Prince Caspian and Exceeded Expectations

I was contemplating a way to introduce a Narnia Story witnessing website since the Prince Caspian Blu-ray came out. Then our good friend Dr. Hendrik van der Breggen, who wrote that great article "Reasonable Skepticism about Radical Skepticism", added an article to his blog that exceeded all expectations that I had about just highlighting a website.

The doctor included evolution into the post that I found brilliant on his blog called Apologia. The post of his was so well done I suggest you go read it directly since I could not do it's proper justice to emulate the argument here without a shameless c/p.

I would love to hear the evolution promoters at this blog opinions on his article. In my opinion it's just another two points in the slam debunk that has been made about evolution. How much of a pummeling are you going to take before your logic kicks in?

Here’s the argument made by C. S. Lewis (modified by University of Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga)"Evolutionary theory on the assumption of an unguided, unplanned process of genetic mutation and natural selection guarantees at most that we behave in ways conducive to immediate survival."

So how does one explain how we seek to know much, much more than what’s required for mere immediate survival? Time, effort, and energy is being spent way beyond an atheistic evolutionary theory. If it "is true, then our beliefs about logic (beyond rudimentary logic) and mathematics and science—especially deep scientific theories—should be, very probably, dubious."

In quoting Lewis, Dr. Van der Breggen slams it home with this nugget: "But now an epistemological (knowledge) problem arises for atheistic evolution: It is a deep scientific theory, which, if true, very probably shouldn’t be believed to be true.

Go figure."

Plus, that Narnia Story website that I wanted to to highlight is appropriately called NarniaStory.com I suggest you listen to it before the drunks are on the road tonight. This may be your last chance. Stay safe!

The Jesus Project

The Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER) is a research division of the Council for Secular Humanism and endeavored to do the Jesus Project. Someone named Charlie on a blog said about the project "As if any group sponsored by the CFI -- notorious atheist apologetics -- can be trusted to deliver accurate, balanced, and even remotely unbiased conclusions." Never the less, they claim a secular approach/viewpoint to religion. Their mission, or I would say mantra, is to promote that nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature. Keep in mind that "Science is an attempt to understand the natural world in a natural way. Science then in that sense is restricted to natural explanations for natural phenomena. If a natural explanation is inadequate then science stops." (D’Souza)

I am not sure how many have heard of the endeavor to find the truth that is Jesus. Although, in review of its predecessor called The Jesus Seminar, I will not be holding my breath. The "seminar" was a colossal fail. The Christian Arsenal accurately depicted the Jesus Seminar as a tool of Satan, meant to undermine Biblical beliefs. What else could be the purpose of it, I would ask?

The Jesus Project claims a different approach, but how different could it be with the same data and the same secular worldview? I digress. They claim that they are "the first methodologically agnostic approach to the question of Jesus’ historical existence." This description did spark my attention since I have had many conversations with people asking for this exact thing, that the events can be extra biblically corroborated. Although, it does beg the question as to starting with doubt in scripture. I am only 'curious' as to the results, and will be pleasantly surprised for confirmation of the Bible. If they conclude that there indeed was a Jesus and that Jesus was God himself, would it sway anyone to reconsider the Bible?

I do believe that Atheists would make some the strongest Christians, if there is such a thing, once convinced/enlightened. I denied Christ for years until that very special time in my life. Since Atheists are looking for evidence, would a positive conclusion as to the validity of the Bible's teachings from this project suffice as ample empirical evidence? In the past, the case was made that understanding through the intellect is a futile endeavor, but I wonder would this get Atheists to rethink the subject?

So when they admit that Scriptures are reliable and trustworthy historical documents and the Bible is a valid historical record then we can go to the next point, realizing that Jesus Christ claims to be the unique Son of God and that He bases this claim on His forthcoming resurrection from the dead.

Next, we examine the evidence for the resurrection contained in this historic document and find that the arguments overwhelmingly support the contention that Christ has risen from the dead. If this is true, then He is the unique Son of God as He claimed to be. If He is indeed God, then He speaks with authority on all matters.

Since Jesus considered the Old Testament to be the Word of God (Matthew 15:1-4, 5:17, 18) and promised His disciples, who either wrote or had control over the writing of the New Testament books, that the Holy Spirit would bring all things back to their remembrance (John 14:26), therefore we can insist, with sound and accurate logic, that the Bible is God's Word. This is not circular reasoning. It is establishing certain facts and basing conclusions on the sound, logical outcome of these facts. The case for Christianity can be established by ordinary means of historical investigation.

If you must trust man for evidence of the Bible, you will have to wait four more years for the results of the Jesus Project. So what do you do until then? All I ask is that you don't die before the findings. Have a safe New Year!

We Are Born Evil!

We all are wretched and evil and without God we would have an unlivable world. This is for the simple fact that "All Men Are Born Evil."



"When the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma,  He said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground  because of man, even though man’s inclination is evil from his youth.  And I will never again strike down every living thing as I have done." ~ Genius 8:21

Ray has an analogy: "A little girl was once watching a sheep eat grass and thought how white it looked against the green background. But when it began to snow she thought, "That sheep now looks dirty against the white snow!" It was the same sheep, but with a different background. When we compare ourselves to man's standard we look pretty clean, but when we compare ourselves to the pure snow-white righteousness of God's standard—His Law, we can see ourselves in truth, that we are unclean in His sight. That Law is the holy standard by which humanity will be judged on Judgment Day."


bit.ly/BornEvil

Debunking Atheists Still

So here we are, towards the end of the year and I am getting slightly sentimental. As for Debunking Atheists, we have seen some friendships blossom, and we have seen a great deal of spirited discussions. Humbly, I have learned quite a bit about Atheists. We also had some sacrifices along the way to get God's Word out.

In the past 6 months we had over 100 posts with many comments, one thread with 1000+ comments. We have welcomed close to 11,000 visitors all over the world with over 25,500 posts viewed. One thing that I have learned from this little experiment is, that I love atheists more then ever. I want nothing more for people to understand what is the cost of turning away from God. So, what's the real purpose of the Debunking Atheists blog? Well...



Have a wonderful Christmas everyone and Blessings from the Marvin Family.

Silly Atheistic Elitist Logic

My friend Josh and I had a nice discussion about the future. He was teasing me because I had so many children and linked to this video:

Here is the beginning of the movie, that will probably be taken down soon. Rated R, bad language and Adult subject matter:



I posed the question, "How can someone believe in evolution if we're seeing humans becoming dumber?" in relationship to the clip. "Especially since you believe we have been around for 100,000 years. We must of really been smart that many years ago."

Josh said that "we are working opposite of evolution because we are VIOLATING nature by being human" and that "Man DOES have influence, but the laws are the same what man does does not always benefit nature or mankind, but the long run, nature's laws win."

So according to the movie "the dumb" are the predominate species. They are the ones that were thrown back into the proverbial ocean as the Heike Crab (because of the superstition that Japanese fisherman had about it looking like a Samurai's face.)

Josh said that "the "smart" people have put their minds and work to themselves and not considered the survival of mankind as an importance." Josh also threw out this gem during the conversation "[I]f we were a responsible society, we'd embrace eugenics, and encourage self reliance, and not feed those who can't feed themselves. Hitler knew this damn well"

I concluded with "future smart people will be dumb by default since they failed to evolve and maintain heritage" and "so then the smart people of today are the dumbest of tomorrow" The Ignotheists, Atheist "intellects", portrayed in this video are in fact the not so smart ones. If evolution is truth (we all know the contrary) then, as in eugenics, to render one self's genetic line extinct is not very smart, in the evolutionary model that is. So then "smart" is subjective, and its the "dumb ones" that are portrayed in this video that are the true smart ones.

To which Josh agreed

Psychological Questionnaire

Andrew highlighted a personality test that I found interesting. Patty took this earlier at her work and I found it uncanny how accurate it was pointing her personality out by just a few questions. During the conversation with Andrew, I also was considering how interesting it would be to understand each others personalities, if you feel comfortable to share that is. This may be some horoscope Ouija thing so I appologize, if it is, to my Christian friends but it may be fun. To be accurate, take the test once and give that result, as I have. You can tell me if you agree with the results or not. So to pave the way of ridicule and embarrassment I will share my scores.

First here is the test:



Second Here is how I scored:

I faired as a ENTJ

Extraverted	Intuitive	Thinking	Judging
Strength of the preferences %
33	50	12	6

I did chuckle at the trademark:

"TRADEMARK: -- "I'm really sorry you have to die." (I realize this is an overstatement. However, most Fs and other gentle souls usually chuckle knowingly at this description.)"

They called it the Fieldmarshal

Career choices: Management in Business or Education, Military Education, Politics, Law, Counseling, Engineering, Industrial Management & Manufacturing Management, High School Education, Computer Programming.

Famous people with same traits: Napoleon, Franklin D. Roosevelt , Dave Letterman, Sean Connery, Jim Carrey, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Carl Sagan.

WIKI had some interesting things about it. Now, I think it would be a fascinating study to find out how many of your profiles relates to my own. It explains the type of relationships for ENTJs. Some people I get along with and some I buck horns with. So lets see if this typology test is accurate or not. Here I stand, naked before you.

Evolution(ists) gets OWNED!!!

Evolution is refuted by Evolutionists.



Also, here is a case built against Evolution:

The Great Debate, Christianity vs. Atheism

For some of you that enjoy the country life (dial up), you can click this link to download the mp3.

Since "Rock Star" Sye TenBruggencate started me into presuppositionalism and Sye admitted this debate is what got him into presuppositional apologetics, I figure it would be fitting to include this as my 100th post!

UPDATE: Since the post editor counted drafts as a post I was under the assumption that this was my 100th post but since I had a couple of drafts working I forgot to discount those. I was at around 95th post at this time but am past 100 by now so it was merely a premature celebration. Moving on.

Enjoy, with fear. (Job 4:14, Psalm 2:11, Psalm 55:5, 1 Corinthians 2:3, 2 Corinthians 7:15, Ephesians 6:5)

All the glory to God! Please help us Lord. Save these souls!

tinyurl.com/cny8q4

Ignotheists

Out of 60 people that answered the poll, the results were different then I thought it would be.

Have you, as an atheist, read the entire Bible cover to cover?

37 said yes they have read the Bible cover to cover. That is admirable and what I would expect from someone debating against Christianity. These atheists are well informed as to the subject matter. They took the time to educate themselves in dealing with the subjects of Salvation and life after death. It's commendable they, at the very least, were inquisitive about salvation.

It may have been because of their upbringing but they indeed searched for truth in the Bible. From the source, they sought to answer life's questions; Not ones like "Are those cookies made with real Girl Scouts?" or "If drinking and driving is illegal, why do bars have parking lots?" Or more perplexing ones like "Can atheists get insurance for acts of God?" but the real big questions of life such as: Why is there something rather than nothing? How Do You Explain Human Nature? What Happens after Death? and How Do You Determine Right and Wrong?

These questions, and many more, are addressed in the Holy Bible and can give people a mere glimpse of the true majesty of God. Written by God and penned by Man, the Bible was created as a way to communicate to us Salvation, even after all these many thousands of years. The Bible is alive even to this very day.

And that brings us to tonight's word: Ignotheists. Three of you said "No" and 20 of you said they read "Parts, but never cover to cover" which to me is the biggest surprise. It means that 30% of you are ignorant of Christianity and the Bible. Basically you are what I call ignorant [a]theists or Ignotheists.

So, in the future, if you haven't read the Bible then you cannot refer to yourselves as atheists anymore because you are basing your beliefs on very little information.

Even though a suicidal decision was made, any true atheist would, at least, do the research to make such a important decision about salvation. Anyone not willing to take the time to do the research is called an Ignotheist. And that's tonight's word.

tinyurl.com/ignotheists

Debunking Atheism

On the very same day that I started this blog June 22, 2008, someone named Bruce bought the domain debunkingatheism.com. I look forward to seeing some great things coming from the website. For now they have a static page that states a case. Here it is in its entirety:

Darwin said: "...we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator," (Origin of Species, p488)


Unintelligent Evolution Debunked in <400 Words

There is no proven scientific principle, or testable evidence, or even common sense, that supports dumb, blind, un-intelligence making anything intelligent. This is also useless for making testable predictions.

Darwin said: "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?" (Origin of Species, p. 188)

1. The scientific process was invented by and depends on intelligence. Testable, uncontradicted evidence, in diverse areas of life, confirm that it takes intelligence to make something intelligent.

"...all physical theories...break down at the beginning of the universe."
-- Stephen Hawking.

2. Mathematical infinity, singularities, and the "Big Bang" defy the laws of nature, showing scientifically that super-natural qualities, like God's infinite nature, can exist.

3. A creator/designer/lawmaker is not intrinsically detectable when observing their design. Thus, one can't use an undetected Creator to disprove a Creator.

4. All laws, man-made or otherwise, have common properties: They cause physical regularity. Thus, since man is made of "dust" and thus is part of the natural process, man's creative/lawmaking abilities can be tested in determining the origin of the universe.

New hypotheses/proposed laws: a) Something intelligent is caused by something intelligent, b) Laws are made by an intelligent lawmaker, c) Laws are enforced/maintained by a law enforcer, d) Processes and machines have a designer, e) Designers/lawmakers/enforcers are not intrinsically detectable.

These principles have never been contradicted, apply universally, and are always useful for making predictions.

Thus, since intelligence, laws, machines, and processes are found in the universe, and we don't detect a Designer, it is logical and predictable that there is an intelligent Creator. And a super-natural Creator/Lawmaker/Enforcer would be necessary to limit and maintain our natural space-time to cause the laws of nature to exist. By definition, random chance cannot create a single reasonable pattern without intelligently applied limitations/laws.

Conclusion: There is no testable evidence that a Creator was not needed to make evolution or the laws of nature, etc. Therefore, unintelligent evolution and faith in atheism are blind assumptions with no scientific basis. A plethora of diverse, uncontradicted, testable evidence demonstrates that God is logical and a super-natural Creator is necessary for the creation and laws of the universe. The Bible has the only scientifically accurate creation account. We should thank God for creating us and our universe, and seek to serve Him daily.


Fred Hoyle said: "there is a good deal of cosmology in the Bible." (The Nature of the Universe, p.109.)

Are You A Good Person?

Plus, there is an update. Its much worse! http://bit.ly/OneLittleLie

Also, translated to:

• Spanish
  
• French
  
• Russian

bit.ly/Goodperson

Imagining the Tenth Dimension

Click picture for video

Whateverman said: "As a tangent, check out this short video. It's a really interesting way to help you envision what 10 dimensional space is actually like.

I've often felt that if fundamentalists would actually take the time to understand what we know (or maybe just our ideas) about space and time, they wouldn't keep using the term "naturalism" as a [pejorative]"

I responded with: Wem,

Thanks for the 10 dimension explanation link. I found it an interesting way of explaining such a complex hypothesis (theorem?).

Also, if you think about it, this makes perfect sense that God can actually be Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent with 10 dimensions at His disposal. You see, science will reveal God if He doesn't first.

Does this also show the importance of free will? Without it, we wouldn't have any need for additional dimensions (5th). The possibilities of different situations simultaneously would be irrelevant without free will. So even the dimensions would fall apart without it. We can kind of understand why God gave us free will. He knew we would choose evil but it was necessary for the universe to work properly. Deep stuff!

Great Job, dude!

Paul Washer - Shocking Message

I beg every single one of you to listen to this message. This is one of the best and most powerful Biblical messages that I have ever, ever, heard. He is actually speaking the truth and that is exactly what we all need, and hopefully want, to hear. It is a hour long, but it will be the best hour you have ever spent in your life. At the time he was talking to a Southern Baptist Church youth group and needless to say he was never invited back again.

Many of the same points and questions atheists ask are reiterated and addressed in what Washer is talking about. Please stop for a moment, even if it is the one last time, ask God to show you the truth before you watch this. Open your mind and ask God to convict your heart, if He truly exists. Strap in folks we are going for a very bumpy ride!

Here is the link to the video, in case it gets choppy on you. Sometimes its best to go right to YouTube for it.



If that is not enough and you hunger for more then here is an 8 part sermon that angered many.

Truly Saved, Finally!

Bart: "I have done that in my past with sincerity and there was no revelation of the existence of God. So where do you search for God?"

It begins in His Word. (John 14:21)

Now, I don't know you at all. So this is me sharing what I have observed and helped this hypothesis of mine.

There is something I noticed with many atheists, proclaiming Christians and false converts. They have one thing in common and this might have been you. It was me for many years, dare I even say 15 years, I thought I was a Christian. I received the word as many false converts with pure gladness. I was so happy to be(come) a Christian I went to church and volunteered and was very involved. The entire time I was false, sinned occasionally but that was OK, God was so forgiving. He wouldn't care, for example, that I went out Fridays to the clubs with the intention to fornicate. He loves me and I love Him. Happy, happy, joy, joy!

Flash ahead to a real dark place I was in. It was then I realized that I actually was a false convert all those years, that I was playing a Christian. Once I realized that fact, I was frozen. I was shaken to my core and I was actually afraid of God, the real kind of fear. (Proverbs 1:7; Proverbs 9:10)

I was a mess, broken, spent, and truly lost all over again. God allowed me to realize what a wretch I truly am. I approached God again but this time a very fragile, crushed, and a broken man. (Psalm 34:18;Psalm 51:17)

Words will never do the experience justice. An indication that I look for now a days isn't the happy story of becoming a Christian, its the dark and broken heart that I look for.

The other day I read something I could relate to:

"God never clothes men until He has first stripped them, nor does He quicken them by the gospel till first they are slain by the Law. When you meet with persons in whom there is no trace of conviction of sin, you may be quite sure that they have not been wrought upon by the Holy Spirit; for 'when He is come, He will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.'" (Charles Spurgeon)

Science would have a hard time measuring the evidence that I now have in referenced to God. I am here to tell you that these days I know God exists and he has saved me once and for all and my name is actually written in the book of life and I am in awe daily because of it.

Thoughts are immaterial, emotions are immaterial, the mind is immaterial, none of them can be seen or observed, the lover experiencing the feelings of love to his loved one, they cannot be proven by science, only the lover can know that feeling that they are experiencing.

They are all immaterial just like the laws of logic, yet we do not question their existence just because we do not see them.

Once you experience God (and his love) it will be impossible to go backwards. You are changed, you are born again. Any truly saved Christian will tell you this. Just a mere 2-3 years ago I was saved and I experienced God.

If you want a good example of how a man responds to being soundly saved listen to Paul Washer's testimony

Scientific Explanation?

I liked what D’Souza said about atheists trying to establish science as the the only source of truth and access to reality. They go far as to claim that everything outside of science is irrelevant and even absurd. It's this same philosophy that has totally infiltrated our school systems.

Science, indeed, gives us pretty good explanation as to how things work. Science though, give explanations at one level while ignoring explanations on another level.

For example, there is a pot of water on the stove. If someone to pose a question "Why is this water boiling?"

The scientific answer would go something like this: The water is boiling because the temperature is excess of a hundred degrees, when that happens it has an effect on the molecules, and those molecules begin to react in a certain way and that's why the water is boiling. And that is a perfectly good scientific explanation.

But here is another explanation as to why the water is boiling, Because Dan wants to have a cup of tea. That is an explanation on a different level then a scientific explanation and yet it is completely valid and moreover, the scientific explanation itself, would be incomprehensible if you didn't put into the context as to why the pot got on the stove in the first place, because Dan is trying to make himself some tea. That's why the set of events have been set into motion that cannot be described scientifically.

So what we illustrate by this example is the scientific explanation is true as far as it goes but it doesn't go all that far. It doesn't give a full account of the phenomenon at hand. When we are looking at the big questions that we face in life. Why do we have a universe? How did we get life out of non-life? Why do we have consciousness, morality?

What's the scientific explanation as to why we have a universe?

"We don't know the answer to that one."

What is the evolutionary or scientific explanation for how we got life, not how we got life form 'A' from life form 'B', but how we got life in the first place?

"We are working on that one we really don't know."

What about consciousness, if you think of human consciousness, you have all typed of living creatures, bacteria, amoebas and so on they are living, but they are not conscious, what is the evolutionary benefit to consciousness? Consciousness takes a lot out of us, a lot of the energy of the living animal is devoted to the brain and consciousness, why do we need it? What adaptive advantage does it confer?

"We have absolutely no idea."

So the point is, in some of these domains science is trying to figure it out and in other domains the question itself lies outside the boundaries of science. In both case the new atheist, in some sense, is trying to claim for science far more then science can actually deliver.

D’Souza goes on to say "Science is an attempt to understand the natural world in a natural way. Science then in that sense is restricted to natural explanations for natural phenomena. If a natural explanation is inadequate then science stops."

Atheists keep saying "you believe based on absolutely no evidence that there is an after life"

D’Souza responds "you believe based on absolutely no evidence that there is no after life."

No one has any scientific knowledge about whether there is an afterlife. Once we are at death the scientific explanation is at an end. There is no empirical test that we can perform that can tell us whether there is an afterlife , or not.

We both don't 'know' on the bases of faith. There is no scientific high horse that atheists can sit on.

Is there scientific proof of God?

No, because science is limited to the provinces of natural explanations. But there are things in science that can legitimately point beyond science to provinces of metaphysics.

For example, almost all of science is based upon the question that every effect has a cause. Science asks what is that cause. We have a material object, the Universe, and the universe has a beginning but the question is does it require a cause, if it has a cause is it a natural cause or a supernatural cause?

It turns out the natural cause is not a very good explanation because the universe itself includes all of nature so if your saying that nature had a natural cause you are almost saying that nature caused itself out of non-nature. There was once no nature and then nature produced nature itself? Seems far fetched.

One can draw legitimate and reasonable inferences out of Science that it is pointing to something bigger, A Creator. But I don't think there is any scientific proof in the sense."

Einstein Was Not An Atheist!

The History channel had a very interesting program about Einstein last night that shed some light on the man. I remembered Ray doing a section on Einstein, in the third season of the Way of the Master series, so I though I would share. We all should heed to the words of this very intelligent man, we should listen to Einstein also.

Belief System of Atheism

A Wake-up Call to Christians.

"Christianity is under attack over the world. In secular school, on television, on radio, in literature, etc., Christianity is increasingly insulted and dismissed as an antiquated philosophy." (CARM)

I just read an article that, admittedly, angered me slightly. We need to realize that atheists are trying to censor everyone that contradicts their belief system. In a sense, pushing their religion over others.

Granted this article is from Canada but if this trend/mindset continues we all will see a vast eradication of God and the new world order and the religion of atheism will rein. Do we really want to be the generation that allows this to happen?

Rob Breakenridge with the Calgary Herold writes:

What's turned this speech into a public controversy is the push by a group of atheists at the U of A to remove a line from the traditional convocation speech, which urges grads to use their degrees for "the glory of God and the honour of your country."

Breakenridge, biased in his beliefs, continues:

Moreover, if the atheists really were trying to "force their views" then they wouldn't be asking for words to be dropped from the speech, they'd be asking for words to be changed: "emptiness" instead of "glory", or something to that end.

Atheism is a belief -- specifically unbelief -- that is as deserving of protection under freedom of religion as any other belief.

This is pure garbage. If atheists believe in "no God" and they remove "God" (from the publics eye) they are indeed promoting one religion of "no God" or belief system over another. Here in the states Atheism is, in fact a religion, and I perfectly agree that they should be allowed to worship whomever they wish, even if it is themselves. The point of all this is to realize one fatal flaw with this subject and article.

Atheism is a belief in the denial of God. So if they get there wish and eradicate the word "God" in schools and government then their agenda of 'no God' wins! The new religion will be atheism throughout the lands. Taking out prayer in schools or not allowing "God" in science or public area's are all pushing the agenda and religion of Atheism.

Remember what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr said:

"Christians should not be a thermometers that merely record and reflect the temperature of popular opinion.

Christians should be like thermostats, responsible for transforming and setting the temperature or standards of society" (Thank God free at last!)

We are letting Doctor King and most of all, God, down. Unite, fight, and never give up proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

Who cares if atheists want us to bow to their god of self, like satanists (CoS). Their god of this world has already been defeated by our Lord Jesus Christ!

In our military USMJ: "899. ART. 99. 'MISBEHAVIOR BEFORE THE ENEMY,' the penalty of deserting your post during a war time situation is "death". If you haven't noticed, we are indeed in a spiritual war. (Ephesians 6:12)

So why are we bowing to the wishes of atheists? Does God want us to be PC or bold? (Hebrews 13:6) Is that what we are commanded to do by God? We are better then this (Ephesians 2:2), (1 John 4:4-6). We are to be soldiers in Christ, so please act accordingly! Never desert your post! Never cease!

Flames of Judgment

The story is told of pioneers who were making their way across one of the central states to a distant place that had been opened up for homesteading. They traveled in covered wagons drawn by oxen, and progress was necessarily slow.

One day they were horrified to note a long line of smoke in the west, stretching for miles across the prairie, and soon it was evident that the dried grass was burning fiercely and coming toward them rapidly.

They had crossed a river the day before, but it would be impossible to go back to that before the flames would be upon them. One man only seemed to have understanding as to what could be done. He gave the command to set fire to the grass behind them. Then, when a space was burned over, the whole company moved back upon it.

As the flames roared on toward them from the west, a little girl cried out in terror, "Are you sure we shall not all be burned up?" The leader replied, "My child, the flames cannot reach us here, for we are standing where the fire has been!"

What a picture of the believer, who is safe in Christ! "On Him Almighty vengeance fell, which would have sunk a world to Hell. He bore it for a chosen race, And thus becomes our Hiding Place."

The fires of God's judgment burned themselves out on Him, and all who are in Christ are safe forever, for they are now standing where the fire has been. (Sermon Illustrations)

ID is Inherently Religious

Objections to Intelligent Design continued from a previous post

ID is Inherently Religious, Not Scientific

This should be voted the most common tactic. As noted earlier, ID studies pattern in nature that are best explained as the results of intelligence. Many special or specific sciences already study such patterns and draw design inferences. Examples include forensic science (did that person die of natural causes, or was there foul play?) and archaeology (Arrowhead or rock?). It is scientifically legitimate to recognize the work of an intelligent agent, even if that agent is unknown, as it often the case in archaeology.

The science of design do not apply merely to human designers either. Beavers, for instance, build dams that we recognize as designed. Design need not be restricted to Earth. SETI, as seen in the movie Contact, is looking for intelligent aliens. The working assumption of SETI is that we can distinguish an intelligently produced signal from random radio noise.

Critics discount ID because its designer is supposed to be unobservable. However, in science we have a "many-worlds hypothesis" to discount how finely tuned the laws of physics are to allow for the emergence and sustenance of life. If we are only one of many universes then it shouldn't surprise us that we find ourselves in a universe uniquely crafted for our existence. The existence of multiple universes has never been observed, in fact, they are such that they can never be observed! Does this mean the many-worlds hypothesis is rendered unscientific? Of course not. Observability is therefore not a necessary condition for an explanation to be scientific; macroevolution has never been observed.

Another exclusion of ID from science is that science only deals with what is repeatable, and nature's designs are unrepeatable. Is Big Bang or origin of life repeatable? Science has no clue how to repeat either of these events in a lab; yet they are clearly within the realm of science. If repeatability is considered a necessary condition for science, then disciplines such as archaeology, anthropology, cosmology, and paleontology must be excluded from science as soon as they discover some unique artifact or feature of nature. Since those disciplines are included within the realm of science despite their unrepeatability, ID also must be included.

Faith in Christ, is for everyone's salvation and a creation explanation. Explanations of creation are in the Bible and the purpose is to glorify Him. Forced into science? Who cares, get saved!

ID, on the other hand, does try to find design within science and should be allowed to play! ID only seeks to identify a "design of things" within nature. That is not asking for too much.

ID does not have to prove it is a science-it already is. Richard Dawkins, surprisingly, agrees, "the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." (RD, The God Delusion, 58-59)

UPDATE: For more information on Intelligent Design here are some resources:
Access Research Network
Answers Research Journal
ID Network
IDEA
Institute for Creation Research
Intelligent Design
International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design

ID is Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo

Objections to Intelligent Design continued from a previous post

ID is Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo

Why do they say this? To try to discredit it. They believe that creationism has no intellectual credibility. This is why people, like some atheists here, parrot a professor at University of Kansas named Krishtalka.

ID is often confused with Creation Science (not an oxymoron), but they are indeed quite different. Rather then beginning with some particular interpretation of Genesis (as young-earth and old-earth creationists typically do), ID begins with investigating the natural world. ID looks for patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence. Given what the world reveals about itself, ID proponents reason that a designing intelligence best explains certain patterns in nature. This is not to be confused with my own view of Biblical Creationism.

The great difference between ID and Creation Science, then, is that ID relies not on prior assumptions about divine activity in the world, but on methods developed within the scientific population for recognizing intelligence. Even Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial recognized that ID proponents do not base their theory on "the Book of Genesis," "a young earth," or "a catastrophic Noachic flood."

Contrasting Religions

Evolution is the "descent from a common ancestor" model so when you ask people "Do you believe your ancestors were fish, as evolution teaches?" Or, "Are you a mutated rodent-like creature?" Fewer people would be more inclined to answer, "Yes!" Despite several generations now of aggressive evolution-only teaching in the Public School classroom, most people just know that they didn't come from a fish or a rodent or a starfish. They can choose to believe they have an animal ancestry, but few do. It just isn't believable. The other explanation for origins is not only more believable, it's more appealing.

Dr Michael Ruse, an eloquent spokesman for evolution today, has admitted:

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more then mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion. A full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, (no such thing) but I must admit that in this one complaint...the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."(1)

Christianity has its God and its revealed truth. It tells us our origins, who we are, where we came from, the meaning of life, and where we're going after we die.
It tells us how to live and how to make life decisions along the way. Created in the image of God, we have great worth in His eyes, and great standing before Him as we appropriate His gift of redemption, a great destiny to perform on earth, and life with our loving and righteous Creator/Savior after death.

Evolution answers these same questions differently. We are and come from the universe's chemicals that have self-organized into unlikely forms over eons of time. Single-celled life transformed itself into higher forms until finally the human animal came along. As higher animals, we have incorporated animal behavior into societal norms and even "religious" beliefs. The only true meaning to life is survival and reproduction, and life's highest goal is to pass on one's genes more efficiently than others. After life, we simply cease to exist.

As constitutional attorney Wendell Bird has pointed out: "Evolution is at least as religious as creation, and creation is at least as scientific as evolution." Creation is also more believable. (John D Morris, PhD)

----
1. Ruse, Michael. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians. National Post, May 13, 2000,B-3

ID is a Science-Stopper

Objections to Intelligent Design continued from a previous post

ID is a Science-Stopper

Science writer Michael Shermer said "The point of the ID movement is not to expand scientific understanding-it is to shut it down"

The truth, however, is just the opposite. By rigidly excluding ID from science, Darwinists themselves impede scientific progress. Consider the embarrassing label of "junk DNA." The word "junk" suggests that useless portions of DNA have arisen together through a blind, unguided process of evolution. Evolutionary theorists thus have come to regard only a small portion of DNA as functional. By contrast, if DNA is the product of design, we would expect much of it to be functional.

Current research indicates that much of what previously termed "junk DNA" is now known to have function. In a recent Newsweek article, Mary Carmichael describes the transformation in how DNA is understood: "Researchers have realized that this forgotten part of the genome is, in fact, profoundly important. It contains the machinery that flips the switches, manipulating much of the rest of the genome...Genes make up only 1.2 percent of our DNA. The rest of the DNA, once called "junk DNA" was thought to be filler. Recent finds prove otherwise"

I would add even vestigial organs to this list also. It means total lost of an organs original function. Saying it still has function negate the use of the word.

Take the appendix in humans as a fine example, evolution scientists calls it a vestigial organ. Most evolution scientist, even this Dawkins dude, still believe the old story that the appendix is some kind of useless leftover from our ape-like ancestry. It's incredible that this myth continues to be spread. Even the encyclopedia sates "The appendix doesn't serve any useful purpose as a digestive organ in humans, and it is believed to be gradually disappearing in the human species over evolutionary time." (New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1:491, 1997)

Newest medical textbook, on the other hand, present the known function of this organ. For example, the appendix has a role to play in our immune system. This has left countless of people scared, and unable to fight infections, including my own Dad. Many evolutionists continue to cling to outdated and wrong information in their attempt to persuade you that evolution is true. They also claim that there are other so called "useless" body parts that are "left over."

Design thus encourages science to look for deeper insight into nature, whereas Darwinian evolution discourages it. The criticism that design stifles scientific progress is therefore mistaken. The criticism applies more readily to Darwinism then design.

Personal Invitation

I just received an email that I thought all of you would be interested in. It's fitting to the conversations that I have been having from the last post. I received this email just moments after I posted this comment:

How do you justify your faith to a world that wants to explain it away? This is part of the New Atheist movement, which is growing more visible and vocal.

Anti-Christian rhetoric is increasing, and atheistic agenda is penetrating all areas of our society.

New York Times best-selling author Dinesh D’Souza welcomes your questions on atheism, agnosticism, apologetics, and more. He will address questions in his upcoming Virtual Book Tour, and this is your chance to register for this FREE event. D’Souza takes tough questions head-on when he debates atheists, so GO AHEAD, submit your question, and register for this Virtual Book Tour—an online, live event to hear Dinesh answer significant questions about Christianity

Author of What's So Great About Christianity is inviting questions. A Live 60-70 minutes Teleseminar Tuesday, November 18, 2008 (8 pm Eastern, 7 pm Central, 5 pm Pacific)

This should be interesting and I invite all of you to post questions and listen in HERE

So what questions should we ask? I think I will ask about the "perceived" barbaric situations in the Bible that turns away people.

Accounts in the Bible verified in past cultures

I just read something very interesting from an article at ICR by Ava Ford, M.D.

Besides having a very similar upbringing as my own, Dr. Ford wrote of an account she had with Chinese script.

Ancient insight on Faith and the Creator can help us find the truth about origins without referring to just the Bible. Dr. Ford talks of a time she saw Chinese writings and explains an epiphany moment.

Chinese script is expressed through ideographic pictures developed from the picture writings on ancient oracle bones--a kind of "hieroglyphic" of Chinese language. She honed in on two of the characters in particular: "life" and "believe." It struck Ford that these words had relevance to the creation account in Genesis.

Each character can be broken down into component parts. For instance, the word for "life" is made up of "motion" plus "Lord," which reveals the ancient Chinese belief that the Lord is the maker of all life. "Believe" is also comprised of two components: "person" plus "word," which means that placing trust in a word is considered an act of faith or believing. Simple, yet profound, especially when translated within a biblical context. The story of the Roman centurion in Luke 7:2-10 came to her mind; Jesus specifically remarked that this man's "belief" in His Word was greater than what He could find in Israel.

According to research found in Harvard's Yenching Library, the written Chinese language may have originated as far back as 2500 B.C., which coincides closely with the estimated time of the great dispersion of humanity from Babel, as calculated from the biblical genealogies. When all mankind was divided into new linguistic groups and scattered over the face of the earth, ancient Chinese people would have also carried with them an accurate account of early human history.

Noah

Interestingly, the ancient Chinese record Feng-su T'ung-yi (Comprehensive Meaning of Customs) states that all people on earth are descended from "Nu-wa." (Some have suggested this to be a version of the biblical name Noah, as found in other ancient Chinese texts.)

The Chinese were known for meticulous recordkeeping from the time of the Hsia dynasty in 2205 B.C., and according to their most acclaimed set of ancient manuscripts, Shu Jing (The Book of History), many generations of Chinese emperors recited texts of praise during the annual Border Sacrifice as they brought their people together to worship "Heavenly Sovereign Shangdi," the Creator of the universe and the one true God.

Chinese Genesis?

The Chinese wrote: "Of old in the beginning, there was the great chaos, without form and dark. The five elements (planets) had not begun to revolve, nor the sun and the moon to shine. In the midst thereof there existed neither forms nor sound. Thou, O spiritual Sovereign, camest forth in Thy presidency, and first didst divide the grosser parts from the purer. Thou madest heaven; Thou madest earth; Thou madest man. All things with their reproducing power got their being."

Sounds remarkably similar to Genesis, doesn't it?

"Life" does not come through faith in the science of men, but through "belief" in the Creator of life, Jesus Christ.

UPDATE: AIG said: "Hawaiians have a flood story that tells of a time when, long after the death of the first man, the world became a wicked, terrible place. Only one good man was left, and his name was Nu-u. He made a great canoe with a house on it and filled it with animals. In this story, the waters came up over all the earth and killed all the people; only Nu-u and his family were saved.

As the story of the Flood was verbally passed from one generation to the next, some aspects would have been lost or altered. And this is what has happened, as we can see from the chart. However, as seen in the given examples, each story shares remarkable similarities to the account of Noah in the Bible. This is true even in some of the details, such as the name Nu-u in the Hawaiian flood story. “Nu-u” is very similar to “Noah.”

[More Proof] The Epic of Gilgamesh is, perhaps, the one of the oldest written storys on Earth. It comes to us from Ancient Sumeria. Wrote about the flood a great deal even an entire table dedicated to it:

Table 1: “He saw the Secret, discovered the Hidden, the brought information of (the time) before the Flood. He went on a distant journey” and this “raging flood-wave who destroys even walls of stone!” and also “Utanapishtim, the Faraway, who restored the sanctuaries (or: cities) that the Flood had destroyed!

Table XI (11) The Story of the Flood: “The gods were frightened by the Flood,”

Fallen Away?

What about those who fall away?

Many of us know people who, at one time, walked very closely with the Lord, confessed Jesus as their Savior, went to church, read the Bible, taught the Bible, and defended the Christian faith, only to fall away, and deny Christ. Many atheists here have similar stories.

Is this proof that it is possible to lose our salvation? This is a fair question to ask, and the Scriptures answer it: 1 John 2:19 says, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

The Scripture says that if someone really is of God, if they really are saved, then they will remain. If they do not, it is because they never were saved, to begin with.

From CARM: If it is possible for us to lose our salvation, then we must ask some questions:

* What must we do to lose it?

* How much sin must we commit?

* If we stop believing, do we lose our salvation, and if we believe again, do we get it back again? (2 Corinthians 5:17)

* If we can get our salvation back again, doesn't that contradict the Scriptures, which say, "If we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins," (Hebrews 10:26)?

* If we can lose our salvation, and we must continue to believe, in order to keep our salvation, then are we in danger of keeping our salvation by being good? After all, believing in God is a good thing to do.

* If we can lose our salvation, what is to prevent someone from living in fear, not knowing what he can, or cannot do, before he loses his salvation?

* If he lives in fear of constantly losing his salvation, then how is he resting in Christ? Jesus said, “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest," (Matthew 11:28).

Is this a license to sin?

No! This is not a license to sin. The Bible says, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?" (Romans 6:1-2). Being secure in Christ in no way means that we can go out and sin. Anybody who would think they could do that, would be exhibiting evidence that they are not saved in the first place.

Though the members of the Body of Christ still fail, and still sin in their struggle to be more like Christ (1 John 1:7-9), their sins have all been paid for by the risen Lord Jesus, who bore their sins in His body on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). They do not need to maintain their salvation by their deeds (Gal. 3:1-3). They have rest in Christ (Matt. 11:28). They have been made clean by the blood of Jesus (1 John 1:7), and possess eternal life (John 10:28).

So how can you tell that you are saved? Many of you have heard this from me before but I never posted the list. This was taken from True and False Conversion, Ray Comfort:

What fruit will grow in a True Christians life:

1. Repentance - A 180 degree turn away from sinful behavior and towards Godly behavior.

2. Thankfulness - A thankful heart that is grateful for what God has done... and shows itself in a cheerful disposition.

3. Good Works - A life that becomes others centered (helping the aged, feeding the poor, teaching children, etc.) Not self centered (all free time consumed in personal hobbies and interests)

4. Fruit of the Spirit - An ever-growing capacity of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness and self control in the life of the believer.

5. Fruit of Righteousness - Doing the right thing according to the way God defines it in his word. Not according to the way man defines it in his own mind.

We are here to get fruit bearing Christians not decisions for Christ to fill pews.

If we understand the parable in Mark 4:3-13 then it unlocks the secret to all parables: Foolish virgin=false convert Wise virgin=Genuine conversions. The good fish, the bad fish. The man who built his house on rock and the man who built his house on sand. The one who built his house on sand is the one who hears the word of Jesus but doesn't keep them. False Convert.

6 characteristics of a False Convert:

1. Mark 4:5 - Lack depth of understanding. Immediate results impressive changes occur quickly then false convert will fall away from their faith over time and the results and changes disappear.

2. Luke 8:6 - False convert lack moisture in other words they lack the life-giving and life-sustaining power of God's word. To a false convert the Bible is dry and uninteresting and struggles with daily devotions.

3. Matthew 13:6 - False convert have no roots like a plant that dries up when the heat comes because it's roots aren't deep enough to reach water to sustain it. So is the false convert who's faith dries up where persecution comes his roots of faith don't run deep enough to reach the life sustaining water of God's word and Holy Spirit.

4. Mark 4:16 - False Converts receive the word with gladness. Hears the gospel message with gladness and really seems to latch on to it. He may express, for example, with tear filled eyes of joy. How this is the answer he's been looking for. When any test or trials comes his way, excuses become his trademark he falls away from following Jesus.

5. Matthew 13:20 - Repeats that same point false convert receive the word with joy (at first)

6. Luke 8:13 - Because they do believe for a season this is the one that fools the most people because they do believe, for a short time, the Gospel message. These false converts walk and talk a very good game. They often sincerely believe the Vital truths. That Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died a sacrificial death and rose from the earth and that he was fully man and fully God. they believe those things in their mind. When it comes time to deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Jesus into test and self sacrifice the false convert displays, slowly but surely, the truth that they never believed in their hearts. Never made that commitment to Christ and eventually becomes distracted by the worries and opportunities of life and lives for himself not Christ.

bit.ly/fallaway

Objections to Intelligent Design Refuted!

William A Dembski & Sean McDowell came up with a top ten list that speaks against Intelligent Design and responds to them in their book "Understanding ID". They both can be viewed here discussing their work in this part 1 of 4 interview:



(part 2, part 3, part 4)

I wanted to explore some of the 'Top Ten' to see how many of you feel about these points. They were listed in an article I read in Christian Research Journal.


ID must explain who designed the designer.

Dawkins raised this criticism against Design in The God Delusion. ID fails because it doesn't explain the Designer's designer. If we can't answer this then Dawkins claims "it's fruitless."

Is this how science works? Can scientists only accept explanations that themselves have been explained? The real problem with this objection is that it is always possible to ask for further explanation. Greg Koukl, president of Stand to Reason observed, "An explanation can be a good one even if you do not have and explanation for the explanation"

For example, if an archaeologist discovers an ancient object that looks like an arrowhead or digging tool, she would be fully justified in drawing a design inference. In fact, after a few clear instances she would be irrational not to infer design. She may have no clue as to the origin or even the identity of the designer, but certain patterns that the artifacts would point beyond natural forces to the work of an intelligent designer.

If every explanation needed a further explanation then nothing could ever be explained! If designer B was responsible for having designed designer A, then who designed B? Designer C of course and so on. Given the infinite regress of explanations, nothing could ever be explained and science itself would come to a standstill!

ID is Not Testable

The criticism is meant to disqualify ID as a science. If by "testable" we mean that a theory should be open to confirming or disconfirming evidence, then ID most certainly passes the test. Darwin presented what he regarded as strong evidence against design. So, claiming that ID has been tested by such evidence and shown to be false, however, creates a catch-22 for the critic: If evidence can count against a theory, evidence must also be able to count in favor of a theory. That knife must cut both ways.

Researchers have confirmed the evidence for ID across a wide range of disciplines including molecular biology, physics, and chemistry. (Design of Life)

Even if critics reject the evidence for ID, in the very act of rejecting the evidence, they put design to the test. (which is exactly what they do when no one is looking, I suspect)

Imagine what would happen if microscopic investigation revealed the words "Made by Yahweh" inscribed in the nucleus of every cell. The point is we wouldn't know this unless we actually "tested" cells for this sign of intelligence, which we couldn't do if ID were not testable. If ID fails, it won't be for lack of testability. I might add, unless the critics are afraid?

Obviously these are not all Ten, I will be addressing the rest in subsequent posts. Stay tuned!

Radical Skepticism

A good article I just read was from a magazine I received called Christian Research Journal. The article was called "Reasonable Skepticism about Radical Skepticism" by Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD.

Breggen gave, quite convincingly, counters for many of the different type of skepticisms. I was hoping it was online, but it isn't, so here is the Reader's Digest version.

Funky/Pop skepticism, a good example is the Matrix movies that claims nothing we see, hear, taste, or touch is real.

The Doctor's five counters included imagining the doubt isn't the same as actually to doubt or imagining isn't doubting. To think otherwise is to conflate two distinct cognitive categories. Another is mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x). Mere assertion of a mere logical possibility. If we accept mere assertions of bare logical possibilities as grounds for truth we should believe all mere assertions.

Sensory skepticism, our scenes deceive us, thus we cannot know the external world. When strolling on along railroad tracts, I see that the metal rails look straight and parallel, but on the horizon they appear to meet or a mirage in the desert of water.

A rational reply would be first always does not follow logically from sometimes. Our senses' prima facie veridicality- that is, their very apparent truthfulness, remains. Senses are innocent until proven guilty, as long as we have no overriding reason to doubt them, as long as we are careful.

Immanuel Kantian skepticism, the external world in rose colored, subjective glasses.

A rational reply would be if Kantian skepticism is true then science's search for causal connections/laws ultimately is a search for connections/laws that are not really in the world but in our heads. Second, as Jim Leffel astutely observes, "The success of scientific technology is a strong argument that our perceptions of the world are relatively accurate. Countless achievements attest to the reliability of human knowledge [including our knowledge of the causal principle]. We can engineer enormously sophisticated rockets to propel men to the moon, and provide health care that has more than doubled human life expectancy. We couldn't do these things without an essentially reliable correspondence between our ideas of reality and reality itself."

Linguistic skepticism Kind of a postmodern philosophizing, we cannot know truth about the world in an objective way because of the distorting effect of language.

There is no objective truth; each community has it's own mere 'story' or 'narrative'
There is no objective rationality; we reason in language, which is culture-dependent.
There are no objective ethics; values are relative to culture, too.
Therefore power rules; the dominating culture group ultimately controls the language (wittingly or unwittingly), so it determines "truth," rationality, and ethics.

A rational reply would be it is simply not the case that language is completely defined by other language. There is such a thing as ostensive definition. Objective truth and principle of noncontradiction arguments apply. Moral relativism can be seriously challenged. Poking pins into baby's eyes for fun surely is wrong for everyone, everywhere, and always. (hey, that sounds familiar) The fact that language and power are often intertwined is ground for caution not radical skepticism. Language is not wholly a power play; we are capable of communicating knowledge.

The article concluded with this brilliant nugget:

It turns out that because we can know at least some of the external world (in a limited way), we can find reasonable evidence for the existence of God. Scientifically based evidence and good reasoning lead us to believe that the universe had a beginning; that it was caused; that cause transcends matter, energy, space, and time; that the arrangement of the universe was fine-tuned for life; and that life itself-the cell's molecular machines and DNA's code/language- is exquisitely fine tuned. All of this points to an intelligent and powerful supernatural cause. Historical investigation of the external world gives is further reason to believe the New Testament's witness concerning Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. In other words, the external world points us to the Christian worldview, the gospel, and a reasonable faith in Jesus Christ.

I found Hendrik van der Breggen's blog and will be checking in often.

Bible Doesn't Condone Slavery

Stan recently said to me "You don't support slavery, but you support a god who regulates slavery." among other things that I will address in time.

I want to get the record straight once and for all about this slavery issue. It gets thrown in my face quite often as an ad hominem to discredit God.

The Bible denounces slavery as sin and goes as far to put slave traders in the same boat as murderers (1 Timothy 1:10)

Plus we have to use our proper hermeneutics to see what the Bible actually says about slavery.

Back in the days of Leviticus slavery was sanctioned due to economic reasons. Back then, there were no such thing as bankruptcy laws so people would sell themselves into slavery to rectify debts. A craftsman could use his skills to literally "pay off" a debt. Or a convicted thief could make restitution by serving as a slave. (Exodus 22:3)

The Bible recognizes the reality of slavery, but it never promotes the practice of slavery. It was the biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery, both in ancient Israel and in the United States.

One has to only go far as to think why the Jews left Egypt in the first place to see God's view of slavery. It took some years in America to wake up to the realization of biblical truth that all people are created by God with innate value. (Genesis 1:27, Acts 17:26-28, Galatians 3:28)

Obama, in my opinion a possible candidate for the Antichrist, couldn't respect God in June, 08 and made some snide comment:

"Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is abomination? ..."

Twisting of the Scriptures was the main source of this post.

UPDATE: A man named Glenn M. Miller wrote about this subject. This rather detailed study connects the fact quite well.

Does God condone slavery in the Bible? OT and Does God condone slavery in the Bible? NT

God doesn't Condone Slavery!


bit.ly/Condone

All is Fair in Love and War?

After being called many names for advertising my position on a very small level, I thought I would show an article my wife found. The article begins "London buses have God on their side — but not for long, if atheists have their way." (full article)

The difference here is exposure, atheists win that fight hands down on this one. Should we move to counter attack?

UPDATE: I guess I spoke too soon. They are now campaigning here in the states also.


Remember, "being good" will not get you to heaven.

This post here reminded me of my very first post on atheists, ah good times.