Truly Saved, Finally!

Bart: "I have done that in my past with sincerity and there was no revelation of the existence of God. So where do you search for God?"

It begins in His Word. (John 14:21)

Now, I don't know you at all. So this is me sharing what I have observed and helped this hypothesis of mine.

There is something I noticed with many atheists, proclaiming Christians and false converts. They have one thing in common and this might have been you. It was me for many years, dare I even say 15 years, I thought I was a Christian. I received the word as many false converts with pure gladness. I was so happy to be(come) a Christian I went to church and volunteered and was very involved. The entire time I was false, sinned occasionally but that was OK, God was so forgiving. He wouldn't care, for example, that I went out Fridays to the clubs with the intention to fornicate. He loves me and I love Him. Happy, happy, joy, joy!

Flash ahead to a real dark place I was in. It was then I realized that I actually was a false convert all those years, that I was playing a Christian. Once I realized that fact, I was frozen. I was shaken to my core and I was actually afraid of God, the real kind of fear. (Proverbs 1:7; Proverbs 9:10)

I was a mess, broken, spent, and truly lost all over again. God allowed me to realize what a wretch I truly am. I approached God again but this time a very fragile, crushed, and a broken man. (Psalm 34:18;Psalm 51:17)

Words will never do the experience justice. An indication that I look for now a days isn't the happy story of becoming a Christian, its the dark and broken heart that I look for.

The other day I read something I could relate to:

"God never clothes men until He has first stripped them, nor does He quicken them by the gospel till first they are slain by the Law. When you meet with persons in whom there is no trace of conviction of sin, you may be quite sure that they have not been wrought upon by the Holy Spirit; for 'when He is come, He will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.'" (Charles Spurgeon)

Science would have a hard time measuring the evidence that I now have in referenced to God. I am here to tell you that these days I know God exists and he has saved me once and for all and my name is actually written in the book of life and I am in awe daily because of it.

Thoughts are immaterial, emotions are immaterial, the mind is immaterial, none of them can be seen or observed, the lover experiencing the feelings of love to his loved one, they cannot be proven by science, only the lover can know that feeling that they are experiencing.

They are all immaterial just like the laws of logic, yet we do not question their existence just because we do not see them.

Once you experience God (and his love) it will be impossible to go backwards. You are changed, you are born again. Any truly saved Christian will tell you this. Just a mere 2-3 years ago I was saved and I experienced God.

If you want a good example of how a man responds to being soundly saved listen to Paul Washer's testimony

Scientific Explanation?

I liked what D’Souza said about atheists trying to establish science as the the only source of truth and access to reality. They go far as to claim that everything outside of science is irrelevant and even absurd. It's this same philosophy that has totally infiltrated our school systems.

Science, indeed, gives us pretty good explanation as to how things work. Science though, give explanations at one level while ignoring explanations on another level.

For example, there is a pot of water on the stove. If someone to pose a question "Why is this water boiling?"

The scientific answer would go something like this: The water is boiling because the temperature is excess of a hundred degrees, when that happens it has an effect on the molecules, and those molecules begin to react in a certain way and that's why the water is boiling. And that is a perfectly good scientific explanation.

But here is another explanation as to why the water is boiling, Because Dan wants to have a cup of tea. That is an explanation on a different level then a scientific explanation and yet it is completely valid and moreover, the scientific explanation itself, would be incomprehensible if you didn't put into the context as to why the pot got on the stove in the first place, because Dan is trying to make himself some tea. That's why the set of events have been set into motion that cannot be described scientifically.

So what we illustrate by this example is the scientific explanation is true as far as it goes but it doesn't go all that far. It doesn't give a full account of the phenomenon at hand. When we are looking at the big questions that we face in life. Why do we have a universe? How did we get life out of non-life? Why do we have consciousness, morality?

What's the scientific explanation as to why we have a universe?

"We don't know the answer to that one."

What is the evolutionary or scientific explanation for how we got life, not how we got life form 'A' from life form 'B', but how we got life in the first place?

"We are working on that one we really don't know."

What about consciousness, if you think of human consciousness, you have all typed of living creatures, bacteria, amoebas and so on they are living, but they are not conscious, what is the evolutionary benefit to consciousness? Consciousness takes a lot out of us, a lot of the energy of the living animal is devoted to the brain and consciousness, why do we need it? What adaptive advantage does it confer?

"We have absolutely no idea."

So the point is, in some of these domains science is trying to figure it out and in other domains the question itself lies outside the boundaries of science. In both case the new atheist, in some sense, is trying to claim for science far more then science can actually deliver.

D’Souza goes on to say "Science is an attempt to understand the natural world in a natural way. Science then in that sense is restricted to natural explanations for natural phenomena. If a natural explanation is inadequate then science stops."

Atheists keep saying "you believe based on absolutely no evidence that there is an after life"

D’Souza responds "you believe based on absolutely no evidence that there is no after life."

No one has any scientific knowledge about whether there is an afterlife. Once we are at death the scientific explanation is at an end. There is no empirical test that we can perform that can tell us whether there is an afterlife , or not.

We both don't 'know' on the bases of faith. There is no scientific high horse that atheists can sit on.

Is there scientific proof of God?

No, because science is limited to the provinces of natural explanations. But there are things in science that can legitimately point beyond science to provinces of metaphysics.

For example, almost all of science is based upon the question that every effect has a cause. Science asks what is that cause. We have a material object, the Universe, and the universe has a beginning but the question is does it require a cause, if it has a cause is it a natural cause or a supernatural cause?

It turns out the natural cause is not a very good explanation because the universe itself includes all of nature so if your saying that nature had a natural cause you are almost saying that nature caused itself out of non-nature. There was once no nature and then nature produced nature itself? Seems far fetched.

One can draw legitimate and reasonable inferences out of Science that it is pointing to something bigger, A Creator. But I don't think there is any scientific proof in the sense."

Einstein Was Not An Atheist!

The History channel had a very interesting program about Einstein last night that shed some light on the man. I remembered Ray doing a section on Einstein, in the third season of the Way of the Master series, so I though I would share. We all should heed to the words of this very intelligent man, we should listen to Einstein also.

Belief System of Atheism

A Wake-up Call to Christians.

"Christianity is under attack over the world. In secular school, on television, on radio, in literature, etc., Christianity is increasingly insulted and dismissed as an antiquated philosophy." (CARM)

I just read an article that, admittedly, angered me slightly. We need to realize that atheists are trying to censor everyone that contradicts their belief system. In a sense, pushing their religion over others.

Granted this article is from Canada but if this trend/mindset continues we all will see a vast eradication of God and the new world order and the religion of atheism will rein. Do we really want to be the generation that allows this to happen?

Rob Breakenridge with the Calgary Herold writes:

What's turned this speech into a public controversy is the push by a group of atheists at the U of A to remove a line from the traditional convocation speech, which urges grads to use their degrees for "the glory of God and the honour of your country."

Breakenridge, biased in his beliefs, continues:

Moreover, if the atheists really were trying to "force their views" then they wouldn't be asking for words to be dropped from the speech, they'd be asking for words to be changed: "emptiness" instead of "glory", or something to that end.

Atheism is a belief -- specifically unbelief -- that is as deserving of protection under freedom of religion as any other belief.

This is pure garbage. If atheists believe in "no God" and they remove "God" (from the publics eye) they are indeed promoting one religion of "no God" or belief system over another. Here in the states Atheism is, in fact a religion, and I perfectly agree that they should be allowed to worship whomever they wish, even if it is themselves. The point of all this is to realize one fatal flaw with this subject and article.

Atheism is a belief in the denial of God. So if they get there wish and eradicate the word "God" in schools and government then their agenda of 'no God' wins! The new religion will be atheism throughout the lands. Taking out prayer in schools or not allowing "God" in science or public area's are all pushing the agenda and religion of Atheism.

Remember what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr said:

"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" (Thank God free at last!)

We are letting Doctor King and most of all, God, down. Unite, fight, and never give up proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

Who cares if atheists want us to bow to their god of self, like satanists (CoS). Their god of this world has already been defeated by our Lord Jesus Christ!

In our military USMJ: "899. ART. 99. 'MISBEHAVIOR BEFORE THE ENEMY,' the penalty of deserting your post during a war time situation is "death". If you haven't noticed, we are indeed in a spiritual war. (Ephesians 6:12)

So why are we bowing to the wishes of atheists? Does God want us to be PC or bold? (Hebrews 13:6) Is that what we are commanded to do by God? We are better then this (Ephesians 2:2), (1 John 4:4-6). We are to be soldiers in Christ, so please act accordingly! Never desert your post! Never cease!

Flames of Judgment

The story is told of pioneers who were making their way across one of the central states to a distant place that had been opened up for homesteading. They traveled in covered wagons drawn by oxen, and progress was necessarily slow.

One day they were horrified to note a long line of smoke in the west, stretching for miles across the prairie, and soon it was evident that the dried grass was burning fiercely and coming toward them rapidly.

They had crossed a river the day before, but it would be impossible to go back to that before the flames would be upon them. One man only seemed to have understanding as to what could be done. He gave the command to set fire to the grass behind them. Then, when a space was burned over, the whole company moved back upon it.

As the flames roared on toward them from the west, a little girl cried out in terror, "Are you sure we shall not all be burned up?" The leader replied, "My child, the flames cannot reach us here, for we are standing where the fire has been!"

What a picture of the believer, who is safe in Christ! "On Him Almighty vengeance fell, which would have sunk a world to Hell. He bore it for a chosen race, And thus becomes our Hiding Place."

The fires of God's judgment burned themselves out on Him, and all who are in Christ are safe forever, for they are now standing where the fire has been. (Sermon Illustrations)

ID is Inherently Religious

Objections to Intelligent Design continued from a previous post

ID is Inherently Religious, Not Scientific

This should be voted the most common tactic. As noted earlier, ID studies pattern in nature that are best explained as the results of intelligence. Many special or specific sciences already study such patterns and draw design inferences. Examples include forensic science (did that person die of natural causes, or was there foul play?) and archaeology (Arrowhead or rock?). It is scientifically legitimate to recognize the work of an intelligent agent, even if that agent is unknown, as it often the case in archaeology.

The science of design do not apply merely to human designers either. Beavers, for instance, build dams that we recognize as designed. Design need not be restricted to Earth. SETI, as seen in the movie Contact, is looking for intelligent aliens. The working assumption of SETI is that we can distinguish an intelligently produced signal from random radio noise.

Critics discount ID because its designer is supposed to be unobservable. However, in science we have a "many-worlds hypothesis" to discount how finely tuned the laws of physics are to allow for the emergence and sustenance of life. If we are only one of many universes then it shouldn't surprise us that we find ourselves in a universe uniquely crafted for our existence. The existence of multiple universes has never been observed, in fact, they are such that they can never be observed! Does this mean the many-worlds hypothesis is rendered unscientific? Of course not. Observability is therefore not a necessary condition for an explanation to be scientific; macroevolution has never been observed.

Another exclusion of ID from science is that science only deals with what is repeatable, and nature's designs are unrepeatable. Is Big Bang or origin of life repeatable? Science has no clue how to repeat either of these events in a lab; yet they are clearly within the realm of science. If repeatability is considered a necessary condition for science, then disciplines such as archaeology, anthropology, cosmology, and paleontology must be excluded from science as soon as they discover some unique artifact or feature of nature. Since those disciplines are included within the realm of science despite their unrepeatability, ID also must be included.

Faith in Christ, is for everyone's salvation and a creation explanation. Explanations of creation are in the Bible and the purpose is to glorify Him. Forced into science? Who cares, get saved!

ID, on the other hand, does try to find design within science and should be allowed to play! ID only seeks to identify a "design of things" within nature. That is not asking for too much.

ID does not have to prove it is a science-it already is. Richard Dawkins, surprisingly, agrees, "the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." (RD, The God Delusion, 58-59)

UPDATE: For more information on Intelligent Design here are some resources:
Access Research Network
Answers Research Journal
ID Network
IDEA
Institute for Creation Research
Intelligent Design
International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design

ID is Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo

Objections to Intelligent Design continued from a previous post

ID is Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo

Why do they say this? To try to discredit it. They believe that creationism has no intellectual credibility. This is why people, like some atheists here, parrot a professor at University of Kansas named Krishtalka.

ID is often confused with Creation Science (not an oxymoron), but they are indeed quite different. Rather then beginning with some particular interpretation of Genesis (as young-earth and old-earth creationists typically do), ID begins with investigating the natural world. ID looks for patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence. Given what the world reveals about itself, ID proponents reason that a designing intelligence best explains certain patterns in nature. This is not to be confused with my own view of Biblical Creationism.

The great difference between ID and Creation Science, then, is that ID relies not on prior assumptions about divine activity in the world, but on methods developed within the scientific population for recognizing intelligence. Even Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial recognized that ID proponents do not base their theory on "the Book of Genesis," "a young earth," or "a catastrophic Noachic flood."

Contrasting Religions

Evolution is the "descent from a common ancestor" model so when you ask people "Do you believe your ancestors were fish, as evolution teaches?" Or, "Are you a mutated rodent-like creature?" Fewer people would be more inclined to answer, "Yes!" Despite several generations now of aggressive evolution-only teaching in the Public School classroom, most people just know that they didn't come from a fish or a rodent or a starfish. They can choose to believe they have an animal ancestry, but few do. It just isn't believable. The other explanation for origins is not only more believable, it's more appealing.

Dr Michael Ruse, an eloquent spokesman for evolution today, has admitted:

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more then mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion. A full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, (no such thing) but I must admit that in this one complaint...the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."(1)

Christianity has its God and its revealed truth. It tells us our origins, who we are, where we came from, the meaning of life, and where we're going after we die.
It tells us how to live and how to make life decisions along the way. Created in the image of God, we have great worth in His eyes, and great standing before Him as we appropriate His gift of redemption, a great destiny to perform on earth, and life with our loving and righteous Creator/Savior after death.

Evolution answers these same questions differently. We are and come from the universe's chemicals that have self-organized into unlikely forms over eons of time. Single-celled life transformed itself into higher forms until finally the human animal came along. As higher animals, we have incorporated animal behavior into societal norms and even "religious" beliefs. The only true meaning to life is survival and reproduction, and life's highest goal is to pass on one's genes more efficiently than others. After life, we simply cease to exist.

As constitutional attorney Wendell Bird has pointed out: "Evolution is at least as religious as creation, and creation is at least as scientific as evolution." Creation is also more believable. (John D Morris, PhD)

----
1. Ruse, Michael. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians. National Post, May 13, 2000,B-3

ID is a Science-Stopper

Objections to Intelligent Design continued from a previous post

ID is a Science-Stopper

Science writer Michael Shermer said "The point of the ID movement is not to expand scientific understanding-it is to shut it down"

The truth, however, is just the opposite. By rigidly excluding ID from science, Darwinists themselves impede scientific progress. Consider the embarrassing label of "junk DNA." The word "junk" suggests that useless portions of DNA have arisen together through a blind, unguided process of evolution. Evolutionary theorists thus have come to regard only a small portion of DNA as functional. By contrast, if DNA is the product of design, we would expect much of it to be functional.

Current research indicates that much of what previously termed "junk DNA" is now known to have function. In a recent Newsweek article, Mary Carmichael describes the transformation in how DNA is understood: "Researchers have realized that this forgotten part of the genome is, in fact, profoundly important. It contains the machinery that flips the switches, manipulating much of the rest of the genome...Genes make up only 1.2 percent of our DNA. The rest of the DNA, once called "junk DNA" was thought to be filler. Recent finds prove otherwise"

I would add even vestigial organs to this list also. It means total lost of an organs original function. Saying it still has function negate the use of the word.

Take the appendix in humans as a fine example, evolution scientists calls it a vestigial organ. Most evolution scientist, even this Dawkins dude, still believe the old story that the appendix is some kind of useless leftover from our ape-like ancestry. It's incredible that this myth continues to be spread. Even the encyclopedia sates "The appendix doesn't serve any useful purpose as a digestive organ in humans, and it is believed to be gradually disappearing in the human species over evolutionary time." (New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1:491, 1997)

Newest medical textbook, on the other hand, present the known function of this organ. For example, the appendix has a role to play in our immune system. This has left countless of people scared, and unable to fight infections, including my own Dad. Many evolutionists continue to cling to outdated and wrong information in their attempt to persuade you that evolution is true. They also claim that there are other so called "useless" body parts that are "left over."

Design thus encourages science to look for deeper insight into nature, whereas Darwinian evolution discourages it. The criticism that design stifles scientific progress is therefore mistaken. The criticism applies more readily to Darwinism then design.

Personal Invitation

I just received an email that I thought all of you would be interested in. It's fitting to the conversations that I have been having from the last post. I received this email just moments after I posted this comment:

How do you justify your faith to a world that wants to explain it away? This is part of the New Atheist movement, which is growing more visible and vocal.

Anti-Christian rhetoric is increasing, and atheistic agenda is penetrating all areas of our society.

New York Times best-selling author Dinesh D’Souza welcomes your questions on atheism, agnosticism, apologetics, and more. He will address questions in his upcoming Virtual Book Tour, and this is your chance to register for this FREE event. D’Souza takes tough questions head-on when he debates atheists, so GO AHEAD, submit your question, and register for this Virtual Book Tour—an online, live event to hear Dinesh answer significant questions about Christianity

Author of What's So Great About Christianity is inviting questions. A Live 60-70 minutes Teleseminar Tuesday, November 18, 2008 (8 pm Eastern, 7 pm Central, 5 pm Pacific)

This should be interesting and I invite all of you to post questions and listen in HERE

So what questions should we ask? I think I will ask about the "perceived" barbaric situations in the Bible that turns away people.

Accounts in the Bible verified in past cultures

I just read something very interesting from an article at ICR by Ava Ford, M.D.

Besides having a very similar upbringing as my own, Dr. Ford wrote of an account she had with Chinese script.

Ancient insight on Faith and the Creator can help us find the truth about origins without referring to just the Bible. Dr. Ford talks of a time she saw Chinese writings and explains an epiphany moment.

Chinese script is expressed through ideographic pictures developed from the picture writings on ancient oracle bones--a kind of "hieroglyphic" of Chinese language. She honed in on two of the characters in particular: "life" and "believe." It struck Ford that these words had relevance to the creation account in Genesis.

Each character can be broken down into component parts. For instance, the word for "life" is made up of "motion" plus "Lord," which reveals the ancient Chinese belief that the Lord is the maker of all life. "Believe" is also comprised of two components: "person" plus "word," which means that placing trust in a word is considered an act of faith or believing. Simple, yet profound, especially when translated within a biblical context. The story of the Roman centurion in Luke 7:2-10 came to her mind; Jesus specifically remarked that this man's "belief" in His Word was greater than what He could find in Israel.

According to research found in Harvard's Yenching Library, the written Chinese language may have originated as far back as 2500 B.C., which coincides closely with the estimated time of the great dispersion of humanity from Babel, as calculated from the biblical genealogies. When all mankind was divided into new linguistic groups and scattered over the face of the earth, ancient Chinese people would have also carried with them an accurate account of early human history.

Noah

Interestingly, the ancient Chinese record Feng-su T'ung-yi (Comprehensive Meaning of Customs) states that all people on earth are descended from "Nu-wa." (Some have suggested this to be a version of the biblical name Noah, as found in other ancient Chinese texts.)

The Chinese were known for meticulous recordkeeping from the time of the Hsia dynasty in 2205 B.C., and according to their most acclaimed set of ancient manuscripts, Shu Jing (The Book of History), many generations of Chinese emperors recited texts of praise during the annual Border Sacrifice as they brought their people together to worship "Heavenly Sovereign Shangdi," the Creator of the universe and the one true God.

Chinese Genesis?

The Chinese wrote: "Of old in the beginning, there was the great chaos, without form and dark. The five elements (planets) had not begun to revolve, nor the sun and the moon to shine. In the midst thereof there existed neither forms nor sound. Thou, O spiritual Sovereign, camest forth in Thy presidency, and first didst divide the grosser parts from the purer. Thou madest heaven; Thou madest earth; Thou madest man. All things with their reproducing power got their being."

Sounds remarkably similar to Genesis, doesn't it?

"Life" does not come through faith in the science of men, but through "belief" in the Creator of life, Jesus Christ.

UPDATE: AIG said: "Hawaiians have a flood story that tells of a time when, long after the death of the first man, the world became a wicked, terrible place. Only one good man was left, and his name was Nu-u. He made a great canoe with a house on it and filled it with animals. In this story, the waters came up over all the earth and killed all the people; only Nu-u and his family were saved.

As the story of the Flood was verbally passed from one generation to the next, some aspects would have been lost or altered. And this is what has happened, as we can see from the chart. However, as seen in the given examples, each story shares remarkable similarities to the account of Noah in the Bible. This is true even in some of the details, such as the name Nu-u in the Hawaiian flood story. “Nu-u” is very similar to “Noah.”

[More Proof] The Epic of Gilgamesh is, perhaps, the one of the oldest written storys on Earth. It comes to us from Ancient Sumeria. Wrote about the flood a great deal even an entire table dedicated to it:

Table 1: “He saw the Secret, discovered the Hidden, the brought information of (the time) before the Flood. He went on a distant journey” and this “raging flood-wave who destroys even walls of stone!” and also “Utanapishtim, the Faraway, who restored the sanctuaries (or: cities) that the Flood had destroyed!

Table XI (11) The Story of the Flood: “The gods were frightened by the Flood,”

Fallen Away?

What about those who fall away?

Many of us know people who, at one time, walked very closely with the Lord, confessed Jesus as their Savior, went to church, read the Bible, taught the Bible, and defended the Christian faith, only to fall away, and deny Christ. Many atheists here have similar stories.

Is this proof that it is possible to lose our salvation? This is a fair question to ask, and the Scriptures answer it: 1 John 2:19 says, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

The Scripture says that if someone really is of God, if they really are saved, then they will remain. If they do not, it is because they never were saved, to begin with.

From CARM: If it is possible for us to lose our salvation, then we must ask some questions:

* What must we do to lose it?

* How much sin must we commit?

* If we stop believing, do we lose our salvation, and if we believe again, do we get it back again? (2 Corinthians 5:17)

* If we can get our salvation back again, doesn't that contradict the Scriptures, which say, "If we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins," (Hebrews 10:26)?

* If we can lose our salvation, and we must continue to believe, in order to keep our salvation, then are we in danger of keeping our salvation by being good? After all, believing in God is a good thing to do.

* If we can lose our salvation, what is to prevent someone from living in fear, not knowing what he can, or cannot do, before he loses his salvation?

* If he lives in fear of constantly losing his salvation, then how is he resting in Christ? Jesus said, “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest," (Matthew 11:28).

Is this a license to sin?

No! This is not a license to sin. The Bible says, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?" (Romans 6:1-2). Being secure in Christ in no way means that we can go out and sin. Anybody who would think they could do that, would be exhibiting evidence that they are not saved in the first place.

Though the members of the Body of Christ still fail, and still sin in their struggle to be more like Christ (1 John 1:7-9), their sins have all been paid for by the risen Lord Jesus, who bore their sins in His body on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). They do not need to maintain their salvation by their deeds (Gal. 3:1-3). They have rest in Christ (Matt. 11:28). They have been made clean by the blood of Jesus (1 John 1:7), and possess eternal life (John 10:28).

So how can you tell that you are saved? Many of you have heard this from me before but I never posted the list. This was taken from True and False Conversion, Ray Comfort:

What fruit will grow in a True Christians life:

1. Repentance - A 180 degree turn away from sinful behavior and towards Godly behavior.

2. Thankfulness - A thankful heart that is grateful for what God has done... and shows itself in a cheerful disposition.

3. Good Works - A life that becomes others centered (helping the aged, feeding the poor, teaching children, etc.) Not self centered (all free time consumed in personal hobbies and interests)

4. Fruit of the Spirit - An ever-growing capacity of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness and self control in the life of the believer.

5. Fruit of Righteousness - Doing the right thing according to the way God defines it in his word. Not according to the way man defines it in his own mind.

We are here to get fruit bearing Christians not decisions for Christ to fill pews.

If we understand the parable in Mark 4:3-13 then it unlocks the secret to all parables: Foolish virgin=false convert Wise virgin=Genuine conversions. The good fish, the bad fish. The man who built his house on rock and the man who built his house on sand. The one who built his house on sand is the one who hears the word of Jesus but doesn't keep them. False Convert.

6 characteristics of a False Convert:

1. Mark 4:5 - Lack depth of understanding. Immediate results impressive changes occur quickly then false convert will fall away from their faith over time and the results and changes disappear.

2. Luke 8:6 - False convert lack moisture in other words they lack the life-giving and life-sustaining power of God's word. To a false convert the Bible is dry and uninteresting and struggles with daily devotions.

3. Matthew 13:6 - False convert have no roots like a plant that dries up when the heat comes because it's roots aren't deep enough to reach water to sustain it. So is the false convert who's faith dries up where persecution comes his roots of faith don't run deep enough to reach the life sustaining water of God's word and Holy Spirit.

4. Mark 4:16 - False Converts receive the word with gladness. Hears the gospel message with gladness and really seems to latch on to it. He may express, for example, with tear filled eyes of joy. How this is the answer he's been looking for. When any test or trials comes his way, excuses become his trademark he falls away from following Jesus.

5. Matthew 13:20 - Repeats that same point false convert receive the word with joy (at first)

6. Luke 8:13 - Because they do believe for a season this is the one that fools the most people because they do believe, for a short time, the Gospel message. These false converts walk and talk a very good game. They often sincerely believe the Vital truths. That Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died a sacrificial death and rose from the earth and that he was fully man and fully God. they believe those things in their mind. When it comes time to deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Jesus into test and self sacrifice the false convert displays, slowly but surely, the truth that they never believed in their hearts. Never made that commitment to Christ and eventually becomes distracted by the worries and opportunities of life and lives for himself not Christ.

bit.ly/fallaway

Objections to Intelligent Design Refuted!

William A Dembski & Sean McDowell came up with a top ten list that speaks against Intelligent Design and responds to them in their book "Understanding ID". They both can be viewed here discussing their work in this part 1 of 4 interview:



(part 2, part 3, part 4)

I wanted to explore some of the 'Top Ten' to see how many of you feel about these points. They were listed in an article I read in Christian Research Journal.


ID must explain who designed the designer.

Dawkins raised this criticism against Design in The God Delusion. ID fails because it doesn't explain the Designer's designer. If we can't answer this then Dawkins claims "it's fruitless."

Is this how science works? Can scientists only accept explanations that themselves have been explained? The real problem with this objection is that it is always possible to ask for further explanation. Greg Koukl, president of Stand to Reason observed, "An explanation can be a good one even if you do not have and explanation for the explanation"

For example, if an archaeologist discovers an ancient object that looks like an arrowhead or digging tool, she would be fully justified in drawing a design inference. In fact, after a few clear instances she would be irrational not to infer design. She may have no clue as to the origin or even the identity of the designer, but certain patterns that the artifacts would point beyond natural forces to the work of an intelligent designer.

If every explanation needed a further explanation then nothing could ever be explained! If designer B was responsible for having designed designer A, then who designed B? Designer C of course and so on. Given the infinite regress of explanations, nothing could ever be explained and science itself would come to a standstill!

ID is Not Testable

The criticism is meant to disqualify ID as a science. If by "testable" we mean that a theory should be open to confirming or disconfirming evidence, then ID most certainly passes the test. Darwin presented what he regarded as strong evidence against design. So, claiming that ID has been tested by such evidence and shown to be false, however, creates a catch-22 for the critic: If evidence can count against a theory, evidence must also be able to count in favor of a theory. That knife must cut both ways.

Researchers have confirmed the evidence for ID across a wide range of disciplines including molecular biology, physics, and chemistry. (Design of Life)

Even if critics reject the evidence for ID, in the very act of rejecting the evidence, they put design to the test. (which is exactly what they do when no one is looking, I suspect)

Imagine what would happen if microscopic investigation revealed the words "Made by Yahweh" inscribed in the nucleus of every cell. The point is we wouldn't know this unless we actually "tested" cells for this sign of intelligence, which we couldn't do if ID were not testable. If ID fails, it won't be for lack of testability. I might add, unless the critics are afraid?

Obviously these are not all Ten, I will be addressing the rest in subsequent posts. Stay tuned!

Radical Skepticism

A good article I just read was from a magazine I received called Christian Research Journal. The article was called "Reasonable Skepticism about Radical Skepticism" by Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD.

Breggen gave, quite convincingly, counters for many of the different type of skepticisms. I was hoping it was online, but it isn't, so here is the Reader's Digest version.

Funky/Pop skepticism, a good example is the Matrix movies that claims nothing we see, hear, taste, or touch is real.

The Doctor's five counters included imagining the doubt isn't the same as actually to doubt or imagining isn't doubting. To think otherwise is to conflate two distinct cognitive categories. Another is mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x). Mere assertion of a mere logical possibility. If we accept mere assertions of bare logical possibilities as grounds for truth we should believe all mere assertions.

Sensory skepticism, our scenes deceive us, thus we cannot know the external world. When strolling on along railroad tracts, I see that the metal rails look straight and parallel, but on the horizon they appear to meet or a mirage in the desert of water.

A rational reply would be first always does not follow logically from sometimes. Our senses' prima facie veridicality- that is, their very apparent truthfulness, remains. Senses are innocent until proven guilty, as long as we have no overriding reason to doubt them, as long as we are careful.

Immanuel Kantian skepticism, the external world in rose colored, subjective glasses.

A rational reply would be if Kantian skepticism is true then science's search for causal connections/laws ultimately is a search for connections/laws that are not really in the world but in our heads. Second, as Jim Leffel astutely observes, "The success of scientific technology is a strong argument that our perceptions of the world are relatively accurate. Countless achievements attest to the reliability of human knowledge [including our knowledge of the causal principle]. We can engineer enormously sophisticated rockets to propel men to the moon, and provide health care that has more than doubled human life expectancy. We couldn't do these things without an essentially reliable correspondence between our ideas of reality and reality itself."

Linguistic skepticism Kind of a postmodern philosophizing, we cannot know truth about the world in an objective way because of the distorting effect of language.

There is no objective truth; each community has it's own mere 'story' or 'narrative'
There is no objective rationality; we reason in language, which is culture-dependent.
There are no objective ethics; values are relative to culture, too.
Therefore power rules; the dominating culture group ultimately controls the language (wittingly or unwittingly), so it determines "truth," rationality, and ethics.

A rational reply would be it is simply not the case that language is completely defined by other language. There is such a thing as ostensive definition. Objective truth and principle of noncontradiction arguments apply. Moral relativism can be seriously challenged. Poking pins into baby's eyes for fun surely is wrong for everyone, everywhere, and always. (hey, that sounds familiar) The fact that language and power are often intertwined is ground for caution not radical skepticism. Language is not wholly a power play; we are capable of communicating knowledge.

The article concluded with this brilliant nugget:

It turns out that because we can know at least some of the external world (in a limited way), we can find reasonable evidence for the existence of God. Scientifically based evidence and good reasoning lead us to believe that the universe had a beginning; that it was caused; that cause transcends matter, energy, space, and time; that the arrangement of the universe was fine-tuned for life; and that life itself-the cell's molecular machines and DNA's code/language- is exquisitely fine tuned. All of this points to an intelligent and powerful supernatural cause. Historical investigation of the external world gives is further reason to believe the New Testament's witness concerning Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. In other words, the external world points us to the Christian worldview, the gospel, and a reasonable faith in Jesus Christ.

I found Hendrik van der Breggen's blog and will be checking in often.

Bible Doesn't Condone Slavery

Stan recently said to me "You don't support slavery, but you support a god who regulates slavery." among other things that I will address in time.

I want to get the record straight once and for all about this slavery issue. It gets thrown in my face quite often as an ad hominem to discredit God.

The Bible denounces slavery as sin and goes as far to put slave traders in the same boat as murderers (1 Timothy 1:10)

Plus we have to use our proper hermeneutics to see what the Bible actually says about slavery.

Back in the days of Leviticus slavery was sanctioned due to economic reasons. Back then, there were no such thing as bankruptcy laws so people would sell themselves into slavery to rectify debts. A craftsman could use his skills to literally "pay off" a debt. Or a convicted thief could make restitution by serving as a slave. (Exodus 22:3)

The Bible recognizes the reality of slavery, but it never promotes the practice of slavery. It was the biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery, both in ancient Israel and in the United States.

One has to only go far as to think why the Jews left Egypt in the first place to see God's view of slavery. It took some years in America to wake up to the realization of biblical truth that all people are created by God with innate value. (Genesis 1:27, Acts 17:26-28, Galatians 3:28)

Obama, in my opinion a possible candidate for the Antichrist, couldn't respect God in June, 08 and made some snide comment:

"Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is abomination? ..."

Twisting of the Scriptures was the main source of this post.

UPDATE: A man named Glenn M. Miller wrote about this subject. This rather detailed study connects the fact quite well.

Does God condone slavery in the Bible? OT and Does God condone slavery in the Bible? NT

God doesn't Condone Slavery!


bit.ly/Condone

All is Fair in Love and War?

After being called many names for advertising my position on a very small level, I thought I would show an article my wife found. The article begins "London buses have God on their side — but not for long, if atheists have their way." (full article)

The difference here is exposure, atheists win that fight hands down on this one. Should we move to counter attack?

UPDATE: I guess I spoke too soon. They are now campaigning here in the states also.


Remember, "being good" will not get you to heaven.

This post here reminded me of my very first post on atheists, ah good times.

Sincerity towards Hard Hearts

Y'all do understand we are here to help, not hurt right? Do you reject the sincerity from believers that care enough about you to spend the time to talk to you to get you to really understand the fate of all of us? I was reading the sincerity of a guy writing to an atheist and I enjoyed what was written so much I just wanted to share it with all of you:

"I really, truly know and understand where you are coming from, before I was saved, I thought many of the thoughts you do. I was more of an agnostic than an atheist, I believed that there "may" be a god, but really had no clue. I believed in the theory of evolution, not so much because I had examined the claims, but because it was what I was taught to be true. If you want to pass biology you fill in the little choice box that the teacher says should be filled in, right?

Months before God saved me and opened my eyes to the truth, I lived a, well, sordid life, I not only thought sinful thoughts, I lived many of them out, I was "bad", really bad, but the funny thing I thought I was a pretty "good" guy deep down, I just wanted to live my own life, be in control of me. I didn't hear Ray or any other preacher, I actually heard some evolution scientist on some radio show talk about Carl Sagan and I started looking into some of his research, then it led me to more, and more, until I came across some site about prophecy and theories about Jesus Christ and the whole bit, the did He exist debate, I think you know what I mean. Anyway I decided, if what Jesus claims is wrong then Christianity is a lie, but if what He claims is true, then I have some serious thinking to do. That day I picked up a bible, of which I had only read a handful of verses ever before in my life, and started reading the new testament. I was surprised, it was nothing like what the movies portrayed, it was more detailed about His life, He clearly claims to be God, the God, the ONLY God, well, if this, Jesus is God then what He says better line up with what I know to be true, evolution, what I think is right and wrong, and He had better let me control my own life. Well, what I read was the complete opposite of what I thought was true.

I was quite angry at the ideas in the bible, really I was stunned at the claims. No way, this can't be true, if it is, then I've been living a lie, the world is deceived and we are all headed for Hell. I mean this IS what the bible teaches, isn't it?

Well that's what I thought it taught. Like many who post here, I thought God was some cosmic meany, I mean why create us, why let all this evil just happen, and why kill you only Son? I didn't "really" understand the bible, I just read it and picked out things that I didn't agree with, or things that made me look bad, I didn't ask why. When I did start asking why, and really asking God, why, then He started answering. Not in voices, or visions, but as I read and reread it started making sense.

Life really isn't about me, except in my own head, it's called pride. I started to see that this God who claims to have created everything is holy, doesn't change, righteous, and frighteningly enough, JUST! I listened to a couple preachers on the internet, and they helped me understand that it is not Gods will that I go to Hell, and then explained my sin, Gods holiness, and then about Jesus Christ. And this is what I understood. God is Lord, Jesus is God, God created us in His image to glorify Him, we sinned, we keep sinning, and living for self or other people, not Him, He did a lot of things providentially in and throughout the Old testament in order to point to the coming of His Son, Jesus Christ who would save mankind from their sins against Him. Jesus came and took the punishment, the wrath of God against the sin of the world, upon Himself, SO THAT we could be saved, to provide A WAY to not get what we deserve, justice. As I read and as I listened God did a work in me, it was a work of repentance, I was justified, saved. I know it wasn't because of lack of intelligence, I'm not stupid, I'm Joe average, like most people. It was because God sovereignty chose to save me. It was then that I realized, the reason I asked the questions I did, the reason I opened the bible that day, the reason I read and listened with an open heart is not because of me, but because God is God and He is God of EVERYTHING, and He does what He will. I didn't "choose" to be a Christian, and if you would have asked me that morning, I probably would have laughed it off, but I didn't laugh that afternoon. I wept, and wept and I realized whom against I had sinned, my Lord and my God, Jesus Christ. Forgive me, oh God forgive me. It was the worst and the best day of my life.

Worst because I finally saw myself in truth, not as I wanted to see myself, but as I really am, a filthy, wretched, sinner. And best because God chose to save ME! Little me, the God of the universe actually cares about me, no not cares, actually loves me. Not because of who I am, be in spite of who I am. WOW. What a God, I spit in His face in the morning, and He forgives me in the afternoon. Praise God.

I don't believe the bible because I was convinced by man, but by God, and I don't think any man can convince anybody in becoming a Christian, I think it is a work of God alone. There is nothing in man that attains toward the true God of the bible, it is only when God draws a man to Himself that the man will begin to draw near to God. It is all the work of God. I know this is very Calvinistic, but it is what Jesus taught, what Paul taught. Before anyone can repent God must change their heart.

I don't know who God will save, that is His choice, but He has commanded me to go and preach the gospel. And I know it is the gospel, the word of God, the bible, that God uses to create, command, and save mankind, whom He saves and when He saves is up to Him alone.

We all in rebellion to Jesus Christ our Lord, all of us. But He commands ALL men everywhere to repent, but we don't want to, we want to be our own lords. So He must work in the hearts of those He is saving before they will repent, only then will we surrender, and stop shaking our fist, only then will we bend our knee and praise Him who alone is worthy, the sinless lamb of God, Jesus Christ.

He is your Lord, and you will bow your knee. The question is will you bend your knee to Him as Lord on the day of judgment, or will you bend your knee today as Lord AND Savior?

Please don't just write this of as some religious nonsense. Be honest about it. Ask the tough questions, have you sinned, you know, lie, stolen... You've heard this all before. If you are truly honest with yourself, you know you have, and before you justify it by saying, "yeah but...", really think about, think about what the bible says about God, not what unsaved man says, unregenerate man hates God, they will say anything to try to make Him look bad. What does the bible actually say.

Most importantly what is TRUE. Not what do you believe to be true, not what seems to make the most "logical" sense, but what is really, actually true?

I will be praying for you to God, may the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ shine down on you." (ShiVeR)Curtis

Overwhelming Evidence

What would happen if a court of today put the validity of Jesus Christ and the resurrection on trial?

Christ would win. There is plenty of evidence that points to a Creator and that Creator communicated with us through His Word.

Jesus Christ came to die on a cross to take the punishment that we deserved in order to save us. In order to do this he had to be resurrected. So, were the eyewitnesses credible?

Simon Greenleaf, a principal founder of the Harvard Law School, in 1874 wrote a paper, available online, called "The testimony of the evangelists examined by the rules of evidence administrated in courts of justice" where he took Jesus and the Bible to trial.

His postulation was that the Bible follows the 'ancient documents rule' that "Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise"

Spoiler alert!

Greenleaf sums up his argument:

"All that Christianity asks of men on this subject, is, that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat its evidences as they treat the evidence of other things; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with the surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if it were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witnesses being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result,it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability and truth ... Either the men of Galilee were men of superlative wisdom, and extensive knowledge and experience, and of deeper skill in the arts of deception, than any and all others, before or after them, or they have truly stated the astonishing things which they saw and heard" (pp. 46 & 53).

Greenleaf came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection happened.

If you were a jury member would you come to the same conclusion? As an atheist would you put aside your bias and rule properly according to the Law?

UPDATE 1/16/2009:

I took this from a legalese website discussing documents:

[section 491 mandates that the statement be given under oath, affirmation, or some other form of legally binding assertion, such as a statement at the bottom of an income tax return that the answers were given and the signature subscribed "under penalties of perjury." Although it may be morally reprehensible for a person to lie, no legal criminal sanction is imposed for lying until after a person has sworn to tell the truth. Hence, the State must allege and prove that the statement was given under oath or affirmation administered by an authorized person, or under some other form of legally binding assertion.]

In other words assertions are legally binding when said under oath.

I am willing to claim that God exists under oath, would anyone be willing to claim, under oath, that invisible pink hammers exists or the flying spaghetti Monster exists?

Using The Bible in God proofs is not circular reasoning and is the well-established way in which we establish the truth of understanding God. (Thanks, Kaitlyn)

Mere assertion of X (flying spaghetti monster) is not equal to adequate justification of X. (God)








bit.ly/OEvidence

World Wide Economic Meltdown by Ray Comfort

Allow me to parrot Ray today. What if you all start to see the Bible come true? Would you acknowledge it? Would you understand that you have been wrong all along?

"Those of you who are regular atheists must be getting worried. Not about the future, but about the fact that you know what the Bible had to say about the future. I watched CBS news this morning. This is how it began:

"Breaking News. Global market’s plummet this morning after Wall Street’s nearly 900 billion dollar loss on Thursday. Credit markets around the world are seized up in a manner no one has ever seen before."

We are seeing Bible prophecy being fulfilled before our very eyes. Experts have long predicted that we would see a world-wide economic collapse, a one-world government, and the raising up of a charismatic world leader that will bring peace and stability and will not let people buy and sell without a mark...

As this unfolds, it is slowly dawning on you that the Bible is right, and that all those "mistakes" you found in the Bible were actually your mistakes. And that leads to a sobering revelation. It means that Hell is real. So, what are you going to do? I have a suggestion. Humble yourself, then admit you were wrong, and get right with God through repentance and faith in Jesus. Then begin to reach out to the lost with the same zeal you had as an atheist." Ray Comfort

Response to Froggie

Froggie,

Thanks for the melodramatically false post you made, it was quite comical.

No, Poe's Law isn't applicable here but lets get all the facts straight:

First false statement you melodramatically made: "What's worse is that she suffers from Lupus and has had tumors that recently came back."

No my wife doesn't have Lupus my mother did, like Quasar pointed out, but you have yet to correct that part of the blog so you are continually perpetuating a lie. For dramatic purposes?

2nd misrepresentation: "and has had tumors that recently came back."

You know this for a fact? I had no idea you were a doctor with superman's abilities to see through things like skin and bones.

My words were: "the symptoms returned again recently. We feared it was coming back right after our 4th child, she was getting pretty shook up about it. This time we decided to do a 40 day fast and keep in prayer to stop the growth and hope for a miracle from God.

Well, it appears we got our wish and the tumor disappeared with no more signs during the fast (headaches, blurred vision, sinus troubles ...)"

I will admit I may have scared you pretty little head slightly Froggie. I kept calling it a tumor but it actually is a Cyst. 'Rathke's Cleft Cyst' to be technically accurate. It is a balloon of puss growing on the pituitary. It is Non-Cancerous! Some inexperienced doctors might just clip the pituitary off to eliminate it but the Pioneer, Dr. Kelly, uses very high tech camera equipment and goes through the sinus cavity to remove and drain the Cyst without disturbing the Pituitary. He is a very blessed and talented man that I wouldn't know what to do without him. I thank God for putting him so close to us. We were very healthy and three years after moving to California she came down with this problem. You have to understand that before that in Colorado Springs and Texas we owed our own company and to pay for all that out of our own pocket would of bankrupted us. But this Company hear of Patty's tallent and gave us an offer we couldn't refuse. To me, it wasn't coincidental that we happen to be extremely close the the very best Doctor in the entire United States to operate on her.

If you didn't know the pituitary controls the woman's cycles and Patty didn't have any for two years (since Nov, 2006) so it did worry us that we wouldn't have any more children then our three already. The symptoms started getting worse when Patty was breastfeeding our third child (pituitary controls that also) so we went on a long year journey of new baby #3, many hospitals, meetings, and surgeries, at UCLA Hospital at the time.

Immediately after the third surgery Patty got pregnant after her very first (very light) cycle. It was a miracal!

Dr. Kelly was promoted and is now Director of the John Wayne Cancer Institute at St. John's in Santa Monica.

We were all astounded and truly felt we were blessed with a miricle. We were so happy it was over and received a new miricle baby at the end of it. Incidentally all my kids have my personality, but this 4th one is all for Patty, looks and acts just like her. He is the boy version of Patty who was incidentally, an only child. Just another one of lifes coincidences that could be just written off if you're not looking for these things.

The Skeptical Sorcerer said "Whatever he is doing, if he doesn't stop I at least hope he doesn't make his kids join in."

Funny you said this but my 7 year old wanted to join in but I said I would allow it for only one day. So she did but was sad because she was very hungry at bedtime. She was very cute and understood how difficult it was and was a true helper during the 36 days we were fasting. She witnesses more then most adults I know. That little girl at age 5 wanted to and did memorize the Ten Commandments she is my little angel and God has great things in store for her, I just know it. If you need help memorizing go to smartyface.com

It appears the only sane person at this group here is not an atheists at all, named 'LivingAsOneFreed'.

You guys should rename yourselves the "Hyper uber-judgmental unfair atheists" to be more accurate. The problem is you need to make sure that the beam is out of your eye first before you judge so you can see clearly, (Matthew 7:3) that is why it's OK for Christians to Judge Atheists.

And to be perfectly open, here is part of my response on my blog to Froggie:

Froggie said: "This is totally [irresponsible] and life threatening.

A perfectly healthy person might get away with that some, but you could kill your wife with this irrational stuff."

So I said: I appreciate your concern but we are watching very closely.

Please don't think for one moment we are not watching carefully and monitoring and listening to our body's, otherwise you might be the one that is irrational. Remember we made promises to God to go 40 days and fell short by 4 days to call it off to err to caution. If we were "irresponsible" or "irrational" we would of done the full 40 no matter what. We broke our word with God for her safety.

In an attempt to ease your mind, if that is even possible, we are monitoring with, so far, more then 10 MRI's of her brain and have the very best doctor and team in the entire United States to help 24/7. We are no dummies and/or fools here.

Hopefully your lack of confidence and your prejudice has been thwarted. You were completely wrong and irrational yourself.

Proverbs 28:5 "Open rebuke is better than love carefully concealed."

Now are we as radical and criminal as Froggie eluded/accused us to be? If not, what other things can he be wrong about also?

If yes, fine I can live with that, because if the ones that agree with Froggie are the ones that don't believe in God either then the Bible predicted accurately that I would be hated and persecuted by such people and another reason to trust God. Thanks for strengthing my faith.

Knowledge verses Wisdom

At least Stan I can say you are consistent in your responses.

When I said "The same kind of thinking that has corrupted and now bankrupted our economy."

My thoughts were on Barney Frank, another Democrat void of any morals and has the exact characteristics as Calvin holds in the strip. The Cheerleader behind Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac who shot down any regulations and even the soulless Greenspan who was the cheerleader that loved adjustable rates and yet has a 30 year fixed himself. I am sick of all of them, yes even Bush!







And don't get me started on the biggest lair of all of them, McCain, who was so against all these Pork ear marks so much he made a campaign slogan about them.



Then before you can even blink McCain rallies the troops to do that exact thing to the tune of 150 billion more 'sweetener' just to get the 700 bailout passed. Are you kidding me? He just lost the election with that one vote and it doesn't matter how much Sarah Palin is liked.

BTW did you see John Stewart compare McCain to Gallum the other day? Hilarious!



Both Obama and McCain voted for that 700b Bill filled with Pork. This is truly the saddest point humans can be in with all this perceived knowledge, no one is smart enough to have common sense and the simple wisdom of God. Chris Hedges was right when he said "there is nothing in human nature or in human history that points to the idea that we are moving anywhere."

Go read Proverbs everyone, please! Then go get saved. Time is running out.

Out of body

My Mom had a couple of strokes in her life due to complications with Lupus. I remember when she was going through the horribly painful chemotherapy also. I came across this presentation by a woman who is a Brain specialist scientist and was able to articulate what she was going through. Her operation was very similar to what my Mom had. I found it fascinating how she experienced an out of body situation. The story seems similar to people that claimed to go to Heaven and back. My Mom described something similar, like a dream state when she couldn't talk. Does this debunk atheists? No, but I still found it interesting that a scientist found something spiritually enlightening through her right brain. There might be something substantial to explore more.

Maybe, people that seek God are just more right brained then most atheists. Maybe God reveals the right brain to us as we seek Him. These questions I cannot answer myself but I look forward to the discoveries that comes to us in our never ending search to find the truth. When we find the truth we will find God. One question that always comes to mind is, why? Some believe we evolved to this point, so the question is why? Why are we designed like this with two brain hemispheres? Are our brains are simply designed to experience God?

Atheistic Ethics of Calvin

(Click for larger view)

40 Day Fast

Well I was able to get another HD and install XP again. I just didn't have the energy to troubleshoot my computer so I waited until now.

Patty and I just stopped four days short of a 40 day fast and it was quite enlightening. Matthew 17:21 was clear. I will not sugar coat it, because it was one of the hardest things I have ever gone through. We wanted to do a 40 Day fast just after our 40th birthday, in prayer, to stop the spread of my wife's tumor that she had before. It's technical name is a 'rathke's cleft cyst' and she went through three brain surgeries to get rid of it a couple of years back. We happened to be led here to California by God, we feel, to be near the best doctor for the job who is a pioneer in the U.S. He has a top notch team and I am so very grateful for his knowledge and expertize in his field. Dr. Kelly took such good care of Patty, we just knew we were led by God to him.

As mysterious as the tumors were to us, the symptoms returned again recently. We feared it was coming back right after our 4th child, she was getting pretty shook up about it. This time we decided to do a 40 day fast and keep in prayer to stop the growth and hope for a miracle from God.

Well, it appears we got our wish and the tumor disappeared with no more signs during the fast (headaches, blurred vision, sinus troubles ...) so we feel our prayers have been answered. We were attacked by the devil in many other areas of our lives and we came through it quite humbled. Our bodies even started to reject water on day 34 and we were vomiting green bile the last two days. I felt like that exorcist girl towards the end and that is what prompted the early stopping point. We listened to our bodies and stopped when it was time.

Both our bodies were getting too stressed to handle our work load we had, so on day 36 we had the Lord's supper as our first meal and began the reintroduction of food again. The food tasted so very good those next days. We stayed as close to God as possible (eating raw fruits and vegetables) and we feel 100% again.

I suggest to all people that are questioning their faith or validity of God, and wants to know the truth of God, to "deny thy self" for 40 days with nothing but water and to focus on God for those days to allow Him to manifest Himself to you. Stay in His Word for those days. God has showed me everything I need to believe/trust in Him and I wish that would be the same case for all of you, if you give it the effort to understand Him. I can't begin to tell you the benefits of a long fast. Our bodies feel rejuvenated and toxin free. My spirit is calm and peaceful and ready for the challenges that life has for us. We should all strive to do a 40 day fast on our 40th birth day to reboot our systems both physically and spiritually.

bit.ly/40dayFast