Monday, June 27, 2011
Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner,
but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God,
who has saved us and called us with a holy calling,
not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace
which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,
but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus,
who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,
Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me,
in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.
Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us,
the treasure which has been entrusted to you.
2 Timothy 1:8-14
Do you believe in the fundamentals of the Christian faith?
Christianity in America has gone through a transition during the past hundred years that for the most part has not furthered the cause of Christ in a positive way. I realize that this is my conclusion and you might have another view, but I will make my case and you be the judge.
The first real modern challenge to Biblical Christianity was delivered by Charles Briggs who had studied Higher Criticism also known as the Historical-Critical method which was a development of the German academy that he learned while studying in Germany. His first address was given in 1876. This led to a series of responses and counter-responses between Briggs and the Princeton theologians in the pages of The Presbyterian Review. They contended that Briggs was a heretic.
In his teaching Briggs contended that Higher Criticism had proven that much that was believed about the Bible was not true. Among the things that he stated were that the Scriptures as a whole are riddled with errors, and that the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy taught at Princeton Theological Seminary "is a ghost of modern evangelicalism to frighten children." Not only is the Westminster Confession wrong, but the very foundation of the Confession, the Bible, could not be used to create theological absolutes. This address led to widespread outrage which led to an overwhelming vote by the general assembly to veto Briggs appointment. The church then affirmed the belief that the bible is without error. Briggs was ruled a heretic and defrocked, although shortly thereafter, Briggs was ordained an Episcopal priest. Without question this teaching was a lie of the enemies of Christ then and it is a lie from those who promote these false statements today.
The dismissal by the Presbytery of Briggs led to a period of relative peace. Then in 1909 the same debate reappeared with the issue of whether or not to ordain three men who refused to agree with the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus. The men did not deny the virgin birth; they just said that they were not prepared to affirm it. The majority eventually ordained the men; but the minority challenged the decision which resulted in ongoing conflict. To resolve the conflict, church leaders reached a compromise with the three men but at the same time adopted a declaration that stated that five fundamental doctrines were “necessary and essential” to the Christian faith:
The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
The virgin birth of Christ.
The belief that Christ's death was an atonement for sin.
The bodily resurrection of Christ.
The historical reality of Christ's miracles.
These five propositions would become known to history as the "Five Fundamentals" and by the late 1910s, theological conservatives rallying around the Five Fundamentals came to be known as "fundamentalists." As we know over the years, the term fundamentalist has taken on a negative connotation and is often assigned to those considered imbalanced religious fanatics. There has been a relentless and ongoing attack on conservative Christians from the mainstream media and the elitist intellectual establishment. But in reality, Christian fundamentalists are at the heart of the founding of America and built many of the most influential and prestigious universities in America. I am proud to claim to be a fundamentalist in the tradition of these brave Christians who stood for Christ and His Word in the early days of America built upon the truths of Christianity.
In 1922 a liberal spokesman named Harry Fosdick delivered a sermon at the First Presbyterian Church, New York that set the stage for a battle over this issue within Christianity that continues to this day. This battle is best known as the “Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy.” The sermon pointed out differences between liberal and conservative Christians, most of which remain today. In this sermon, Fosdick presented the liberals in both the Presbyterian and Baptist denominations as sincere evangelical Christians who were struggling to reconcile new discoveries in history, science, and religion with the Christian faith.
Fundamentalists, on the other hand, were cast as intolerant conservatives who refused to deal with these new discoveries and had arbitrarily drawn the line as to what was off limits in religious discussion. The end result is mainline liberal Christianity on one side and evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity on the other side. The primary battlefield was Princeton Theological University which had been founded by Christians who would become known as Fundamentalists. Many people, Fosdick argued; "simply found it impossible to accept the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, or the literal second coming of Christ in the light of modern science. Given the different points of view within the church, only tolerance and liberty could allow for these different perspectives to co-exist in the church."
It is a given as Fosdick argued, that many people simply find it impossible to accept the teaching of God's Word in light of their feelings, lust, and pride; but "how dare they call their views Christian thought or Chrisatianity" and why would any Christian allow this babble, this rejection of Jesus Christ, His miracles, and the perversion of His Word to poison the truth, and be taught in seminaries and churches as the truth throughout America. These deniers of Christ and His Word are atheists, not Christians. That false belief is their right, but to twist it into Christian thought is an abortion of truth. They have grievously infected the gospel. This teaching is heresy and doctrines of the evil one.
John D. Rockefeller Jr. was strongly involved in the Social Gospel movement which is a Protestant Christian intellectual movement. The movement applied Christian ethics to social problems, especially social justice, inequality, liquor, crime, racial tensions, slums, bad hygiene, child labor, weak labor unions, poor schools, and the danger of war. Theologically, the Social Gospel leaders were overwhelmingly post-millennialist. That is because they believed the Second Coming could not happen until humankind rid itself of social evils by human effort. Social Gospel leaders were predominantly associated with the liberal wing of the Progressive Movement and most were theologically liberal. The views of the social gospel liberal intellectuals were closely aligned with the Fosdick Modernist movement. This left the fundamentalists with a strongly financed opposition to their stand on the Truth of God’s Word.
The problem was explained well by conservative Clarence E. Macartney, pastor of Arch Street Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, when he responded to Fosdick with a sermon of his own, entitled "Shall Unbelief Win?" which was quickly published in a pamphlet. He argued that liberalism had been progressively "secularizing" the church and, if left unchecked would lead to "a Christianity of opinions and principles and good purposes, but Christianity without worship, without God, and without Jesus Christ." This is the key point I wanted to make with this post.
The battle faced by those fundamentalists over a hundred years ago is the same battle every Biblically minded Christian faces today. A Christianity that denies the virgin birth, the substitutionary death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for our sins is just another man-made religion. I want none of that. A Christianity that denies the Creator, and the Truth of God’s Word is no Christianity at all. Will a social gospel that might help cure the ills of mankind be beneficial in a number of ways? … you bet. Is this social gospel leading people to Christ as Savior or helping people live more comfortably? Are the ideas that reach out to, and appeal to people with many varying beliefs going to be popular? … absolutely. But it is not the Good News that Jesus Christ brought for the salvation of mankind 2000 years ago on the cross at Calvary.
This is the question we must all ask ourselves. Where do you stand on these fundamentals? Do you believe in ...
The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
The virgin birth of Christ.
The belief that Christ's death was an atonement for sin.
The bodily resurrection of Christ.
The historical reality of Christ's miracles.
Can we stand on God’s Word as the source of our healing, hope, strength, power, courage, strength, and eternal salvation? Is God omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent? Did God create all things? Will Jesus return in the clouds and rapture his followers to be with Him in Heaven for eternity? Is there anything we can ever do to separate ourselves from the love of Christ? Is our salvation certain and secure? Does Jesus wish for all to spend eternity with Him in heaven? Is there only one way to receive eternal Life? Can we stand on His promises?
Is God’s Word the Eternal Truth that we can stand upon regardless of feelings, human logic, and the teachings of men? Or is the Bible riddled with errors, and a ghost of the Truth used to frighten children? Did Jesus lie to us, or did He tell us the truth?
“Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. “In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. “If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. “And you know the way where I am going.” Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. John 14:1-6
God bless you my friends, Bob
Copyright: Robert West 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. Genesis 1:1-9
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Genesis 1:24-27
Do you believe in miracles?
This is the question that everyone must inevitably answer … sooner or later. The verses quoted above are miracles. There is no other way to explain them. One cannot deny these truths and call themselves a Christian. Jesus birth, death, and resurrection were miracles. Do you believe Jesus walked on water, raised the dead, and created the water He walked upon? Did Jesus mere presence calm the storm? There are valid reasons why these truths should not be taught in public school science classes. They are miracles. They are Truth, but miraculous spiritual Truth … to believe in them requires a belief in Jesus Christ, the God of all creation.
God spoke creation into existence.
What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Here is the answer: God! ……… He is omnipresent.
God created the chicken.
In the beginning God was there. GOD is where all of these questions end.
If scientists find evidence that confirms these miracles, what should science do with this evidence? Should it be considered, or automatically disregarded as contrary to naturalistic evolution, the belief that atheistic scientists have chosen to adopt as their philosophy or religion.
It has been concluded by scientists that there are only two explanations for the fact that life exists: creation or evolution. They have rejected creation as a miraculous fantasy of the spiritually deluded, and scientifically ignorant. Therefore; evolution must be true by default, they conclude. There is no other option. But there is a dilemma that comes with this false logic. It has also been concluded by scientists that for Darwinian evolution to be true, it would require a far bigger miracle than creation. And if Darwinian evolution is in fact scientifically un-provable, and mathematically impossible; therefore to believe in evolution is in reality, a form of religion which means to teach evolution should be banned from our public schools.
The truth is that life is a miracle, you can believe one way or the other … but both beliefs are miraculous and therefore each belief is religious and philosophical. This is what I will demonstrate here today.
Now it is clear that the religion of Christianity teaches that in order to be a follower of Christ, we must accept these miracles.
But why do I contend that if true, evolution would be an even bigger miracle that Creation? Because without God, untold trillions of miraculous accidents needed to happen over an endless period of time.
I contend evolution leads to total chaos. Read this: "Here is a mathematical equation for how this all began: If 0=+1+(-1)then something which is 0 might just as well become 1 and -1. Perhaps in an infinite sea of nothingness, globs of positive and negative energy in equal-sized pairs are constantly forming, and after passing through evolutionary changes, combining once more and vanishing. We are in one of those globs in the period of time between nothing and nothing, and wondering about it."1
These questions are complex beyond our imagination but I will attempt to simplify to avoid scientific boredom. In his article, “The Queen of Science Examines the King of Fools” David Rodabaugh PH.D and Professor of Mathematics at the University of Missouri shows that given the amount of time evolutionists claim is necessary, the probability that a simple living organism could be produced by mutations “is so small as to constitute a scientific impossibility” --- the chance that it could have happened “anywhere in the universe … is less than 1 in 10 with 2,999,942 zeros after it. This figure is terminal to evolution.2 According to the French expert on probability, Emil Borel, who explains the “single law of chance” as follows: (1 chance in 10 with 50 zeros) this is the point beyond which things never occur.3 To better understand the size of 10 with 50 zeros; keep in mind that one trillion equals 10 with twelve zeros. A chance of 1 in 10 with 50 zeros is an unimaginable number equal to one chance in 100 trillion, trillion, trillion … trillion. Now try to even comprehend 1 in 10 with 2,999,942 zeros. Remember we are only trying to consider the amount of time evolutionists claim is necessary for the miracle of evolution to have occurred in one simple mutation. This number is beyond impossible from both a mathematical and scientific analysis. This equation does not consider the probability of the actual miracles beyond a simple mutation.
Evolutionary science is clearly beyond bazaar.
If this is true, why do scientists ignore these facts and promote evolution as fact?
I will refer to Dr. George Wald the esteemed evolutionist and Nobel Prize winning Zoologist to answer this question. “The reasonable view was to believe in Spontaneous Generation (SG); the only other alternative, is to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in Spontaneous Generation as a philosophical necessity … Most modern biologists, having viewed with satisfaction the downfall of the Spontaneous Generation hypothesis, are yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, and are as a result left with nothing.” Dr. Wald goes on to conclude that the SG of a living organism was impossible, "but even so, I choose to believe that SG occurred because after all, here we are.”4 Spontaneous Generation (SG) defined: abiogenesis: hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter. Evolutionists say time plus chance resulted in life. Time has become a deity of sorts. Time is the miracle in Dr. Wald’s naturalistic evolutionary belief system, but unfortunately time cannot turn an apple into a helicopter, or a frog into a prince. On the other hand, with God, the Creator, all things are possible.
It takes faith beyond imagination to believe in Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism, as well. Dr. George Bahnsen further explains evolution's dilemma: “Evolution is not a testable scientific hypothesis at all, but rather a philosophical paradigm preferred by some men to discredit the Biblical doctrine of creation.”5
Evolution is philosophically comfortable for the world of naturalistic materialists who are for the most part confessing atheists. The idea of creation by God or any other intelligent designer of any kind is totally unacceptable to them in any form, regardless of evidence. Creating one’s own ethical and spiritual values is far more appealing to atheists and naturalists.
Evolutionist Michael Ruse adds: “I must point out that orthodox scientists loathe scientific creationism and do all in their power to oppose it”6 Please note his use of the word "orthodox." I don't think I have seen or heard "orthodox" used beyond describing very religious Jews. Does this imply that we are referring to scientists who approach their naturalistic beliefs with a deeply religious fervor?
Evolutionist Colin Patterson at the American Museum of Natural History asked his audience one simple but key question which made clear his doubts about much of what has been thought to be secure knowledge about the process of evolution as follows: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing … that is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time but eventually one person said, “I do know one thing---it ought not to be taught in high school.”7
And here is another of my favorites: Ken Hsu, the evolutionist professor at the Geological Institute in Zurich and former President of the International Association of Sedimentologists writes “we have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy.
It’s about time we cry: “The Emperor has no clothes.”8
What about all of the evidence for evolution? One of the supposed greatest discoveries supporting the idea that life could evolve from non-life in the past century was a simple experiment performed by Dr. Stanley Miller. The scientist placed methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in a glass container with boiling water. Then he zapped it with a spark-discharge device to stimulate the lightning that would strike the early earth’s atmosphere (supposedly containing these elements). In a few days, amino acids were formed, the building blocks of proteins, part of the basic stuff of life. Supposedly, these lightning-induced compounds would subsequently evolve upward in the primitive oceans. The reaction to this experiment was worldwide. The scientific world quickly grasped this materialistic straw in order to avoid any theistic considerations. World renowned Astronomer Carl Sagan and author of the famous book Cosmos and the TV series as well called Dr. Millers experiment “the single most significant step in convincing many scientists that life is likely be abundant in the cosmos”9 Chemist William Day described it as “An experiment that broke the logjam” to show that the first step in the origin of life was not a chance event, but one that had been inevitable.”10
"Dr. Miller's experiment was refuted by Creationist Chemist Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, who has three Doctorates. Dr. Wilder-Smith explained; “that the original Miller experiment that is so often stated as evidence that life could arise spontaneously does no such thing. He further explains that Miller did not take into account the fact the supposed proof amino acids would actually be broken down by the excess water in the ocean, and therefore that the ocean is the least likely place that life could originate. Further, he explains the fact that the preferences of scientists in general for the philosophy of naturalism or materialism is the real reason abiogenesis is accepted … not scientific data.”
"Dr. Wilder-Smith then proceeds to explain Chirality. A scientific reality that would effectively deliver these supposed miracle amino acids: DOA! And rendering the false premise of abiogenesis and evolution that was generally taken for granted by science; hopelessly invalid. This conclusion is categorical and absolute, and cannot be changed by special conditions. Unfortunately science books continue to promote this false teaching as if it provides the last link in the chain of evidence for "chance biogenesis." To claim that Miller has provided the first step for spontaneous biogenesis involves a willful misleading of the uninformed general public in the interests of biased materialistic philosophy."11
Like I have said previously, I have a thousand of these quotes and could go on and on … so why do so many esteemed and prominent scientists hold to what they know to be false science? A key tactic is to promote the deception that all credible science is in agreement on evolution. That is clearly a deliberate lie. It has simply become their philosophy and/or religion. It is the basis or core of their belief system. They have accepted naturalistic evolution by faith.
The point is that the existence of mankind---or of living things generally isn’t just one miracle, it is a succession of endless miracles. Every combination of factors to produce the simplest mechanism for evolution to occur would require countless more miracles. To teach otherwise is false science. This premise of Darwinian evolution is nothing more that naturalistic materialism presented as science in a way devised to rebuke the Creator of all things.
The false religion of evolution should not be taught in public schools. It is leading the world away from the Creator of all things.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, Romans 1:20-22
God bless you my friends, Bob
Copyright: Robert West 2011
Highly recommended: Primary Reference: Darwin's Leap Of Faith, John Ankerberg and John Weldon
1. Isaac Asimov "What is Beyond the Universe?" Science digest, April 1971 p.69 in Heeren, show me God p.118
2. David J. Rodabaugh, "The Queen of Science Examines the King of Fools" Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1975 p.14
3. James Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible? Zondervan 1973 p.260
4. R. Clyde McCone, Three Levels of Anthropological Objection to Evolution," in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, march 1973, p.208
5. Greg Bahnsen in The Challenge of Design p.87
6. Karl Popper, Unended Quests: An Intellectual Autobiography p 168-169
7. Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin On Trial InterVarsity, 1991 p.10
8. Hsu, reply Geology, Vol 14, pp.532-34 (1986) in Bird Vol. 2, p.516
9. Ankerberg/Weldon, Darwin's Leap of Faith pg. 171-74
10.William L. Bradley/Charles Thaxton, "Information and the Origin of Life" in Moreland Creation hypothesis pp. 173-74
11.Ankerberg/Weldon, Darwin's Leap of Faith pg. 171-74
Monday, June 20, 2011
He who walks with wise men will be wise,
But the companion of fools will suffer harm.
He who withholds his rod hates his son,
But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.
Liberals continue to baffle me.
On one hand, they demand to reserve the absolute right to kill their unborn children anytime it becomes an inconvenience.
On the other hand, a few weeks later as soon as that baby is born they immediately want to strip you of your rights as a parent and want to dictate every part of your parenting life…from circumcision to discipline.
Spanker? You Might Get The Clanker!
written by Liberty Juice.com
A new story straight out of my home state of Texas set my blood to the boiling point as a parent who believes that there is a cataclysmic difference between child abuse and a well-deserved, appropriately placed spanking.
Rosalina Gonzales had pleaded guilty to a felony charge of injury to a child for what prosecutors had described as a “pretty simple, straightforward spanking case.” They noted she didn’t use a belt or leave any bruises, just some red marks.
Raise your hand, anyone, if you’ve ever had some well deserved red marks on your hiney placed there by a loving mother and father intent on raising a productive member of society? (My hand is straight up in the air.) I personally feared every time my mom whipped the hairbrush out of her purse or I heard my dad say, “When we get home, you are to meet me in your bedroom.” I knew I had crossed the line and would soon be getting my comeuppance. However, it was always done in love and even at the height of that discipline as a young child, I knew that.
A judge in Corpus Christi, Texas had some harsh words for a mother charged with spanking her own child before sentencing her to probation.
“You don’t spank children today,” said Judge Jose Longoria. “In the old days, maybe we got spanked, but there was a different quarrel. You don’t spank children.”
Rosalina Gonzales had pleaded guilty to a felony charge of injury to a child for what prosecutors had described as a “pretty simple, straightforward spanking case.” They noted she didn’t use a belt or leave any bruises, just some red marks.As part of the plea deal, Gonzales will serve five years probation, during which time she’ll have to take parenting classes, follow CPS guidelines, and make a $50 payment to the Children’s Advocacy Center.
Longaria needs a lesson straight from the heart of Texas that can hopefully be taught through the next judicial election. And maybe a spanking as well. Via CBN News:
The Texas Attorney General’s office declined to comment Wednesday on the legality of spanking when contacted by several media organizations. However, the attorney general’s website has the following information posted under the title Is “Spanking OK?”
“Texas law allows the use of force, but not deadly force, against a child by the child’s parent, guardian, or other person who is acting in loco parentis. Most parents do, in fact, use corporal punishment at least occasionally, and most do not, in fact, consider it abusive. Experts disagree about the advisability of ever spanking a child. Some say that, combined with other methods of discipline, mild spanking of a small child is harmless and effective. Others claim that other methods of discipline work as well as spanking or better, and that spanking is not necessary…”
It looks very clearly to me that this judge has overstepped his boundaries as Texas allows spankings. Perhaps this judge should spend some time over at the Juvenile Courts and see what happens when there is a lack of good, solid discipline in a home; the same court which now holds parents responsible for the child’s actions.
It is my understanding that Judge Longoria is up for re-election in 2012. Hopefully this will be the noodle that sticks on the wall and everyone remembers this incident when it is time to vote!
Reference: LibertyJuice.com ; Spanker, You might Get the Clanker June 20, 2011
America is about to fall of the edge of a cliff. The philosophy that brings us to the no spanking conclusion is clearly anti-God. This is the aim of Cultural Marxism read here. (Whatever God's Word teaches is false and the opposite is true.) The verse above is quite clear "He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently." I would say that the judge above is in direct violation of our freedom of religion. He has a philosophy that is grounded in the teaching of the world. What right does the state have to rule against this woman.
Years ago, when we entered our daughters into the local Christian School, they asked my wife and I to sign an authorization to allow for the discipline of our children. We asked what this entailed and the principal explained that in extreme circumstances the school administered spankings with a paddle. We hesitatingly agreed to allow corporal punishment, based upon the above verse.
On a personal I only recall a few times that I received a spanking, but I can assure you that my fear of discipline played a key roll in my obeying my parents. we all have a different experience as children and raising our children. Please share your words of wisdom on this issue ... below.
And sadly some children are sadistically and sexually abused. The practices of Islam and other false beliefs bring horror stories to my mind. What should the governments role be in the area of discipline?
My personal opinion is that parents are responsible to train up their children. This is not the governments responsibility. If parents abuse their children, they should be prosecuted according to our laws; but a spanking is not child abuse. For Christians the verse is clear to not discipline your children is to hate them, because you are not training them in the difference between right and wrong. On the other hand to discipline our children is to love them.
On a personal parenting level, I disciplined my daughters but I never spanked them. For a large part of that time I was not a Christian. I am convinced that I did not do my daughters any favors. I have the greatest respect for some young parents I know, as I watch them now discipline their children as they train them up to be loving citizens. Others follow the psychology of the judge in the story above and the result is spoiled, self centered, selfish unloving children. We can never go wrong when we follow God's Truth.
And we must keep in mind ... the companion of fools suffers much harm.
But always remember the best training of all is the Word of God.
You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6“These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. 7“You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. 8“You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. 9“You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. Deuteronomy 6:5-9
God bless you my friends, Bob
Copyright: Robert West 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth …
God created man in His own image,
in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them. Genesis 1:1-27
All flesh is not the same flesh:
but there is one kind of flesh of men,
another flesh of beasts,
another of fishes,
and another of birds.
There are also celestial bodies and bodies terrestrial:
but the glory of the celestial is one,
and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
1 Corinthians 15:39-40
Have you ever wondered why most people who believe in creationism
have difficulty defending their beliefs? Well, let’s talk about that.
There are a number of obvious reasons that cause believers to remain silent. The cards have been stacked against us by the enemies of the Creator. Once the false theory of evolution gained the upper hand by appealing to mens ignorance, lust, and pride; the enemies of God were not likely to allow contrary evidence. From the evolutionary viewpoint, the most effective responses to Creation are not evidence for evolution which is not available; but rather attack; attack; attack. Creationism is ignorant, evolution is scientific; teaching creation is teaching religion: a perceived church/state violation; and scientists who present a case against evolution, or for intelligent design are ridiculed, banished, and ostracized. These methods have worked so well that we now have an entire adult population that has been indoctrinated from their youth with the false teaching of evolution as fact. This leaves many confused with God's Word, and unprepared to defend The truth.
As a Biblical Christian, the verses above are accepted by me literally, by faith. Although there is evidence of this truth everywhere, unlike scientists, I do not need to prove what I believe. But the fact is that evolution is a highly preposterous theory that has not and cannot be proven scientifically. And furthermore I will contend here that atheistic religious beliefs were foundational in developing the theory. It is important to note that non-Christian scientists have presented a very compelling theory of intelligent design. Of course, most atheistic naturalist scientists are more intent on rebuking creation that they are with determining the truth scientifically. If not, why are they afraid to consider alternative theories? The answer to this question is simple, the alternative: a Creator is just not something they are willing to even remotely consider, regardless of any evidence presented; alternative theories; or evidence to the contrary regarding Darwinian evolution.
I realize Creation falls on deaf ears to the atheistic mentality ... but what about Christians who have accepted the lie? And how do we protect our children? And what about those who are seeking Christ the Savior? This is a major barrier for many.
Let’s look again at what God’s Word teaches.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth … God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” This statement is clear. It cannot be misunderstood. There is no interpretation or explanation needed. Theistic evolution is also foolishness … in that it is only an attempt to pander to evolution, the false wisdom of men.
God in response to evolution spoke back to us in advance through the apostle Paul. He gave us additional information here. Men are different than animals … men are different than fish … men are different from birds. They all have different flesh. That is why men cannot procreate with an animal of any kind. Men have bodies that are both celestial and terrestrial. A terrestrial body is an earthly body; and a celestial body is a heavenly body. This is contrary to evolution. We cannot accept both teachings. One is true, and the other is false. Either/ Or ... not both. No credible evidence has ever, or will ever be produced to prove God’s Word to be untrue. How can I say this with confidence? Because God’s Word is Truth, and it is clearly stated above. The only evidence I need is: God’s Word.
But what about evolution, what about the theory of evolution taught in our schools, hasn’t evolution been proven … you ask? NO! I say that evolution is based upon false logic, and outright animosity towards God and Biblical Creation were at the heart of Darwin’s theory, from its foundation, and the contempt for God continues to this day. Don’t misunderstand me though. Modern science has made many great discoveries in the past 200 years and in many cases evolutionary thinking played a key role in these discoveries, but that is not proof that men have evolved from mud; to a slug; to a monkey; and to a man. That is an absurd LIE.
I want you to try something now that I think will for many of you, prove my point. I want you to watch this short video clip. Watch this NOW. I realize it is a different language and not that appealing but be patient ... read the words through the clip. Now do you really think that the brain that created the technology that created this clip, and your eyes, and your ears that watched and listened; and that gave this boy the ability to put those words together in song; and at the same time controls your emotions to the point that you may have been moved to tears when you watched; evolved from mud to a slug to an ape to a man? Did your emotions, eyes, ears, logic, intelligence, and feelings and your brain really evolve from nothing? This boy is not about the survival of the fittest, but rather the weakest; a living testimony to the hearts and minds of men. Now look at the picture of the dirty little mud fish slug above ... now do you really believe that we evolved from that stupid slug or something much less developed??
Now back to the question in my previous post. “If you could talk to Satan, would he want you to believe in evolution … or Creation?” The answer to that one is obvious. Here are some questions about Darwin’s motivation. Was his theory spiritually motivated? Did he describe his work from a spiritual perspective? Cambridge Professor, Dr. Robert Clark explains that Darwin referred to evolution as “the devil’s gospel.”1 Darwin's perspective couldn't get much more spiritual, anti-God, anti-creation, or anti-Bible than that.
Darwin was dealing with the guilt of the conclusion in his mind that not only did he banish God from his life, but from the entire universe as well. Darwin believed he had killed God for everyone. His life was a long attempt to escape from the church, and escape from God. As a result, Darwin adopted a philosophy consistent with the rejection of God known as logical positivism which taught that only science, mathematics, and logic were meaningful for understanding facts and that religion, ethics, and metaphysics were meaningless. Once he accepted this philosophy, Darwin was hardly unbiased in his scientific methodology.2
Most people are not aware that when first published, Origin of Species was for the most part rejected by the scientific community which almost universally held to a belief in divine creation. “Darwin’s friend and supporter T.H. Huxley described Darwin’s dilemma as follows: “The supporters of Mr. Darwin’s views were numerically, extremely insignificant. There is not the slightest doubt that if a general council of the church scientific had been held at that time, we would have been condemned by an overwhelming majority.”3
Professor Marvin Lubenow expands upon the state of Darwin’s religious attitudes and motivations when he quotes from Neal Gillespie’s classic writing: “Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation.” "Gillespie notes that Darwin’s purpose was not just to establish the concept of evolution. Darwin’s master accomplishment was to convince the scientific world that it was unscientific to believe in supernatural causation. His purpose was to “ungod” the universe. Darwin was a positivist. He convinced scientists that it was unscientific to deal with God or creation in any way. To be scientific, they must study the world as if God did not exist … Keep in mind, Darwin was not an atheist. He did not exterminate God. He just evicted God from the universe which God had created. With God out of the picture, evolution fell into place rather easily, since evolution seemed to be the only other viable alternative. Evolution was not an attack against theism, but rather a specific attack against the God of the Bible. Obviously atheists are naturally evolutionists, but evolution is as comfortable with theism as it is with atheism. An evolutionist is free to choose any god he wishes, as long as it is not the God of the Bible. The gods allowed by evolution are private, subjective, and artificial. They make no absolute or ethical demands. On the other hand, the god of the Bible is the Creator, Sustainer, Savior, and Judge. All are responsible to Him. He has an agenda that conflicts with that of sinful humans. Evolution was originally designed as a specific attack against the god of the Bible, and it remains so to this day. While Theistic Evolutionists seem blind to this fact, the secular world sees it very clearly."4
Modern scientists face the same dilemma as Darwin and they follow the same formula he established. Science is all powerful and the only knowledge that is legitimate to them comes from science, mathematics, and their teachings, even if they make it up. To say they are arrogant would probably be received as a compliment by many. Our modern day version of this application of arrogance is the recent unscientific promotion of the premise that "man caused global warming" will destroy the world as we know it in the next 100 years. Even after it has most recently been demonstrated foolishness and outright deception, some still cling to it as established fact and are ready to surrender their freedom and way of life for the false cause.
Just yesterday I heard an advocate of global warming argue that the premise was only misnamed global warming but now the name has been transformed by the enlightened to a new term: “climate change” and she contended that the best thing we can all do is become vegans or vegetarians. Not eating meat apparently speaks to the environmentalists twisted goals and logic. Connecting the dots from vegan to climate change is just one more loony left wing premise. There is nothing wrong with a going on a vegetable diet, as my doctor has suggested for me, but these tactics are dishonest and criminal. Even Christian churches have fallen for this idiocy as evidenced by Saddleback Churche's vegetarian play on Biblical words "The Daniel Plan." Isn’t the term “climate change” more all-encompassing and convenient than global warming? No more need to manipulate statistics and create false reports anymore. Whatever happens … climate change describes the supposed looming disaster that always leads us (the unenlightened) to their desired end … that being: whatever the more highly evolved determine to be best for all of us ... and of course the funding of their grants to research their latest tangent.
For these same scientists, evolution is accepted as a philosophical necessity more than a scientific conviction. Dr. Clark Pinnock points this out when he says: “The reason evolution is believed and taught as a fact is not due to the evidence for it, but rather due to the need for it.”5 Dr. Greg Bahnsen agrees: “Evolution is not a testable scientific hypothesis at all, but rather a philosophical paradigm preferred by some men to discredit the biblical doctrine of Creation."6 Dr. George Wald, the Nobel Prize winning biologist at Harvard agrees: “The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative was to believe in a single primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a philosophical necessity … Most modern biologists, having viewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, are yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.”7
The grandson of “Darwin’s bulldog” Thomas Henry Huxley; the famous novelist Aldous Huxley openly explains the motivation of these men in his book "Ends and Means" ... "I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently I assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficultly to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. Most ignorance is invincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to know. And the Philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in a way they find most advantageous to themselves. For myself, as no doubt, for most of my contemporaries also, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. This liberation is political, economic, and sexual; and like many other modern materialists I found evolutionary belief quite satisfying.”8
So in closing, why do you think these men were so intent on discrediting Creation, and Jesus Christ the God of the Bible? I am convinced that the god of this world who has blinded the minds of the unbelieving was guiding them. Since Darwin referred to Evolution as: “the devil’s gospel” … I would contend that Darwin was in fact Satan’s advocate, or a sort of scientific antichrist.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened … professing to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:18-22
God Bless you my friends, Bob
Copyright: Robert West 2011
1. Clark and Bales, Why Scientists Accept Evolution p.45
2. Ankerberg and Weldon, Darwin’s Leap of Faith, p. 127
3. Robert E. D. Clark, Darwin; Before and After, p. 62
4. Dr. Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, p. 187-189
5. Clark Pennock, Set Forth Your Case p. 38
6. Greg Bahnsen, The Challenge of Design p. 87
7. R. Clyde McCone, Three Levels of Anthropological Objection to Evolution, Creation Research society Quarterly, March 1973, p. 208
8. M Bowden, The Rise of Evolution Fraud (An Exposure of its Roots) p. 216,218
Monday, June 13, 2011
Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we have received mercy,
we do not lose heart But we have renounced the hidden things of shame,
not walking in craftiness or handling the Word of God deceitfully,
but by manifestation of the Truth
commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God,
but even if our gospel is veiled to those who are perishing,
whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe,
lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,
who is the image of God, should shine on them. 2 Corinthians 4:1-4
We are engaged in an ongoing war for the hearts and minds of men.
My previous post, The Same Old Lie clearly demonstrates the never-ending reality of this war.
It began in the garden and our enemy Satan is still applying these same tactics in his efforts to deceive us today.
What were those tactics? Satan is described as more cunning than all others. How did he apply his cunning abilities here? Well first Satan asks Eve a loaded opening question. This is a tactic used to control the conversation. Everyone in sales knows the value of asking questions. But when a question is asked where the reply is clearly known … additional power is achieved. Similar to an expert chess player, one is able to plan the following answers and questions in advance. Here is how it works: “and he said to the woman, “has God indeed said, ‘you shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” The question begs for the EXPECTED response Eve gave: “we may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God has said; ’You shall not eat of it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.” Genesis 3:1-6
The devil’s cunning plan was to manipulate the conversation to the point where he could say: God lies. His words are not truth. “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Rather than simply state his case, Satan delivered it to Eve smoothly, in the natural course of conversation. One can only imagine his subtleties and voice inflections. He appealed to the lust of her flesh, the lust of her eyes, and her pride. This clever line resulted in the fall of man and it has continually deceived billions of men since that first encounter. It works so well that the evil one tried it on Jesus as well. Jesus simply rebuked the evil one with God’s Word, and Satan departed … defeated by the eternal Truth and the Creator of all things. Matthew 4:1-11
Once we receive Christ, how is it that we can still be in danger? Well, remember the wording of my questions to the Christian in our online exchange. My question was regarding the teaching of evolution in our public schools in light of a specific teaching of the apostle Paul: “all flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds” 1 Corinthians 15:39. If this verse is Truth, evolution is a lie. If the other way around, God’s Word is a lie and our faith is placed foolishly on God’s Word and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Should we teach evolution to our children; I asked? His choice was clear: Gods Word; or the teaching of men. So far, he has chosen to follow the teachings of men and has failed the test. All of us make similar choices every day, and sadly we often follow feelings, logic, and the wisdom of men; rather than the revealed Truth and Promises of our Lord.
Why is this so important? Because … we are in the midst of a war for the hearts and minds of men. The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving and these humanists and atheists are the same ones who have established their false religion: evolution, as the foundation of our public educational system. I would assume that for all who believe in God that this would be a most important question. How does God want us to train up our children? Does he want us to lead them into a diametrically opposed contradiction to His Truth and our spiritual belief system? As Christians, we have given our hearts to Christ. But clearly for many, the deception is firmly planted in their minds as truth. We do not want to be unwittingly deceived by the cunning words and tactics of the god of this age who has blinded minds of the unbelieving. To be deceived allows for us to be used by the enemies of Christ the spread the lies of the god of this world.
Okay, now I will ask you a loaded question. If you could talk to Satan, would he want you to believe in evolution or Creation? Do you now see how powerful a simple loaded question can be? Is there even one person out there who actually believes Satan would want you to believe in Creation? Obviously … not. If I were to ask the average Christian; “Do you believe in evolution; or should we teach evolution in our public schools? Very likely, more than 50% would answer: yes. But when the question is loaded with the idea of following the desires of Satan … a new dynamic comes into play. Beyond atheists, very few would want to stand on that ground. The power of a loaded question is the reason that Jesus often answered a question with a question in responding to the Pharisees as well.
So, for the sake of discussion: let’s assume that everyone reading this post agrees with my premise here: … that if there is a Satan who stands for the forces of evil, and if he would want us to believe in evolution and reject Creation; and at the same time if there is a God of all things who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and who claims to be the Creator of all things; and who has provided me with a plan for my personal salvation and eternal life; and that given the choice between the two; I will stand with the Savior and His Creation: and I will reject and stand against Satan and his evolution.
If this is true, why have the majority of Americans who clearly stand with me allowed for the atheistic minority to force evolution on our children, in our public schools? The two most common answers are that many falsely believe evolution has been proven beyond a doubt. We will bring this foolish idea into question here in more detail. The second answer is that teaching Creationism is teaching religion and therefore a violation of our freedom from state sponsored religion.
This same logic would also lead us to conclude that we also cannot teach our children that it is wrong to murder, lie, steal, or have sex with children. Oops. The fact is that this concept of freedom from religion is only applied when it comes to the question of Creation as explained in the Bible. The same concern is not given to Humanistic evolution, the form of religion that is explained here by a witness for evolution in the 1981 Arkansas Creation law trial. “The basic ideologies of the civilization, including its entire moral structure, are at issue. Evolution is sometimes the key mythological element in a philosophy that functions as a virtual religion.” Professor Stanley Beck, renowned Physiologist was a key witness at the trial against Creationism.
Did you get that? The expert witness for evolution clearly defines evolution as a religion.
How is it that evolution is given a free pass? That is a long story I will cover in a future post, but I would like to quote the words of a British science teacher which applies here in America as well: “For some time, it has seemed to me that our current methods of teaching Darwinism are suspiciously similar to indoctrination. The Darwinist can always make a plausible reconstruction of what took place during the supposed evolution of a species. Any difficulties in reconciling a given kind of natural selection with a particular phase of evolution can be removed by the judicious choice of a correlated character. Looked at this way, the teacher of Darwin’s theory, since he undoubtedly is concerned to put across the conclusion that natural selection causes evolution; while he cannot be concerned to any great extent with real evidence, because there isn’t any.” The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, pg. 52
A bazaar idea, don’t you think? Teaching science as fact without scientific evidence to support it? Here is more.
Lynn Margulis Professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts wrote that: “history will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor 20th century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology.” In her many public talks to molecular biologists she asks them to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge goes unmet. Proponents of the standard theory, she says, “wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost benefit interpretation of Darwin – having mistaken him … Neo-Darwinism, which insists on the slow accrual of mutations, is in a complete funk.” And Paleontologist Niles Eldredge wrote: "No wonder Paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen … Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." Darwins Black Box , Dr Michael Behe pg. 26-27.
Contrary to what evolutionists want us to believe I have literally thousands of statements from distinguished and renowned scientists from every field strongly denouncing Darwinian evolution. On the positive side, science has advanced dramatically while holding to evolutionary beliefs, but most positively that is in spite of; rather than because of this false teaching. How could this be true? That’s easy, modern science is only a few hundred years old. It was only in the 17th century that William Harvey discovered that blood continuously flows through our body. For the prior fifteen hundred years, scientists thought that the body was continually resupplying itself with new blood. And it was in the 17th century that the first microscope was invented. Prior to that time, scientific study was by the naked eye only. It was the 19th century before Louis Pasteur discovered that germs spread disease. This became known as the "germ theory of disease." The term “pasteurized milk” was named in Pasteur’s honor.
This wisdom of man that science is so proud of is still taking baby steps, when viewed in the context of history. And for sure, the Darwinian evolutionary conclusions are based on preconceived notions; and are filtered through atheistic wishful speculations.
Why is this stuff important? I thought we were going to study the end times, you ask? We will, but what hope do we have of convincing unbelievers to trust God's Word and Christ for eternity ... if supposed believers don’t really believe in God or the Truth that He has revealed to us?
THERE IS A MAJOR DISCONNECT … HERE!
I am convinced Darwin’s evolution has NOT even remotely been proven scientifically, or in any other way. Darwinian Evolution is atheistic wishful thinking and for many is presented with a form of religious fanaticism. The same concerns that inspired our founders to establish the freedom of religion clause are apparent in the current government indoctrination of this humanistic, atheistic, naturalistic, religious, philosophic, belief system. Secular humanism or evolutionary humanism should be ruled unconstitutional as a state endorsed religion. Humanist magazine made this statement on the back cover: “Humanism does not include the idea of a God and as such is considered a philosophy rather than a religion. In a way it is an alternative to all religions. … Those caught up in its religious aspects know that it provides a vibrant, satisfying faith.” That kind of sums evolution up ... science has accepted evolution by faith."
Wait a minute, here ... that sounds sort of like a religion, don't you think?
Now, back to my questions about the Bible verse and evolution, with my Christian friend online. He is a graduate of UCLA, with a Master’s degree. He is a confessing Christian and His Baptist pastor leads one of the largest and most renowned churches in America. He has made it clear to me that he is much more comfortable defending Darwinian evolution than Biblical Christianity. A sad state for Christianity, and for America.
Once again, I will close here now with this loaded question:
If you could talk to Satan, would he want you to believe in evolution … or Creation?”
Now ... what are you going to do with that? Hint... hint ... time to drop your bait in the water.
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we do not lose heart.
God Bless you my friends, Bob
Copyright: Robert West 2011
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Woe to the bloody city,
completely full of lies and pillage;
Her prey never departs.
The noise of the whip,
The noise of the rattling of the wheel,
Galloping horses And bounding chariots!
Horsemen charging, Swords flashing, spears gleaming,
Many slain, a mass of corpses,And countless dead bodies—
They stumble over the dead bodies! Nahum 3:1-3
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, some are ignorant, and some show wisdom.
My opinion is that this pilot hit the nail right on the head in his open letter.
A recent news article stated that a Muslim doctor is saying that America is profiling him
because he has been checked three times while getting on an airplane.
This well spoken man, who is a pilot with American Airlines, says what is in his heart, beautifully ...
YOU WORRY ME!
By Captain John Maniscalco, American Airlines Pilot
I've been trying to say this since 911, but you worry me. I wish you didn't. I wish when I walked down the streets of this country that I love, that your color and culture still blended with the beautiful human landscape we enjoy in this country. But you don't blend in anymore. I notice you, and it worries me.
I notice you because I can't help it anymore. People from your homelands, professing to be Muslims, have been attacking and killing my fellow citizens and our friends for more than 20 years now. I don't fully understand their grievances and hate, but I know that nothing can justify the inhumanity of their attacks.
On September 11, ARAB-MUSLIMS hijacked four jetliners in my country. They cut the throats of women in front of children and brutally stabbed to death others. They took control of those planes and crashed them into buildings, killing thousands of proud fathers, loving sons, wise grandparents, elegant daughters, best friends, favorite coaches, fearless public servants, and children's mothers.
The Palestinians celebrated, the Iraqis were overjoyed as was most of the Arab world. So, I notice you now. I don't want to be worried. I don't want to be consumed by the same rage, hate and prejudice that has destroyed the soul of these terrorists But I need your help. As a rational American, trying to protect my country and family in an irrational and unsafe world, I must know how to tell the difference between you, and the Arab/Muslim terrorist.
How do I differentiate between the true Arab/Muslim Americans and the Arab/Muslim terrorists in our communities who are attending our schools, enjoying our parks, and living in OUR communities under the protection of OUR constitution, while they plot the next attack that will slaughter these same good neighbors and children?
The events of September 11th changed the answer. It is not my responsibility to determine which of you embraces our great country, with ALL of its religions, with ALL of its different citizens, with all of its faults. It is time for every Arab/Muslim in this country to determine it for me.
I want to know, I demand to know and I have a right to know, whether or not you love America . Do you pledge allegiance to its flag? Do you proudly display it in front of your house, or on your car? Do you pray in your many daily prayers that Allah will bless this nation; that He will protect it and let it prosper? Or do you pray that Allah with destroy it in one of your Jihads? Are you thankful for the freedom that this nation affords? A freedom that was paid for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots who gave their lives for this country? Are you willing to preserve this freedom by also paying the ultimate sacrifice? Do you love America? If this is your commitment, then I need YOU to start letting ME know about it.
Your Muslim leaders in this nation should be flooding the media at this time with hard facts on your faith, and what hard actions you are taking as a community and as a religion to protect the United States of America . Please, no more benign overtures of regret for the death of the innocent, because I worry about who you regard as innocent. No more benign overtures of condemnation for the unprovoked attacks, because I worry about what is unprovoked to you. I am not interested in any more sympathy; I am interested only in action. What will you do for America - our great country - at this time of crisis, at this time of war?
I want to see Arab-Muslims waving the AMERICAN flag in the streets. I want to hear you chanting 'Allah Bless America'. I want to see young Arab/Muslim men enlisting in the military. I want to see a commitment of money, time and emotion to the victims of this butchering and to this nation as a whole.
The FBI has a list of over 400 people they want to talk to regarding the WTC attack. Many of these people live and socialize right now in Muslim communities.
You know them. You know where they are. Hand them over to us, now! But I have seen little even approaching this sort of action. Instead I have seen an already closed and secretive community close even tighter. You have disappeared from the streets. You have posted armed security guards at your facilities. You have threatened lawsuits. You have screamed for protection from reprisals.
The very few Arab/Muslim representatives that HAVE appeared in the media were defensive and equivocating. They seemed more concerned with making sure that the United States proves who was responsible before taking action. They seemed more concerned with protecting their fellow Muslims from violence directed towards them in the United States and abroad than they did with supporting our country and denouncing 'leaders' like Khadafi, Hussein, Farrakhan, and Arafat.
If the true teachings of Islam proclaim tolerance and peace and love for all people, then I want chapter and verse from the Koran and statements from popular Muslim leaders to back it up. What good is it if the teachings in the Koran are good, pure, and true, when your 'leaders' are teaching fanatical interpretations, terrorism, and intolerance? It matters little how good Islam SHOULD BE if huge numbers of the world's Muslims interpret the teachings of Mohammed incorrectly and adhere to a degenerative form of the religion. A form that has been demonstrated to us over and over again.A form whose structure is built upon a foundation of violence, death and suicide. A form whose members are recruited from the prisons around the world. A form whose members (some as young as five years old) are seen day after day, week in and week out, year after year, marching in the streets around the world, burning effigies of our presidents, burning the American flag, shooting weapons into the air. A form whose members convert from a peaceful religion, only to take up arms against the great United States of America, the country of their birth. A form whose rules are so twisted, that their traveling members refuse to show their faces at airport security checkpoints, in the name of Islam.
We will NEVER allow the attacks of September 11, or any others for that matter, to take away that which is so precious to us -our rights under the greatest constitution in the world. I want to know where every Arab Muslim in this country stands and I think it is my right and the right of every true citizen of this country to demand it. A right paid for by the blood of thousands of my brothers and sisters who died protecting the very constitution that is protecting you and your family.
I am pleading with you to let me know. I want you here as my brother, my neighbor, my friend, as a fellow American. But there can be no gray areas or ambivalence regarding your allegiance, and it is up to YOU, to show ME, where YOU stand. Until then, “YOU WORRY ME!”
I totally agree with this sentiment. I hope you will forget all about the 'political correctness' mandate we've had rammed down our throats, and see if this doesn't ring true in your heart and mind. For Canada , with all the multiculturalism we've been told is so important....why should we not, as Canadians, expect that the millions of new people immigrating to our country will show their love for our country, their allegiance to our country, their willingness to obey the laws of our country, and acceptance that we are a Christian country? Just because they are able to enjoy
exercising their own religion, they should not expect us to be ashamed of ours. They knew Canada was a Christian country when they came here. Why are we erasing Christianity because immigrants who are unwilling to adopt our way of life expect us to? There is just too much insanity in the world, and we have to start taking a stand.
I hope you will forward this, so that others will feel they are not alone if they are starting to feel the same.
A BRIT’S COMMENTS:
At last a clear non racist example of the concerns that the vast majority of our Nation’s population probably share. The pilot’s letter encapsulates all that is fair and just about national pride and protection of one’s national culture. I fear it may be too late here in UK but we too want our country back in the form that attracted all these different cultures to come here in the first place!! In all our conversations with a wide range of friends and acquaintances we have not met one that disagrees with our own views. If only we all had the courage of our convictions to pass this on – it is a statement that should be accepted as the heart-felt feelings of someone with honest commendable national pride.
THIS IS TOO GOOD TO JUST READ AND DELETE -- LET'S SATURATE NEW ZEALAND, AUSTRALIA, UK, EUROPE, USA, CANADA AND THE REST OF THE “FREE” WORLD WITH THIS ONE!
FORWARD THIS POST TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST!
Thanks to Linda Davis for forwarding this post to me ...
Politically Correct? ... as you all know ... I am not a fan of that ideology: BW
God Bless you my friends, Bob
Thursday, June 9, 2011
All flesh is not the same flesh,
but there is one flesh of men,
and another flesh of beasts,
and another flesh of birds,
and another of fish.
1 Corinthians 15:39
The above verse is very compelling … don’t you agree?
I certainly thought so when a friend shared it with me this past week.
“I have never seen that verse before;” I said.
I then used this verse in a question below in an online conversation
I was wondering about a Christian's beliefs on the authority of God’s Word,
and the fact that God is the Creator of all things.
This will be today’s interesting topic.
How is it that those who confess Christ as their Savior reject God’s Word and instead accept the teachings of men?
How can it be that so many loving people who identify themselves as Christians so easily reject the clear teachings of the Bible?
Recently in a conversation online, I asked a Christian the following question: “Although Personally I normally give very little credibility to sweeping generalizations, here is one that I agree with ... although I must admit, it is clearly NOT politically correct. "Everyone who has received Christ's free gift and trusted Christ as Savior will receive eternal life; and anyone who has not received Christ as Savior is not a Christian, regardless of their false beliefs and is in danger of eternal hell" What do you say to that?
And here's another: "God's Word is truth ... the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Those who believe in the Word which became flesh in Him are eternally saved and have been adopted into his royal priesthood eternally. All beliefs to the contrary are false beliefs. Do you agree with these two statements?”
Here is the man’s response: “Here is what I believe...I believe that we should be free to choose our own religion and (moral) beliefs and not condemn others if they choose to believe a different way than we choose to believe … Period.”
I answered back: “I also believe” … that we should be free to choose our own religion and (moral) beliefs and not condemn others if they choose to believe a different way than we choose to believe" .... But what does that have to do with my sweeping generalizations? Do you believe my statements are true ... or not? And do you think Born Again Christians should compromise the gospel of Christ in order to accommodate the many false religions? Does it not concern you as a Christian that many who denounce the Deity of Christ, also falsely claim to be Christians? And that they then try to explain their false Christianity from an atheist or humanist viewpoint, resulting in total hypocrisy?
His response: … silence.
The next day, I asked: Here is a verse that clearly refutes the false teaching of evolution. From your perspective, what should the Christian position be regarding the teaching of evolution to their children in public schools? Should they teach their children it's not true? Or that both the Bible and science are correct? Or that evolution is proven science, and therefore creation must be a misunderstanding of scripture? Or like Bill O'Reilly, should they teach their children that those things in the Bible that we do not understand are allegories?
I then posted this verse: “All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. 1 Corinthians 15:39 and I then asked: I really am interested in your view on this one ... What is your view?
His reply: “VERY controversial topic and one that cannot help but get you into trouble. I will read up on it and get back.... In the meantime, this might have some good information” (he then referred me to a blog written by atheists which repeats the atheist view on evolution, as well as the atheist view on why creation science is false.)
Here is a quote from the referred blog’s statement of faith: "We are a multi-faith group. As of mid-2011, we consist of one (each) Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist."
My most recent response: Talk about here we go loop-de-loop … what could I possibly learn from that blog? I am a Biblical Christian ... Christianity is a monotheistic (one god only) religion. These other beliefs are polytheistic (many gods) and anathema to me. The only value for me there would be to more clearly explain and understand what Biblically-minded Christians do not believe. I assume the "Christian" mentioned is either a missionary or is possibly miss-using Christian to describe himself.
Back to my original question about a Bible verse … since the Word quoted by Paul 1 Corinthians 15:39 is quite clear, and Paul's Words are inspired by Christ; to reject this verse is the same for me ... as rejecting Christ. Why would someone take your position for the sake of not offending the false religions and philosophies of others …especially when God's Word clearly condemns those teachings? Are Christians really to give concern or credibility to these other religions while at the same time being transformed by the renewing their minds? Well ... I think not.
So my friends, once again … how is it that those who confess Christ as their Savior reject God’s Word and instead accept the teachings of men?
This is nothing new. My friend has fallen for The Same Old Lie. This lie was first told in the garden and resulted in the fall of man.
Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made ... The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:1-5
I am convinced that there are literally millions who confess Christ as Savior, but reject the teachings of God’s Word and follow: The Same Old Lie. My Christian friend did not refer me to a teaching which looked into God’s Word for answers to the questions of life but rather to a site that was written by an atheist, an agnostic, a Zen Buddhist, and a Wiccan. I can only assume this is where he plans to “read up on it.” Although he does read this blog, so hopefully he will also search out God’s Word and the teachings of Biblical scholars as well.
I think God’s Word speaks clearly to the root of the problem. “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.” Ephesians 2:1-3
My friend has been educated by the liberals at the university. He has made a commitment to Christ, but he still clings to the teachings of men as truth. The false teaching is: that there are no absolutes; and that truth is relative; and that man is the center and measure of all things. The problem is that these ideas are based upon the philosophical conclusion and belief that there is no God, no Creator. This is 2000 year old Greek Philosophy that views man's mind as the center of reality rather than God.
The basic problem is that this philosophy cannot know truth or reality, and it has no means of determining Truth. Modern science is only the latest effort to know the truth by using the human senses to discern truth within its limitations. Only God knows Truth. Sanctify them in the Truth; Your word is Truth. John 17:17. And God’s Word speaks to the supposed wisdom of men: “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God.” 1 Corinthians 3:19 There is no way that the atheist/humanist view can explain love, beauty, or music or to attach any meaning to life or experience. Man is only a biological machine. This is what leads to the despair of humanism and all its derivatives (drugs, suicide, hedonism, etc.)
Another of my atheist friends recently told me: “when I die I am dirt” His evolutionist belief totally rejects this Truth of God: “So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.” 1 Corinthians 15:42-44 He says that the belief in a spiritual body is a foolish lie. There is an inconsistency here though. Somehow the secular mind thinks it is perfectly fine to totally reject the teachings of God’s Word, but at the same time they say it is intolerant for me to reject their false teachings. They do not understand the difference between tolerance for someone’s right to believe whatever they wish, and my right to totally reject that belief as false. To denounce a false belief is not to attack the person. People reject Christianity and the Bible every day. That is to be expected. But to reject God’s Word and call yourself a Christian, that is another thing altogether.
The problem is that “the prince of the power of the air” is alive and a ruling force here and now on this earth, and that spirit is now working in the sons of disobedience. And this evil prince is the great deceiver. Satan knows that to bring about his plan for the world, he must capture men's minds by influencing what they believe to be true. Our world view determines how we live, and what we believe and how we think. Our enemy wants us to follow the teachings of men rather than the teachings of God. Assuming there is an evil force, I would have to believe that even unbelievers would agree with this statement. The evil force will always want us to reject God’s Word and accept other teachings. And of course, the evil one is able to influence those teachings through the lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and the evil pride of life. Those whose minds are not transformed by the renewing of their minds with God’s Word and by the power of the Holy Spirit will fall for the appeal of the teachings of the world and controlled by the false teaching of the world.
Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4
My friends … this is the truth. If there was no creation; then there was no Jesus Christ; and if there was no Jesus Christ; then there was no Savior crucified and raised from the grave; and therefore there would be no salvation or eternal life. My atheist friend would then be right: we are dirt, when we die. But that is all a lie of the evil one. Isn't it? We cannot have it both ways. We cannot cling to man’s wisdom which is contrary to God's Truth; and have God's salvation which is absolute and never-ending, as well.
He is the Creator and the Savior; He knows the beginning, the end, and everything in between … He Is God.
Don't fall for The Same Old Lie.
God Bless you my friends, Bob
Copyright: Robert West 2011