December 18, 2009

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?

December 1, 2009

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.

November 27, 2009

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.

November 16, 2009

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

November 15, 2009

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

November 1, 2009

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

October 31, 2009

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

October 22, 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.

October 17, 2009

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]

October 9, 2009

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]

October 7, 2009

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.

September 29, 2009

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]

September 24, 2009

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

September 22, 2009

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.

September 11, 2009

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.

September 10, 2009

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)

September 4, 2009

Atheism is Dead, Literally

For your entertainment and viewing pleasure, the host of Atheism is Dead sent these to me.

September 1, 2009

Billy Ray Fail!

It is final, we are not allowing anything Miley Cyrus in our house.

We suspected her worldly ways with her revealing and tasteless pictures that she took, then the poor decision to allow those Vanity Fair pictures go to print, now to the recent Pole Dance routine, she is out.

It is perfectly understandable. If you allow such worldly things into your home, and even encouraged, these results are to be expected.

I guess Billy Ray is forgetting that very wise advice that Chris Rock gave.

"My only job in life is to keep her off the pole."

(strong language alert)

We all know that nothing good comes from that Pole.

"Christians should not be a thermometers that merely record and reflect the temperature of popular opinion.

Christians should be like thermostats, responsible for transforming and setting the temperature or standards of society" ~Martin Luther King, Jr.

Update on theory confirmed 
What I can read, from one article, she was never spanked but just grounded. Our prayers go out to the false convert called Miley, and hope she understands Christianity...someday soon.

Thank God, Free at last!

Update: My theory held true, not a Christian yet. Some false converts cover well, this one didn't. She's now leaving America to go be British? Yikes, bad decisions galore. You failed her Billy Ray. She's still an Antichrist.

Gmail Down?

Yes, It is either the end of civilization as we know it or it happens. I just learned that users can access their email via IMAP or POP still if they set it up using Outlook or something else. I choose to wait, my comments may be delayed.

I made a link to check the status, for future reference.

What do I do now? Time to go play outside with the kids!

August 23, 2009

Should We?

I just wanted to point out the "should we" links that I have added to the side bar.

I do not claim to know all things in the Bible and these are some of the subjects that have come up in conversations that I have had. I place these things here fully understanding that these links follow my own presuppositions on the subjects.

Plus, it doesn't need mentioning, but these are placed here with the presupposition that the Bible is the ultimate authority to which we guide our lives with.

With that in mind, under those terms, can you debunk these claims...Biblically that is?

Should we Eat Unclean Foods?

Should we Gamble?

Should (can) we Smoke or is it a Sin?

Should we Spank our Children?

August 21, 2009

Orwellian Days Are Indeed Here

I just read Frederick Meekins Part 2 of his piece called "A Christian Analysis Of Atheism"

Please enjoy reading PART 1. (Stop the distracting Dr. Who music at the bottom of the article first.)

Then if you haven't had enough, dare to read PART 2.

I am interested in the responses of atheists. Any takers?

August 6, 2009

The Faith of the Atheist

Click on the video "The Faith of the Atheist" to hear some familiar arguments that I have made in the past. Mitchell sure can say it better, in an entertaining way, though. Stick around afterward and click on the other videos because they may help you understand a different perspective of current situations. I do like this guy, if you haven't guessed.

p.s. I am tearing my computer down for a period of time, I will return after I reassemble it. Patience is a virtue. For the Atheists, a virtue is defined as the quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong. No? We follow a standard that is not a completely arbitrary moral system. No? "Christianity offers a cohesive worldview whereby we do have an objective standard so when somebody tortures you; rapes you; kills you; we can say, No, that is wrong. It's not just personal preference, it's objectively wrong." Understand? No?

August 5, 2009


I went searching to see what else Simmons (from the last video) has on his Youtube channel and stumbled across these videos. You know me, I cannot pass up a refutation on evolution. So when I saw this title I just had to post it...enjoy.

July 31, 2009

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.

July 21, 2009

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.

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

Jefferson on the other hand....


(1) Glen Tucker, Dawn Like Thunder: The Barbary Wars and the Birth of the U. S. Navy (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1963), p. 127.
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

fail owned pwned pictures
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.

July 19, 2009

30,000 visitors today!

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

July 14, 2009

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

July 13, 2009

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?

July 6, 2009

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.

July 3, 2009

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.


June 29, 2009

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.

June 26, 2009

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.

June 25, 2009

'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."

June 24, 2009

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.