Posts Tagged ‘God’

Evolution, The Religion Of Fools. In One Picture.

April 28, 2015

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.  For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. — Romans 1:18-23

I was on one of my hikes out in the desert when I came upon this scene way out in the middle of nowhere that caused me to marvel (you can click on it to enlarge it in a new window):

P1000062 - Copy

I state for the record that I did not assemble this or see it assembled.  It was there when I walked a route that I walked for the very first time.  It simply stands as a brute fact.  It is what it is.  The only question is how it came to be the way you see it.

Somehow, in some amazing demonstration of the power of evolutionary forces, a strong wind managed to lift one rock atop another.  And then, without knocking that rock over off its new evolutionary perch, the wind managed to stack two rocks side-by-side on top of the second rock.  Amazingly – and the miracle of evolution is clearly on display here – a fifth rock, and then a sixth rock and a seventh rock and then ultimately an eighth rock, were all successively and successfully stacked one atop the other by this marvelous Darwinian breeze.

Now, maybe you believe that.  Or maybe you’re not what the Bible labels “the fool” (Psalm 14:1) and you immediately realize what a total pile – LITERALLY – of abject idiocy the notion  that this rock pile just happened all by itself clearly is.

I truly did marvel when I saw this pile of rocks and contemplated the implications.  Because I was very well immediately aware that SOMEBODY had very clearly put this together from the determination of a mind to create something where without a mind and a decision to create there would have been nothing.  And everybody who isn’t a complete fool clearly knows that somebody assembled this monument; it didn’t just “happen,” it didn’t “evolve” by some random natural process.  And as I shall shortly demonstrate with something called “science,” I don’t care how many billion years you want to wave at this monument to claim that it happened by itself.  The longer you want to think it took, the worse the fool you are.  This is a one-to-one, apples-to-apples, direct comparison: the rock pile did not happen by random, chaotic chance, everyone knows, because it is simply too complex of a structure to have happened all by itself.  And the whole universe is SO much more complex that it is beyond foolish to claim that it happened by itself when we all know that something as simple as this stupid rock pile couldn’t have happened by ITSELF.

And this principle is true throughout any legitimate science.  I was watching a documentary on Julius Caesar and his defeat of the Gallic chieftain Vercingetorix at the Battle of Alesia in 52BC.  Archeologists were able to fully discover the fortifications at Alesia by flying overhead and doing detailed photography of the area.  And what they did was look for lines that were simply too symmetrical or too straight for nature alone to have been able to produce.  Because they were demonstrating something called “common sense” that every evolutionist and atheist has none of whatsoever.

It’s stupid enough to claim that something that nature cannot produce was somehow produced by nature, such as the lines of perfectly symmetrical fortifications or the rock altar I photographed.  But it is a level of stupidity beyond “dumb and dumber” to say that while nature cannot produce symmetry or design, it can somehow produce the infinitely GREATER complexity of the people who produce the things that even fools understand that nature cannot produce.

Atheists and evolutionists mock religious people for believing that a transcendent, personal, omnipotent God can do all things.  But what do THEY believe in?  The too-idiotic-to-even-qualify-as-“fairy-tale” notion that if something sits around for long enough, a MIRACLE will somehow happen.  And no, boys and girls, time doesn’t possess magic power.  All time does is sit there and do nothing.

If I were to employ the evolutionists’ argument back at them, it would go like this: I promise that I will refute evolution and prove that it is bogus.  In 4.5 billion years.  Because all they do is turn that very same argument upside down and claim that something somehow happened that long ago when no one can even begin to prove that it did.  It’s an assertion, nothing more.

Which invites the question as to the nature of ALL of “nature.”  We don’t just have the problem of explaining how the pile of rocks somehow got assembled into that neat little monument.  We have the problem of the origin of the individual rocks themselves according to the Big Bang theory of cosmology held by nearly all physicists today: all matter, all time, all energy and all space suddenly exploded into existence at some finite point of time in the past very much as if Someone had declared, “Let there be light.”  It’s as Robert Jastrow described it in God and the Astronomers: “For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”  Those rocks in that picture did not always exist; they came into being because they were caused to exist by something (or of course Someone).  And it happened in a manner that confirms the account of the Book of Genesis chapter one.  Jastrow – one of the great scientific minds of the 20th century – also stated: “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”  And after that “Let there be light” declaration that same  Somebody somehow – and we weren’t there to see Who or how any more than we saw who assembled the pile of rocks in the above picture – stacked a pile of rocks on top of one another to assemble our planet, our solar system, our galaxy, all living things.   And the fact that we are here as a result is very properly indeed the result of “supernatural forces” and properly called a MIRACLE.

Atheists and evolutionists once confidently declared that there were a septillion (that’s a one followed by 24 zeros) planets capable of life.  These arrogant, ostensibly knowledgeable fools were so wrong it is unreal.  Every single time they send taxpayer-funded prayers to the heavens in the form of enormously  powerful radio communications, satellites, unmanned spacecraft like Voyager, etc., it amounts to perennially unanswered prayers to their god or gods.  Just as I contemplated the pile of rocks on the trail and ask the question, ‘How did this get here?  Could it just have happened?’, we must likewise contemplate the brute fact of the universe that we observe: the nature of the fine tuning of the universe is mindboggling when you consider it.  How did the fact of universe and the fact of life get happen?  Did Someone create it – which is the prima facie conclusion of any creature possessing common sense – or did it just assemble itself the way we know that pile of rocks in the picture above could never have assembled itself?  When you realize how many things had to happen in precise sequence and with infinite precision for us to be here at all – rather than residents from those septillion planets visiting us or contacting us the way we’re trying to contact “them” – it should occur to you to question why we are here at all.  How did just the right sort of solar system to contain the planet that contains the rocks that yielded all the necessary building blocks for life get here?  How did just the right sort of moon that orbits the planet in just the right way to result in a planet that contains the rocks get here?  How did just the right sort of star with just the right characteristics to result in just the right sort of solar system and just the right moon result in just the right planet to contain those rocks get here?  And I mean, I can go on and on and on.  Because the level of complexity within the system of the universe is so far beyond mind-boggling that it is obviously the result of supernatural mind determining to create.

Do you see my point here?  When you can’t even so much as glance at a simple pile of what, seven rocks arranged one atop the other, what kind of fool do you have to believe to think that ALL of the many INFINITELY MORE COMPLEX systems and sub-systems that compose the universe all around that rock pile got here by chance without an Intelligent Designer?

When you start to think about the system of the universe and the billions of sub-systems and the trillions of sub-processes within the system, you have to mock the fool who believes that all that we see around us just somehow happened by chance.  Because that fool is in all actuality a far worse fool than the fool who would look at the stack of rocks above and conclude that it happened by chance.

Look at that picture above again and consider the complexity of those seven rocks piled one atop the other and realize that it is far too complex a system to have happened by any act of random nature.  And then go look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if you are not vastly more complex than that system which you obviously know was intelligently designed.

And then keep reading to comprehend just how appalling the case for godless evolution truly is and the foolish idiocy you have to believe in order to deny the reality of God.

Allow me to give you the flavor of what actual hard SCIENCE really says about the possibility of life happening by chance:

The Time Problem

To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium. — Lynn Margulis (21.5)

The only premise that all of the precellular theories share is that it would be an extremely long time before the first bacterial cells evolved. If precellular life somehow got going, it could then conceivably begin to crank out, by some precellular process, random strings of nucleotides and amino acids, trying to luck into a gene or a protein with advantages which would lead to bacterial life. There is no evidence in life today of anything that produces huge quantities of new, random strings of nucleotides or amino acids, some of which are advantageous. But if precellular life did that, it would need lots of time to create any useful genes or proteins. How long would it need? After making some helpful assumptions we can get the ratio of actual, useful proteins to all possible random proteins up to something like one in 10^500 (ten to the 500th power). So it would take, barring incredible luck, something like 10^500 trials to probably find one. Imagine that every cubic quarter-inch of ocean in the world contains ten billion precellular ribosomes. Imagine that each ribosome produces proteins at ten trials per minute (about the speed that a working ribosome in a bacterial cell manufactures proteins). Even then, it would take about 10^450 years to probably make one useful protein. But Earth was formed only about 4.6 x 10^9 years ago. The amount of time available for this hypothetical protein creation process was maybe a few hundred million or ~10^8 years. And now, to make a cell, we need not just one protein, but a minimum of several hundred.

So even if we allow precellular life, there is a problem getting from there to proteins, genes and cells. The random production of proteins does not succeed as an explanation. Other intermediate, unspecified stages must be imagined. We could call these stages post-precellular life. By whatever means, life’s evolution through these stages would have to be time-consuming.

“Time-consuming.”  There’s a rather gigantic understatement for you.  Try to write that number down: 10^450 years, which is 10 with 450 zeroes after it.  That is a number that makes our national debt even after the Obama spendaholic presidency look so infinitesimal that any kid ought to easily be able to solve our national debt crisis with his lunch money by comparison.  And it makes the length of time since our universe exploded into being some 14 billion years ago (1.4×10^10 years) and the earth formed 4.6 billion (4.6×10^9) yeas ago look tiny and insignificant by comparison.

4.6 billion years ago might seem like a long time: 4.6 with nine zeros after it.  That is, unless you compare it to the number “1” followed by a MINIMUM of FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY freaking zeroes.  We’re not talking about billions, we’re not talking about trillions, we’re talking about a number so vast only a true mathematician has ever even HEARD of it before: a Novenquadragintacentillion, at least according to our dictionary of Big Ass Numbers.

There’s just not enough time literally in the whole universe.  And that 10^450  years is just for ONE protein when you need to multiply that 10^450 years by several hundred proteins.  That last sentence of the first paragraph is actually staggeringly optimistic, considering that in this case “several hundred” is actually SEVERAL THOUSAND:

“A typical bacterium requires more than 4,000 proteins for growth and reproduction.”

So understand the dilemma: you need random trials requiring 10^450  years to form just ONE protein; but you actually would need at least another 3,999 more proteins that will take just as long to randomly generate after you finally generate that first one.  Each one is going to take you about another 10^450  years’ worth of random trials to generate!  And finally after 10^450  a.k.a. a novenquadragintacentillion years multiplied by “more than 4,000 proteins,” just what are the odds that that first protein that you made would still exist so many trillions times trillions times trillions of years later???  Just what are the odds that you would have all 4,000-plus proteins available at one time and in one place to make the assembly of that simplest cell possible???

How long did it take whoever built that rock pile to complete the job?  I’m guessing a few minutes.  Because our Creator God gave that person a miraculous mind and a fearfully and wonderfully made body to think about creating it and then an amazing body to actually make it happen.  But the simple scientific FACT of the matter is that, no matter how long you want to claim the universe is, it STILL wasn’t anywhere NEAR enough time in the universe even times a million billion trillion to “evolve” the simplest cell there is apart from that Creator.

If you don’t believe that rock pile assembled itself by purely natural processes without any Intelligence, but you believe that everything else – including humanity – got here the very way you deny that that rock pile got here, the Bible is truly right to call you “fool.”

You should begin to understand that “evolution” is the most fanciful fairy tale there IS.  When we talk about evolution, we’re talking about something that not only didn’t happen, but COULDN’T even POSSIBLY have happened.  At least if you accept actual SCIENCE rather than the atheistic philosophical nonsense masquerading as “science.”

You need to comprehend this: legitimate science can’t even begin to explain how just the proteins necessary for the simplest bacteria cell evolved by chance.  And that the fool who postulates that “evolution” created the magnificent human mind that is so much more sophisticated and miraculous than any supercomputer ever designed is someone who seems to lack so much as that bacteria cell for a brain.  Because we’re no longer talking about the simplest bacteria cell the origins of which science can’t begin to explain or even explain away; we’re talking about a brain jam-packed with billions of infinitely more complex cells in infinitely more complex arrays.

And the human brain has an apparently very clear purpose: to allow a soul the ability to freely interact with its body.  But that of course, is denied by evolutionists:

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” [Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1]

There is absolutely no question to even a fool like Richard Dawkins that life very much has “the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”  But being a fool, he proceeds to simply dismiss the fact that the Bible declares in Romans chapter 1 and verse 18-23: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to themFor since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.  For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.”

Yes, all complicated things were very self-evidently designed for a purpose.  And that Designer is God.  Don’t be a fool and deny the obvious.  It is OBVIOUS to even Richard Dawkins that the universe was “designed” for “a purpose.”  The prima facie case is obvious and if you want to claim that there is no Creator you must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is NOT a Creator, rather than telling a bunch of fanciful atheist fairy tales to describe how things happened the way the most primitive cave men told stories about how we have wind because the trees are moving and swaying and creating the ensuing wind by their actions.  The burden of proof necessarily falls upon the unbeliever; but they have performed a bait-and-switch by the most disingenuous means.

You’ve got your pseudo-scientists who claim that this amounts to some argument about “science” versus religion.  I call them “pseudo-scientists” because if you understand the history of science, these people are very clearly speaking out of complete ignorance – and legitimate scientists never speak out of such ignorance.  The so-called “science” these pseudo-scientist ideologues embrace is every bit as “religious” as any serpent-handling Pentecostal who ever lived.

Please realize what junk “science” becomes when it becomes an ideological tool.  The fact of the matter is – as I have documented before – is that modern science founded upon the scientific method uniquely came from and depended upon the Judeo-Christian worldview.  It is a simple historically verifiable fact that: The first modern scientist and the discoverer of the scientific method upon which modern science is based was a product of Christendom and a publicly avowed Christian who described his faith in Christianity – and its influence on his approach to science – in his writings.  That the discoverer of every single modern branch of science was a publicly confessed Christian.  I say it again, not only was the first true scientist in the modern sense who discovered the scientific method a publicly confessing Christian, but so were the discovers of every single major branch of modern science. And that is because the very presuppositions necessary FOR the rise of science itself uniquely came out of the Christian worldview:

J.P. Moreland (Source: The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, p. 17) listed some of the philosophical presuppositions – based on the Judeo-Christian worldview – that were necessary for the foundation of science:

1. the existence of a theory-independent, external world

2. the orderly nature of the external world

3. the knowability of the external world

4. the existence of truth

5. the laws of logic

6. the reliability of human cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment

7. the adequacy of language to describe the world

8. the existence of values used in science (e.g., “test theories fairly and report test results honestly”)

9. the uniformity of nature and induction

10. the existence of numbers

You can’t use physical science to arrive at or derive the laws of logic; they are self-evident only within highly particular worldviews that are uniquely based on the presuppositional and foundational belief in the supernatural and the divine.  We today have the denunciation of “Western logic” by the postmodern movement.  Because Western logic is based upon the reality of “either/or.”  And the moment you allow Western logic profoundly powerful “either/or” arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument begin to pour in and drown the godless fire of atheist thought.  Our Western laws of logic were derived from Greek thought, which was highly DUALISTIC.  There were the gods and there were men.  There were the non-material abstract and yet substantial Forms and there was the material world of change.  You cannot accept the laws of logic and not accept the distinction between the material and immateraial world and the existence of the immaterial world which bequeathed us with the Form of logic that we aspire toward without being a pathologically dishonest hypocrite and an intellectual parasite.  And as you contemplate the existence of “truth,” recognize that either our minds and our brains were created by a Truth-Knowing Being to know truth, or they are the result of a entirely random and unguided process and therefore no reason whatsoever to assert the capacity to possess “truth.”  And in the same way, when it comes to the rise of science, any notion of genuine science pitted against genuine religion is a total fraud and fabrication.  Modern science uniquely arose out of Judeo-Christian presuppositions from a geographical place and a philosophical worldview called Christendom.  It arose out of no other worldview and never could have arisen out of any materialistic worldview.  Science was allowed to rise because Judeo-Christian-worldview inspired men – ALL publicly professing Christians – believed that there was an orderly universe that was created to operate on orderly principles and that we as image-bearers of the Creator possessed the mental faculties to marvel at the work of the Creator and “thinking God’s thoughts after Him” – as Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist who ever lived, declared.

Atheistic evolutionists are frauds and thieves who usurped an entire foundation upon which logic and science originated.  True logic and true science mock these people, because true logic and true science come uniquely from a worldview that they reject.  Their feet are firmly planted in midair.  But these people are such complete fools that they walk like idiots without a foundation toward nothing.

This ideology-masquerading-as-“science” also amounts to a bait-and-switch regarding science as “testable” or “falsifiable” versus “creationism” which is NOT testable.  Charles Darwin gave as the standard of “testable” evolutionary “science” this definition:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.  But I can find no such case.” — Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, p. 158

But a brilliant lawyer exposed that “falsifiability” standard for the total fraud that it is merely by replacing a couple of words in the otherwise exact same definition:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by God, my God theory would absolutely break down.”

And she then proceeded to ask, “Would the Darwin believers take that standard as a scientific test for God?”  Would they accept the burden of proving that “God could not possibly have created” us???

Let’s consider the human brain and its implications on the foolish theory of evolution.  Are you a meat puppet mindlessly and soullessly dancing to the tune of random evolutionary forces?  Atheist-ideologue pseudo-science declares yes, you are:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self contradictory and self defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”  — Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, pp. 55-56

Is whatever thought that is floating around in your head merely determined by how your random brain atoms randomly arranged themselves?  Or do you think rational thoughts because you are the rational, thinking image of a rational thinking God according to Genesis 1:26-27 who said “Come, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18).

Which are you?

I can go on literally all day citing evidence that scientists and atheist/secular humanist philosophers claim that human free will is nothing more than some philosophically useless illusion, and that you are nothing but a meat puppet entirely conditioned by your DNA and your environment.  Both atheistic-ideologue pseudo-science and the atheistic philosophy based on that atheistic-ideologue pseudo-science readily dismiss the notion of anything legitimately called genuine free human will.  It is nothing more than an illusion, so please go back to your pasture, all ye mindless and soulless herd animals, and chew your cud until slaughter-time.

As Richard Dawkins asserted in his atheist tome The Blind Watchmaker, “DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”  And YOU neither know nor care and you dance to the music the way a puppet jerked around by strings uncontrollably dances to whatever random notion randomly enters your randomly-generated skull.

If we are in fact created in the image of an invisible Creator God, then we are NOT meat puppets, for the God who created us in His image is no meat puppet.  If there is no God and we are products of mindless, soulless evolution, then we are and can be nothing else and nothing more than meat puppets.

If it is a fact that you are nothing but a herd-animal meat-puppet with no mind and no soul, there is necessarily another terrifying truth: you have no moral responsibility.  And the worst people in the history of the world by any “moral” standard have no moral responsibility, either.  And this terrifying fact is necessarily true both on an individual level and on a societal level.

On the individual level, if free will is an illusion, as any materialistic system science or philosophy asserts, then how can you hold someone criminally or morally responsible for their actions that result from no free will of the person who is committing them?

Further, if Darwinism is true, then Social Darwinism is necessarily entailed: if natural selection is your process for evolving into better creatures, in which the fittest members of a species survive, and both inferior members of species and inferior species themselves must perish to give way to the stronger, then why should it not be so in how we govern the world?  Why shouldn’t we help evolution by eradicating the unfit so that the more fit can better survive in a world of finite and scarce resources?  Adolf Hitler understood that under any consistent Darwinian view, there were the predators and there were the victims – and he made his Germany a predator.  Maybe you want to argue that it is false that big fish eat the smaller fish or that lions eat the gazelles.  But you’re wrong because they really do.  Nazi Germany was without any question THE most “scientific” society on earth during the time leading up to World War II, and a consistent Darwinism was precisely their philosophy: if Darwinism is in fact “science,” then have the damn courage to embrace the crystal clear implications of that science and embrace some form of Nazism or Stalinism which both embraced evolution and thus made horror such as has never before been seen possible.

A guiding philosophy of Nazism was completely and fundamentally compatible with any “science” of Darwinism that had the decency to be consistent: they called it “lebensunwertes leben,” or life unworthy to be lived.  And they killed off all members of society that were not sufficiently fit to be adequate Darwinists.  And if you are an evolutionist and you do not think the precise same way, you are either a coward and a hypocrite for not having the courage to be consistent and live out your view or you are tantamount to a slack-jawed idiot for not having the ability to logically comprehend the ramifications of your own worldview.

You can mock that above link between godless Darwinism and Nazism all you want, evolutionist.  But first I ask you to explain how your teacher Charles Darwin – the full title of whose book was, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” – precludes you from believing yourself to belong to a “favoured” master race and then possessing the justification to wipe out all the other races you compete with “in the struggle for life.”  And I’ll explain how my Teacher Jesus of Nazareth precludes me from doing so.

Adolf Hitler made the mindless German crowds who supported him the victims of his Darwinism, stating, “If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”  That is an inherently and implicitly and intrinsically Darwinian argument.  And that fact is not altered now as intellectual frauds like Richard Dawkins go back and rewrite history to expunge the incredibly tragic results of Darwinism being applied to the actual world and society.  Modern Darwinists want to use their hypocritical and self-contradictory system to violently club God to death, then drop that club and say, “Now that Darwinism has killed God and religion, let’s not live as if our system that says life is a struggle for existence in which only the fittest survive and the weak are a threat to the rest of the herd is actually true.”

And Adolf Hitler clearly stated in his Mein Kampf that:

“The objection may very well be raised that such phenomena in world history [the necessity of intolerance] arise for the most part from specifically Jewish modes of thought, in fact, that this type of intolerance and fanaticism positively embodies the Jewish nature” [Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 454].

Friedrich Nietzsche – a patron saint of Nazism – had prior to Hitler correctly pointed out the fact that:

“Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, of privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence” [Nietzsche, “The Twilight of the Idols”].

That same Darwinian theme of Judaism and Christianity thwarting Darwinian supremacy would be echoed more than a century later by the historian who wrote the book on Christian martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who would die in the death camps:

Regarding Hitler’s hatred of Christianity, Metaxas further writes, “Hitler’s attitude toward Christianity was that it was a great heap of mystical out-of-date nonsense. But what annoyed Hitler was not that it was nonsense, but that it was nonsense that did not help him get ahead. According to Hitler, Christianity preached “meekness and flabbiness,” and this was simply not useful to the National Socialist ideology, which preached “ruthlessness and strength.” In time, he felt that the churches would change their ideology. He would see to it.”

And so, a good Nazi was a Gottglaubiger.  Rather than putting “Christian” on personnel forms they wrote down “Gottlaubig” – representing a “vague pseudo-philosophical religiosity” – to indicate that, while they were not “godless communists,” they were most certainly not “Christian.”  And unlike Christians and Jews with their weak and insipid morality, they were Nazis who were willing to grab the Darwinian bull by the horns and do whatever was necessary, no matter how morally heinous.  Just as any true Darwinist would do if he or she had the courage of conviction.

Hitler used the word “Christian” in his some of his speeches before deluded crowds of Germans many of whom had long-since largely abandoned true religion under the profound influence of a generation of profoundly anti-religious and in particular anti-Jewish and anti-Christian German scholars such as the well-known Friedrich Delitzsch who wrote:

“the Old Testament was full of deceptions of all kinds – a veritable hodge-podge of erroneous, incredible, undependable figures, including those of Biblical chronology…. in short, a book full of intentional and unintentional deceptions (in part, self-deceptions), a very dangerous book in the use of which the greatest care is necessary.”

But to his inner circle Hitler said very different things than what he said publicly.

Hitler described to them that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

Joseph Goebbels was one of Hitler’s inner circle to whom Hitler revealed his true beliefs:

The Fuhrer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much nobler and more humane than the Christians’. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, greatness, monumentality. The most wonderful republic in history. We would feel no disappointment, he believes, if we were now suddenly to be transported to this old, eternal city.”

Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.” [Elke Frölich. 1997-2008. Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels. Munich: K. G. Sauer. Teil I, v. 6, p. 272].

Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler’s Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

Author Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

Albert Speer – another Nazi who worked extremely closely with Hitler – reports in his memoirs of a similar statement made by Hitler:

You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” [Albert Speer. 1971. Inside the Third Reich Translated by Richard Winston, Clara Winston, Eugene Davidson. New York: Macmillan. p 143; Reprinted in 1997. Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 96. ISBN 0-684-82949-5].

Adolf Hitler sounds like an atheist to me.  He certainly rabidly abandoned Judeo-Christianity as few other human beings ever have.  And while the Nazis were cynically willing to exploit Christianity or anything else they could twist to manipulate people into following them, it was put in the form of “Almighty God has created the German people to be a race of supermen” kind of garbage.  But think about that for a second: created by WHO and by WHAT PROCESS?  Certainly NOT created by the “Jewish God” of the Old Testament of the Christian Bible; and certainly NOT created according to the creation account in the “Jewish Bible’s” book of Genesis.  So WHO created and by WHAT process?  By Darwinian evolution, of course.  God threw His random evolutionary dice and His throw came up Nazi snake eyes.  And Hitler would tell you that lie and any other lie he needed to tell you to twist your mind into following him.

Proto-Nazi atheist and secular humanist philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Friedrich Delitzsch gave way to full-blown Nazis such as Martin Heidegger and Ezra Pound.  And the toxic atheistic and secular humanistic evolutionist ideas of these toxic men had toxic consequences.

Furthermore, the most brutal form of human government that ever existed was communism otherwise known as “state atheism.”  Every single officially state atheist society has been a violent and vicious opponent of human dignity and human freedom.  Every single one.

Political and economic Marxim was based on the following atheist/secular humanist premise:

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

And the result of atheism/secular humanism being allowed to dominate was a boot stomping on hundreds of millions of human faces since its rise.  It is the most murderous system of thought ever devised by man, with well over 110 million human beings murdered by their own atheist governments just during peacetime alone.  The continual bait and switch of these purveyors which the Word of God according to Colossians 2:8 warn us about –

“Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual forces of this world, rather than from Christ”

– continue to bear murderous fruit.  They seize upon the imperfect results of imperfect political system that depend upon an imperfect pursuit of a religious worldview, and replace it with a demonic system in which the Government BECOMES God and proceeds to crush everything and every one that gets in its way.

Nazism and Stalinism have one thing in common: godless socialism.  The intent of these movements was to replace God with Government in which Government became the Savior and the people were encouraged if not viciously driven away from embracing any worldview that had a place for a Creator God in it.

And today we have people every bit as wicked and every bit as willing to commit acts of incredible vicious genocide as Hitler or Stalin or Mao (socialists all) – and I’m not talking about insane jihadist Muslims such as fill the ranks of Islamic State.  No, I’m talking about leftist environmentalists who have top access to leftist politicians.  Listen to some of their quotes:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” – Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor [and major DEMOCRAT PARTY DONOR]

Realize the left today would murder people on a scale that would even shock Adolf Hitler, if they could just get the power they wanted.

You don’t even so much as qualify as a cow to these people.  I mean, in their own words, you don’t even make it to the level of a slug.  At least we merit equal status to a cancer tumor.  I don’t think even the Jews under Hitler got that little respect.

These rabid leftists evolutionists believe that earth randomly evolved.  And in order to protect the result of random evolution they believe they must wipe out somewhere between half and 95% of all randomly evolved homo sapiens.  You can bet none of these people are going to volunteer to walk into the gas chambers first, mind you.

Realize “the absurdity of life without God.”  Realize that apart from God, there is and can be no true meaning, purpose or value in your existence.  And that is precisely how the state atheists and the secular humanists treat you the moment they get power over you: like a farm animal that can be slaughtered and should be slaughtered.  And simple factual history proves it.  It’s happened before and it will very likely happen again.  The ideology might change, but the evolutionary/Darwinian worldview that underlies it guarantees the same contempt for the dignity of the human spirit that we’ve seen before.

Whatever you are, what you are not is either morally intelligent or in any way wise.  Rather, as Romans 1:22 puts it, “Professing yourself to be wise, you became a FOOL.”  A fool so captured by empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense, as Colossians 2:8 points out, that you abandoned the real world for an atheist fairy tale in order to childishly ignore the authority of God and thereby ignore His moral commands.

Unbelief does not come from intellectual causes or objective analysis of the data or any form of legitimate science.  In fact science exists BECAUSE of the Judeo-Christian worldview and it arose in Christendom based on the Judeo-Christian worldview and the Judeo-Christian worldview alone.  Rather, unbelief is a moral collapse by which wicked people do not seek God because they refuse to be responsible to Him and acknowledge that He alone is sovereign and He is the Creator and they the creatures.  They resent any limitation on their ability to do as they please, or, according to their meat-puppet, herd-animal doctrine, whatever random string of atoms masquerading as a thought or a desire compels them or stimulates them to mindlessly act out.  They resent any limitations to their mindless DNA-puppet-dangling animalistic autonomy.  They refuse to honor any moral boundaries that they despise and so they therefore refuse to acknowledge the Boundary Maker.

What they do is not wise, it is not intelligent, it is not moral and it is not “science.”

So if you want to think of me as being an idiot for believing in God, that’s just fine; provided you realize that YOU are the idiot of all idiots and frankly THE most idiotic idiot who ever lived in comparison to people like me.

I mean, please don’t sneer condescendingly at me for believing in God given the fact that evolution is a fairy tale for fools.

A theologian, commenting on Romans chapter one, wrote:

“Truth quietly remains what it is amid all the clamor and he shouting against it and in the end judges every man.” [R.C.H. Lenski, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, p. 93]

If there is no God, then there is no “truth” anymore than there is a “creation,” because “truth” is however the hell the molecules in our brains randomly arranged themselves to believe.  If the human mind is mrely a randomly-generated product of natural selection, then the ideas in our minds were selected purely for their survival value and NOT for their truth-value.  And so your “truth” – whatever the hell that is – is by definition of evolution no less random than mine.   Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide.  If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true, “the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth,” as John Gray expressed it.  But consider the ramification and the ensuing contradiction of Darwinism: if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true.  It has been a simple game for philosophers to devise all sorts of scenarios which demonstrate that something might facilitate “evolutionary success” and yet be patently false beliefs.  I can document prominient politicians and even journalists such as Walter Lippmann – who said that “The common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality” – to document that people have been inspired to take actions that others deemed the best course based entirely on propaganda or lies.  Lets let smart people deceive stupid people into policies for their won good, they say.  We just saw that that described as being the mindset behind ObamaCare from one of its chief architects.  There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between something that could be an “evolutionary success” and “truth.”  And in fact history is replete with examples demonstrating that “truth” has frequently been done away with to pave the way for something that has been passed off as being for the people’s own good.  This is an epistemological box that evolution simply cannot climb out of no matter how many billions of years of fervent, fanatical faith in random evolutionary processes they want to throw at the abandonment of truth inherent in their theory.

And unless you can patiently exlain to me how Hitler and Stalin were somehow bad atheists, and unless you can establish whatever the hell “evolutionary morality” is, then it stands as a simple FACT that the murderer is no different from the martyr and the rapist is no more praiseworthy or blameworthy than then humanitarian since none of us are truly free to be truly responsible for our actions.  And in fact if evolution is true, then rape is actually PRAISEWORTHY as we “dance to DNA’s music.”

Question: Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Becauserape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”  Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

Rape is merely one more horrible, demonic thing that evolution justifies, if not necessitates, in the same vein that it justifies/necessitates social Darwinism, Nazism, Stalinism and every OTHER horrible “-ism.”  And all under the guise of “science.”

If this were anything resembling true science evolution and atheism and secular humanism would have been thrown onto the ash-heap of failed ideas.  But we’re NOT talking about anything resembling legitimate science; we’re talking about a fanatical religious movement masquerading as science.

That was one of the powerful realizations I had years ago as I considered the FACT that if there is no God, then all things are equally possible, and there ARE no boundaries and no morals and that everything I believe is right and everything I believe is wrong are nothing but mere arbitrary constructs of a constantly evolving culture.  And I am NOT the kind of thing that dances to the music of DNA or follows some constantly-shifting morality like some mindless farm animal as Hollywood tells me what is right and wrong this morning; I am a human being created in the image of a rational, moral God Who will one day hold me accountable for what I did in this world that He created and placed me in.

Unlike the animals, who see it get dark when I watch a beautiful sunset, I have eternity in my heart.  Which means I can contemplate my existence after I die and leave this earth.

I am NOT an evolutionary meat-puppet farm animal; I can know the truth.  And the truth can set me free.

I believe in God as the reason we have a universe containing life in it because it’s every bit as obvious and every bit as self-explanatory as it is for me to believe that those rocks in that pile didn’t happen by themselves.  God designed us to be free and to be accountable to the nature that He imbued in us as His image bearers.  And He created a world in which to place us.

I am free because God set me free.  And when I look upon the stars at night and contemplate their wonder, I give praise and honor to the God who is so much bigger than the universe that He created.  I thank Him for giving me a place within His vast and beautiful creation.  And I glorify Him for loving me as I look up in divine awe searching for His face.

Life In The Wilderness, Never The Promised Land In Democrat’s Separation of America From God. And Why The Beast Is Coming.

February 24, 2014

There are two political parties that represent two wildly disparate worldviews.  There is the conservative worldview, largely manifested in the Republican Party, which honors God and seeks to limit the abusive and corrosive power of fallen human government.  And there is the liberal worldview, largely manifested in the Democrat Party, which seeks to separate church and state, i.e., which seeks to separate God from America and seeks to replace God with the human State and create a vicious cycle of human dependence upon the Government as God, the State as Savior and Lord.

Guess which one I prefer?

Democrats are wildly perverted and depraved people who, when they are not trying to separate government and society from any vestige of belief in God and in morality, are trying to subvert the clear message of the Bible and instead replace God with the State and erect an alter of socialism as divinely inspired.

I’ve written about this before: Democrats’ continual attempt to erect Government as God and “fundamentally transformJesus into a Marxist.  I’ve described how the Democrat Party’s socialism comes from nowhere other than godless Marxism which is nothing short of an attempt to sever God from The State and to make people who should be content in their Christian faith into bitter, class-warfare-waging government entitlement whores.

But allow me to come at it again from yet another biblical angle.

Read Deuteronomy chapter 8.

8 Be careful to follow every command I am giving you today, so that you may live and increase and may enter and possess the land the Lord promised on oath to your ancestors.Remember how the Lord your God led you all the way in the wilderness these forty years, to humble and test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands. He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord. Your clothes did not wear out and your feet did not swell during these forty years. Know then in your heart that as a man disciplines his son, so the Lord your God disciplines you.

Observe the commands of the Lord your God, walking in obedience to him and revering him. For the Lord your God is bringing you into a good land—a land with brooks, streams, and deep springs gushing out into the valleys and hills; a land with wheat and barley, vines and fig trees, pomegranates, olive oil and honey; a land where bread will not be scarce and you will lack nothing; a land where the rocks are iron and you can dig copper out of the hills.

10 When you have eaten and are satisfied, praise the Lord your God for the good land he has given you. 11 Be careful that you do not forget the Lord your God, failing to observe his commands, his laws and his decrees that I am giving you this day. 12 Otherwise, when you eat and are satisfied, when you build fine houses and settle down, 13 and when your herds and flocks grow large and your silver and gold increase and all you have is multiplied, 14 then your heart will become proud and you will forget the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 15 He led you through the vast and dreadful wilderness, that thirsty and waterless land, with its venomous snakes and scorpions. He brought you water out of hard rock. 16 He gave you manna to eat in the wilderness, something your ancestors had never known, to humble and test you so that in the end it might go well with you. 17 You may say to yourself, “My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.” 18 But remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your ancestors, as it is today.

19 If you ever forget the Lord your God and follow other gods and worship and bow down to them, I testify against you today that you will surely be destroyed. 20 Like the nations the Lord destroyed before you, so you will be destroyed for not obeying the Lord your God.

What you find here is 1) the danger of forgetting the Lord and usurping God’s role (i.e. the danger of separating God from the State as the Democrat Party has clearly done) and 2) the distinction between the wilderness and the Promised Land.

Godless Obama’s remark to us is “God didn’t build that; my State built it all and should receive all glory.”  The same man who wants to radically limit God seeks to radically exalt and magnify his Government as God in God’s place.

And what has happened to this nation as a result?  We’ve forgotten God and we are on the path to perishing.

But you see something else in Deuteronomy chapter eight.  You see the welfare State as a permanent extension of entering the wilderness and NEVER finding the Promised Land.

What happened in the Wilderness?  Read your Bible.  A people who had been slaves and never anything other than slaves for 400 years were cared for by God.  God fed them and provided for them.  He was a Pillar of cloud for them by day and a Pillar of fire by night.  He sent them manna and quail.  He gave them water.  And they wandered around without any meaning or purpose until that entire generation died out.

What was to happen in the Promised Land?  As soon as they came into the Promised Land God STOPPED providing them manna and water.  Instead, He led them into a good land that had resources that the people were to harness and develop.  No longer manna, but WHEAT from which they were to make their OWN bread.

In the Wilderness, God displayed His glory by providing for His people and doing miracles for them.  In the Promised Land, God wanted to be glorified THROUGH His people as they learned to stand on their own two feet.

In the Welfare State Wilderness, it’s the same thing, only Democrats have replaced “God” with “The State.”  And the State – which does all the providing for a perennially helpless people, receives all the glory.  “YOU didn’t build that; Obama did.”

The problem and the tragedy is that under Democrat Party rule, under a Democrat president, America will NEVER AGAIN see a Promised Land.  Because we have been conditioned to turn to our Government as God and say, “Give us our welfare manna.  Provide for us because we are slaves who cannot provide for ourselves.  Just don’t EVER ask us to stand on our own two feet and provide for ourselves.  Because we NEVER will when we can keep parasitically leaching off of Someone Else’s Money by voting for our REAL God the Government.

I present to you as living proof of what I’m saying black people.  There are tremendously successful and righteous black people, as Dr. Benjamin Carson has demonstrated.  But as a whole, no group of people has so radically bought into the Democrat Party’s Perennial Plantation message as black people have.  And that is precisely why black people have been such spectacular failures as they literally embody every moral failure of the Democrat Party.

According to the Bible, children are a blessing.  And if you have children and raise them in the way that they should go, when you are old, your children will care for you.  But black people under the demonic perversion of the Democrat Party have murdered more of their own children than any people in the history of the worldSixty percent of black babies end up being murdered in the Democrat Party’s abortion mills.  And they have nothing and never WILL have anything to care for them but Government as God now as a result.  According to the Bible, the family consisting of a father and mother and their children are the basis of a healthy society.  But blacks have joined with the godless Democrat Party agenda to destroy the family by imposing abortion values which state that men CANNOT be the father of children because all they “fathered” was by definition-of-abortion non-human goop.  And the marriage of one man and one woman under God has been replaced by homosexual depravity bringing on the wrath of God according to the crystal-clear teaching Romans Chapter One.  And black people will NEVER be ANYTHING other than welfare parasites because they have radically committed to worshiping the human State as God and trusting in Obama’s Government rather than trusting in God.  As such, they will stay forever in the wilderness and if government stops the welfare dole they will perish because they won’t EVER develop the resources to stand on their own two feet.

If you’re a woman and you’ve murdered your own baby; if you’re a man and you’ve abandoned your family; if you’re a criminal and you’ve been in prison; if you’re a drug addict; if you’re a homosexual, it is overwhelmingly likely statistically that you are black.  And there’s a reason for that.  It is NOT the color of your skin or anything that can be blamed on “racism”‘ it is ALL ABOUT the depraved value system that black people in America as a culture have bought into.  It is as simple as this: black people have supported Democrat depravity.  And sure enough they have become depraved as they have borne the rotten fruit of that Democrat depravity.  It is as simple as that.  They can be like their phony messiah Obama and radically refuse to accept any responsibility at ALL for their own failed lives as the result of their own failed policies, and just bitterly blame, blame, blame.  But they will NEVER get anywhere.  Because the very foundation they believe in is rotten to the core.

Obama as President of the welfare State is not just for black people, of course.  Obama wants every child, be they red or yellow, black or white, to experience the joys of Government-as-God and The State-as-Savior welfare.

Keep America in the wilderness.  NEVER enter the Promised Land.  That is the call of the Democrat Party.  And it is why America will collapse under the weight of its godless socialism.  Which is why black people won’t get poorer and poorer so much as America as a WHOLE becomes poorer and poorer.  We’ve all been led by the nose and duped by lies as a nation.  And we will all perish as a nation as a result.

The Antichrist, the beast of Revelation, is coming.  And the reason he is coming is because the world – now led by America – is finally ready to accept a Big Government-as-God Savior.

Many of you have ALREADY taken the Mark of the Beast.  And when you do it officially for your Government Messiah you will merely continue the trajectory that you already set when you chose Government over God and The State as Savior and Lord over and over and over again.

In Passages Like John 1:1 and Colossians 1:15 Jehovah’s Witnesses And Mormons Actually Refute Their Own False Theology

July 18, 2013

I recently had a Jehovah’s Witness try to “witness” to me.  When I told him that I could not be a Jehovah’s Witness because this false religion refused to acknowledge Christ in His rightful deity, he immediately cited Colossians 1:15.

It starts off sounding a little promising for heretics who try to argue that Jesus was merely a created being, rather than the Son of God as the Scriptures, the early Church, the Church Fathers and the Seven Historic Universal Councils of the Church all state to the contrary.

Colossians 1:15 says:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Let’s not ignore the little phrase, “He is the image of the invisible God,” which of course means that Jesus too is likewise “the invisible God.”  If you look in the mirror, is that image of you or is it somehow of a lesser being?  Or an even more literal analogy in terms of what the Greek word “image” means, if you were perfectly cloned, would your identical twin having your identical DNA be human, or would it somehow be less than human?  Hebrews 1:3 allows us to understand this term “image” better: “Christ is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature.”  But probably most informative of all is the exchange between Philip and Jesus in the Gospel of John.  In John 14:8, Philip says, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”  And how does Jesus respond?  He says, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father.”

Whoever has seen Jesus has seen the Father.  How could that in any way be true if Jesus is not Himself God?  What does the Father look like?  Aside from the fact that Christ added to His divine nature a human nature so that He could live a perfect life on earth for us and then die in our place, The Father looks exactly like Jesus.  In His character, in His goodness, in His glory, the Father looks just like Jesus.  When the Father looks in the mirror in this sense, He sees His Son.  And when the Son looks in a mirror, He sees His Father.

But if you simply ignore that first problematic phrase, as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons invariably do in their rush to get to Christ as “firstborn of all creation,” that means Christ must have been a created being, rather than God, right?

Wrong.  Let’s read that passage in its full context.  Let’s read the whole paragraph and trace the argument that St. Paul is making in this passage:

He is the image of jthe invisible God, kthe firstborn of all creation. 16 For by6 him all things were created, lin heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether mthrones or ndominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created othrough him and for him. 17 And phe is before all things, and in him all things qhold together. 18 And rhe is the head of the body, the church. He is sthe beginning, tthe firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For uin him all the vfullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and wthrough him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, xmaking peace yby the blood of his cross.

I left the links – awkward as they make the passage appear – for good reason: they provide the scriptural context in which each phrase is used.  As you click on each link, what you find is, wow, each verse that St. Paul alludes to is a direct reference to GOD.  That is not an accident.

Let me simply say it right at the outset: I can EXPLAIN the “firstborn of all creation” phrase completely logically and rationally in terms of Trinitarian orthodoxy.  However, there is no possible way that Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons or any other pseudo-Christian heretics can explain the rest of the paragraph and make any kind of logical sense.

I argue as ALL true Christians have argued since Thomas first said, “My Lord and my God!” after Jesus revealed that He had just bodily risen from the dead proving all of His claims to be the divine Messiah in complete fulfillment of the Old Testament.

So what does “firstborn of all creation” mean?

Well, part of the answer is revealed as Paul develops his argument in the very next verse.  “For by Him [Jesus Christ] all things were created.”  If Jesus created all things, as Paul categorically states in the very next verse that Jehovah’s Witnesses love to cite as their proof text, then it most certainly means that Jesus was NOT CREATED.

If “all things were created” by Jesus Christ, then how could Jesus Christ have been created???  You have two categories: God and creation.  And since Jesus created all things, Paul is clearly stating that Jesus is God rather than a created thing.  That is simple logic.  There is no escaping that logic.

Even on the Jehovah’s Witnesses incredibly flawed and demonic theology of Christ, Jesus Christ existed prior to when He appeared in Mary’s womb and was “born.”

I cite what they argue:

He was created whenever Jehovah the Almighty God began to create, he was the first to be created, he’s OF CREATION. Jehovah is not OF CREATION, because Jehovah was NOT created and did not have a BEGINNING.

Notice again that this false understanding of Christ is utterly refuted in Colossians 1:16, that “by him [Christ] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.”  If by Christ all things were created – and Paul then produces an exhaustive list of all the things that Christ created – and then we are told that “all things were created through him and for him,” then why are we not to believe that Christ is “of creation” rather than “NOT of creation”????  How is it that Jesus is “before all things”???  How is it that in Jesus ” all things hold together”???

Jesus is literally the force that prevents every single atom from flying apart, according to this passage.  Christ is literally the power holding the universe together.  That sounds like a job for God to me.

But let me get back to the point I was beginning to make, namely, if Jesus existed prior to when He was “born” – as Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves do – then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to take “firstborn” in the sense that they demand it be taken in.  Because Jesus PRE-EXISTED His birth even on their own account!!!

The Person of Christ did not begin to exist in Mary’s womb; He pre-existed His birth by at least thousands of years.  Which means that “firstborn” means something very different from what they want it to mean as heretics who deny the deity of Christ.

So we literally all agree that “firstborn” is NOT to be intended in the literal sense.  Because Jesus was only literally, physically “born” one time – out of Mary’s womb – and even Jehovah’s Witnesses acknowledge that that birth is very clearly not what is being described.  Which means that “firstborn” is clearly intended to be a figurative statement in St. Paul’s argument.

What we are talking about here is a term used to describe supremacy or priority of rank – and very clearly NOT a statement or description of when or even IF Jesus was ever “born.”  Rather, Paul begins by basically stating in His “firstborn of all creation” metaphor that Jesus is supreme over creation, and then proceeds to describe Christ as Creator of and over all creation.

P.T. O’Brien in The Dictionary of Paul and His Letters has a fascinating and conclusive article on this subject of “firstborn.”  I shall summarize his findings in a few paragraphs.

The term “firstborn” is used in the plural in the New Testament twice:

By faith he [Moses] left Egypt, not being afraid of the anger of the king, for he endured as seeing him who is invisible. 28 By faith he kept the Passover and sprinkled the blood, so that the Destroyer of the firstborn might not touch them. — Hebrews 11:28

And:

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. — Hebrews 12:23

Note first of all that “firstborn” in the plural sense in the only two occasions the term is used in the plural sense is used to apply NOT TO BIRTH OR TO CREATION, but to BELIEVERS.  And then note that Christ is then mentioned separate and distinct from “the firstborn” in Hebrews 12:24.

That stated, the term “firstborn” is used three times in the New Testament – and in each use it applies to Christ who is:

1. Firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15)

2. Firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18)

3. Firstborn among many brothers (Romans 8:29)

Now, again, think of this term “firstborn” in terms of supremacy or priority of rank and it very easily fits: who is Jesus?  He is supreme over all creation by virtue of the fact that HE IS THE CREATOR.  He is supreme over the dead by virtue of the fact that HE OVERCAME DEATH by the power of His Resurrection from the dead.  And He is supreme among the many who would believe in Him by virtue of the fact that HE IS THEIR LORD AND SAVIOR.  And everything that these Christian brothers and sisters will share in they will share with Jesus Christ and BECAUSE of Jesus Christ.

You see how easy it is to sensibly understand the term “firstborn” in terms of Trinitarian orthodoxy?  You know, the theology that dominated the early Church, and which was repeatedly and conclusively stated in every single one of the first SEVEN universal councils of the Christian Church as they expressed their understanding of Christ and the one true Faith delivered once and for all to the saints that is in Him???

“Christ is firstborn of all creation” expresses Christ’s relationship to creation.  Because, as Paul IMMEDIATELY proceeds to argue in his very next words, “all things” were created by the very Christ who is “firstborn of all creation.”

Again, I demand that Jehovah’s Witnesses answer their OWN problem with the passage that they often cite: just how can Christ “create all things” and yet Himself have been created???  He would – unless He is truly God and truly pre-existent as God is truly pre-existent – have had to have created Himself.  Which is philosophically and metaphysically utterly absurd.

So what does a good Jehovah’s Witness have to do?  He has to throw down the Bible and start adding stuff.  He has to start adding words that are very definitely NOT in the Bible and therefore change and pervert both the Word of God and the argument from St. Paul that they themselves love to cite.  They have to say that “Christ created all other things after He was Himself created.

But that is very definitely NOT what the Bible teaches.  Which is to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons to understand the “firstborn of all creation” passage without perverting it to fit their deeply flawed theology.

Rather, the Bible, the Word of God, declares that Jesus Christ created ALL things.  And St. Paul goes on to categorically state how exhaustive that is:  Jesus Christ created everything in heaven.  Jesus Christ created everything on earth.  Jesus Christ created everything that is visible.  Jesus Christ created everything that is invisible.  And whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, it was Jesus Christ who created them all.

Also read John 1:1-3 to see the same line of argument:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.    All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Note again: ALL things were created through Jesus, the Word.  And in fact nothing was created that ever WAS created.  Which is to say that John 1:1 plays on Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”  Only now we learn that it was God the Second Person, a.k.a. Christ, who was the Creator.

There’s a poem that says, “He came to die on a cross of wood, yet made the hill on which it stood” that beautifully and simply sums up that incredibly powerful truth.  Christ created man in His own image so that one day He could assume that image – and thus sacrificially offer Himself for the sins of a lost world that would have perished without Him.  That is the beauty of Christ that Jehovah’s Witnesses want to pervert.

What do Jehovah’s Witnesses do here to pervert the Gospel of John literally from the very first verse?  They decide that “God” is an anarthrous noun, which means that there is no article preceding the noun.  And so they declare “the Word” – Jesus Christ – to be “a god” rather than “God.”  But their rule here is so idiotic that they break it themselves even before they can get to it in the first verse of John’s Gospel.  Because, you see, “beginning” is also anarthrous, meaning there is no article there, either.  And so if their “rule” had any merit, they would have translated the verse, “In A beginning…”  And of course that is merely one of the numerous times they break the rule they created in order to pervert Jesus from God to merely “a god.”  Because you have this exact same situation 282 times, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses “translators” only follow their own “rule” on sixteen occasions – just SIX PERCENT of the time.

Consider that if the Jehovah’s Witnesses consistently followed their own rule just in the opening verses of the Book of John:

– “beginning” in verses 1 and 2 would have been translated “a beginning.”

– “life” in verse 4 would have been translated as “a life.”

– “from God” in verse 6 would have been translated as “from a god.”

– “John” in verse 6 would have been translated as “a John.”

“God” in verse 18 would have been translated as “a God.”

And yet the Jehovah’s Witnesses break their own “rule” in every single one of these instances.  The “rule” was created for one ideological purpose only: to blaspheme Jesus Christ and deny Him His rightful deity.  Which is why no baptized in good standing Jehovah’s Witness has ever been shown to have been granted a post-graduate degree in biblical Greek.  EVER.

The beauty of these three opening verses in the Book of John is enhanced by a theological understanding of what John succeeded in accomplishing.  In declaring that “The Word was with God, and the Word was God,” John’s use of the anarthrous “God” is exactly correct; because had he written “the Word was [the] God,” he would have been fomenting the heresy of Sabelianism or modalism– which held that Jesus WAS a “mode” of God, or that “God” was one Person wearing three hats: the hat of the Father, the hat of the Son and the hat of the Holy Spirit.  Which is to say that John HAD to translate “the Word was with God, and the Word was God” exactly as he did.

There is absolutely no escaping the logic of the passages that Jehovah’s Witnesses love to cite so they can fundamentally pervert and misrepresent them.

I think of the warning that St. John provides in the Book of Revelation:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. — Revelation 22:18-19

Jehovah’s Witnesses are routinely forced to “add to the words” over and over again as they deny the reality of the deity of Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior and God.  And they are routinely forced to take away from the Book as they repeatedly take away clear ascriptions affirming the deity of Jesus Christ.  And they will one day burn in hell for their sin, just as John warned them.

You might want to view Jehovah’s Witnesses as well-meaning people, good people, decent people.  But they go door-to-door trying to lead lost soul after lost soul to the very same hell that they themselves will surely burn in.  Which makes them terrible agents of demonic wickedness.

Let me ask a question: who purchased the Church with His own Blood?  Acts 20:28 tells you if you didn’t know:

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

Who purchased the church of God?  God did.  That shouldn’t be all that hard to figure out.

Christ is one Person with two natures: one human, one divine.  He had to be human, and fully human in absolutely every way that it is essential to be human, in order to represent the human race.  He had to be God because as the Scriptures conclusively state:

We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. — Isaiah 64:6

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. — Psalm 51:5

No one is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.  All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. — Romans 3:10

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God — Romans 3:23

For the wages of sin is death — Romans 6:23

First of all, Christ had to be completely and fully divine, God in every meaningful way, because all humanity was trapped in sin and sinful man could not save sinful man.

Could Jesus have been an angel?  Not according to the Bible, He couldn’t.

Consider the crystal clear argument of Hebrews chapter one that clearly reveals that Jesus was NOT an angel:

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son,     today I have begotten you”?

Or again,

“I will be to him a father,     and he shall be to me a son”?

And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

Of the angels he says,

“He makes his angels winds,     and his ministers a flame of fire.”

But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,     the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you     with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

10 And,

“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,     and the heavens are the work of your hands; 11 they will perish, but you remain;     they will all wear out like a garment, 12 like a robe you will roll them up,     like a garment they will be changed.[a] But you are the same,     and your years will have no end.”

13 And to which of the angels has he ever said,

“Sit at my right hand     until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?

14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?

Based on this passage, what heretic, what FOOL would dare to claim that the Bible teaches that Jesus is merely an angel?

Let me also ask the question, where in Scripture does God give man over to any angel?  Where is it that God tells the angels that they – and not God – are Savior to mankind???  Where does the Word of God tell us that the blood of an angel delivers sinful man from his sin?  Where does it teach us that any angel has the power to save us from the wrath of God and from hell?  Nowhere, that’s where.

What in fact does God say?  This:

“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he.  Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.  I, I am the Lord, and besides me there is no savior. — Isaiah 43:10-11

And just to add insult to injury, who is declared to BE that “Savior” in the New Testament?

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.  — Luke 2:11

If Jesus is NOT “God,” and every bit God, then Jehovah is refuted.  Because in Isaiah He boasts that there is no other Savior when in fact He was wrong and Jesus would ALSO be Savior.  ONLY if Jesus is God, as orthodox Trinitarian theology upholds, and is literally the fulfillment of this passage, is that not the case.

Well, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons claim that the Father is God (in the case of J.W.s, “Jehovah”) and that Jesus is “a god.”  Could that be (apart from the fact that that has already been refuted above?).  No.  What does God’s Word say?

Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. — Isaiah 45:21

But I am the LORD your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior.

There is no other God besides the Triune Lord God.  And God’s Word assures us that Jesus is either a member of the Trinity or that He is neither “god” NOR “savior.”  And yet God’s Word assures us that He is in fact both God AND Savior.

… waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ — Titus 2:13

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ — 2 Peter 1:1

In the Person of Christ, the Second Person of the Triune Godhead, God purchased the Church with His own blood.  God assumed a human nature so that He could experience death through that human nature.  But being God, He couldn’t remain dead.  And so our God and Savior Jesus Christ saved us.

Let’s keep in mind that both Mormons (who assert Jesus is the “spirit-brother” of Lucifer) and Jehovah’s Witnesses (who assert that Jesus is Michael the archangel) believe that Jesus is a merely an angel.  And with that in mind, read Galatians 1:6-8:

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.  But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”

It’s interesting that Paul refers to people who are turning others to “a different gospel” and who “distort the gospel of Christ.”  And then Paul says, “Even if an angel from heaven should preach such a gospel to you, let him be accursed.”

I ask you, “What if JESUS preached a different gospel?”  Because since Jesus is merely an angel according to both Mormon and Jehovah’s Witness theology, that has to be an obvious logical possibility on their view.  Notice Paul clearly does not say, “an angel from heaven other than Christ.”  Paul doesn’t do that because there is simply no question that JESUS IS NOT AN ANGEL as Hebrews chapter one (quoted above) clearly states.

Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are accursed according to the Word of God.  They are deceived and they seek to deceive as many others as they possibly can.

The Jesus of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormonism is a lie.  And it is a lie that has no power to save.  Because only GOD has the power to save.  And Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons explicitly deny that Jesus has such power.
Furthermore, if Jesus is NOT God, Scripture tells us that He is also not Savior.  And those who do not believe in Jesus Christ as God and Savior are still in their sins.

Please don’t allow these agents of Satan – no matter how polite they are when they come to your door – to lie to you about the true nature of the only Savior of the world.  The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons are false, blasphemous cults whom St. Paul described by saying “they preach a different Jesus than the one we preach” and ” a different kind of gospel” from the Gospel which saves – the Gospel of the True Jesus Christ, the divine King of kings and the divine Lord of lords.

The doctrine of the Trinity is NOT a “problem.”  It is merely the solution to the clear data provided by Scripture which reveals that while God is ontologically one in being, that there are three distinct divine Persons who are all very clearly called “God”: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  The Father, Son and Spirit are not “three gods” because they co-inhabit ONE and THE SAME divine nature or essence.  No human being this side of eternity can fully understand that, because God is ontologically superior to us in every imaginable way.  But suffice it to say that “fellowship” is at the heart of God because it is literally part of the essence of being God: the Father, the Son and the Spirit are and always have been in a state of ultimate and eternal fellowship with one another within the divine nature.

Liberals Put ‘God’ Back In Platform Over Boos. As A Pure Rhetorical Tactic Only, Obviously

September 8, 2012

Ah, the toxic, rabid, toxic Democrat Party has found its voice, I see.

Cardinal Dolan prayed.  What more do Democrats need to pour their hate on him?

You’ll have to excuse the language.  What can I say?  I’m quoting Democrats, and they are only capable of speaking Cockroach:

Liberals cuss out Archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan
Posted at 12:56 am on September 7, 2012 by Twitchy Staff

I just gotta say it: Fuck you, Dolan. No, seriously. Fuck you.

As Twitchy reported earlier, New York Archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan’s closing benediction was the DNC speech of the night.

Despite being unable able to watch Dolan’s prayer on most networks, liberals didn’t waste any time making clear their displeasure:

Glad I’m not watching Cardinal Dolan, because fuck that guy.

@SheCallsMeLarry Was very disappointed in the change of platform yesterday by the dems, not to mention how it was changed. Just disgusting.

 
 

@anothermarc Same here. And pardon my French, but what the FUCK was Timothy Dolan doing there?!

Fuck you, Dolan, you pedophile-nurturing dickweasel

@JoeMyGod: And FUCK Tim Dolan right in the motherfucking ear.” Yeah, @fakedansavage I agree. And what you said, Joe. Ugh.

Amen, sister! RT @KailiJoy: I just gotta say it: Fuck you, Dolan. No, seriously. Fuck you.

Go fuck yourself Timothy Dolan—
Jason Bradford (@Iasthai1283) September 07, 2012

The fuck is this? Why does the end in a prayer? Ugh, and it had to be Tim Dolan.

And FUCK Tim Dolan right in the motherfucking ear.

Dolan just slammed gays and others. Fuck him.

I grew up Catholic, converted to Buddhism, and still love Jesus, Mary, and religion in general. But Dolan can fuck off.—
Joshua Eaton (@joshua_eaton) September 07, 2012

What the FUCK is Timothy Dolan doing there? I was so inspired – then I wanted to vomit. Thank god it turned off :D
ティアラ (@dozing_reverse) September 07, 2012

Keep it classy, people.

Good luck with that “classy” thing when the left is involved.

I loved this headline:

Democratic Theology Explained: There Is A God and They Hate Him

And how.

Jesus said, “You will deny Me three times.”  He spake as a prophet when it came to the DNC in their THIRD vote to put God back into the party platform after deliberately purging it:

For the record, here is the prayer that had all the demons inside the Democrat Party (that’s “Demonic Bureaucrat”) crawling inside their skins:

With a “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” let us close this convention by praying for this land that we so cherish and love:

Let us Pray.

Almighty God, father of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, revealed to us so powerfully in your Son, Jesus Christ, we thank you for showering your blessings upon this our beloved nation. Bless all here present, and all across this great land, who work hard for the day when a greater portion of your justice, and a more ample measure of your care for the poor and suffering, may prevail in these United States. Help us to see that a society’s greatness is found above all in the respect it shows for the weakest and neediest among us.

We beseech you, almighty God to shed your grace on this noble experiment in ordered liberty, which began with the confident assertion of inalienable rights bestowed upon us by you: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Thus do we praise you for the gift of life. Grant us the courage to defend it, life, without which no other rights are secure. We ask your benediction on those waiting to be born, that they may be welcomed and protected. Strengthen our sick and our elders waiting to see your holy face at life’s end, that they may be accompanied by true compassion and cherished with the dignity due those who are infirm and fragile.

We praise and thank you for the gift of liberty. May this land of the free never lack those brave enough to defend our basic freedoms. Renew in all our people a profound respect for religious liberty: the first, most cherished freedom bequeathed upon us at our Founding. May our liberty be in harmony with truth; freedom ordered in goodness and justice. Help us live our freedom in faith, hope, and love. Make us ever-grateful for those who, for over two centuries, have given their lives in freedom’s defense; we commend their noble souls to your eternal care, as even now we beg the protection of your mighty arm upon our men and women in uniform.

We praise and thank you for granting us the life and the liberty by which we can pursue happiness. Show us anew that happiness is found only in respecting the laws of nature and of nature’s God. Empower us with your grace so that we might resist the temptation to replace the moral law with idols of our own making, or to remake those institutions you have given us for the nurturing of life and community. May we welcome those who yearn to breathe free and to pursue happiness in this land of freedom, adding their gifts to those whose families have lived here for centuries.

We praise and thank you for the American genius of government of the people, by the people and for the people. Oh God of wisdom, justice, and might, we ask your guidance for those who govern us: President Barack Obama, Vice President Joseph Biden, Congress, the Supreme Court, and all those, including Governor Mitt Romney and Congressman Paul Ryan, who seek to serve the common good by seeking public office. Make them all worthy to serve you by serving our country. Help them remember that the only just government is the government that serves its citizens rather than itself. With your grace, may all Americans choose wisely as we consider the future course of public policy.

And finally Lord, we beseech your benediction on all of us who depart from here this evening, and on all those, in every land, who yearn to conduct their lives in freedom and justice. We beg you to remember, as we pledge to remember, those who are not free; those who suffer for freedom’s cause; those who are poor, out of work, needy, sick, or alone; those who are persecuted for their religious convictions, those still ravaged by war.

And most of all, God Almighty, we thank you for the great gift of our beloved country.

For we are indeed “one nation under God,” and “in God we trust.”

So dear God, bless America. You who live and reign forever and ever.

Amen!

I know, I know.  It’s hard to believe that nice people like these have murdered over 54 million innocent little babies.

The Democrat Party is the party of genuine evil.  It will be Democrats who worship the coming beast and take his mark on their hands or on their foreheads before they burn in hell.

The Democrat Party Surpasses Itself For Total Lack Of Leadership And Chaos And Deceit On Vote To Add God, Jerusalem Back Into Party Platform

September 5, 2012

One wit in Wisconsin said it best: The Democrats voted against God before they voted for Him.  Not that they actually DID vote for God, as you will see.

Yesterday the Democrat Party took a vote to adopt a new party platform that specifically purged language of God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

After that vote, Brett Bair, anchor of Fox News Special Report, had a bizarre interview with Dick Durbin.

I have seen the same look that was on Dick Durbin’s face three times in my life.  Once was when I was a soldier and inadvertently cornered a large nasty rat during a training exercise; once was when I lived in Oregon and inadvertently cornered a possum when I was trying to take the trash to the curb; and once was when I was looking at trapped, cornered, vicious Dick Durbin trying to explain why Democrats had just purged language about God and Jerusalem as Israel’s capitol from its platform:

Notice that Brett Bair is merely trying to ask a VERY legitimate question: why did you remove that language from your platform? And notice that the rabid freaking rodent in Durbin comes out and he not only refuses to EVER answer the question in spite of being REPEATEDLY asked, but demonizes Fox News and Brett Bair personally merely for daring to ASK the question.

But it quickly became apparent to anyone who WASN’T crawling with demons that what the Democrats had just done to purge God and kick Israel to the curb was a mega-giant loser.

In a bizarre display of deceit and total inability to exercise anything even remotely CLOSE to leadership, the Democrat National Convention gave us the following utterly pathetic display:

I loved it when Antonio Villaraigosa said, “The chair recognizes…” and “In the opinion of the chair two-thirds have voted in the affirmative, the motion is adopted…”  Because it reminded me of Clint Eastwood and his conversation with the EMPTY damn chair.   Because if there’s anybody sitting in the “chair” of the Democrat Party, it is a fat, bloated damn demon.

Did it sound to you in the video like the “ayes” won by the required two-thirds margin?  If it did I’ve got four words for you: “Stupid Idiot Deaf Liar.”  If anything, the “no” vote was LOUDER and there was no freaking way the voice vote carried.  But the Democrats have always been a party of fascists masquerading as populists and so the leadership just did whatever the hell it wanted to do – which was try to sweep a real disgrace under the rug as quickly as possible.

This was just bizarre on every single level under the sun.  This is the party you want leading America?  Seriously?  The party of evil clueless clowns and rabid fools?

Now, I couldn’t tell you whether Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is a clueless clown or a rabid fool if I had to pick just one, but here is what the chair of the Democratic National Convention said:

CNN White House correspondent Brianna Keilar, on the floor of the convention with Wasserman Schultz, asked about the process of changing the platform, the three voice votes, and the “discord.”

Wasserman Schultz amazingly replied, “There wasn’t any discord.”

Keilar responded that it seemed like people on the floor didn’t feel it was a two-thirds vote.

Wasserman Schultz again amazingly replied, “It absolutely was two-thirds.”

Continuing to press, Keilar noted that this seemed to be a change in policy from yesterday by the Obama campaign because they made it clear Tuesday that they stood by the platform with the controversial language regarding Jerusalem and the word “God” left out.

“No, no, it’s not actually,” Wasserman Schultz again amazingly replied.

At the end of the interview, the segment switched back to CNN’s booth at the convention where Anderson Cooper said, “I just got to go to the panel with this. I mean, Debbie Wasserman Schultz said it wasn’t a change of language, there was no discord that we saw, and it was a two-thirds vote.

“And it was a technical oversight,” added David Gergen.

“I mean, that’s an alternate universe,” replied Cooper. […]

Cooper added a few moments later, “I just think from a reality standpoint, you can defend it as the head of the DNC, but to say flat out there was no discord is just not true.”
 
At that point, John King fabulously said, “If I had a follow-up question, it would be did she ever get away with the dog ate my homework?”
 
That led to laughter from all present making it clear that this panel was not buying the DNC chair’s explanation.

The question remains: if the Democrats AREN’T the Party of godless communism and hostility toward God’s chosen nation Israel, then why the hell did they remove it from the platform to begin with?  I think you can tell by the vote that the answer is pretty straightforward: because most Democrats ARE “Democrats” – by which I mean, “Demonic Bureaucrats“.

The other – and just as dangerous to America – reason is because the platform had merely been adopted and passed to reflect the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION POLICY, as abundant evidence documents.

Obama was trying to throw Israel under the bus in 2008 but – I suppose fortunately lacking courage – he cut and ran from his statement that Jerusalem was merely one of many issues to be bargained away:

“Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations,” Obama told CNN when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

Obama has absolutely no regard for Israel or Jerusalem, and history proves it.  If Obama gets reelected, you can count on him to force Israel to give up Jerusalem for the pseudo-peace he will force Israel to accept so we can have Armageddon just like the God the Democrats purged from their platform told us we would have.

Obama is no friend of Israel.  That is a fact.

His call for Israel to be forced to return to its indefensible 1967 borders is more than proof enough of that all by itself.

At least ABC had the integrity to reveal the abject hypocrisy of the Democrat Party on this.  Charlie Rose repeatedly asked Senator Charles Schumer – who is THE Democrat authority on Israel and the Middle East – “What is the president’s position on Jerusalem?”  And Schumer refused to answer (because the American people would not LIKE Obama’s answer):

The new platform has still purged the language denying the “right of return” and the rejection of the terrorist group Hamas as well as the issue of the 1967 borders.  Any Israel-loving Jew or American who votes for the Democrat Party is an idiot or worse.

The Democrat Party is an evil, rabid, radical party.  It is the party of God damn America.  It has nothing to do with the Democrat Party that existed prior to the 1968 Democrat National Convention when the very radicals who now dominate it violently took it over.

Update: For the record, it was being circulated that Obama was the hero who courageously demanded that the God and Jerusalem language be put back into the DNC platform.  The only problem with that is that it is an utter fabrication.  In fact Obama saw the new language prior to its being put into the platform.  So the real question becomes, “Why did Obama allow and approve the language to be taken out to begin with?”

Why I’m Offended Over NASA’s Mars Rover Mission

August 7, 2012

I might be wrong, but I’ve read several stories about the Mars Rover mission now – and every single one of them only provides ONE reason for why NASA launched this $2.5 billion mission: to search for proof of evolution in the form of proof of panspermia.

Panspermia is the view that life was – as religious people have told them for thousands of years – far too complex to have originated on earth.  So since we know that there could not possibly have been an Intelligent Creator God, the only remaining possibility is that life evolved somewhere else and then came here.

Panspermia has largely been the most radical religious faith commitment of atheistic scientism: because you’ve merely punted the origin of life to a place where we can’t possibly find how it “evolved.”

Directed panspermia is an attempt to evade some of the difficulties associated with the concept of abiogenesis. Panspermia theories argue that life began elsewhere in the universe and was subsequently seeded on earth. Some proponents of panspermia hold that life rode on meteorites travelling through space which eventually landed on earth and allowed the Darwinian mechanism to take over. A major problem with this suggestion is the sheer improbability that any life form could survive the radiation and extreme temperatures found in space.

Other proponents of panspermia, such as the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, Francis Crick, suggest that intelligent aliens visited earth and seeded it with the first life form. The willingness of many scientists to resort to the hypothesis of aliens does not say much for their prospects of finding a feasible naturalistic model for the origin of life. The main problem with panspermia theories is that they only explain how life initially got to earth — they say nothing about the actual origin of life. All such theories merely attempt to shift the problem of the emergence of life to another location.

But here we are, spending $2.5 billion to see if life originated on Mars.

In a way, it’s almost reassuring: the very craziest theory of evolution is now essentially the most mainstream of all the craziest possibilities.

What’s the purpose of the Mars Rover mission?  It is this:

to find whether Mars has the crucial ingredients that could once have supported life.

Well, here’s the thing: what happens if the Mars Rover finds no life on Mars?  What if they don’t find evidence that Mars supported life?  Was the mission a failure?  Was the money wasted?  How could it NOT be given the purpose of the mission???

NASA needs to either find something they can call “evidence” that Mars could have once supported life or they need to explain why they pissed away $2.5 billion in a day when America is going broke.

I’m just telling you right now that they’re going to conjure up the former so they won’t have to do the latter.  I read articles whose headlines screech that some incredible new find has “proven” evolution.  Invariably I end up reading some incredibly minor and trivial thing that amounts to “Mt. Molehill.”  If you read enough of these, you will begin to conclude that the more meaningless a “discovery” is, the louder they are in hyping it.

And just to continue: if they can’t find life on Mars and aren’t able to fabricate some “evidence” that they did, would they finally acknowledge that boy were we ever wrong in our idiotic Darwinism and let’s all join hands and worship our Lord God Almighty?  NO!  Theirs is a radical religious faith commitment that literally everything came from nothing.  They believe that life came from lifelessness.  They believe that intelligence is the result of mindlessness.  They believe that all the purpose and meaning and value came from purposeless, meaningless, valueless nothingness.

When the purpose of a $2.5 billion mission is to find evidence of life, there is a lot of pressure to FIND “evidence” of life.  But let’s say they don’t “find” it.  Is that it?  Do they acknowledge, well, shoot, I guess we were wrong”?  Hardly.  They’ll say, well, there were a lot of other sites we could have landed on.  We’ll need to come back to a different site next time.  Or to a different planet (Uranus sounds good).  Or to one of an infinite number of planets.  Believing that life is “out there” means never having to admit you were wrong.

With the help of Ann Coulter, I’ve described this impossibility of ever refuting an atheist to the satisfaction of the atheist before:

Ann Coulter pointed it out with the false claim that evolution was “falsifiable” versus any religious claim which was not. Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” And Ann Coulter brilliantly changed a couple of words to demonstrate what a load of crap that was: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by God, my God theory would absolutely break down.”

In any words, evolution is no more “scientifically falsifiable” than even the most ardent young earth creationist claim. Their standard is impossible to prove. I mean, you show me that God “could not possibly have” created the earth.

The whole way they sold evolution was a lie.

And I then stated:

There is NEVER an admission of guilt or an acknowledgment of error by these people.  They simply suppress or destroy the evidence, or “morph” their argument, or anything but acknowledge that just maybe they should be open-minded and question their presuppositions.

The reason “scientists” tell us that we can’t drag our religion into science is because you can’t disprove that God didn’t create.  That might be true; but you can’t disprove evolution any more than you can disprove God.  Because both evolution and Creation are equally religious views.

Then there’s NASA.  How much should we trust an agency that literally got started by Nazi rocket scientists?

NASA is the home of James Hansen – a man who literally screeched that the world was going to freeze in an ice age before changing his tune to say it was going to melt due to global warming before changing his tune to say that it wasn’t so much “global warming” as “climate change” to changing his tune to say that no it’s going to melt again.  They tell us that “snowfalls are going to be a thing of the past” in the summer and then tell us – and I’m not making this up – that it’s so damn cold only because it’s really so damn hot in the winter.

You can understand the mindset: when you’ve got the coldest winter since 1886, blame it on global warming and then make sure you quit calling it “global warming” and start calling it “climate change.”  When you call it “climate change” you don’t even NEED a damn theory any more; all you’ve got to do is demagogue every hot day or every cold day or every tornado or every hurricane or every whatever.

Being completely wrong is a way of life for these fools.

“Science” says that global warming skepticism equals RACISM.

Problems with this ice age no we meant global warming no we meant climate change no we were right when we said global warming (at least until winter comes again) theory abound:

I’ve written numerous articles on the legitimate issues casting doubt on global warming. Consider facts such as: 1) the history of planet earth is a history of climate change and huge swings in climate; 2) we have seen even larger episodes of “global warming” on the planets in our solar system – none of which have SUVs driving around on them – than we see on our own planet earth; 3) the “science” of global warming has been warped with mindboggling acts of fraud and shocking manipulation of data; 4) not only is there no “consensus” about “global warming” but in fact increasing numbers of scientists are outright hostile about “‘decarbonizing’ the world’s economy”; and 5) in spite of all evidence to the contrary, the United Nations is demanding $76 TRILLION in what amounts to pure socialist redistributionism to “save the planet” from “climate change.”

I just learned that the Old Kingdom of Egypt began as a result of an enormous climate shift in which Northern Africa went from a verdant and fertile land to a desert while the Nile began to bloom (4000 BC) and collapsed as a result of massive climate change in which the Nile transformed from lush farmland into dust. And nobody was driving SUVs, were they??? Just as nobody is driving SUVs on Mars.

The fact of the matter is that it was never anything more than a completely artificial and arbitrary decision to blame manmade CO2 – which constitutes such a tiny infinitesimal fraction of the actual global warming gasses it is unreal – for all of our current climate change. When manmade CO2 very obviously never had ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with all the myriad episodes of climate change that have characterized the history of planet earth from time immemorial ever before.

But liberals swear up and down that we must spend at least $76 trillion to fight the manmade CO2 bogeyman regardless.

Oops.  Did I say the left wanted $76 trillion?  That was yesterday.  They actually need $145 trillion.  They need to travel to their conferences so they can learn to be better hysterical alarmist in style, you see.  When said global warming conferences aren’t postponed or canceled due to snow.

And the people who are so damned occupied with finding life somewhere else have documented an appalling hostility to human life on our very own planet:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” – Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor [and major DEMOCRAT PARTY DONOR]

So pardon me if I’m not impressed with the “James Hansen Agency” or its “missions.”

And pardon me for looking at what “scientists” and even NASA “scientists” have done with global warming and understand why I’m more than a tad skeptical about this “mission” that really already seems to have a predetermined “discovery.”

It is hard for me to believe that our most brilliant of brains over at NASA couldn’t have figured out a way to come up with a purpose for sending that rover to Mars that didn’t involve “proving” that there is no God and I’m just the result of a race that began as a protein that evolved into a microbe that evolved into a fish that evolved into a lizard that evolved into a monkey that evolved into a man.  And I’m saying if that was their only reason for their $2.5 billion mission, I wish they’d saved the money.

I remember when the first Soviet astronaut went into space: he declared “I don’t see any God up here.”

It’s truly sad that even as NASA has outsourced its space program to the Russians at the cost of $63 million per seat in the age of Obama, we are at the very same time embracing the “mission” of the Soviet space program to prove there isn’t a God out in space.

But that is where we seem to be.

If you’re going to have a mission to explore space and increase the knowledge of science, I’m all for it.  If you’re going to have a mission to prove atheistic panspermia, then leave me out of it.  And leave my tax dollars out of it.  If you think I’m wrong for having that attitude, then I hope you’ll be demanding that NASA’s next mission goes to Mars to “search for the crucial ingredients to support young earth creationism.”

Marriage Defined As The Union Between One Man And One Woman Doesn’t Take ANYBODY’S ‘Rights’ Away – (Except Maybe God’s)

August 6, 2012

That’s what we’re told every day.  If I believe “marriage” is the union between one man and one woman, I’m some kind of fascist who is out to take people’s rights away.

The problem is, that’s a whole lotta bullcrap.

For one thing, marriage has been defined EXACTLY as I define it by pretty much every single civilization that has ever existed.  There is NO civilization that has EVER allowed homosexual marriage for its people in HISTORY.  So why am I a fascist for holding to a tradition that has accompanied the human race for its entire history rather than the people who are trying to impose a “fundamental transformation” on the entirety of human history up to this point being the fascists?

The entire history of the United States of America from the days when it was a colony to this day records that my views represent America and the views of homosexuals do not represent America.  Why is it that those who are trying to force a new definition that is entirely antithetical to the history of this nation not qualify as fascists?

That’s the overarching argument, of course.

It applies right down to the individual.  By defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman I am not taking anyone’s “rights” away.  Because every single adult American can marry any adult American of the opposite sex who will have him or her.  Nobody’s rights have been deprived.  We all have the SAME rights as everybody else.  And if homosexuals have morally disqualified themselves from wanting to exercise that right is hardly my fault.

If I have the right to marry anybody I choose, then why can’t I marry Aishwarya Rai?  Why can’t I can’t marry the woman of my choice?!?!  And I’m holding out for her.  I’m saving myself for you, Aishwarya!  I’ll never marry anyone else if I can’t have YOU until society gives me my rights!!!

Ah, the gay marriage proponent says, but she doesn’t choose you!  Well, that sucks.  I’ve still been deprived of my right to marry the partner of my choice whether she agrees with that choice or not, the way the left frequently presents their argument, but let’s say that that is the criterion.  So what happens if I want to marry two women?  What happens if I want to marry a ten year-old boy?  And in both cases these marriage partners agree that they would like to marry me too?  In the latter case there is at least a tradition called “pederasty” that has FAR more historical support than gay marriage ever has.  How are you going to rule gay marriage in and rule pederasty out?   There is no question that we are radically redefining society by imposing gay marriage; at least you could point to SOMETHING that once existed with pederasty; it’s been a common if disgusting practice, as opposed to homosexual marriage which is ONLY a disgusting practice.  If  ten year-olds can choose to have an abortion, as the left insists they should be allowed to do, surely they should be able to choose other sexual behaviors such as marriage.  Who are YOU to impose your “outdated morality” and “intolerance” on that ten year-old boy?  And those two women – or for that matter those 22 women – are willing adults.  If you’re going to accuse me of being “arbitrary” for defining marriage as every civilization has basically defined it and very definitely as Western Civilization and the Bible which undermines that Western Civilization has clearly defined it, how is it not “arbitrary” to categorically state that marriage can only be between two people???

If a woman wants to walk out of her home leading her husband – that is literally a well-hung young STALLION – who the hell are YOU to say that’s wrong?  Why do you think you should have the right to impose your narrow-minded intolerant bigotry on that poor woman who only wants to be left alone and live her life with her husband the horse? 

The problem is that marriage is either a particular thing, an ordinance under God that every society has recognized, or it is basically whatever the hell you want it to be at any point in the increasing depravitization of our culture until it becomes too toxic to continue to exist and dies out.

There is something that Francis A. Schaeffer described that he labelled “moral velocitization.”  It referred to something we are seeing coming at us faster and faster and faster with every passing year. 

There was a time not very long ago when NO American president would have celebrated homosexual marriage.  If FDR had campaigned on the platform, “I’m going to give you a country in which one man may openly sodomize another man and anybody who doesn’t like it gets denounced!” he would have had his ass thrown out of office.  And if you go from George Washington to Bill Clinton, you find that Bill Clinton signed into law something called “the Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) that defined marriage PRECISELY the way I define it. 

It’s not until you get to the forty-forth president, with the previous forty-three all unanimously disagreeing with him, that you get to an endorsement of homosexual marriage.  And even THAT president lied and decieved his way into office by categorically stating that:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.”

If the forty-forth president had said anything different, his skinny little fascist ass would never have sat in the Oval Office.

THAT’S moral velocitization.  We go from a moral view that nobody in their right mind believed could have characterized this nation to one that is held by the most dishonest president in our nation’s history – and which by “virtue” of a bait-and-switch has gradually acclimated America to a toxic view that our founders would have decried as genuinely evil.

Let me talk about abortion for a moment; I’ll be back to homosexual marriage.

Since 1973, the Democrat Party and every single person who has voted Democrat have murdered 54,559,615 MILLION innocent human beings and counting since Roe v. Wade (that as of January 23, 2012).  We’re talking about a level of homicide that is NINE TIMES WORSE than Adolf Hitler’s Holocaust.

I’ve told more than a few Democrats who call themselves “Christian” that no, you aint: because the Virgin Mary came to you and said, “I’m only thirteen and I’m pregnant.  I have no husband and I don’t know what to do.”  And you fed her the Democrat Party line and she had an abortion.  And so your baby Jesus is dead and He didn’t die for your sins because you killed Him before He had the chance.

You see, the Incarnation and the Baby Jesus is the quintessential proof that life begins at conception and that the Democrat Party is the Party of Demons.  That’s why “Democrat” means “Demonic Bureaucrat.”  And one day Democrats as individual people will try to use the Nazi Nuremburg Defense and say they weren’t responsible for the consequences of their votes.  But God – with the fire of His increasing wrath billowing out from His chariot throne (Daniel 7:9-10) – will point out that with every single vote they as individuals chose more politicians who would appoint more judges who would in turn murder more babies.  And this was hardly done without their knowledge and consent.

Now, I bring that up because as godawful and as depraved as abortion is, God says that that isn’t the lowest depths that the Democrats can attain to.

As recorded in Romans 1:18-28:

God’s Wrath Against Mankind

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

The lowest point a culture can get is not abortion, as hateful and evil as abortion is; it is the moral crime of condoning and in fact honoring and celebrating homosexuality. It is in the Bible in black and white.

I can explain to you why that is.  It is because after God created man in His image He said to humanity:

God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” — Genesis 1:28

And from the very outset, from the Tower of Babel on, depraved, sinful, wicked man has had an “alternative” to the plan of the God who created one man for one woman.

It is no surprise that the Democrat Party – the party of genuine evil – would slander and pervert God’s will and plan by endorsing global warming and population controls and the most egregious slap in the face to His will of all: open recognition and celebration of homosexuality.

As declared in the New York Times on July 30, 2012 under the title “Democrats Draft Gay Marriage Platform“:

Democrats appear ready to embrace same-sex marriage as part of their party platform, a policy shift that reflects an expanded acceptance of gay rights in mainstream politics.

The move would place the party in line with the beliefs of President Obama, who in May became the first sitting president to declare that gay men and lesbians should be able to marry.

Democratic Party officials had squabbled over the issue in the past. But at a platform-drafting meeting over the weekend in Minneapolis, they approved the first step to amend their platform, placing the amendment on track for adoption. In two weeks, the entire platform committee will vote at a meeting scheduled in Detroit. Then, if approved as expected, it would go before convention delegates in Charlotte, N.C., for final passage in early September.

According to Democrats who were briefed on the vote in Minneapolis, there was no objection when the issue came up. Though the language that was voted on could still be revised, party officials do not anticipate any major obstacles going forward.

To put it in Chick-Fil-A terms, God’s reality is as simple as this:

That’s what the Bible says.  What reality says is that homosexuality is horrible for both society and the homosexuals who are trapped in that vile lifestyle.  What reality says is that homosexuality is terrible for the children who are abandoned by the left because of equally vile political correctness. What we find about the “children” of gay parents is that:

Even after including controls for age, race, gender, and things like being bullied as a youth, or the gay-friendliness of the state in which they live, such respondents were more apt to report being unemployed, less healthy, more depressed, more likely to have cheated on a spouse or partner, smoke more pot, had trouble with the law, report more male and female sex partners, more sexual victimization, and were more likely to reflect negatively on their childhood family life, among other things.

Why on earth would anybody want that for children?

Democrats have finally reached rock freaking bottom.  They have completed the Book of Romans circle describing a nation that is ready to be judged by God.

Jesus said:

“FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. — Mark 10:7-8

And that’s why Democrats murdered Him in their moral abortion mill as a Baby while He was still in the womb.  Jesus said, “Don’t do it, Democrats!”  And Democrats said, “You just go to hell, Jesus.”

And let there be no mistake: if you vote Democrat, that is PRECISELY what you are voting for.  Because without your continued support of the Democrat Party, this platform would lead to the ruin of the Democrat Party.  But the same godless Democrats who have murdered more than 54 million human beings with your vote are going to take this final step into godless oblivion.

God created man in His image.  He holds us morally accountable to the image of Himself in us.  You can try to usurp His divine right as Creator, but what you cannot do is avoid ultimate judgment by Him.  Which is why the day  is coming when every Democrat will stand before God and be held accountable.

Consider The Fundamental Incoherence And Hypocrisy Of The Left And The Occupy Movement

November 1, 2011

Let’s take a moment to compare the Tea Party versus the Occupy movement.

The Tea Party movement overwhelmingly believes in God. There is a higher law, a higher morality and a better way than government or the size and power of government. And if the way of God conflicts with the way of government, we exercise our right to influence and change the government to influence the nation to become more like what God has said a nation ought to look like.

Not so the left or the Occupy movement. Government is all there is.  Government power is the sum total that they are attempting to build toward.  Government as God; Government as Savior; Government as moral arbiter of right and wrong.

And here’s where the Occupy movement and the left itself is fundamentally incoherent and hypocritical.

If you don’t believe in God and the moral absolutes that are possible ONLY with the existence of God, then government truly is all there is. What determines right and wrong? Government. What else even could? Nothing. Morality is relative, and the government decides or dictates what morality is and what it is not under its sphere of control.

So if you think that way, how can you then rationally or coherently change the morality of the government? Government decides right from wrong, and you’re not the government; you’re just a rabble of people pooping in the city square like a particularly filthy species of pigeon.

What is the transcendent source of objective morality that you on the left are appealing to as you seek to change the morality of the government? What objective moral law stands above the United States of America and holds it accountable?  If it isn’t God and the revelation of the Word of God, then just what is it?

Nothing, for you.

Which is why you leftists are defined by hypocrisy and fundamental incoherence.

I also think of the violence and utter disruption of law and order that has accompanied the Occupy movement in every single city it has visited.  We have had nearly 3,000 arrests so far.  Versus ZERO for the Tea Party.

Nearly a THIRD of the Occupy protestors are fine with employing violence to get their way.  There is no objective moral standard that they are accountable to, and whatever their end is justifies whatever means they use.

I think of the Nazis. When Hitler and the Nazi Party were rising to power, they openly embraced the avant-garde and homosexuality (Hitler’s SA was FILLED with homosexuality) and everything that threatened the existing culture. Why? Because the Nazis wanted to overturn that culture and impose their own.

But when the Nazis came to power, suddenly THEY were the established order. And they ruthlessly crushed anything that threatened their “order.”

That is fundamentally incoherent and hypocritical, but that is all the left EVEN THEORETICALLY has.

Put another way, “You should act or think like X because this transcendent and objective source demands it.”  WHAT IS THAT SOURCE for secular humanists?

God created us in His image and ultimately will hold us each individually and as a human race to account.  But what is that source for the secular humanist left but government and its ability to punish us in the here and now?

So the ultimate transcendent objective source of right and wrong is government.  Oh, but we can rise above the government and change it and shape it to what WE want it to be.  And then it will go back to being the ultimate transcendent source that everyone must be held accountable to.

And understand, it isn’t the Tea Party trying to change the Word of God.  We’re just trying to obey Him as the Word that He has given us teaches.  Meanwhile, the secular humanist left – which has as its sole transcendent power the government – has a “living breathing” Constitution that they can endlessly change through new “interpretations” to give them whatever new “morality” they want at any given time.

There is no God who determines objective right from wrong in the ideology of the left. There is nothing above man and the institutions that man erects to hold individual man morally accountable. So when the left tries to transform society – and they are CONSTANTLY agitating to radically transform society – just what is it that they are appealing to aside from their own pursuit of power? And then when they succeed in getting their way, they ruthlessly oppress anyone (abortion opponents punished like gangsters under RICO; using the courts to force the release of names of people who supported the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, and then using intimidation and harassment to attack people who merely exercised their democratic rights) who oppose their agenda.

Just like the Nazis, who have unsurprisingly also joined the Occupy movement.

The Nazis came to power promising that they would represent “the people.”  They just omitted that “the people” were defined as those exactly like them and that they would crush anyone who thought otherwise.  They came to power by asserting all of their rights and by then refusing to follow the rules of civil society as they usurp their way to power.  And then when they GET power they show even more contempt for law and order than they did during their rise to power.

Given that over 3,000 people have now been arrested in clashes with the police that have included violence; given that we’re seeing extreme nudity at these events, public sexual intercourse, drug consumption, violent crime and even rape (make that two rapes), (Update: 11/3, oops, make it three) it’s beyond insane to call this Occupy movement anything other than evil and a direct threat to the American people and the constitutional republic the people want.

Again, versus the Tea Party.

If you support rapes, violence, mass arrests, feces and urine in the street and mob rule, then you go ahead and vote Democrat.

The Three Fingers Pointing Back At Atheists When Atheists Point A Finger At Christians About Evil And Judgment

March 24, 2011

You’ve probably heard that expression, “When you point a finger at me, three fingers are pointing back at you.”  Let’s work with that today.

I recently wrote an article with the deliberately provocative title, “Atheist Country Japan Smashed By Tsunami.”

It generated quite a few cross postings to atheist blogs and forums.

One recent example attacked Christians as being “happy” that Japan was stricken by disaster, and, in linking to my blog, said:

Of course, maybe it’s because of all teh gay [sic] in Japan, or because the Japanese are all atheists. Or maybe it’s because they worship demons.

What a nasty, horrible God is the one in which they believe. What nasty, horrible sentiments they have expressed in the wake of so much suffering by their fellow human beings. What a nasty, cynical thing they do to promote their own religion by using this tragedy and other recent catastrophic events to “win converts” for Jesus.

Naming them charlatans and hypocrites does not do justice to the utter lack of compassion that resides in their hearts.

And the blogger cites my blog as an example of a fundamentalist who argues that God struck Japan “because the Japanese are all atheists.”

Well, first thing, did I actually even say that?  I quote myself from that article:

But is Japan’s unbelief the reason why Japan just got hit with an awful tsunami?

My answer is, “How on earth should I know?”

I cite passages of Scripture that clearly indicate that a disaster does not necessarily mean that God is judging someone, such as Luke 13:1-5.  I could have just as easily also cited passages such as John 9:1-3 about Jesus’ distinction between suffering and sin.  I could have cited 2 Peter 3:9, describing God’s patience with sinners rather than His haste to judge.  These passages aren’t at all out of tune with what I was saying.  And I actually DO single out by name for criticism men like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell who have immediately pronounced the wrath of God following some disaster.

I begin my article saying, “That headline is a deliberate provoker.  But please let me explain why I used that headline before you erupt one way or another.”  Then I proceed to state two undisputed facts: that Japan is atheist, and that Japan got hit by a disaster.  I urge someone to actually read the article and reflect on the possibilities.  But Boomantribune is an example of most of the atheists who cross-posted or commented to my article by NOT being someone who wanted to read or reflect; he or she is someone who refused to look beneath atheist ideology and immediately began demonizing the other side to “win converts” for his religion of atheism.  [And let’s get this straight: atheism IS a religion.  “Religion” does not need to depend upon belief in God, or Buddhism would not qualify as a religion.  The courts have ruled that atheism is a religion, and it is a simple fact that atheism has every component that any religious system has].

You can’t have a valid argument with someone like Boomantribune, I have learned.  They are either too ignorant, or too dishonest, or both to accurately represent the other side’s position or arguments.  They create straw men and then demolish claims that Christians like me aren’t even making.

Boomantribune viciously attacks me as harboring the “nasty, horrible sentiments they have expressed in the wake of so much suffering by their fellow human beings.”  But I end my article on Japan by saying:

You need that gift of divine grace.  I need that gift of divine grace.  And the people of Japan desperately need it today.

I pray for those who are in Japan.  I pray for their deliverance from both the tsunami and from their unbelief.  And I will join with many other Christians who will send relief to the Japanese people, with prayers that they will look not at me, but at the Jesus who changed my heart and my life, and inspired me to give to others.

It is also a simple fact that religious people are FAR more giving than atheists:

In the US, anyway, they don’t. Here’s just one study, done in 2003: The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions…Note that neither political ideology nor income is responsible for much of the charitable differences between secular and religious people. For example, religious liberals are 19 points more likely than secular liberals to give to charity, while religious conservatives are 28 points more likely than secular conservatives to do so…The average annual giving among the religious is $2,210, whereas it is $642 among the secular. Similarly, religious people volunteer an average of 12 times per year, while secular people volunteer an average of 5.8 times.

And this is “secular” people who aren’t particularly religious.  A lot of people rarely ever go to church, but still believe in God (basically 90% of Americans belive in God).  Since the evidence is rather straightforward that the more religious one is, the more giving one is, it is justified to conclude that atheists who are less religious than the merely “secular” are even LESS giving.

And, guess what?  My church has already taken its first of several offerings for Japan, and I have already given – and plan to give again.

I would also point out a couple of historical facts:

Christians actually began the first hospitals.

More hospitals have been founded by Christians than by followers of every other religion – including atheism – combined.

That said:

Atheist doctors are more than twice as likely to pull the plug on someone than a doctor who believes in God.

So just who is being “horrible” here?

Here’s another example of an atheist attack on me that backfired, followed by the dishonest atheist “cutting and running” from his own attack:

For what it’s worth, I have never withdrawn a single post:

Also, unlike too many blogs – particularly leftwing blogs, in my experience – I don’t delete anything. When the Daily Kos hatefully attacked Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol and claimed that Bristol Palin had been impregnated by her own father with a baby, and that Sarah Palin faked being pregnant – only to have that hateful and vile lie blown away by Bristol giving birth to a child of her own – they scrubbed it like nothing had happened.

I’m not that despicable. Every single article I have ever written remains on my blog. And with all due respect, I think that gives me more credibility, not less: I don’t hit and run and then scrub the evidence of my lies.

If I post something that turns out to be wrong, I don’t destroy the evidence; I stand up and take responsibility for my words.  I apologize and correct the record.  As I did in the case above.

That, by the way, is the first finger, the finger of moral dishonesty pointing back at these atheists. 

That’s not the way the other side plays.  History is replete with atheist regimes (e.g. ANY of the officially state atheist communist regimes) destroying the record and any debate; history is replete with atheist-warped “science” making one claim after another that turned out to be entirely false.  As examples, consider Java Man, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man and the various other hoaxes that the “scientific community rushed to embrace in their rush to falsify theism.  In some cases “scientists” created an entire community – or even an entire race of people – around totally bogus evidence in “It takes a village” style.  There was the bogus notion of “uniformitarianism” by which the “scientific community” ridiculed creationists for decades until it was proven wrong by Eugene Shoemaker who documented that the theory of “catastrophism” that they had advanced for millennia had been correct all along.  And then all of a sudden the same evolutionary theory that had depended upon uniformitarianism suddenly morphed into a theory that depended upon catastrophism. It morphed so that it was equally true with both polar opposites.

Then there’s this:

Ann Coulter pointed it out with the false claim that evolution was “falsifiable” versus any religious claim which was not. Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” And Ann Coulter brilliantly changed a couple of words to demonstrate what a load of crap that was: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by God, my God theory would absolutely break down.”

In any words, evolution is no more “scientifically falsifiable” than even the most ardent young earth creationist claim. Their standard is impossible to prove. I mean, you show me that God “could not possibly have” created the earth.

The whole way they sold evolution was a lie.

There is NEVER an admission of guilt or an acknowledgment of error by these people.  They simply suppress or destroy the evidence, or “morph” their argument, or anything but acknowledge that just maybe they should be open-minded and question their presuppositions.

There is the extremely rare admission:

For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. -Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

But those are extremely rare, indeed.  The rest of the atheist-assuming “scientific community” is all about saying, “Move on, folks.  Nothing to see here.  Why don’t you look at our new sleight-of-hand display over in this corner instead?”

Phillip Johnson, in a very good article, points out how the “bait-and-switch” works:

Supporting the paradigm may even require what in other contexts would be called deception. As Niles Eldredge candidly admitted, “We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing it does not.”[ 1] Eldredge explained that this pattern of misrepresentation occurred because of “the certainty so characteristic of evolutionary ranks since the late 1940s, the utter assurance not only that natural selection operates in nature, but that we know precisely how it works.” This certainty produced a degree of dogmatism that Eldredge says resulted in the relegation to the “lunatic fringe” of paleontologists who reported that “they saw something out of kilter between contemporary evolutionary theory, on the one hand, and patterns of change in the fossil record on the other.”[ 2] Under the circumstances, prudent paleontologists understandably swallowed their doubts and supported the ruling ideology. To abandon the paradigm would be to abandon the scientific community; to ignore the paradigm and just gather the facts would be to earn the demeaning label of “stamp collector.”

[…]

Naturalistic philosophy has worked out a strategy to prevent this problem from arising: it labels naturalism as science and theism as religion. The former is then classified as knowledge, and the latter as mere belief. The distinction is of critical importance, because only knowledge can be objectively valid for everyone; belief is valid only for the believer, and should never be passed off as knowledge. The student who thinks that 2 and 2 make 5, or that water is not made up of hydrogen and oxygen, or that the theory of evolution is not true, is not expressing a minority viewpoint. He or she is ignorant, and the job of education is to cure that ignorance and to replace it with knowledge. Students in the public schools are thus to be taught at an early age that “evolution is a fact,” and as time goes by they will gradually learn that evolution means naturalism.

In short, the proposition that God was in any way involved in our creation is effectively outlawed, and implicitly negated. This is because naturalistic evolution is by definition in the category of scientific knowledge. What contradicts knowledge is implicitly false, or imaginary. That is why it is possible for scientific naturalists in good faith to claim on the one hand that their science says nothing about God, and on the other to claim that they have said everything that can be said about God. In naturalistic philosophy both propositions are at bottom the same. All that needs to be said about God is that there is nothing to be said of God, because on that subject we can have no knowledge.

I stand behind a tradition that has stood like an anvil while being pounded by one generation of unbelievers after another.  That tradition remains constant because it is founded upon the unchanging Word of God.  My adversaries constantly change and morph their positions, all the while just as constantly claiming that their latest current iteration is correct.

That is the second finger of intellectual dishonesty which so thoroughly characterizes atheism and anything atheism seems to contaminate with its assumptions.

Lastly, there is the finger of ethical dishonesty that is the ocean that the “walking fish” of atheism swims in.  [Btw, when I see that fish riding a bicycle I’ll buy their “walking fish” concept].

Basically, for all the “moral outrage” of atheists who want to denounce Christians for their God’s “evil judgments,” atheism itself has absolutely no moral foundation to do so whatsoever.  And the bottom line is that they are people who attack the five-thousand year tradition of Scripture with their feet firmly planted in midair.

William Lane Craig provides a devastating existential ethical refutation of atheism in an article I posted entitled, “The Absurdity of Life without God.”

To put it simply, William Lane Craig demolishes any shred of a claim that atheism can offer any ultimate meaning, any ultimate value, or any ultimate purpose whatsoever.  And so atheism denounces Christianity and religion from the foundation of an entirely empty and profoundly worthless worldview.  Everyone should read this incredibly powerful article.  I guarantee you will learn something, whatever your perspective on religion.

The thing I would say is that atheists denounce God and Christians from some moral sort of moral posture.  Which comes from what, exactly?  Darwinism, or more precisely, social Darwinism?  The survival of the fittest?  A foundation that comes from the “secure” footing of a random, meaningless, purposeless, valueless and entirely accidental existence?

As atheists tee off on God and at Christians for being “nasty” and “horrible,” what is their foundation from which to judge?

First of all, what precisely would make one a “nasty” or “horrible” atheist? 

Joseph Stalin was an atheist:

“God’s not unjust, he doesn’t actually exist. We’ve been deceived. If God existed, he’d have made the world more just… I’ll lend you a book and you’ll see.”

Mao Tse Tung was an atheist:

“Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people. If they stand up and dig together with us, why can’t these two mountains be cleared away?”  [Mao Tse Tung, Little Red Book, “Self-Reliance and Arduous Struggle chapter 21″].

Hitler was an atheist:

Hitler described to them that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

Joseph Goebbels, a top member of Hitler’s inner circle, noted in his personal diary, dated 8 April 1941 that “The Führer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity.”  Now, one may easily lie to others, but why lie to your own private diary?

Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.”

Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler’s Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

Albert Speer, another Nazi in Hitler’s intimate inner circle, stated that Hitler said, “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion… Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

Now, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao were terrible, despicable, evil people.  But what made them ” bad atheists,” precisely?

When Mao infamously expressed this attitude

“The atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru, “China has many people. . . . The deaths of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.” A witness said Nehru showed shock. Later, speaking in Moscow, Mao displayed yet more generosity: he boasted that he was willing to lose 300 million people, half of China’s population.” [Annie Dillard, “The Wreck of Time” in Harper’s from January 1998].

– or when Joseph Stalin was similarly quoted as having said:

“One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”

– were these men who were responsible for some 100 million deaths of their own people during peacetime expressing anything that violated some principle of Darwinian evolution, or the morality that derives from the ethic of survival of the fittest?

Mao put his disregard for human life and the lives of his own people to terrible work:

LEE EDWARDS, CHAIRMAN, VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: In 1959 to 1961 was the so-called “great leap forward” which was actually a gigantic leap backwards in which he tried to collectivize and communize agriculture.

And they came to him after the first year and they said, “Chairman, five million people have died of famine.” He said, “No matter, keep going.” In the second year, they came back and they said, “Ten million Chinese have died.” He said, “No matter, continue.” The third year, 20 million Chinese have died. And he said finally, “Well, perhaps this is not the best idea that I’ve ever had.”

CHANG: When he was told that, you know, his people were dying of starvation, Mao said, “Educate the peasants to eat less. Thus they can benefit – they can fertilize the land.”

Did that somehow disqualify him from being an atheist?  How?  Based on what foundation?

Let me simply point out that the most evil human beings in human history and the most murderous and oppressive political regimes in human history have the strange tendency to be atheist.  It would seem to me that these atheists should frankly do a lot less talking smack and a lot more shutting the hell up.  But two verses from Scripture illustrate why they don’t: 1) The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1) and 2) “A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind” (Proverbs 18:2).

Let’s talk about “evil” for a few moments.  I have already begun addressing the “third finger” that points back at atheists when they denounce Christians or God.  But the idea of “evil” makes that “finger” the middle one.

Christians talk about evil.  A lot of people do.  Even atheists routinely do.  But what is their foundation for evil?  What is “evil”?  Most give answers such as, “Murder or rape is evil.”  But those would at best only qualify as examples of evil – not a definition that would allow us to make moral judgments.  Christians have an actual answer.  They point out that “evil” is a perversion from the way things ought to be.  But what “oughtness” is there in a random, purposeless, meaningless and valueless universe that was spat out by nothing more than pure chance?

Let’s just say at this point that the atheists are right in what is in reality a straw man attack of God?  So what?  I ask “so what?” because even if what they were saying were somehow true, by what standard would either God or Christians be “nasty” or “horrible”?  What is the objective, transcendent standard that stands above me, that stands above every Christian on the planet, that stands above the entire human race across time and space and holds it accountable, such that if Christians or even God do X or say Y, or believe Z they are “nasty” or “horrible”?

It turns out that they don’t have one.  And in fact, their very worldview goes so far as to literally deny the very possibility of one.  At best – and I would argue at worst – we are trapped in a world in which might makes right, and the most powerful dictator gets to make the rules.  Because there is nothing above man that judges man and says, “This is the way, walk in it.”  There is only other men – and men disagree with one another’s standards – leaving us with pure moral relativism. 

And if moral relativism is true, then the atheists STILL lose.  It would be a tie, given that atheists have no more claim to being “good” than any other human being or group of human beings, no matter how despicable and murderous they might be.  But they would lose because there are a lot fewer atheists (137 million) than there are, say, Christians (2.3 billion).  And it only remains for Christians to disregard their superior moral and ethical system just long enough to rise up and annihilate all the smart-mouthed atheists, and then say afterward, “Boy, we sure feel guilty for having done THAT.  Let’s pray for forgiveness!”  And the only possible defense atheists would have would be to abandon their “survival of the fittest” mentality and embrace superior Christian morality and cry out, “Thou shalt not kill!”

Even if Christians don’t wipe out the atheists physically, most would readily agree that the Christian worldview is still far stronger than the atheist one.  Dinesh D’Souza makes a great argument to illustrate this on pages 15-16 of What’s So Great About Christianity that shows why religion is clearly the best team.  He says to imagine two communities – one filled with your bitter, cynical atheists who believe that morality just happened to evolve and could have evolved very differently; and one filled with Bible-believing Christians who embrace that life and their lives have a purpose in the plan of a righteous God who put His moral standards in our hearts. And he basically asks, “Which community is going to survive and thrive?”

As a Christian, I don’t have all the answers (although I can certainly answer the question immediately above).  I am a human being and my mind cannot contain the infinite plan of an infinitely complex and holy God.  But I have placed my trust in a God who made the world and who has a plan for His creation which He is bringing to fruition.  And that worldview doesn’t just give me explanatory powers that atheism by its very nature entirely lacks, but it gives me a strength that I never had before.  Even when evil and disaster and suffering befall me beyond my ability to comprehend, I can say with Job – the master of suffering:

“But as for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, and he will stand upon the earth at last.  And after my body has decayed, yet in my body I will see God!  I will see him for myself. Yes, I will see him with my own eyes. I am overwhelmed at the thought!”  Job 19:25-27 (NLT).

Atheist Country Japan Smashed By Tsunami

March 11, 2011

That headline is a deliberate provoker.  But please let me explain why I used that headline before you erupt one way or another.

First of all, Japan is in fact one of the most atheistic countries in the world:

And Japan certainly got hit with a monsterous tsunami:

As I write this, I hear that there are 88,000 people missing in Japan.

So there is little question that the title for this article is factually completely accurate.

But is Japan’s unbelief the reason why Japan just got hit with an awful tsunami?

My answer is, “How on earth should I know?”

God doesn’t explain to me why He does a lot of things.  I think He figures I’m too dumb to understand His infinite mind and the infinite complexity of His plan for an incredibly complex world filled with going on 7 billion souls.  And He’s probably right.

I am familiar with Christian “leaders” (I put that in quotes because neither of these men are on my list of Christian leaders) such as Jerry Falwall or Pat Robertson have essentially stated that acts of human destruction such as 9/11 or acts of natural destruction such as Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans were acts of divine judgment for homosexuality.

And they might have been such judgment for such sin, I suppose.  But I doubt if God told Falwell or Robertson any more than He told me.  For one thing, if these men were acting as God’s prophets, God would have told them BEFORE the disasters happened in order to forewarn the people to repent.  That’s the rather clear prophetic pattern of Scripture.  That’s kind of what makes it “prophetic.”

Me?  I don’t pray for God’s destructive violence to destroy my ideological or religious enemies.  Let me explain why.

In a word, I don’t want God to ruthlessly punish others for their sins for fear that God will ruthlessly punish me for mine.  You see, it turns out that I’m not perfect either.

That’s part of a detailed solution to the so-called “problem of evil.”  When the human race fell into sin (as recorded in Genesis), it affected the entire created order (see Romans 8:22).  Evil has become part of the human condition.  And there are literally billions of degrees of evil in the world.  And – unless He destroys the whole world (as He has done and as He will one day do again) – just where is God supposed to draw the line?

What we tend to want is for God to judge everyone who is at least slightly more evil than we are.  But why should that be God’s standard?  But maybe God should obliterate you and all of your family and friends, too.  It’s His universe, after all; not yours.  You don’t get to make the rules in God’s universe.

There’s an interesting passage from Jesus in Luke 13:1-5:

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

There is no question: God sovereingly rules over the universe.  And we know that God judges the nations and individual people for sin (see Romans 3).  But only rarely – as recorded even in Scripture (e.g. Psalm 73, why do the wicked prosper?) – do we know the details.

We also know that God is patient.  We know from the Old Testament that God will literally wait hundreds of years before He brings judgment.  And we know from the New Testament (2 Peter 3:9) that God is patient, not wanting any to perish.

We also know that God often holds His sons and daughters by faith to a much higher account (Hebrews 12:5-11).  Just as a good Christian father may not concern himself with other people’s children, but his own had better tow the line.

We will never know this side of eternity why many terrible things happen.  Or why God judged this nation or that individual and spared another.

But we certainly can look upon a great diaster and pause in our own lives to take a look at ourselves and at our own nation, and tremble.  Because what happened to “them” can easily overtake “us” – whoever “they” are or “we” are.  And we all of us need to be ready to meet our Maker.

If we all lived as though death were a postential heartbeat away, I do believe we would live in a much better world.

I look at the many major earthquakes and the disasters they are causing as a sign that we are truly in the last days.  Jesus told us in Matthew 24:7 that ethnic groups (the word is “ethnos”) would rise against ethnic groups, and that there would be famines and earthquakes erupting all over.  And in verse 8 He spoke of them as birth pangs, meaning that as the end came, they would get more and more severe. 

There are certainly famines and fears of famines galore.  That is one of the key realities behind the massive unrest in the Middle East (see also here).

It is a fact that at the beginning of the 20th century, there was at most one major earthquake a year.  Now there are “big ones” erupting all over creation.  There was another huge and deadly earthquake just last month in New Zealand.  And we’re even seeing a rash of earthquake activity in the midwest(see also here).

Jesus also spoke of great catastrophic signs in the waves (e.g. tsunamis) in Luke.  And in Luke 21:8 Jesus said, “Now when you see these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”

Bottom line: we ought to be looking around, and we ought to be straightening up and flying right.  And if you are a perfect, sinless human being, good for you; but if you have ever sinned so much as once in your life, if you have ever once violated even your own conscience and standard, let alone a perfect, holy God’s, you had better fall at the feet of the one Savior for the human race (John 14:6) and embrace the Lamb of God (John 1:29-34).

Let me provide my own parable to explain a powerful biblical reality.  It’s called the ants on the elephant’s back:

Two ants of different species happen to bump into each other as they crawl across the back of a huge bull elephant.  The larger ant says to the smaller one, “I can’t help by notice I’m larger than you.  That means that I’m closer to being the same size as the elephant we’re crawling on than you.”  Well, in a way, that larger ant is right; but his comparison is nevertheless utterly ridiculous.  Why?  Because the elephant is so enormous compared to the size of either ant – let alone the amount of difference between the ants’ sizes – that a comparison is meaningless.  And that’s the way it is with human righteousness and God’s righteousness.  Billy Graham is considerably more righteous than, say, a Skid Row bum.  But the difference in their personal degress of righteousness is as nothing compared to the awesome holiness and perfection of God.  And you might think you’re better than someone else.  You might even be right.  But you are comparing yourself to the wrong subject.

When we stand before God, we will answer to how we compared to the righteousness of God.  “Be holy, as I am holy” (Leviticus 20:26, 1 Peter 1:13-16), God told us.  And just as we bear His perfect image (Genesis 1:26-27), we bear the responsibility to living up to His perfect character.

Only Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life (Hebrws 4:14-15).  Even the Quran affirms this (Quran 40:55; 48:1-2).  Jesus, fully God, God the Son, assumed a human nature and lived a perfect life on earth.  And He died for our sins so that we could have His perfection by faith.  He became our substitute.  That’s what “Lamb of God” means.

You need that gift of divine grace.  I need that gift of divine grace.  And the people of Japan desperately need it today.

I pray for those who are in Japan.  I pray for their deliverance from both the tsunami and from their unbelief.  And I will join with many other Christians who will send relief to the Japanese people, with prayers that they will look not at me, but at the Jesus who changed my heart and my life, and inspired me to give to others.

Update: I have since written an article entitled, “The Three Fingers Pointing Back At Atheists When Atheists Point A Finger At Christians About Evil And Judgment.”


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 595 other followers