Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts

January 1, 2020

Atheists Instructed to Lie to their Children

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

We have seen over the years on this site and many others that professing atheists have faulty moral compasses, and their worldview has no real hope or purpose. Indeed, it is incoherent and cannot be lived consistently. If someone is an atheist, why would it be wrong to lie?


Since religious people have better mental health than atheists, disbelieving parents are told to lie to their children about God. This causes many problems for their faulty moral compasses.
Image corrected from PIXNIO.
There are times when an atheist objects to something a Christian or biblical creationist says and makes an accusation of "you're lying". Why is that wrong in their worldview? (One of the times that I defeated a certain atheist is when I asked, "If I was actually lying, which has not been proved, why would that be wrong in your worldview?" The reply was, "Because I am not like you". That answer revealed some of his irrationality.) Of course, the same question could be asked of Clinton Richard Dawkins when he indulged in this bigotry.

According to materialism, we are just "ugly bags of mostly water" that react to our chemistry. Dishonesty is neither right nor wrong. For that matter, they have no right to complain about biblical creationists because we are "born this way", and they would be consistent in ridiculing someone who was born blind!

Dr. R. Albert Mohler had a segment on The Briefing that inspired this article. In it, he discussed how someone advised atheist parents to lie to their children about God. This is strictly from a pragmatic and functionalist view of religion (used here, it is a vague word). "Religious" people have better mental health, so lie to them if you don't believe in God. They want the benefits of religion, but deny the truth and substitute the mythology of evolution.

Pull back on them thar reins and holler, "Whoa!", Wilberforce! There are accounts of Christian parents who told their children that the secular version of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real, then when they learned that those are strictly fantasy, began to doubt the truth of the birth, death, crucifixion and bodily resurrection of Jesus. (My kids were told early on that they were just pretend.) What will the kids say when they realize that the parents blatantly lied about God? Mayhaps they'll question other "truths" that were told by these atheists.

Atheists get on the prod when we talk about recent creation and how the Bible is inerrant. They also detest the fact that their views lack the necessary preconditions of intelligibility, and by claiming something is right or wrong, they are tacitly standing on the Christian worldview. In lying to their children, atheists are contradictory. The God who gave them life and truth also commanded people not to lie. These folks need to stop suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, humble themselves, and repent before Almighty God.

I mentioned earlier that this article was inspired by Dr. Mohler. I urge you to read the transcript of download the audio. (Helpful hint: the segment under discussion is about eleven minutes long, and if you click on "Part 2", you can listen to it right away.) To investigate, click on "Friday, December 13, 2019" and look for that second part.

December 4, 2019

The Destructive Nature of Narcissism

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is an article that I was going to write for a long time. Originally, I thought I could make it work over at Piltdown Superman and use the material in a discussion about atheists and anti-creationists, but it was not a good fit over there. This was inspired by an article that had been in my e-book reader for a long time and is linked later on.


Narcissistic types can be annoying but also dangerous in extreme cases. Secular materials can be helpful, but the real problem is spiritual.
Cropped from Echo and Narcissus by John William Waterhouse, 1903
Is it just my imagination, or are people becoming more and more self-absorbed nowadays? We hear about people who are overly fond of themselves and are often referred to as narcissistic. The word came from an ancient Greek myth where Narcissus was excessively handsome and fond of himself, then fell in love with his own reflection.

Narcissism is a personality disorder that takes many forms. The word is bandied about far too casually, describing people from world leaders to anyone else that may be disliked. As with any disorder (or even a physical illness), symptoms may vary. Most likely, we have all encountered people with some degree of narcissistic personality traits, but when it's a full-blown disorder — Katie, bar the door! Those people can be psychotics (I am using that word deliberately) and possibly dangerous in extreme cases.

The web is full of creepy people who put their wickedness on display, as well as some wonderful folks I regret not knowing in the real world. Not only do atheists frequent display narcissism, but their problem is probably compounded by autism in many cases. I know of some atheists who think that it is their duty to refute the "st00pid dumb creatards" through ridicule and misrepresentation. 

One is so narcissistic, he plays at believing God exists but has actually made an idol with which he is comfortable — which is certainly not the God of the Bible! In fact, he consigns people to Hell because they do not believe in his version of global warming, an old earth, the Big Bang, evolution, and in my case, just for existing. Narcissists will tell you how you are intellectually and/or morally inferior. When you prove your points, they deny the evidence even when it's right in front of them. Expect retaliation and childish behavior as well as further attempts at manipulation. This particular cyberstalker has stated that he intends to destroy me. That'll be the day!

Before continuing, I want to discuss the article that prompted this one. It is entirely secular, and was written for people who are in relationships with narcissists. It may be helpful to some people, and it can be helpful to view these sidewinders from a distance. (There is one strong profanity in it, but I'll allow that it's also humorously creative and descriptive.) If you want to read it, click on "20 Diversion Tactics Highly Manipulative Narcissists, Sociopaths And Psychopaths Use To Silence You". Notice how narcissists try to isolate you from friends and associates, attempting to bolster their egos by having them shun you.

As usual, secular sources disregard the spiritual nature of humanity. Psychology is rooted in atheistic evolutionary approaches, so no wonder it's more like a goat rodeo than an actual science. Sure, trained counselors can give some degree of help because they know how to listen and ask probing questions. The real problem with narcissism is spiritual. In a word: sin. In another word: pride. I have encountered a couple of individuals who hate the God of the Bible and who love themselves so much, I am convinced that they are under heavy demonic influence. Narcissists despise biblical authority and the fact that they need to submit to God, not the false gods they've made.

We have to be on guard against the manipulations of narcissists. Not only can they be emotionally damaging, they try to take as much of our time as we'll allow (note how atheists and other evolutionists hound Christians and creationists). Ultimately, we need to remember that we are children of the living God, and that we can show unbelievers that they need to humble themselves and repent before Jesus.



September 10, 2019

Atheists and Misrepresentation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Some time ago, I wrote an article about the proper use of debates, which drew heavily on what I had learned from Dr. James R. White. At this writing, he has done 169 formal debates. One thing he emphasizes is that to do this, both sides have to know what the other represents so they can discuss things properly.


Atheists and evolutionists frequently misrepresent Christians and creationists. Dr. James R. White points out some of these things. Christians need to be on guard against both receiving and giving them.
Screenshot from The Dividing Line, September 3, 2019 (linked below)
There is a section of The Dividing Line that I would like you to see. Dr. White is telling how he represents the other side correctly (at the moment, he was talking to a Mohammedan). That is an excellent set-up for the next segment where he is (if I understood this correctly) going to debate an atheist. This atheist wrote a post where he makes fifteen assertions that parts of the Bible had material that were inserted deceptively.

What he is doing (and what the Mohammedan was doing earlier) is focusing on textual variances. Christian scholars know about these things, and they are usually in footnotes of Bibles (such as, "...older manuscripts omit..." or similar). Claiming sneakiness from ancient Christians without evidence is not only illogical, it also makes him the liar. (I know of tinhorns who do the same thing: assert that someone is deceptive without offering evidence, then claiming that they "proved" someone is lying by irrationally invoking the fallacy of repeated assertion.) The atheist that White is discussing would do well to read "100 Alleged Bible Contradictions Answered" at the Domain for Truth.

Seeing this sort of thing helps Christians and especially creationists be on guard against harassment and misrepresentation by atheists and evolutionists. Also, we have to be mindful of our own approaches, avoiding "Gotcha!" tricks and so forth. We are not in this to glorify ourselves through our rhetorical skills, but to spread the truth and to glorify God.


The part I would like you to watch begins at the 25 minutes 49 seconds mark. I'm only asking a few minutes from you, from the Mohammedan and into the discussion about the atheist. You may want to watch Dr. White address each of the fifteen items, but I am not asking for that much.

ADDENDUM: Sometimes atheists pretend to be Christians, but you can tell from their misuse of the Bible and their attitudes that they are unbelievers in sheep's clothing. Ladies and gentlemen, for your edification and amusement, let me present Haywire the Criminal Cyberstalker (the crowd goes wild). Hailing from London in the UK, he stalks and harasses people, especially intelligent people, who do not agree with his narrow, convoluted, bigoted views. Although he hates the God of the Bible and rejects the authority of Scripture, and he does not understand either, he uses them in his idolatrous pursuit of internet validity. He also has a habit of proving his critics right. Let's have a big round of applause for Haywire the Criminal Cyberstalker:



July 4, 2019

Liberty and Darwinism are Opposites

Since proponents of fish-to-firefighter evolution rely on a paradigm of naturalism, they have a heap of trouble explaining the experiences of life that are intangible. I heard a debate between a Christian and an atheist, and the atheist admitted that everything he knows could be wrong in his frame of empiricism. The Christian showed him that he could not account for such things as logic and his worldview is self-refuting. Even though the atheist could be wrong, his "reasoning" maintained that the Christian is also wrong. Such a worldview is unlivable, as things we experience every day, truths of life, cannot be tested and determined in a lab by material means. By what means to materialists determine the soul or free will? What or where is consciousness? They are not a part of the brain. There are some helpful links in "The Quantum Soul?"


Evolutionists cannot reconcile concepts like freedom and liberty with their materialistic worldview.
Declaration of Independence, John Trumbull, 1817-1819
Today, many Americans are celebrating Independence Day. Hopefully, we will reflect on the strong statements that were used by the Founding Fathers in this event. Darwin and his successors promoted natural selection, and had no use for things like love, compassion, human rights, liberty, and so forth. Yet we cherish such concepts, but they have no evolutionary, "scientific", or materialistic basis. In fact, they are contrary to such thinking. Our founders, and many Americans today, acknowledge that freedoms ultimately come from our Creator.

It amazes me that people hold very public protests, write letters, publish newspaper articles, and more to complain about the government. That's freedom of speech. They should learn how to use search engines and learn a bit about history, as there are countries now, and have been in the past, where such actions could get them imprisoned or killed.

We transfer power through our election processes. Other countries have violent overthrows and military actions. By the way, our government is far more stable than other countries. Do some research on how many governments Italy has had, for instance.

There are people in Britain and other places who rail against Americans as stupid and backward (even though we're the leaders in science and technology, as well as human rights). Is it because many of us reject their materialistic, Darwinian views? While many folks strive for political and other kinds of freedoms, the only true freedom is found in being reconciled with our Creator and Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

I'm sending you to an article that was published on July 4, 2018, but I did not see it until later. This post is written on August 19, 2018. It will be interesting to see that what is expressed here, and in that article, are still relevant.
The Darwinian worldview that allegedly freed people from ‘religion’ actually enslaves them to the worst kind of tyranny.

In the United States today, Americans will celebrate Independence Day with parties, barbecues, and fireworks. Hopefully mixed in with the fun is some appreciation for the founding principles of America:
  • All men are created equal
  • Human rights
  • Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
  • Liberty and justice for all
  • E pluribus unum (out of many, one)
  • In God we trust
  • The American dream
All of these ideals are profoundly anti-Darwinian. The secular worldview in vogue today, resting on Darwin’s advocacy of nature run by unguided natural processes, cannot derive any of these. In fact, the opposite is true: secularism undermines every one of these, and historically, has fought against them.
 I'd take it very kindly if you'd read the rest of this article. To do so, click on "Liberty Is an Anti-Darwinian Concept".



June 22, 2019

Modern Culture and Changing Morality

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is one of those articles that will probably be outdated within days, but I am writing it because the time-sensitive examples should still be useful in support of the principles they underscore. As societies change, so do moral "standards" — unfortunately. There is an ultimate standard, but that is unwanted nowadays.


Kyle Kashuv and Lori Loughlin received harsh reprisals for their actions. The morality behind their punishments is inconsistent, showing how the morality in society keeps changing. There is an ultimate standard, but people reject it.
Credit: Unsplash / purplepic

Rescinding the Offer

Kyle Kashuv was a survivor of the Parkland school shooting by a leftist in 2018. He was admitted to Harvard, but people who disliked his pro-Second Amendment views dug up dirt on him, sent it to Harvard, and they rescinded their offer. Chris Stigall discussed this in his podcast at about the 37 minute mark. Apparently, even though Harvard, a bastion of anti-Christian and anti-Conservative thought (ironically, it was established on Christian principles) has decided that certain politically incorrect words deserve their harsh judgment.

Saying such things was not worthy of notice a few years ago. Also, most people have done something foolish in their youth. Do people change? You betcha. So do society's morals.

 

The Horror of Bribery

Speaking of colleges, Lori Loughlin was in the TV sitcom Full House and then Fuller House (on Netflix), and has starred in several movies on the Hallmark networks. She was caught in a college admissions scandal, and was fired from Fuller House and Hallmark. Interesting that this warranted such harsh reprisals, without conviction, but what is the moral standard? Where is the consistency? Not like she was a convicted axe murderer or something.


via GIPHY

When encountering atheists and such on social media and elsewhere, they get on the prod to ridicule and persecute Christians. Bigotry is acceptable against Christians and biblical creationists in modern society, and it is interesting that the accusers are using bigotry to deflect from their own. Sometimes you will hear or read that we "deserve" attacks. According to what standard? Personal whims.

It's Moral if it's Good for Us

The Company decided that they needed to step up the bullying. Mandatory overtime was implemented months ago, and with it, promises that the crisis will soon pass. (The crisis will pass when the incompetent upper management runs The Company into the ground.) A misconduct write-up? I think that is defamation toward the employee, Bubbles. Misconduct is when a chair is thrown through the window. Savvy the difference?

When people were hired, they were told the hours of the shift they were working, with occasional overtime on weekends. People planned accordingly, getting second jobs, arranging child care, adjusting themselves to deal with medical issues, and so on. No, whatever is desired by The Company is good and right (State Department of Labor penalties and class action lawsuits against 

The Company no withstanding), and they can change the rules as they see fit. Ironically, employees were required to renew training in ethics and integrity when the leadership (I use that term loosely) is severely deficient in both. Do they seriously expect high quality data entry work from people who have eye strain, are tired, in pain, courting carpal tunnel syndrome,  resentful? I may eventually change this to actually name The Company, who has a lousy reputation on the street and online. They've worked hard to earn their bad reputation and they apparently intend to keep it.

Because She Deserved It

A black man severely beat and raped a white woman and said she deserved it because of slavery. What, she owned him? Not a chance. This was just a pathetic attempt to justify his sinful urges in his own "morality". Maybe they'll use the detestable "black rage" defense. Chris Plante discusses it for a few minutes. The player is supposed to start at the 2 hr. 38 min. 10 sec. mark, or as close as I could get it. You can locate it yourself if this doesn't work correctly.



These examples show that morality changes based on whims and political correctness, and smack of postmodern relative morality. The only true foundation is revealed in the Bible, and we can see what happens when the truth provided by the Creator is suppressed in unrighteousness. People make mistakes, and they may change. The more permanent and positive changes come from repentance and humble faith in Jesus Christ.

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. 

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?"



December 24, 2018

Atheistic Anti-Holiday Foolishness

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Canada has been doing a whole whack of stuff that is anti-family, anti-conservative, anti-free speech, and anti-Christian. Like many other parts of the world (including these here United States), this kind of behavior by governmental and legislative officials has been increasing. Atheists whined, and were financially rewarded. What, is Canada turning into France and surrendering to bad behavior?


Atheist parents in Canada sued a school and won over Christmas and Hanukkah displays. In reality, they lost on many levels.
Background image courtesy of Why?Outreach
Up yonder in British Columbia, an atheist family complained about religious holiday symbols (atheists complain a lot, it's their nature). "You have to stop what you're doing and everybody else has to comply to our demands", it seems. The school didn't want those obstreperous schmendricks in their establishment, so they said not to come back. The atheists sued and won!

Although what used to be civil and legal rights were on the side of the school, when you have leftist misotheists in power, rights do not matter any longer. While the atheists "won", they actually lost:
  • They are teaching their child intolerance and bigotry.
  • The child is learning that whining and seeking legal action are the way to settle disputes.
  • This child is also learning to be a jerk, expecting the rest of the world to cave in to his or her narrow demands.
  • Schools are supposed to be places of learning, including what other people think and believe. It appears that these unfit parents want to keep the kid in a bubble, unaware that other people think and feel differently.
  • Unless something changes drastically, this child is learning to be unfit in dealing with other people, whether in Canada or other cultures; shielding the kid does not work.
People celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah. That means songs, symbols, greetings, decorations, and so forth. Despite the efforts of misotheists, most calendars number the years based on the fact that God the Son, the Creator, entered his creation to redeem us. Trying to change AD and BC to CE and BCE are shallow efforts to deny historical reality. Is the child going to complain about the years on calendars or stamped on coins?  Perhaps Junior will become a Christian despite the efforts of atheo-fascist parents.

I'm going to ride down a side trail for a moment. Some professing atheists are "live and let live". That is, "You believe, I don't. Let's go on about our business". Those seem to be fewer as time goes on, but this one realizes that Christmas is a big part of our culture:


The biggest loss that these parents will receive is at the Judgment of Christ. Although they suppress the truth of God's existence in unrighteousness, they know (and their child knows) deep inside that God exists. Hell is getting hotter for them because of hindering their little one. They need to repent. Then they can celebrate the birth of Jesus with a few million of the rest of us. Until then, they can work on Christmas instead of getting a day off and celebrate the virgin birth for the God they hate. Christmas and Hanukkah still happen, whether atheopaths like it or not.



December 5, 2018

Science Shows the Differences Between Men and Women

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Some people refer to those of us who reject fish-to-fool evolution or the current version of anthropogenic climate change as "science deniers", "anti-science", and similar labels. Such claims are clearly blatant lies utilized to elicit emotional reactions for the sake of demonizing their opponents. 

It is not uncommon for advocates of evolution and climate change to misrepresent those they perceive of as enemies, even lying all the more in their straw man "arguments". Part of the problem is the all-or-nothing argumentation; we state that we appreciate real science, but they portray us as if we reject all science. You savvy? When it comes to differences between men and women, there are indeed science deniers. No, not all of science, but that which is applicable to their gender activism.


Medical science and biology affirm the differences between men and women. To ignore the facts can lead to serious health hazards.
The Happy LoversGustave Courbet, 1844
I have written about the differences between males and females (and how science confirms what the Bible says) in a previous post. Also, leftist activists in the secular science industry are denying what they are supposed to know and fueling gender confusion for a small segment of the population. (Interesting that all sorts of deviations have escalated ever since the Obergefell ruling.) For centuries, people knew that men and women are different; there are only two sexes like the Bible says (Genesis 1:27, Genesis 5:2). Nowadays people don't know which restroom to use. Your gender is not "fluid", and if you'll permit me a moment of the reification fallacy: science does not care how you feel.

Aside from the obvious differences in strength and physique, our differences go all the way down to the cellular level — even into the DNA. Men respond to certain medications differently than women. Snoring and sleep apnea are bad for anyone, but they seem to be a greater cardiac problem for women. Both sexes have kidneys, but those of women have been complicated. Men are less likely to survive some cancers than women. There is a great deal more in the link below.

Meanwhile, leftists want to ignore the factual differences between the sexes, and political correctness can interfere with proper medical procedures. As Christians and creationists (as well as secularists who have sense) have said all along, we are different and no amount of personal preference assertion can change that. Leftists mocked Donald Trump for saying that there are only two sexes. He is right. 

To read about science between the sexes, click on "Biological Fact: Men and Women Are Different". EDIT: I also recommend "Marriage and identity crisis" Redefining marriage, gender, age and species" for additional information.

Here is a song that leftists are making noise about getting banned. Probably because it is about man and woman stuff.




October 31, 2018

Protestants, Atheists, and Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There is a picture of a young guy with a beginner's mustache, glasses, and he has one eyebrow raised. His shirt is printed, "I'm an atheist debate me". The caption reads, "Atheism A Religion People Join to Appear Smarter". Although it has been given many captions, I like this older one the most. You can see it here if you like, the one I'm talking about should be at the top. Anti-creationists get rambunctious with it, but I believe the original picture is a parody of atheists' attitudes.

Atheists pretend to be smarter than Christians, but reality shows otherwise.
Bellvue Baptist Church photo credit: Freeimages / Ricky Gipson
The majority of American atheists are younger males and white. The caption about "appear smarter" is especially fitting, as many atheopaths are trolling the web, trying to impress others with their genius. They get upset when we point out their poor logic, and frequently display their ignorance, such as in a 3-on-3 debate that I wrote about. Professing atheists today are not too likely to do their thing and let us do our thing. No, atheo-fascists want us silenced, mein Herr. (Regular readers have seen my reports of blind hatred from a criminal cyberstalkers.) The great irony that they miss is when they claim that they are more intelligent than "theists" by virtue of being atheists, they are demonstrating fallacious thinking! Many times, these Mighty Atheists™ display their super powers, but only demonstrate poor logic, narcissism, and bigotry.

Click for larger ("Tweets" are public domain)
Atheists have extreme faith in their religion. By denying that atheism is a religion because they reject a deity, they are ignoring definitions of religion. (Ironically, they have their own naturalistic miracles for their worldview) Also, they build a straw man argument by using the hoary canard that "faith is believing in something you know isn't true". R.C. Sproul wrote
The first assertion that faith is rational means that faith is intelligible. It is not absurd or illogical. If biblical revelation were absurd and irrational, it would be utterly unintelligible and meaningless. The content of the Bible cannot pierce the soul of a sentient creature without first going through the mind. It was Augustine who declared that faith without evidence is credulity. At this point we understand that though faith is rational, it is also reasonable. Biblical faith does not call people to crucify their intellect or take irrational leaps of faith into the darkness with the hope that Christ will catch us. Rather we are called to leap out of the darkness and into the light. 
God requires us to have faith (Habakkuk 2:4, 2 Corinthians 5:7, Hebrews 11:6). Cowboy up and realize that God does not require his people to do stupid things. Faith is real and important, and has nothing in common with the way professing atheists portray it, you savvy?

Some people say that they want to raise their children with no religious input and "let them decide for themselves". Congratulations, you just told your children that there is no ultimate truth, and that philosophies are like choosing hats. I was recently told about someone in her 20s who recently visited a church for the first time. Her parents were "not religious", but by their lifestyle, they were still influencing their children. 

You will also hear, "I don't believe in religion, I believe in science!" Science is a tool, and a philosophy for interpreting data. It is based on one's worldview. Atheists begin with materialism and see evidence for evolution, and Bible-believing Christians see evidence that supports Scripture that tells us about our Creator. Going beyond materialism and into human experience on the spiritual level, there are no atheists, only those who suppress the truth (Romans 1:18-23). 

If you've noticed, atheists as a whole are not the ones spearheading disaster relief efforts, building hospitals or schools, or anything else. Sure, individual atheists contribute to science and society, but the heavy lifting is done by Christians. Today is Reformation Day because when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenburg door, the Reformation "officially" started. Actually, it had been in the making for some time before, and continued afterward. Luther promoted public education.

It is interesting that Protestants have more interest in having science in their lives than atheists, and display more logical thinking! Well, that was the case in the past more so than now, because of the secularization and Islamization of various nations. Today, state education systems are indoctrination centers for atheism and evolution, but people are not learning the truth, nor are they learning critical thinking.

Now we come to an article I strongly recommend: "Who’s Got Logical Reasoning? Protestants, Not Atheists".


October 16, 2018

Zoroaster and Monotheism

As a kid, I liked watching Zoroaster, as portrayed by Guy Williams. He wore a mask, fought for justice in Spanish California, and slash a Z with his sword —

"No, Cowboy Bob! You're thinking of Zorro!"

Oh, right. I was wondering why he started a religion over yonder, in Persia and India.

Now it's time to stop playing with words and get serious. The history of Zoroaster (Zarathustra, and other names) is controversial, and is generally considered to have lived long before Jesus. Some two-bit tinhorns say that Christianity stole concepts from Zoroastrianism and Mithraism, but examinations of source documents show that such is not the case.

Zoroaster began a religion that has some similarities with Christianity.
Public domain image attributed to Clavis Artis,
an alchemy manuscript, via Wikimedia Commons
Zoroastrianism is considered monotheistic, but that is not entirely accurate because. They have a God, but also have an immortal counterpart for evil. Christianity does not have Satan as God's equal, but as a created being who turned evil and is defeated at the end. Their god, Ahura Mazda, was a creator, but there are very distinct differences between that creation account and the true creation found in Genesis.

Stories of the Genesis Flood that are spread all over the world and many still have elements of the true account, and people most likely carried some form of the narrative with them after the dispersal at Babel. Not only are people born with a knowledge that God exists, but I suspicion that some semblance of accounts of the one true God were dispersed as well. That may explain some similarities between religions. Also, it is likely that later versions of Mithraism and Zoroastrianism borrowed from Christianity.

Y'all might be wondering why I'm posting something about this obscure Eastern religion. One reason is to challenge the foolish claim that Christianity stole from Zoroastrianism. Another one is because the religion may seem obscure in the West, but is has very many adherents in India, Iran, and other places. Also, there are mixtures of cultural religions and Zoroastrianism, and even some modifications of Islam. Don't be surprised if those folks moving in next door have some shades of this religion. They need Jesus too.
The early history of Zoroastrianism is much in dispute. The religion was founded by Zoroaster, but it is not certain when he lived, where he lived or how much of later Zoroastrianism came from him. Tradition puts him in western Iran in the sixth century BC, a little earlier than the Buddha in India, but it is now thought that he lived in northeastern Iran, in the area on the borders of modern Afghanistan and Turkmenistan. An alternate theory dates him much earlier, somewhere from 1700 to 1500 BC, and places him in the plains of central Asia, perhaps before the first groups of Aryans moved south from the plains into Iran and India.
. . .
This religion obviously has aspects similar to Christianity and may have been influenced by events from Genesis forward as they were passed down from generation to generation.
. . .
Regardless, Zoroastrianism is considered one of the world’s oldest monotheistic religions — the doctrine or belief that there is only one God. However, while Zoroastrians say they believe there is one supreme God whom they call Ahura Mazda, they also recognize another immortal deity, known as Angra Mainyu, who represents the epitome of evil. So using the traditional definition of monotheism, many religious scholars would say it is more accurate to describe this religion as polytheistic. 
As Christians, it is important to understand that when God created us in His image, He wrote monotheism into our “spiritual DNA.” In helping us to understand this reality, the Apostle Paul explains in the first two chapters of the book of Romans that the existence of only one true God is evident to everyone in one of two ways.
To read the rest (it's a bit long, but very interesting), click on "World Religions and Cults: Zoroastrianism".


Subscribe in a reader