April 21, 2019

The Busy but Empty Tomb of Jesus

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

People who reject the truth of the Bible resort to various rescuing devices such as saying Scripture has errors, does not mean what it says so we need help from atheistic interpretations of science, and outright ridicule. How many of these owlhoots have seriously read it?


The best-attested fact of ancient history is the empty tomb of Jesus. That first Easter morning was very busy at the empty tomb.
Credit: Pixabay / Jeff Jacobs
Christians frequently hear atheists refer to the Bible as "fairy tales". (One of the most absurd remarks is the claim that the Bible was written by illiterate goat herders. Not only does this reveal bigotry and prejudicial conjecture about the writers of the Bible, but it is self-refuting: how do illiterate people write books?) The fairy tale aspect is easily dismissed by comparing actual fairy tales with the Bible. You will find detailed, accurate history in the Bible and see that it reads quite differently from fairy tales.

In a similar way, myths and legends are usually vague and unbelievable; I wonder if people actually believed the tales of the Sumerian, Greek, Scandinavian, or other gods. Compare the Epic of Gilgamesh with the Genesis Flood account, for instance. Dr. Ben Scripture has a radio show and podcast where he and Scott Kump did a three-part series comparing the creation myths with the Genesis narrative, and you can easily spot the differences.

Now we come to the Easter part of this article, what with it being that time of year and all. Some of these things came to mind when I was listening to a series by Dr. John MacArthur on "The Empty Tomb" (free to download, read, or listen online). All four Gospels record the Resurrection, but have different perspectives. When investigators question witnesses, a strong indication that a story is concocted is if there are too many matching details. The Gospel writers emphasized different aspects of the Resurrection. Luke was a historian, not a witness, but he obviously conducted thorough interviews (Luke 1:1-4).

It has been stated that the Bible has the "ring of truth". That is clearly true, because we see the flaws in the followers of Jesus. He told some blunt truths and people actually turned away (John 6:66 is one example). We know about Peter's denial (Matt. 26:75), the family of Jesus thought he was plumb loco (Mark 3:21), the doubt of Thomas (John 20:24-25), and Judas' betrayal (Mark 14:44), but there are other areas where his followers were less than enthusiastic. If you were going to make up a religion, would you write in doubt and betrayal on the part of followers and other people? Me, neither.

An old effort to deny the bodily Resurrection of Jesus from the dead was the claim that people went to the wrong tomb.



Let's see... we had Roman guards, the man who originally purchased it and provided it for Jesus' burial (great deal, he got the tomb back later!), the women who went there previously, and all sorts of things happening. This wrong tomb idea may have worked if there were only a few people in the early dawn, but the traffic continued. Even the Romans testified that the tomb was empty. Nobody disagreed that it was empty. Instead, they wanted to explain it away.

 Excerpted from Dr. John MacArthur's sermon, "Witnessing Women and Doubting Disciples"

Note that another ring of truth aspect is that the women were not expecting his Resurrection (John 20:2). Nobody was, even though he had told them repeatedly (Luke 18:34). God told the women through angels that Jesus had risen (Matt. 28:5-6). They were unlikely messengers, because women were not exactly held in high regard in that society.

God's Word has many authenticating factors. Jesus was crucified for our sins (Phil. 2:8, 1 Peter 2:24, Rom. 3:23, Rom. 6:23). He rose from the dead (1 Cor. 15:3-8), and this is considered the best attested fact of ancient history. We can become children of the living God (John 1:12-13) by repenting and putting our faith in Christ alone (Luke 24:46-47). As Christians, we presuppose that the Bible is true, and it has many authenticating factors.

The tomb was empty. 

Unbelievers have to decide what they will do with Jesus, but everyone will stand before him — whether they like it or not (Phil. 2:9-11, Rev. 7:9-12, Rev. 20:11-15). You're reading this, so you still have time to repent and believe the good news, pilgrim.


April 1, 2019

Atheist "Gotcha" Question: Does God Kill People?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

For April 1, it is appropriate to examine how atheists try to trip up Christians with what some of us call "Gotcha!" questions and statements. Although they deny the existence of God, it is convenient for the God of the Bible to exist for them to hate him, the Bible, and his followers. They do know he exists, however, but unrighteously suppress the truth (Psalm 14:1, Romans 1:18-23).


Atheists and other unbelievers foolishly try to play "Gotcha!" games to denigrate the Bible and the character of God. One particular question about God killing people is examined.
Shattering atheism image courtesy of WHY?Outreach
Atheists are the MS-13 of rational discourse. I have seen atheistic "logic" work along the lines of, "I asked a question. The Christian could not answer it to my satisfaction. Therefore, the Bible is false and there is no God!" Mayhaps an atheist picked a professing Christian who is unskilled in apologetics or has not studied a particular question. If someone cannot answer a question it does not mean an answer is impossible, old son. I'll allow that there are some tricky areas that we struggle with, but they do not negate God's goodness or his existence. You savvy?

Many "Gotcha!" claims and questions involve efforts to discredit not only the veracity of the Bible, but the character of God. This is actually quite incoherent, similar to a child that cannot get someone to bow to his will, so he recruits others to unite in hate — but the child is still wrong. 



Dr. R. Albert Mohler has a message that deals with one of those hard questions in a straightforward way: Does God really kill people? He makes a few very important points. You can see the video or download the audio just below the video at "Does God Really Kill People?" Also for your consideration is the Veritas Domain collection of alleged contradictions that are refuted. To see those, click on "Collection of Posts Responding to Bible Contradictions". The truth is on our side, and those who engage in Olympic-style excuse making cannot change that fact. 

March 18, 2019

Climate Change and Child Sacrifice

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It appears that the most helpless among us are the way to solve problems. Namely, child sacrifice. Fertility problems? Kill the kids you have. Bad harvest? Kill some more children. Unable to control your lust? Dismember and murder the unborn children. The weather is not to your liking or it just plain scares you? See above.


Ancient Peruvians had a massive ritual child sacrifice to combat climate change. With abortions and leftist climate change hysteria, are we headed in a similar direction?
Aztec child sacrifice ritual image by Diego Duran via Wikimedia Commons
A recent discovery reveals that Peruvians were on the prod about the climate, so they sacrificed about 140 children and over 200 llamas (or alpacas, either way it was the Camels of the Western Hemisphere). Wow, that was way back before massive use of fossil fuels, aerosols, and what not. Can't blame humans for that change. Too bad that couldn't consult with Bill Nye the Leftist Guy, since he's an expert on everything including abortion and climate change.


While atheists will undoubtedly claim, "See what religion does?", atheism is responsible for more murders in human history. Also, their darkness has nothing to do with the truth of God as revealed in the Bible. It is the result of pagan rebellion against their Creator. But I digress.

Here we are in our "civilized" countries killing unwanted children and then doing the Mattress Mambo and then executing the results of our lusts. But I also wonder if fanatical climate change cultists will have us go along a similar path. Leftist tinhorn Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has proposed the ridiculous Green New Deal to combat global warming, and says we should not even have children until it passes. She should go back to bar tending.

Dr. Albert Mohler has some comments that I'd like you to see in the March 14, 2019 edition of The Briefing. You can listen or read the transcript for the section, "‘We must change almost everything in our current societies’: 16-year-old Swedish girl explodes onto world stage as climate change advocate". 

Many climate change fanatics insist that their view is the only view; anyone who has contrary opinions and presents facts that are suppressed by the left are liars. Suppressing data and punishing naysayers is mighty Stalinist, pard. Here is an excerpt from the Chris Plante Show on the subject:



Additional information:


February 18, 2019

James Watson gets the Cold Springs Shoulder

James Watson had his honorary titles removed because of his racist views, yet people do not distance themselves from Darwin and evolutionary racism. The answer does not lie in political correctness trends.
Credit: RGBStock/
Tomislav Alajbeg
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Because this is a caustic subject, please read carefully so you do not misunderstand the points I am making.

Does Dr. James Watson wonder why the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory took away his titles? It's elementary, Watson: racist views are not cool any longer. Statues of Confederate army leaders are being torn down because the South wanted to keep slaves; other racists are in trouble (except for Democrats in good standing, like Sen. Robert Byrd and others). If you say something that even hints at racism, you can be in a heap of trouble.

Ken Ham pointed out that if these people who are upset about racism were consistent, they would disassociate themselves from Charles Darwin, who had blatantly racist views. The Bible tells us the opposite, that there are no "races", only ethnic people groups. That's right, "race" is not a biblical position. Although racism has been with us almost from the beginning, it went full gallop with evolutionary "scientific racism". Some examples of that can still be seen today, although evolutionists try to distance themselves from it.

In reality, the political correctness movement is not only used to suppress legitimate freedom of speech as well as genuine racism, PC is selective because of the greater leftist goals. For example, science and reason clearly show that there are differences between men and women, but the secular science industry has become involved in politically leftist activism. An appeal to "scientists say" (or worse, the "scientific consensus" fallacy) can change if something is not currently accepted by the powers that be.

 
Tearing down statues will not change the past; we are supposed to learn from it and move forward. Removing Watson's titles as a means of punishment does not negate his co-discovery of the DNA molecule. The lab issued strong statements condemning his racist views (I think it was partly to protect themselves from subsequent repercussions). Since he is an atheist, it would not be much of a stretch for weak thinkers to try and outlaw atheism as well. Interesting that the overwhelming majority of professing atheists are white males, though.

How about a bit of rational thinking instead of "thinking" with emotions? I don't know what good removing Watson's titles can accomplish (and I have no alternative suggestions for this touchy subject), but his punishment cannot negate his scientific work. The true answer to racism is not found in political correctness trends or from social justice warriors. It is found in the Word of God.

February 11, 2019

Religious Freedom, Free Speech, and Question Evolution Day

In these here United States and several other Western countries, people have the right to free speech. The US Constitution also guarantees freedom of religion. There are atheists and other anti-creationists who flat out lie, saying that Christians are violating the "Constitutional separation of church and state", but that only appeared in the Soviet Union documents.


Atheists and other anti-creationists try to stop freedoms of speech and religion, and hate Question Evolution Day as well as biblical creation itself. Christians do have rights and can stand up for them.
The Apostle Paul explains the tenets of faith in the presence of King Agrippa,
his sister Berenice, and the proconsul Festus
/Vasily Surikov, 1875
Atheists will lie and harass Christians who often have to take their case to court to fight for their rights. Unfortunately, some professing Christians have a wrong view, saying that it is "Christlike" to endure such persecution. That view is unbiblical.Some owlhoots may claim that since the term religious freedom is not in the Bible, it must not be true. It helps to know our rights, and yes, we can stand up for them. After all, if we sit back and let things happen, we will lose our rights even more quickly.

February 12 is Question Evolution Day, and some folks hate it. While anti-creationists will claim that they believe in free speech, they (like other leftists) only like the free speech that meets with their approval. Otherwise, biblical creation science must be stopped. Misrepresentation, defamation (here is one example), straw man arguments, and more are standard operating procedures for these sidewinders. I'll allow that nobody is shoving bamboo shoots up our fingernails, but they do persecute us in their efforts to silence the message. Despite opposition, we spread the message and endure persecution while we still can.


Atheists and other anti-creationists try to stop freedoms of speech and religion, and hate Question Evolution Day


Persecution is happening to many Christians around the world, and it is increasing in the West. Governments and court systems are increasingly secular, so there is no guarantee that Christians will prevail even when the truth is clearly on their side. The Apostle Paul is an example of both knowing and standing up for his rights in the Roman system.
Since religious freedom has been a hot-button social issue and is more and more frequently covered in secular and Christian news media outlets, we sometimes are asked these questions. Does the Bible address religious freedom, and, if so, what does it say and where?

The Apostle Paul (and his traveling companions on various mission trips) is perhaps the most notable example of a biblical figure who suffered religious persecution and also on occasion stood up for his religious liberty. It is interesting that Paul did so in a government that had some similarities to Western nations.
To read the rest, click on "Is Religious Freedom Addressed in Scripture?"



January 22, 2019

Celebrity Appeal and Propaganda

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The other day, Stormie Waters was frustrated with her gold prospecting efforts and ventured up past Stinking Lake (which is not as bad as the name implies) and up into Deception Pass. Somehow she avoided the Winkie Guards and drew near to the Darwin Ranch. Then she overheard Rusty Swingset telling the hands that they need to step up their propaganda game — using celebrities.


Atheists and evolutionists are using celebrity propaganda to manipulate people into accepting their views.
Background image furnished by Why?Outreach
I'll allow that we gravitate toward people who think like us (and Christians are commanded to have teaching and fellowship with other believers, but it seems that we seek out celebrity endorsements a bit less than other people.) Having someone famous who is on your side has a greater impact. You can find listings of famous atheists in history and the media, and lists of creation scientists and other scientists who disagree with Darwinism can be found. People of varied interests find influential people who share their interests.


Propaganda and Persuasion

The word propaganda is not necessarily a dirty word, but it has strong negative connotations. Advertising is a kind of propaganda to persuade people to use a product or service. Propaganda has been used during wars to help improve the morale of the populace and the military, and is used to discourage the enemy. 

Unfortunately, a great deal of propaganda for leftist political purposes, global climate change, evolutionism, and other things is deceptive. Misquotes are used with impunity and pertinent information is omitted in order to deceive people. I reckon that propagandists know that people are unable or unwilling to think critically, preferring to "think" with their emotions, so they swallow the lies and succumb to manipulation — all the while believing they were reaching their own conclusions through reason.

Celebrity Influence — It Should Not Matter

Really, who cares? Thinking people should not be influenced by the opinions of people in the arts. (Ever notice that movie and rock stars as well as others in arts-related fields are usually leftists and others who reject biblical authority?) Rock star Alice Cooper (Vincent Furnier) bluntly said, "f you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."

Like rockers, film stars are not exactly known for being experts in foreign policy, climatology, or economics. To use a phrase from Chris Plante, they "play dress up and make believe". Actors generally do not have time for more intellectual pursuits. A well-known advertisement for a cough syrup used an actor who played a doctor on a soap opera telling us to use that product, but he was not a real doctor. This was an implied appeal to authority. Just stop and think when you're influenced by that actor in the latest hit movie about comic book heroes brought to life.

Celebrities are not exactly known as role models for morality, and a presuppositional apologist would like to ask someone making declarations, "What makes this policy or person you're condemning bad (or good) according to your hedonistic worldview? What is your ultimate standard of morality?"' What we all could do (when we get a notion to using our think bones) is consider those questions ourselves when a celebrity is pontificating.

Making the Stars

While many celebrities get attention the usual way (film attendance, album sales, and so on), others have their status inflated. Atheists have their "rock stars" that owe their popularity to the web, and others are poor philosophers that sell books to other atheists who seek support for their existing anti-Christian bigotry. It baffles me why Clinton Richard Dawkins is an "expert" on religion when he is a materialistic scientist and has no formal training in theology. Celebrity atheists sell books, give lectures, and make big money hating God, though, experts or not.

Evolutionary and atheistic icons receive hero worship that is largely undeserved. Charles Darwin is touted as a "great scientist", but when we point out that his only formal education was in theology, not science, his disciples get a mite obstreperous. In the same way, Bill Nye is sought after for his views on atheism, evolutionism, and climate change. When shown that he is a former comedian that became a television actor, not a scientist, and a propagandist for leftist causes (like abortion, global warming, evolution, etc.), his admirers tend to go ballistic. Indeed, Nye used fake, outdated science and bad logic in his debate with Ken Ham, and Answers in Genesis provided many articles refuting his ignorance. 


If you read about propaganda used by Nazis, Mao, the Soviet Union, and so on, you will see the cult of personality approach is used to inflate the celebrity status of those in power. People were persuaded by posters, leaflets, broadcasts, and testimonies of how wonderful their leaders were. You do want to please Our Leader, don't you? Think of how badly you would feel if you let him down, boy howdy! Fear was a big part of this because people who displeased those in power were made to go away, which also helped the propaganda.

Christians tend to get a few sensational claims from celebrities to prove their points. It puts a burr under my saddle when people misquote Uncle Albert (Einstein), for instance, when as a student he puts an atheistic teacher in his place. The account is fictional, and Einstein did not hold to any semblance of Christianity. Some of us have passed around things without checking on their validity, presumably with some sort of celebrity appeal. This only gives misotheists additional excuses to ridicule us.



The basis for our thinking is the Word of God, not sensationalism or the opinions of famous people who ride for the secularist brand. God gave us minds and expects us to use them. People are not converted to Christ through celebrities, that is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Thinking for Ourselves

Don't get me wrong, it's interesting and even fun when a famous person shows up in the studio or at a gathering to lend support to a cause. It's even better when they have knowledge of the subject they are supporting. But be very careful about being swayed by emotional appeal. "Fiona Famousgirl supports this, so I should too because I adore Fiona". Wrong.

I may write an article on this sometime, but I believe that we are ripe for a dictatorship. Study on it a bit and see that people do not think logically, are easily manipulated by celebrities and false authority figures, and are driven by their emotions. (The Antichrist could easily harness all that, but I'm not going to turn this into an eschatology article.) What can we do?

For one thing, take Mr. Newhart's advice and stop it. Get up on the hill for the bigger picture and reason things through. Is there any reason to care what some famous person thinks about a subject, especially if they are opposed to our values? Not hardly!

This article was inspired by another that I am going to recommend. I'd be obliged if you'd read "Can evolutionists use celebrities to brainwash the public?"


January 1, 2019

Modern Creation Scientists Refuting Atheism and Evolution

One of the cornerstones of atheism is evolution, which is their creation myth. Atheists and other anti-creationists have been known to say, "There is no such thing as creation science". These sidewinders also tend to ridicule scientists who are creationists, saying that they are not "real" scientists". I lack belief that those making such claims have done any investigation, preferring instead to use prejudicial conjecture, straw man arguments, and outright lying. 


When atheists and other anti-creationists say there are no creation scientists or they have no credentials, this is completely false
Credit: Pixabay / Konstantin Kolosov
The view that someone must be an atheist or naturalist to be a scientist is false. Many of those who put the foundations of modern science in place were creationists, and current creationists have contributed to their disciplines and been published in science journals, often despite the blatant discrimination against creationists as a whole. It is interesting that several biblical creationists began as atheists and eventually realized that recent creation is the right trail to ride.

Here is an article that mentions some current creation scientists and their accomplishments. When anti-creationist poltroons deny the existence or credentials of biblical creation scientists, show them this link and watch them engage in hand waving.
I was recently asked to speak on creation in my Sunday school class. TASC had been helping organize the recent Origins Truth conference at the time, so I decided it might be encouraging to share something about the lives and work of two of the invited speakers for the conference: John Sanford and Russ Humphreys. I then added three more scientists: Matti Leisola, James Tour, and our very own Gerald Van Dyke to the talk. Each of these scientists has a unique story and has given glory to God through their life and research. Here, I share the essence of that presentation.
To read the article, click on "A Few Modern Creationists".

Subscribe in a reader