Religion is evil
Christianity is a religion
Therefore Christianity is evil

This seems to be the logic offered in the recent books attacking theism or belief in God. The error in logic should be obvious. The major premise that religion is evil is a product of generalization from the worst examples and the coloring of all forms of religious expression with the same brush. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens want to take suicide bombers as the religious proto-type and infer from their behavior that all religions are equally evil. In the interest of fairness, I must admit that they attempt to provide historical documentation for characterizing Christianity as evil.

Dawkins especially is fond of illustrating the evils of Christianity by appealing to examples that the vast majority of Christians would view as extreme distortions of the Christian faith.
Dawkins produced a television documentary ROOT OF ALL EVIL and in it he interviews "Christians" He acknowledges that he has come under criticism for interviewing those that many Christians would label extremists. He responds to his critics with the following: "It sounds like a fair criticism--except that, in early 21st-century America, what seems extreme to the outside world is actually mainstream". One of his interviewees is "Pastor Keenan Roberts" who operates "Hell houses". In a hell house actors play abortionists and homosexuals. A scarlet-clad devil is present. Sulphurous smells and burning limestone are accompanied by agonizing screams of the forever damned. I know nothing of these Hell Houses except what Dawkins describes, but I wonder how many normal Christian families send their children to enjoy this experience. Call me stupid, but I doubt that most Christians would call this typical of most Christians or churches. Yet its from these kind of practices that Dawkins and others draw their conclusions about Christians in general.

When they do provide substantial reasons for labeling Christianity as evil, it usually is based upon the crusades, the spanish iquisition, the Salem witch trials, the treatment of native Americans and discriminatio against women and homosexuals. Of course slavery is also blamed on Christians. With such a shotgun approach, the hope is that some will stick.

To adequately address all of these issues would require a book rather than a blog, but I will try to address a few of their most common examples of corrupt, evil Christianity.

First, I nor any other writer would try to defend all that's been done in the name of Christ. Even in the first century, the writers of scripture point out that at that time much was being done in the name of Christ that deserved to be denounced not only by critics of Christians, but by Christians themselves. Read 2 Peter chapter 2 and the book of Jude. One thing the Bible makes clear is that we remain sinners even after becoming Christians and therefore, not all that we do brings honor to God or expresses the will of God as taught in scripture.

Second, the evils done by christendom have often been exaggerated. While we would never defend the crusade carried on by the Catholic church, nor the Spanish inquisition or witch trials, still the number killed in these combined efforts were far less than are often quoted in the writings of critics of Christianity. For instance Gore Vidal, the well known atheist, wrote that "more people have been killed in the name of Jesus Christ than any other name in the history of the world." For an effective rebuttal of such unwarranted hyperbole, one should read CHRISTIANITY ON TRIAL by Carroll and Shiflett.

The bloodiest century on record was not characterized by religious wars, but millions died at the hands of atheists. Communism killed as many as 100 million people. Hitler who was by no stretch of the imagination a dedicated Christian, was just as deadly, but his reign of terror was shorter lived. The fact is that war seems to be typical rather than exceptional in the history of humanity. Some religions have without question fostered war, but I would argue that Christian initiation of war has been the exception and that Christianity is better known for peace than war.

Read the Koran and then read the New Testament. Do they sound alike when it comes to fighting to promote their religion? Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this world, if it were my servants would fight". He told Peter to put his sword up. Wars of the Old Testament deserve discussion, but since atheists want to criticize Christians then they must consider the teachings of Jesus. It wasn't until about AD 175 that we have any historical data confirming a Christian becoming a soldier for the Roman Empire. It wasn't until about 400 that Augustine presented an argument supporting Christians participation in warfare and only if the war could pass a number of criteria that would classify it as a just war. Does the world have more hope from a leader who is called "the Prince of Peace" or from a leader such as the atheist Karl Marx who called for revolution. The evidence is overwhelming in favor of Christianity.

Just as the works of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris exaggerate the evil done by Christianity, they minimize or hardly mention at all the good done by Christians. How many atheist organizations were at the forefront of efforts to relieve the suffering of the victims of Katrina? Churches sent trucks with food and clothing from all over the country. Christians went to New Orleans by the hundreds to help distribute relief and rebuild the city. Churches and Christian families opened their doors to vicitims of the catastrophe. I don't remember reading about atheist organizations and families participating in this relief effort. I'm sure there were some who did, but my point is that it is the calling of Christians to do so. Who were those who volunteered to work in leper colonies, Christians. Who led the way in building hospitals, Christians. Today one third of all hospitals in America are operated by Catholics. Baptists, Mehodists, Presbyterians and others have been a part of the effort to provide health care to neighbors, friends, and fellow Americans. Exactly how many hospitals have been built by atheists?

God told His people that His name would at times be blasphemed because of their behavior(cf. Rom. 2:17ff). Some of the criticism of Christianity is understandable because Christians are sinners, but when put in perspective, Christianity is not the terrible evil atheists would have us believe that it is. A balanced perspective would admit our wrongs, but critics who are honest with the evidence would have to admit that no movement has brought more good to the world in the last 2000 years than Christianity and Christians.

In our previous post, we provided a few quotes from the trinity of contemporary atheism-- Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. In the present posting and future ones I will be examining the arguments they present against Christianity. After evaluating their arguments against God, I will discuss some of the arguments that Christian Apologists provide for belief in God. As you are well aware, I am not approaching the subject as though I could care less the outcome. I believe in God and am convinced that believers have no reason to be embarassed by their faith. However, I think we must assume that some atheists and agnostics are sincere in their beliefs and deserve to be answered and not just dismissed as evil people. My thoughts may not cause any unbeliever to re-consider their conclusions, but maybe at least those of us who are believers will be more convinced that we need not fear criticism of God. God is bigger than man and will not shrink away from man's criticism. When God created us free to think for ourselves, He undoubtedly knew that not all would reach the same conclusions. However, if we are to represent Him in the world, we must represent Him to atheists and agnostics. We must be ready to give an answer to them, as well as others.

One of the primary arguments being put forth today against Christianity is that it is a religion and all religion is dangerous. Faith is evil and produces ignorance, hate and violence. All of the authors of these recent books would tend to agree on this point. Such a view is not new, it has characterized atheism for over 200 years. However, it has gained traction in light of 9-11. The timing of the appearance of these books within a few years of 9-11 is not coincidental. Another factor that helped give birth to these books, in my opinion, was the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004. Most pundits at that time credited Bush's victory to conservative Christians. Those two factors, one, an urgency growing out of political concerns and second, an opportunity growing out of concerns about religious extremism, offered a fertile field for these works.

Its important to note that the authors of these books do not see extremism as the problem, but to them it is religion. "Why" asks Dawkins "would anyone want to destroy the World Trade Center and everybody in it?" He quotes Harris in answering his question "The answer is that men like bin Laden actually believe what they say they believe--they believe in the literal truth of the Koran". He adds a quote from Muriel Gray, writing in the (GlasgowJ) Herald on 24 July 2005, "The cause of all this misery, mayhem, violence, terror and ignorance is of course religion itself". "The take-home message is that we should blame religion itself, not religious extremism...Voltaire got it right long ago:'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities".

He makes a specific application of the danger of religion to christianity when he adds that "Christianity, just as much as Islam, teaches children that unquestioned faith is a virtue. You don't have to make the case for what you believe....Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument."

Hitchens says that "Religion poisons everything. As well as a menace to civiization, it has become a threat to human survival".

The argument of these authors develops in three steps:

1. Religion is a problem as evidenced by 9-11.

2. All religions call for blind faith and it is faith which is dangerous whether expressed in Islam or Christianity.

3. Its not religious extremism that's a problem but religion period!

Lest we argue that Christians are not bombing women and children, they point to the crusades and bombing of abortion clinics as the equivalent of 9-11 and imply that Christians could easily be moved to kill if they believed it was God's will. Remember Abraham and his willingness to kill Isaac. Was not he, a hero of faith, ready to commit an unspeakable atrocity in the name of God?

How do we respond to such an argument? Well, I've got to head for home now. Stay tuned and if time will allow, we will try to respond tomorrow.

Its my kind of day. Visibility is about 1 mile with drizzle and fog. The forecast calls for an ice warning beginning at 6 p.m.. I wish the forecast called for snow, but will be content with ice. However, I do not want to lose power. I grew up with a fire place and have found them to be woefully inadequate when it comes to heat. I guess the "cake and eating it to" idea might apply in this instance. If I don't blog for a few days , you can assume that the power is out.

Since 2005 there have been several bestsellers written attacking christianity and denying the existence of God. In fairness to the authors, the books actually attack all religions but the primary target appears to be christianity and the God described in the Bible. To appreciate the anger they have for christianity, we need to see a few of their quotes.

Sam Harris, author of the first major attack upon God and the christian faith, says "If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion."

Richard Dawkins in his work THE GOD DELUSION writes that christianity has much in common with the Afgan Taliban.
The Afgan Taliban and the American Taliban are good examples of what happens when people
take the scriptures literally and seriously."

Religion (again christianity as primary example) is so dangerous that parents should be prevented from teaching it to children even in their own home. Dawkins quotes approvingly from his colleague Nicholas Humphrey the following statement: "In short children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense, and we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible...than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon." The Bible's pretty dangerous and that makes you and me dangerous, doesn't it. Guess what would happen if Dawkins had political power and not just a bestseller.

Christopher Hitchens has written the latest in the trinity of atheism published since 2005. GOD IS NOT GREAT is his work and according to the cover it discusses "how religion poisons everything. Hitchens goes so far as to question that Jesus ever lived. He thinks religious faith is a mental disorder: " The connection between religious faith and mental disorder is, from the viewpoint of the tolerant and the multicultural.. very obvious?.. To him, it is clear that religion is a product of ignorance and fear: "One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody...had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species.."

Dawkins sums up his view of the God revealed in the Old Testament in the following words:
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." Wow I bet you didn't know all of that, did you? Some of these authors, especially Dawkins and Dennett(whose book I have yet to mention) refer to themselves as "brights". Who are we "dims" to disagree with "brights"?

The story of the atheists would be humorous if it were not for the fact that many take their word as difinitive and scientific while religious writers are ignorant and filled with hate.

In coming blogs I will interact with some of their primary arguments. Their arguments must not be ignored but addressed. In addressing the arguments we must not behave as "brights" but as believers prepared to give an answer for the hope that is within us.

We are but a few days away from the inaguration of Barak Hussein Obama as the next president of these United States. If he keeps his words to Planned Parenthood, his first act as president will be to sign into law the FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT, H.R. 1964 and S1173 introduced on April 19, 2007 by Senator Barbara Boxer of California and Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York. Both are democrats and introduced the legislation just hours after the Supreme Court had in GONZALES v. CARHART upheld a limited ban on partial-birth abortions. Congressman Nadler in a letter stated that" today, the Supreme Court declared open season on women's lives and their right to control their own bodies, their health and their destinies".

The bill reads as follows:

Sec. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

(a) STATEMENT OF POLICY.--It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the "fundamental right" to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) PROHIBTION OF INTERFERENCE.--A government may not---
(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose---
(A) to bear a child;
(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

(c) CIVIL ACTION--An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a goverment) in a civil action.

Section 6 applies(the act) " to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act." viability is to be determined not by a standard but by the abortion physician.

Current legislation that would by nullified by this legislation includes the following:

----State abortion reporting requiremnts in all 50 states
----laws concerning parental notification (44 states)
----40 states restrict late abortions
----46 states provide protection for

physicians, nurses and other health care providers whose conscience would not allow them to participate in a procedure resulting in the abortion of an infant.

----27 states protect institutions that have similiar problems of conscience.
----the partial-birth bans would be lifted
----mandatory counselling providing the option of abortion along with other options would be nullified. Offering only abortion would be the norm.

These effects would be only a sampling of the consequences if the FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT is passed. Passage would require government funding for abortion, no matter what the reason.
Hospitals and health care providers could not refuse to perform an abortion on the grounds of conscience. Many Catholic Hospitals would likely close because the church does not allow abortion performed at its hospitals. Federal funding currently coming to Catholic hospitals would be withheld forcing the hospitals into financial collapse. One third of all American hospitals are operated by the Catholic Church. The closing of even some of these hospitals would interfere with the quality of health care available to millions of Americans, especially charity patients.


Why are we concerned now when the legislation is nearly 2 years old and has still not been passed by Congress? The answer is found in President Elect Obama's promise to Planned Parenthood and in the dramatically increased number of pro-choice representatives and members of the Senate that were elected in November.

What can we do ? Contact your Senator and Congressman and express your concerns.
Alert fellow christians and pro life friends. Pray fervently. The lives of millions are at stake.

Thanks for being patient with me in my slow response to the problem I posed last week from Jude 14,15. I had to try to come up with an answer you would accept(just kiddin). My point in presenting the problem is to make us aware that there are genuine problems we must face as christians and that we do not help bring people to faith by glossing over such matters with a "nobody knows" or "well I just believe". It may be that we eventually conclude that nobody knows, but it should be after investigation of the problem and not before.

Also we should not make statements that informed people would immediately reject along with rejecting our credibility. The following is a quote from Jude 14, followed by 1Enoch 1:9:

Jude 14 "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: See, the Lord is coming with thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

1 Enoch 1:9 "Behold, he will arrive with ten 10 million of the holy ones to execute judgment upon all. He will destroy the wicked ones and censure all flesh on account of everything that they have done, that which the sinners and the wicked ones committed against him"

While our English translations of the two texts are not completely parallel, the thought is and is similiar to N.T. translation of Old Testament texts. There were several editions and translations of 1 Enoch and it is difficult to know which text Jude quoted from. Most scholars believe that 1
Enoch was written originally in Hebrew or Aramaic and later translated into Greek and Ethiopic.

1 Enoch seems to have been written primarily to explain Gen. 6:4 where Scripture says that the sons of God married the daughters of men. Some interpreters have explained the sons of God as descendents of Seth. However, it seems that the dominant view among both Jews and Christians of the first two centuries of the Christian era was that the "sons of God" were angels. In Job and several other Old Testament texts, sons of God was used to describe angels. 1 Enoch is the first source of which we are aware that goes into great detail in explaining that the sons of God were angels and the consequences of their marrying women.

According to Enoch, the offspring of the union between sons of God and the daughters of men were the nephilim or giants. The rebel angels who left heaven to have sex with women influenced the earth in a very evil way which resulted in the corruption of human flesh which caused God to send a flood. The angels were ultimately bound in tartaurus to await the final judgment. John's appeal to the binding of Satan in Rev.20:1ff and Peter and Jude's reference to the binding of the spirits seem to reflect the same understanding as found in 1 Enoch(cf. 2 Pet. 2:4-6 and Jude 5 ff., as well as 1 Pet. 3:18-22).

No biblical scholar to my knowledge would deny some type of connection between Jude and 1 Enoch, but not all are agreed on the exact connection and the meaning of the connection. The following possibilites are usually presented, but not all have the same likelihood of success in explaining the relationship:

1. Jude was written before 1 Enoch and the author of 1 Enoch used Jude.

2. 1 Enoch was written first and Jude used 1 Enoch.

3. Both used an earlier oral tradition that claimed to come from pre-flood Enoch who walked with God.

The first view is endorsed by Guy N. Woods in his 1962 commentary in the Gospel Advocate series. This view can easily be dismissed because fragments of 1 Enoch have been discovered at Qumran which have been carbon dated back to 100 b.c.. Woods probably thought he was offering an explanation that would help support biblical inspiration, but when we offer interpretations that prove to be so obviously wrong we actually lose credibility.

The third interpretation cannot be totally disproved, but the evidence for it is non-existant.

The second interpretation is the only one that harmonizes with the evidence available to us.

If we conclude that Jude quotes from a non-bibical book and uses the verb "prophesied" in his description of this author's quote, are we faced with the following dilemma: either 1 Enoch was inspired and should be in the bible or Jude is not inspired and should not be in the bible. Furthermore no scholar(liberal or conservative) to my knowledge would claim that the Enoch, 7th from Adam really spoke those words. Some would argue that a hint of such a saying might have been passed along through Noah and his family on through the centuries until about 200 b.c. when the author of 1 Enoch included it in his text, but few take this suggestion seriously.

An examination of Christian interpretation of this matter in the first couple of centuries illustrates the problem. Earliest interpreter from about a.d. 100 to 250 concluded that Jude was inspired and so was 1 Enoch. By a.d. 350 most had concluded that 1 Enoch was not inspired and that as a result Jude was suspect. Jude was one of the last books to be accepted as inspired and much of the reluctance was based on his use of 1 Enoch, as well as a writing called "The Assumption of Moses". Jude 9 refers to Michael's quarrel with Satan over the body of Moses. The Old Testament does not contain that story, but early christians referred to the just mentioned work as containing it. Of course, "The Assumption of Moses" is not viewed as inspired by the early christians and is no longer extant. These two quotes from non-biblical sources made it tough sledding for Jude, but ultimately it made its way into the canon of Scripture.

Martin Luther and some of the other reformers came to question some of the books that had been accepted by the church councils as inspired. Carroll Osburn of Abilene Christian University has questioned Jude's canonical status because of the issue we are discussing.

Some facts to consider:

1. There are many references in the bible to writings not contained in Scripture. Check out the following texts: Esther 10:2; 2:23; 1Chron. 27:24; 2 Chron. 26:22; 1 Chron.29:29; Num.21:14; 2chron.33:19; 2 Chron.20:34; 2Chron. 12:15; 2 Chron.13:22; 2 Chron9:29; 2 Chron. 12:15; 1 Kings 11:41; Josh. 10:13.

2. We know that Paul quotes Greek poets and even describes one as a prophet of the Cretans (Titus 1:12).

3. A truth can be contained in a book when not all in the book would be argued as true. I often quote points from authors to support an argument, while I would take issue with the author on some other matter about which he wrote.

4. We don't know as much about some matters as we may think we know. One such matter is the inspiration of scripture and how that works. We know that Luke researched other written documents and oral traditions before he wrote his Gospel, yet we trust that he wrote what God wanted Him to write. Was Luke inspired? Faith says he was, but he did research before writing so that he didn't just sit down at the table waiting for the Holy Spirit to start moving his hand on the papyrus or parchment.

After exhausting our knowledge and theories we will still be left with questions, but so is the athiest and critic of scripture. We need not be afraid of facts, but we should be skeptical of a faith that is willing to ignore the facts, and we should realize that such a faith will not win many serious questioners. We must be prepared to give an answer even if the answer may not be totally satisfying to others or even ourselves( cf.1Peter 3:15).

If this essay has raised further questions or failed to make sense to you, please blog me with your frank and even brutal responses. I will try to love you even if you have a problem with my conclusions. I said I would try, but try not to make it too hard for me, o.k.

I'll be back Monday. Have a great week-end.

Tonight Texas plays Ohio State. As an Aggie I have a hard time cheering for the Longhorns, but tonight I will do so. I'm not just as Aggie, but I'm also a Texan. Its Texas vs. Ohio. I have nothing against Ohio although I would differ with their political preferences from time to time, but I wouldn't root against them for that reason alone.

Texas has a remote chance to be voted no. 1 in the nation. If Oklahoma's Bradford throws for 5 interceptions and Tebow fumbles five times while Colt McCoy is 40 for 40 in pass attempts and throws for 600 yards, and Texas defeats Ohio State 72 to 0, then they might sneak into first place. One of the fun things about college football is that no one can actually prove who no.1 is because there is no conclusive on-the-field evidence since there are no playoffs. Think of how many watercooler conversations would be quenched if there were a playoff system. Our conclusions are usually determined by which school I attended or which school is from my state or area.

Many people choose a religious faith for similiar reasons. My family grew up going to this church is like saying all of our family attends Texas or A&M, therefore one or the other is the best school in the country. We in churches of Christ often prefer the church of Christ because we grew up in it. While those that grew up Catholic or Assembly of God prefer their respective churches for the very same reason. Still others prefer Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam for exactly the same reason. Unless our faith is more than a family heritage we have little to offer others.

Many in America have grown up in a secular environment and are like people who never attended a University and thus have no inclination to support a school simply because someone else's family attended it. Do we have the courage to test our faith by facts?

Yesterday morning in our adult class we were studying 2 Peter, chapter 2. When that chapter is compared with Jude, the most reasonable conclusion is that one author had the other writing in his hands or mind when he wrote. I believe that Jude is the earlier document, but such is not as we would say "a salvation issue". Jude speaks of Enoch, 7th from the generation of Adam prophesying and then he presents tw0 verses as quoted from Enoch. Most of us are familiar with the Genesis text that speaks of an Enoch who walked with God. Apparently Jude had this Enoch in mind, but where is his book from which Jude is quoting. Until the last century and a half, scholars knew an Enoch once existed but a copy was not available in its entirity. Finally a copy surfaced in the Ethiopic language. Scholars, after a century and a half analysis, have concluded that the book was written by a jew in the second century B.C.. The book seems to have been written to explain Genesis 6:4 which speaks of "The sons of God marrying the daughters of men". 1 Enoch, as it is now referred to in order to distinguish it from another similiar book written a couple of centuries later called 2 Enoch, identifies the "sons of God" as angels who rebelled against God. After coming to earth and marrying mortal women, they produced offspring labeled "nephilim" or giants. 1 Enoch says the giants were 300 cubits tall or about 450 feet tall, and we thought dinasaurs were impressive.

Enoch says much more that we might question, but the book was clearly held in esteem by Jude because he quotes 1 Enoch 1:9, 10 and calls it prophesy.

Now my question to my reader is what do we do with such a text in light of our understanding of inspiration? If Enoch was a prophet, why was the book not included in the scripture? If it was not an inspired work, what do we do with Jude's quoting his work as prophetic? If he was a prophet, should we not read his work and believe everything it teaches including the existence in the past of giants taller than the length of a football field?

I don't bring up such issues to create doubt, but to insist that our faith be based upon something even more than the inspiration of text. I believe in an inspired text, but my faith must not discount evidence that doesn't square with my understanding. To resort to " I just believe" may satisfy those who have sit next to you on the pew for 30 years, but such will be dismissed by serious searchers.

My point is that we often speak disparagingly about critics of the Bible when there are glaring questions that we have ignored because we have never been searchers but only inheritors. I will welcome your input and will have more to say in response to this issue in a future blog. Thanks for reading and don't give up on me, I am not liberal just because I insist that a meaningful faith must not be afraid of the facts and if we can't harmonize the facts with our assumptions then maybe we don't have all of the facts or maybe we need to question our assumptions. Maybe we will have to revise our interpretations because of new facts that may not be new but are new to me. Only when we are not threatened by truth can we have a meaningful and strong faith. Before we assume that others don't love the truth, we must be sure that we do.

Until next time, have a great interim.

Happy new year!

My ten predictions for 2009

1. Sports gurus will not predict a Superbowl for the Cowboys in 2010.

2. The economy will begin to recover

3. Christianity will be blamed for all the bad things happening in our society

4. Snoopy Doggy Dog will lead a spiritual awakening among gangsta rappers

5. Barak Obama will have "no comment" on anything

6. Rod Bargojevich will announce that he plans to run for president on the Democratic ticket in 2012

7. The host of a late night show will plagiarize my top 10 list and claim it as his own.

8. The Maypearl Maverick will receive more hits than the Drudge Report in 2009

9. I will lose 40 lbs before December 31st 2009

10. Joe Biden will set a Guiness book record for the longest non stop talking in history.

The top ten are not in any particular order, but I am sure that oddsmakers in Vegas would bet on all 10.

Have a great day!