February 28, 2009

Absolute Authority

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

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

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

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

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

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


February 27, 2009

Christians are Misogynistic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How did God treat women? Remember story of Esther?

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

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

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

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

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



February 26, 2009

Woman Boss?

Women as bosses in the workplace are great. They know what they want, they understand how to persuade people. They battle for the right things and are, for the most part, ethically sound. They fit into the role quite well. Sometimes it's they're company, CEOs & Owners.

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

Personally my own wife is an accomplished Lead Graphic Designer and won, or helped win, 18 advertising awards and a television award. We made an agreement that whoever can earn the most money would work, the other would raise the children. I lost, now I am homeschooling our four, soon to be five, kids and wouldn't trade it for any amount of career money. It took a couple of months to later realize that I actually won the deal.

Even if I am still head of the house, she still submits to my authority as head of the house, I hold my wife elevated with respect and love. The gift she gave me that allowed me to truly enjoy my children is greatly appreciated. We still hold our roles Biblically though.

It all started with Eve. When Eve disobeyed God by transgressing His Law She brought things onto herself. (1 Timothy 2:14) She basically put "self" as her god. Eve placed God on trial as a criminal. She listened to God. She listened to Satan and weighed the two. Adam followed Eve instead of God. Autonomy was the oldest sin.

Now look at these two verses
(Genesis 3:16; Genesis 4:6-7)
See the similarities?

In referencing the woman: "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

In referencing sin: "And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him"

Metaphorically, the temptation of sin wants to have control over, or consume, Cain, and it did. By nature, because of the fall, the woman will seek to rule over the husband. Also, because of the fall, there is a natural tension that takes place in the family and there is a struggle for headship. "Woman wears the pants in the family" is a result of the curse. We are to resist sin and control from the woman.

So the Women desire to rule over men, because of the fall, falls naturally into the position of authority, because of her desires. This is why, I believe, that desire was so great they burned their bras and protested in the recent past to increase their role in the workplace. In a Holy setting though (Church, Government, Family) we are not to allow the woman to usurp that authority.

Don't stop here though, now go read bit.ly/misogynistic for a complete thought on Women and their role with God.


February 25, 2009

Darwin Day Debate- Dan Barker and Kyle Butt

Since, debating seems to be happening quite often here, I guess that can even be debated, I have an eye out for good debates and I found a few. Until the Comfort/Dawkins debate comes to fruition we will have to settle on what is already out there. This one is a debate between an Atheist Dan Barker and a Christian Kyle Butt. Due to the location of the videos, to watch the "next clip" you will have to click below and be redirected to the original location.

Next Clip

If you prefer the Mp3 of the Debate our friend Brian was able to locate it. You can either click on the photo or go to his blog called Apologetics 315.

February 24, 2009

False Religions

OK the picture has nothing to do with this post but I liked it, so up it went.

Some Atheists try to claim the validity of other religions and other books (as if they are even on an equal plane), so let me attempt to show you the difference.

The Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon is contradictory to the Bible and claims cohesiveness. There is a fine example of law of non-contradiction right there.

Some quoted examples:

Joseph Smith: "In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 5).

Brigham Young: "There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it . . . " (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, page 247; see also, Vol. 4, pp. 53-54, 219-220.)

Brigham Young: "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269).

Also, "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266).

Which is in direct contradiction to the Bible. Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5-6, Mark 10:8, 1 Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 5:31, 1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:12, Titus 1:6

Who do you trust Man or God?

Brigham Young: "I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 264; see also page 95.)

Mormonism teaches that it is the true church, that God used to be a man that lives on a planet called Kolob, that he has a goddess wife, and that you have the potential of becoming a god. In the heavens, god and his goddess wife produced offspring. The first born was Jesus then we were all born as spirit children in heaven afterwards. We then inhabited human bodies at birth. Is that anything close to what the Bible says? Nope. False religion.

How about the Qur’an?

John Rhue said: "Koran is unchanged. It is the revelation. It can never be changed."

The Bible was penned by over 40 different authors, from 1500 B.C. to about A.D. 100, on three continents, and in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. These men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). They wrote not in words of human wisdom, but in words taught by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13).

The Qur’an, on the other hand, was written approximately 600 AD, nearly 300 years after the Bible was compiled in its current form. The Qur'an was written by individuals familiar with both the Bible and the Torah. (Something borrowed, something blue.......) but from what I understand the Qur'an was written after Muhammad's death. There were many versions floating around. The third Caliphate (Caliph Uthman) had all existing versions gathered and burned. He has his scholars rewrite the Qur’an to his liking. Then he distributed his new version. This is the version of the Qur’an that exists as the ‘original’ today. But he could of burned the wrong version and no one knows if the QUr'an is the correct version today. If it is not of God then it is of the Devil and we can all agree that Islam is demonic. Just click on the link that has the number of Islamic terrorist attacks on this blog to find out more.

Qur’an claims to be the succession to the Bible and the Bible is truth. Surat Al-Baqarah 2:136 states the Bible is true. Qur'an states the Bible is truth, that none can alter the words of God (Surat Al-'An`ām 6:34) and if the Bible is truth the Qur'an is certainly false.

Besides the Bible being supernatural, the Bible has some 300 prophecies that came true that are provable by history. 135 prophecies came true in Daniel alone. From the beginning even as far back as Genesis 3:15 the Bible speaks of Jesus. Read Isaiah 53:1-12 and you will see that it was written about Jesus and was written almost 700 years before Christ was even born. Not the Qur’an or any other book in the world can prophecy even once like the Bible did 300 times and that is evidence that it was written by God.

CARM adds: "The Bible was penned by over 40 different authors, from 1500 B.C. to about A.D. 100, on three continents, and in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. These men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). They wrote not in words of human wisdom, but in words taught by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13)."

It is quite obvious that these, as well as all other religions, do not compare to Christianity and the only Salvation we could have is through Christianity alone.


February 23, 2009

Confident Christianity

In reading things about Mary Jo Sharp, I noticed many links on her facebook page that I wanted to examine more. So as a convenience to myself, and hopefully a great resource to all of you, I am posting them for future reading.



http://www.problemofevil.blogspot.com (debate with John Loftus)
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org (Rock Star)
Interpreting ancient manuscripts

February 21, 2009

Crisis of Credit Visualized

Josh showed me something interesting. This has nothing to do with DA but I liked it so much I wanted to share. Maybe I can relate it to how mankind is burying themselves with always doing the wrong things, especially when it comes to money. The righteous will prevail because God designed the universe that way.

Without Christ who is righteous? ...no one. (Romans 5:19, 1 John 2:29)

February 16, 2009

The Privileged Planet Hijacked

We were given the ability to observe, study and carry out experiments in order to gain a better understanding of our environment, our future, ourselves, and God. Unfortunately the Lab Coatauthoritarians have hijacked out system for study. We must take back the process to discover our environment. Seek God and you will find the truth, seek truth and you will find God.

The presuppositions of the secular scientific community are obvious and sad when faced with truth. They will twist the truth to fit their belief structure no matter how contorted the truth looks afterwords.

The Privileged Planet has a beautiful and compelling argument why we are exactly here, in this exact spot, for the exact reason to be able to study our universe. Imagine the odds? (Acts 17:24-26,Psalm 115:16,1 Corinthians 15:41)

February 12, 2009

Lying for Science?

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." (2 Peter 2:1)

Speaking of Ray, I guess I should add this link also.

I was going to write an article/theory explaining about Darwin losing his Mom very early in life and then losing his three children (two as infants and one at age 10), thus possibly grudging against God, yada yada yada. But I have changed my mind. I am so fed up with the lying for science that is going on these days, I though I would just let things implode within itself. Instead, with minimal effort on my part, I will post a previous article about this day and hope that people will come to their senses. Since evilution has been exposed for what it is...a lie.

The Gospel According to Darwin

"There is scant reporting on the anti-religious zeal with which many atheists promote Darwinism.

February 12 used to be known in classrooms across the nation as Abraham Lincoln’s birthday. But over the last decade, an increasing number of schools and community groups have decided to celebrate the birthday of the father of evolution instead.

The movement to establish February 12 as “Darwin Day” seems to be spreading, promoted by a evangelistic non-profit group with its own website (www.darwinday.org) and an ambitious agenda to create a “global celebration in 2009, the bicentennial of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origins of Species.”

Darwin Day celebrations provide an eye-opening glimpse into the world of grassroots Darwinian fundamentalism, an alternate reality where atheism is the conventional wisdom and where traditional religious believers are viewed with suspicion if not paranoia.

Promoters of Darwin Day deny that their activities are anti-religious, but their denial is hard to square with reality.

According to the Darwin Day website, the movement’s inspiration was an event sponsored by the Stanford Humanists and the Humanist Community in 1995. Since then the honor roll of groups sponsoring Darwin Day events has been top-heavy with organizations bearing such names as the “Long Island Secular Humanists,” the “Atheists and Agnostics of Wisconsin,” the “Gay and Lesbian Atheists and Humanists,” the “Humanists of Idaho,” the “Southeast Michigan Chapter of Freedom from Religion Foundation,” and the “San Francisco Atheists.” The last group puts on an annual festival called “Evolutionpalooza” featuring a Darwin impersonator and an evolution game show (“Evolutionary!”).

Given such sponsors, it should be no surprise that Darwin Day events often explicitly attack religion. At a high school in New York a few years ago, students wore shirts emblazoned with messages proclaiming that “no religious dogmas [were] keeping them from believing what they want to believe,” while in California a group named “Students for Science and Skepticism” hosted a lecture at the University of California, Irvine, on the topic “Darwin’s Greatest Discovery: Design without a Designer.” This year in Boston there is an event on “Biological Arguments Against the Existence of God.”

A musical group calling itself “Scientific Gospel Productions,” meanwhile, mocks gospel music by holding annual Darwin Day concerts featuring such songs as “Ain’t Gonna Be No Judgment Day,” the “Virgin of Spumoni” (satirizing the Virgin Mary), and my favorite, “Randomness Is Good Enough for Me,” the lyrics of which proclaim: “Randomness is good enough for me./ If there’s no design it means I’m free./ You can pray to go to heaven./ I’m gonna try to roll a seven./ Randomness is good enough for me.” The same group’s website offers for sale a CD titled “Hallelujah! Evolution!”

The original “honorary president” of Darwin Day was biologist Richard Dawkins, author most recently of The God Delusion. Dawkins is best known for such pearls of wisdom as “faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate,” and “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

The Darwin Day group’s current advisory board includes not only Dawkins but Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (an original signer of the “Humanist Manifesto III”), philosopher Daniel Dennett (who praises Darwinism as the “universal acid” that eats away traditional religion and morality), and Scientific American columnist Michael Shermer (an atheist who writes that “Science Is My Savior” because it helped free him from “the stultifying dogma of a 2,000-year-old religion”).

Perhaps in an effort to revise the image of Darwin Day as merely a holiday for atheists, last year a professor from Wisconsin urged churches to celebrate “Evolution Sunday” on or near Darwin Day. But the fact that some liberal churches have now been enlisted to spread the Darwinist gospel cannot cover up the anti-religious fervor that pervades the Darwinist subculture.

Darwin Day celebrations are fascinating because they expose a side of the controversy over evolution in America that is rarely covered by the mainstream media. Although journalists routinely write about the presumed religious motives of anyone critical of unguided evolution, they almost never discuss the anti-religious mindset that motivates many of evolution’s staunchest defenders.

On the few occasions when the anti-religious agenda of someone like Dawkins is even raised, it is usually downplayed as unrepresentative of most Darwinists.

What Darwin Day shows, however, is just how ordinary the anti-religious views expressed by Dawkins are among grassroots Darwinists. Far from being on the fringe, Dawkins’ views form the ideological core of mainstream Darwinism.

Not that this should come as a shock. According to a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95 percent of NAS biologists are atheists or agnostics. A look at the major critics of the theory of intelligent design reveals similar views. Barbara Forrest, co-author of the anti-intelligent design harangue Creationism’s Trojan Horse, is a long-time activist and board member with a group calling itself the “New Orleans Secular Humanist Association,” although she fails to disclose that fact in her book, and reporters studiously avoid asking her about her own religious beliefs.

The anti-religious outlook of many of Darwin’s chief boosters exposes the hypocrisy in current discussions over Darwin’s theory. The usual complaint raised against scientists who are skeptical of Darwin’s theory is that many of them (like the vast majority of Americans) happen to believe in God. It is insinuated that this fact somehow undermines the validity of their scientific views. Yet, at the same time, defenders of Darwinism insist that their own rejection of religion is irrelevant to the validity of their scientific views—and most reporters seem to agree.

Of course, in an important sense these defenders of Darwinism are right. Just because leading Darwinists are avowed atheists or agnostics does not mean that their scientific beliefs about evolution are wrong. Scientific propositions should be debated based on their evidence, not on the metaphysical beliefs of those who espouse them.

But if Darwinists have the right to be debated based on evidence, not motives, then scientists who are supportive of alternatives to Darwin’s theory such as intelligent design should have the right to expect the same treatment.

If Darwin Day helps expose the blatant double standard about religious motives operating in the current evolution debate, then its evangelistic boosters will have performed an invaluable public service—however unintentionally."

—John G. West author of Darwin’s Conservatives: The Misguided Quest.

February 9, 2009

Labcoat Authoritarians

Speaking of Labcoat Authoritarians AKA Liars for Science, John Cleese is clueless in a funny but very sad way.

Dr. David Berlinski is right, I think it's time to go after these so called Labcoat Authoritarians.



Trying to demonize science merely trivializes your faith based worldview. You should know better than this. Science is science

Nice try to misrepresent my position. Get this straight once and for all. I LOVE SCIENCE!!!

What I don't like is the presuppositions and biased for a god that the SECULAR scientists have, called naturalism. They are trying to strangle hold simple common sense and hijack our educational system to teach false things. The Secular Scientists are liars for science. They do not represent the objectivity of science, they represent the common subjectivity of man hence the name Labcoat Authoritarians.


February 8, 2009

Who was the Rich Man?

In discussing Luke 16:19-31, I heard a viewpoint that was compelling and though I would share from WotM.

Most people think the rich man is just a rich dude in hell for not feeding Lazerath. Is it a picture of the way to salvation? If so, it's totally inconsistent with every other Biblical reference to deliverance from death. The symbolism the author is making is very important.

First, why did the rich man end up in hell? What was his sin? Obviously, it was his failure to feed Lazarus. If that is the case, then he could have earned salvation. If a non-Christian wanted to earn his way into Heaven, should he then give food to the homeless? How much food would merit eternal life? No since salvation is "by grace through faith,... not of works"(Ephesians 2:8-9), the rich man's sin could could not have been a mere failure to give Lazarus free food.

On the other hand, what did Lazarus do to merit salvation? Did suffering in the life appease the wrath of God and gain him entrance? If so let us seek suffering instead of the Savior.

If this is a picture of the way of salvation, then Eternal Justice can be perverted, God can be bribed, and the sacrifice of the wicked is not an abomination to the Lord.

The story , therefore, MUST have another meaning .

So who is the rich man? Let's establish several principles of Biblical interpretation that will unlock the meaning of the story.

1. Purple is the Biblical color of royalty (Esther 8:15)
2. Fine linen represents the righteousness of the saints (Rev 19:8)
3. The Church is referred to as the "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9)
4. The tabernacle was made of fine linen and purple (Exodus 26:1)

I believe the rich man is a type of professing Church, and the leper (Lazarus) is a type of 'the sinner'.

The rich man's thoughts are only for himself. He is filled with his own ways. We have built for ourselves big beautiful buildings with cool clear acoustics and colorful carpets, as cozy Christians we sit on padded pews, living in luxury while sinners sink into Hell. We say that we are rich, but we are poor, blind, wretched, miserable, and naked. We have lavish luxury on the lifeboat, while mass people drown around us.


February 5, 2009

Push Towards Governmental Atheism and Socialism

UPDATE: Maybe I should add something else to make my point clearer. Although this video was made by a man that does not believe in God, we do share the same beliefs about our current government.

Karl Marx, in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution and would represent the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

From the words of Dr. Cornelius Van Til, "Believers themselves have not chosen the Christian position because they are wiser then others. What they have they have by grace alone. But this does not mean that they accept the problematics of fallen man as right...Fallen man does in principle seek to be a law unto himself. But he cannot carry our his own principle to its full degree. He is restrained from doing so...In spite of what he does against God, he can and must work for God; thus he is able to make a "positive contribution" to human culture. (A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 1969 pp. 43-44)