'Ark of the Covenant' about to be unveiled?

Really? Is it OK if even a Christian is skeptical about that news?

Talk about rejuvenating the world towards Christ, I can only pray this to be the truth.

That's right folks, WorldNetDaily claims that the actual Ark of the Covenant to be revealed to the world this Friday by the patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Ethiopia!

If this news is in fact true, then that would be yet another sign of the coming of Christ, from what I read. Even Muslims say it will be found near the end of times by the Mahdi – a messianic figure in Islam. It would be hard pressed for Atheists to deny that type of historical archeological evidence, but I am sure they will make it look easy.

Maybe Christianity hasn't jumped the shark, this is something that I have been praying for, a sign, for atheists to start believing the truth. After watching Indiana Jones, one can only wonder what may happen. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: In an e-mail received by WND from the webmaster of a church website in response to an inquiry about the truth of the matter.

"It is not going to happen so the world has to live with curiosity," said the statement, signed only "Webmaster" in response to the WND inquiry.

The webmaster statement described the tempest as being caused either because of a translation mistake or "a slip [of the] tongue from the patriarch."

Galileo's Persecution

From what I read and quote, Galileo published a book supporting the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, and implied that the Church was in error. Galileo stood alone against the power of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and on April 12, 1633, he was brought before the Inquisition to defend himself against charges of heresy. Facing torture and death, that brilliant scientist was forced to read and sign a confession, disavowing his belief that the Earth revolves around the sun. (Sinful Spyglass)

The RCC concluded he was wrong based on the verses Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 104:5, and Ecclesiastes 1:5

Galileo augured that we are not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs. I agree. I can refer back to a past post about the earth being flat or sphere, but I never expounded on the Galileo, heliocentrism, and the passages the RCC had issues with so let me try.

Galileo adopted Augustine's position who said, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians."

So the intent of the Bible is not to explain the facts of the universe but to shed light on mankind's purpose and Salvation. This does not mean that the Bible is not scientifically accurate though, which it is.

I am not sure if time should even be spent on the Psalm verses since they are poems and songs. Although, I will touch on meanings a bit to appease.

Psalm 93:1 "the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved." In the erection of that kingdom of the Messias which can never be moved.

Psalm 96:10 "the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved" That kingdom shall never be destroyed, but shall stand for ever. (Daniel 2:44)

Psalm 104:5 "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." i.e. upon itself, or its own weight, whereby it stands as fast and unmovable, as if it were built upon the strongest foundations imaginable; which is a stupendous work of Divine power and wisdom.

1 Chronicles 16:30 "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved" (Strong's H4131) be overthrown or it cannot be removed. (Psa 125:1 "abideth for ever")

Ecclesiastes 1:5 can be understood best in context.

First verse 4 sets it up by saying "One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever."

Which states the repetitive nature of life as pointed out in verse 5-8: The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits, All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full.

Ecclesiastes 1:9-11 "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

Verses 9-11 explains what the prior passages mean. Poole says that the things of this world are so narrow, and the mind of man so vast, that there must be something new to satisfy the mind; and even delightful things, by too frequent repetition or long continuance, are so far from yielding satisfaction, that they grow tedious and troublesome.

By comparing the sun, and wind, and rivers, Poole compared the earth with man, might show that man, considered as mortal, is in a more unhappy condition than these things, because when the earth abides, man goes; and when the sun sets, he riseth again; and so the wind and rivers return to their former place and state, but man, when once he dies, he never returns again to this life. (Job 14:7,12)

So we can easily see that, in context, these passages have nothing to do with a literal sun moving through the skies. In fact, what Atheist has never uttered the terms sunrise or sunset? It is still, to this day, part of our language and vernacular. So we all understand, when an Atheist grumbles through a sunrise, he knows that the sun is in the center of our solar system and his life here on earth is limited.

Subsequently, on October 31, 1992 after 359 years, the Roman Catholic Church admits that it erred in its persecution of Galileo.

"With" Makes The Difference

Atheists try to lie their way into our society?

What better way to do that by being photographed with this congresswoman.

While this picture is no big surprise to me at all, the title and implications of the article was.

In Google, if you notice, it says "Atheist activist meets with top Washington officials" which is loaded with all sorts of insinuations.

No matter how small the imperceptibility was, it was wrong. Since then the article's title alone was changed to reflect a more honest approach to what transpired, but the gist of the article was left the same.

This guy shows up to have pictures taken with the congresswoman and met her, but didn't meet "with" her. There is a Howard Huge difference. This Sean Faircloth guy is trying to act like he matters by getting pictures taken with familiar faces in hopes to be popular and get his agenda press, which worked. At least, that is my take on it.

Notice the skew of the entire article "Hopefully, we will begin to see the fruits of his and SCA's labors in the near future. But for now, this gives hope that atheists are on the verge of becoming a true force with a respected voice in Washington."

Which is completely not the case at all. He merely took a few pictures and shook some hands. Quite a dishonest article, if you ask me. The "fruits of his labor" will be shown, that is for sure, but that fruit is not good as described in God's Word.

These Atheists are trying hard to promote this Atheism to get a foothold as the religion of Washington and society. According to the Bible, most of the world will be Atheists so relax Sean and Trina, your agenda will be promoted in time without this kind of dishonesty. Or maybe it will since the "father of lies" is your god, it is your destiny.

tinyurl.com/AtheistsDeceptions

Our Judeo-Christian Nation

In a past post I may have commented on Obama's inflaming words. It is a blessing to know that I was not the only one that felt upset at his pathetic, contempt towards Christians and America, comments.



I applaud Congressman J. Randy Forbes, Republican Virginia-4th District, words and I want him to know that he has my support. We have soldiers of Christ fighting the good fight and at least the fruit of this congressman shows we are willing to counter in this battle against a Godless group of people such as our current president Obama and Atheists.

tinyurl.com/JudeoChristianNation

The Austrian School of Economics

One of the greatest speeches that Peter Schiff has delivered was on 13 March 2009 during The 2009 Henry Hazlitt Memorial Lecture.

Recorded at the annual Austrian Scholars Conference, Ludwig von Mises Institute. Its worth listening to many times.

I downloaded it from Ludwig von Mises Institute or you just right mouse click here and "save link" to your HD.

tinyurl.com/AustrianSchool

Speed of Light

A comment I left on Ray's Post: The age of the universe

Someone asked him, "Dear Ray I have a question for you, considering God made the world and the universe in six days and considering He created Adam in about 4004 BC why is it that scientists say that the most distant planets are over 20,000 light years away. This means that the light from these planets has been traveling in space for 20,000 years, far longer than the universe has existed even if you count a day of creation as a 1000 years?"

My reply was, "Everyone needs to keep in mind that 20,000 light years away is a measurement of distance NOT time. I just thought I would point that out before I start reading all these comments. You are taking great assumptions thinking that light can travel at one speed.

In a lab setting they even slowed and stopped the speed of light. (Google: Bring Light to a Stop)

I remember that Carl Sagan explained in Cosmos that if a spaceship traveled at the speed of light when he returned back to earth after 5 years many hundreds of years (Corrected to: Mere minutes turned into many decades) would have passed on earth. Everyone that space traveler knew would be long gone. So if speed of light indeed effects time then one can see, quite simply, that the appearance of millions of years is actually a short time at the speed of light.

BTW you all do understand what God is right?...1 John 1:5

In Cosmos maybe Carl Sagan was talking about 2 Peter 3:8.

UPDATE: Is there a fellow geek/nerd out there that can tell me, in reference to Lorentz transformation (Lorentz factor), how to calculate the difference between (x) earth time and (y) speed of light time?

For example 1 minute of (X) equals, let's say 30 years of (Y)...and does it grow linearly, any takers? I just read "If space is homogeneous, then the Lorentz transformation must be a linear transformation."

Great I found the formula. Now I have to figure how to enter this into my HP 32SII calculator

Now I just read "Indeed, a constant 1 g acceleration would permit humans to travel as far as light has been able to travel since the big bang (some 13.7 billion light years) in one human lifetime"

That is if light can be accelerated, which is the case as in black holes right? (People, like Einstein, believe that light cannot be accelerated. They jury may still be out.)If light can be slowed and even accelerated, as in black holes, then it could be seen that light could reach a point at a perceived length of time which relative to reality of (y), the spaceship, took a very short time.

UPDATE 2: I concede that explaining about God in this manner does a real injustice to the Gospel. Not to mention how extremely unbiblical it is.

Also someone recommended a book called "Starlight, Time and the New Physics" by professor John Hartnett. Building on the work of secular cosmologist Moshe Carmeli, Dr. Hartnett's book explains how we can see distant starlight in a young universe while at the same time doing away with the big bang 'fudge' factors of dark energy and dark matter. I might want to get a copy of that one.

Atheism: Defined and Examined

If you want the end all explanation of atheism just look at our friend Mariano's exhaustive essay on it called Atheism: a critical examination of its causes and effects .

Those unfamiliar with Mariano's work, visit his blog called Atheism is Dead.

The brilliant and well written essay's points really could be turned into hundreds of posts debunking atheists and still have a plethora of material left over. In fact some of the subjects, and quotes, have been talked about here in some past posts. Instead let it speak as a reasonable plea to help our atheist friends change their presuppositions and worldview.

The Obama Deception

I decided to watch this today...care to join me?

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations (banking) have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes."

-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins less than five months before he was assassinated.)

"Plutocracy is abhorrent to a republic; it is more despotic than monarchy, more heartless than aristocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It preys upon the nation in time of peace and conspires against it in the hour of its calamity. Conscienceless, compassionless and devoid of wisdom, it enervates its votaries while it impoverishes its victims. It is already sapping the strength of the nation, vulgarizing social life and making a mockery of morals. The time is ripe for the overthrow of this giant wrong. In the name of the counting-rooms which it has denied; in the name of business honor which it has polluted; in the name of the home which it has despoiled; in the name of religion which it has disgraced; in the name of the people whom it has oppressed, let us make our appeal to the awakened conscience of the nation."

--William Jennings Bryan speech at Madison Square Garden, New York, 30 August 1906

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

--Possibly from Thomas Jefferson in a Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802)

We, as a nation, need to stop worrying about the left and right puppets and worry about the puppet masters. End the FED.

I just read a fantastic article about this subject. It is worth the read for anyone.

The next major move in the stock market will be DOWN

Flag Day

These are indeed different times. This year I chose to fly different flags than the typical stars and stripes. The two flags that are flying in front of my house today are the Appeal to Heaven flag and the Gadsden flag.


Appeal to Heaven flag

This flag was used by George Washington on his squadron of six schooners which he outfitted at his own expense in the fall of 1775. This flag was a variation of the New England Pine Tree flag. It was later modified and adopted by the Massachusetts Navy. The Sons of Liberty would rally under a large tree, in Boston Massachusetts, which came to be known as "The Liberty Tree". This tree became a symbol of American independence. Knowing they were up against a great military power, they believed they were sustained by still a greater power, thus their "APPEAL TO HEAVEN".

Gadsden flag

This flag has a great deal of history starting with Benjamin Franklin. In 1751, he made the first reference to the rattlesnake in a satirical commentary published in his Pennsylvania Gazette. It had been the policy of Britain to send convicted criminals to America, and Franklin suggested that they thank the British by sending rattlesnakes to England. These days it has been used in modern politics as a symbol of disagreement with the current government.

Denominations of Atheism

I thought denominations were bad enough in Christianity. The mere fact there are different denominations negates the one true way as talked about in Jeremiah 32:38-40. But I just read that even Atheism has its denominations also.

Apparently, John Gray believes there are different flavors of Atheism. I am sure I can come up with more then Gray's five. Wasn't it Christopher Hitchens who proclaimed Protestant atheism, or something to that effect, when asked if he was a Catholic non believer or a Protestant non believer? It appears that even Atheists are at odds with their beliefs and religion.

Gray identified five strains of Atheism:

1. Science-Oriented Atheism. An atheism that grounds itself in scientific modes of understanding, and the discourse of science. My notes are unclear on this point, so I won't say anything more.
2. Ultra-Protestant Atheism. This kind of atheism rests strongly on the idea of individual autonomy, and holds that one shouldn't take anything on authority. Gray thinks this is rooted in Protestantism.
3. Non-Humanist Atheism. Arthur Schopenhauer, Gray says, is a good example of this orientation. Schopenhauer didn't like Christianity or the churches, but he also believed that atheism is its own thing, and owes nothing to science. Science and atheism are, to use Stephen Jay Gould's phrase, "non-overlapping magisteria." One doesn't have anything to do with the other. (It's my sense from reading Gray's work that this would describe his own position -- this, combined with Naturalistic Atheism, see below.)
4. Anti-Liberal Atheism. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example. It as actively anti-liberal, and contemptuous of liberal values. In Gray's view, this is completely logical. Liberal values - ideals of toleration - come straight out of Judaism and Christianity, says Gray. Nietzsche viciously attacked liberalism precisely because of its Christian values (it pitied the weak, for example, and was a slave religion that honored what was contemptible in man, in Nietzsche's view).
5. Naturalistic Atheism. The idea that religion is a normal part of life, that if you try to eliminate the religious sense from life, you're going to get repression of natural instincts. It's a benign or favorable attitude toward religion as a natural expression of what it means to be human. It's interesting to reflect, says Gray, on how atheist regimes -- Revolutionary France, Soviet Russia, the Third Reich -- have quickly adapted a secular sacerdotal gloss, becoming political religions with their own pantheons of saints and sacraments, to speak to the religious sense within man. This sort of atheist isn't threatened by religion, and in fact sees religion as satisfying an important instinct within human beings -- but it must be kept in its place.

Gray added that Atheists cannot deal with the fact that atheism in power has been horrifically deadly, because it would deny the basic dogma of their faith: that atheism leads to liberation and redemption, and that their project of liberating people from their traditions and their history also severs them from their humanity.

Do you have another category that you follow? Maybe you all should have a council of sorts, like Council of Necia, to determine what is, and is not, to be believed.

As a Christian I enjoy being identified by what I believe. It must be horribly difficult to be labeled for something you don't believe. That list is too extensive for me. Proclaiming to be a Non Santa Atheist, for example, seems to be a pointless label. So does Atheism for that matter.

tinyurl.com/DenominationsofAtheism

Death Camps

Reinforcement of the religion 'Atheism' can now be promoted with the help of a camp for children in California. Let the indoctrination begin.

Join the festivities like:

* Search for that lesbian in you (8-17 yrs)
* Pin the tail on the monkey(human)
* Deny your conscience seminars
* Absolutely nothing is 100% certain, except Darwinian evolution, seminars
* Russian roulette with fully loaded guns
* Make up tips for that African ape in you
* Aliens seeded our planet, the Richard Dawkins theory, story time

bit.ly/Deathcamp

Homosexuality in the Bible

Stan gave me an article to read called "What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality"

To me, it appeared the article was a bunch of gripes and complaints about other people, without substance. Now, I agree people don't understand the Bible, as they should, but that has nothing to do with what the Bible says about gays.

The article claimed:

MARK 12:18-27
"If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir."

The whole passage was about the mistake just claimed here. 'He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err', and so does this article.

He said: "Actually, I'm not from Sodom. That city was buried beneath the Dead Sea centuries ago. I'm from California -- but perhaps that just confirms their suspicions!"

I am sure that Dani'El and I would disagree and Sodom is indeed in California.

This joker claims "Jesus and five Old Testament prophets all speak of the sins that led to the destruction of Sodom -- and not one of them mentions homosexuality. Even Billy Graham doesn't mention homosexuality when he preaches on Sodom."

Pointless argument, because the Bible is clear about Sodom's wickedness as in Jude 1:7.

"But what does the story of Sodom say about homosexual orientation as we understand it today? Nothing."

I guess it would be pointless to talk of the etymology of the word sodomy also. Whatever dude.

"You'll also note that Romans 2 begins with "Therefore, [referring to Romans 1], you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself..." Even after he describes the disturbing practices he has seen, Paul warns us that judging others is God's business, not ours."

That is not what the passage says at all. We are indeed to judge but not if we are doing the same things. You know "for thou that judgest doest the same things"

What's a malokois? ... Actually, ...Greek words have confused scholars to this very day.

No they haven't. First in Strong's its malakos and its clear that effeminate means 'of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man or of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness'. Again whatever.

That's the lesson we all need to learn from these texts. God doesn't want us squabbling over who is "in" and who is "out." God wants us to love one another. It's God's task to judge us. It is NOT our task to judge one another.

We have been down this road before in a past post. Of course we are to judge.

Although the prophets, Jesus, and other biblical authors say nothing about homosexual orientation as we understand it today, they are clear about one thing: As we search for truth, we are to "love one another."

Again, I have been down this road, but not in a posting, so I will say it again for this post. Do you believe that "Christian love" is to coddle people in their wickedness?

Do you remember what it says in Matthew 22:39 "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"

But what does this truly mean? Does that mean we are to love them no matter what they do because we are sinners also? Do we coddle them in their sins, tell them God loves them no matter what? Nope Jesus was clear when he said this. He was telling us what the standard was. The way to show your love to your neighbor is to warn them and their sins will take them to hell.

The only way you can show your love to your neighbor was outlined in Leviticus 19:17-18 "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD." (emphasis added)

If you believe coddling is love then you are delusional. You must confront to show love to someone. Would I let you as a friend go and drink and drive? We will take the keys and get into your face if necessary to show that you are wrong. Get offended if you wish but I will not accept the evil wickedness of unrepentant sinning. God, nor I, condone sinning.

But the United States is not a nation governed by the Bible. Our nation is governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Our laws were created to protect an individual's right to disagree.

Good point. So I have the right to disagree that gay marriage should be allowed.

In this last premise, I'm asking you who disagree with my stand on homosexuality to support my stand on full civil rights for all people, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans.

From our Declaration of Independence: "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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So yes our Creator gives us certain unalienable Rights and one of them is for a man to marry a woman as instructed in His Word, the ultimate authority for our Creator. (Gen. 2:18, 24, Ephesians 5:23-32,1 Corinthians 7:2)

Hebrews 13:4 "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."

Update: Children Raised by Openly Homosexual Parents More Likely to Engage in Homosexuality.

I guess I also should reference a past post to show my agenda and intentions to gay people.

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