Makarios

2010-01-03T13:22:00.000-08:00

Deuteronomy 24:17 - Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge.

Purity in a Corrupt World.

2010-01-03T13:16:00.000-08:00

“Blessed are the pure in heart for they will see God.” Matthew 5:8

Jesus said, “The one who loves Me is the one who obeys Me.”

Well, I can obey God - sorta - but can I obey Him with a pure heart? Mmm, not so much.

Even as I open the door for someone I’m aware of the positive impression that it will leave. Every act of kindness, every little compassion shown, every comfort given comes with a smudge of corruption. It shall ever be thus. This is who we are. This is why Jesus came to save us from ourselves. Jesus came to give to us, His purity.

To receive purity from Jesus, we must have entered into a relationship with Jesus; a healed and forgiven relationship with Jesus.

Doing good things for others will make a good impression. There’s nothing wrong with that. Doing good things for others with the INTENT of making a good impression is where the problem lies. Only you and God will know which is which.

Create in me a clean heart, O God
Renew in me a right spirit

This Is How Atheists Know

2010-01-03T06:50:00.000-08:00

The atheist case for a multi verse:

We know that a multi verse exists because unless Creator God exists, there is no other way to explain the universe beginning to exist, from nothing, without an external cause.

We know that a multi verse exists because unless Creator God exists, there is no other way to explain life coming from non life.

We know that a multi verse exists because unless Creator God exists, there is no other way to explain specified, formulated, coded, information in the fist living cell.

We know that a multi verse exists because unless Creator God exists, there is no other way to explain 150 exquisitely and finely tuned constants and qualities - whose only relation to each other is its need for life on earth - all in place at Planck Time (10^-43 second).

We know that a multi verse exists because unless Creator God is infinite and eternal, there is no other way to explain the existence of Matter being infinite and eternal, which, along with all the points above is impossible.

And since atheists have a priori decided that Creator God does not exist, there MUST be an infinite number of universes so that one of those universes can be our universe where the impossible is actually NOT impossible.

So, obviously, this is how atheists know that a multi verse or an infinite number of universes exist - like - duh!

Evidence Equals?

2010-01-02T19:59:00.000-08:00

Atheists say, Because there is no evidence for God, He therefore does not exist. Yet

Atheists believe in a multi verse even though there is no evidence of any kind for its existence.

When you're drowning, apparently you'll grasp at anything, do anything, say anything.

Science > A Search for Cause

2010-01-02T18:36:00.000-08:00

When a bridge collapses.

When a person misses an appointment without calling

When someone goes from being an atheist to a Christian

We all ask “Why?”

It's perfectly normal for us to ask "Why?" for the things we experience and observe. Science itself, is, at its base, a search for cause, or the asking of the question, “Why are things as we find them?”

There are several historical events that are related to the life of Jesus that require and answer. These events require of us to ask, “Why would that be?”

Absolutely none of what you’re about to read has anything to do with the Bible being inspired or infallible or any other trappings of religion. These are historical facts attested to by the vast majority of secular, atheist and Christian historical scholars.

The reason that I’m not using the documents that were later compiled into what we now know as the New Testament is of course, atheists have a double standard when it comes to judging ancient documents. Something that critics seem to forget is that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life as well as Acts of the Apostles and the other letters that are included in the New Testament weren’t written FOR inclusion into the Bible. What are now part of the Bible were once independent documents circulating throughout the Christian and non Christian community. These guys weren’t journalists working for something like, “Bible Magazine.” The documents that were compiled into what we know today as the New Testament were separate ancient documents, written by people who were interested in the life of Jesus. Some had been followers of or students of Jesus. Others, like Dr. Luke were historians. These people had no idea that what they’d written would one day become part of the biggest and most important movement in the history of humanity.

While there will always be those on the lunatic fringe who attempt to deny historical facts (eg. holocaust), to deny that there is extra Biblical factually accurate information regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus requires that you be either profoundly ignorant or a determined liar and most importantly, you must lie to yourself about what is factually and historically true.

In a manner of historical forensics, this post asks, “Why would the following have occurred if the facts of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection weren’t as described?” I believe that there is no sustainable reason for the following historical events to have occurred (and they did occur) unless the essential facts of Jesus death and resurrection are true.

Rather than just skim over these questions or dismiss them as the ramblings of some no account Christian, I ask you to ask yourself in a genuine manner, the questions that follow. Even if you assume that an answer upholds your current beliefs, I encourage you to name the answer. Put it into coherent thought. Whether you agree or don’t agree with the conclusion at which I’ve arrived, for the sake of your ability to debate the issue, ask yourself in frank and honest manner:

If Jesus didn’t die on the cross:
Why would Matthew, Tacitus, Mark, Lucian of Samosata, Dr. Luke, Mara Bar-Serapion, John, The Babylonion Talmud, Josephus, and John Dominic Crossan, the Founder of the “Jesus Seminar” all attest that Jesus’ crucifixion is historical fact? And why would that be when all but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are non Christians?

If Jesus didn’t die on the cross, why would these historians and scholars write that He did? Why would they simply invent these stories? There was/is absolutely nothing of earthly value to be gained by concocting this as a lie.

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
. Why do we have multiple, independent, extra Biblical sources attesting to the risen Jesus?
. Why do we have virtually unanimous modern historical scholarship agreeing that the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive after His death on the cross.
. Why would atheist historian and New Testament critic Gerd Ludemann say, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”
. Why would atheist historian Paula Fredriksen say, “I don’t know what they saw, but as a historian I know they believed they saw Jesus.”
. Why would highly critical New Testament scholar Rudolf Bultmann agree that historical criticism can establish “the fact that the first disciples came to believe in the resurrection and that they thought they had seen the risen Jesus."
. Why would atheist and founder of the Jesus Seminar state, “That Jesus was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be” if Jesus wasn’t a historical figure?

Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make sense. Why would the enemies of Christianity affirm the historical facts regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus if the evidence isn’t accurate and compelling?

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
. Why would all the disciples, plus hundreds and hundreds of others believe that they saw Him alive?
. Why would they say that they spoke with Him?
. Why would they say that they ate with Him at various times and various places?
. If none of that is true, why would they be willing to die for making up the lie of seeing Jesus alive?
There was absolutely nothing of earthly value to be gained, and everything to lose by concocting the supposed lies about Jesus life, death and resurrection.

REMEMBER these people didn’t believe someone else’s lie.

Over the centuries many people have died for believing someone else’s lies. But if THESE people died for a lie, it was THEIR lie! They died for saying they saw Jesus alive again after His death. Liars simply do not make martyrs of themselves.

Without the resurrection being historical fact, their willingness to die for the “truth” doesn’t make any sense.

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have Paul’s testimony about His encounter with Jesus and why do we have his radical transformation in character from a persecutor of the Church and a killer of Christians to the greatest missionary that the Christian Church has ever seen?

Remember, Paul:
. Was a rabid sceptic when Jesus appeared to him.
. Was an enemy of the Church when Jesus appeared to him.

This is not like most conversions whereby the person reads or hears something that persuades h/her to change. Paul’s evidence for the risen Jesus was first hand and so convincing that he endured years of hardship, persecution and rejection for proclaiming the risen Lord, before finally being beheaded by Nero in 64AD.

Without the resurrection being historical fact, this change in Paul’s character doesn’t make any sense. He had absolutely nothing of earthly value to gain, and everything to lose by concocting a story of meeting Jesus while on His way to persecute the Church.

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
. Why in the world would Jesus’ brothers James and Jude go to their deaths proclaiming that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead?
. Why would they claim that they had seen Him alive after His death?
. Why would they confess that Jesus is the Lord God, Messiah?
. Why would Jesus whole family become part of the Christian movement?

Think about it! This was their half-brother, someone that they’d previously mocked and ridiculed. James’ and Jude’s conversions were a drastic change from thinking their Brother was insane and an embarrassment to the family.

For a moment, put yourself in James' place. What would it take for you to make this kind of change? What would it take for you to die for that change? For me, it would take nothing LESS than a resurrection.

Without the resurrection being historical fact, this change in the beliefs of Jesus’ siblings doesn’t make any sense. They had absolutely nothing of earthly value to gain and everything to lose if what they said about Jesus appearing to them after His death was not true.

Remember, Both Paul and James were sceptics at the time that Jesus appeared to them. Why would they become His followers if His resurrection wasn't historical fact?

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why was His tomb empty?
. Jesus’ ENEMIES were the ones to CONFIRM that the body was missing by proposing that the disciples stole it.
. The disciples didn’t have the power nor the inclination to steal His body. They were hiding behind locked doors.
. Jesus’ enemies had no reason to steal the body and every reason to keep it right where it was. They posted an armed guard, and sealed the tomb with the Governor’s seal to make sure that nothing happened to the body.
. The first proclamations of the empty tomb were made right there in Jerusalem where Jesus was murdered and buried. The tomb could have been easily checked out.

If the resurrection isn’t historical fact, how is it that the tomb was empty with no sound explanation other than the resurrection?

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do the ancient documents written by Jesus’ followers make the “mistake” of saying that women (who at the time were seen as lower than dogs and not capable of telling the truth) were the ones who discovered the empty tomb and encountered the risen Lord. If it wasn’t true, if the disciples were trying to convince others of a lie, if the resurrection wasn’t historical fact, why would the writers invent the testimony of women to say that it was true?

If the resurrection isn’t historical fact, it doesn’t make any sense that His followers would do that.

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why did Josephus, Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria all non Christians and all historians write about Jesus’ brother James, his leadership in the Jerusalem Church and his martyrdom for proclaiming Jesus as risen Lord and Saviour?

Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense. I think they would only write these things if the evidence convinced them that it was accurate.

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have an early oral tradition or creed that dates from the first year after Jesus’ death attesting to the fact of Him rising from the dead.

Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense. There is no hint of legend or exaggeration in this oral tradition. And these people had their lives to lose by repeating it. Why would they do that if it wasn’t true?

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have the written works of the early Church with hymns, poetry and creeds, stemming from the early oral history telling about Jesus rise from the dead?

Think about it! Without the resurrection being historical fact, we simply wouldn't have this.

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have the Christian Church? Paul told early Christians, “If Jesus did not rise from the dead, your faith is worthless.”

Without the resurrection being historical fact there wouldn’t be any Christianity. Yet here it is today, over 2 billion strong.

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
How did Paul know what He knew about Jesus prior to any contact with the apostles and why would they accept Paul as one of their own based on what he was teaching about Jesus? This was an “outsider” eager to kill the leaders of the early Jesus movement, now coming to them with a knowledge of Jesus’ teaching equal to those who had been insiders.

Without the resurrection being historical fact, and without Jesus appearing to Paul and teaching Paul about Himself, this doesn’t make any sense.

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have the four ancient biographies of Jesus, one of them by historian and physician Luke who got his information from eyewitnesses all affirming the resurrection of Jesus? Why would they tell Luke that these things happened if they weren’t true? They paid for that "lie" with their lives.

Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Polycarp and others, all saying that they had been taught by the apostles that Jesus had risen from the dead. And THEN, all of these men were themselves martyred based on the believability of what the disciples had told them. These were not ignorant, gullible men. Yet the evidence made sense to them.

Without the resurrection being historical fact, how could that happen?

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
What would account for the disciple’s radical transformation from fearful and cowardly men who denied Jesus and who ran away from Him during His trial, to bold individuals who were so confident of the truth of what they saw and heard regarding His resurrection, that they were willing to undergo years of persecution as well as torture and death rather than change their story.

Peter watched his own wife being crucified just prior to his own crucifixion. Surely, if the risen Jesus was a lie concocted by Peter himself, he wouldn’t have allowed that to happen.

Without the resurrection, this type of behaviour doesn’t make any sense.

If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
. Why was it that Polycarp wrote of the endurance under torture of Paul, Ignatius, Zosimus, and Rufus for their belief in the risen Christ?
. Why was it that Ignatius also wrote of the suffering and death of the apostles?
. Why was it that Polycarp and Ignatius were both martyred?. Why would they be willing to die in such a manner if the accounts of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection weren’t accurate?

Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.

If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
Why would we have confirming accounts of the disciples teaching and deaths in Roman public records called “Lives of the Caesars.”

Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.

If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
Why would Origen write, “Jesus, who has both risen AND led His disciples to believe in His resurrection and so thoroughly persuaded them of its truth that they showed to all men by their suffering how they were able to laugh at life’s troubles beholding to life eternal and a resurrection clearly demonstrated to them in word and deed by this one Jesus.”

Without the resurrection being historical fact, it doesn’t make any sense that Origen would write that.

If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
Why do we have Eusebius, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Hegesibous, Josephus, Clement of Alexandria, all of these sources, Christian and non Christian alike affirming the historicity of Jesus and the disciples willingness to die for what they believed to be true.

Without the resurrection being historical fact, it doesn’t make any sense that these many and varied individuals would make this stuff up.

If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
. Why is it that Luke writes that Jesus spent about 40 days with the disciples after He rose from the dead, and
. Why can it be further calculated that about 50-55 days after His death, Jesus’ followers started proclaiming His resurrection, and - Pay attention now -
. Why did Tacitus, an ENEMY of Christianity, write “Jesus’ execution by Pontius Pilot checked, for the moment, the Christian movement but it then broke out with force not only in Judea but even in Rome.”
. Why would these accounts, one from a follower of Jesus and one from a secular historian and enemy of Christianity be so similar unless they’re true?

Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.

Absolutely none of what I’ve just written has anything to do with the Bible being inspired or infallible or any other trappings of religion. These are historical facts attested to by the vast majority of secular, atheist and Christian historical scholars. While there will always be those on the lunatic fringe who attempt to deny historical facts (eg. holocaust) to deny that there is extra Biblical factually accurate information regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus requires that you be either profoundly ignorant or a determined liar and most importantly, you must lie to yourself about what is factually and historically true. There is absolutely no sustainable reason for the above historical events to have occurred unless the essential facts of Jesus death and resurrection are true.

These questions, stemming from this evidence demand more than just a flippant, “People rising from the dead is impossible.” Something totally “other” happened back then and ignoring it is not a rational nor a logical thing to do.

If Jesus did in fact supernaturally rise from the dead, then what He taught about being the Son of God and about the existence of Creator God must also be true. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus demands a verdict. With the evidence so overwhelmingly pointing to the fact of His resurrection, you can do one of three things:

. Submit to Jesus as Lord and Saviour - Or

. Lie to yourself that none of this proves anything - Or

. Say to yourself, “I don’t care if God is real, I’m going to live my life, my way.”

Why?

2010-01-02T10:53:00.001-08:00

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/space/01/01/moon.lava.hole/index.html

Can anybody tell me Why we would want to live on the moon, or any other space rock?

Some people talk about space exploration as though it's like someone coming from the Old World to North America for the first time. I think there are some pretty obvious differences. One of them being, absolutely nothing that humans need to survive exists on rocks other than earth. Like, it doesn't cost enough to buy Kiwis from, from, well from wherever Kiwis come from. Let's ship them to the moon?

But maybe I'm the one missing something obvious. So, could someone tell me exactly why we might want to move there or Mars or anywhere?

If you’ve heard one atheist . . .

2010-01-02T09:04:00.000-08:00

Ginx said: “There's no reason for him [Jesus] to have been dead after such a short time,”

He was saying that, because they didn’t break Jesus legs while He hung on the cross, He probably didn’t die; that in fact He was nursed back to health.

The verse which Ginx partially quotes is John 19:33. Ginx partially quotes that verse because if he used the whole verse it would be obvious that the REASON the guards didn’t break Jesus legs is because Jesus was already dead. He'd been run through with a spear and serum and red blood cells gushed out from the chest cavity. No one need doubt the death of Jesus - I mean, other than atheist and Islamic fundamentalists whose very belief system depends on Jesus NOT dying on the cross and NOT rising from the dead

The historical facts of Jesus life, death and resurrection, facts that require an answer are:
. The tomb was empty - why?
. The dramatic change in the character of the disciples - why?
. The conversions of the sceptic James (Jesus’ own brother) - why?
. The conversion of the sceptic Paul (a persecutor of Christians)- why?
. The dramatic rise of the Christian Church - why?

All of these CAN be answered with one point - The death and physical resurrection of Jesus.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can be so ignorant as to believe that Jesus came down from the cross alive. However, yet another atheist has made this claim in His defense of the proposition that the reason the tomb was empty is because, well, Jesus really wasn’t dead. Have you ever noticed how often atheists and Muslims agree on things? It’s a little unnerving. Anyhow, when I say Jesus most certainly was dead, atheists say, “Where the evidence?” When I give them evidence, do you know what happens? The evidence is so overwhelmingly in favour of Jesus dying that atheists change the subject to some song and dance about how gruesome the evidence is and "Why revel in "bloody porn"." Atheists, if you've heard one you've heard them all.

Drawing from eyewitness accounts, and from what we know of Roman execution, and the Jewish / Roman interaction, Physician Truman Davis writes the following about Jesus’ death:

The whip the Roman soldiers use on Jesus has small iron balls and sharp pieces of sheep bones tied to it. Jesus is stripped of his clothing, and his hands are tied to an upright post. His back, buttocks, and legs are whipped either by one soldier or by two who alternate positions. The soldiers taunt their victim. As they repeatedly strike Jesus’ back with full force, the iron balls cause deep contusions, and the sheep bones cut into the skin and tissues. As the whipping continues, the lacerations tear into the underlying skeletal muscles and produce quivering ribbons of bleeding flesh. Most often the victim's bowels were laid bare. Pain and blood loss set the stage for circulatory shock.

When it is determined by the centurion in charge that Jesus is near death, the beating is finally stopped. The half-fainting Jesus is then untied and allowed to slump to the stone pavement, wet with his own blood. The Roman soldiers see a great joke in this provincial Jew claiming to be a king. They throw a robe across his shoulders and place a stick in his hand for a scepter. They still need a crown to make their travesty complete. A small bundle of flexible branches covered with long thorns are plaited into the shape of a crown, and this is pressed into his scalp. Again there is copious bleeding (the scalp being one of the most vascular areas of the body). After mocking him and striking him across the face until he is unrecognisable to those who know him, the soldiers take the stick from his hand and strike him across the head, driving the thorns deeper into his scalp.
Finally, when they tire of their sadistic sport, the robe is torn from his back. The robe had already become adherent to the clots of blood and serum in the wounds, and its removal - just as in the careless removal of a surgical bandage - causes excruciating pain, is almost as though he were being whipped again. The wounds again begin to bleed. In deference to Jewish custom, the Romans return his garments. The heavy horizontal beam of the cross is tied across his shoulders, and the procession of the condemned Christ, two thieves, and the execution party walk along the Via Dolorosa. In spite of his efforts to walk erect, the weight of the heavy wooden beam, together with the shock produced by copious blood loss, is too much. He stumbles and falls. The rough wood of the beam gouges into the lacerated skin and muscles of the shoulders. He tries to rise, but human muscles have been pushed beyond their endurance. The centurion, anxious to get on with the crucifixion, select a stalwart North African onlooker, Simon of Cyrene, to carry the cross. Jesus follows, still bleeding and sweating the cold, clammy sweat of shock.

The 650 yard journey from the fortress Antonia to Golgotha is finally complete. Jesus is again stripped of his clothes. The crucifixion begins. Jesus is offered wine mixed with myrrh, a mild pain-killing mixture. He refuses to drink. Simon is ordered to place the cross beam on the ground, and Jesus is quickly thrown backward with his shoulders against the wood. The legionnaire feels for the depression at the front of the wrist. He drives a heavy, square, wrought-iron nail through the wrist and deep into the wood. Quickly, the soldier moves to the other side and repeats the action, being careful not to pull the arms too tight, but to allow some flexibility and movement. The beam is then lifted, and the title reading “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews” is nailed in place.

The victim Jesus is now crucified. As he slowly sags down with more weight on the nails in the wrists, excruciating, fiery pain shoots along the fingers and up the arms to explode in the brain - the nails in the wrists are putting pressure on the median nerves. The severing of the median nerve by the nails would produce the degree of pain as if someone grabbed, with pliers, the same nerve embedded in your elbow joint and squeezed it and twisted it for hours on end. As he pushes himself upward to avoid this stretching torment, he places his full weight on the nail through his feet. Again, there is the searing agony of the nail tearing through the nerves between the metatarsal bones of the feet. At this point, another phenomenon occurs. As the arms fatigue, great waves of cramps sweep over the muscles, knotting them in deep, relentless, throbbing pain. It was not uncommon for the shoulders to be pulled out of their sockets by the weight of the person’s body. The muscles would then be stretched two to three inches from their normal length. With these cramps comes the inability to push himself upward. Hanging by his arms, the pectoral muscles are paralysed, and the intercostal muscles are unable to act. Air can be drawn into the lungs but it cannot be exhaled. Jesus fights to raise himself in order to get even one short breath. Finally, carbon dioxide builds up in the lungs and in the bloodstream, and the cramps partially subside. Spasmodically, he is able to push himself upward to exhale and bring in the life-giving oxygen.

Now begin hours of this limitless pain, cycles of cramping and twisting partial asphyxiation, searing pain as tissue is torn from his lacerated back as he moves up and down against the rough timber. Then another agony begins. A deep, crushing pain in the chest as the pericardium slowly fills with serum and begins to compress the heart. It is now almost over - the loss of tissue fluids has reached a critical level; the compressed heart is struggling to pump heavy, sluggish blood into the tissues; the tortured lungs are making a frantic effort to gasp in small gulps of air. The markedly dehydrated tissues send their flood of stimuli to the brain. His mission of atonement has been complete. Finally he can allow his body to die. With one last surge of strength, he once again presses his torn feet against the nail, straightens his legs, takes a deeper breath, and utters his final words.

When the chief executioner comes to ensure death has taken place, the spear's thrust releases the blood that is now separated into serum and platelets - Jesus was dead. This appears to the eyewitness who wrote this account as water and blood. Jesus was in fact, dead when they laid Him in the tomb.

I happen to believe that Jesus gave up His life. "No one takes My life from Me. I lay it down and I take it back up again." Yes, Jesus suffered and died. Yes, He endured agony beyond anything most of us will ever experience. What Jesus dead? Without a doubt. Did He die exclusively from crucifixion? I don't think so. I think that the Creator of life gave up His life on a voluntary basis. Three days later (as Jews of the time counted time) Jesus took back His life.

Ginx is just the latest in a long, long line of atheists making the ridiculous claim that when Jesus was taken from the cross, He was still alive. Well, if you’ve heard one atheist, you’ve heard them all.

Can You Forgive?

2010-01-02T07:53:00.000-08:00

"Blessed are the merciful for they will be shown mercy.” Matthew 5:7

I’ve worked with sooo many people who are being consumed by anger, bitterness and rage. Oh, they’ve been hurt. No doubt about that. They’ve been betrayed and abused. I get that.

But to what end is their rage.

There’s a verse in Galatians, chapter 5 I think, “If you keep on biting and devouring each other watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.”

“But it’s not fair!” is what I usually hear.

I know. I know that it isn’t fair. Some of the people who’ve done wrong to you may never be held accountable. Certainly not in atheist world. On the other hand, neither is it fair that God forgives us. His grace gives us what we don’t deserve and His mercy makes sure that we don’t get what we do deserve.

“When you show mercy to others, mercy to will be shown to you.”

Isn’t that amazing? When we give to others what we have freely received, God’s mercy flows freely and in abundance to us. Life is good.

Laying down our judgement of others as God has layed down His judgement of us is a wonderful gift to the world; a world so full of hatred and bitterness.

May the Lord bless you and keep you.
May His face shine upon you and be gracious to you.
May He lift up the light ouf His countenance upon you
And give you peace.

Irony of the Day

2010-01-02T07:52:00.000-08:00

"Pakistan's foreign Ministry spokesperson - 'Anyone who describes Islam as an intolerant religion encourages violence.'"

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/02/denmark.cartoonist/index.html

R U Dumb Enough?

2010-01-01T18:50:00.000-08:00

I don’t know if anyone has been following the utterly dismal atheist attempt by Gorth and his comrades to disprove the Bible by using literal interpretation where metaphor or poetry or symbolism is so very obvious to any sane and rational individual. To prove that the Bible teaches a flat earth, I was referred by Gorth to this site.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm

I’ve long said that atheist and Islamic fundamentalists are very, very similar in the manner in which they process information and interpret observations. They are also similar in their bigotry and manipulation of information for their own ends. This charge of what the Bible teaches by both atheists and the ludicrous Islamic website leads me to ask:

R U dumb enough to be an atheist? Take the test below and find out.

Atheists are saying that, “the Bible teaches that the earth is flat.”

This accusation is based upon verses like, “. . . gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth” Isaiah 11:12

Does this mean that the earth literally has “four corners”? Or does it mean the same as today when people say, “I’d search to the ends of the earth for my son,” or “Police have searched to the far corners of the earth and she’s simply disappeared”?

Are the atheists and their Islamic cohorts correct?
============

Atheists are saying that, “The Bible teaches that the earth stands still.”

This accusation is based upon verses like, “The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.” Ecclesiastes 1:5

Does this mean that the earth literally stands still and the sun revolves around it? Or does it mean the same as today when people say, “Day after day I work from sunrise to sunset. Around and around it goes and it never seems to end.” Or, "Sunrise tomorrow is at 7:15."

Are the atheists and their Islamic cohort correct?
=============

Atheist are saying that, “The Bible teaches that the earth is set upon pillars.”

This accusation is based upon verses like, “Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.” Job 38:4

Does this mean that the earth is literally set upon pillars? Or does it mean the same as today when people say, “Our understanding of science is built upon the very firm foundation of the laws of physics.”?

Are the atheists and their Islamic cohorts correct?
==============

Atheists are saying that, “The Bible teaches that the earth has edges.”

This accusation is based upon verses like, “. . .that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?” Job 38:13

Does this mean that the earth literally has edges? Is there any reason to think that this is any but metaphor? Have you ever met anyone who tries to “read” the Bible to the absurd literal levels that atheist and Islamic fundamentalists do?

Are the atheists and their Islamic cohort correct?
============

Here we have atheist and Islamic fundamentalists claiming to be educated and intelligent, yet, who are either not able to know, or who are pretending to not know the difference between symbolic and literal phrases in the Bible. These "gifted geniuses" either pretend to not be able or are in fact NOT capable of differentiating between metaphor, irony, or hyperbole.

Really, if atheists can’t say, this is where a poem ends and a moral directive begins, if they can’t understand that a political diatribe can’t be mixed with romantic literature, and, as is the case with the most fundamentalist of them all, Richard Dawkins, if finding these variations in genre within the same book comes off as disjointed and difficult to understand for them, then perhaps atheists should simply stick to Saturday night meet-ups in bars and leave the Bible completely alone.

On the other hand:
1) In the Bible, we have a Book that diagnoses the atheist problem clearly and concisely -
“No one is without excuse. The universe declares the existence of God.”
To date, nothing has been able to refute or falsify that claim.

2) The Bible tells us -
“What is visible is made from what is not visible”
- This 1,500 years before the microscope was invented.

3) The Bible tells us -
“God sits enthroned above the CIRCLE of the earth . . .”
- This thousands of years before people accepted that the earth wasn’t flat.

4) The Bible tells us -
“The earth will wear out like and old garment, There will be famines in many lands and war without ceasing,”
- this 2,000 years before anyone dreamed that the earth could run short of anything.

5) The Bible tells us -“The Lord suspends the earth over nothing.”
- This, 5,000 years before modern man confirmed its truth.

6) The Bible tells us -
“The number of the stars are like the sand which is on the seashore.”
- This, thousands and thousands of years before the telescope. Without the telescope only ~ 5,000 stars are visible to the naked eye. To say they were uncountable would have seemed preposterous. Yet it’s the truth.

This post is already getting long so I’ll stop but the question remains.

R U Dumb enough to be an atheist?

We’re Weird That Way

2010-01-01T08:38:00.000-08:00

A group of Santeria worshipers in Philadelphia might be in legal trouble for not “sacrificing animals humanely.”

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/30/pennsylvania.animal.remains/index.html

It’s ok in the United States to practice a religion whereby you offer animal sacrifices on an alter but don’t you dare eat horse meat. That is illegal.

We’re weird that way.

2010-01-01T08:21:00.000-08:00

Deuteronomy 23:15 - If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him.

Follow the Logic

2010-01-01T08:16:00.000-08:00

On virtually every atheist blog that I read, I was astonished by comments that seemed completely irrational to me, while seeming completely satisfactory to those who wrote them.

For example, atheist physicist Victor Stenger states, “So where did the laws of physics come from? They came from nothing.”

That is the logic and reason of atheism. As far as I can tell, Stenger has not been sanctioned or rebuked by any fellow atheists for making such an incoherent statement. In fact, making claims that go against the same scientific principles they hold dear, seems to be allowable as long as those statements muddy the thinking regarding the possibility of Creator God existing. Here are some more statements that, when compared to how scientists say they operate, well, it’s puzzling that they would allow themselves to work in this manner.

Smithsonian paleobiologist, Douglas Erwin, “One of the rules of science is, no miracles allowed. That’s a fundamental presumption of what we do” (bold mine).

Biologist Barry Palevitz, “The supernatural is automatically off-limits as an explanation of the natural world” (bold mine).

Astronomer and physicist Lee Smolin, If the universe started at a point in time, “This leaves the door open for a return of religion. The theory is to be criticized as being unlikely on these grounds”

How in the world can a scientist, someone who says that s/he is dedicated to following the evidence where ever it leads, leave out a whole category of evidence just because it goes against h/her world view?

Thanks Gorth

2009-12-31T20:32:00.000-08:00

My man Gorth reminded me of Dawkins' ludicrous comments on luck and how lucky we are to have found ourselves in a universe that supports life-forms such as our own. That’s kind of like saying, “Ain’t it lucky that we found ourselves on a planet with water? Otherwise we’d have to drink wine all the time.

In his routine on luck, Dawkins also talks about how the magic of large numbers makes it all possible. Admitting in a back handed way that to say that life, the universe and everything as we know it came about by luck is profoundly ignorant, Dawkins throws out multi verses and says, “Now it all makes sense!” And you know what? Atheists believe him.

I talk about big numbers backed up by scientific fact in
http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/12/last-post-on-chance.html
and atheists say "Boooo. Not possible."

Dawkins talks about an infinite number of universes, something for which there is not one speck of evidence and atheists throw their hats in the air (by the way, did anyone see the Canada / U.S. juniour hockey game tonight - yeah Canada) and yell, “Yeah, we’re saved. Thank you reverend Dawkins.”

Since Dawkins reminded me, and since there might be some newbies passing through this blog, this is a repost on just how lucky we are to be living in a universe such as ours.

I’ll start off with a line from Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson that to me is positively hilarious. In his comment,
- He’s referring to the constants and qualities that hold the cosmos together.
- He’s referring to the relationship between these constants that allow our biosphere to not only exist but to support intelligent life.

During his routine, Mr. Dyson says, “There are many lucky accidents in physics. Without such lucky accidents, life as we know it would be impossible.”

If you can’t see the humour in that chances are very good that you’re an atheist.

Other atheists look at the following information and say that to conclude that the evolution of "Us" was something other than luck or an amazing coincidence, i.e., God, is “jumping to conclusions.”

I feel like I’m repeating myself an awful lot but there are so many atheists who seem to have their feet planted firmly in thin air. They place their faith in pseudo evidence that hasn’t been thought through AT ALL! So, I’ll review once again.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:

. Only in a universe so finely tuned as ours, could we expect observers such as ourselves to exist. Note: Fine Tuning is a neutral secular term in that it refers to constants and quantities (atomic weight, gravitational constant, strong & weak force, etc.) being just right for the existence of intelligent life. That’s in comparison with the huge range of possible values. In fact, the natural range of possible values is from 0 > 10 ^53 or from
0 - 1000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000.

If this number was conceptualized as a dartboard, the distance from one side of the dartboard to the other side would extended across the length of our entire Milky Way Galaxy. I’ll return to this comparison a little later. That being the case, let’s look at the ranges upon which our lives, our very existence depend.

It’s important to remember that the values of these constants and qualities were not something that evolved, or something that “settled in” as the universe aged. These constants were “put in” at the Big Bang. As well, you may be interested to note that the constants, quantities and values that are found in our cosmos appear to be unrelated in any way. They seem to be random, even arbitrary. In reality, they are independent of each other except for one thing. The only thing the constants, quantities and values of our universe have in common is that all of them, every single one of them need to be exactly as they are in order for intelligent life to exist on this planet. While there are around 100 constants and qualities, the most fundamental constants are the Fine Structure constant, the Gravitational constant, the Weak Force, the Strong Force and the Ratio between the mass of protons and electrons.

. What scientists, what ATHEIST scientists call an “astonishing coincidence” or “a lucky accident” is the following list of facts.

. Prior to the Big Bang, the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism had to have been exactly as it was or else at 10 to -17 second after the start of the singularity, the necessary binding of helium -4, beryllium -8 and carbon -12 would not have occurred and life as we know it would not have appeared.

. The exact number and types of neutrinos at 1 second after the beginning of the Big Bang had to be in place or the expansion rate would have prohibited the formation of our universe.

. If the mass of a neutron were slightly increased by 1 part in 1,00000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000,0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000, then stable hydrogen burning stars would cease to exist.

. If the strong force were a long-range force (like electromagnetism or gravity) instead of a short range force that only acts between protons and neutrons in the nucleus, all matter would either instantaneously undergo nuclear fusion and explode or be sucked together forming a black hole.

Pretty lucky for us, huh, that all this just happened by chance? You sure wouldn’t want to think that maybe there was some intelligence behind this “amazing coincidence.” But that’s not all.

. If the Pauli-exclusion principle did not exist, all electrons would occupy the lowest atomic orbit, which would make complex chemical interactions impossible.

. If the quantization principle did not exist, there wouldn’t be any atomic orbits, electrons would be sucked into the nucleus and therefore no complex chemistry would be allowed.

. The gravitational constant must be EXACTLY 10 ^ 40 weaker than the Strong Nuclear Force or again, no us. For those that are interested, that’s ten thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion times weaker than the strong force.

Pretty lucky for us that it just happened to work out that way. I've been told that to suggest that it’s anything more than an amazing coincidence is jumping to conclusions.

A change of only 1 part in 10, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000 in the Gravitational constant as well as in the Weak Nuclear Force would prevent life from existing.

If the density of the universe and the speed of expansion had been off by one part in one hundred thousand million million, again, no life.

Remember, these values had to be put in prior to what is known as Planck time; that is, prior to 10 ^ - 43 second after the singularity.

How lucky do you feel so far?

The cosmological constant is what drives the inflation of the universe. It is tuned to 1 part in 10, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000,
0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000. Any variation greater than that in EITHER direction and - no universe.

Now, I mentioned this galaxy wide dartboard comparison. If the universe was an accident the values of these potential constants and quantities could potentially and theoretically fall anywhere within that area. The equation that I just gave you gives us a target within our galaxy wide dart board (get a picture of that) that is less than 2.5 centimetres in diameter. For us to exist, the values HAD to fall within that range.

Listen up now because here comes what atheists call the really lucky part. The amount of fine-tuning of the cosmological constant, one that we come upon, according to atheists, by accident and not by jumping to the conclusion of an intelligent designer, is like blindfolding yourself, spinning around ten times and then randomly firing a dart at our GALAXY wide dart board and hitting the target exactly in the centre of its 2.5 centimetre disk. Missing that target by any amount and - that’s right, no universe.

What I find sad and absolutely amazing is that if you’re an atheist, none of the above will be enough to convince you to consider Creator God as part of the equation. So let me use a different example.

The entropy per baryon that had to be “put in” PRIOR to Planck time is 1 part in 10 followed by 1,230 zeros. If that hadn’t been put in at the Big Bang our life supporting universe would not exist. This requires an extraordinarily precise arrangement of mass and energy. To hit this exactly right by accident, we would put on our blindfold, spin around ten times, and according to atheists, fire a dart randomly at the galaxy sized dart board and hit the exact CORRECT PROTON.

Let me put it in a slightly different manner. The distance from one edge of the Milky Way galaxy to the other edge is the potential distance or range for our constants and quantities. Travelling at the speed of light, that’s 100,000 years of travel.
. If the cosmological constant had varied any more than 2.5cms, no us, no life.
. If the entropy per baryon had varied any more than the width of ONE PROTON - no us, no life of any kind - No Universe!

And these aren’t even the most exquisite constants! Yet all of them (Dawkins would like you to think there are only six)HAD to be exactly as they are AT the Big Bang or no life. That is why these atheist scientists have said:

Arthur Eddington - “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look at it as frankly supernatural.”

Nobel prize winner Arno Penzias - “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole.”

Stephen Hawking - “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”

Physicist Freeman Dyson - ‘The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”

Anthony Flew - The fine tuning of the universe at every level is simply too perfect to be the result of chance. Flew’s lifelong commitment “to go where the evidence leads” compelled him to become a believer in God.

Of this particular bunch, only Anthony Flew had the integrity to go with the evidence. Only Anthony Flew doesn't need the approval of his peer group to feel ok about himself.

If, by this point your mind isn’t numb with the credulity and gullibility that atheists force themselves to live with, I just don’t know what it would take to get you to throw up your hands and give up. I mean, just how blind does a person have to be before s/he willingly stops demanding the right to drive the car? This is not a joking matter any more. Atheist scientists have discovered this information. They know it, but obviously maintaining their bias against Creator God is worth throwing away their integrity. It’s embarrassing. It’s shameful. It should be a crime for them to teach “The Universe As An Accident” to your children.

Still not impressed? Listen up. Remember, these constants and qualities are independent of and unrelated to each other. There's no natural reason for any one of them to be just as they are. So, as astronomical are the odds of any one of them being just right for a life sustaining universe, to find all of them being as they are in the same universe, by accident is beyond comprehension. To figure out those odds, you would take, say, the Weak Force constant of 1 in 10^100, add to that the constant of gravitational constant 1 in 10^120, which gives you 10 ^ 100 + 120 + . . . and so on for ALL of the 100 + constants and quantities.

Still not impressed? Science states that anything beyond 10 ^ 50 is the same as impossible. On the one hand Stephen Hawking has said “If all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the Earth were possible universes, and only one of those grains of sand was a universe that allowed for the existence of intelligent life, then that one grain of sand is the universe we inhabit.” Yet on the other hand we know that Hawking remains an atheist. In the face of this evidence, why would Hawking or any atheist for that matter continue to search for natural solutions? They have to. In order to maintain their dogmatic, definite, deliberate denial of God’s existence, atheists must believe that the impossible is possible.

And that is why atheists say that we’re really, really lucky to be here.

That is why atheists say all this is just an amazing coincidence.

That is why atheists say there is no evidence for Creator God

That is why atheists say that any one who suggests that Creator God is involved in this miracle of life is just jumping to conclusions.

2009-12-31T10:22:00.000-08:00

Ezekiel 34:11 - 17 - I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. I look after my sheep. I will rescue them. I will pasture them. I will tend them in a good pasture. I myself will tend my sheep. I will search for them, the lost and the injured and strengthen the weak. I will shepherd the flock with justice.

Guess What’s Wrong

2009-12-31T10:20:00.001-08:00

Guess what’s wrong with this statement.

“Natural sciences are completely evidence-based. Natural sciences demonstrate their conclusions only by appealing to that evidence. Evidence and evidence alone is what natural science uses to determine “truth.”

Anybody know what’s wrong with those statements? Is there anyone willing to admit that there IS something wrong with those statements? No, I didn’t think so.

“As a lover of truth, I am suspicious of strongly held beliefs that are unsupported by evidence.”

Anybody know who said that? Here’s a clue. He also said, “Perhaps as many as a billion planets in the universe host life.” Still don’t know? One last clue, “Once the vital ingredient - some kind of genetic molecule - is in place, true Darwinian natural selection can follow.”

“Once the vital ingredient is in place.” It cracks me up every time I hear that.

Of course our hero and mentor Dr. Richard Dawkins made those statements. Besides me, a greater hypocrite than Dawkins would be hard to find.

So, there’s this guy -

2009-12-31T09:36:00.000-08:00

My favorite group is Over the Rhine and my favorite song of theirs is “The Last Time I Saw Jesus” The first line of the song goes: The last time I saw Jesus, I was drinking Bloody Marys in the south. In a bar-room in New Orleans, rinsing out a bad taste in my mouth.”

There’s this guy in our congregation. Part of his story is, he remembers standing in the snow with a bottle of beer in his hand, “So drunk I could hardly stand.” And as he stood there in the cold, he was staring at a Church sign across the street that said, “Unless you be born again, you cannot see the kingdom of God.”

“I could not make sense of that verse so the next time I was sober I went to ask the Pastor what it meant.” And the rest, as they say, is history.

This guy is as precious as people come. Some think he’s mentally retarded. I think he just never had a proper education. He can read but didn't learn until in his late twenties. His childhood emotionally deprived.

. This guy takes steps daily to become spiritually, mentally, and emotionally clean.

. This guy meets with a small group, an accountability group on a regular basis with other guys who challenge each other toward truth and purity.

. This guy, regardless of victory or defeat is oriented toward his Lord and Saviour.

. This guy freely and openly admits his shortcomings and takes them to Jesus.

. This guy takes risks like asking - in Church - for prayer for a new job because he couldn’t support his family with the job he had - Two weeks later he had a new job with almost double the pay and benefits.

. This guy came to Jesus with nothing - absolutely nothing - no pretense - no education - no riches of any kind and today he gives away love and mercy and grace.

He is light and salt to the world. I want to be like this guy.

The last time I saw Jesus, I looked over my shoulder to the left and there he sat, with his wife and two children, dressed in t-shirt and jeans and so very in love with life. No pretending. Nothing fancy. Just humility and holiness and a longing to grow in love and purity.

Ya like hockey?

2009-12-30T09:42:00.000-08:00

I was sitting in Church last Sunday. I was in this weird head space where - this hasn’t happened for a long time - I had tears running down my cheeks. I was just completely overwhelmed by how blessed I am. I was thinking about my wonderful family, and wonderful friends, and a wonderful Pastor and a house and yard that are perfect for our needs and on and on. I just felt sooo blessed by my Creator who loves me.

So at the end of the service I’m just sitting there, drained - exhausted - and a guy leans over and says, “Ya like hockey?” and I say, “Ya.” And he says, “Your boys like hockey?” And I say, “Ya.” And he reaches into his pocket and gives me four tickets to the World Junior Hockey Championships that are happening just down the street from our place.

When I was thinking about all the ways in which I’m blessed? I’d forgotten about hockey. The tickets are for next Sunday and I don't know who's playing but - eh - hockey's hockey - right?

2009-12-30T08:19:00.001-08:00

“Darwinism is based on a prior commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the tower collapses.”
Phillip Johnson, “The Unravelling of Scientific Materialism,” 22

Peace!

2009-12-30T08:12:00.000-08:00

“Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called sons of God.” Matthew 5:9

“And God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.” I love that verse. Peacemakers go out of their way to heal the situation. It doesn’t matter that it isn’t fair. It doesn’t matter that the other person did wrong or even continues to do wrong. Reconciliation requires that someone do the hard thing and give peace to the other.

Of course, some might point out that we cannot give away what we do not ourselves possess. Hmm, good point. To make peace we must have peace, own peace, live peace, know peace.

“You don’t give a fuck about anybody, do you?” That line will stick with me till the day I die. Another lifetime ago, a co worker said that to me - with a tone of admiration if you can imagine.

Ah me, the pain of who I was, of who I am.

I’ve known violence. I’ve lived violence. I’ve loved violence.

While I’m a long, long way from who I want to be, need to be, this I know - Peace is not something manufactured. Nor, as the drug addicted wife abusing John Lennon once believed, is peace something that can be brought about by staying in bed for a long time.

. I now have peace because I received peace from the Author of peace.

. I now have peace because I am able to lean back into the warm and loving and protective arms of my Creator and Saviour.

. I now have peace because I know beyond all doubt that I can trust God in every area of my life.

. I now have peace because though I reside on earth, I am a citizen of heaven.

. I now have peace because I know that God will and does work in all circumstances for my good; the good of making me, little by little, more like Jesus.

What’s been broken, He restores. What’s been wounded, He heals.

. I now have peace NOT because I have it all figured out. I now have peace because I allowed my Lord and my Saviour Jesus the Christ to fill me with His peace.

“I lie down and sleep in peace, because you alone O Lord provide for my safety." Pslams

I’ve Got the Answer

2009-12-30T08:10:00.000-08:00

In the series I did on Intelligent Design I think it was Gorth who gave me some quotes from a guy who had all the answers. Scientists, he said, know how to figure it all out.

"What scientists actually postulate, and they postulate this with respect to every observable phenomenon in the universe, is that well defined and testable mechanisms are responsible."
Calilasseia

Can you imagine what it must be like for an atheist to think s/he has a real explanation for the beginning of life or the beginning of the universe but the explanation goes against everything we observe and know? (Snerk)

Sucks to be an atheist

2009-12-29T16:22:00.001-08:00

Micah 6:8 - He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

2009-12-29T16:20:00.000-08:00

Not one of these atheist origin of the universe mythologies is supported by current scientific evidence.

Not one of them is supported by anything other than undiluted speculation.

Yet each and every one of them is acceptable to atheists and they are acceptable for only one reason.

They avoid the need for a Creator.

We Are Sooo Far Behind

2009-12-29T09:11:00.000-08:00

This from CNN - Some guy was caught by North Korea as he tried to cross the boarder from China. His intent was saving Dear Leader’s imperiled soul for Jesus. Ok, cool. But here is the truly Sci-Fi wonder part. Listen:

“The state-run Korea Central News Agency said the man was taken into custody after entering North Korea from China on December 24 and was "now under investigation by a relevant organ."

Eeeew! I mean I’m impressed and everything but - Eeeew! What if it's a giant stomach? I say, "Confess before it digests you!!!"

Atheist Dogma

2009-12-28T22:45:00.000-08:00

I've said before that the atheist belief system certainly depends on faith and resembles a religion in terms of adhering to dogmatic beliefs. Richard Dawkins is one of the most dogmatic atheists currently on planet earth. So strident is his atheism that he’s called a “fundamentalist” in a pejorative sense even by other atheists. Now, when I use the term Dogma, I mean: Something held as an established opinion. Of course the main tenet of atheism is that there is no God. It may seem like a small point, but by that standard alone it is wrong to say that atheism holds no dogmatic beliefs. And if that were all to the atheist’s belief system then I suppose I should be writing about something else. But that isn’t all.

1)“Better by far to embrace the hard truth . . .”
Here Carl Sagan is instructing younger atheists what their attitude should be in the face of atheism’s hopelessness.

2)“We must develop expressions of awe and wonder regarding the workings of the Universe.” Carolyn Porco, Richard Dawkins.
This is now standard and expected fair when atheists are describing, to who ever will listen, what awesome individuals they are and how they will turn the next generation in to wonderful individuals as well.

3) All atheists must get out there and begin doing good works.
We’ve heard the now familiar call to all atheists to become good citizens. An example of this tenet can be found in the instruction for all atheists to donate blood during the World Day of Prayer. This demand that you become a good person is in contrast to the standard atheist attitude that was clearly sounded in a recent atheist blog when a young man, lamented, “Can’t I just fuck around and watch tv in the evening if I want to?”

4) No religion tells us what to do.
Only slaves feel enslaved and no one reacts negatively to rules, guidelines and authority more strongly than the immature, self-centred atheist. Simply hearing the word “God” used in a non negative manner makes atheists like Michael Newdow react like cockroaches scurrying from a freshly lit light bulb. Atheists feel stifled and imprisoned by the mere existence of religion.

The next six points of atheist dogma deal with one subject but are voiced in detailed point form because there is no room for misinterpretation in this part of the atheist belief system.

5) Nothing positive regarding God can be mentioned in the presence of children.
It is not science per se, not even evolution as such, but a special brand of anti-God-Darwinism that atheists want to be taught in the schools. A belief in God must be removed from ALL children’s minds. As Richard Dawkins preaches, “Faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the small-pox virus but harder to eradicate.” The real reason that atheists want the exclusive teaching of evolution in schools is not just that atheists see it as being scientific but that they deem it to be anti-religion. Dawkins again, “Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness.”

6) Teaching Christianity is harmful, even abusive to children.
Christopher Hitchens writes, “How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?” The atheist answer? Inculcate all children with atheist beliefs.

7) Christian Children are not the property of their parents.
Daniel Dennett, “How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents? Should [Christian parents] be free to impose their beliefs on their children?”

Again, the atheist answer is to impose atheist beliefs upon not just their children but upon everyone’s children.

8) Atheists know best what children need to learn.
Christopher Hitchens suggests that atheists become the defenders of the world’s children, “Parents don’t literally own their children . . . [Christian parents] ought to be held accountable by outsiders (read atheists, perhaps the drunken Hitchens himself) for their guardianship, which does imply that outsiders have a right to interfere.”

9) Christian parents have no right to teach their children about Jesus.
Psychologist Nicholas Humphrey, “ [Christian] Parents, have no god-given license to enculturate their children in whatever way they choose . . . to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma . . . or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith.”

While totally ignoring a Christian’s God-given mandate to raise up our children in the fear of the Lord, I’ve personally experienced this developing atheist dogma from an atheist blogger. His stated hope is that our children will be taken from us to keep them from being taught about Christianity. This of course implies the hope that someone else will raise our children and teach them the tenets of his faith.

10) Children must be taught a reverence for science.
Well, respect - yes, but reverence?

11) The beginning of the universe is the single exception to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
True, no atheist would dare to state h/her beliefs this way. Yet, this is exactly what modern atheists in the field of origins are proposing. I had some goof propose to me just last week that the Steady State still holds promise for fundy atheists. Atheist scientists continue to bring forth proposal after proposal that attempts to circumvent this law.

12) No Miracles!
While the universe came into being by a force that operated outside the Laws of Physics, and while this is a working definition of a miracle, in atheist dogma, No Miracles Are Allowed Or Possible. As Lee Smolin says, “Must all of our scientific understanding of the world really come down to a mythological intelligence . . . [that] wills matter into being? It seems to me that the only possible name for such an observer is God, and that the theory is to be criticized as being unlikely on these grounds.”

13) It is a given that humans would eventually evolve in conditions present on primordial earth.
Atheists believe that against literally impossible odds, it is no accident that our kind of life finds itself on earth.

14) Evolution is such a powerful force that life is now, even as we speak, coming into being on other planets and/or in other universes.

15) Material and natural reality is all that exists.

16) Science has proven that God cannot exist.
Atheist High Priest Dawkins is beginning to bend on this one as even he can no longer deny that the cause of the Big Bang, presents a strong case for a “Deist” type of God. Nevertheless, the majority of hardliners still hold that >

17) Because God cannot be discovered through scientific inquiry, God does not exist.
“Modern science directly implies that the world is organised strictly in accordance with deterministic principles of chance. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces rationally detectable.” William Provine.

18) Any knowledge that does not conform to materialism and naturalism will not be allowed into the discussion.
Isn’t that amazing? Atheist scientists actually want to live with an a priori rejection of evidence, if that evidence does not fit the atheist scientist’s world-view. And even if that unacceptable evidence leads to a resolution of a given problem, to the atheist mind, it’s better to do without a resolution to the problem. While remaining slaves to the thinking with which they were born, atheists dare to call themselves free-thinkers. Pure delusion.

19) Reason and scientific inquiry can tell us all that we need to know and all that we can know.

20) Atheists are smarter than anyone who believes in God.

21) There is no “I” to the human animal. We are a mass of cells and neurons that operate according to the Laws of Nature.

As atheist actor Woody Allen stated in his defence after it was discovered that he was having sex with his daughter, “That heart wants what it wants. Who can understand it?”

22) Death is the end.

23) There is no cosmic purpose.

24) There is no Divine justice or reward.

25) Free will is an illusion.

26) Evil and suffering prove that God does not exist.

27) Living by these Beliefs, Tenets and Dogma of the atheist faith is emancipating.

The following individual best describes today’s modern atheist:
S/He is a lonely, intrepid figure, deprived of cosmic hope, abandoned to h/his own wits, navigating h/her way through the heavens, pitting h/herself against the unknown, refusing to accept the tyrannical sovereignty of God, rebelling against the divine decree, and determined to build out of h/his own resources a rival empire devoted to happiness in the here and now.

This of course is Milton’s description of satan in “Paradise Lost.”

In closing, it may need to be explained that any given atheist might say, “I don’t agree that this or that point is dogmatic atheism.” So what? Show me a member of any religion who doesn’t claim the right to disagree on some points.