Popular evangelist Billy Graham made some disturbing remarks in a recent issue of Newsweek. When asked by managing editor Jon Meacham whether secularists and adherents of religions that reject Christ as Saviour will go to heaven, Graham replied, “Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there (in heaven) and who won’t. ... I don’t want to speculate about that.”

Not surprisingly, Meacham hailed Graham’s rejection of what has long been standard Christian doctrine, calling Graham “a resolute Christian who declines to render absolute verdicts about who will get to heaven and who will not.” That may sound good to Meacham, but Graham, a revered evangelist and teacher of Scripture, should know better. What was there to keep him from pointing to Acts 4:12, or John 14:6? What room did John the Baptist leave for speculation when he said, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” Graham doesn’t need to speculate if he believes the Bible.

For a more involved discussion of Graham’s disturbing statement, check out this page.

A group of archeologists from Texas believe they have found the remains of Noah’s Ark in a mountain range north of Tehran. From CompuServe News:

“I can’t imagine what it could be if it is not the Ark,” Arch Bonnema of the Christian-based Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration (Base) Institute, told ABC News. The black wood thought to be the remains of Noah’s Ark sticks out in stark contrast to the rest of the mountain.

The team found the object nestled on the side of a hill, but at first they didn’t think it was the Ark. Still, they wondered—and hoped. “We found something that has my heart skipping a beat,” archaeologist and team leader Robert Cornuke told ABC. “It wasn’t impressive at first. Certainly didn’t think it to be Noah’s Ark. But when we got close, we were amazed. It looked similar to wood.” On the downside, it wasn’t all that distinctive since it looked very much like the deck of a modern boat.

Click here to see photos of the site at ArkFever.com.

More on what exactly the researchers found:

What they found is about 400 feet long and consists of rocks that look remarkably like blackened wood beams while other rock in the area is distinctively brown, according to a news release issued by the Base Institute. One visible piece is “cut” at a 90-degree angle. Even more intriguing, some of the wood-like rocks were tested just this week and actually proved to be petrified wood. Go to the Bible and you’ll read that Noah sealed his ark with pitch, which is a black substance. Upon being cut open, one of these “rocks” also divulged a marine fossil that could have only originated undersea.

From the ArkFever website:

The unusual object is perched on a slope 13,120 feet above sea level. After studying the discovery site, Bonnema observed, “These beams not only look like petrified wood, they are so impressive that they look like real wood—this is an amazing discovery that may be the oldest shipwreck in recorded history.”

Reg Lyle, oil and gas geologist said “the object appears to be a basalt dike, however, it is absolutely uncanny that the object looks like hand hewn timbers, even the grain and color look just like petrified wood….I really need to keep an open mind about this.”

The team returned to the U.S. from rugged mountains in Iran with astonishing video footage of a monstrous black formation which looks like rock but bears the amazing image of hundreds of massive, wooden, hand-hewn beams. Could it be the lost ark on which two of every animal once sailed with their human rescuer?

David Ketter is keeping a running “Noah’s Ark Roundup” for those interested in following the story.

Pat Robertson has recently gotten himself in trouble for suggesting that Ariel Sharon’s stroke was judgment from God and for calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. Now he’s in the news again, this time saying God has told him about storms and a possible tsunami in 2006.

Writes the AP:

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. – In another in a series of notable pronouncements, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson says God told him storms and possibly a tsunami will hit America’s coastline this year.

Robertson has made the predictions at least four times in the past two weeks on his news-and-talk television show “The 700 Club” on the Christian Broadcasting Network, which he founded.

Robertson said the revelations about this year’s weather came to him during his annual personal prayer retreat in January.

“If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms,” Robertson said May 8. On Wednesday, he added, “There well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest.”

Is this worth the news coverage it has received? “The coasts of America will be lashed by storms” is an extremely vague statement that could be considered true of any year depending on one’s definition of “lashed.” Likewise, “there well may be something as bad as a tsunami” isn’t exactly a strong assertion about the future.

If MSNBC’s poll is any indication, the general public is equally skeptical: Only 11 percent believe Robertson truly received warnings from God about storms and tsunamis.

Agent Tim has written A Sorrowful Memory, A Great Reminder, an excellent post that reviews what happened with Terri Schiavo. It has been almost a year since Schiavo’s feeding tube was permanently removed.

Agent Tim also has a list of other bloggers who have solemnly marked the anniversary.

In other news . . . .

A former Muslim is now facing the death penalty for converting to Christianity—in Afghanistan. (I will refrain from any comments on how this could happen in a country that the U.S. theoretically liberated.) As Michelle Malkin noted on her blog, this story hasn’t received nearly enough attention. Here are the details from VOA News:

An Afghan man who recently admitted he converted to Christianity faces the death penalty under the country’s strict Islamic legal system. The trial is a critical test of Afghanistan’s new constitution and democratic government.

The case is attracting widespread attention in Afghanistan, where local media are closely monitoring the landmark proceedings.

Abdul Rahman, 40, was arrested last month, accused of converting to Christianity.

Under Afghanistan’s new constitution, minority religious rights are protected but Muslims are still subject to strict Islamic laws.

Interestingly enough, those who have paid attention to the goings-on in Iraq know that the Iraq constitution is eerily similar to Afghanistan’s. The Iraq constitution states in Article 2: “Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation,” and: “No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.” (See the full text of the Iraq constitution here.)

But back to the news story:

Appearing in court earlier this week Rahman insisted he should not be considered an infidel, but admitted he is a Christian. He says he still believes in the almighty Allah, but cannot say for sure who God really is. “I am,” he says, “a Christian and I believe in Jesus Christ.”

Rahman reportedly converted more than 16 years ago after spending time working in Germany. Officials say his family, who remain observant Muslims, turned him over to the authorities. On Thursday the prosecution told the court Rahman has rejected numerous offers to embrace Islam. Prosecuting attorney Abdul Wasi told the judge that the punishment should fit the crime.

He says Rahman is a traitor to Islam and is like a cancer inside Afghanistan. Under Islamic law and under the Afghan constitution, he says, the defendant should be executed. The court has ordered a delay in the proceedings to give Rahman time to hire an attorney. Under Afghan law, once a verdict is given, the case can be appealed twice to higher courts.

This is the first case in which the defendant has admitted to converting and is refusing to back down, even while facing the death penalty.

La Shawn Barber has been blogging about this case, as has this woman, who writes:

It makes me humble and quite ashamed of myself when I read of the bravery and strength of faith exhibited by those who choose Christianity when it is the hardest thing to be.

Others who have posted some exceptionally interesting thoughts about the case: Junkyard Blog, Below the Beltway, and others.

The general consensus seems to be so far, “This is what we fought for?”

Neither the Afghan nor the U.S. president have spoken out against the case so far, although they may not have been aware of this until very recently, or may still not be aware of it.

I’m not sure how many readers are familiar with Dr. Henry Morris (I’m guessing quite a few), but he is generally recognized as the “father of modern creationism” and during his long lifetime wrote around 60 books defending creation and refuting evolution.

He died on February 25th, at the age of 87.

Writes Douglas Phillips:

No single man in the last two thousand years has contributed more to the defense of the book of Genesis or been more effective in rallying the people of God to embrace the historical, grammatical, literal, normative interpretation of its text . .

According to friend Mark Rasche:

He went down with a pencil in his hand.

Perhaps not surprisingly, this great man’s death hasn’t garnered a lot of attention in the national media. However, there will be more about Morris in our next issue of Virtue Magazine, due out this Saturday.

I’m sitting here at my college’s library, typing on a computer. I just got out of a Sociology class where, after a lecture on domestic abuse, the professor decided to have a class discussion about gay marriage.

For the record, this is the professor who has, in previous classes, praised Karl Marx for having “a lot of good things to say,” condemned the U.S. government for not building houses for the homeless, criticized Bush for his supposed mistreatment of Muslims post 9/11, and so on and so forth.

In short, I am stuck in a class with a professor who is the perfect example of the far-left professors who dominate our nation’s (mostly) far-left universities. (Thank goodness for places like Hillsdale College and Patrick Henry College, no?)

Anyway, it appeared that a large majority of the kids in this class saw nothing wrong with gay marriage. Of course, maybe it just appeared that way since maybe all the conservative kids (like me) stayed mostly quiet. But on an estimate, I’d say that probably two/thirds of the class appeared to support gay marriage.

If this is any indication of what’s on the way for our nation, gay marriage is coming soon. And there won’t be anything we as conservatives will be able to do. Right now a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, but how many of those Americas are, say, 40 years and older? In 20 years, our population will have changed, and it seems to me that our population will be growing more liberal. And there is nothing we can really do about it.

Depressing thought, no? I agree. Sitting through a college class like this is the most depressing things a conservative can do. Especially when you listen to some of the things students (and the professor say):

Gay marriage won’t affect heterosexuals, so why should they object?

If two people love each other, they should be allowed to marry, and it doesn’t matter if they’re the same sex.

And so on and so forth. My question to our readers is this: what do you think is the most effective way to refute the above arguments? And what do you think about the future of our country?

“The Passion of Kanye West.” That’s the headline of the most recent issue of Rolling Stone magazine, which features a picture of the 27-year old rapper posing as Jesus on the cross—crown of thorns and all.

You can read the (short) AP article about it here, and you can see a picture of the magazine cover here.

West defended his “brash attitude” by saying:

In America, they want you to accomplish these great feats, to pull off these David Copperfield-type stunts. You want me to be great, but you don’t ever want me to say I’m great?

Wow, what a shining example of humbleness and modesty for our society to follow! One wonders what Jesus would think of a statement like that.

In the past, West has accused George Bush of not caring about black people, and like most rappers’ “music,” his songs are full of swearing and other inappropiate material.

La Shawn Barber has been covering the topic as well.

The Vatican continued its shift away from the Biblical account of creation yesterday, as the Vatican newspaper ran an article criticizing the “intelligent design” theory as not being science and not belonging in school classrooms:

Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, laid out the scientific rationale for Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, saying that in the scientific world, biological evolution “represents the interpretative key of the history of life on Earth.”

He lamented that certain American “creationists” had brought the debate back to the “dogmatic” 1800s, and said their arguments weren’t science but ideology.

In the past decades or so, the Vatican and the pope have made various statements increasingly critical of a literal interpretation of Scripture’s creation account (in one Catholic friend’s words, “the Bible is not meant to be a science textbook”); and more and more supportive of evolution—albeit, “thiestic evolution”.

Is the Catholic Church caving in on one of the most important problems facing Christians today, or are they doing the right thing?

Readers might also be interested in checking out VirtueBlog’s thread on the idea of voting for pro-choice candidates. There has been quite a bit of interesting discussion and interesting comments!

The Associated Press is reporting that Israel has suspended contact with Pat Robertson for his suggestion that Ariel Sharon’s stroke was punishment from God for “dividing” Israel.

The decision, announced Wednesday by Israeli officials, does not affect other Christian groups that also consider it their spiritual duty to support Israel as fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

Israeli leaders see the Christian allies as tireless lobbyists in Washington and elsewhere. The evangelicals also funnel millions of dollars each year to Jewish settlers in the West Bank and — before last year’s pullout — the Gaza Strip.

Tourism Minister Abraham Hirchson said he gave instructions to “stop all contact” with groups associated with Robertson. Last week, Robertson implied Sharon’s massive stroke was a blow for “dividing God’s land” with the withdrawal from Gaza and four West Bank settlements.

Needless to say, this is an extremely interesting situation here. I know there are a lot of people out there who firmly believe that the Jews are still God’s chosen people today, and that the land now known as Israel belongs to the Jews. I also know that a lot of these same people strongly support Pat Robertson and even agree with (or at least, are unwilling to criticize) the statement that Pat made about Sharon and his stroke.

But now the Israeli government—the supposed government of God’s chosen people—has cut off contact with Robertson for daring to say what he said. How do Christians, many of whom seem to hold to an “Israel first, America second” stance, deal with this? I am curious to see their reaction to this news, especially since Israel also said they would no longer deal with anyone who agrees with or supports what Robertson said:

“We want to see who in the group supports his (Robertson’s) statements. Those who support the statements cannot do business with us . . .,” Hartuv said.

UPDATE: Robertson has sent a letter apologizing for his statements.

In a letter dated Wednesday and marked for hand delivery to Sharon’s son Omri, Robertson called the Israeli prime minister a “kind, gracious and gentle man” who was “carrying an almost insurmountable burden of making decisions for his nation.”

“My concern for the future safety of your nation led me to make remarks which I can now view in retrospect as inappropriate and insensitive in light of a national grief experienced because of your father’s illness,” the letter said.

Israel isn’t feeling too forgiving, though:

Despite the apology, it was doubtful Robertson would be brought back into the fold of the proposed Christian Heritage Center in the northern Galilee region, where tradition says Jesus lived and taught.

The exclusion carries a special irony for a preacher who helped define television ministries: The planned complex is to include studios and satellite links for live broadcasts from the Holy Land.

Rami Levi, director of marketing for Israel’s tourism ministry, told The Associated Press that the government remains “outraged” by Robertson’s remarks.

The U.S. Senate is opening confirmation hearings for one Samuel Alito today:

From Yahoo.com:

President Bush urged senators on Monday to give Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito a fair vote, while Democrats told Bush on the opening day of Alito’s confirmation hearings that neither Congress nor the high court should follow the president in lockstep. Executive authority is certain to be a critical issue. The Senate Judiciary Committee will begin hearings on Bush’s choice of Alito to be the 110th justice in U.S. history amid a debate over the president’s secret authorization of wiretaps in the terror war.

Hear that? That’s the sound of senators sharpening their swords!

In all seriousness, these hearings will be very interesting to follow. It sounds like issues like abortion may even take a backseat to the recent spying scandal, which is really quite amazing.

Dean Velvel at LewRockwell.com has put together a list of questions he believes Alito should be asked:

Do you believe that the Commander-in-Chief power, contrary to Justice Jackson’s view, gives the President the power to ignore a Congressional statute? If so, in what circumstances?

Do you believe the Commander-in-Chief power gives the President the power to override Constitutional rights? If so, in what circumstances and to what extent?

In regard to questions one and two above: Can the President authorize kidnapping at home or abroad if he thinks this is desirable or necessary?

Can the President order torture at home or abroad if he thinks this is desirable or necessary?
Can the President order warrantless electronic surveillance at home or abroad if he thinks this is desirable or necessary?
Can the President order American citizens to be jailed indefinitely if he thinks this is desirable or necessary?

a. If the President chooses to say that a war on terrorism is continuing, how long can he exercise power that is granted to him by Congressional statute for the purpose of fighting that war? If there are no attacks against us for two years, can he continue exercising the power? What if there are no attacks for five years? Ten years?
Can he continue exercising the power granted by Congress until and unless Congress enacts a bill to withdraw it, even if this takes 20 or 30 years?
(c). What if Congress votes to withdraw it, but the President successfully vetoes the bill withdrawing it and Congress cannot muster the necessary two-thirds in each house to override? Or, what if one house overrides but one-third plus one successfully oppose an override in the other house?

a. Can a President’s intent when signing a law detract from, counterbalance or override Congress’ intent when passing the law?

Does the President’s intent when signing the law have any effect whatever?

More updates will follow as the hearings progress.