same Greek word that was used in John 4:23. So he then tells me that the Greek word, proskuneo, is also used to mean “give obeisance to” and points to Revelation 3:9.

So I took it upon myself to look up the passages where the word is used in the New Testament. It apparently is used a total of 54 times (Mat. 2:2, Mat. 2:8, Mat. 2:11, Mat. 4:9. Mat. 4:10, Mat. 8:2, Mat. 9:18, Mat. 14:33, Mat. 15:25, Mat. 18:26, Mat. 20:20, Mat. 28:9, Mat. 28:17; Mark 5:6, Mark 15:19; Luke 4:7, Luke 4:8, Luke 24:52; John 4:20, John 4:21, John 4:22, John 4:23, John 4:24; Acts 7:43, Acts 8:27, Acts 10:25, Acts 24:11; 1 Cor. 14:25; Heb. 1:6, Heb. 11:21; Rev. 3:9, Rev. 4:10, Rev. 5:14, Rev. 7:11, Rev. 9:20, Rev. 11:1, Rev. 11:16, Rev. 13:4, Rev. 13:8, Rev. 13:12, Rev. 13:15, Rev. 14:7, Rev. 14:9, Rev. 14:11, Rev. 15:4, Rev. 16:2, Rev. 19:4, Rev. 19:10, Rev. 19:20, Rev. 20:4, Rev. 22:8, Rev. 22:9). Now, the only possible place where the word is used for an action performed for someone other than Jesus and could mean “give obeisance to” instead of “worship” is Revelation 3:9. All the others clearly refer to worship, including Acts 10:25-26 where Cornelius worshiped Peter and Peter said, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”

Revelation 3:9 reads, “Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.” (The New World Translation says “obeisance” instead of “worship.”) However, is it not likely that this is referring to the same type of situation as in 1 Corinthians 14:25 where the object of the worship is God and other humans are present (before the worshippers)? In other words, could the passage not just as easily read “Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship [me] before your feet, and to know that I have loved you,” since there is no object specified? I mean, isn’t that the whole point, anyway, to show that the synagogue of Satan was worshipping a false god (said they were Jews and were not)?

So, ultimately, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are saying that proskuneo should be translated as “obeisance” when referring to Jesus because the word means “obeisance” when used for actions directed at persons other than God and worship when it refers to actions directed at God, but they cannot provide any examples of such usage from the New Testament other than a single questionable one. I think the internal evidence is on the side of the Orthodox Christians.

McCain is now being more vocal about his pro-life views, presumably because he wants the social conservative vote. If he’d come out against ESC research it would be much easier for me to vote for him. How can people claim to be pro-life and still support research that kills the unborn? It makes no sense to me.

Back on July 2, Barack Obama reportedly made the following statement while in Colorado Springs:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Could he be talking about a police state? Do we really need a civilian national security force like the one he is quoted as describing? I agree with Joseph Farah that we definitely need some clarification.

16:43 in the video

Interestingly enough, the part of the speech in question has been removed from transcripts of the speech. Why would they do that?