The price of freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle anywhere, any time and with utter recklessness. -R.A. Heinlein

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Sarah Brady's misguided tears

Well howdy everyone, sorry I haven't been posting. I've been working a lot, and blogging just hasn't been a priority. I am still working on a rebuttal to a video, that will be posted sometime this year I hope.....

Anyhoo, you all have seen the reports on the shooting in Arizona last week. Lots of emotions are running wild, and people are calling for something to be done. A major problem with an instance like this is people take the deeds and thoughts of an insane man and try and paint a picture that anyone who is even remotely close to the same ideas is just like him.

Sarah Brady is calling for more gun control (of course) thinking that will solve the problem:
Obama is our best hope, because he is surely aware that much of the resistance to common-sense changes to our gun laws is meant to shut us down and shut us up. It is meant to allow the guys with the guns -- instead of ordinary Americans like us with the ideas -- and men and women of good conscience, like Gabby and Jim -- to make the rules.
So....People with guns are not ordinary Americans? Anyone with a gun is going to do this? With all the millions of guns in the US, the fact that this doesn't happen often (especially in a place with lots of guns) doesn't mean anything? The instant you must resort to demonizing your opponent, you have already lost the moral high ground.

The bullies have succeeded too often. They have made cowardly lions out of too many members of Congress. This moment, as grievous as it is, presents a new opportunity for the president and other elected leaders to demonstrate political courage -- the way President Bill Clinton did when he stood by the side of victims and fought with all he had to pass the Brady Bill.

That's right, never let a crisis go to waste..never mind that the Brady Bill did absolutely no good in curbing gun crime. Guns are tools. They work both ways. There are no good guns and bad guns, there are only good men and bad men. A "High capacity" magazine could just as easily be used to save lives as to commit mass murder. Think mass rioting/looting that happens when societies collapse (for example, when a large scale earthquake hits California.) One shop owner isn't going to be a deterrent, however, one shop owner with a couple thousand rounds of ammunition at the ready to protect his family and property is quite a deterrent. Firearms are force multipliers...they even the playing field. Suddenly, an 80 year old grandma doesn't need to give in to a 200 lbs rapist. Taking away guns creates an environment where the strong live and the weak suffer.

Say "no" to those who won't retreat from an ideology that is fixated on weapons of war that are turned on babies and grandmothers alike. An ideology that helps assassinate dreamers and the dreams they hold dear. That litters across our fruited plains the bloodstains of innocents. That has kept us from forming that more perfect union, and pistol-whipped us into a seemingly endless cycle of wounding, maiming and murdering one another.
Those "Weapons of war" have been used to murder innocents, yes. There is no question of that. They have also been used to stop mass murder, save people from being mauled alive, put food on the table, etc. Anything can be used for evil, no matter what it is. Nothing is sacred. The internet can be used to stay connected with those you hold dear, stay aware of the world around you, learn things you never could. It could also be used to look at pornography, gossip, destroy someones character, steal military secrets. The tool is not the problem, the person is.

The Brady bunch does not want "common-sense" gun regulations, they want no guns whatsoever. Now, if it were even possible to get all the guns (which it's not, but let's just assume) we would find ourselves in a world with no equalizers. The citizens would be completely reliant on the good will of their governments for protection. Those who devoted their entire lives to training to do violence would have the upper hand and be able to prey on those that did not.

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Happy food coma day

Happy thanksgiving everyone, remember who we're giving thanks to! I'll get back to posting more, honest! Just be patient! Have a good one, and remember, don't do anything you don't want to explain to the EMT's.


Thursday, November 4, 2010

Club-K Missile system

We take a break from our regularly scheduled rebuttal program to bring you this special report:

This could be bad. It seems to be something close to four tomahawk cruise missiles, that can be hidden inside a cargo container. This is shamelessly hiding amongst civilians, but that's the exact tactics that have been used by our enemies in the middle east. I don't think this is a viable system to be launched on Americans from within US borders, seeing as DHS scans all cargo containers as they are offloaded. The system is not perfect, however, and some may get in. The very first one of these things that are caught coming into the ports, and the entire system should shut down, and instead be changed to physically checking each container that comes in.The more viable threat would be a sea based launch on coastal cities.

There is still a threat of the missiles being fired from within Mexican borders on US cities. That is a very viable threat in my opinion. Mexico cannot search containers as effectively as we can, and the officials are notoriously crooked and underpaid. I would consider a missile being fired from within Mexican borders to be the most viable option for a terrorist to use.

A few things I noticed:

Firstly, there appears to be a compartment at the "front" of the container. A small door opens, and perhaps a control room is inside? The video seemed to suggest that it was launched via signal from satellite, but perhaps it needs to be launched from within the container. The satellite in the video may have been the blue country's, and was alerting the country to the suspicious container, perhaps.

Secondly, the missiles cannot be launched from a truck while in motion. Notice as the silos erect, two posts extend to the ground to maintain the balance of the truck. These would not be able to extend without damage while moving, and I'd assume they are in place to keep the truck from rocking backwards when the missiles are fired due to the force generated from the blast. I believe this due to the fact that they extended after the silo was erected, and not before as would be the case if the silo was so heavy as to rock the truck back due to the weight of the silo.

Thirdly, the silo may or may not be erected while a train is in motion. In the video, the train was at a standstill, and I'd assume the amount of force generated on the silo while in motion could cause damage.

Fourthly, there would be a very small window of opportunity to shoot down these missiles. Missiles being fired from the water would give slightly more warning, than a land based launch from a border town in Mexico. The US military does have the Patriot Missile System, and other missile defenses, but I am unsure as to weather or not they are already set to launch, or if there would be a time delay to get the system set up and then target the missiles. I would submit that we should have missile defenses at the ready. At least with an ICBM, there is a decent amount of warning from launch to when the missile strikes. Depending on the intended target, this could have an extremely small window of opportunity (seconds even).

Fifthly, with an attack of this nature, it would be very difficult to find the ones responsible. With nuclear attacks, there was always the fear of mutually assured destruction. You fire, everyone on this little green dirt ball dies. With todays world of terrorists, there is no flag to fight. There are organizations, and of course countries that fund them, but it is a very different world than we are used to. I can guarantee that any truck, ship, or train that launches one of these will have a few missiles coming back at them, but that's not a great discouragement when you are taught you will go to paradise if you die a "martyr's" death.

Sixthly, this would be an extremely likely threat towards Israel. I'm sure Hamas would love to use this system, of course they're doing pretty well with their weapons they have already, so perhaps not. It is something to think about.

More information on this would be greatly appreciated.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Rebuttal: Tough questions for Christians, questions 11-20

Continuing on:

Question 11:

A couple things before the question:

He quotes Luke 19:27, completely out of context I might add, and claims that this is saying anyone who does not want Jesus as Lord should be killed. This verse was taken from the parable of ten minas. This parable was of things that are still yet to come. You see, the disciples thought that Jesus would reign on earth, at that time. This is apparent in Luke 19:11, at the very start of the parable. "As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed the kingdom of God was to appear immediately." (ESV) This parable was to make known that the kingdom was still to come. In it, the noble goes away to receive his kingdom, leaving stewards behind each with a mina. That was Jesus ascending into heaven, and leaving us behind to spread His word. In the parable, when the noble goes away to receive his kingdom, some say that they do no wish to be ruled over. That is the world rejecting the work Jesus has done. Jesus has not returned yet, but that is what the rest of the parable tells of. So, Luke 19:27 is talking of what is to come when Jesus returns to rule. When He returns, He will not be meek and mild Jesus. Read Revelations 19:11 and following for Jesus returning in full glory. 

Notice that someone who knows the scriptures well enough can make them say anything if they're taken out of context. No matter who is preaching, always alway always read the context! Ask Jesus if it's true! We are human, we make mistakes, some even intentionally twist the scriptures. Watch for the wolves!

Now the question:
"What did Jesus mean when he commanded his followers to bring unbelievers hither and, 'slay them before me?'"

He meant exactly that, but it has a condition. He was referring to what was to come. It was not a command for the now, but a foretelling of what will happen on the last day. Until then, we act as Jesus acted while on earth: Peacefully, yet ready to defend the truth and speak the truth boldly. When Jesus returns, He will be in His full glory, the reigning king, and no one will be able to stand against.

Question 12:

A few things before the question:

"This good God has personally drowned millions of people. He's killed people for infractions as minor as looking the wrong direction." God laid down the ground rules of what to do and not to do, He is very patient, but not unjust. He is a just judge and will deal justice eventually. His wrath does exist, but does His enacting justice make Him not good, or evil? No. Everything good comes from Him, He cannot be untrue to Himself.

"And if God created everything, then He is personally responsible for the Ebola virus, the Bubonic plague, flesh eating bacteria, and bad breath." The world we look at is a fallen world. Things are not as they should be. Who knows what purpose bacteria served before the fall? Everything has been affected by sin. Nothing is left untouched. Praise the Lord that He will one day make everything right, and there will be a new heaven, and a new earth, perfect in every way.

"If that's good, then what's evil." Let's define evil. Evil is the absence of God. Everything good comes from God, and everything evil is where God is not. take for example cold. Cold is the absence of heat. You can make something hotter and hotter, but total absence of heat is -273.15 Degrees Celsius, -459.67 Degrees Fahrenheit, and 0 Degrees Kalvin. We have not seen a total absence of God yet, take the most evil man that ever lived and you wont have been anywhere near what it would be like to be fully evil.

Now the question: "What actions would be 'evil' or 'immoral' if committed by God?

Anything that would go against God's nature would be considered evil. However, God cannot go against His own nature.

Question 13:

One thing before the question:

He continually mangles the trinity. The Father, Son and Spirit working as one make up God. When Jesus was praying, He was praying to the Father. God is three distinct persons, but still one God.

Now the question:
"Why was God so reluctant to sacrifice himself for you[r] sins?"

He was not reluctant. He is the one with the plan, and His goal is to bring glory to Himself. He was under no obligation to save us of our sins, but He made a plan and then followed through. His plan is complex, yet perfect. Everything worked together to glorify Him, and continues to do so.

Question 14:

One thing before the question:

He is talking of the age of accountability, and he rightly says it is not in the bible. There is no biblical ground for it. If there is an age of accountability, then abortion would be the greatest, man made heaven filling device. We know in our hearts this is not right. I believe that God is sovereign. He chooses to save who he chooses, and doesn't save who he doesn't choose. He knows all, and is good. Who are we to question Him? He will do what is right, whatever that is, I don't know.

Now the question: "Would you risk eternity in hell if it meant your children could spend eternity in heaven?"

Now that is a tough one, only because it shows how loyal you are to your children. My answer would have to be probably not. Fortunately, there is nothing I can do to separate myself from Christ. I didn't deserve to be saved originally, don't deserve to be saved now, nothing I can do in the future to make myself more undeserving either. Jesus paid it all, nothing I did saved me, nothing I can do to give up what He's given me. I'm not holding Him, He's holding me, and He doesn't let go of His own. 

Question 15:

"Why aren't you reattaching limbs for the glory of God?"

First, I would like to point out that what he says is true, Jesus did reattach limbs, and our God is all powerful. Why hasn't He done that recently, I'm not sure. He certainly is capable of it. It is up to Him to decide weather to do so or not, He is under no obligation to heal us. Now, to answer the question, it is not our own power that we do anything. Everything good comes from God. We are powerless on our own, none of our gifts come from ourselves. If Jesus sees fit to use one of us to heal, then praise the Lord, if not, praise the Lord. It is His own glory at stake, He will defend Himself as He sees fit.

Question 16:

Before we get to the question, a few things:

In the video, he gives mention to Jim Jones and his cult called The People temple. He states that the peoples temple members were "devout believers in Christ, who's lives involved bible study and prayer on a daily basis." Further examination of the cults teaching, however, reveals they were not. Jim Jones, the cult leader, identified the God of the Bible as a "trickster" or false deity. His teaching were Marxist, and his cult held a very communistic ideology. He preached, "God is principle, principle is love, and love is socialism." The cult believed that the concept of socialism was God. Further, Jones deified himself, "Jim Jones is God because he is the embodiment of Divine Socialism." For more information, please see here: and here:

Also, in the video, he gives mention to the Branch Davidians. After studying their website (yes, they're still around) for most of the day, I must say, they are definitely a cult, and not Christian as they claim. First and foremost, it appears that they reject Jesus as God, and instead see him as a prophet. Secondly, they believe in  reincarnation. Thirdly, they twist scripture to suite their views, or just flat out change it. Fourthly the claim that someone still to come, one of the Davidians who survived the raid at Waco, TX, is the lamb refered to in Revelation. Not Jesus. Fifthly, they claim there is a Father God, and Mother God. There's quite a bit more, and I may take an entire post or two to show the differences if God calls me too, but I believe this is sufficient evidence to disprove the claim that they were indeed Christians. For more information, here is their official site:

As for the bit about the civil war, many on both sides were Christians, and it was fought over a lot more than just slavery. Pointing out that Christians were on the union side as a way to say slavery is wrong in God's eyes is not a valid argument. Look at Galatians 3:28, speaking of the way Christ sees us, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

"What system did God establish, which you follow but 'mislead' Christians ignore, that ensures you are following the real God, while others believers are so easily mislead?

A very good point. The answer is the Bible. The people temple was a cult. Cults are funny things, they are wolves in sheep's clothing, claiming to study the bible, but teaching something different. However, close examination of these cults proves that they did not know our Lord, or they would not have done such things. There are false teachers, and that is why we must pay such close attention to what is being preached. If there are false teachers, who are unrepentant, they should be sent out of the church and no longer allowed to teach.

Question 17:

"If people can only be damned if they consciously reject Jesus, why tell anyone about him?

The Bible does not teach that it is only if they reject Jesus consciously. It does teach that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. God is all knowing, and all powerful; He is just, and everything He does is right and good. He is also sovereign. I trust that God will do what is right, whatever that is. That is all that matters. Jesus instructed us to go out and preach the gospel, so we do so. 

Question 18:

Before we get to the question:

"Apparently he needs some sort of external marker so he knows who he's supposed to slaughter." No, the Israelites putting blood on their doors was showing that they had faith in God. It was a statement of faith. Also, when the Egyptians woke up the next morning to see that God had slaughtered them, but that the Israelites were all well, God's glory was displayed.

The analogy about the promise land has a major difference from history. Azsuperman01 did not own the car, or the Jones family. God owns everything on earth. It is His to destroy or to prosper. Every day, waking up is because of Him.

Now the question: "Why did God make the Israelites murder so many people in order to take possession of the land he promised them?"

Could God have killed everyone in the land before hand? Sure. He uses His people to let us help. Think of a father taking his son to work. Now, the father could do a lot more, with a lot less stress and worry if his son wasn't there, but he bring his son along to let his son help. If your dad ever brought you along to work along side him, then you know the feeling, it's a feeling of pride and joy to get to help dad out. 

I think the other reason was for the Israelites to see the glory and power of God, for example with Jericho. March around the city 7 times, blow the trumpets, and the walls come tumbling down. How else can that be explained besides God's almighty power? The people of the land then knew that God was real, and powerful, and that He was coming after them.

A third reason could be that, again, it was a statement of faith. That they had faith that if God was for them, no one could stand against. That God could do anything, and would bring them victory. 

Question 19:

"Did God create hell with the foreknowledge and intent of torturing humanity? Or is he a bumbling idiot who could not foresee the consequences of his own actions?"

God is all knowing, and all powerful, so yes, God created hell knowing who would end up there. Hells hot, eternity's a long time, stop running towards destruction and surrender to the one who died for you. Think of it this way, Jesus jumped on a grenade for you. But, it's not like you were battle buddies and a grenade came in so He jumped on it. No, you were the enemy, shooting at Him, and He ran across the field of fire to jump on His own grenade and save you. That's a poor analogy of what Jesus did for us on the cross, but I think it helps to explain it.

Question 20:

"How many souls does a Chimera have, and what happens to the other soul?"

That is an interesting point. Truth is, I don't know. God does, He is just, all knowing, all powerful. In heaven, everything will be made clear.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Rebuttal: Tough questions for Christians, questions 1-10

There is a series on youtube called "Tough Questions for Christians." I believe God is calling me to answer these questions, by His grace, and the wisdom He grants. This post will cover questions 1-10.

Question 1:

A few things that stand out before we get to the question:

1. In the analogy, he did not pursue the person who hit the car. Jesus (who is God) does pursue us actively. He reveals Himself to us through His word, the Bible, as well as with His creation, and the conscience He gave us to tell right from wrong.

2. At the end he says, "You could hit my car tomorrow, die within 24 hours, and Jesus and God could sentence you to hell because you hit the car, and drove away; and didn't ask them for forgiveness before you died." Well, yes, and no...without Jesus saving grace, then yes, you'd be sentenced for that and every other sin you committed. However, if you have been saved by Jesus, you are set free. It is not up to us to ask forgiveness of every single sin we committed, and if we missed one, we don't go to hell for it. Jesus paid it all, it is not by our works.

3. "Jesus and God" No, Jesus is God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, but one God.

Now the question: "Why is God powerless to forgive you after you're dead?"

God is just. How can He go against His nature, and deny Himself? He cannot permit evil to remain. He had every right to just send everyone to hell, to not save anyone, and just start over. He didn't give a plan of salvation for the demons, He could have done the same for us. Yes, you do have one life time, then comes judgement. That is God's plan, He has every right to make it so. He has told us that is the plan, He gives us the opportunity to accept His love, if you die rejecting that love, then you will go to hell. He must carry out justice, and must follow through with what He said He would do.

Question 2:

Before we get to the question:

"Christ died for the sins of all mankind" Armenians would hold this to be true. References such as Romans 5:18 are used to back this up, "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." (ESV).  Calvinists would say, no, Christ died for the elect. References such as Romans 8:29-30 are used to back this up, "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first born among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." (ESV) For more information on this particular difference between Calvinism and Armenianism, I'd suggest this video: specifically 28 minutes in. Lots of heated debate on the subject. 

On his analogy of the fine in court: Think of it this way. He must pay a fine. Someone (Jesus) steps in, and says I will pay this fine. The judge says, that would be acceptable, but he pipes up and starts fighting Jesus, wanting to pay it himself. Eventually Jesus says ok, I was willing, but you rejected it, you can now pay your fine. 

"Now I know, I know, God and Jesus same person." Ehh.....sorta....God is three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are one God. Wanted to make sure it was clear just in case.

"If God doesn't accept Him, He'll send you to hell. If God does accept Him, then He'll send Jesus to Hell. Which supposedly He's already done, Jesus's finished and come back again." Here's something that is definitely wrong. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus went to hell? Why would Jesus have to go to hell? He paid for our sins on the cross, when the wrath of God was turned on Him, and He was completely cut off from God. John 19:30 "When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, 'It is finished,' and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." (ESV) So, I take this to mean, it was complete, our sins were paid for. If I am mistaken, please leave a comment below.  Also, what did Jesus say to the criminal next to Him on the cross? Luke 23:43 "And he said to him, 'Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

Now the question: "If God accepted Jesus' sacrifice as payment for the sins of mankind, then why will man kind still be punished for the sins that Jesus paid for?"

It is a good question, and one I think can only be answered by, Christ did not die for all, only for the elect. However, we do not know who the elect are, so we must treat everyone as if they were elect, and spread God's word to all. I do not claim to be either Calvinist, nor Armenian, I believe they both have valid arguments, and that way to much devision is made over the two thoughts. I try to base my beliefs off what the scriptures say. In this case, I believe they say that Christ died for the elect. I know this is dangerous territory, but that's what I believe to be true. If you can prove otherwise through scripture, please do so.

Question 3:

"What is the point of God giving us free-will if we're not allowed to use it?"

This is assuming that all free will is evil thoughts. That free will is the opposite of God's will. Though it normally is, it does not have to be. When Christ gets a hold of a heart, He doesn't just save it, He changes it. He gives new desires, the flesh no longer pleases the same way it did before. It is literally a new heart. You are still allowed to choose, but it'd be like saying to choose between eating feces or eating good food. It's not really a hard option, but you still have the will to choose.

Question 4:

"Do you really think you DESERVE to be tortured?"

Well, if Christ had not gotten a hold of my heart and saved me, then yes, torture is exactly what I deserve. Would it be pleasant? No, that's the point. It's not like God hasn't given everyone an equal chance to be saved. Those that choose to continue on sinning and rejecting Him get what they're asking for. He keeps saying that His way is the truly enjoyable way, yet they want the world, and so, He lets them taste it. But even after tasting it, they only want more, and so, He continues to call them, but, at one point, His patience runs out. They die, and then they will get what they have been heading for for quite some time.

Question 5:

A few things before we get to the question:

"It's really not a great deterrent either, because, if you don't already believe in hell, then it's not going to deter you from doing anything." What's a fairly common, if not the number one, response if you ask someone why God should let them into heaven? "Because I'm a good person." This implies that they do good works and don't do bad works, to stay out of hell. So, I'm going to have to say that it is a deterrent.

"In heaven, we shouldn't be able to be killed, we're already dead, and theoretically, we shouldn't be able to be injured, there's not really anything you're needing to be protected from. So, sending someone to hell doesn't protect the rest of the souls in heaven either." I haven't seen anything in the bible about not being able to be injured in heaven. Also, this statement is ignoring the fact that heaven does not make everyone perfect. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that he assumes that while in heave everyone would act civil just because they're in heaven. This is not the case. Christ changes us, Christ makes us perfect. When we die and go to heaven, our perfection will be made complete by Him, however, if someone dies, without Christ in their heart, they are not changed. Would it be just to send someone to heaven who was still rebelling against God? Remember, we are the problem, Jesus is the answer. Without Him, the problem still exists.

Now the question: "What is the purpose of hell?"

As both a deterrent and to protect those in heaven, as well as to enact the justice God has promised to enact on those who do not accept Him. He is just, and will carry out what He has said He will do.

Question 6:

A few things before we get to the question:
"God was thwarted right from the beginning." No....God is all knowing, and all powerful. The man and women rebelled against Him, and He knew it was going to happen. For some amazing reason, He still loved us enough to let us hurt Him.

"And they grew worse and worse and worse, until finally the merciful God decided to drown them all." He had every right to destroy every last one of us and start over, but He didn't. By grace, He allowed Noah, a sinning man, to live. He chalks this up to be God's failure, but is it His failure, or just another way in which He shows Himself? Does He not show His great compassion through this? Isn't it a warning as well as to the fact that we are evil?

"Since He couldn't focus on everyone, He'd focus on a small group." No....He chose a small group of people to represent Himself. It was His plan. Who are we to question it? He chooses what will reveal His glory most effectively. God doesn't make mistakes. Everything happens at the perfect time, in the perfect way.

"He couldn't succeed with everyone, and He couldn't succeed with the descendants of Abraham either, His chosen people were captured by the Egyptians and they were lead into slavery for 400 years." And if they had not been in slavery, the 7 plagues would not have come on Egypt, the passover would not have happened, pharaohs army would not have been destroyed in the red sea, etc etc etc. It is His plan, all things work together for good. What we see as a failure is just another event along the road.

"Yet again He failed, the people hated Him." Failed at what? Getting them to like Him? Might I submit, that that wasn't His goal. His goal was to bring glory to Himself, and show the world that Israel was His chosen people.

Throughout the video, he continues to insist that there were no schools, or other things that would indicate society. What of the ancient Hebrew writings that are found? Why must we assume that there were no schools? Yes, the bible doesn't say that there where any, but it also doesn't say that there weren't.

I'd like to know how we as humans failing translates into God's failures, because that's my understanding of what was said in the video. He offers us life, we reject Him and follow the world. He says to serve Him, we served ashera and baal. He shows that the scriptures pointed towards Him, we killed Him. But with each of our blunders, God brought about good.

And now the question: "Is the Bible, with the repeated stories of God's failures, a true history of a PERFECT being?"

Now that's a trap if I ever saw one. That question assumes that everything we did wrong was God's failures. God is all powerful, could He have forced us to do whatever He wanted us to do? You betcha, but He chose to leave us freewill. It is a story of His love, a love so great, He's willing to still love us even when we reject Him. Can we really say that this is God's failure because He has given us multiple chances to return to Him?

Question 7:

"Why doesn't God give everyone the same amount of evidence as he gave Thomas?"

Perhaps that is why the story of Thomas doubting is in the Bible. For those who doubt so much. If Thomas had to go through that much proof to believe it, then there is no question about it. He felt Jesus hands and feet, he was satisfied. Someone who doubted that much to believe, should make it plain to everyone that it is indeed true.

Question 8:

"Why is God only willing to give extraordinary evidence to some people, instead of giving the same degree of proof to everyone?"

Through God's word, we do get the same amount of evidence. What else would explain, a man so bent on destroying the early church, then changing, being persecuted himself, tortured, and eventually executed for the very thing he was originally attempting to destroy? It gives Christ glory, to see how much a person changes when Christ gets a hold of the heart!

Bonus question: "Did God take away Paul's freewill when he revealed himself?"

No, Paul still could have said no. It would have been stupid, but he still could have. You see, when you see Christ for who He truly is, why would you want to serve anyone else? On top of that, when you accept Christ into your heart, He literally gives you a new heart. It's a complete change. The old desires do not give you the same pleasure they once did, and He gives you new desires. It feels so right when you live your life for Christ.

Question 9:

A few things before we get to the question:

"If God had made sin as distasteful or unpleasant as stabbing yourself, slamming your fingers in the door, or eating cat feces; then the entire world would be for the most part saved." God did not create sin. Sin came into the world when we rejected Him. Evil is the absence of God. When Christ grabs hold of your heart, sin truly does become that unpleasant. A heart changed by Christ can never look at sin the same way again.

"God went so far as to put massive amounts of nerve endings on the reproductive organs, and then penalize people for using them. I mean seriously, having sex in anyway, for anything other than procreation is suddenly sinful and abhorring. You can't do it, you shouldn't do it, it's bad." No, He put them there for our enjoyment, when used in a way that's pleasing to Him. Meaning, within a marriage, it is perfectly ok to have intimacy. That is how God intended it, for a man and his wife to enjoy each other. As to the bit about having sex in anyway other than procreation, most people will point towards Genesis 38:8-10, "Then Judah said to Onan, 'Go into your brother's wife and perform your duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother. "But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also." Ahh, see? Wasting the seed is evil, therefore, birth control is evil, etc etc. No, this is because he was not fulfilling his duty, and was being selfish towards his brothers wife. On top of that, he was disobeying his father. I suggest reading the Song of Solomon, pages of intimacy, no mention of having children. Mars Hill Church has a very good series on it:

Now the question: "If God didn't want us to sin, why did he make sinning feel good?"

As stated above, God did not create sin, and when someone is changed by Christ sin does not feel good whatsoever.

Question 10:

"Was Jesus' sacrifice to insignificant to please God? If not, why does God reinstate animal sacrifices?"

No, Jesus' payment was the final payment, all animal sacrifices were merely analogies of what was to come. The sacrifices here are meant for the near future, not after the final battle. Why would God give instructions to Ezekiel on how to divide the land if everything was already complete? If you read Ezekiel, there was a break between the vision about the last battle, and the vision about the building of the temple. These are two separate thoughts, there is no reason to assume they are chronological events.

That's all for now, hopefully soon, the next post will be out. There are about 36 videos that he's made from what I can see.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

On Abortion

Abortion is murder, plain and simple. I know that is not a popular view, nor a politically correct one, but the truth is rarely popular, nor politically correct. The arguments I have heard is "My body, my life" and "This is about women's rights." These arguments are not valid, because they ignore the right of the defenseless baby. Though the baby has had no chance to harm anyone, he or she is not allowed to live for the sake of what? Comfort? The other argument I have heard is, "The baby is not a person yet." Therefore, they claim it does not deserve the same rights, and is somehow less human. There is a double standard however, if someone were to murder a pregnant woman, he would be charged with two counts: The killing of the mother, and of the child. So, our government does recognize the baby still has a right to life, however, they turn a blind eye, or in some cases, outright support the killing of innocent life if it is convenient for the mother. This brings us to the next point: Governments roll.

The roll of Government is to represent Jesus' authority on earth. Our government obviously has not done this, and refuses to do so. I understand that is not a valid argument in most groups, so I shall use one that is, not because I am ashamed of my savior, but because the goal of this is to bring about change in peoples thinking. The roll of the government should be to not let the rights of the citizens be encroached upon. This means, they are not to encroach on the rights of the citizens, and are to keep order in such a way as to protect and defend the citizens. At this too, they have failed. It is a slippery slope we find ourselves on, and our government isn't even trying to run back up, but instead, has turned and is leading the charge down. It is the duty of the government to intervene when the rights of the people are being infringed upon, and this means babies also. It boggles the mind that we have such a high value of children, but only the children that are convenient apparently.

Men, we have great responsibilities to bear, responsibilities that should have us on our knees every morning praying that Jesus would not allow us to fail, because the consequences are so great. One of those responsibilities is to "Speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly, defend the rights of the poor and the needy." (Proverbs 31:8-9) Society, and even many churches sadly, has turned men into cowards. Putting great emphasis on peace, and tolerance, so much so that we forget there are things worth fighting for. More and more, I see young Christian men, who grew up in the church, thinking just because they didn't do anything wrong, that they are in the right. You see, there are sins of omission, and commission. Take for example, original sin. Where was Adam when Eve first ate of the fruit? Genesis 3:6 "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate." So, he was there, with her, and did nothing to defend her and her conscience, nor did he defend God and His commands. This is a sin of omission, not living up to his duty as a man to protect and defend. 

You are no longer an innocent sheep, you have now been given knowledge about the subject. You have three options, be a wolf and fight for abortion, be a guilty sheep and ignore what you have learned today, or be a sheepdog and take a stand. 

Monday, June 28, 2010

Sanctity of life

From AP:
Often, overtreating fatal illnesses happens because patients don't want to give up.
Saideh Browne said her mother, Khadija Akmal-Lamb, wanted to fight her advanced ovarian cancer even after learning it had spread to her liver. The 55-year-old Kansas City, Mo., woman had chemo until two weeks before she died last August.
"She kept throwing up, she couldn't go to the bathroom," and her body ached, Browne said. The doctors urged hospice care and said, "your mom was stubborn," Browne recalled. "She wanted her chemo and she wanted to live."
Browne, who lives in New York, formed a women's cancer foundation in her mother's honor. She said she would encourage dying cancer patients to choose comfort care over needless medicine that prolongs suffering.
You see, this is what happens when you try and create a perfect world without God. This is what happens when you start looking at people as society, and not image bearers of God. Step one is making it easier to cope with loss of life, either by saying there was never any real life, or their life is torture, and therefore not true life. They say, "Oh, it's not a baby, just some tissue," or, "They're just going to be in a vegetated state, no feeling or emotion." or even, "They're going to be in agony, it's better to end it now." This is evil.

God created us, and He has set a time for us to die. He has determined the number of our days, if we are still alive, it is only because He has let us keep breathing. He also created us, therefore, how can someone say it is their choice and right to determine if the unborn are allowed to live? No matter what the circumstances, God still allowed him or her to be created, and meticulously made them that way.

What is happening now, has happened before. History repeats itself, there is nothing new under the sun. Nazi Germany started off with their slaughter of the old by telling society that they were unneeded and not useful. That it was merciful to kill the sick and dying. This made it easier to allow the murder and slaughter of those without voice. 

Now, the problem I have right now is not with people giving up on life. That is their choice, and while sad, is still their choice. What I do have a problem with is that our country is headed towards a society where life is not highly valued. Where the government will control healthcare, and will decide weather or not you are worth letting live. Where it is "merciful" to let you die, or just outright kill you. Where before, you might have been able to afford the operation, it will now be to costly to the government. It should not be someone else's choice to determine if God is right in letting you live. A mere man cannot possibly see what God sees, and cannot possibly determine if it is time to go home. 

This has not come suddenly, it has been happening for sometime. The problem is, good people have not done enough to fight it. Darkness can never over come light. If the darkness is moving, it is because the light is not there. When have you ever opened up a door to a dark room and had the darkness put out the light? It doesn't happen. Darkness is not a force, it is the absence of a force. Evil is a bit different, in that it is a force, but still, it cannot stand up against God. If God is with us, who can stand against us? If we, the people of God, stand up for what is right, can evil stand against us?

Search your heart. Ask God what in your life is holding you back from following Him. If you feel called, then make a stand.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men nothing" -Edmund Burke