Who is the Antichrist? A Perspective

I could not resist posting this. In the past we discussed Adam's rib and Strong's etymology of words. This is one for the records indeed.

Antithetical Compromise?

We only have to look as far as our Constitution to know how our Founding Fathers viewed declaring one certain religion, Christianity, within our government; this possibly may have been for purely practical reasons, since it would be hard to do business with Muslims otherwise.

Case in point. The pandering called the Treaty of Tripoli, with Muslims. They, Barbary Powers, were warring against what they claimed to be the "Christian" nations (England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States).(1)

Lets get into the minds of the Founding Fathers trying to get a nation up and running. They were familiar with the Qur'an, I am sure. They all understood the terms jihad (a holy war, a religious duty, waged by Muslims against infidels i.e. Christians) from the Qur'an. They knew their customer's beliefs.

Surah 5:51 "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them."

The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims.(2)

Reading a book called "Original Intent: Courts, the Constitution, & Religion" by David Barton will shed some light called truth on the situation. Although I haven't read it yet, he is an author who is familiar to us Home Schoolers. Barton knows his history.

Was the Treaty of Tripoli effective? Apparently not, evidenced since the treaty was broken in 1801 by the Pasha of Tripoli over President Thomas Jefferson's refusal to pay the Pasha's demands for increased payments. The First Barbary War, the Battle of Derne in 1805 was an attempt to free many of Christian slaves in Barbary. Unfortunately, Jefferson, a heretical deist, and his administration then caved to the evil ones and argued that buying sailors out of slavery was a fair exchange to end the war. They agreed to pay a ransom of sixty thousand dollars for the American prisoners.

So, was Jefferson wrong in trying to make a deal with the devil? In reflection. if he saw the hostility and persecutions towards Christians around the world these days and what happened on 9/11, would he have still made the Treaty of Tripoli? Probably so, as a non-Christian (without the guiding logic of the Holy Spirit).

Incidentally, we owe the strength of our, then fledgling, U.S. Navy to Pasha of Tripoli. President Jefferson was in the process of disbanding the Navy when, in bad timing, Pasha of Tripoli declared war on the US. Glory goes to our Lord Jesus Christ.

So did the Treaty of Tripoli repudiate Christianity? Nope. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:

The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours.(3)

Furthermore, it was Adams who declared:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.(4)

Adams' own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation.(5)

Jefferson on the other hand....

---
Endnotes:

(1) Glen Tucker, Dawn Like Thunder: The Barbary Wars and the Birth of the U. S. Navy (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1963), p. 127.
(2) Gardner W. Allen, Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1905), pp. 56.
(3) John Adams, Works, Vol. VIII, p. 407, to Thomas Jefferson on July 3, 1786.
(4) John Adams, Works, Vol. X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.
(5) David Barton

UPDATE: Well I have been set straight and missed quite a bit about our history. A man named William R. Bowen wrote a brilliant article on this subject called Tempest in a Treaty: Does the Treaty of Tripoli Support a Secular America?

I missed a great point that:

Article XI refers to the “government” of the United States, not the “nation.” 

and the viewpoint of religion back then meant something entirely different as so eloquently pointed out by George Mason.

Thanks for setting the record strait Mr. Bowen.

Socialism = Fail

see more Fail Blog

I am wondering what marketing demographics are they targeting? Is this racist or for teachers? Anyway, if you want to see how government controlled school system, socialized health care system, and just Socialism in general is going to look like in the future just take a look. The communist indoctrination of our youth has begun.

30,000 visitors today!

With a total of 62,258 pages viewed. Just wow.

Make Your Calling Sure

Fm: ICR July 14, 2009
Sign up today.

"Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall." (2 Peter 1:10)

Although the calling of God is solely by His grace, apart from works (2 Timothy 1:9), and although "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance" (Romans 11:29), it is quite possible for a person to believe mistakenly that he has been called, and so Peter urges each professing Christian to make sure of his calling.

In the first place, one who is truly called will love God (Romans 8:28), and such love should not be superficial, but with the whole heart and soul and mind (Matthew 22:37). One who is called should "walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love" (Ephesians 4:1-2). If our lives fail such tests, we should at least "examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves" (2 Corinthians 13:5).

God's call is not only unto salvation, of course, but to a particular service for His glory. Some like Paul were "called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God" (Romans 1:1). Many in Paul's day were actually called to be slaves: "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayst be made free, use it rather. For he that is called to the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. . . . Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God" (1 Corinthians 7:20-22, 24).

Even the apostle Paul, however, could still say (and so should we), "I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 3:14). We need, first of all, to make our "calling and election sure." HMM

Prevent the Erosion of Liberty

Was Martin Luther King a terrorist? The government sure viewed him as one. He, as well as I, promote civil disobedience towards the wrongs of the government. He is/was a Patriot. We must change through peaceful, God fearing, measures.

The further away from Christianity we get, the more we erode our virtues. Then the further away, from the intent of the Constitution, our government will get. Without the blueprint of the Christian worldview principles, as a moral people, we cannot stand together as a nation on those principles. This is evidenced by our current governmental vision in moving towards Socialism then eventually to Communism. Where did we go wrong? It begins with trying to eliminate the Christian principles set up by our founding fathers. Liberty is being eroded with thunderous applause.

We the People?

Dogma of Darwinism

An interesting poll was conducted in the beginning of 2009 to see what America's average populace thinks about evolution. The results were surprising to me and very encouraging. The report about the survey stated:

According to the poll, Democrats (82%) and liberals (86%) are even more likely than Republicans (73%) and conservatives (72%) to support the academic freedom of teachers and students to discuss the “strengths and weaknesses of evolution.”

The poll also shows a dramatic 9-point increase over 2006 in the percentage of likely voters who agree that “Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.” Support for that position has jumped to 78%, up from 69% in 2006. The percentage of likely voters who favor teaching only the evidence for evolution suffered a corresponding decline of 7 points, from 21% in 2006 to just over 14% this year.

“Clearly, the Darwin-only crowd is losing public support,” said Dr. John West, Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute, “There seems to be a backlash against the strong-arm tactics that have been used in recent years to censor and intimidate scientists, teachers, and students who raise criticisms of Darwin.”

Here is how the Poll was conducted:

QUESTION: I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B?

Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.

Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.

Statement A 14%
Statement B 78%
Neither 5%
Other/Not sure 2%

So apparently Atheists, which represent about one percent (1%) of the population, has influenced 14% of the population to believe their religious dogma.

Which still is an accomplishment but understandable with the backing of the media and secular scientists influence. We need to gain that 14% back so the atheistic scientific elite do not "convert" the minds of our nation.

Some States are doing the right thing. In the news, the Texas Board of Education chose science over dogma and adopted science standards improving on the old "strengths and weaknesses" language by requiring students to “critique” and examine “all sides of scientific evidence.” In addition, the Board—for the first time— specifically required high school students to “analyze and evaluate” the evidence for major evolutionary concepts such as common ancestry, natural selection, and mutations.

The new science standards mark a significant victory for scientists and educators in favor of teaching the scientific evidence for and against evolution.

All this in spite of the push, from Atheists, to declare that Intelligent Design is merely a religious doctrine. This claim is, of course, an absurd point. Even some of our founding Fathers did not believe what the Atheists are now claiming.

Jefferson did not believe that intelligent design was a religious doctrine.

In a letter to John Adams on April 11, 1823, he declared: "I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition."

By insisting that his defense of intelligent design was made “without appeal to revelation,” Jefferson clearly was arguing that the idea had a basis other than religion. What was that basis? He went on to explain:

"The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organised as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms."

In sum, Jefferson believed that empirical data from nature itself proved intelligent design by showing the natural world’s intricate organization from the level of plants and insects all the way up to the revolution of the planets. (Evolution News)

UPDATE: Speaking of Surveys apparently God is making a difference in the lives of the Hispanics. Hispanics are becoming more protestant, and believing that a person can earn their way to Heaven is also down. Glory to Christ.

Right Wing Extremists?

UPDATE NEWS: Earlier today, the Senate Public Safety Committee passed Assembly Bill 962. The bill now moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee for consideration. No hearing date has been scheduled.

AB962, sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require purchasers submit to fingerprinting, which would be kept in dealers’ records and subject to inspection by the Department of Justice. Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited.

They are getting around the 2nd amendment, by not restricting the right to bear arms, but the right to bear ammunition? Give me a break.

TYRANNY!!!!

Hypocrisy or Conundrum?

Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution

We watched these from Netflix as part of our homeschooling classes which spurred great discussions about various subjects. I recommend them to anyone that has not seen them. The following is from the marketing of the films.

Do you know?

- If there are creatures that really produce fire to defend themselves?

- How a giraffe gets a drink without causing lethal blood pressure to his brain?

- How Geckos can walk upside down, even on glass and not fall?

This series features Dr. Jobe Martin, who for the past 20 years, has been exploring evolution vs. creation. His findings have been fascinating students around the world as he lectures on these remarkable animal designs that cannot be explained by traditional evolution.

Dr. Martin himself was a traditional evolutionist, but his medical and scientific training would go through an evolution – rather, a revolution – when he began to study animals that challenged the scientific assumptions of his education. And thus began the evolution of a creationist...



Now, please spare all of us the gripes, complaints, and ad hom's about this gentleman and these films. It is getting old hat to hear such things from atheists out there. Unless that is your "A" game.

Darwin's Method Helped ID

Bible and Science

This post is for my reference mainly, but AIG has a sensible approach to Science.

We need to realize that:

a) all humans are fallen and fallible;


b) science itself is a wonderful, but fallible human tool;


c) all the hypotheses and speculations which one uses to explain things within the framework of Biblical history can only be tentative, since humanity will never have all knowledge, and new data is constantly becoming available. For the same reason, hypotheses and submodels within evolutionary theory are constantly changing. So the same thing will inevitably be true in the creationist scientific world.



tinyurl.com/BibleScience

'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