Congratulations, America???

Congratulations, America. You got what you wanted... a black president. Now I have nothing wrong with a black president, or black anything. My problem is that skin color aside, Barack Obama is possibly the most anti-American individual who has ever run for office, let alone, actually been elected. I have completely lost my faith in the American People. I thought there were a lot of stupid people... but not this many. Its a scary place to live in when the majority or idiots. People who don't care if their president starts his political career in the house of an American terrorist. Don't mind having their president sit under a pastor who preaches "not God Bless America, but G-d d--n America." Congratulations, America. You've just elected a man who has no moral values in common with the founders of our once great country. What scares me most is that as radical un-American as his views are, the puppeteers behind him are even more radical.

What will happen in these next four years? No man knows for sure, but I do know one thing; God is in control. He was not surprised by the idiocy of the American People. He even says that people are like sheep, which after watching this election, it is difficult to not agree with. I hope the sheep are not being led to be slaughtered, since they are dragging the rest of America with them. I can see two different extreme scenarios of what could possibly happen in the next four years. The first, more hopeful scenario, is that Obama is too incompetent to get anything done as president and we are in the same situation we are in right now. That is the best forseeable scenario. The worst case scenario, is that Obama drastically changes America for the worst. Reenacts the "fairness" doctrine and abolishes the right to bear arms. I guess we will find out. I hope that in four years we are still the United States of America instead of the United Socialist States of America.

Do We Want a Spineless President?

In a televised even a couple weeks ago, both presidential candidates were asked a series of questions on various topics. When asked when life begins, Democratic Presidential Candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, rambled a few minutes mentioning science and religion with having any actual substance to his response and then says that the answer to the question if "above my pay grade." WHAT?!?!? You want to be President of the United States of America, and you can't answer a question about when you THINK life begins. It is above your pay grade to have an opinion?

Presidential Aid: "Uhh... Mr. President Obama, Sir... We have just been attacked by terrorists. What should we do?"

President Barack Hussein Obama: "Hmmm... well, it depends... uh... if we are talking about... uh... terrorists... uh... from a theological or a scientific... uh... standpoint... uh... and... uh... well I really can't... uh... say, because it is above... uh... my pay... uh... grade."

Is that who you want to be President? Someone who is unwilling to make a decision, because it might offend somebody somewhere. Even if that somebody is trying to do our country harm.

Here is a little homework: The next time you hear Barack Hussein Obama give a speech, actually pay attention and listen to what he is saying. Don't get lulled by his soothing voice. Listen to the content and meaning of what he is saying and most likely you will find that in all of his rambling, he rarely has a point. Idiots love him, they are mesmerized by the way he speaks; it's so soothing. Too bad he doesn't have anything useful or important to say. He is one of the few people that I know of that can talk for 10 minutes without saying anything of value or meaning.

Global or Local Flood?

I was just looking around on the Internet and found a Christian apologetics web site called Godandscience.org. What caught my eye was a link that said, "The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says it must be Local." I was amazed. A supposedly Christian site saying that the Genesis Flood was local. It made no sense. Without a global flood, the Christian understanding of Salvation does not make sense.

The Flood was God's judgement on a wicked world.
God will Judge the wicked world on Judgement Day.

God provided a way of Salvation from the Flood through "Noah's Ark."
God provided a way of Salvation from Eternal Damnation through Jesus Christ.

All who were in the Ark were spared from God's just punishment by a watery death.
All who are in Christ are spared from God's just punishment of an everlasting death.

All Humans drowned, except for those in the Ark.
All Humans will die spiritually, except for those in Christ.

As you can see, a local flood does not make sense, since the Ark saving people from the Flood is a foreshadow of Jesus Christ saving people from Hell. If the Flood was local, does that mean that mean that God's future judgement is local? If so, does that mean that only some people need to be saved from the wrath to come? As you can see, this makes no sense when compared with teachings of Christianity.

A plain reading of the Flood account in Genesis will leave you with no other conclusion than that the Bible claims there was a global flood.

Now let's look at this scientifically; how many local floods have you heard of that have covered entire mountains? Uh... none. Flooding normally occurs in valleys or other lower elevation areas, not covering mountains. And if a local flood did have enough water to cover mountains, then it wouldn't be a local flood, because the water wouldn't have anything to keep it from covering as much area as the amount of water would allow. The two possible ways that this could happen would be:

1. A very deep and expansive valley with mountains in it that were shorter than the edge of the valley, or

2. God created an invisible wall that held the water in so that it could not cover the entire earth.

Possibility 1, is out, because as far as I know, there is no place in the middle east with the geographical features described. Actually, I don't believe there is a geographic feature like this in the world. (I guess you could consider the oceans valleys, and they have mountains in them. But they're already flooded and are not in the middle east (where a local flood would have occured, since that is where the Flood story originated.))

Possibility 2, while plausible (since God can do anything) does not make much sense. If God has the power to make a local flood possible that covers mountains (as described above), then why doesn't he just make a global flood anyway (since He said He was going to destroy the whole earth)?

In conclusion, the Bible is either true or false. Don't try contorting it to fit whatever new "evidence" is discovered, such as evidence about a local flood. If one event in the Bible is untrue, then the whole book is useless, since it claims itself to be "perfect" and "inspired by God." However, the Bible is 100% true and accurate. Just read it like it was meant to be read. Read the historical accounts as history, the poetry parts like poetry, and the prophetic parts as prophecy and everything will be fine.

If you have any questions about the Genesis Flood go to www.answersingenesis.org and type "flood" into the search bar. You can also click on the link at the top of my blog. Hundreds if not thousands of articles will come up with more information on the literal Biblical account of the Flood than you will know what to do with.

Mr. Obama, Are You Serious?

Mr. Obama (or should I say Mr. Barack Hussein Obama) do you seriously believe half of the crap that comes out of your mouth?

"Whatever we once were we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

For your information, our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principals. Mr. Hussein... I mean Obama, Judeo is short for Judaism which is the same as Jewish. So you already show that you have no clue of what you are talking about. Being founded on these principals means that unlike Islam (which is another word for Muslim if you didn't know, Mr. Hussein... I mean Obama), the government doesn't kill nonbelievers and doesn't force people to convert.

Secondly, you're little quote I have makes it sound like Americans used to be only Christian. Ummm... I'm pretty sure their were Jewish people and Atheists, too. But I'm no expert like you. I don't think the Native Americans were Christian.

Another even more idiotic quote that I have is:

"I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

So let me get this straight... you are only opposed to abortion for religious reasons? Not for common sense? You aren't opposed to abortion because it is murdering a defenseless child? What principal does murder violate? Let me see... probably almost every religion has some part of it that teaches that murder is wrong. What about the Declaration of Independence which says that our rights come from God and that they begin with the right to life?

Hmmm... maybe we are still a Judeo-Christian nation since we still have the same Declaration of Independence that says that our rights come from God. Not from Allah, not from Krishnah, not from Buddha, not from the Big Bang... but from God. Who did the Founding Fathers mean when they referred to God? The Judeo-Christian God of course.

So now to tie it all together, Barack Hussein Obama doesn't know enough about our country and how it was founded to be a U.S. citizen, let alone to be the President of the United States. He can't even understand the plain writing in the Declaration of Independence that goes completely against abortion, yet he and many others want him to be President. I guess this is just another example of common sense not being very common.

Isaiah 53

Isaiah 53: Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

A clear and accurate description of the life, death, and purpose of Jesus Christ, written approximately 700 years before His birth. Isn't that something?

The Decline of Western Civilization

I always hear people say that we are supposed to learn from our past mistakes. Well, if that is the case, I believe we should take a look at the ancient Roman Empire. The Roman Empire has many things in common with today's Western Civilization. Abortions and infanticide were common. Traditional marriage was being pushed aside for homosexuality, polygamy and other immoral practices. Even within traditional marriages divorce was rampant. It was socially acceptable to be promiscuous and to have multiple affairs. I realize that we are not there quite yet, but we're getting pretty close.

Another correlation between Western Civilization today and the ancient Roman Empire are the cultures obsession for blood. In ancient Rome they had the Colosseum and other smaller arenas were gladiators would fight to the death. Today, we have an obsession for gory movies and video games. We are even starting to have our own "gladiator" fights were individuals use any method that they want to beat the crap out of their opponent. Their are several different leagues that masquerade as sporting events, but are nothing more than modern day gladiators who stop the fight just short of death... with crowds cheering. It will only be so long before the culture will become numb from the current level of violence and will be demanding more blood. Within 50 years we could be having modern day gladiator events were prisoners fight to the death for our enjoyment.

So what's the point of all this? Well, if you know anything about history, right after the moral decline of Rome's culture and its lust for blood reached its peak, the whole Roman Empire collapsed. So if we as a culture really want to learn from our past mistakes we should look at Rome's example, realize that we are heading down the same path, and do something about it. We need to get back to what Western Civilization was founded on... the Christian Faith. If we don't we will most likely end up just like Rome... a ruined civilization.

Is There a "Gay" Gene?

Most people have heard, whether by magazines, cable news, or any other source of information, that there may be a "gay" gene that causes an individual to have homosexual tendencies. Therefore, homosexuality cannot be a sin, since it is a natural occurrence that people are born with. Just like people are born with different shades of skin, different colored eyes, and different types of hair. Being gay is nobodies fault, therefore, it should not be treated as an abomination, but should be looked at as just another trait that makes all people different. However, if you look at this from a logical perspective, if being gay is caused by genes, shouldn't the gay gene be nonexistent in the human gene pool, since homosexual's can't naturally have children to pass on their homosexuality to? Wouldn't that gene have been destroyed long ago by evolution, since homosexuals cannot reproduce?

Evolutionists, the greatest advocates of the "gay by genes" theory, contradict their other "theory," evolution, by proposing such a ridiculous idea. Wait, I got an idea. Why don't we just see what the Bible has to say about homosexuality, since it is right about everything else that it talks about? Why not homosexuality? Look up homosexual in a Bible concordance. You'll find many verses condemning it, and calling it unnatural. Well, there you go.

And for the record, everyone should drop the term "homophobe," except in the rare instances when an individual is actually scared to death of homosexuals, which is the meaning of "homophobe." The majority of people who oppose homosexuals are not frightened of them, yet, the term is used over and over again when people are being accused of hating homosexuals. Come up with a better term that actually matches what you're describing, liberals. People who disapprove of homosexuality and think it is wrong are not homophobes.

In conclusion, homosexuality is unnatural, not genetically caused, and people who think it is a sin should not be referred to as homophobes. Think, people. All I can ask you to do is think.

Another Question For Evolutionists

I have another question for evolutionists. Once again, let's pretend that a living cell miraculously arose from the primordial goo. A living cell that could reproduce by cell fission. Why do more complex life forms have two different sexes, male and female? What reason did blind chance have for evolving two different sexes? How many tries did it take to get a male and a female organism that could reproduce together? If the original organism could reproduce asexually, then there would be no benefit to start developing to different sexes. Blind chance can't see future benefits, and any partially formed reproductive organs would be a hindrance to the organism, causing it to be less fit.

The only way to believe in molecules to man evolution without being considered a nut job that should be locked away in an asylum, is if you believe in an outside intelligent force that could direct the process of evolution. Once you get to this step, however, why don't you go the whole way and believe that God spoke everything into existence? Why not believe in His Holy Bible, which claims to be the inerrant and sufficient word of God? A book filled with prophecies, some that have been fulfilled, and others that are still in the future. A book that can explain life, and explain death. A book that told us that the earth was round 1000's of years before "scientists" discovered this. The same book that told us that the earth is hung on nothing, when the intellectuals of the day believed that the earth was on the back of a giant. This book even told us that everything visible, is made up of what is not visible, thousands of years before scientists discovered the atom.

So the choice is up to you. You can believe in molecules to man evolution if you want. But after looking at the logic and evidence behind it, if you still believe in that faulty "theory," you should quickly admit yourself to an insane asylum. You could also believe that God directed the evolution. But don't you think that if God was intelligent enough to run evolution and form the universe, that He would be able to communicate with His creation? Therefore, the belief that the God of the Bible, who spoke the universe and everything in it into existence, is the most logical choice. The first two choices require a lot more faith than the third. So make your choice. What choice you pick could have eternal consequences.

A Question or Two for Evolutionists

I have a question for evolutionists. Let's pretend here, I know its not very hard for evolutionists to do, that after billions of years, blind chance and luck finally gave rise to the first living cell from the primordial soup. How many times did this have to happen before the blind chance and luck "learned" how to develop a cell the could reproduce? How could a fully developed cell capable of reproduction come about in the first place by blind luck and chance? Furthermore, evolution can't even explain what causes death? Why do things die?

Well what a great "scientific fact" we have in evolution. The only reason a person would believe in evolution is that they are ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that.

Not only can evolution NOT explain how life arose... but it also FAILS to explain why life dies. The decision is up to you if you want to commit intellectual suicide and blindly follow the illogical theory built on blind chance. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

Could God Have Used Evolution?

(This is an email to a friend, who believes that God used evolution to create life, in reply to a previous debate that we had.)

Could God have used evolution to create life? I guess He could have, He is God, He can do anything. But that doesn't mean that He did.

You said that you don't take the Bible completely literally. Do you believe that Adam and Eve were two actual people, the two original humans, the parents of all of humanity? Do you believe in Jonah and the Whale? Do you believe the story about Cain and Abel? What about Noah's Ark and the Flood? Do you believe that Jesus existed? Do you believe that Jesus was crucified? Do you believe that He was resurrected? Do you believe that Jesus is God? Do you believe in a literal Heaven? Do you believe in a literal Hell, where God sends sinners to be punished for all of eternity? If there is no literal Hell, then why do Christians share their faith? Why did Christ die, if there was nothing to save us from? If you don't take the whole Bible literally, where do you draw the line?

Hebrews 6:18 says that God cannot lie. Proverbs 30:5 says that His Word is flawless. Why do you not believe Him when He says that He created the Universe in 6 days? Are the verses about Him not lying and His Word being perfect not literal? Why not believe the only eyewitness to creation?

Do you think that the Creation story in Genesis is referring to God creating everything by Evolution? Why are birds and fish created the day before land animals were? Did God mess up and forget that fish evolved into reptiles, which evolved into birds? Why are there no missing links? Evolution requires death. Survival of the fittest (or luckiest). God said that after Adam and Eve were created that creation was perfect. That there was no death. Adam brought death into the world when he sinned. This completely contradicts evolution.

You can be an ignorant Christian and believe in evolution. Why do you try to manipulate God's word to fit with evolution. The "theory" of evolution changes almost every day, with new evidence and discoveries that contradict previous beliefs. Christians should place their faith in God alone, not in man. Man's heart is deceitfully wicked, who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9) Evolution is just an excuse to deny the existence of God. Why would a Christian embrace such a "theory." I say "theory" because it is barely a hypothesis. You know that a hypothesis is an educated guess, evolution is uneducated. The more actual evidence that scientists find, the stupider evolution looks. Evolution in no way, should be considered a theory. Theories can be tested over and over again in a lab and are always found to be true. We have never been even close to replicating evolution in a lab, even with all the technology available to us.

The bottom line is- Could God have used evolution? Yes, but why would He take billions of years, when He could speak everything into existence.


Rick

The God Who Wasn't There? What!!!

I was just clicking on random links, "surfing the web," when I came across the homepage for a movie entitled, "The God Who Wasn't There." I read the little paragraph that told a little about the movie. There whole argument was based on the belief that pagan religions before the birth of Christ, had their own messiahs, and that early Christians stole the idea from them. They also present the claim that Jesus may have never existed.

First off, I'll start with the previous sentence. Jesus never existed? What are you smoking? We base our years from His approximate birth. We have extra-Biblical references to Jesus Christ that were written during and shortly after His life on Earth. These were pagans writing about a Jew that was crucified on a Roman cross. Uhhh... duh. That has to be one of the most idiotic claims to say that Jesus Christ never existed.

Next, I will discuss the claim that Jesus was based on earlier pagan messiahs. If you look for them, you will find them. They are found all over the place, not bound by culture, religion, or continent. If you look at the general plot of a god coming to earth to be a sacrifice to save humanity, and then to be raised from the dead, you will find many that fit that description. The reason for all these saviors is the innate knowledge in humans that we are sinful and require a sacrifice to atone for our sins. The more perfect a sacrifice, the more that its blood covers. So they came up with gods that heroically came to Earth to be their sacrifice. However, on closer inspection, they have many differences from what the Bible tells us about Christ.

Jesus, is the only documented Savior. Out of the hundreds of pagan "saviors," there is not evidence for a single one of them to have walked the Earth. Out of all the "saviors," there is not prophecies foretelling their coming. Jesus Christ, on the other hand, fulfilled 60 major prophecies, and 270 minor prophecies, all from the Old Testament of the Bible, which was completed hundreds of years before Christ was born. How many of the pagan "saviors" did that? None.

So in conclusion, I have demonstrated that Jesus Christ was not a "copy cat" of previous pagan "saviors," but the unique and only savior of all of humanity, if we would repent of our sins and place our trust in Him alone. There is so much more information on both the pagan "saviors" and Jesus Christ that I did not include in this post. For further information on this topic (and when I say further, I mean that there is pages of information.), visit http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/156 and all your answers on why Jesus Christ is different than these false saviors will be answered.

Liberals: "Our Carbon Emissions are Killing Future Generations"... But Murdering Babies Isn't.

Greenhouse gases are causing global warming (or climate change as it is now being called since it is now Winter), which is going to change the climate of Earth so that it will be less hospitable for humanity. Basically what liberals are trying to tell us is that our factories, our cars, our fireplaces, and pretty much everything else that we depend on to make a living, is going to end up ruining Earth for future generations. Wait a tick... so abortion... I mean choice... I mean killing defenseless children isn't ruining future generations? Come on, how stupid can people get. There are so many things that are wrong and illogical about about this idea, even from a liberal viewpoint.

First off, since when did liberals care about anyone other than themselves? Why do they care about future generations? They'll be dead by then. If they care so much about future generations, why are they allowing millions of unborn children to be executed each year? Do unborn children not count as future generations? Why do they call it a woman's "choice" to murder her unborn child? If you don't want a child, don't have sex. It is as simple as that. A woman gets raped and gets pregnant, so she kills an innocent child. Where is the logic in that. If a clerk at a gas station gets robbed, does he go home and kill his son? No. You don't punish innocent people just because you got hurt. Yes, I realize that getting raped and getting robbed are completely different things, but nonetheless, innocents shouldn't be punished. Why don't you let the child decide if it should be aborted. Wait until it is eight years old and then ask it if it is alright to kill it.

Secondly, because of their faith in evolution, why do liberals care about future generations? Even if there is global warming, future generations will evolve and adapt to it. It is just a continuing process. It is just another evolutionary step. Why worry about climate change? "But global warming could make different species endangered and extinct." So, evolution teaches that extinction is part of the evolutionary process. Why stop it now. Liberals' beliefs contradict each other so much, yet liberals never take notice.

I could go on about how there are no facts that support the belief that human activity has affected Earth's climate in any way, but I will leave that for a future post. Liberals contradict themselves on almost every issue. They believe that the elderly and other "useless eaters" should be euthanized, until they themselves or someone in their family becomes elderly or a "useless eater." Global warming and abortion are just two more in the endless line of liberal issues. I'm not telling you to be a conservative, all I am asking you is to please think about the issues. When you have issues or beliefs that contradict each other, it would be a pretty good idea to drop the issue or change your belief.