Truth About Christianity

"So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God." ~James 1:19-20

Pointless Prepping

About a week ago, an Atheist asked me what I was doing to prepare for the upcoming 12/21/2012. My answer was that I was going to do the dishes preparing for the next day, nothing more.

I am not worried about the solar flares, pole reversals, or asteroids hitting us. What I observe are the criminal enterprises of our times. Namely, the central banks and the governments. THAT is the most horrifying thing that we face in these times, if you are to worry about something. Why? Because evil exists.

So how do you prepare for that? You don't. All you can do is get right with God. Repent and trust in our Lord Jesus Christ with your heart, mind, and soul. He may not make this ride we are on any more comfortable but when the smoke clears we will be with God in an eternal, righteous, world. THAT is the day my family and I are fully prepared for.

So we will go about our lives and watch as our governments destroy the economies and usher in a world currency due to the monetary deflation wars currently going on, as revealed in this video.

Matthew 6:25-34 instructs us not to worry, but to "seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be provided for you."

We are prepared because...

"Your life should be free from the love of money. Be satisfied with what you have, for He Himself has said, I will never leave you or forsake you." ~Hebrews 13:5



bit.ly/PointlessPrep

Just...Aching

Not trying to debate at all, I am just grateful we Unschool our children at home, and that they are now safe, God willing. Our hearts are aching. We mourn for the families losses and just wish to present a bit of hope.

Inconsistent Worldview

If any of you wonder why we ask, "Are you absolutely certain of that? If so, how?" to the Atheists, here is the explanation behind it all. Dr. Chris Bolt did such a nice job over at Choosing Hats articulating it, that I can only play ode to the post by linking to it. So, I hope you read it.

The Consistently Inconsistent Worldview Objection

by C.L. Bolt on November 29, 2012

Suppose someone posits that his or her worldview is consistently inconsistent. He or she admits that there are many inconsistencies within the worldview. In this case, inconsistency is not something to be shunned. Inconsistency is to be affirmed. Embraced. Granted approval. Are there such worldviews? Yes. There are worldviews that come close to rejecting the need for consistency. Buddhism and postmodernism are two examples. How might the covenantal apologist respond?

 First, an inconsistency-affirming worldview is also consistency-affirming. There is nothing more inconsistent with inconsistency than consistency. To be consistent... [Click to read more]

First, an inconsistency-affirming worldview is also consistency-affirming. There is nothing more inconsistent with inconsistency than consistency. To be consistent, an inconsistency-affirming worldview must also be a consistency-affirming worldview. Likewise, to be inconsistent, an inconsistency-affirming worldview must also be a consistency-affirming worldview. Many times I have sat across the table from people who suggest consistency is no big deal in their worldview. Immediately I respond, “Oh, so consistency is a big deal in your worldview?” People become frustrated rather quickly. They become frustrated because they are inconsistent. Yet they say that they do not care about being inconsistent. Inconsistency is just a part of their worldview. But then so is consistency.

Second, an inconsistency-affirming worldview does not lend itself to rational exchange. Note – and this is extremely important – that the transcendental argument as used by covenantal apologists is not merely a reductio ad absurdum. The internal critique offered by the apologist is notmerely to point out some logical contradiction or absurdity. Rather, the internal critique establishes that in virtue of the presuppositions of the non-Christian worldview in question, predication is impossible. Knowledge is impossible. The very intelligibility of the exchange is rendered impossible once a non-Christian worldview is assumed. It does not take very much thinking to draw quick conclusions regarding how impossible communication really is once someone states that inconsistency is to be accepted, rather than rejected, in his or her worldview.

Third, an inconsistency-affirming worldview does not allow for critique of the Christian worldview.Objections to the Christian faith most often pertain to some alleged inconsistency within the worldview. But if inconsistency is allowed within a worldview, it is special pleading to deny such inconsistency to other positions. The objection to the aforementioned response will be to the effect that an internal critique on Christianity already assumes the criterion of consistency as a mark of the true worldview. But if someone gets so far as to point out an inconsistency in the Christian worldview and thus shows the Christian worldview to be false, there is nothing wrong with also proclaiming the Christian worldview to be true. So assuming that an inconsistency-affirming worldview is true, Christianity is beyond critique. The apologist has done his or her job.

Fourth, an inconsistency-affirming worldview is not an apologetic target. Beyond what has been stated here, and with the noted possibility that some other point was missed, an adherent to an inconsistency-affirming worldview is not a proper subject of an apologetic in the most popular sense. Apologetics are most often thought of as a reasoneddefense of the faith. Once an individual wholeheartedly, without hesitation, affirms the value of inconsistency in a worldview, he or she is no longer, “playing the reason-giving game,” as Greg Bahnsen used to put it.

Fifth, the objection is not limited to covenantal apologetics alone. It strikes me as odd that covenantal apologists must hear the objection in question as though it belongs to presuppositionalists  alone. How would an evidentialist respond to the inconsistency-affirming worldview? Probably not much differently from what I have written here.

Thankful Indeed Deux

Re-posting this because I am lazy

Father of Lies

“Enter through the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the road is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who go through it." ~Matthew 7:13

Have you seen this picture? 

It is from this Source: Romney Campaign Exaggerates Size Of Nevada Event With Altered Image

And also the current Chrysler and GM issue of basically calling Romney a liar and chastising him about the ads he ran. Not to mention his entire history of him flipping back and fourth like the wind on every issue sacred to, and passionate, for most people.

So then, with all this fresh on my mind, I get what I believe to be a message from above. It is in a form of a video style that I really enjoy, and have posted about before. It leaves me with a bit of concern about our immediate future. Really it does. I am actually concerned for all of us. Anyway, please watch this video in light of what I just said above, and you tell me if this is not a very important election.

Primacy Of God

The axiom “existence exists” is metaphysical naturalism.

It seems all threads are getting hijacked, which I do not oppose to as conversations do flow, by one discussion that we end up hacking away all the time at. So, let's address it here, completely.

The deep discussion is all about what is metaphysical primacy with some of the Atheists here. I have just come to a pivoting point that needs to be highlighted to get this out, once and for all.

The Atheists positions here assert this: The Primacy of Existence is the metaphysical primacy because existence exists. You cannot talk about anything before existence, so existence is the Primacy. Primacy of consciousness cannot be primacy because then there could be square circles, just think of  the correct lottery numbers, blah, blah, blah. We could just think something into existence and it would appear, that is IF Primacy of consciousness were true.


"Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification."~Ayn Rand

One Atheist recently stated "Primacy of Consciousness metaphysics, however, states that objects are subject to consciousness - I could sit back and wish my keyboard to work and that wishing would make it so. Your worldview insists that the PoC holds - it has to so God can poof everything into existence just by thinking it - unfortunately for you the reality we perceive isn't subject to consciousness so we can see that the PoC doesn't hold and, by extension, your worldview is therefore, wrong."

Admittedly, I have not read anything Ayn Rand has written at all, let alone about this subject. This recently has been thrust to me by the many Rand Atheist cronies, but I did find this quote,

"Existence precedes consciousness because, consciousness is consciousness of an object. Nor can consciousness create or suspend the laws governing its objects, because every entity is something and acts accordingly [i.e., according to its identity, not according to the desires of consciousness]. Consciousness, therefore, is only a faculty of awareness. It is the power to grasp, to find out, to discover that which is. It is not a power to alter or control the nature of its objects." ~The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pg 19

OK. That is the many Atheists position here, specifically the Ayn Rand anti-social 'virtues of selfishness' objectivism cronies, according to all the past discussions thus far in a nut shell. That Existence is Primacy.

THIS is their fallacious argument though.

"Wha, wha, wha?" says the Atheists with their mouths open.

Don't worry little birdies, I will feed ya.

First this is a false dilemma fallacy, by only presenting a choice of two and no more, is fallacious. There are other choices. Strike one.

Second fallacy, this is a strawman when he asserts "Your worldview insists that the PoC holds" He is arguing against a position that Rand made up and demand we defend it. I bought into it and tried to defend it at first, but I am erasing the chalkboard here to reset the argument where it should properly go. 

Third fallacy, if you say PoE holds and that PoC cannot be because we would be able to think something to exist and it would appear, THAT is fallacious. It is a relativist fallacy. Let me explain that one. He moved the goal posts when I pseudo addressed this point earlier, but I didn't catch it then. In this post we will not allow it, because it is being highlighted.

They are claiming that PoC would allow them personally to think something into existence and that PoE holds. When I asked who's personal existence? Theirs? They claim 'No, all of existence is primacy' so the fallacy is when he asserts that ALL of existence is the Primacy YET, his personal consciousness would be able to think something into being. Understand?

If PoE is ALL of existence, or non-local, why does PoC have to be local to make their argument? This is why it is a relativist fallacy. Either both must be non-local, or both need to be local. They claim that their personal consciousness is needed to move or create objects, if PoC were true that is, but their own existence is not the primacy, obviously. Fallacious

So where are we? In the very same place we started, and have been all along, the metaphysical primacy is the Primacy of God. It is His, non-local, consciousness and existence that is the Primacy. It starts with God. You cannot have existence or consciousness without Him as the primacy. It always has been, and we all know this. Ayn Rand and her cronies have nothing but fallacious arguments, and trickery, to account for Primacy.


"That's right. To put it bluntly, her Objectivism is godless, self-centered, materialistic, anti-Christian, and anti-American." ~Tom Hoefling



bit.ly/PrimacyOfGod

Scientism

BTW, vote YES for Prop 37

Scientism: a belief that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth via the scientific method.

Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world.

I wanted to point to this term, and article, for the future, as it will be valuable to point this out. So many Atheists are afflicted with this horrible debilitating belief.

"Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth." ~PBS.org

“Scientism claims to be ‘reality based’ but that is precisely what it is not. It recognizes only aspects of reality, and in particular only those susceptible of study via its favored methods. When those methods fail to capture some aspect of reality – God, consciousness, intentionality, free will, selfhood, moral value, and so on – scientism tends to blame reality rather than its methods, and to insist that the reality either be redefined so as to make it compatible with its methods, or eliminated entirely.” ~Ed Feser

"Will Science Disprove God's Existence? No. Written by James Heiser 

 Over the past few centuries, the purported efforts of scientists to come to a better understanding of the natural world have often led to wild variations in their theories. Attempts to arrive at a naturalistic understanding of the origin of the universe — operating with the presupposition of excluding a divine origin — have led to a profound divergence of opinion, with only one common point among those who have created such theories: However the universe came into existence, God did not create it.

As explained in my recent book, A Time for Every Purpose Under Heaven, the efforts of scientists to disprove the existence of God is not a pursuit of Science, but Scientism. Since Rene Descartes (1596–1650) there have been men and women who have succumbed to Descartes’ egocentric presentation of the scientist as the master of all knowledge; in the words of Michael Gillespie: “The scientist therefore will be the master not of [a] single area of knowledge but of all knowledge. His knowledge will be a mathêsis universalis, a universal science or universal mathematics. He will thus be not merely the wisest human being but also the best technician and the best lawgiver in both political the [sic] theological matters.” This worldview is often called “Scientism” — a materialistic doctrine that (among other tenets of its creed) axiomatically excludes the possibility of a non-naturalistic origin of the universe, and which interprets all observation data regarding the natural realm only in line with its axiomatic assumption that there is no divine origin to creation.

At the root of such delusional attempts to disprove the divine creation of the universe is an inherent contradiction: attempting to prove that God did not create the universe, the Scientistic theorist assumes the truth of that which he purports to attempt to prove. Theorizing based on the assumption there is no God, the “discovery” that one’s theorizing does not lead to the discovery of God is hardly a shocking result..." [Read More]


bit.ly/DAScientism

RNC Fraud!

A friend of mine, named Chad, said "This is exactly what happened in Germany 1933.

Massive, massive, MASSIVE election fraud.

There are not enough courtrooms or lawyers or judges on the planet to handle the potential caseload.

And I sincerely hope EVERY liberty-minded person, Paul supporter, every liberty-minded Romney supporter, every liberty-minded Obama supporter, and every anybody-supporter...stands up and fights this with every ounce of their energy...or it is curtains for the "free" Republic of the United States of America."

All In The Family Time

We have been internalizing a bit over at the house, mostly dealing with family things. One big bit of news is that I am a grandfather of a T-minus 1 month old baby boy (due in mid October); Just turned 44 years old; Married 12 years to the most beautiful, talented, and loving wife; And kids are growing up so very fast; Also, the dogs are shredding everything we own. Plus, I read a good book that I might post about later. Good news for the Atheists in it.

I hope you all have the same great successes. I did see that the Atheist's hate messages, for their dogma recruitment, are getting some hate mail. Welcome to the club. "Useless Savior"? Once again the Atheists are confirming the Bible, yet again.
 
My blog has not been forgotten by me, it's just I have been on other websites discussing things. Some great conversations have been had, and I feel really blessed that God is with me in some of the heated discussions online, and even within my own family. I feel God working with us, strengthening us, helping us get closer to Him. I really feel at peace, and blessed.

Speaking of blogs, my geeky 11 year old daughter's picture just got a nod from the entire brony community by getting her picture, that she made, on the header of 233+ Million visitor Juggernaut blog called Equestria Daily. See what the benefits of Unschooling does? Her creativity is blossoming.

When God moves me to, I will post. Until then, I hope everyone's summer is as nice as ours has been so far.

Edit: They took the header down. When they say 15 minutes of fame, they really mean it.

Quantum Nonlocality

He is an evolutionist, a believer in reincarnation, and does not believe in Jesus Christ as God. He wrote the textbooks for students of Quantum Mechanics. So, why am I writing about him? He is a scientist, a professor, that shows evidence for downward causation. That is why.

His name is Dr. Amit Goswami and recently I was drawn to his documentary, now on Netflix, called "The Quantum Activist" If you do not have Netflix, own it as a stream online for a mere $3.99.

I saw some video interviews on YouTube where he made some very good points also and I will post them at the end for those that wish to explore his research more. I was very excited, speaking of "Ah ha" moments, to hear him lay out the reason why the materialist fight and resist, tooth and nail, science that reveals the truth about downward causation that he even refuses to call God, but we know better. The paradoxes in science can be eliminated when this one point is realized. More on that later.

OK, let's make the case. Quantum physics states that objects are not determined things. Objects are actually quantum possibilities for consciousness to choose from. Be it material things, thinking, intuit, etc. Waves of possibilities into a conscious choice into an actual event of experience.

God Particle, Revisited

Many years ago, I posted about and discussed, the God particle. Well, maybe we get to revisit the subject this week.

5 sigma for the God particle? (5 means new discovery or highly confident) This is what they are calling the "holy grail of particle physics," over at CERN. They spent 10 billion to build it just to find the Higgs Boson, after all. Find out on the 4th 

Update: Well, Papa Giorgio provided us with the explanation of what all this means from Dr. William Lane Craig

Irrational Exuberance

Ydemoc asked some well thought out questions, in such a kind manner they do warrant a response.

>>the truths identified by Objectivist axioms.

Yes, there are self evident truths. As a mere example, even our founding fathers believed this also as "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" The rights are axiomatic. There is a Biblical necessity to deny the fundamental point of moral neutrality here. What failed is southern men thinking that slaves are not people, but property. Their axioms were simply wrong. It was also "self evident" that the world was flat at a time in history, true? So how do we get through axioms that are incorrect? More, correct, axioms and that is the purpose of TAG. 

These points are not flip answers but my attempt to flesh them out in my very limited philosophical education. But, I do not claim to be a well versed philosopher, but an exegete in Scripture. At least that is my goal and focus.

>>For "axiom of existence".  So you presuppose that you exist.
>>For "axiom of identity". You presuppose that you are you.

You're arguing presuppositionally to me here. How can I, or want to, counter that? I guess I could pose that you could be a winged green Spirit in a dream state though, but that is not my argument and just the point that axioms change. Yes, we're creatures. Self-consciousness creatures. How is that accounted for?

"The problem here is that Dr. Copan, like many critics of presuppositionalism, confuses a presupposition of an argument with a premise of an argument." ~~Dr. James N. Anderson

As Anderson pointed out, "the argument identifies a performative inconsistency in the one who doubts his own existence. (In a sense, all transcendental arguments aim to identify a performative inconsistency in the skeptic’s position.) Does it presuppose its conclusion? Yes, in the sense that the argument can be mentally entertained by a person only if that person exists — but that’s precisely the point. This sort of non-trivial ‘presupposing’ is necessarily involved in all transcendental arguments that purport to identify a necessary precondition of rational thought...Once you see that Descartes’ argument doesn’t beg the question in any objectionable fashion, it ought to be clear that neither does the presuppositionalist’s argument."

Atheist "Leaders"

"Rejoice, young man, while you are young, and let your heart be glad in the days of your youth. And walk in the ways of your heart and in the sight of your eyes; but know that for all of these things God will bring you to judgment." ~Ecclesiastes 11:9

You wonder why Atheists look bad? This was on the side of a church. Your god is proud of you, I am sure. But you, as leaders, are guiding the youth to their own destruction. Sad

Some may state that I am generalizing and that they would never condone such behavior. But that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you condone or not. 

It's like a kid shooting a black kid in a school, only to find out his Dad is a leader of the KKK. His Dad may claim he doesn't approve, but the behavior to hate is taught from an early age. You're leading the youth to their own destruction, literally.  

Even Matt Dillahunty said recently that he expects Christianity to come to an end shortly. "Not by force, but by reason" but much the same as the dorks that bomb abortion clinics that believe they are doing something good for their god, they're mislead. You have so many militant and angry Atheists, and the ones that lead them, out there spewing a great deal of hatred that may have blow back, like this picture.

This is probably why people are trying to promote an Atheism 2.0 (bit.ly/Atheism2). They literally, see the writing on the wall.

Pro-Life Syllogism

I have leapfrogged this article in its entirety, with a word correction, from Atheism Analyzed by Stan who highlighted it from the original post, the blog, Scientiam Dei:

Here is Francis J. Beckwith's pro-life syllogism:

1. The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community*.
2. It is prima facie morally wrong to [murder] any member of that community.
3. Every successful abortion [murders] an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community.
4. Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong.¹

*Support for Premise 1.


¹ Found in: Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2009) p. 29. Originally from: Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

Stan adds, "To deny that every human - every human - went through the prenatal stages of human life including the division of cells and all embryo stages can be seen as nothing short of dishonest. To claim the moral authority to determine which stage of human life they think is acceptable to [murder] is an onerous claim. The idea that Atheism is more empathetic is absurd, unless the value of human life is discounted in advance, and the Atheist is elevated beyond his actual position as just another human, not a moral judge or determiner of life and death for other innocent humans.

No excuse can defeat the fact that human life always starts with cell division and that killing those cells kills a human life at that particular stage. This is not defeated by any appeal to the condition of the mother, the ability of the embryo to feel pain, or any other rationalized permission to [murder] the human at that stage, and only in a triage situation can such decisions be made which would kill the embryo or mother with moral impunity.

The much vaunted Atheist "empathy" has not been extended to the more than 50,000,000 humans [murdered] by abortion in the United States. "

I am sure you will notice that I changed the 'kills' to "murder" as to be more accurate and truthful.

I found it completely telling that Stan was able to articulate the exact arguments I hear daily, on this blog or in my group, from the Atheists. How can a worldview, a position that stands on an argument from incredulity, possibly be so sure?

This post was almost a Déjà vu as a few days ago I asked in the group: Are you absolutely certain that is NOT a person inside of the woman deserving rights and freedoms as any other person? If so, how are you absolutely certain?

UPDATE: this post is on the heals of a new video released just today revealing Planned Parenthood encouraging  Sex-Selective Abortions like China, from Live Action.

Atheist Movement

Tyson gets it to a point. He does know but rejects God.

The question I have for Neil deGrasse Tyson is whether he is a believer in "naturalism". Which he is, so he is not being completely honest here about that. That being said, he does understand that movement we all see going on.



"in your face Atheists" indeed.

Tyson is right, Atheists shouldn't exist. "The only 'ist' I am, is a scientist." as it should be. Unfortunately you're a believer in naturalism also, so you're a "Naturalist" too. THAT is not science at all. That is a "movement" in itself sir.

Naturalism artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. The cause of intelligence for one. Do you agree there are real dangers of scientists taking philosophical positions such as this? Naturalism has not been scientifically evidenced, simply its taken as a philosophical paradigm.

Hopefully Neil deGrasse Tyson would be willing to admit that point. I will try to be hopeful that he would. THAT would be refreshing.

Atheists Debunked

Or as Dr. Greg Bahnsen puts it, "debunked by its philosophical arbitrariness"


The video was taken down but here is a link to it, even though I cannot embed it. For more argument in this debate watch this:



If you like to read, here is the transcript of the debate.

Here is the closing statement:


So, we seek in 'Debunking Atheists' by lovingly revealing this post's truth to them.

As Atheists often say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You're right. As Dr. Bahnsen says, here is your evidence: When you talk about a claim which, when rejected, undermines the possibility of making intelligible all other claims. THAT is extraordinary! If I reject the idea of the amount of cereal in the world. That claim does not affect on a whole bunch of other claims. It is rather limited. But when you make the extraordinary claim that the philosophical precondition of intelligibility for anything, is based upon that worldview, that is a rather magnanimous thing which is Christianity. That is why the extraordinary claims of Christianity, about the existence of God and the supernatural, have been met with the extraordinary evidence that when you reject it, you undermine all philosophical possibility of making rationality, science, morality, possible. The supernatural if God is the presupposition of the intelligibility of the natural. When you appeal to the natural world and say "it's intelligible", you already assuming the worldview that you're rejecting, as an Atheist.


bit.ly/AtheistsDebunked

Uptight Atheist Movement

This is what the feminist best known as boobquake girl, Jen McCreight, has called that tired, free thought blog, group and has decided to leave them for her betterment.

I believe we were the one that made her famous first by posting that the Tea Party copied her idea in a post I called "Tea Party Thieves?", after that the media, including Stephen Colbert, picked up on her other post. Anyone that disputes it is in denial. :7p

Jen is completely right about this "uptight Atheist movement" comment, and I am confident that God revealed that knowledge to her, though she may deny it. She eluded that she may even ditch the "feminist" label also. We wish her all the best and are grateful for the gifts God has given her.

Good for you Jen, for speaking truth and running to the light.

...Now, the kitchen is that way. :7)

Atheist Meme

bit.ly/AbsoluteCertain

Today's News

These two news posts today says it all, at the very least speaks volumes.

Christian's raise funds for ill atheist protester

Atheists Wash Florida Road Christians Anointed With Oil

Science of Homeschooling

no

Dei Sub Numine Viget

Since Martin Wagner refuses to post my comments on their blog, for understandable reasons, I challenge his dogma / religion after all. So I am posting this here reluctantly. Normally, I would not advertise for Matt, as he is already getting PAID to do these debates. Only in 'merica'.


Right in the beginning of opening your mouth, you are trying to push a falsehood. You actually lie, as it has been pointed out from the very beginning of our conversations since 2006, you were never a Christian. You boastfully claim you were "for 25 years" but you never actually were.

Sermon On TED Mount

Atheism 2.0, its a religious thing. Just wow! The 'sermon on TED mount' basically is a call for Atheists to 'look to the religious to find "good" things in life, and learn from them.'

Because their rudder is broken, maybe? Because they are broken and fragmented and wish to unify? Sure, but it's mainly because they want to get their message out. That they believe there is no God. They're really trying to find ways to be more effective in evangelizing. 

They're organizing, advertising, and certainly marketing for their cause.

The 'sermon' was jaw dropping in the honesty. A few things said: "We have no might" " We have to get back to giving Sermons"

"we need to group together. If you want to change the world you have to group together and be collaborative." like the religions have done.

Listen to the point, after the thunderous applause, one that I have not heard since Pastor Benny Hinn vigils BTW,

It was asked "Is there a spiritual connection"
Alain proclaims "Absolutely!..." "one can have spiritual moments, without a belief in a spirit" *facepalm

We have making this point all along with many posts since the very beginning, (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ) illuminating, like a beacon of hope, the very fact that Atheism is a Religion. The evidence, at this point, is overwhelming.

It always has been a religion. Sure, it may have been fragmented, leaderless, or not cohesive at times. Many religions have those same traits too though. As a friend pointed out, "Atheism is a chosen metaphysical position, therefore a religious position." Can I be an Atheist and believe in God? No? So they have a doctrine.

So there is nothing unique about their religion at all. This guy just wants to be more religious, or more like the other religions. We understand, most all of the false religions out there insist on it, after all.

bit.ly/Atheism2

What If This Is Absolutely True?

"


I have ALWAYS loved Judge Andrew Paolo Napolitano over the years. I never thought I could love him more, but today after this, I certainly do. We all understand this is actually going on as we speak. Intellectual honesty would force you to agree.

BTW, (big shocking news *pshaw) Fox News has decided that the Judge's services, and his show “Freedom Watch”, are no longer needed and has canceled his show completely. Its understandable. Its hard being on the wrong side of truth. Just ask the Atheists.

I never thought I would see the day when Fox News and Atheists have something in common. Today is that day.

Our prayers are with you Judge. Let us know how you need our help and we will come running to your aid. 

I will never, ever, watch Fox again. They are of the Devil.

If you are as angry as I am, you will vote for Ron Paul. Ron Paul 2012.


Update: Did Dr. Paul just name the Judge as his VP?


bit.ly/absolutetruth