Thomas Ortiz July 16th, 2010

I really didn't like the show, primarily because the topic " victimology a critique of the black church" was ill timed and weird.The topic perpetuates the notion that Blacks and people of color are defective and have nothing to offer the body of Christ. Especially when your show, in the 3 or 4 yrs i was listening to it, had one person, an african missionary I believe she was, come on. So the first black guy who comes on, is a guy who is critqueing the black church, to a primarily white audience on a topic that really isn't all that revelatory, most whites view blacks as complaining "victoms" anyway. With that being said, maybe this might be the start of something good, maybe you guys will have more ppl of color come on your show who will share on a broader range of topics that affect the kingdom of God. Gotta start somewhere I suppose.

Bruce Bronson July 20th, 2010

To Thomas about Dr. Anthony Bradley:

Hey Thomas, I can really sympathize with you about ETC's unfair policies about having minorities on their program. And I also agree that we should continue to listen (I may even donate?) to ETC because they really do deal with many interesting topics which we as brothers in the Lord have a common interest in, and can comment on…..

My minority status however has nothing to do with my race. I have been fortunate that the Lord has given me many good opportunities in my life. He also raised me in a 'Christian' atmosphere and tradition where I was taught to take personal responsibility for my actions and my future – my ancestors suffered a lot for me. I know many have not had this good fortune, especially today. I am grateful to God, but also I refuse to feel guilty about my minority status, Jesus has promised to take away my guilt and help me live a more productive life for Him.

My beef with ETC is their prejudice against 'young earth scientists'. I am still waiting for one of these minorities to be asked to appear on the program to give our side of the story. How else can we understand each other if we only present our own prejudices?

I believe my brand of minority status began back in the Garden of Eden when the Serpent asked the question: 'Did God really say that? – we believed the lie. The prejudice began when Cain's descendents persecuted the descendents of Seth for their faith in what God had said. Of course this prejudice was dealt with in the Flood. But with the 'redo' came the same old prejudices as illustrated in the Tower of Babel incident (we are builders). This incident could be interpreted as racial (may be a stretch – but eventually race was an issue) but it is better defined in terms of mankind's humanistic search for Utopia which is really a mask for manipulating others to benefit yourself – or who can achieve the upper hand. The problems at the Tower could have begun with a labor/management dispute over working conditions, wages, healthcare, politics – or who can achieve the upper hand.

The humanistic philosophy is still in play today, obviously. And how else can we combat the humanistic philosophy (which at its heart is evolutionary thought – there is no God) that is destroying our culture if we do not understand our beginnings and do not give God due credit for what He has said, done, and will do? We could really use more votes and more ears that are willing unite with God and not against Him.

Bruce Bronson

Mark Graham August 5th, 2010

Dr. Bradley – this response is a spin-off frm your main topic. But have some thought on this matter of young-earth. I notice that some of the best creation PhDs (Craig, etc.) promote a view of a universe billions of years old and even agree to a point of singularity (big bang). In their academic communities this view is accepted and gives them a place to work from when discussing the creator. Of course, no one knows how old the earth is and never will…it is beyond the potential of the finite mind. A limit (we don't like limits). Personally, I believe (as a former private pilot when I was a teen) that time/speed/distance can never be disconnected. And that everything was put in place as is in the same moment matter and time and by proxy distance was created. Time had to have a beginning…and so did distance. So yes a star is millions of light-years away but that star was created in that place at the same time…you know, when time was created. A 'Big Moment' rather than a 'Big Bang'. And such an event could not be confused with natural beginnings necessarily. If God is who He says He is…then likely he could do such a thing in that way. Or choose not to and go the other way over time and natural functions. So logically, it appears that the more scientific camp tends put limits on Gods mode of creation even though the results are the same. Why? Doesn't mean they are wrong but it does mean that they are less reliable from a faith perspective. To say God is able to create by both modes…lends weight to the miracle event over the natural event (big bang). Frankly, science is not a touchstone for the technical 'how' of creation, salvation, or any miracle. And if they use science and logic to support a miracle…then logically they appear more to be in denial or rebellion. Not to the facts of the creation event but to the acceptance of their finite condition in the universe. But again, this is a topic given too much weight in discussion. Much like Soveriegnty and Free Will. Paul put that to rest with an analogy – Adoption. God offers to be a father to all children…some children accept the adoption offer. Done. Probably no analogy for this problem here though. As this is just considered by God to be the old heaven and old earth…waiting a day for re-creation. Hey – I guess that makes me an 'Old-Earth' guy now.

Mark Graham August 5th, 2010

Excuse me. Above meant to be directed to Mr. Bronson.

Bruce Bronson August 14th, 2010

To Mark Graham about Dr Bradley, sort of:

Dr. Bradley must be wondering: what does this have to do with me? Unfortunately, young earthers have to take advantage of limited opportunities. The 'established scientific community' and many churches, especially the 'reformed community', are really at odds with young earth thinking. The 'esc' are examining the evidence with a disregard for Biblical Authority; the 'rc' are examining the evidence with a disregard for Biblical Context. The 'esc' are indoctrinated with Darwin; the 'rc' are indoctrinated with Augustine (actually if you read Romans 9 in context within itself, and the rest of scripture, you see that Paul is actually pointing out the error of Pharisaical logic: we are God's Chosen). ps I remember a rc that was history driven.

Any thoughtful examination of the Biblical Chronology of Scripture (yes, 6000 and change) shows that Israel was not chosen for salvation, but for a purpose in earth history (and very much still are – Judeo Christian thought and existence are threatened with annihilation – and then the end will come, ie just like in the days of Noah: 2 Peter 3). Moses chose to be with the people of God; Jacob with his deep desire to serve God was eventually exonerated (do we have the wrong copy of Hebrews 11?). Mark, I believe we agree on something very important, and are both in hot water – Done.

Hey, any thoughtful reading of Jacob's life shows him to be the only honest person in his life. You should get a copy of the Annals of The World and the wonderful cd that comes with it – puts it all into perspective.

Speaking of super heated water, let us go back to Genesis (what a novel idea!). God, the only ultimate and reliable PhD and scientist, was 'hovering over the waters' and in a magnificent example of true science in action, in six days formed the material universe and all the 'kinds' of biological life on earth. If I were you, I would really investigate the claims of a billions of years universe, it is really based on biological evolution Any instrumentation is like a thermometer, we know what the high end is… If God created a mature universe, as He said he did, a high end guess is very questionable.

True science is discovering how things work in order to subdue the earth; false science is confusing the issues regarding origins in order to dismiss God's total ownership of all He has created. Should we compromise with false science which is really a segment of humanistic thought which has determined to defy God? Are we looking to preserve our jobs in ever increasingly godless culture? Jesus Christ and Creator is the last thing they want to talk about, if ever. Sounds like the mark of the beast to me. Are we salt and light or are we tasteless with a burned out bulb?

Finally, about that new creation you were talking about. If you think six days is hard to believe, wait until it happens 'in the twinkling of an eye'. God is that good and only evolutionists believe in baseless miracles. If there are really miracles, as we have defined it – how good is God?

Bruce Bronson

>> Critical thinking, in its broadest sense has been described as "purposeful reflective judgment concerning what to believe or what to do." [1] The list of core critical thinking skills includes interpretation, analysis, inference, evaluation, explanation and meta-cognition. There is a reasonable level of consensus among experts that an individual or group engaged in strong critical thinking gives due consideration to the evidence, the context of judgment, the relevant criteria for making the judgment well, the applicable methods or techniques for forming the judgment, and the applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the problem and the question at hand. In addition to possessing strong critical thinking skills, one must be disposed to engage problems and decisions using those skills. Critical thinking employs not only logic but broad intellectual criteria such as clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance and fairness. [2] The positive habits of mind which characterize a person strongly disposed toward critical thinking include a courageous desire to follow reason and evidence wherever they may lead, open-mindedness, foresight attention to the possible consequences of choices, a systematic approach to problem solving, inquisitiveness, fair-mindedness and maturity of judgment, and confidence in reasoning. [3] In reflective problem solving and thoughtful decision making using critical thinking one considers evidence,(like investigating evidence) the context of judgment, the relevant criteria for making the judgment well, the applicable methods or techniques for forming the judgment, and the applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the problem and the question at hand.