I 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.

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.

Michael Vick Returning to NFL

I 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.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses Perversion of Christianity

Just 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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.

Image Versus Substance and its Affect on American Politics

As 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.

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.

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.”

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?

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).

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).

Refrences

Andersen, K. (1998, February 16). Entertainer-in-chief. The New Yorker Magazine. Retrieved March 10, 2009, from http://kurtandersen.com/journalism/nyker/nyker061698entertainer.html

Gabler, N. (1998). Life: The movie (22). New York: Vintage Books.

Why 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Work Cited

Alfano, Christine L., and Alyssa J. O'Brien. Envision in Depth: Reading, Writing, and Researching Arguments. New York: Longman, 2007

30 Pieces of Silver

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)

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)

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)

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.

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.

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.

Counter-Evangelism

I 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.

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.

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.

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.

(Link to audio clip)

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.