Showing posts with label christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label christianity. Show all posts

September 1, 2019

Weasel Words and the Gay Gene Study

A recent study affirms previous results that there is no gay gene. Materialists still attempt to use genetic determinism to deny the Creator and dehumanize people.Scientific news confirmed previous scientific news. Namely, there is no such thing as a gay gene. People who claim they were "born this way" can make all kinds of explanations, but genetics is not supporting their lifestyles. The very big new study had scientists and tinhorn news reporters dealing from the bottom of the deck, however.

The saying applies here: torture the evidence enough and it'll confess to anything. This study on homosexuality was about behavior, not orientations. Conflicting items from the report were cited, but we see that many genes are associated with homosexual behavior — and with other things as well. One even is a part of the sense of smell, so that's a good indication that the results do not pass the sniff test. An important part of the research tends to be neglected by leftists: causation and correlation are two completely different things.

Materialists seek to deny that we are created by God, and are instead slaves to our biochemical impulses. Added to this is the dehumanizing aspect of genetic determinism. Environmental factors are thrown into the trail mix by leftists, but that concept is a red herring and should be examined separately. Weasel words dominate science news reporting in an effort to further leftist hijacking science for their own ends.

There are two important things for your serious consideration. The first is an article:

Largest genetic study ever done on the subject shows no conclusive evidence genes influence homosexual behavior.
There is no “gay gene,” a big new study concludes. The results of a large genome-wide association study (GWAS) study were published in Science today. Some scientists, however, continue to try to tease the data for some evidence of a predisposition to homosexual behavior.
To read the rest, click on "Homosexuals Can’t Blame Their Genes". The next item is The Briefing podcast by Dr. Albert Mohler. You can listen online, download the MP3, or read the transcript of the first two segments. For this, click on "Part 1, Is Homosexuality Genetic? New Research Reveals an Old Story; Part 2, The Impulse to Ground Homosexuality in Biological Terms Is Driven By Morality, Not Just Science". Bonus article for Christians from May, 2018: "Regarding 'Sexual Orientation', Evil Desire, and the Question of Moral Neutrality".

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".


September 19, 2017

Benjamin Franklin and Religion

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Here in the United States, and to some extent in other parts of the world, there has been considerable debate about the religion of the Founding Fathers. While the majority of them could be considered fundamentalist or evangelical Christians by today's standards, a few were Deists. Secularists who attempt to rewrite history somehow try to make it seem that the appearance of these Deists negated the fact that America was clearly founded on Christian principles

There are different stripes of Christians, Buddhists, Mohammedans, atheists, and other religions. Indeed, even within certain sects and denominations, you will find variations. This includes Deists. I've encountered deists who want to join in with misotheists in slapping leather with Christians, and others who are more moderate. Like other groups, there is no "one size fits all" for Deists.


Ben Franklin was a Deist but supported Christian values
Benjamin Franklin / Joseph Wright, 1782
Benjamin Franklin was unarguably one of the most important American founders, and was a complex individual. He was also a Deist. This Deist was good friends with one of the most important Christian leaders of their time, George Whitefield. Franklin was friendly toward Christianity, and made remarks that were friendly to it and to the Bible, yet he apparently never surrendered his life to Jesus Christ. A somewhat famous but dishonest picture of atheism "good enough for these idiots" pictures Franklin and several other people, but only one was an avowed atheist. (Atheists are not necessarily idiots, but they are fools, Psalm 14:1, Proverbs 1:7.) I seriously doubt that Ben would be fond of today's dishonest atheists who are unskilled at rational thought

Dr. Albert Mohler has an intellectually-oriented show with a name that I think is quite good: Thinking in Public. In this episode, he interviews Professor Thomas Kidd about his book,  Benjamin Franklin: The Religious Life of a Founding Father. There are people who may be put off by the intellectual approach, but I reckon that if I understood it, most folks can.

Before I give you the link, I have to take you on a side trail. (I tend to do that frequently, don't I?) It's about intellectualism. In days of yore, there was an intellectual class in Europe that was into philosophy, the arts, and leaned to the political left (including Marxism). Another trait of the intellectuals then (and now) is fondness for theological liberalism, which disdains the authority and perspicuity of the Bible. This did harm to Christianity (as it does today), and was an influence in the Christian Fundamentalist movement. For more about this, you may want to take a gander at my article, "Christian Fundamentalism and Anti-Intellectualism".

Being intelligent and seriously examining not only Scripture, but other aspects surrounding it, is definitely not unchristian. In fact, reacting against intellectual pursuits has, I believe, been detrimental to Christianity. God gave us our minds, and expects us to use them. That is why we have some brilliant theologians and Bible-believing scientists. Especially creationists. We cannot effectively refute atheism and evolutionism, nor can we defend the biblical aspects of our values, with slogans and captioned pictures alone.

Okay, I'm done with that side trail. I hope you'll spend the hour to listen to "Benjamin Franklin’s American Religion: A Conversation with Historian Thomas Kidd", which is free to download or hear online. If you prefer to read, the transcript is also available at the link. Although this phrase may be cutesy, I think it's true: they put the cookies on the bottom shelf. I like cookies.
  

May 21, 2017

Atheism, Religion, and Reality

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There's a whole whack of supporting links and recommended resources in this article. This is not a blanket approval for everything on every site, so I reckon that people have to use their discernment when reading other material at those sites, you savvy?

To hear some professing atheists talk, they want to usher in an age of science and reason, which should be accomplished by doing away with religion and superstition. They get mighty ornery when someone points out that atheism itself is a religion, and don't even want to look at the evidence. What they are attempting to do is proselytize people into their fundamentally flawed worldview, and distance themselves from the religion moniker. The principle of "separation of church and state" that they misrepresent when bullying through litigation could backfire on the religion of atheism.

I'll allow that atheists generally do not have a formal confession of faith or attend meetings, but many find their identities in atheism, and it gives them a purpose in their lives. (Not a good purpose, since atheists are not the ones building schools and hospitals, providing relief efforts, and so on. Some may join in with helping their fellow humans, but it's obvious that Christian organizations are the ones doing the heavy lifting.) A few atheists admit that they have a religion, and a few more admit that theirs is a worldview, but most claim the disingenuous redefinition of atheism as "lack of belief".

Where do professing atheists get their morality and ethics? The do not have a consistent moral standard, so they their morality comes from societal trends, arbitrary philosophies and excuses, and especially from evolution. How the failed evolutionary philosophy of "survival of the fittest" can provide anything beyond selfishness escapes me. For more on atheism, religion, evolution, and so on, see "Atheist Denies Atheism Is a Religion".

Many atheopaths simply hate the God that they pretend does not exist, and seek to make the lives of Christians miserable. Note that they do not spend much time on Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moslems, Buddhists, the Annunaki and Nibiru, or other non-Christian religions. This is an unintentional and indirect confirmation of what the Bible says about them. More about that later.


Atheists are illogical and intellectually dishonest

Although the Mighty Atheist™ may think he has super powers, critical thinking is not his strong suit. Nor is basic human decency. Trolling, misrepresentation, straw men, ad hominem attacks, bullying, genetic fallacy, acting like the atheistic equivalent of internet MS-13 gang members, insisting that their faith in science is science, and many more instances of intolerance are found, but things that make them likeable and rational? That'll be the day! Many consistently and blatantly misrepresented our positions. 

There is an atheopath who claims to "debunk" creation science and The Question Evolution Project in particular. Like many others, he constantly misrepresents creationists. He does not read the material, insists that I debate him on his Fazebook Page, and calls me a coward for refusing to waste my time in a prolonged discussion, yet refuses to give his name. It further reduces his respectability that he is unable to recognize that through a few brief comments, I have already defeated him in logic, shown him to be dishonest, and that anti-theism presupposes theism (they rip off our worldview in order to criticize it.) He has no originality, either — confiscates other people's work for La Revolución and twists it. So anyway. Antony Flew was an atheist for years, then admitted that evidence (especially DNA) convinced him that God exists. However, he apparently never became a believer in Jesus Christ. The one I mentioned above made the following comment and lied outright about Flew's conversion. In addition, he demonstrated dreadful reasoning that strikes me as a relative of the genetic fallacy, that Flew was right while he was an atheist and met with this jasper's approval, then he was wrong because his belief system changed:


Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
In Christian theology, the concept that sin has affected all areas of the unbeliever, including the ability to reason, is called the noetic effects of sin. It helps explain the intellectual dishonesty of atheism.

When atheists, who claim to love science, logic, and reason, demand scientific proof that God exists, they have already misfired on the draw. Why? Because that is a logical fallacy known as the category error or category mistake. (You can't use material means to test for the immaterial, Skippy.) Since thinking is hard, many attack the Bible instead. When given evidence that the Bible is trustworthy, they double down on their prejudicial conjectures, as discussed in "Doubt the Bible? You Might be a Conspiracy Theorist". Many well-intentioned Christians think that if they give atheists and evolutionists enough evidence, they will renounce their positions and submit themselves to God. This seldom works, and is actually dishonoring to God. You may end up with a Deist like Antony Flew, who is just as lost as a full-gallop atheist.

Like other unregenerate people, atheists are under Satan's control (John 8:44, 1 Cor. 2:14. 2 Cor. 4:4) and are enemies of God (Matt. 12:30 Rom. 5:10). When unbelievers say, "Prove to me that God exists, but leave the Bible out of it" and wants you to be neutral, a saying from Dr. Greg Bahnsen is worth remembering: they aren't, and you shouldn't be. That's because neutrality is a myth. The unbeliever is presupposing materialism and the rejection of God, and we are saddling up on his horse at his ranch and riding the trail of his choosing. Essentially, we agreeing with him by denying what God says about the unsaved. By letting the unbeliever decide whether or not God exists using his or her fallen, corrupt "wisdom", we are not only letting him put God on trial, but making his authority superior to the Word of God! The Christian is supposed to uphold the authority of Scripture. Satan fell from Heaven because of pride, and has been using it ever since. Note the extreme arrogance and pride of many professing atheists; we cannot be supporting their egos and pride.

You will not find anywhere in the Bible where a prophet, apostle, Jesus, or anyone else saw fit to prove either the existence of God or the historicity of Genesis. No, they started with the presupposition that God is real and the entire Word of God is true. The Bible tells us plainly that those who claim to be atheists know that God exists, but are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-22). This explains why they spend a disproportionate amount of time railing against God and his people instead of other groups. 

At this point, you may wonder if I'm advocating fideism and rejecting the presentation of evidence. Not hardly! Christians and creationists use a passel of evidence. It is not to be used to convince someone who is hostile to the faith, but when someone says, "I have something that I'd like to understand", we can use evidence to help remove a stumbling block to faith. Although evidence, science, whatever, are subordinate to the Word of God, they also help strengthen the faith of Christians. 

The biblical creationist worldview is the only one that comports with reality. Logic, science, evidence, morality, and those other things that atheists claim to believe in are actually impossible in their worldview. When they appeal to the uniformity and consistency of nature, right and wrong, and the laws of the universe, they are actually standing on our worldview, since belief in a godless random chance universe is inconsistent and irrational.


Insisting on his Scientism and reaching a conclusion via circular reasoning
Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
EDIT: In responding to this post about illogical questions such as, "Can God create a rock too big for him to lift?" (which implies the legitimacy of belief in square circles and so forth). He states it's a valid question, but it is actually quite irrational. By making this claim, he has finalized his disqualification from serious consideration in any logical discussion. I wonder if he's too young to be on Facebook.


Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
What I'm doing is using presuppositional apologetics. Atheists hate this apologetic because it shows how their epistemology (study of knowledge) mixes in metaphysics, and that their worldview is irrational and inconsistent — and deflates their pride. They commence to circling the wagons and opening fire on us when we point out that we all have our ultimate starting points. Ours is the Word of God, theirs is materialism, which makes science and reason impossible. They really get on the prod when we point out that atheists are hardcore presuppositionalists themselves. Atheist bigots establish an arbitrary standard with which they contemptuously judge others who have the temerity to disagree with their opinions and dismantle their reasoning.
You scientific people build up whole philosophies on the basis of things you never saw, and you scoff at people who believe in other things that you think they never saw and that don't come under what you label scientific. You talk about paradoxes—why, your scientist, who thinks he is the most skeptical, the most materialistic aggregation of atoms ever gathered at the exact mathematical centre of Missouri, has more blind faith than a dervish, and more credulity, more superstition, than a cross-eyed smoke beating it past a country graveyard in the dark of the moon!
— Outburst from Larry O'Keefe in Abraham Merritt's The Moon Pool

I have the opinion that anti-creationists and atheists are becoming more obstreperous because their father down below knows that his time is short, so he's using his hand puppets to try to destroy the faith of as many Bible believers as he can. Christians, I'd be very much obliged if y'all would take the time to read a couple of articles that explain these things far better than I can. First, "Help In Understanding Presuppositionalism". This is at "Theocentric Living", which is unfortunately not being maintained any longer. (The comments areas show the importance of comment moderation.) Next is a longer article that has some overlap with t'other, but presents some good basics, "What Is Presuppositional Apologetics?"

Digging deeper, I strongly recommend Dr. Jason Lisle's book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, and there is a video for sale as well as versions of talks on the subject on YouTube, such as this one. Many articles from various authors are linked at The Domain for Truth, which also has a variety of posts.

While we are to present the gospel to everyone who asks (1 Peter 3:15) and tear down fortresses against the knowledge of the truth (2 Cor. 10:3-5), we must do it in a Christ-honoring way. That means holding fast to the Word, and not allowing the unbeliever to judge God. Evidence and science are important, even exciting, but our apologetic needs to be in a presuppositional framework: do not use "neutral ground". Take note: it's not about evidence or science, salvation is a spiritual matter. We do use our minds, but they deny the existence of the soul or spirit. Further, it is not our job to do the conviction or saving through our own brilliant argumentation (1 Cor. 2:4-5), that's the work of the Holy Spirit. We have to do our part and trust the results to God.

 

November 5, 2016

An Improper Environment for Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Interesting that some cultures have made scientific advances in some areas, then just — stalled. Ancient pagan cultures had some good mathematics and observations, Mohammedans falsely take credit for various discoveries [1], Communist science was notorious for lagging behind the West (espionage was a big part of their progress [2]), and so on. For science to thrive, it needs the proper environment.

Some folks say that atheism and evolution are essential to scientific advancement. The opposite is true. Let's not lose the environment we had for scientific advancement.
Mao Zedong image on Chinese banknote
Image credit: Freeimages / Tudou Mao
Despite Bill Nye the Propaganda Guy's claims [3], belief in evolution has nothing to do with scientific progress. In reality, evolution is of no benefit to medicine [4], and has hindered scientific progress [5], and is anti-science [6]. Atheistic communism has been devastating to scientific advancement [6], and America is racing in that direction, what with the politicizing of science and all [7], [8], [9].

Do you need to be an atheist to be a scientist today? Not hardly! That pile of bovine scat has been propagated by atheopaths, but is a manipulative lie. Many of the greatest scientific minds, past and present, have not only been Christians, but creationists [7], and have not only contributed to science, but been foundational to modern science [8]. 

If you study on it for a spell, you'll see that continuous scientific advancement came from people with a biblical worldview in environments that supported science. My recommendation is that you don't fall for propaganda and trickery. I've given you a heap of information to show that science thrives in a biblically-based environment. Let's not cave in to atheists, evolutionists, and leftists who want to hijack science. Think, people! With your heads, not emotions and from propaganda. I ain't kiddin', neither!
 

September 11, 2016

Deplorable Things Fifteen Years After the September 11 Attacks

People have remembered significant national and global events many years after they happened. I've heard and read where people remember the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated, the 1941 attacks on Pearl Harbor, and other things many years later.


Remember when we were unified for a few days after September 11, 2001? Remember that day? There are things in the intervening years that have become deplorable.
Memorial of September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, image credit: Pixabay / brandnewday
I was working in the back of the Big Chain Company Store (now semi-defunct) with the shipping and receiving manager, getting merchandise ready for shipping. (I had lived in New York for just over a year.) One guy came back there and began telling us about the plane crashes, and I didn't believe him because he often told jokes that were in poor taste. After he convinced the manager and me, I went to the computer and saw that he was right. When the Internet went down, I became even more alarmed. What's going on? Millions of people were wondering this, but we knew that America was being attacked. The rest of the day was a daze for me. I listened to the radio while making deliveries, and missing many turns because I wasn't focused.

Later, almost every house had an American flag attached to it one way or another, as did vehicles. Churches were filled. People were making themselves crazy watching the news, hoping for answers, new information, possible reports of military retaliation.

Naturally, the news reports went from bad to worse. Fearmongers for ratings saying how terrorists could use atomic weapons and chemical weapons (Saddam Hussein used them against the Kurds in 1988, killing thousands). I was about to cross the Kingston-Rhinecliff bridge for a delivery a few days later, and I saw a plane flying low because it's near the small airport we have. I had to overcome my fear and press on, no, it's not nerve gas or something. Much later, I read and heard people who knew what they were talking about: chemical weapons need precise conditions to work, and both nuclear and chemical weapons require very difficult, timely, special handling.

There are several things that I find deplorable in the intervening fifteen years:
  • After churches were filled, they emptied out again. I believe this is because modern church-ianity does not believe and teach the Word, and cannot give answers to a world in need, even though they are in the Bible.
  • Atheists used the terrorist attacks for their own ends. Some make big money writing books about the evils of "religion", while they and their disciples complain that Christians who do the heavy lifting in building hospitals, building schools, providing relief efforts, and more ask for donations to help support the work. Those sidewinders get rich off gullible, non-thinking atheopaths, attack a vague phantom of "religion", get rich, misrepresent Christianity and the Bible — and those sidewinders know full well that the September 11 attacks were by Mohammedans, and not "religion" as a whole. Much later, Clinton Richard Dawkins admitted, "There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death."
  • Others have been ridiculous, comparing the September 11 attacks with abortion. My readers on various sites know full well that am I strongly pro-life (as shown here, for instance), but I strongly object to absurd AHA comparisons of September 11 with abortion. Yes, abortion must be eliminated, but using illogical arguments and manipulating emotions is not the way to do it. Doing this is a mockery of the suffering of those who died, their families, millions of other people — and the military. There are other situations where the attacks have been used to further an agenda, but the atheist and AHA examples are the most egregious to me.
  • Most of the rest of the world was united in the suffering of Americans for a short time, but have left us behind in intervening years. This is most likely due to leftist politics in this country and ridiculous "leaders" who have alienated former allies.
  • Conspiracy theories. There are people who can't suppress their consciences over little things like the "Alien Autopsy" video, imagine how many thousands would be involved in the murders of so many people. Further, conspiracy theories have been thoroughly debunked, but some pinheads still insist that the attacks were an "inside job".
  • Bad political leadership allows Mohammedan "refugees" into countries without vetting them, while keeping true refugees like Christians behind to continue to be slaughtered. Islam is being excused and coddled, many countries are feeling the effects, and it continues. Blatant stupidity. Frankly, I believe the problem is spiritual; nobody can be so stupid unless we are under God's judgement and he's letting our inner nature run loose without restraint.
  • Here I'll be controversial. People gave — I gave — to those left behind by the terror attacks. They got wealthy! Why are the lives of people in office buildings worth millions of dollars, yet the soldiers who fight to preserve our freedoms only worth a pittance, financially? 
  • We've forgotten. There was a short period of national unity, now it's leftists advancing their agendas and waving their bony middle fingers in the faces of Christians and Conservatives. Patriotism is not cool. Well, except for several country music stars, and a few surprises in the rock industry, most recently, Kiss.
While writing this, I had tears in my eyes fifteen years after the fact. The memories are still there. It's not only adherents of Islam who need salvation in Jesus Christ, but professing atheists, liberal professing Christians, and the average John and Jane who never really thought about their eternal destinies. We need to get back to our foundations as individuals and as a society.

ADDENDUM: Some similar thoughts from a different approach can be found in "Big Science’s Distorted View of 9/11".




February 12, 2014

Questions for Creationists on Question Evolution Day

Question Evolution Day, The Question Evolution Project, God, Bible, Ian Juby, Apologetics, Creation, Creation Science, Charles Darwin, Evolution, Creationism
To celebrate the third annual Question Evolution Day, I'm going to keep this post simple. Here is a video that is just under half an hour. It's from Ian Juby's "Genesis Week", and contains information that anti-creationists ignore, ridicule, misrepresent and do whatever they can to keep people from hearing the truth and thinking for themselves. Go ahead, you know you want to watch it!


September 27, 2012

More Steps Toward a Police State


Edited 9-28-2012

Hatetheists will naturally laugh at the title and this article (even to the point of disagreeing with me for its own sake). Some people are too young, uninformed and/or looking for excuses to hate to be aware of what has happened in the not-too-distant past. Totalitarianism is not normally something that happens quickly. The erosion of liberties takes place gradually, and when tyrants rule, cowed people wonder what happened.

One advantage of having free speech is the ability to sound the alarm. While we still can.

The nonsense of politically correct speech is increasing. It is an excuse to stifle free speech. I was watching some comedy shows on some of those increasingly popular rerun channels. There were jokes in them that were innocuous for their time, and would be harmless today. But they could not be done on modern TV shows because professional racists like Al Unsharpton would be organizing protests in front of the network's headquarters. People live in fear. Part of the problem is judicial activism, where common sense is thrown out the window and astonishingly bad rulings take place (such as ruling in favor of petty, tyrannical, contemptible atheopaths, for instance). The tiny minority bullies the majority. And they are not even being harmed in any way, but cry that they are being discriminated against. Atheists are such bigots.

Comedian Brad Stine pointed out that people will use the "I'm offended!" line as leverage to shut people up. OK... He said, "Know what offends me? Offended people!" Ha!

Here's something that is jaw-droppingly stupid. The ACLU sued (and won!) to get Father-Daughter and Mother-Son activites banned in Rhode Island. What, are you nuts? One lone crybaby ruins things for everyone else. And it wasn't laughed out of the courtroom? Wow.

B. Hussein Obama made rhetoric about not tolerating the slander of Mohammed. Sure, that closet Mohammedan is only giving minimal lip service to standing up for Christianity, but his actions and other words tell another story. Yes, we mustn't offend the people who execute rape victims, blow up buildings, beat women, behead people who disagree with them — that wouldn't be proper.

How about France? I really don't know what happened to that country. Great artists, scientists, theologians and other good folks came from there. Eventually, they turned into money-grubbing, untrustworthy socialists and went downhill, I suppose. Rampant political correctness and coddling has actually led to the government officially (brace yourselves) ban the use of the words "father" and "mother" in official documents! It's part of the plan to legalize homosexual "marriage". Agonizing, all these efforts to redefine marriage and destroy the family unit. Marriage has always been a man and a woman, and it has worked that way for millennia. Now it has to be changed for a tiny minority.

The common thread I see here is that sensibilities and reason are being sacrificed to cater to hatred of God and his Word. Think about it. Until the thought police put a stop to that, too.

September 8, 2012

Debunking the Atheist Claim of Growth (Again)

stock.xchng
Many times, I have encountered atheists who make the claim that atheism is growing. (Why anyone would join a religion like atheism that has no factual support, is incoherent, has vituperative trolls, a high percentage of unpleasant adherents and other things working against it is beyond me.) Their claim of growth has been debunked several times, and Christianity is growing (an example of debunking their claims is this reference).

Some atheopaths resort to using a survey that was conducted by the Gallup people. They love to find the exception to prove their belief system. It turns out that this survey was not adequately performed.


Often it’s worth closely examining the dramatic claims made by the media. Some media outlets seem to be attracted to claims that atheism is on the rise and that religion in general (and Christianity in particular) is in decline. As Christians and members of the Church in Toronto we ought to “prove all things.” What follows is my attempt to examine some recent claims.
“Atheism is on the rise…international study reveals”
News headlines blare the message—“Atheism is on the rise on a global level, international study reveals…,” the “Number of atheists around the world is rising.” “Religiosity… Declines Worldwide; Atheism on the Rise,” declared the Huffington Post. “The world less religious now than in 2005: Report,” states the Toronto Sun. Thus the media conveyed the results of WIN-Gallup International’s study using its “Global Index of Religion & Atheism.” In 2012 Gallup asked people in 57 countries, "Irrespective of whether you attend a place of worship or not, would you say you are a religious person, not a religious person or a convinced atheist?" Gallup analyzed their answers.
We will focus on the “big picture” results for the globe. Globally Gallup reports that, “59% of respondents think of themselves as religious, 23% as not religious and 13% as convinced atheists.” Moreover, they “found the number of people around the world who claim to be religious dropped 9% since 2005, while atheism rose 3%.” These are the figures behind the headlines.
You can learn a truth about global atheism, that adherents of atheism disingenuously inflate their numbers, by continuing to read, "GLOBAL ATHEISM ON THE RISE — REALLY?", here.

August 19, 2012

Mock a Holy Book and See What Happens

Despite their claims to "lack belief" in God, skeptics (that is, hate-filled mockers) will troll and attack anything Christian because they know what the Bible teaches about how Christians are supposed to respond to our enemies. These blatant hypocrites do not dare to give Mohammedans the same treatment, probably out of fear for their lives. Mock Mohammed, burn a Koran, and people die.

And yet, Western governments keep on coddling the "religion of peace" instead of taking action and telling them to act like the civilized people that they pretend to be.

But I'm digressing a bit.

Contrast the fear of violence from Islam for almost any slight, large or small, real or imagined, with Christianity. Although dishonest misotheists portray us as unkind when we stand up to their bullying, there is no reasonable assumption that their lives are in danger from us.

So, they mock.

A play called "The Bible — The Complete Word of God (Abridged)" is a flat-out mockery of the Bible. (They pompously pretend it's in the spirit of "Life of Brian", but that movie did not set out to mock anyone.) Although we protest and make our objections known, scoffers know that we are not going to behead them on television or murder the performers and producers. They take advantage of us and what the Bible teaches. But they choose to forget that there is a God, and there will be a payback time — from him.

March 5, 2012

Atheist Agendas and Non-Belief Fests

Buona sera. You've had atheists lie to you about not having an agenda, haven't you? Well, they want to evangelize us away from our faith. That's why I keep trying to encourage Christians to know how these people act, and to get into the Word. You can't stand up for the truth if you don't understand it, capice?

While attempting to destroy the faith of individuals (if you don't believe me, you're not an open Christian on Facebook or Twitter), they also want to destroy religion itself. Especially Christianity. Just ask Richard Dawkins about his hypocritical crusade destroy Christianity.

Of course, when we have events like "Question Evolution Day" in "The Question Evolution Project", the foundation of the atheist religion is threatened and they get really mean. Perhaps they'll be discussing this at their "Unreason Fest" or whatever that gathering is called. Yeah, dare to show flaws in evolutionism, and you can find out how "reasonable" they can be.

I still don't get it. Why do people get together to celebrate what they do not believe? Does your "lack of belief" motivate your actions? "I do not believe that the ChiComs are going to invade Brazil in the next few days, so I'm going to protest." Atheists will troll the sap out of Christians. Why? Because they "lack belief" in God. Like, duh! Norman the paranoid troll is about to say I'm lying again because he lacks belief in what I'm saying (snicker).


By the way, this has to be said: Many modern Internet atheists are not so much "freethinkers" and "rationalists" as they are "nonthinkers". That's right, I said it! I keep tripping them up in very basic logical fallacies. And dig this: Those terms like "freethinker" and "rationalist" (among others) are not only intended to be insulting to "believers", but they are based on the Genetic Fallacy! Genetic...origin...genesis... Being an atheist does not automatically make someone smarter or freer than anyone else. Working the other way, referring to themselves by these handles does not negate the intelligence or freedom of "believers". Worse, if evolution, the cornerstone of the atheist religion, were true, then we are all slaves to our brain chemistry and nobody is a "freethinker". Ha, ha!

Added: Did I mention their excessive egos? One misotheist was so angry, he started trolling remarks at one of my other sites! What is agonizing is his defense of illogic: "It's not a genetic fallacy if it's true". (I've seen it before where they have to defend their errors with more errors.) Thanks for helping prove me right, Poindexter! And you claim to be an educator? Oh, and I reported all of those ridiculous comments as spam.

While Matt Slick of CARM Radio was getting some technical difficulties straightened out, he was showing the absurdity of them having a gathering to celebrate their "lack of belief". I had to edit out the distractions.



September 11, 2011

Religious Pluralism — Rubbish!

On a weekend when the world remembers the 9/11 that made that date infamous, many questions remain unanswered.
My concern is that there are answers that remain unquestioned.

Coexist. This sounds so terribly profound and noble. Even the graphic is inspiring. In one word we have Rodney King’s plea from a decade earlier – “Can’t we all just get along?” Well, I suppose that depends what you mean.
  • Can we accept one another as humans with inherent value? – I would hope so.
  • Can we tolerate viewpoints and lifestyles different from our own? – We should.
  • Can we live out our own beliefs without injuring or belittling others in the name of our beliefs? – Most of us do, except for the occasional misguided zealot.
  • Can we accept that we are all climbing the same mountain, even though we may be choosing separate paths? – No. This is where we must part company.
The term for this sentiment is religious pluralism. It means ‘acceptance of all religious paths as equally valid, promoting coexistence.’
So – does this hold up? Is there more than one way to God / heaven / enlightenment? I say absolutely not. Sometimes things that sound like good ideas simply don’t work. Religious pluralism is nonsensical.

Let’s start here in case you are new. I am a Christian. I believe in Jesus Christ, that he was and is God, that he came to earth as a human, that he died and rose again, and that only through him can we achieve right standing before God. I am aware of the charges that this sounds intolerant and arrogant. I get it, but I don’t think it holds up. First off, no Christian has warrant to be intolerant or arrogant. We are just beggars telling other beggars where to find bread.


Guilt by Association


Christianity seems to be frightening more people these days. The most recent flurry of alarm has been over "dominionism," as represented in a New Yorker article by Ryan Lizza. It has been more than thoroughly debunked, but still it seems to represent something more than politics. People are afraid of Christianity.
In fact for multiple reasons, many people are saying Christianity is bad, evil, harmful. This post is the first in a series examining reasons for Christianity's bad reputation. In memory of 9/11, I begin with "Guilt by Association." It goes like this. Islam is a religion. Some Muslims attacked us on 9/11 in the name of their God and their religion. Therefore religion is bad. Christianity is a religion. Therefore Christianity is bad.
The logic is laughable. Compare this, which is in near-identical form: Rodents are four-legged animals. Mice are rodents and can make a mess in your attic. Therefore rodents are bad. Dogs are four-legged animals. Therefore dogs are bad. 
The reasoning fails miserably at every step, and it would be hilarious if not for two things. First, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins have sold millions of books trying to make a case for it. To some extent I can understand their response. The 9/11 attacks were more than deadly, more than terrifying. They ruined the world in other ways besides. You may recall that the 1990s were supposed to be "the end of history." The Cold War was over and "'peace' seem[ed] to be breaking out all over the world" (Francis Fukuyama). What could there be to fight over now?
But just when we thought things were getting better, we were attacked right on our own soil. What a huge, terrible, and terrifying letdown that was—and what was to blame? Religion! What does that mean? Religion is dangerous! How shall we solve that? Eliminate religion!
Read the rest of "Christianity and 9/11: Guilt by Association?" here.

Is Religion Evil?

No introduction, here's the text:

Attitude Adjustment

How did 9/11 change America’s attitude toward religion? A recent post on CNN’s Belief Blog says: “Before 9/11, many atheists kept a low profile. Something changed, though, after 9/11. They got loud… Criticism of all religion, not just fanatical cults, was no longer taboo after 9/11.”
Indeed. Around the 10-year anniversary of 9/11, American Atheists hit the nightly news by suing to remove a steel cross from the September 11 memorial, even as others were calling it a national monument and a symbol of hope. Still, many atheists say 9/11 is a perfect example of why religion itself is evil.

Is Religion Evil?

Reminds me of reading Sam Harris’ The End of Faith years ago. I remember when he started to get popular by insisting that religion itself is dangerous and evil. Although he’s got a lot of fans, a Religion Dispatches article recently called him “more charismatic than credentialled” as a speaker. In the same article, Harris is quoted as saying, “I’m kind of self-taught in religion…I’ve never studied it formally with anyone.” But he’s not the only one who’s taken the spotlight.
Read the rest of "America After 9/11: Is Religion Evil?" here.

June 10, 2010

Your Ultimate Source

Addendum: For those who do not want the actual content of the site, but want to see whiny boy's comments, this article has some really great comments by another obstreperous, recalcitrant atheist. Comments on this Weblog have been disabled.

Buona sera. I swiped this image from Dan's site, "Debunking Atheists". I find some good images on my own now and then, but I really like that one.

OK, enough of this jocularity. Uncle Bob is not feeling too playful today.

Where do you get your morality? More than that, where do you get your integrity? Yeah, bet you didn't see that one coming. I've touched on the topic before, but it's been coming up lately, so I wanted to go into some detail.

We have many sources. One atheist said that "morals are reasoned and mutually agreed up on in a society... believe we can see an evolutionary mandate for social cooperation and moral codes". (Sorry, Dude, I think that's horse pucky.) Other atheists have said that they have "morals", but just try to pin them down on a final source, and they can't do it. They prove that they are intelligent, moral creatures by badgering, lying about and misrepresenting Christians, trolling, lack of logic and all kinds of cowardly foolishness. Sure, they hate God and the Bible, but have no ultimate source for their morality. And they have proven time and again that they have no integrity.

When I confronted trolls, they said it was because "I deserved it". HUH??? Some morality, there! It came from the opinion of the moment. Nicky said, "Atheists [on that Weblog] are subjective. You have cookie cutters and expect Christians all to look the same. And act the same. No emotions allowed even though you **** in their faces... saying that Stormbringer got flamed because he deserved it. Standard Internet protocol says to ignore whatever you think deserved it and to act like rational human beings. Atheists aren't doing that." Boy, do they get cranky when someone tells them the truth! So, they flamed Nicky as well.

Where does morality come from?

We have bunches of places for our personal morality input:
  • Friends
  • Family
  • Man-made religious directives
  • Society
  • Our own experiences and opinions
  • Race
  • Social class
Fine. They all combine to make us what we are to varying degrees. But they change. You say you like the band Day of Fire just to win my approval, then convince yourself that you like them. Or the old clergyman said that rock music itself is evil, so you give it up. The trend in society is to vote a certain way or to hold certain values. It's "in" or "cool" to be a bandwagon atheist. Your mother told you never to date anyone that isn't Italian (smart, but still arbitrary). You choose to hate Belgians because that's just what your family does.

Later on, you make changes. You decide to listen to rock music again, what did that old clergyman know, anyway? Then you exchange your interest in Day of Fire (but you can still get it for my birthday) for August Burns Red (sorry, I can't do metalcore). Further, you realize that you were calling yourself an atheist just because your friends were, and you're having second thoughts. You're dating a Jew instead of an Italian, and apologize to your mother. Then you realize that Belgians aren't that bad, but you can't stand Chileans.

All of that stuff is not nailed down. Where is your morality? Do you have a source that is not changing, that is trustworthy?

Then you have your integrity. That is more than just opinion, it's who you are. Your integrity is your unchanging values, your morality that is not compromised. Let's face it, if your integrity is based on compromise, it's not worth much and you're not trustworthy.

My source is the Bible, and I'm trying to live so that I please God. Isaiah 40.8 Yes, I often fail, but I do have an unchanging standard. Galatians 1.10 There is someone to encourage and comfort me, and to rebuke me when I fail.

How about you?

Subscribe in a reader