Constitution: Interpreted? or Enforced!

So, Obama places the most racist left liberal possible to be the next Supreme Court Judge. She will be replacing a very independent voter that, in a sense, balanced the votes. But these people have a horrible view on our Constitution. They believe that its a living document that needs to be interpreted instead of enforced. Shift said this today in his vlog and I couldn't agree more.



The Bible is another document that doesn't need to be interpreted, just honored. This is merely a deconstructionism approach to the Constitution. In that, they believe that all written texts are always subject to differing interpretations which are affected by one's culture, biases, language imprecision and so forth. This critical approach is a form of relativism or nihilism. This very same argument of modern deconstructionism is made for the Bible and Christianity by Dr. Bahnsen in his book "Pushing the Antithesis."

J. Hillis Miller has described deconstruction this way: "Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Its apparently-solid ground is no rock, but thin air."

Can anyone honestly say that about the Constitution or the Bible?

UPDATE: I cannot think of a worse Bible study then something like this:



In these days of Burger King church "have it your way" it is not surprising what we find in many Bible studies.

We need to move away from interpretation of these two documents, the Constitution and the Bible, and move towards a sensitive discernment.

That's My King

Pedophile Protection Act?

They're at it again!

President Obama said: "I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance"

This bill S.909 would more appropriately be called "The Pedophile Protection Act."

The evidence for this extraordinary statement comes directly from debate in the House, when a simple amendment to exempt pedophiles from the protections offered by the bill were rejected.

The Democratic Congresswoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee, reinforced the notion that people can be prosecuted for having a particular belief, she said "We also need to protect those potential victims who may be the recipients of hateful words, or hateful acts, or even violent acts."

Passage of this bill by the U.S. Senate would be reckless and irresponsible not only because of the "chilling effect" it would have on First Amendment-guaranteed rights to free speech, but also because it would provide, for the first time ever, special legal protections for pedophiles and other sexual offenders.

It was exposed as such when an amendment to exclude pedophiles from special legal protections, offered by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, was rejected by the Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee.

Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Florida, admitted from the House Floor that this bill put 547 forms of sexual deviancies listed by the American Psychiatric Association, which he referred to as "all of these 'philias' and fetishes and 'isms'" on the same level of elevated protection as "race … religion … gender … or disability."

To protest World Net Daily set up a deal to send letters overnight to all 100 members of the U.S. Senate for a total of $10.95. Would Atheists dare join a fight that Christians are fighting?

In California our failure of a Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, signed into Law our own Pedophile Protection Act named SB1313 that had a different twist.

Before, California law stated that all persons who regularly come in contact with children as part of their jobs are required to report any instance where there is reason to believe that a child has been molested or abused. This new law would eliminate mandatory reporting for anyone working as a volunteer in any capacity.

SB1313 was introduced and promoted in the legislature by then Sen. Sheila Kuehl, who is openly a lesbian.

Opponents of the bill believed that it was motivated by an investigation that revealed that Planned Parenthood has been contacted by more than 30,000 children in California -- some of them as young as six years old with sexually transmitted diseases -- but has never reported a single instance of abuse to law enforcement.

"This is a reprehensible act by Sheila Keuhl," said Richard D. Ackerman, Vice-President of Legal Affairs for the Pro-Family Law Center in Southern California, "The one common denominator among civilized persons is the ability to rally around the protection of our children. Even one case of unreported abuse has the potential to begin a generational cycle of continuing abuse, and could even result in the death of a child." (About.com)

As a nation, our moral compass will soon be rusted and worthless.

It's a Boy!!

If you noticed, by the countdown to the right, it is too early to have another child. Well, I have some personal news from the Marvin family. We now have an addition to our family and its a boy! He is 6'1 and 22 years old!

Apparently history repeats itself and it seems our personalities and interests mirrored each other in many ways. I will get to know him more when he, and his mother, come to visit us in August.

The results are in and they cannot rule me out as the father. They then added, according to the DNA match, there is a 99.99% chance that I am indeed his father. So I am a proud Daddy once again.

His Aunt found me on Facebook and we reminisced about my visit back when I was 17 on vacation from boot camp in the Military. Right after the visit, I was transferred to the Persian Gulf and we lost touch. Her Nephew, on Facebook, said "id like to talk with ya about something." which was odd and I started to think back. The minute I saw his picture I knew. He looks almost exactly like I did at his age.

I told his Mom that raising kids is very hard, but raising "me" is madness. Apparently she did a great job. He, thankfully, is a Christian and I told him at least we have all of eternity to catch up and make up for lost time. We broke the news to Abby by referencing Elf the movie how Buddy was looking for his Dad and wanted to know him. She laughed at me and is taking it well.

Patty and I found it so odd that I am extremely protective of my children, we never let them out of our sites with homeschooling and no baby sitters and such, to find out that this whole time a child of mine was growing up alone without his Dad.

Even if father of the year is out the window, hopefully he can find it in his heart to forgive me for being so young and out of touch. I hope he understands also that I love him very much and my heart aches for him. All I can do now is move forward with him, to whatever degree he wants me involved in his life.

tinyurl.com/ItsaBoy22

Tyrannical Rulers

No Fly, No Buy Act of 2009? This is complete garbage and total tyranny. Also, in a related article today on World Net Daily titled: Homeland Security on guard for 'right-wing extremists' which said that "the report also mentions 'end times' prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as the violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement."

Gulp, didn't I just post about that very same thing a couple of days ago? Plus, its no secret to anyone that I voted and campaigned for Ron Paul...

"The report warned law enforcement agencies to watch for suspicious individuals who may have bumper stickers for third-party political candidates such as Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin."

So as these things go through and get passed I would probably be, more then likely, falsely imprisoned at some point in the near future. Would the Atheists that I know snicker and tell me that I deserve it for such thoughts? I can only thank God that s.1959 never passed...yet, otherwise I would be in jail today. Would Atheists fight for what is right? After all, I am sure a society free from Christians could be quite appealing to them. Would Atheists turn their heads?

As Padmé pondered to Bail Organa: So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.

Life imitating Art? Where did we go so wrong? Oh I know...

Doing Our Part

You really don't have to thank us, and the Latinos, for doing our part to keep the nation healthy. Does this worry anyone? Will the gay population and birth control pills ruin us? Turn your computers off and go find your wife or husband and work on saving our nation. Please no Formula 401 premium shortcuts. We can only can handle one Stephen Colbert at a time.

Nothing but the blood?

Josh gave me a video to watch:



Here are my first thoughts of the video, I could be way off base. I take from Ezekiel 18:32 that God seeks no pleasure in people hardening their hearts and not bowing to God's righteousness but if they are evil then He seeks to destroy you. Evil must be destroyed like a cancer. We don't want you to defy God (good) but if you do, you will be destroyed.

I did find the video interesting, but it reminded me of my past post called: Christ’s New Covenant Church Kingdom We are under a new covenant and the shadowy prophecies of not requiring any more blood sacrifices, may be pointing to Christ. That the blood sacrifices, or the Lords supper, are for our benefit, not God's. He can forgive without blood sacrificing true, He is God after all. What he cannot forgive is the denial that Jesus did all this for your Salvation. It was a legal transaction and He died on that cross for our benefit. To take our well deserved punishment for being Law breakers. To escape death. God also knew since we were failing to cross that boundary of not sinning that we needed a leader, Messiah, to show us how. All these things are for our understanding and educational benefit. In that all thing can be accomplished, in Christ, who strengthens us. God made us to need a leader.

Just like the 4 minute mile boundary that we set, pessimistically I might add, in our minds that could not be crossed. Until one day someone stepped up to the plate to show all of us, as I have come to believe, that walls are there to be climbed over.

In 1954 Roger Bannister broke that record and now its very common to do so. Why? Because we were shown that it can be done. Without the leadership of Ronald Reagan, would that Berlin Wall still stand? That is not to say we didn't need Jesus, or Bannister and Reagan, because without them our limited view wouldn't be challenged. Without Bannister we might still of thought it to be impossible to run that fast. Without Jesus we would still die in our sins because we would feel it to be hopeless, or too hard, to repent or turn away from sinning. He gave us the courage and strength to do so. We are designed to do things for others with greater strength. We do it for Christ, instead of ourselves. Can a mother pick up a car to save herself, possibly, but she certainly can for her injured child. Where would we be without the forward thinking of Star Trek's Warp drive? We would still believe, as Einstein, that the speed of light is as fast as we could go.

On a completely side note: What was the point of the above video besides to cast doubt on the unsuspecting or weak believers? Looking at the titles of the other videos it sure seems that is the goal.

To witness the supernatural we need to stop looking inward and start looking outward with hope. To boldly go where no man has gone before, to live long and prosper. Thank you Jesus for shedding that precious blood of yours for me! Thanks for putting me on that right path and over that wall of sin.

For the Record: Harvey Milk

Our good friend Dani'El over at The Judgment of San Francisco : Luke 17 posted this and I found it so interesting and informative I thought I would duplicate the post. Side note, Jim Jones was a hard core atheist.



Most of the FOR THE RECORD campaigns can be found at illuminatitv's Channel and is worth taking a look at. I like this guy. Thanks Dani'El.

Update: Hollywood may not care, but we are taking notes and calling them out on the evil they promote. That is the point of all this. Another fantastic example is the clip I have on the side about abortion. For more about the evil that is promoted in Hollywood, go to Hollywood and God.

Update: Some Republican Legislators in the State Assembly may do the unthinkable! They may be inclined to vote for Senate Bill 572, the bill that would require the governor to declare each May 22 as Harvey Milk Day and "encourage" schools to "commemorate" the life and career of this homosexual San Francisco politician as part of the school day.

Some GOP Assembly members are even rumored to either abstain or “lay off” the bill when it comes up for a vote. This vote by the full Assembly can happen any day now!

Democrats want to ram SB 572 through the Legislature and rush it to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk in the hopes of him signing it into law. Schwarzenegger vetoed last year’s Harvey Milk bill, AB 2567. Conservative pro-family leaders needed their fellow allies in the Legislature to come to their defense. I wonder if they will show up.

Assembly Republicans must hold the line. They must not abstain! They must not “lay off”! They must not vote yes.

Compulsory Service to Sin

Though funny, is this the Atheists viewpoint of truth? This spin doctoring is an extremely disingenuous approach to explaining God.

I guess what Atheists don't understand is that they currently don't have free will, they are a slave to sin. (Romans 6:16-19, Romans 7:14-25) God is here to save them from that vassalage to give them freedom from sin. So they'll not end up in the place very deserving for sinners or a.k.a Law breakers. (2 Corinthians 12:7-10) God gives us that strength to resist sin. (Philippians 4:13)

Update: Look, I may want to go out drinking and then drive myself home but that will not be tolerated by our society. I am certainly not free to choose any weapon living here in California. In a sense, I am a "slave" to California Laws. Like Atheists, I can rebel against the "establishment" in disobedience but I will have to suffer the consequences like anyone else. What is so wrong with conformity? Pride? You do so in a society that you may or may not agree with, but since it is our laws you abide by them. Why not abide by God's Law?

Plus, I did want to mention the brilliant discussion by Dr. Bahnsen in a earlier post called Foreordination and Human Responsibility. As our good friend Sye suggested "you might want to check out 4:45 of part 7."

Your Government Not at Work - Jane Harman Scandal

This is just too funny and completely disturbing not to post:


Congresswoman Jane Harman made pseudo headlines when Congressional Quarterly revealed that she had been caught on a wiretap agreeing to help two Israeli lobbyists accused of spying. In exchange, wealthy Democratic donator Haim Saban agreed to pressure Nancy Pelosi to make Harman chair of the House Intelligence Committee, which deals with spying.

Harman also pressured The New York Times to kill a story on wiretaps, which she supported alongside former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

All efforts ended up failing, and created merely a headache for Harman. And also for people trying to follow all the wheeling and dealing.

I don't know which is worse, that there are Israeli lobbyist spies in the US or the corrupt Congress that hides their wrongdoings. California, corrupt and completely evil...No Way!

Update: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government today said it would drop charges in an espionage case against two pro-Israel lobbyists because it was unlikely to win at trial and classified information would have to be disclosed. Imagine that. Your government not at work.

tinyurl.com/dj3kvh

We just Jumped the Shark

Christianity just jumped the shark in the US. The Judgment for this nation is now upon us. May God be merciful. We must never ever allow a Muslim to be president again.

Bit.ly/NotIslam

Islam is directly opposite of Christianity and our constitution and especially our country.




Here is a short link: bit.ly/Godstates Obama is completely wrong.

bit.ly/Jumpedshark

Graduate School Sues Texas Agency Over Academic Discrimination

Two days ago I received a press release that ICR will be suing Texas.

The Institute for Creation Research Graduate School (ICRGS), a California-based science education institution established in 1981, has filed suit in both federal and Texas state courts against the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), its commissioner, and some of its board members, for interfering with the constitutional rights of ICRGS in its application to move the school to Texas.

In fall 2007, the THECB Site Evaluation Team and Advisory Committee recommended approval of the ICRGS application to grant degrees in the state of Texas. However, both agency recommendations were subsequently rejected by Commissioner Paredes after evolution-only activists pressured the commissioner to deny ICRGS a degree-granting license in the state.

I remember reading about when God's mighty victory was provided in the similar case against California Department of Education. At the time the ACLU was labeling ICR as Public Enemy #1, but with God's help they won three lawsuits: In administrative court, in state court, and in federal court.

It is understandable that the cheerleaders of Evolution only, believers in metaphysical naturalism, are afraid of the truth. And as it was said in one of my past posts:

Evolutionary theory artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. The cause of intelligence. This is why they pigeon hole themselves and scientists often wear, with pride, the title of metaphysical naturalism. Does anyone now see the dangers of scientists taking philosophical positions such as this?

I can understand how frightened they will be, if people find out the truth. God existing would be very bad business for the secular scientists that believe in Neo-Darwinism. With blinders on, they trek on from that past theory. How absurd for us to think that Scientists should be looking at evidence instead of philosophical positions.

tinyurl.com/ICRsues

Perspective...

Sign the petition today because doom may be coming soon.


Also, because I cannot get enough of Peter Schiff's logic. Please listen to his sound advice.



tinyurl.com/Peterperspective

Atheism Evangelist, An Atheist's Call to Arms

And now a (older) prayer from ExPatMatt:

"Our Dawkins, who art in England; Richard be thy name.
Thy book-sales come, thy talks be fun; on television and the radio.
Give us this day our daily blog, on Pharyngula and Raytractors; as we ridicule those who post comments against us.

R'Amen"

tinyurl.com/c53tws

Colbert Answers Contradiction Complaints

Bart Ehrman

colbertnation.com

Also thanks to our friend Brian, over at Apologetics 315, who found and gathered a detailed review of the book in question by Ben Witherington.

tinyurl.com/contradictionsanswered

Todd Friel interviews Christopher Hitchens

Plus you can order your DVD for the debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens

ANSWERING EASTER CONTRADICTION

Our guest blogger wrote an answer to Dan Barker’s “Easter Challenge.”

By Stephen Kingsley, pastor, Craigmont, Idaho


When considering statements about things that are said to have happened, contradiction is a simple logical test for truth. Say you strike up a conversation with a man you meet at the coffee shop and he says, “I was in Chicago yesterday at noon.” But then a moment later he says, “I was in L.A. yesterday at noon.” You raise your eyebrows and start looking for an exit. One of his statements might be true, but one is certainly false. Not only that, his integrity is so diminished, you’re not likely to trust anything else he says.


Now what if this same truth-tester is applied to the Bible’s most important story? Dan Barker is the co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. In his 1992 book, Losing Faith in Faith (FFRF, Inc.), he challenged Christians to assemble the various resurrection accounts in the Bible together as one consistent narrative. I was personally confronted with this in April of 2003 when a skeptic in a nearby university town published his own abbreviated version of Barker's “Easter Challenge” in the Letters to the Editor section of our regional paper. Barker and Nielsen’s ultimate hope is the de-conversion of Christians, or at the very least a de-spiriting of our Evangelical zeal. However, their challenge has had the opposite effect on this small town pastor—I am more persuaded than ever. Although I am not a scholar, I will add this claim too: I have succeeded in answering their challenge. This article contains a foundational piece of my argument.

Pulling a Jim Baker, reviewing John's book of Denial

As promised I need to review John's Book. John keeps pressing me to do so but I was hesitant since I feel so sorry for him. That aside, I did promise. Which book is that, you ask? That is understandable since John has been at this for quite sometime pushing the same book over and over with many titles.

Jill Maxick the Director of Publicity at Prometheus Books was so very generous and kind to send me a copy of his newest version called "Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity." What's needed is a circular-reference tagline of "from the author of Why I Became an Atheist." like Colbert. Didn't Colbert say about his own book though "written so good there is no need for another." John cannot claim that. Anyway moving on.

Peter and Paul are Right!

Atheists are not the only people that needs to be debunked...

(Continuation of Crisis of Credit Visualized and Push Towards Governmental Atheism and Socialism)

Ludwig von Mises said: "If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action."

"A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism: is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings."

"The salesman thanks the customer for patronizing his shop and asks him to come again. But the socialists say: Be grateful to Hitler, render thanks to Stalin; be nice and submissive, then the great man will be kind to you later too."

People chose to bankrupt America when they voted for this current president and Congress. They also wanted their freedoms taken from them. Biblical prophecies are being fulfilled. Time is short. Take Peter Schiff's advice to save yourself.

tinyurl.com/PeterPaul

Roman Catholic Church or Sola Scriptura

rhiggs said to 3graces: "Check this out. The pope criticizes the pursuit of wealth. I can't decide what is dripping more, the irony or the gold draped all over his hypocritical body."

I have to admit that was pretty funny and I agree, but lets get the record straight about the Roman Catholic church (RCC).

The Bible says to evaluate everything to see if it's of God by its fruit, good tree = good fruit; a bad tree can never bear good fruit.

We don't even have to address the Catholic Church and the mass pedophiles, and the crusades, inquisition, witch hunts, millions of defectors, etc. to determine the fruit, it is obvious. That doesn't mean there are not truly saved people in the Catholic Church, which there are, but they are saved in spite of the RCC doctrine.

I hope you will agree that being a Christian does not mean being a member of the Roman Catholic Church. Scripture, to me, goes against RCC. (Matthew 23:9, Proverbs 3:5-6, 1 Peter 5:3, John 14:26, 1 Timothy 2:5-6[not priests], Colossians 2:16, 1 John 2:27)

"Even if Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18, this is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome. Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles. The New Testament does not describe Peter as being the "all authoritative leader" of the early Christian church. Peter was not the first pope, and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church. The origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full agreement with what Peter taught (Acts 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter)." (gotquestions.org)

I agree with Matt when he stated: "Being a member of the body of Christ which is accomplished by faith and trust in Jesus alone for the forgiveness of your sins. It means that you do not add your works to His work. Sincerity doesn't forgive sins. Membership in a church doesn't forgive sins. Doing works of penance doesn't forgive sins. Praying to Mary doesn't forgive sins. Forgiveness is received in the faithful trust and acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. You must trust Jesus, God in flesh, for the forgiveness of sins, not a man made ritual and certainly not the catholic saints. Even though Roman Catholic Church affirms the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and His physical resurrection, it greatly errs in its doctrine of salvation by adding works to salvation.

The official Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation is that the grace of God is infused into a baby at baptism -- making him/her justified before God. This justification can be lost through sin and must be regained by repeated participation in the many sacraments found in the Roman Catholic Church. These sacraments increase the measure of grace in the person by which he or she is enabled to do good works which are in turn rewarded with the joy of heaven.

No one can say whether a Roman Catholic is truly a Christian or not since we cannot know people's hearts. But, if anyone, Catholic included, openly denies essential doctrines then he is not saved, and this is the problem. It appears that the Roman Catholic church is denying the essential doctrine of justification by faith."(CARM)

See Foreordination


As far as Christianity, if the wrath of God is like a freight train, think of us preachers as the railroad crossing merely warning and flashing lights that you're headed for danger.

False religions, like the RCC, have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term "Justification." They are working toward their salvation. We are working as a result of our salvation, in Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ's works are what save us. In contrast, the religions of the world who deny justification seek to bring their "religious" efforts to God to "save" them. We have been made clean by the Sacrifice and Godhead of Jesus Christ. The false religions make themselves clean.

Like I said I believe that there are truly regenerate Christians in the Roman Catholic church.

"But, they are truly Christians in spite of official RCC theology and in spite of the ritualistic offerings of this ancient church which has had too many hands meddling in it through the centuries, gradually moving it away from orthodoxy and into apostasy. Yes apostasy. The Roman Catholic Church is no longer representing true Christianity."

RCC states that it is not the Scriptures, nor tradition, nor the early church fathers, nor anything other than the Church’s Magisterium, personified in the pope, that is the ultimate and final authority and standard of truth. Now does that sound right?

Sola Scriptura





bit.ly/RCChurch

Not in Vain

I thought this was appropriate for today:

Quasar said...

Ray! Thank you!

I finally get it! I understand what I was doing wrong all these years!

I finally decided to give it a shot, I tried with all my heart to hear the LORD Jesus Christ: I knelt on the ground, accepted that I was a guilty sinner, and asked him to help me AND HE DID!

It was the most amazing, indescribable experience of my life! I can no longer hold any doubt about His existance: it's as self-evident as the SUN! He just is!

Thank you Ray, for bringing me to Jesus! I thank the LORD for your work and your ministry!

I believe!
March 31, 2009 2:27 PM

Home School Advantage

As in sports, home turf has its advantages. Froggie thinks that formal education is much better than Homeschooling.

F-Formal education with formal educators is a very efficient way of gaining knowledge.

What kind of "knowledge" are you talking about, would be my question.

Apparently, teachers are "doing" our kids a real "service" these days.

That aside, you forget to gain real "valid" knowledge is running a company in real life situations. To get out of the class room and experience life. I plan to give my kids a business to run in the near future. Look at Michael Dell who dropped out at age 19 to start Dell Computers. Bill Gates was also a drop out. Even Richard Branson the billionaire who started Virgin Group ( Virgin records, Virgin Airlines...) dropped out at age 16.

There are other famous millionaires out there like Quentin Tarantino, Dave Thomas, Johnny Depp, Nicholas Cage, Christina Aguilera, Jim Carrey, John Travolta, Chris Rock, Joe Pesci, all drop outs and all doing just fine.

It really depends on the individual. Formal education isn't "everything" as a do or die situation. There are plenty of people that were home schooled like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore F. Roosevelt and Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, Ansel Adams, C.S. Lewis, Sir Isaac Newton and many more.

F-This is the downfall of homeschooling. The supposed teacher is not qualified, nor has the experience to help the student formulate the synergies between the ideas being taught.

Complete horseradish! There are large amounts of data/statistics that say the exact opposite of what you are claiming. If you need more there is plenty out there.

I remember a teacher bragging to me that her school had a respectable(?) 20 to 1 student to teacher ratio and I thought that my 1 to 1 ratio was far greater for my children.

They explain how they help build up the children and self esteem by their reward system. Ah, self esteem. We don't raise bullies by falsely building up the kids self esteem. Self esteem movement is more dangerous then you could possibly imagine. Need more proof? 1, 2,3, you get the picture.

My kids all learned to read at age three using Starfall which they love. I print out worksheets for my kids over at Kidzone. I even found a group called Homeschool Dads for support. There is plenty of help out there and Google will show you the way.

There are a great deal of advantages for homeschooling. Such as...

* Parents design the curriculum, ensuring that children are taught relevant, interesting information.

* Children are given more attention because of the smaller class size, allowing for more one on one time.

* Children have less distractions resulting from social pressure from other students.

* Children have greater respect for their parents than any one else, meaning that children will cooperate more with parents than public school instructors.

* Parents will be allowed more time to bond with their children in a very positive way.

We teach our kids how to talk, how to eat, how to tie their shoes and get dressed, and how to ethically maneuver in this world. We are the only ones to show them what importance God is to us. Really, who cares more about their kids then the parents?

Sure there are dysfunctional parents out there, but no matter what outside influence the most impact will be from the parents good or bad. My children do not get exposed to gangs, my kids to not get exposed to drugs, my kids do not get exposed to inappropriate behavior or content. The most important thing is they do not get indoctrinated into a secular mindset. My kids know God.

Could you only imagine if there were no public schools for kids to acquire drugs or get bullied into gangs? Where the parents were forced to interact with their children on a daily basis instead of pawning them off to someone at a day care or school where the people caring for the kids considers the task a form of income or just a job. What a great world this would be.

I cannot do a homeschooling post without mentioning HSLDA who was very instrumental in keeping homeschooling legal here in California. We are lifetime Members.

So, please Froggie and stay in school if you choose. I will raise my kids Godly, thank you.

Update: Apparently CNN is reading my posts. Even though they covered it up and linked to Mental Floss, good for them.

tinyurl.com/HomeSchoolAdv

Atheists Debunked Forever

It was written so well by Thomas it is now our newest post.

Let this stand as an Ode to our brother Thomas who is far from doubting. For those interested he started this conversation here.


Nothing more needs to be said. I believe I can close shop now.

I will just post his reply to Stan. Well done Thomas, I am certain that Van Til, Bahnsen, and TenBruggencate are smiling.

Stan- Logical absolutes exist, by definition.

Thomas- So according to you, the three laws of logic (identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle) are dependent upon man and were invented by man, correct? If this is the case, then they could not be absolute since different minds could conceive of different laws. How do you know who is correct?

If logical absolutes exist only by definition then they could not be absolute. Would they exist if humankind didn’t exist (would adding 2 object to 2 objects still equal 4 objects)? If so, then they are not dependent upon man.

Are these laws material or immaterial? Can the scientific method determine these logical absolutes without using those same logical absolutes to gain that knowledge? They couldn’t. Does absolute truth exist? You would have to say “yes” to this question. Saying “no” would be self-defeating.

Now, if laws of logic are absolute, immaterial, cannot be empirically tested, and absolute truth does exist, how is that possible in an atheistic system? You must have an atheistic answer; otherwise you should stop referring to yourself as an atheist.

Stan-As to your second question, (Is matter eternal or did it come from nothing?) I have no idea, and I don't think it is necessarily an either/or dichotomy as you imply.

What are the other options? I don’t think I’m presenting to you a false dichotomy. Based upon the atheistic viewpoint, it seems that you must believe either that matter came from nothing or matter exists eternally. It’s interesting how you say you have no idea, yet you are certain that I’m deluded so much so that you declared yourself to be an atheist. How does that follow? I suppose you could claim that you “lack a belief”. But again, you shouldn’t call yourself an atheist if you lack a belief on such a crucial question.

Stan-That question, for my money, contains the answer to yours -- certainty is only obtainable for those things for which we can define certainty.

The problem is that you must be certain to even make this very statement! This is what our entire discussion is about!

Stan-That is, the "Law of Non-contradiction" dictates that we can say, with certainty, that if a given thing is 'not-A,' then it is not 'A.'

But on what basis can you say something “with certainty”? I’m trying to get at what your atheistic foundational basis is. Given atheism, why does A not equal non-A? Given time, matter, and chance, how do logical absolutes appear? How could they have “developed” or “evolved”? If logic evolved then it must still be evolving and thus changing. What you have is subjective logic which is another way of saying it’s relative to each individual.

If logic didn’t evolve or develop over time, then it must have always been there. But, given atheism, how is that possible in a materialistic, atheistic universe?

Stan-It does not, however, follow from this law that we can say with certainty that there is or is not a deity, much less what doctrines or attributes that deity espouses or exhibits.

Well Stan, we’re not done yet, so look alive. There’s a bit more to the argument. If logical absolutes exist, they exist in the mind and not in matter. They are not physical entities that can be looked at in a test tube.

One can’t test the laws of logic in a lab nor could one test them using the scientific method because one would have to assume them as true to begin with. Yet scientists use them all the time to verify their science without any justification. Therefore, logical absolutes exist without any scientific verification. You use them all the time. Yet I thought that atheists only believe those things that have scientific empirical proof? Guess not.

If logical absolutes exist, then they are absolutely true for all times and for all people and are therefore transcendent. Go a billion years into the future and they’re still true; go a billion years back in time and they’re still true. If you disagree with that, then you believe logic is subjective and relative which means that you couldn’t prove anything.

They exist independent of humankind and they must also be immaterial, transcendent, and cannot be scientifically verified with empirical proof. Atheism can’t account for this. Theism can. Logical absolutes are a reflection of an absolutely perfect mind. Since logic exists in the mind and is immaterial, it must be based in something absolutely perfect and immaterial. This is what I would call God.

Atheism cannot account for logical absolutes. Given atheism, absolutes would be impossible and we would be left with subjectivity and relativism which would mean we couldn’t actually prove anything (including this statement). That’s my point.

Now, how do I know it is the Christian God in particular? I would need to support this argument with others in order to build a solid case. For example, there are teleological arguments, cosmological arguments, moral arguments, ontological arguments, arguments from experience, archaeological arguments, arguments against other world religions, arguments for the resurrection of Jesus, etc. I don’t have hours and hours of time to unpack these but plenty of great people have done so.

Adding all of these together, I am convinced that the Christian God exists. Therefore, I actually have a reason to spend time debating and discussing these things with people. You have no reason. Que sera sera….it doesn’t matter. It shouldn’t matter to you. But somehow this does matter to you so much so that you are willing to spend your time debating it.

tinyurl.com/Atheistsdebunked

Biblical Logic

Reynold challenged: If your [G]od is the basis of logic then please show that. List the bible verses where the laws of logic are laid down.



Until then, you've got nothing. (emphasis added)

OK, with the help of God's Word, Dr. Greg L Bahnsen, and Dr. W. Gary Crampton I will attempt it.

From the very first verse in the Bible, Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", necessitates the validity of the most fundamental law of logic: the law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A)

1 Corinthians 14:33 states that "God is not the author of confusion" God is a rational being. The Lord God of truth (Psalm 31:5).

John 1:1,14 emphasizes the rationality of God the Son. Jesus Christ is called the "Logic" of God. "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" (the English word "logic" is derived from the Greek logos used in this verse). Logic is as eternal as God Himself because the Logos is God. God and logic cannot be separated; logic is the characteristic of God’s thinking.(1)

"Moreover, because Christ is the Logos who “gives [epistemological] light to every man who comes into the world” (John 1:9), we are to understand that there is a point at which man’s logic meets God’s logic. In fact, John 1:9 denies that logic is arbitrary; it also denies polylogism, i.e., that there may be many kinds of logic. According to John, there is only one kind of logic: God’s logic. And the Logos gives to every image bearer of God the ability to think logically." (Crampton)

Exodus 4:11 says God gave us the ability to converse rationally with our Creator. The noetic effects of sin hinder man's ability to reason correctly. Although Christians are set apart from Atheists. (Colossians 2:8,Romans 1:21, John 17:17)

It is not the laws of logic that are affected by the Fall, it is man's ability to think logically that is so affected. The laws of logic are eternally fixed in the mind of God. They cannot be affected; they are eternally valid. Logic is fixed and universal; it is necessary and irreplaceable. This is why Atheists cannot account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic.

Dr. Bahnsen said: "If you fail to submit presuppositionally to God self-attesting, authoritative word, then you shall be "double-minded: and unstable on all your ways, driven by the wind and tossed about (James 1:5-8). Instead of being driven by the "Wind" of God's "Spirit," you will be carried about by every wind of doctrine through the cunning of humanistic thought and craftiness of error(Ephesians 4:13-14)...God's veracity is the ultimate standard for our thoughts. (Romans 3:4)"

No man is in any position to reply against it (Romans 9:20)

It is well to follow the example of the Jews of Beroea, who "were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 17:11). Why didn't they immediately accept what Paul and Silas were saying? Because the Bible says we should prove a doctrine before we let ourselves be convinced by it (Proverbs 14:15,1 John 4:1,Ephesians 5:8-11, Philippians 1:9-10).

While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason.

Christianity offers a cohesive worldview whereby we do have an objective standard so when somebody tortures you; rapes you; kills you; we can say, No, that is wrong. It's not just personal preference, it's objectively wrong. We do have a revelation to the origin of life. Life doesn't come from non-life, life doesn't come from matter. Life comes from a Creative being called God. Christianity has all the answers and everything you need to live life, not just practically but rationally.

Update:

Law of Identity--Exodus 3:14
Law of Non-contradiction--Genesis 1:1
Law of Excluded middle--Luke 11:23

Crampton added: Logic, then, is embedded in Scripture. This is why Scripture, rather than the laws of logic, is selected as the axiomatic starting point of Christian epistemology. Similarly, God is not made the axiom, because all of our knowledge of God comes from Scripture. "God," as an axiom, without Scripture, is merely a name. Scripture as the axiom defines God.


bit.ly/Bibleislogic

Loss of the Debate

I believe that there is no monster of Loch Ness -- although I concede that I could be wrong. If you were honest, you would also concede that you could be wrong....But you claim that the flowers and trees are "revelations." The existence of nature does not establish a god, let alone yours specifically. I am also aware that you claim your holy book. But other religions claim theirs. (emphasis added)

Dr. Bahnsen rhetorical comeback hits the mark. Suppose a basketball player, say Michael Jordan, beats every worthy opponent in one-on-one basketball games. He can justifiably claim to be the best individual basketball player in the world. Suppose further that another jealous (and peevish) basketball player who was previously trounced by Jordan resents that he (Jordan) has titled himself "the best player in the world." His comeback is, "just because you have beat every current player does not mean that there is not another one coming who is better than you." Jordan's response can be anticipated; "bring on my next opponent." The theoretical possibility that there may be another player better than Jordan is not a concern to him. In the world of basketball, it is the one who is actually the best player, and not who is possibly be the best player, that is of importance. In the practice of apologetics, things are similar. What matters are actual worldviews not possible worldviews.

Second, while this criticism is of no practical value to the non-Christian, it would be, nevertheless a serious criticism of TAG if correct. The reason is easy to see. If there are an infinite number of worldviews and TAG only refutes a small slice of them, if one may speak this way, then it has not established that Christianity is the necessary precondition of human intelligibility. That is, even granting that TAG demonstrates the absurdity of all actual worldviews, it does not follow that all possible worldviews are likewise absurd.

Bahnsen's comeback is to place the one who makes this move on the horns of a dilemma (actually a "trilemma"). The "unbeliever either (1) implicitly assumes the Christian's presuppositions, (2) considers it a mystery that not everything is mysterious or nonsensical, or (3) offers a worldview in which words and reasoning are meaningful."[36] On (1) the imaginary opponent loses the debate. On (3) the Christian proceeds to refute the proffered worldview. As for (2), Bahnsen contends that this is tantamount to acknowledging defeat. He then considers the possibility of one making a blind leap of faith; one who "hold[s] out the hope that someday, somewhere, someone will furnish an adequate autonomous worldview to protect unbelievers against the compelling rationality of Christianity."[37] This, he says, is identical with (2) and since this is acknowledgment of defeat, the opponent loses the debate.

Atheism is Definitely a Religion!

I am posting this to eradicate any confusion that "Not collecting Stamps" must indeed be a hobby since I just found out that atheists are instructing to be effective Evangelists.

Presented, of course, by the dingle berries over at Atheist Experience that has always denied that atheism is a religion. Yea, riiight.

Incidentally, I guess these are all true also:

- "bald" is a "hair color" (Bald is a hair style)
- "off" is a "television channel" (Off is a choice)
- "abstinence" is a "sex position"

In the past I have said that Atheists are organizing as a religion. Then I posted something about a Court decision that said that Atheism is a religion! Then we all read the article about Richard Dawkins when Carl Packman said "Dawkins, in choosing a form of firebrand fundamentalist atheism over the discipline science, is no longer the champion of reason but rather a kind of evangelical against religion"

A while ago, Atheists organized and declared war, they started to campaign on buses. I also said this should be a wake up call for us Christians to fight back.

So it's time to WAR! If you want to fight for souls, then bring it on! Bring your "A" game. You don't have a fighting chance to takes souls away from God. They are His for the keeping. Echoed by John 10:28. We will continue to preach the Word in season and out of season. (2 Timothy 4:2) All the Glory will go to God and Satan and his cronies, such as yourselves, will be cast into the eternal fire.

Perhaps the most terrifying passage in the Bible describing Hell says that men will "drink the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night." (Revelation 14:10-11)

It's not too late even. That is how merciful God is. Even in your pure wickedness against God, He wants to see you repent of your ways and come back to Him. We all do. Stop fooling yourselves to think that Atheism is not a Religion. At this point you are being quite silly. Atheism is Definitely a Religion!

tinyurl.com/AtheismReligion2

Foreordination and Human Responsibility

This is one of Dr. Greg Bahnsen's lectures for us. Pass the popcorn, this should be good.

https://t.me/DebunkingAtheistsSB/19090


I will remain hopeful you will listen to all of this lecture, but if it's too long go to the 60 minute mark and listen from there.


Bit.ly/Foreord

Worldviews in Conflict

To assist myself grasping worldviews, and just another step in the process, in getting to know a brilliant man named Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen. I think my addictive personality is showing. These are simply fascinating to me.

bit.ly/worldviews

Mystery of Life Unlocked

I love this very interesting, honest, and fair presentation on the origins of life. These are the sorts of things that needs to be presented in the public schools to encourage thoughts instead of the current curriculum.

To consider any of these people dumb or misinformed would be intellectual suicide on your part. I really enjoyed Dr. Dean Kenyon's very intellectually honest testimony on his "Biochemical Predestination" hypothesis that was peer reviewed and accepted widely by the scientific community only to be rejected by Dr. Kenyon himself. Now, I fully understand later he tried to downplay Creationism to make it more palatable by calling it ID, which backfired in court. Moving on.

Proteins self assembling sounds wonderful to someone with atheistic presuppositions. But, to risk self preservation and to admit to his "intellectual breaking point" on his own theory was admirable.

Evolutionary theory artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. The cause of intelligence. This is why they pigeon hole themselves and scientists often wear, with pride, the title of metaphysical naturalism. Does anyone now see the dangers of scientists taking philosophical positions such as this?

Absolute Authority

Kip the Dip said: You say you're an anarchist, but I believe Paul (the apostle, not Ron) fundamentally disagreed with your political views:
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." - Romans 13:2-3

CodewordConduit said: Should this apply if a woman is married to a wife-beater? A child molester?

From the essay Ethical Choices: A Case For Non-Conflicting Absolutism by Robert V. Rakestraw:

In this regard, it is helpful to recognize two categories or kinds (not "levels") of absolutes with regard to the locus of authority. Some absolutes require obedience directly to God, without human intermediaries, while other absolutes involve obedience to human beings whose authority has been delegated to them by God. Examples of the first category include prohibitions against lying, murder, adultery, and the commands to be patient and kind to others. The second category includes such matters as obedience to parents, governmental officials, and local church leaders.

Moral dilemmas often arise when an absolute from one category appears to clash with an absolute from the other category. When a child is told by her father to lie on the telephone, or, far worse, to submit to his advances, the resulting sense of conflict can be intense. In such cases the human authority must be disobeyed, but this is not an exception or an exemption to an absolute, for the absolute is defined in such a way that obedience is to be rendered only when human commands do not violate clear scriptural prohibitions and instructions.

God's moral absolutes never truly conflict, and that all of them are binding in any given situation, with the power of God present for their fulfillment.

bit.ly/AbAuth

Christians are Misogynistic?

freddies_dead said in that last post called Woman Boss (bit.ly/womanboss):Wow .. just wow .. the misogyny is almost palpable.

My friend Eric just today said on his Facebook page that his "faith is pure and his pimp hand is strong."

But seriously, we are called bride of Christ for a reason, God loves woman. Yes, women submit to the husband, and husband submit to God. See, we are playing the role of the marriage that will happen in heaven with Jesus and his believers. Stay loyal in Christ and you will understand how exalted you will be in heaven.

Many women don't like what the Bible says because it calls wives to "submit to their husbands."

However, submission is not limited to wives submitting to their husbands. We are told to submit to God, governmental authorities, our boss, and leaders in the assembly. We are also told to submit to one another in love, which includes men serving women and vice versa in love in unity of mind. God is a God of order. In a sinful world, submission to those in authority is the only way to maintain order. Romans 13 as a fine example.

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Traits from man and woman equally make up the "image of God"

What about Genesis 2:18 where it says it is "not good" for man to be alone.

How did God treat women? Remember story of Esther?

You then have to ask, How did Jesus treat women? Like the woman at the well or Mary Magdalene or even the prostitute about to get stoned.

As it was said in the last post, "The women described in the Bible are not always homemakers and mothers. Obviously, the biological function of women is to produce children. However, Deborah was both a judge and leader of Israel.(Judges 4:4) Other women were involved in ridding Israel of her enemies.(Judges 4:21) Quite a number of women are described as being prophetesses.(Exodus 15:20,2 Kings 22:14,Luke 2:36) Other women in the Bible were involved in teaching the Word of God(Acts 18:26)"

Countless other verses point to Jesus holding high regard for women.

God's people are referred to as female, not male. In the Old Testament, God's people are the "daughters of Zion." The Body of Christ (including us men) is referred to as the "bride" of Christ and God is said to be our "husband." Whenever referred to by sex, the assembly is described as "she" or "her." (Ephesians 5:25,27)"

In conclusion we have one verse that sums it all up: Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." We all have our roles as the body of the Christ head.






 

bit.ly/misogynistic