tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-74516897813396099412023-06-20T22:27:48.190-06:00Why Are People So Stupid?Common Sense Isn't So Common AnymoreRickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-79603525388059843012012-04-30T11:28:00.002-06:002012-04-30T11:28:26.301-06:00New BlogI have started a new blog called <a href="http://foolishthings127.blogspot.com/">Foolish Things</a>. It is a continuation of this blog, but with a different attitude. Check it out! There are a couple new posts and a few recycled posts from this blog, but I hope to be more reliable in posting on a more regular basis. Thanks!Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-44630468417246436352011-11-21T09:38:00.003-07:002011-11-21T10:01:28.903-07:00A Reminder for Christians: Debating with an Atheist/EvolutionistThrough recent experience, I have come to the conclusion that debating with and Atheist/Evolutionist over origins is useless in converting the Atheist/Evolutionist from their way of thinking. For every argument, they will have a counter-argument that is better in their own eyes. Also, if the debate is in a forum where other Atheist/Evolutionists have the ability to join in the debate, they will and they will feed off of each other. If you are debating solo, it becomes impossible to address every one of their arguments before they send another wave. They will accuse you of Straw Man arguments, Red Herrings, and other logical fallacies (which in my case was incorrect), while using those same logical fallacies and more in their own arguments.<br /><br />To clarify, I am not saying these debates should not happen or that they are useless, because they do get people on the fence thinking. But don't go into it thinking that you will be able to change an Atheist/Evolutionist's way of thinking with debate, or that to witness to them you must overcome those beliefs. Through this experience, I have been reminded that the reason Atheist/Evolutionists believe what they believe is not because of the science, but because of the condition of their heart. They don't want to face the God of the Bible on Judgement Day. They don't want to live a life accountable to God. The best way to change an Atheist/Evolutionist's thinking is not through science, but through their conscience. Also, remember that we don't do the converting; God does.Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-85880786643782242992010-04-26T13:24:00.002-06:002010-04-26T14:08:13.348-06:00Why Evolution is NOT ScientificThe Scientific Method is as follows:<br /><ol><li>Define the question</li><li>Observe</li><li>Form hypothesis</li><li>Perform experiment and collect data</li><li>Analyze data</li><li>Interpret data and draw conclusions that help in refining or discrediting hypothesis<br /></li><li>Publish results</li><li>Retest (frequently done by other scientists)</li></ol>If you cannot perform all the steps, yet you still come up with results, you are NOT practicing science. In evolution (a single celled organism being the common ancestor for all life), steps 2, 4-6, as well as 8, cannot be taken. Let me explain:<br /><br />Step 1: define the question. How did such a wide variety of life forms come to be, here on Earth?<br />Step 2: observe...<br /><br />Here is our first problem. How do we observe evolution, the transition of one kind of animal to another. The answer is we DON'T. Ignoring any biases I have regarding evolution, there is not a single example today I, or anyone else, can observe. Could it happen in the future (no), or have happened in the past (no, again)? Maybe (definitely not), but to perform the scientific method on it, it would have to be happening in the present, somewhere observable.<br /><br />Step 3: form hypothesis. Well anyone can form a hypothesis, but to be part of the scientific method, it must be based on observation.<br />Step 4: perform experiment and collect data. There is no experiment to perform, or data to collect.<br />Step 5: analyze data. Once again, there is no data to analyze.<br />Step 6: interpret data and refine hypothesis to fit with data. There is no data to interpret, therefore no way to use data to refine hypothesis.<br />Step 7: publish results. Can't publish results, because I didn't find anything.<br />Step 8: retest. Can't retest, because there wasn't a test to begin with.<br /><br />As you can see, evolutionists do NOT follow the scientific method. Instead of performing step 2: observation, they use fossils of dead organisms, and try to create a "tree of life" to explain their hypothesis. Again, these are DEAD organisms, they are NOT evolving, therefore, they cannot be used to support evolution.<br /><br />Basically, the method used to support evolution is as follows.<br />Step 1: come up with an idea of how all living things are descendants of a common ancestor.<br />Step 2: find fossils that fit into your idea, while ignoring fossils that don't.<br />Step 3: Publish your idea as a hypothesis (even though it can't be considered a hypothesis).<br />Step 4: Have other evolutionists take fossils that you couldn't fit into your "tree of life" and attempt to create a new "tree of life" that they will fit into.<br /><br />In conclusion, evolution is NOT science. To be fair, creationism isn't science either. Creationists can't use the scientific method to show that God created everything, but they can use the scientific method to support creation, just like evolutionists can use the scientific method to try to support evolution. However, science cannot be used to explain the origin of life, or the origin of the Universe. To do so, would require the ability to observe creation in the first place and the ability recreate creation in a controlled environment. And we all know that is not possible.<br /><br />P.S. I realize that I didn't talk about Darwin's finches or other similar observations. However, those are not observations of evolution in action, they are observations of variation within a created kind. They are still finches and they can still reproduce with other finches. After the drought ended in the Galapagos Islands, the finch beaks went back to how they were pre-drought. It is nothing more than natural selection, which unlike evolution, IS scientific.Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-2988337367759635652010-04-23T23:28:00.003-06:002010-04-23T23:48:39.919-06:00Why Karma is IllogicalIt seems you can't watch a TV show or go through a day without hearing someone mentioning karma. It seems like a nice idea; you do good things and good things happen to you. Or if you do bad things, bad things will happen to you. To most people, it sounds like a good idea, perfectly compatible with Christianity and the Bible, but is it?<br /><br />Absolutely not! Also, the idea of karma does not even make sense logically. So if good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people, then we can all conclude that those Haitians must of been really, really bad, for such a devastating earthquake to ravage their country. Really? Is that the best explanation for someone who believes in karma. Why do rapists get away with community service as their only punishment, while innocent children die in an earthquake?<br /><br />However, unlike karma, the Christian worldview can make sense of everything. Why do bad things happen to good people? Answer: No one is good. "And Jesus said to him, Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." (Luke 18:19) The question should therefore be rephrased to ask, why do good things happen to bad people? This helps us understand why karma is not logical and why it does not fit in with a Biblical worldview.<br /><br />If we all got what we deserved, we would all be in the pit of Hell, suffering eternally. And God would be just to do so. However, because God so loved the world, He gave His one and only Son to be a sacrifice. To die and face the punishment that we deserve. And then he rose from the grave. Whoever repents and puts his or her faith in Christ, shall not die, but will have everlasting life. Not because of anything we have done, but by Grace. Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Paraphrase of John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8,9)Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-37486548470769747612009-08-31T12:10:00.004-06:002009-08-31T12:43:18.720-06:00Pastor Steve<blockquote>"I hope that God strikes Barack Obama with brain cancer so he can die like Ted Kennedy and I hope it happens today."</blockquote>The above quote is from Pastor Steve Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona, in a sermon entitled, "Why I Hate Barack Obama." I find this man and his followers disturbing, not only because of what he says, but because he claims to be a Christian. <blockquote>"I'm gonna pray that he dies and goes to hell when I go to bed tonight. That's what I'm gonna pray."</blockquote>No, I'm not going to say I like Obama, but I don't wish him death and damnation. Firstly, because, God wishes that all men might come to the knowing salvation of Him, and secondly, Joe Biden as president freaks me out even more than Obama. Christian's should pray that Obama repents of his sins and becomes a Christian, not that he dies and goes to hell.<br /><blockquote>"Look up the word hate. Look up the word abhor, the word loathe. You'll see there are a lot of people that God hates, and so we should hate. But see, I didn't write that, that's in the Bible."</blockquote>Where? In Luke 6:27-29? "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either." Hmmmmm... sounds a little different than what Pastor Steve is saying. Does God hate? Yes, he hates that which is evil and those who have violated His laws and do not repent. But he does not tell us to hate others. We can have righteous anger, but do not hate. Obama is a lost soul, the same as everyone else, including Pastor Steve. Pastor Steve should stop preaching his gospel of hate and actually become a Christian, because right now, he is just making Christians look like hypocrites.Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-46434882429997962742009-08-17T12:54:00.003-06:002009-08-17T13:29:10.111-06:00I thought the Wii was supposed to be family friendly...I have been under the impression that the Wii is more family friendly than the Xbox 360 or Play Station 3, but now I'm not so sure. I was recently surfing the internet when I came upon a couple of questionable games. The first game wasn't that big of surprise for me. It was Cursed Mountain, and basically teaches kids all about buddhism. Yay! It is a horror game or something designed specifically for the Wii. "Players will immerse themselves in the local Buddhist traditions and rituals" and is "designed to mimic the physical aspects of sacred prayer rituals, mantras, and gestures of Buddhism" Okay, it is rated M for mature, meaning that you have to be over 17 to buy the game, but realistically, 10 year old kids will be playing this game, learning how to be little buddhists.<br /><br />The second game shocked me completely. It is a WiiWare game entitled Sexy Poker. WiiWare means that the game is downloaded off of the Wii's Wi-Fi network. It's basically strip poker with anime girls. The biggest complaint from people is that they only strip down to their underwear. I don't even know what to say about that game, but I do know that Nintendo isn't the family friendly company that they advertise themselves to be. At least not for any family that has Christian morals and values. In conclusion, parents have to supervise their childrens' video games even if they are on a Wii.Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-14729575960706377902009-08-14T13:54:00.003-06:002009-08-14T14:08:47.298-06:00Michael Vick Returning to NFLI don't understand the big deal about Michael Vick returning to the NFL. He was deep into dog fighting. Dogs got killed and maimed. He served jail time, but people think he shouldn't be allowed to return to football. Child molesters often get less jail time than he did, why doesn't anyone care about them? Hundreds of babies are getting murdered every day under the guise of woman's choice, yet no one in the media cares. Michael Jackson molests little boys, yet is basically worshiped after he overdoses and dies on medication. Something is wrong with our culture when dogs are valued over children. People need to wake up and give Michale Vick a break. Was it something that he should get punished for? Yes, but their are much worse things that are going unpunished.Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-83592790454639268382009-07-15T16:56:00.000-06:002009-07-15T16:57:28.035-06:00The Jehovah’s Witnesses Perversion of ChristianityJust last month, two Jehovah’s Witnesses knocked on my door. I wasn’t there at the time and my wife not knowing who they were, answered the door. Once she realized who they were she worked on getting them to leave, but not before they gave her a couple of their magazines. When I came home from work she showed them to me. I told her not to throw them away so I could read them. Well, I finally got around to reading them, so I could see for myself how they have perverted Christianity. Several articles caught my eye. In the time I glanced through the magazines, I saw four main things that differed from Christianity: blood transfusions, war, the afterlife, and the Trinity.<br /><br />Blood transfusions are not allowed in their religion. They support this with Bible verses calling for the people of Israel to not drink blood. Hmmm… blood injected into your body to keep you alive is the same as drinking blood in a pagan ritual… ok? I have no idea how any sensible person could translate those Bible verses in a way that makes them prohibit blood transfusions, but they did.<br /><br />War is also prohibited by their cult. To support this, they basically use Jesus’ words saying to love your brother as yourself or love your enemies, which I agree with. You shouldn’t go to war with someone because they won’t convert. They then go on to say that Jehovah’s Witness is the only religion that did not participate in World War II. To that I say, “why are you proud about that?” Millions of Jews, gypsies and other innocent people were gassed and incinerated by the Germans, and you are proud that you didn’t try to stop them? That’s a good way to show love to all those Jews you allowed to be massacred. Wow… what an intellectual disconnect, once again. This is confusing now… so God changed his mind? He told Israel to go to war, but now it’s not okay? Even though you have an article in your magazine saying that God doesn’t change his mind. Intellectual disconnect.<br /><br />Jehovah’s witnesses don’t believe in an afterlife. I know… I know… that kind of defeats the whole purpose of religion, but oh well. To support this view, they refer to God… I mean Jehovah… creating Adam out of dust and breathing the breath of life into him, which then gave him a living soul. Then when Adam sinned, his soul died, so there is no life apart from the body. This view goes against both the Old and New Testaments. I have not read the Jehovah’s Witnesses “special” version of the Bible, but they must have had to do some serious editing to get rid of all references of an afterlife. Such as Jesus saying he was going to his Father’s House to prepare a place for believers, or even John 3:16; “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”<br /><br />Last, but definitely not least, they do not believe in the Trinity. This was just mentioned in an article of how to know which religion was true. They made sure to point out that true Christianity has one God; therefore the Trinity does not exist. I’m not sure how they weaseled their way out of this one, since the Bible clearly states that there is one God, Jesus claims to be God, and the Holy Spirit is clearly God. Three separate persons, yet one God, the Trinity. To deny this fundamental foundation of Christianity, they must have had to edit those sections, too. As well as Genesis 1, where God refers to himself in plural form; “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”<br /><br />After reading their material and comparing it to what the original Bible says, Jehovah’s Witnesses are clearly not Christian. They are a cult, which leads people away from the Jesus Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one can come to the Father but by him. Since they clearly do not have the proper view of Jesus, they do not have the proper Father either.Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-12645088024615850692009-05-19T01:13:00.002-06:002009-05-19T01:17:57.604-06:00Image Versus Substance and its Affect on American PoliticsAs you turn off the TV after having just finished listening to a presidential debate, you reflect on what just happened. Who won the debate in your mind? Was it the young, energetic man, or the elderly prisoner of war, who can no longer lift his arms above his head? If you were like many Americans, you would say that the younger man won. But when asked why, you would have no valid answer. A major problem in our American culture is that too much emphasis is placed on the image of an individual, rather than their substance. Throughout this essay, I will show you the negative aspects of this cultural trend and attempt to convince you that this trend is bad for our country.<br /> <br />If you hadn’t already guessed, in the previous paragraph I am referring to the 2008 Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain. Obama is African American, relatively young (especially when compared with his opponent) and brought many people the hope of change. McCain is white, a Vietnam War Vet and Prisoner of War, who can no longer raise his arms above his head due to war-time injuries and promises to fight corruption. Not only did their appearances vary greatly, but their views on government varied greatly as well. Obama is liberal and talked about hope and change without giving specifics on how he was going to accomplish his goals. McCain is conservative and talked of reform and ending government corruption. In debates, Obama gave fluent answers that raised crowds to their feet, cheering, yet he never answered the questions. McCain, on the other hand, didn’t mince words and got right to the point. He clearly answered the questions and received a smaller applause.<br /> <br />When comparing the two candidates by what they said, neglecting “how” they said it, McCain appeared to make the better leader. Yet, when the average person was asked who won the debates, they most likely would say, “Obama, because he is such a great speaker.” In reality, this person and many others didn’t actually listen to what was being said. They heard, but did not mentally process the information to make their decision. They let their feelings get in the way and voted for the image, rather than the substance. When a friend of mine was asked who he wanted to win the presidency, he said “Obama, because he is cool.”<br /> <br />This trend of image over substance did not start in politics, nor is it a new occurrence in politics. Going as far back to the presidential election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, we can see where image began to trump substance in politics. Ever since the TV set was introduced into popular culture, the importance of image to the American people has increased dramatically. However, during this last election, the image over substance trend was taken to new heights. Presidential candidate Barack Obama was treated as a celebrity by the media; beginning the day he announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination. Instead of focusing on the misdeeds and antics of Britney Spears, etc., the media quickly shifted its attention and began to follow Obama on his campaign tours. The networks began to have specials on the candidate’s life, family and his career. He became more than a presidential candidate; with the media’s help, he turned into a celebrity. Barrack Obama’s transformation from presidential candidate to celebrity played right into the American culture’s obsession with celebrities. Instead of watching E! News or another celebrity gossip show, millions of Americans began to follow their new favorite celebrity in the news. So why would this be bad for our country?<br /> <br />The reason the convergence of celebrity and politician is a bad thing for our country is unclear to many. Many believe it is a good idea to have a president who is popular with both the American people and those of foreign countries. In some instances this could be true, but a president should not be popular simply because he has been made into a celebrity. He should be popular for his accomplishments, not because he is the first African-American president. The American people have been “blinded” by their own obsession with celebrities. We vote for the image, not the man. Instead of looking at the issues and coming to a decision based on who would be a better leader for our country, we let our country and ourselves down by voting for the individual that looks good and makes history. Obama is an example of politicians who use “the tradecraft of entertainment to win office and stay there”(Anderson, 1998, para.4).<br /> <br />In conclusion, we have looked at the cultural trend that has put image over substance and have discovered that this practice is deeply rooted in our culture. With the introduction of the television, our culture has become obsessed with almost everything it feeds us. In recent years this obsession seems to be getting worse. We no longer simply favor those who have a more pleasing image; we practically worship those whose images please us. The types of people we obsess over has changed too. Idolizing movie stars and athletes has been a common practice for decades, but we have now moved on to idolizing politicians; not because they are worthy of our admiration, but because they and others have erected an image that dwarfs the actual substance of the individuals themselves. Image has trumped substance; we just want to be entertained. Gabler was right when he called America the “Republic of Entertainment” (Gabler, 1998, 22).<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">Refrences<br /><br /></div>Andersen, K. (1998, February 16). Entertainer-in-chief. The New Yorker Magazine. Retrieved March 10, 2009, from http://kurtandersen.com/journalism/nyker/nyker061698entertainer.html<br /><br />Gabler, N. (1998). Life: The movie (22). New York: Vintage Books.Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-89615283742003500352009-05-19T01:00:00.005-06:002010-04-23T23:48:19.344-06:00Why Does Everybody Hate Us?Since 9/11, many things have changed. We have discovered that there are many countries that hate us. Many in the media have led us to believe that this hatred stems from their dislike of our leaders. However, on a closer examination, we realize that they hate the ideals and morals that our country was founded on. As Americans, we need to know the reasons why this hatred exists and what we should do about it. As a whole, we first realized the hatred toward our country on that fateful September morning.<br /><br />The image of the burning Twin Towers is ever present in post-9/11 America. It is a solemn reminder of the atrocities committed against our country. Why did these people attack us? To answer this question we must first realize who attacked us. The men that hijacked four planes on September 11, 2001 were of Middle Eastern descent and all belonged to the Islamic religion. Their actions were not in conflict with their religion, as many claim. Their holy book, the Qur’an, specifically teaches followers to kill infidels, mainly Jews and Christians. So it only makes sense that they would want to attack a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles.<br /><br />We now have a better understanding as to why Islamic countries hate us, but why do many European countries hate us? The question of why Europeans hate us is a perplexing one. Less than 70 years ago, the United States saved Europe from Hitler and his Nazis. That was then. Now, those same countries hate us and have forgotten the hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers who sacrificed their lives in World War II. During the last 50 years, Europe has experienced a rapid secularization. Religion is no longer important to a majority of Europeans. During this same time, the secularization of the United States has been slower. Even though we are not as religious as we once were, Europeans view our country as a place of intolerance and religious extremism because of our country’s Judeo-Christian roots. They see us in almost the same light as they see Muslim extremists.<br /><br />Let us now examine what real tolerance is and why Islamic extremism is not the same as the religious “extremism” of many Americans. Many people think that being tolerant means that you can’t make a moral judgment on anyone’s beliefs or behavior and you cannot force your beliefs on someone else. However, by their own definition of tolerance, they are being intolerant by forcing their belief of tolerance on me. As Doug Marlette puts it, “no one is less tolerant than those demanding tolerance.” (Alfand and O’Brien 17) Real tolerance means that you can have differing views and you don’t have to kill someone because they don’t believe the same things you do. It is okay to say that someone else’s opinion or belief is wrong. Many Europeans now have the worldview of Postmodernism, which states that truth is relative. This means that what is true for you is not necessarily true for me. This makes no sense; if this statement is always true, then it is false. It is self-contradictory. You might be wondering what postmodernism and the new “tolerance” have to do with each other. Individuals who believe in postmodernism then create a new definition of tolerance. Tolerance, for postmodernists not only, means that their views cannot be criticized, but others must also embrace them. The Christian faith is not “tolerant” in their sense.<br /><br />The Christian faith, or worldview, is at complete odds against the postmodern worldview. Where as postmodernists believe that truth is relative and can be different for each individual, the Christian worldview believes that truth is concrete and transcendental. The truth is the same for all universally. This view is not “tolerant.” Therefore, Americans who are viewed as mostly Christians by the majority of the world, are intolerant extremists and are put into the same boat as intolerant Muslim extremists who kill those who don’t believe the Islamic faith. Now that I have shared with you the reason that Europeans hate us, let me now show you the distinction between Christian “extremists” and Muslim extremists and whether or not Christians really are intolerant.<br /><br />Muslim extremists follow their holy book and murder innocent nonbelievers in the name of Allah. Christian “extremists” follow their holy book, the Bible, and try to convert nonbelievers through reason. They do not, however, murder individuals who don’t convert. But are Christians tolerant in the true meaning? Yes, Christianity is the most tolerant belief system that exists. Islamic terrorists have killed thousands; mobs of Hindus have killed hundreds; atheistic regimes have killed millions. Even when you turn on our biased news, you don’t hear of roaming hordes of Christians killing Muslims and Hindus. You don’t hear of Christian terrorists. You don’t hear about Christian dictators killing all atheists. Without the true tolerance of the Judeo-Christian worldview, there would still be a slave trade in America. Even Samuel P. Huntington states that even though America is one of the most religious industrialized democracies, we “nonetheless tolerate and respect the rights of atheists and nonbelievers.” (Alfand and O’Brien 13) Now I will explain why the United States should and shouldn’t be hated by other countries.<br /><br />Europeans shouldn’t hate us for being a Christian nation, because we really aren’t. America is secularizing at a steady rate, although a couple of decades behind Europe. Given a few more decades, we will be just as postmodern and “tolerant” as Europe. For the Islamic countries, they will hate us no matter what or until we become an Islamic country ourselves. They don’t like secularization or Christianity. Because of this, Europeans have another reason why they shouldn’t hate us. Just like during World War II, we are protecting them. If not for the American troops in the Middle East, Islamic terrorists would be attacking both America and Europe. America is like Bat Man at the end of “The Dark Night;” he has to be hated by the people for the good of the people.<br /><br />I fear for our country. As future generations become more and more secularized and “tolerant”, who will stand up for truth and justice? Who will dethrone the dictators who kill millions? Who will fight against terrorists who murder the innocent? Who will protect the defenseless? Our world is heading toward destruction in the name of “tolerance.” In this future “tolerant” world, who will have the authority to deal out justice? “If theft/rape/murder is right for him, who am I to tell him he’s wrong?” These are all logical statements if filtered through the postmodern worldview. But we can see that these statements don’t line up with reality. We know that it is wrong to steal, to rape, and to murder. There is absolute morality. Truth is not relative. So what can we do to change the direction that our country is headed?<br /><br />First off, to change where our country is going, we need to stop caring what other countries think. In elementary school, we were taught to do right, even if it wasn’t popular. Secondly, we need to get back to our Judeo-Christian foundations. We were founded on these principals. They worked for 200 plus years; why ditch them just because they aren’t popular anymore? The tragedy of 9/11 should be a wake up call. We shouldn’t change our country, because our enemies don’t like us. If our enemies are being friendly to us, it means we’re doing something wrong.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">Work Cited<br /></div>Alfano, Christine L., and Alyssa J. O'Brien. Envision in Depth: Reading, Writing, and Researching Arguments. New York: Longman, 2007Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-82442699531826546782009-04-07T21:51:00.004-06:002009-04-07T22:58:18.170-06:0030 Pieces of Silver<blockquote>And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised [sic] at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD. (Zechariah 11:12-13)<br /><br />Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. (Matthew 26:14-15)<br /><br />Then Judas, which had betrayeth him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. (Matthew 27:3-7)</blockquote><br /><br />Over 500 years elapsed between Zechariah's prophecy and the event recorded in Matthew. You can look at this in two ways: 1) The actual event never happened and was made up using Zechariah's prophecy, or 2) It was an actual event that fulfilled the prophecy once again proving the authenticity of the Bible.<br /><br />Many think that it wouldn't be too hard of a task to pull off a hoax about the Crucifixion of Christ. The whole Christian religion is based on an elaborate hoax orchestrated by a group of Jewish men and their followers? Neglecting the extra-biblical sources proving that Christ was an actual, physical person and died an actual, physical death, it is still impossible to create a convincing theory that attacks the reality of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.<br /><br />One of the main reasons that it is impossible to produce a convincing argument supporting that the resurrection and Deity of Christ is a hoax is because of the men who spread the story. All of Christ's apostles were martyred, with the exception of John (who was boiled alive in hot oil). It is rarity to find one person willing to go to their death for a lie they created, let alone a whole group. Unlike Islam, where the leaders send young, radical men to kill themselves and others for Allah, in the case of Christianity, the leaders went to their deaths for what they believed. No one in their right mind would go through the horrid executions that they experienced for a lie. Not only did the apostles go to their graves believing this, but countless other Christians willingly died for their faith. Unlike any other religion, Christianity grows when facing persecution and death. That alone should prove the validity of the Bible and that Jesus Christ is Lord.Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-6660260756180762142009-01-10T23:51:00.004-07:002009-01-11T00:24:50.259-07:00Counter-EvangelismI recently listened to an audio clip on Youtube by "th3w01fv2" that demonstrates how to counter the Way of the Master method of evangelism. This method uses questions based on the 10 Commandments to reveal the sinfulness of the individual. For example, one line of questioning is composed of "have you ever told a lie?" and "what does that make you?" The answers are usually "yes" and "a liar." This type of questioning shows that all it takes is one violation to break the commandments. This in turn allows the person being questioned to realize their sinfulness and need for a savior.<br /><br />The counter-method for this type of questioning usually reverses the questions. Instead of "have you ever told a lie," the counter-question would be "have you ever told the truth?" Following the logic that if one is true, then the reverse is true is a completely idiotic idea. If you tell the truth one time you are a truth teller? Come on! This can be compared to poison in a drink. One drop of poison put into the cup makes the contents lethal. The reverse statement would then be: one drop of beverage put into a cup of poison makes it safe.<br /><br />As you can see, this counter-questioning has no impact on the original answers. They make no sense logically. However, from comments made by "th3w01fv2," himself (or herself), the intent of the counter-questions is not to disprove the original questions, it is to irritate the questioner (evangelist). It all seems rather childish. It is the same thing a brother would do to his older sister. The only purpose of the counter-questions is to annoy and waste the time of the evangelist; to keep the evangelist from reaching other people.<br /><br />In conclusion, people devoting this much time to a cause like this are either: trying to convince themselves that they are right, psychopathic, or have too much free time and should think about moving out of their parents' basement sometime before their 40th birthday.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgaG5tS4A0c">(Link to audio clip)</a>Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-213632563848510932008-11-04T22:35:00.003-07:002008-11-23T23:36:37.228-07:00Congratulations, 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.<br /><br />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.Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-66812378834408741572008-09-09T23:48:00.004-06:002008-09-10T00:08:00.969-06:00Do 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?<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Presidential Aid: "Uhh... Mr. President Obama, Sir... We have just been attacked by terrorists. What should we do?"</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">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."</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-90600315170897944472008-09-09T23:00:00.004-06:002008-09-09T23:48:03.615-06:00Global 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.<br /><br />The Flood was God's judgement on a wicked world.<br />God will Judge the wicked world on Judgement Day.<br /><br />God provided a way of Salvation from the Flood through "Noah's Ark."<br />God provided a way of Salvation from Eternal Damnation through Jesus Christ.<br /><br />All who were in the Ark were spared from God's just punishment by a watery death.<br />All who are in Christ are spared from God's just punishment of an everlasting death.<br /><br />All Humans drowned, except for those in the Ark.<br />All Humans will die spiritually, except for those in Christ.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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:<br /><br />1. A very deep and expansive valley with mountains in it that were shorter than the edge of the valley, or<br /><br />2. God created an invisible wall that held the water in so that it could not cover the entire earth.<br /><br />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.))<br /><br />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)?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-49941681050040101642008-07-31T17:41:00.003-06:002008-07-31T23:56:05.585-06:00Mr. 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? <blockquote>"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."</blockquote>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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Another even more idiotic quote that I have is: <blockquote>"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."</blockquote>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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-13702708993750634712008-07-01T00:10:00.002-06:002008-07-01T00:20:08.592-06:00Isaiah 53Isaiah 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.<br /><br />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?Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-89745250064277293932008-04-12T01:29:00.003-06:002008-04-14T13:47:00.861-06:00The Decline of Western CivilizationI 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-38071056027836708852008-03-09T20:39:00.002-06:002008-03-09T22:21:52.372-06:00Is 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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-15101927409980882092008-03-08T10:05:00.004-07:002008-05-18T21:31:15.809-06:00Another Question For EvolutionistsI have another question for evolutionists. Once again, let's pretend that a living cell <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">miraculously</span> 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.<br /><br />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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">sufficient</span> 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.<br /><br />So the choice is up to you. You can believe in <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">molecules</span> 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.Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-74509133313201947432008-03-07T13:17:00.004-07:002008-03-07T13:39:18.644-07:00A Question or Two for EvolutionistsI 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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-651080449710333352008-01-14T22:27:00.000-07:002008-01-14T22:30:37.398-07:00Could 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.)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />RickRickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-67434639783340888602008-01-12T00:21:00.001-07:002008-01-12T01:07:07.512-07:00The 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-64121612998032130492008-01-08T22:38:00.000-07:002008-01-08T23:24:49.029-07:00Liberals: "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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451689781339609941.post-26959714425136760862007-12-30T09:40:00.000-07:002007-12-31T00:14:42.073-07:00Mormonism: The Church of Satan of Latter-Day SaintsOne of Mormonism's most important foundational beliefs is the belief that "as man is, God once was; as God is, man may be." This is also what Mormons try to keep non-Mormons from finding out, lest they realize that Mormonism is NOT Christianity, as most if not all Mormons claim. Why would they blatantly lie about their religion? Why do they want to be called a denomination of Christianity just like Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, etc? Why do they try to blend in when their own "prophets" and "scriptures" teach them that Mormonism is true Christianity, and that all the others are false Christianity and of the Devil?<br /><br />I call Mormonism the Church of Satan of Latter-Day Saints for a good reason. Their foundational belief that men can become like God is basically what Satan told Eve in the Garden of Eden. When you eat the fruit "your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." What do you know, almost the exact same thing that Mormonism teaches. Therefore, it is in reality the religion of Satan, since they follow his teaching.<br /><br />Got any problems with my conclusion? Don't get mad at me, Mormonism was Joseph Smith's dumb idea. Mormons, think for yourselves. Actually compare the Holy Bible with the Mormon literature. The Mormon literature is at complete odds with the Bible, so one of them has to be wrong. If you are smart you would go with the Bible, since unlike Mormon literature (Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and whatever else they come up with), the Bible has been found to be 100% factual and reliable. The Bible is the most thoroughly tested book and has never been found to have a mistake, and never will have one. It is the inerrant Word of God. So Mormons, use your God given brains and think! That goes for everyone else who isn't a Christian, whether your Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, agnostic, or atheist. Think!Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06576847317224272271noreply@blogger.com0