The central tenant of Christianity is that Jesus Christ was God incarnate, He was crucified on a cross and rose again on the third day. In other words, it’s an actual historical event. As Paul said:

if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

(1Cor. 15:14-19, NASB)

If the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is not an actual historical event, then the entire belief system of Christianity is a sham. This key fact is primary reason why the historical accuracy of the Bible is constantly attacked by skeptics.

Among the various pieces of historical narrative in the Bible is the story of King David, kingdom Israel at its peak and their conflict with Edom. Skeptics have claimed that Edom didn’t exist until 200 years after David lived and that Kind David himself was nothing more than a tribal chieftan.

Archeologists have confirmed that the Bible is actually historically accurate on this point. “Archeologist unearths biblical controversy”

Yet by coincidence, Prof. Adams of Hamilton’s McMaster University says, he and an international team of colleagues fit into place a significant piece of the puzzle of human history in the Middle East — unearthing information that points to the existence of the Bible’s vilified Kingdom of Edom at precisely the time the Bible says it existed, and contradicting widespread academic belief that it did not come into being until 200 years later.

Their findings mean that those scholars convinced that the Hebrew Old Testament is at best a compendium of revisionist, fragmented history, mixed with folklore and theology, and at worst a piece of outright propaganda, likely will have to apply the brakes to their thinking.

Because, if the little bit of the Old Testament’s narrative that Prof. Adams and his colleagues have looked at is true, other bits could be true as well.

This last sentence is misleading because it implies that this is the first time any of the Bible’s historical narrative has been proven true, which is far from the case. I cannot run down a list of every detail which has been proven true because, quite frankly, I don’t know them all and at the moment I’m out of time to track down references.

One detail that I remember is that one of the nations mentioned in the Bible — I’m pretty sure it was the Hittites — was widely considered to be a “myth of the Bible” because there wasn’t any evidence that they had ever existed; that is, until sometime in the early to mid 1900’s when archeologists discovered proof that they actually did exist.

The existence of one of the rulers involved in Jesus’ crucifixion — I think it was Pontius Pilate — was also considered to be a myth, until a coin with his image on it was found.

The Bible is much more than a book of mere religious platitudes and “spiritual” beliefs. It is also a book describing actual historical events, and as such, the accuracy of its claims can be verified. For more on this subject, look here, here, here, and here.

(HT to The Black Kettle for the link to the main article.)

One of the most divisive issues in politics today is the question of whether or not we were justified in going to war against Iraq. Opinions on the subject range from “we should go to war anytime another country even looks at us crosseyed” to “there is never a good reason to fight a war.” Both extremes are unbiblical. Consider what Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes:

There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven —

A time to give birth, and a time to die;
A time to plant, and a time to uproot what is planted.
A time to kill, and a time to heal;
A time to tear down, and a time to build up.
A time to weep, and a time to laugh;
A time to mourn, and a time to dance.
A time to throw stones, and a time to gather stones;
A time to embrace, and a time to shun embracing.
A time to search, and a time to give up as lost;
A time to keep, and a time to throw away.
A time to tear apart, and a time to sew together;
A time to be silent, and a time to speak.
A time to love, and a time to hate;
A time for war, and a time for peace.

(Eccl. 3:1-8, NASB)

So how do we identify when it is an appropriate time for peace and when war is call for? Jon Trainer at personal trainer has written an excellent article on the subject of Just War Theory.

Just War Theory (JWT) is a moderating position between these two extremes.  As a doctrine of war it has been developed over hundreds of years. Great Christian thinkers like Ambrose, Augustine, and Aquinas have influenced its formation. The purpose of JWT is to judge the appropriateness of going to war (just ad bellum), and to govern the conduct of forces in war (just in bellum). The first five of the following seven principles define the criteria for going to war, while the last two limit how such a war should be fought.

Michelle Malkin notes an article discussing prom dresses which look like they were designed for porn stars. Dory of Wittenberg Gate has an excellent biblical take on the story.

Modesty is that quality which flows from a humble, reverent, and chaste mind and heart, and manifests itself in speech, behavior, and dress that communicates a moderate estimation of one’s own worth and importance, and a high estimation of the beauty of purity in Christian marriage.

Lest we become too prudish about modesty, let us remember that women are told to adorn themselves with modesty, but they are not told not to adorn themselves. (1 Tim 2:9) Even the Proverbs 31 wife is described as being adorned in purple and scarlet. As in many things, we must walk that line between legalism or pietism on the one hand and licentiousness on the other. I think the best way to do that in regards to modesty is to ask the question, “What am I communicating?” and if we are to err, err on the side of caution.

From LinuxInsider comes this story about a man who tried to help his friend lower his Windows induced stress levels by pointing out viable alternatives.

And do you know what my efforts have gotten me so far? Right: I’m no longer his friend. Apparently I have an agenda here; some diabolical personal reason for wanting to him to buy a Mac. And it’s true, I do have a reason: He’d be a lot happier and more productive using a Mac because it would let him focus on the things he’s good at—an impressive list that doesn’t include Windows administration.

Unfortunately, it’s impossible to get there from where he is. Instead, I’m going to hear, someday soon, that the stress killed him, either directly or in traffic. That’s a bitter lesson, but one we all need to learn: Sometimes rationality and goodwill just aren’t enough, and you have to walk away because you can’t talk to the willfully deaf.

That situation sounds strangely familiar. Unfortunately, that is how some people respond to the good news of the cross. Paul lays out an appropriate response in 2nd Timothy, Chapter 3. This is only a small part of that excellent chapter on perseverance in the face of those who reject the truth:

You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

(2 Tim. 3:14-15, NASB)

Be sure to read the entire chapter of 2nd Timothy 3.

The Smallest Minority is following a story about a school in Newton, Massachussetts which has been experiencing a precipitous decline in math scores in standardized testing since 2001. The school administrators claim to be mystified about why this is happening. He refers to this article which points out:

Between 1999 and 2001, under the direction of Superintendent Young and Assistant Superintendent Wyatt, the math curriculum was redesigned to emphasize “Newton’s commitment to active anti-racist education” for the elementary and middle schools. This meant that no longer were division, multiplication, fractions and decimals the first priority for teaching math. For that matter, the teaching of math was no longer the first priority for math teachers, as indicated by the new curriculum guidelines, called benchmarks, which function as the primary instructional guide for teaching math in the Newton Public Schools.

In 2001 Mr. Young, Mrs. Wyatt and an assortment of other well-paid school administrators, defined the new number-one priority for teaching mathematics, as documented in the curriculum benchmarks, “Respect for Human Differences - students will live out the system wide core of ‘Respect for Human Differences’ by demonstrating anti-racist/anti-bias behaviors.” It continues, “Students will: Consistently analyze their experiences and the curriculum for bias and discrimination; Take effective anti-bias action when bias or discrimination is identified; Work with people of different backgrounds and tell how the experience affected them; Demonstrate how their membership in different groups has advantages and disadvantages that affect how they see the world and the way they are perceived by others…” It goes on and on.

These are the most important priorities that the school department has determined for teaching math from grade one through eight, as documented in the Newton Public Schools Benchmarks.

Nowhere among the first priorities for the math curriculum guidelines is the actual teaching of math. That’s a distant second. To Superintendent Young and his School Committee, mathematical problem-solving is of secondary importance to anti-racist/anti-bias math.

If teaching mathematics is not the purpose of a mathematics class, then it should be blindingly obvious that the students won’t be learning mathematics! Apparently, the administrators have been closing their eyes to truth and logic — both of which were created by God — for so long that they have become blind to even the most basic of truths. The first chapter of Romans describes what happens when people reject God, especially in these two sections:

“For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,”

(Rom. 1:21-22, NASB)

For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie,

(Rom. 1:25a, NASB)

The subtitle of the article on The Smallest Minority is, “May I Beat Them With a ClueBat™?” As Spock would say, “Indeed.”