Prophet Muhammad, Pee Be Upon Him

It was interesting that Matt and Trey, creators of South Park, were threatened by the rabid Islamic radicals.

The worse part of the story was the Comedy Central or really the owners, Viacom, was protecting this Muhammad who was an illiterate, racist, murderer, and a pedophile!

Did Viacom give the same respect to Jesus? Nope!

RevolutionMuslim.com posted the warnings which included a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad disguised in a bear suit. The Web posting also included a graphic photo of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered in 2004 after making a documentary on violence against Muslim women.

"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show," the posting reads. "This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

Since then RevolutionMuslim.com has retracted their original stance and back peddled a bit. Or was that a lie? I guess this would be a good time to add this:



We all know very well that Allah does not equal Yahweh either.

Now the real point here, and to add insult to injury, the weak, cowardice, and biased owners of Comedy Central, Viacom, decided to censor Matt and Trey when it comes to the prophet Muhammad but not Buddha doing lines of coke or the thousands of digs, throughout the years, at Jesus. What gives Viacom? Scared much? Hypocrite much?

Did "the media" cover that point at all? Nope! Scared of Viacom much?

The purpose of the South Park episodes, 200 and 201, was to criticize political correctness in our society, where it is OK to criticize Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc., but not OK to criticize Islam or Muhammad. Also in the episode "The Cartoon Wars" Muhammad's image was censored, while the show depicted Jesus defecating.

Well, instead of the hilarious bear suit, I will help Matt and Trey with the freedoms, that they deserve, and post their depiction of Muhammad. Muhammad is the one on the right, pee be upon him. If we keep allowing people to censor our viewpoints, then it is a slap in the face of God and our Founding Fathers to have freedom to speak.

If I choose to be an ass, that is my choice to do so and it is backed by the Constitution. Nobody has any right to threaten, or stop, those freedoms.

I had my own run in with the anti-Constitutional Viacom. It seems that Viacom didn't want me to post any of their videos discussing Dr. Ron Paul and they had Youtube shut my account down. I followed the counter-notice procedures. I said to Youtube that it was OK to give the complainants my name and address to sue me. If Viacom didn't respond to my letter then I would get my account back. Viacom's lawyers called me and told me to retract my counter notice and they wouldn't sue me. I said NO, that they had to call off the wolves and I would just delete their content but I wanted my account restored. It was a comprise that I didn't want to do but it would be hard to prove the "fair use act" before the primaries and I wanted Dr. Paul messages out there.

After a week Viacom called and said they didn't want to go to court for this and I said I wanted my account back so if that meant suing me then go ahead. Viacom agreed to not respond to my letter if I agreed to delete their Comedy Central videos and my account would be restored. I reluctantly agreed.

The people who were the most instrumental in helping me out in researching my options on what to do with Viacom was a beautiful person who really cared about me named Eva Galperin with EFF.ORG these are great people and deserve our support and donations. She pointed me to a wealth of information at chillingeffects.org and was instrumental in helping me WIN against Viacom. Thanks Eva you will always have my support and I will tell EVERYONE about your so very important organization. God bless everyone at EFF.ORG

Shame on you Viacom. We are watching you, "pee be upon you" and that is tonight's word.

UPDATE: After posting this, I found out that May 20th is Draw Muhammad day. They have made a Facebook link to upload them.


bit.ly/peebeupon

The Problem of Evil Atheism

From antiquity to today, the evil in the world has always been a powerful mandate for evolutionary thinking. God would not have designed or created this evil world, so it must have originated by the blind play of natural law. For centuries this solution has fueled atheism, but from where did evil-ness come?

The evil in the world is obvious and upsetting. Atheists, no less than others and perhaps even more so, are exercised by creation's terrors. Earthquakes and tsunamis kill thousands, diseases terrorize, floods destroy and droughts starve. Then there is the seemingly unending narrative of predation in the biological world. Nature is red in tooth and claw, as Lord Tennyson put it.

Atheists often proclaim this problem of evil as a justification for their beliefs but ironically this evil is as much a problem for atheism as it is a motivation. The problem is that atheism fails to...Read More.

Tea Party Thieves?

Just noticed something called a Tea Party Barbie online that was posted on April 12th.


But that seemed awfully familiar to something I saw posted on April 8th by Jen McCreight over at Blag Hag.



Which came first? You be the judge.

The Tea Party was allegedly created with the tag line to "take back America," with this new evidence they might do that by stealing it.

Worldview Quote- Nowhere To Go But...

George Wald (1906 - 1997) Professor of Biology at Harvard University and recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine said:

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.46

Two for Tuesday:

Mao Tse-tung: "Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution." Kampf um Mao's Erbe (1977)




Rhiggs,

>>Call me pedantic, but shouldn't a series of posts called "God Quote of the Day" feature quotes about God, and be posted every day?

OK pedantic, you're right, I will call it "Worldview Quote" instead. I hope that appeases the logic gods. Forgive me.

What Is One Little Lie?

God's Commandments are being violated if you lie.

By lying you violate the 5th, (by dishonoring your parents by lying) the 9th, the 2nd (created a god to suite yourself), and the 1st Commandment. (Didn't put God first)

When you steal you violate the 5th, the 8th, the 2nd, and the 1st Commandments.

By breaking a Commandment it actually is blasphemous to God. We are made in his image after all, so God sins? There goes the 3rd also.

If we really think about it, we are even violating the 4th since Jesus is now our Sabbath Rest. (Matthew 11:28-30, Hebrews 4:9-10) We are not "keeping it Holy" (Exodus 20:8) so there it goes. When you sin you are breaking, which ever sin PLUS, the first 5 Commandments.

You are breaking a great deal of Commandments with one simple lie.

Let's compound that. Let's just say, you break God's Laws (Lie, steal, lust, or covet) 5 times a day. You lied once, lusted once, stole something, etc. In one year, that would be 1,825 sins. If you live to 85 and started sinning at, lets just say age 15, @ 70 years of sinning you would have broken God Laws 127,750 times.

Compounded again, if you sinned one time, and thus breaking 5 other Commandments each time totaling 6 sins, and did that 5 times a day that would be 766,500 sins in a lifetime!!!

Now take that times just 6 billion people and that is some 4.6 quadrillion sins for the planet on an average.

Now, lets multiply that by many generations throughout history...

Dude, that is a lot of sins!!!

You're made in God's image. When you lie, you're calling God a liar.

Now can you see that sinning is not just a little thing? Its a big, big deal!!



bit.ly/onelittlelie

NASA Will Be Supporting Creationism!!

Does NASA support Creationism?

In a wild turn around NASA will soon be promoting, and funding, Creationism.

NASA apparently felt they could do just what the movie "Expelled" exposed.

In this PR nightmare, supervisors at NASA’s prestigious Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) decided to violate someones First Amendment rights and in turn will be paying for, and bringing attention to, the subject of Creationism. Wahoo!

We just love when Government agencies do this. It just shows the foresight that our Founding Fathers had to protect our rights as individuals against large entities and Government organizations.

David Coppedge was a “Team Lead” Systems Administrator on the Cassini mission until JPL demoted him for allegedly “pushing religion” by loaning interested co-workers DVDs supportive of intelligent design.

Coppedge is now suing for religious discrimination, harassment and retaliation; violation of his free speech rights; and wrongful demotion.

“Anyone who thinks that today’s culture of science allows an open discussion of evolution is sorely mistaken,” said Dr. John G. West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture. “When it comes to intelligent design, private and government-run agencies are suppressing free speech.” [complete article]

I was wondering if this is the same David Coppedge who is continuing his Father's ministry? Dr. James Fletcher Coppedge, Jr. wrote a book on the subject of molecular biology and the laws of chance. If it is, I am sure the money will be put to good use.

Thanks Government!

Worldview Quote -Unintelligent Design

"I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question, and this cannot possibly be done here." (Charles Darwin, Introduction, On the Origin of Species 1859)

Two for Tuesday:

"Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshiped." (Grasse, Pierre-Paul (1977) Evolution of Living Organisms, p. 107 Academic Press, New York, N.Y.)

Worldview Quote

Colin Patterson (1933 – 1998) Senior Palaeontologist at British Museum of Natural History

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science." The Listener October 8, 1981 p.392

How about a two for Tuesday:

Michael Egnor Professor of Neurosurgery at Stony Brook

"I never use evolutionary biology in my work. Would I be a better surgeon if I assumed that the brain arose by random events? Of course not. Doctors are detectives. We look for patterns, and in the human body, patterns look very much like they were designed. Doctors know that, from the intricate structure of the human brain to the genetic code, our bodies show astonishing evidence of design. That’s why most doctors -- nearly two-thirds according to national polls -- don’t believe that human beings arose merely by chance and natural selection. Most doctors don’t accept evolutionary biology as an adequate explanation for life. Doctors see, first-hand, the design of life." Evolution News & Views: March 2007

I Saw Jesus!

Well His 3D image anyway. I don't know who caught this, but I found the whole show on Youtube. It probably won't be there for long but I did find it interesting. If it disappears just go to Youtube, or Google, and search for "real face of Jesus Ray Downing" to find something on it.

Is that Him? I will look for Him in the future to see if it was.

UPDATE:

Zilch commented: >> That's already been determined to be of medieval provenance. Very interesting to be sure, and very clever, but a fake.

You are only giving half the story. Now, I will give you the benefit of doubt to the facts that you may not have heard, but the Shroud is the real deal.

What you claim was the headlines all over the world but something was discovered and the original scientists agree with the finding that the shroud was actually repaired and dyed at one point

This has been confirmed by many people in the field including the original scientist that performed the experiment named John L. Brown who hurriedly spent his remaining days refuting the original, and flawed, findings.

From another study it says:

Rogers discovered evidence of nearly invisible mending: dyestuff and spliced thread. Just to be sure, he sent samples to John L. Brown, formerly Principal Research Scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory. Working independently and using different methods, Brown agreed with Rogers. He wrote: This would appear to be obvious evidence of a medieval artisan’s attempt to dye a newly added repair region of fabric to match the aged appearance of the remainder of the Shroud.

The findings were verified and replicated that the original had been altered. The new finding are irrefutable but unfortunately they did not get the "press coverage" the original, though flawed, findings got.

So please tell the whole story and do not propagate a story half told. This stands as another reason not to trust the science publishing of men. When found to be incorrect, the damage has already been done. The recanting is much like a retraction in a news paper that is buried deep in the unpopular section with a " we made a mistake" that gets lost and unread.

The Shroud of Turin is the real deal.

The Joke is on the Government!

Apparently today the "fools" are the Government.



Thanks infowars.com

The court ruling here says it all. "Because the Million Dollar Bill does not pose any resonable risk of fraud, nor does it pose a risk of facilitating would-be counterfeiters it does NOT violate 18 USC 474 or 475."

The Judge adds "Secret Service Agents violated the fourth Amendment by seizing the Million Dollar Bills from GNN's Office without a Warrant or Valid Consent"

Ray said "This week a Judge ruled in favor of GNN and ordered the return of the 8,300 Gospel tracts!

We thank God that the Judge also ruled that our tracts are NOT violations of the counterfeiting law (the basis for the illegal search and seizure). Additionally, Judge Solis stated that two of the Secret Service agents "conspired together" to cover up their actions, including lying on the stand."

So our Government will possibly have to pay for this Ministry's legal fees and GNN has the right to sue for damages that extend into the millions. (get it?)

So this Government will, by proxy, fund the ministry of Christianity! Bwahahahahahah

God, you crack me up. Thanks for the smiles.

Atheists Adopted a Worldview That Science Never Intended

"The Darwinian revolution was not merely the replacement of one scientific theory by another, as had been the scientific revolutions in the physical sciences, but rather the replacement of a world view, in which the supernatural was accepted as a normal and relevant explanatory principle, by a new world view in which there was no room for supernatural forces."

--Ernst Mayr (1904 – 2005) Professor of Zoology at Harvard University

I just read an article that backed up this quote.

The article was called The Burden of Proof: How Atheism Has Adopted a Worldview That Science Never Intended

"I assume that most atheists, who are generally intelligent people, are smart enough to realize that standing from the sidelines and claiming that there is no value in something that they do not practice themselves is not a defensible position. Atheists obviously don't know the value of spiritual practice, because they don't experience its value. Its a bit like someone who has sat idle in front of a computer for most of their lives telling a soccer player that there's no value in soccer. Coming from a non-soccer player, the statement means absolutely nothing..."

"...When and where, in the history of science, do our greatest scientists tell us that one should live their lives believing only in that which can be proven? Who of them has said that it is more 'intelligent' to accept nothing in life but modern western scientific proof?"

It was certainly worth the read.

Worldview Quote

A lively Atheist named Antzilla said to me

"I mean for people thousands or even hundreds of years ago to believe this crap I understand. But today 2010 ACE (AC) with all the knowledge available to believe creationism you would have to really, really try to bypass your intellect or have no intellect, or be brainwashed since a child."

Then he quoted, I believe, another Atheist Brad Reddekopp "If people don't want their beliefs laughed at, then they shouldn't have such funny beliefs"

I gave him a couple of recent quotes to help him along. Then after reading some more quotes that were quite inspirational, I thought it would be good to include some as a post now and then. So now I feel the need to highlight the champions that stand on God's Word and possibly face persecution in their fields for doing so.

The first one a couple of days ago was Robert Jastrow (b. 1925) PhD. Physics, recipient of NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.

"At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief."

Until the Sun Dies (1977) pp. 62-63

Today the quote is from John Lennox (Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science)

"The fact that there are scientists who appear to be at war with God is not quite the same as science itself being at war with God. For example, some musicians are militant atheists. But does that mean music itself is at war with God? Hardly. The point here may be expressed as follows: Statements by scientists are not necessarily statements of science. Nor, we might add, are such statements necessarily true; although the prestige of science is such that they are often taken to be so."

God's Undertaker (2007) p.18

bit.ly/GodQuote

The Environment

We were having a discussion on the environment and I thought it would be better to voice my opinion on the matter. Now, I was going to point out the recent discoveries of the lies told in the name of the global warming and the whole cap and tax (trade) scenario and such but then I remembered what George Carlin said about it that almost mirrored what my beliefs about this subject were. Now, if we take out the belief of God in this manner, that the earth is 4 billion years old, and the occasional cuss word, Carlin's and my viewpoints about the arrogant environmentalists are pretty spot on. Save the planet? Give us a break.



WARNING!!! ***Strong language and uncensored material not meant for sensitive ears.***

Update: There is nothing we could do to destroy this planet at all!! Nature itself is far, far, more hostile then little ol us.

There is methane in the ocean that would destroy this planet's life in a few moments if it were to melt or be brought to the surface (like from an earthquake). There is toxic waste in the form of sulfur that will choke the life out of any of us if spewed into the atmosphere from a volcano. Earthquakes, Tsunamis, and Super Volcanoes are just a short few that could wipe us from the planet and all of science agrees that it will happen, it is just a matter of when. The evidence for a hostile planet is all there for us to see.

Not to mention that our destructive behavior will probably be our own demise anyway. So where do we stand in all of this? Nowhere. There is no need to crap and tax, there is no need to worry about any of it, because it will play out.

We all understand that Egypt, and the Sahara desert, was once was a forest, right? The planet changes and we just need to change with it...or cry about it.

"Carbon monoxide is a byproduct of the basic process whereby silicon is prepared from silicon dioxide"

Geek hypocrites. Get off the internet, you are destroying our environment!

Does Allah = Yahweh?

This presentation will add to my previous post about False Religions.

Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it."

The Muslims of today use to be the Pagans in the Biblical days bit.ly/NotAllah

Is America a Christian Nation?

If you don't have the time to watch or listen, the Cliff notes says yes it certainly is.

I remember posting the following in a past post but it stands true in this subject and is worth repeating.

What is Truth?

Evolutionists Were Wrong Again

Once again it was reported today that Evolutionists were wrong about something... yet again.

Evidently the "Scientists find big differences in Y chromosomes of men, chimps"

I did find the first comment in the article spot on when it says:

"No, it may indicate that the human didn't come from the ape to begin with.

Funny how that logical possibility didn't even occur to them."

This article reminded me of another article that I read last year called

Evolution of the appendix: A biological 'remnant' no more.

In a past post it was mentioned that "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?"

Someday, hopefully soon, they will understand they are going down a rabbit hole and getting deeper and deeper into a failed religion of falsehood.

bit.ly/wrongagain

Richard Dawkins is a bigot

I just read something entertaining from an Atheist and thought I would link to it for the Dick fans out there.

Even some Atheists are noticing and exposing this joker. That is quite refreshing.

Richard Dawkins is a bigot

2010 AD

I hope everyone had a great year as we start another. In reflection, I was amazed how much in denial that Atheists were about many subjects that dealt with God. I have learned a great deal about the Atheistic mindset since I started this blog.

I also found it fascinating that Atheists cannot even bring themselves to say anything that relates to Jesus. It appears to infuriate them. In these past years, some have blasphemed His name, call Him derogatory names instead of being respectful by calling Him Jesus, God, Yahweh, Elohim, Yahshua, or Yeshua bar Yosef, for these are fighting words for the Atheists apparently.

They even had to rename our dating system for themselves to fit their worldview and now attempts to disguise it and use CE (Common Era) and BCE (before Common Era) instead of what it always has been, BC (before Christ) and AD or Anno Domini (Latin for "In the year of our Lord").

So when you were celebrating this New year we all understand that you were really celebrating, another year in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Deny it all you want, find some intellectually palatable means to disguise something, but denial is just that.

I believe it was Steven Weinberg who said, in a interview with Jonathan Miller, that "there is a mystery" in life, "why that theory and not another?" That, as scientists, "we are permanently in a tragic position of not being able to fully understand the reasons of things being the way they are." Dr. Weinberg believes that there is no necessary conflict with science and religion since he knows many scientists that are believers of God.

He did say, poetically I might add, "Science didn't make religion impossible, but it made irreligious possible." I would say the same for evolution.

Dr. Weinberg said "I don't like God" of the Bible. From his vantage point God is a "terrible Character". Right after 9/11/01 he said religion by force is very dangerous and religions with that worldview are the dangerous ones, like radical Islamic believers. He also said that "most physicists cannot call themselves practicing Atheists" for that reason.

He said "As a scientist I care about searching for truth and the theory of the world. Christianity provides an alternative theory of the world. Now that, I have something to say about, I can interact with, I can respond to. On the other hand, if someone just doesn't want to eat pork or kill cows (like Hinduism), or whatever it is, then more power to them, it has nothing to do with me, there is no argument there."

I believe that is why we, as fundamentalist Atheists and Christians, enjoy discussing these things with each other. Because we cannot do anything without a theory. There is no discussion without them. That is why these liberal Christians are not as enjoyable to have a conversations with, because they believe in anything that comes along without standing on a theory.

Speaking of liberal Christians, Dr. Henry Morris said "Perhaps the more sad commentary is that only Christian scholars compromise their position on the creation of the world. The evolutionists and atheists do not."

So as we go into a new decade of Debunking Atheists, keep in mind that the Atheists are not the same as science. Science is attempting to figure out the theory of the world, Atheists are attempting to push their own worldview, agenda, or as I say religion.

bit.ly/2010AD

The Rise of Atheism (Unhappiness)

There is some statistics that are relevant to recent discussion about kids and religion. The results in the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) were interesting and quite revealing. Apparently the comparison of past to present claims of religious status is changing America in a big way.

An article said that, So many Americans claim no religion at all (15%, up from 8% in 1990), that this category now outranks every other major U.S. religious group except Catholics and Baptists. In a nation that has long been mostly Christian, "the challenge to Christianity … does not come from other religions but from a rejection of all forms of organized religion," the report concludes.

The same study concluded that we, as Christians, are staying about the same. This is probably because we are already written in the Book of Life in ink that cannot be erased.

So, this report also shows that actual soundly saved Christians do not have much fluctuation in beliefs and do not fall away and become ex-Christians as some Atheists attempt to claim.

The percentage of those who choose a generic label, calling themselves simply Christian, Protestant, non-denominational, evangelical or "born again," was 14.2%, about the same as in 1990.

Also, a study has found that spirituality and higher levels of religious behavior account for 5% of an adult's happiness. The results of the UBC study came as a surprise: to 16.5% of children's happiness can be accounted for by spirituality.

"From our perspective, it's a whopping big effect," said Holder. "I expected it to be much less — I thought their spirituality would be too immature to account for their well-being."
The less happier you are, the less God is in your life. Do you now see a void of hope in the lie of Atheism? Where is the justification for those Death Camps? So why don't you let those kids choose happiness/spirituality instead of indoctrinating them? Let them grow up and choose for themselves. What do you have against happiness?

Banana Dick Debate Continues

[click picture to play]

We all recently handed out some books at the Universities and Ray is catching some rude comments for doing so. Ray has asked to "keep Richard Dawkins in your prayers. Our aim isn't to make him an enemy, but to see him converted before he goes to meet his Maker."

On that same subject, apparently Ray also allowed an interview with the Friendly Atheist if you wish to check it out.

Also, consistent with his so called "scientific approach" to evidence, Dawkins asked all his atheist friends to rip out the introduction instead of examining the evidence presented in Ray's Origin of Species.

bit.ly/BananaDick

Atheists Borrow From Christianity, Yet Again

According to Times Online,

"The two children chosen to front Richard Dawkins’s latest assault on God could not look more free of the misery he associates with religious baggage. With the slogan “Please don’t label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself”, the youngsters with broad grins seem to be the perfect advertisement for the new atheism being promoted by Professor Dawkins and the British Humanist Association."

"Except that they are about as far from atheism as it is possible to be. The Times can reveal that Charlotte, 8, and Ollie, 7, are from one of the country’s most devout Christian families"

"A spokeswoman for the BHA admitted that the images had been taken from a photo website, and said it was unaware of the religious beliefs of the young models."

Silly Dick.

Also a valid point was made in a follow up article. "It’s a fantasy to imagine that children can be raised in a philosophically neutral environment without some dominant world-view."

"Contemporary secular humanists are largely unable to explain to children why their freedom and autonomy have any significance, why their life has any meaning – and this is why the exaltation of freedom proposed in this poster feels a bit hollow. If you really want your children to be free, you need to tell them why their freedom matters, and help them appreciate some of the values they might pursue. And to do that, you need to use at least a few labels."

Forcing Dick's agenda on children is dogmatic as any religion out there. From a Washington Post article "The American Humanist Association has a real problem with the public expression of religion. Yet, it's website says the organization is celebrating "a new kind of holiday tradition." The AHA is holding "the first-ever nation-wide humanist holiday" to "promote the humanist movement and our ethical life philosophy." The organization has its own philosophy, holidays, and is on a proselytizing campaign to convert others to follow its belief system......sounds a lot like a religion to me."

Atheism is a religion indeed.

Epigenetic Switches

I did a post a while ago called Science needs a better god. I was pointing out how man is intervening with the natural order that God set out. The adverse effects of such manipulations with genetic engineering are yet to be determined and may pose a real problem with mankind.

We also recently, in the comments of a past post, were discussing IVF's and abortions. It reminded me of this show I watched on PBS a while back. I was able to find it and I will link to it here.

The old saying of "you are what you eat" is not fully accurate anymore. A more accurate saying would be "your grandchildren are what you eat" There is something going on in the science industry that is fascinating. They are discovering something called Epigenetic switches in our epigenome, in that, the environment has a huge role in the development of many generations.

In relation to the IVF's that we were discussing they have found diseases to form by the mere fact that the kids were IVF babies. God's perfect plan is being manipulated and pushed aside for our desires and the results are bad. We must trust God.

God has designed a system that, if manipulated improperly, has very dire and adverse consequences. While the scientists of today genetically alter our milk, vegetables, meats, our environment through pesticides and insecticides, and such could trigger some of these switches that can be dire for our grandchildren survival. Vaccines may be causing more harm then we could ever imagine. Our intake, our stresses, our lifestyles all effect our great grandchildren.

Mankind is manipulating the environment too much.

Also in an older post, called In the cult of science, it was pointed out "Technology and science, though they are cumulative and have improved, in many ways, the lives of people within the industrialized nations, have also unleashed the most horrific forms of violence and death, and let's not forget, environmental degradation, in human history."

The negative effects of these manipulations are yet to be fully understood. We may see some horrible things happen to our families in the near future. Our genomes are being manipulated at an alarming rate and should be understood better before blatant, if any, manipulation.

We hear in commercials of all these 'serious' side effects warnings that the pharmaceuticals have on our bodies, one can only imagine what effect they will have on our great grandchildren.

So who do you trust God or man's plan?

Please watch the show. It will be worth it and may get you to think of the lifestyle that you are living. We are truely the ambassadors to our genetic code for our future generations. Live a lifestyle that is pleasing to our genome and God.

The show is called "Ghost in your Genes", it is too important to miss in my opinion. Please consider watching it.

Atheists places too much trust in Man, this show may help you understand, yet another reason, how wrong that viewpoint (worldview) may be.

A good tree will bear good fruit. We must keep God's Creations more sacred then we are. As I said, Science has no moral rudder and the ship is adrift. Our future may depend on you understanding this point.

Ghost in your Genes, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

bit.ly/EpigeneticSwitches

The Skeptic

"The skeptic sees God revealed in nature and doubts Him, sees God revealed in Scripture and doubts Him, sees God revealed in the worship of countless believers and doubts Him, sees God revealed even as the object of his own doubt -- and doubts Him. The skeptic has no wish to believe, for he finds in doubt a religion absolved of any requirement to prove itself, an anti-faith whose god reveals himself nowhere -- not in nature, not in scripture, not in the worship of the mass of mankind. How clever it is of skepticism, having nothing to offer as a faith, to pose as doubt."

~ Robert Brault

PersonhoodUSA.com

From Personhood USA

We need your help and the children need a voice of reason. Please help us and join us to take back our rights.

"I've Noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." Ronald Reagan

It's a(nother) Boy!!

He is 11lbs 23 1/2 inches. Born naturally, no pain killers, no Epidural, and no Pitocin. Born on October 31st, 2009 at 12:17 pm. We are very happy and proud of Mommy!

A baby being born on Halloween....what a wonderful way to lighten such a dark day!!!

Update 11/04/2009

Explain Dignity

We have had many post about the fundamental argument for the existence of God and confirmation of the Christian system.

Bahnsen says in his book Pushing the Antithesis that the naturalistic worldview cannot account for freedom.

If naturalism is true, then naturalists have no reason to believe in naturalism. The naturalists says that all thinking is but electro-chemical response of the gray matter in the material brain, and that these responses are determined by our environment. Human thinking is on the same order as weeds growing. If naturalism is true, then the advocate of the naturalistic approach is only saying he affirms naturalism because nature has determined that he would.

Naturalism contradicts freedom (and dignity). He has no reason for declaring naturalism to be true; he is just forced to say so.

Basic assumptions about human nature lead most deniers to distinguish man from the animals. Or as Aristotle would express it: higher up the "scale of being."

Take funerals to illustrate our inherent sense of dignity. In the Shanidar cave in Iraq, what evolutions claim as "Neanderthal" skeletons have been discovered with a characteristic layer of pollen, which suggests that they buried the dead with gifts of flowers. Even the far left wiki claims, "This has been interpreted as suggesting that Neanderthals believed in an afterlife." So even with evolutionary assumptions, anthropologists acknowledge the idea of human dignity.

Laws in courts is yet another example of the human race's assertion of dignity. Our entire legal system shows our inner realization of human dignity. Is that so within the entire animal kingdom? Lions, for instance, have been known to sniff their dead relatives then consume them.

Respect for the dead as evidenced in funerals and memorials is a distinctly human experience lacking any correspondence to animal activities.

If we are merely advanced animals, why can't we discover any primitive behavior in the animal response to death that "evolved" into our more advanced ceremonies? Certainly funerals have no survival benefit for the species of homo sapiens, as per evolutionary views of animal instincts. Rather funerals point to our sense of dignity and recognition of our personal values, which are wholly lacking in animals.

Idolatrous deniers cannot account for Human dignity.

Bahnsen also made me chuckle as he explained about these extreme environmentalists (tree hungers) who claim respect for all life. "They care for the environment and are kind to all living things. But if that were true then even being a vegetarian wouldn't make sense, for what of the dignity of carrots?"

What dignity, in a materialists worldview, inheres in a collection of DNA strands?

"No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life" claims William Provine, his atheist worldview comes clearly to expression in this statement and certainly precludes any justification of human dignity.

Evolutionist J.W Burrow wrote the intro for a new edition of "The Origin of Species: "Nature, according to Darwin, was the product of blind chance and a blind struggle, and man a lonely, intelligent mutation, scrambling with the brutes for his sustenance."

Bahnsen says "Dignity does not rest on anything in the evolutionary Universe. It defies the law of gravity, so to speak, and just hangs there-if it is affirmed at all. As it has been put, an atheist is someone with no invisible means of support. At best, dignity is simply a human convention. And when affirmed, it becomes a contradiction in the unbeliever's worldview."

The Christian view of man's dignity is affirmed in our Declaration of Independence.


bit.ly/Dignity

2012 Possible Future Scenario?

Thanks to G, I watched this logical possibility of our future presented by Chris White.

Will it be like the Dani'El situation, or will it really happen? Once again, only time will tell. If the Atheists are aware and recognize things as it is happening then maybe, just maybe, they too will be persecuted as Christians. Nothing would make me happier because that would mean that the current atheists that I know will not be deceived by the deceiver and will be saved. Hallelujah!



Mark 13:32-37 "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.

For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.

Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:

Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.

And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch."

All of this would not, and could not, happen if everyone just kept the oath of the Constitution they took. Are you an Oath Keeper?

For a list of the orders you are not to follow [read this]

You Want A Revolution?

You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We'd all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We'd all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me ...
Don't you know it's gonna be alright

You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all want to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're all doing what we can
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you'll have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright [x4]

You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We'd all love to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be alright [x3]
Alright [x7]

Is Everyone A Creationist?

Answers magazine alerted me to an article named:

Humans may be primed to believe in creation

The article is a study of how people think about nature in relation to the Bible claims. (Romans 1:20)



"Researchers showed people a series of statements about nature and asked if they agree or disagreed.

Each statement implied a beneficial purpose behind what we see. As an example "The earth has an ozone layer in order to protect it from UV rays."

People tend to agree. But if nature has no Creator, then these statements would be false. If the ozone layer, for example, resulted from natural processes, then the earth's features could not be designed to protect it(us)."

Bonus points: See if you can find all the presuppositional statements in the "primed to believe" article, from the writer Ewen Callaway.

As an example, a claim of the "primed to believe" article states. "It might turn out that if you put Richard Dawkins or Einstein or whomever [to the test], no matter how expert or educated they are, they might still make these mistakes." (emphasis added)

Certainly it isn't a mistake, unless you have presuppositions of an atheistic evolutionary materialism worldview. The creation of the world are clearly seen, it is just natural to view things with designed purpose. You would have to be indoctrinated and and brainwashed to think a different, unnatural way. Keep in mind that even Dawkins claimed that "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

I suspect the article may be a bullhorn to the Scientific community to alert them of future studies by Kelemen. They do not want to be embarrassed by any results that confer with the original findings.

The article said, "Indeed, Kelemen is running similar experiments on volunteers with stronger science backgrounds to see if they, too, fall back on such childlike reasoning." (emphasis added)

In other words, Hey, they will be doing the same test on some of us. Alert, alert!! Make the results fit what we believe!!

Forced or skewed results are indeed, unnatural. Dad would call it "creative accounting." The ironic thing is that this type of bias is from a writer from New Scientist. Such irony in this type of zero neutrality reporting.

Maybe "biased" is the new Scientist. So much for objectivity. Shame on you Ewen Callaway, you get to wear the hat for today.

Update: For the record this Ewen Callaway douche presupposes eliminative materialism or, in other words, reductionism-or unjustified imperialism.

bit.ly/Romans120

Uniform Universe?

How do we know assuredly that the universe is in fact uniform?

"We are wanting the laws of the universe to be such that we can understand them, but there is no reason offered as to why the universe should be like this." (Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity)

If I set out to argue the uniformity of the universe because I can predict cause and effect, am I not presupposing the uniformity and validity of my experience? Cause and effect is accurate reflection of what really happens?

Since man cannot know everything he must assume or presuppose uniformity and think and act on this very basic assumption.

Consequently the principles of uniformity is not scientific law but an act of faith which undergirds scientific law. This, adherence to the principle of uniformity-though absolutely essential to science and scientific method- is an intrinsically religious commitment.

Unfortunately for the non-Christian cosmology, chance involves randomness and unpredictability. The unbelieving worldview requires faith in miracles, yet without a reason for those miracles. Life arises from non-life. Intelligence from non-intelligence. Morality from that which is a-moral. These are faith claims for explaining our world and how it came to be.

The uniformity of nature is perfectly compatible, however, with the Christian worldview. The absolute, all-creating, sovereignly-governing God reveals to us in Scripture that we can count on regularities in the natural world.

(Ephesians 1:11, Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:3)

We just have to keep asking "Which worldview makes sense of universals and the laws of logic?"

Can an Atheist justify the laws of logic in his chance universe? Especially a chance universe conceived naturalistically as involving only material things? Once he tries to justify universals and the laws of logic, he steps out of his worldview and into ours. His presuppositions cannot sustain his worldview and cannot account for universals.

**Entirely from [Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Pushing the Antithesis]

bit.ly/UniformUniverse

You Wonder Why We Home School?

Thank you Vince



Reason #4567 - Indoctrination

Patty pointed out, "They’re teaching plagiarism, too! I heard a lyric from Jesus Loves the Little Children in there...

They say “red, yellow, black or white are all equal in his sight”

"Jesus loves the little children
All the children of the world
Red and yellow, black and white,
All are precious in His sight.
Jesus loves the little children of the world"

So it is completely off limits to sing a song about Jesus or God but it is fully acceptable to worship a man, as long it is not God. Even sing the same songs and replace Jesus or God with [whatever you worship, other then the Creator]. Worship is worship and they have violated their own rules. Hypocrisy!! We all know what the truth is. Worship anything other then God himself.

Alex Jones said "The idea of kids being forced to worship Obama in schools across America is no longer just a chilling example of Maoist style political brainwashing – children are literally being trained to religiously worship Obama via adapted versions of Christian hymns!"

Speaking of Home School. My daughter found another good homeschooling resource - Brain Games

When Evidence Confirms The Bible

A while ago Science admitted that an Asteroid Destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah but as we know The Bible already told us about it and said it was God Himself that destroyed the wicked cites. It also made me think that scientists and researchers are searching for God, secretly, while we are not looking. These days many are explaining that the "evidence" that corresponds to the Bible is merely circumstantial evidence or coincidental.

Interesting though, you can send a man to prison on circumstantial evidence but it may be not enough to convince people about God. I understand that evidence is not faith, and we shouldn't look to science to find God. We need to, as instructed to us by God Himself, trust based on the current evidence. I can wonder though.

What will atheists do when science does find undeniable evidence that agrees with the Bibles claims? Will they believe in that "smoking gun" that the Bible is actually a historical narrative to be understood plainly? Will nonbelievers believe that God exists and created the Universe, as the Bible says, or would they still hold on and 'believe' in Neo-Darwinian evolution or metaphysical naturalism? I guess I am just wondering what would it take, if anything? I suppose even if Neo-Darwinian evolution completely falls apart as a theory, Atheists would still claim that God of the Bible, though historically accurate, may not be the God that Created the Universe. Right?

What if Dani'El is right? Would that convince anyone to repent and trust God? Would you just consider him just another crazy Christan that just happen to predict something, somehow?

ICR said: "We are warned that friendship with the worldly lifestyle and that which espouses the "things" of the world, makes us an "enemy of God" (James 4:4). That is because such people embrace the "spirit of the world" and not "the spirit which is of God" (1 Corinthians 2:12). Those people speak about the things of the world, and the world listens to them (1 John 4:5).


God's people may be "base" and "weak"--even "foolish" in the eyes of the world (1 Corinthians 1:27-28). Since the great Creator God has chosen us out of the world (John 15:19), it should not surprise us that the world "hates" those who belong to the Lord Jesus (John 17:14). Hence, the ungodly passions that drive the ungodly behavior of the world, "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world" (1 John 2:16).

Those passions and the people who embrace them will "pass away." (Sodom and Gomorrah) But "he that doeth the will of God abideth forever" (1 John 2:17)."

What if Dani'El is right? Would that change the hearts of any? What if the Prophecies of the Bible started to happen? Would that even be enough evidence to convince a hardened Atheist that the end may be near? Dani'El admits that he is not predicting or prophesying the end of the world, but the destruction of a wicked city like Sodom and Gomorrah, as God has done so many times in the past. For Dani'El's sake I hope he is right as he continues his walk with God, and for all of our sake here in California I hope Dani'El is wrong. Either way, God will be glorified.

I wonder what would it take to change such strong presuppositions that there is no God? Would even impending doom suffice? I would venture to guess, probably not.

Pledge of Allegiance

Self Aware

Many Atheists here like to debate and converse with me. I enjoy it a great deal myself. We have a common enjoyment, to communicate with others. But where does that come from? My question to the Atheist is, do you agree that you are self aware?

The fact that you are talking and debating others assumes your own self-awareness whereby you know yourself, recognize that you live in an environment involving other self-aware humans, and sees value in communication, conversation, and debate between equally self-aware beings. If you didn't you would be admitting that conversing on the existence of God, or any subject whatsoever, would be meaningless.

My next question to you is how do you account for human self-awareness as a fundamental factor of life? Where does it come from? How is it that man is self-aware? Without presupposing God, your worldview is ultimately committed to chance. From the perspective of your worldview, the universe was self-created by chance and is self-diversifying by chance.

In such a naturalistic, materialistic conception of the universe, all must be accounted for in terms of the material interaction of atoms. With that worldview, it forces us to view ourselves as simply matter-in-motion. How can matter be self-aware? Are rocks self aware? Trees? Hammers? In fact, what view of the world makes self-awareness intelligible? Slime is certainly not self-aware, which eventually becomes rational, which eventually becomes moral-and all by the evolutionary mechanism of time plus chance?

In my worldview the personal, sovereign God of Scripture created all things and gave them their properties. He created man in His image, thereby establishing personality and self awareness in us. At the very beginning God communicated with man, speaking intelligently to His rational, self-aware creature (Genesis 1:28-29) and gave him commandments (Genesis 1:28,2:16-17). Consequently, self-awareness and personality are not problems for my, Christian, worldview.

My point is that the very self-awareness of you, even as an idolatrous denier, is evidence for the existence of God due to the impossibility of the contrary.

There are serious internal problems with your worldview. Because of your opposition to the absolute God of Scripture, you must account for reality in some other way then by a personal, rational, sovereign Creator. Simply that your rational is built upon the irrational.

**Of course this argument was taken from the late Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen.

Children in Hell?

A new Atheist came to me and started to ask some questions. I am very pleased that Atheists do this because it may mean they are still searching for the truth.

I welcome all questions and will do my best to answer any inquiries about God, faith, Christianity, or my beliefs. Just please be serious about these questions. Don't seek to trip me up, seek the knowledge that there possibly is a God and you may have missed something important.

TimAtheist asked: I am glad that you do not take well to saying that young children are not to be held responsible. However, does your religion agree with you?

Yes completely. God is not the evil overlord that many believe He is. God is not "an evil tyrant Who condemns innocent children to eternal destruction." He is kind, loving, and just that knows all things. His righteousness is more then we could ever imagine. God would not arbitrarily send children to hell, just because they are too young. In fact, children go to Heaven.

I found an article written by our friend Kyle Butt, M.A. that makes the case. He wrote:

"In 2 Samuel 12, King David's newborn son fell terminally ill. After seven days, the child died. In verses 22 and 23, the Bible records that David said: "While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?' But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

It is clear that David's dead infant son would never return to this Earth, but David also said that one day, he would go to be with his son. Through inspiration, David documented that his own eternal destination was going to be " in the house of the Lord" (Psalm 23:6). Therefore, we can conclude that "the house of the Lord" would be the eternal destination of his infant son to whom David would one day go. King David was looking forward to the day when he would be able to meet his son in heaven. Absolutely nothing in this context gives any hint that the dead infant son's soul would go to hell."

He also added:

Matthew 18:3-5 "And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me."

Luke 18:16-17 "But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."

TimAtheist also said: "I hear that a very common teaching is that we immediately inherit Adam's sin, that we are born into a "sin nature."

In that same article Butt shows that children do not “inherit” the sins of their parents. Butt writes:

"In Ezekiel 18:20, the Bible says: "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son." Also, in Exodus 32, Moses pleaded with God to forgive the sins of the Israelites when he said: "Yet now, if You will forgive their sin—but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written. And the Lord said to Moses, 'Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book' (Exodus 32:32-33). The Bible is plain in its teaching that babies do not inherit the sins of their parents. One commonly misapplied scripture used to teach that infants inherit sin is Psalm 51:5-6, which has been dealt with in detail by Wayne Jackson (2000)"

Butt concludes: "Therefore, we have been given a specific example in the Old Testament of an infant who died and would live forever in heaven. And Jesus Christ Himself, in the New Testament, stated that little children retain the qualities that make a person eligible to inherit the kingdom of God. We see, then, that infants and small children that die are in a safe state, and will live eternally in heaven."

Steven Curtis Chapman just wrote a brand new song about his daughter that he lost because of a very unfortunate accident. God gives us hope, not despair, children go to Heaven. (Revelation 21:4)



Bit.ly/Childhell