Friday, October 30, 2009

It's Eve, not Steve

The controversy over homosexual "marriage" rages through America, with some Christians siding with those who want to eliminate the bulwark of the family and stomp all over holy matrimony.

There are sophisticated arguments out there on this topic, but I have a friend who puts it best, "Jesus created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

Although there are many sophisticated ways of pretending Jesus smiles on sin, and even more redefinitions of what actually is sin, there's no doubt about it: homosexuality is an abomination. (Lev. 18:22, Lev. 20:13)

Sure, you'll get those who claim that the Old Testament should be thrown out in favor of the New Testament, which seems, to their enfeebled eyes, to be a more gentile, tolerant book of scripture. Let's do that, just for argument's sake. Let's ignore the Old Testament for a minute. What does the New Testament say?

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools... And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (Rom. 1:22, 27)

The New Testament soundly condemns homosexuality. There's no wiggle room there for accepting it ... not if you want to obey Jesus Christ, which is, after all, the entire point of being Christian.

So you're confused on this issue, about whether a husband should be a man and a wife should be a woman. Let me clear it up for you.

Adam's wife was Eve, not Steve.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Money Hungry

Unbelievably, one of the arguments those in favor of abortion use against those who are pro-life is that Christians are saving the babies' lives just to make money. Yes, you heard me. Even though it's the abortion clinics who make money ending lives, Christians are accused of saving babies just so the babies can grow up to pay tithing.

Sure, it's absurd, but the whole argument in favor of abortion is absurd. This is just the latest excuse for abortion that I've seen. If you don't want to kill babies, you must be money hungry! Oh yes, you Christian churches are counting up your tithing in advance! Never mind that many Christian children don't end up as faithful tithe payers. It's a new way of calling Christians greedy!

The real reason Christians are against abortion, is, of course, that abortion is actually murder. As most people know, a baby has the same DNA as its parent. Therefore, a child in the womb is certainly human. Intentionally killing that baby is, therefore, murder. But abortionists teach people that a human embryo is just tissue, so it's not even sub-human -- never mind all the scientific evidence such as ultra-sounds that prove them wrong.

This idea of certain members of society being less than human and that killing them isn't murder is nothing new. Aborigines used to be hunted down and killed as trophies for sport by members of a society that subscribed to the theory of evolution. Today's society, also steeped in evolution, sees it as a "right" to terminate a baby because it is still in the womb. After all, since the baby is helpless and innocent, it can't be treated as if it's human, can it?

As for this idea that Christians want to raise up a new generation of tithe payers by saving babies from abortion -- give me a break! Even if it were true, at least the Christians are trying to prevent murder rather than cause it.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Trendy, but unwise

I recently viewed a video showing evolutionist Richard Dawkins insulting those who believe in God and calling them unintelligent. Dawkins admits there's a "hell of a lot" evolutionists don't understand, but yet he wants everyone to trust evolutionists when they tell us what is true and what isn't true. I've seen Dawkins in action, and, rather than presenting plausible credentials, he seems to rely on the tactic of making fun of others who disagree with him. In this clip, he was demeaning Kurt Wise, a man with integrity who, unlike Dawkins, doesn't pretend he's smarter than God.

I call admitting you don't know as much as God intelligent. Dawkins, of course, doesn't. But what are you going to do? There are always people willing to group together to impress each other with their own intellectual prowess rather than admit their understanding is limited. The kind of hypocrisy that Dawkins practices is nothing new, but it seems to attract a large following of people who want to feel superior to everyone else.

Even so, Dawkins should stop and think this one over: Just because it's trendy to deny there is a God doesn't make it wise.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

The Greek Geeks

We all know that scientific types are often stereotyped as geeks. But did you know that evolutionists are actually geeks of a Greek variety? And as for being scientific ... they aren't.

Evolutionists, while claiming to be scientific, turn the law of entropy upside down and inside out. They ignore evidence, especially eyewitness evidence of former generations, so that they can foist old, inaccurate thought on us as if it were new.

So evolution isn't a new science, with incredibly accurate data? No. In fact, evolution was spawned in ancient heathen cultures. It resurfaced now and again, such as in Greece, where philosophers like Empedocles (493–435 BC) taught that chance was responsible for creation. These Greek-geek types taught that the fittest survived, and that the weak should give way to the strong.

Now, let's be practical here. How can you separate evolutionary philosophy from its destructive ramifications? You can't. What happened to societies of the past, such as that of Greece, which turned to such harsh and self-serving philosophies as evolution? Overcome by stronger nations, the Greeks soon became just another conquered people.

Case in point: Societies that join the cult of evolutionary thought eventually become extinct. It can happen to us, too.

The Sandwich Scenario

If you see the glaring errors in evolution, you will be reamed out by illiterate people calling you uneducated. They will demand if you even know anything about evolution. They will insult you in bigoted, foul language and get unremittingly violent.

There's no point in telling them that you have a greater understanding of evolution than they do. Adherents of evolution claim it's a science, but a reasonable person can see it is actually a cult which practices censorship, coercion, and persecution to indoctrinate others, especially the younger generation.

Try to be sensible with an evolutionist and he will resort to cursing you out with less than polite epithets. If you point out that no one expects lunch to appear on the table by itself even when all the ingredients for a sandwich are in the refrigerator, and compare that to an entire planet generating itself from nothing, you will be scoffed at. Unable to follow the simile, an evolutionist will tell you that sandwiches and planets aren't the same. That's the whole point ... a sandwich can't make itself, even when all the ingredients are present. How can an entire planet form -- complete with a proper orbit, thriving animal and plant habitats, and a life-supporting atmosphere -- all on its own? Answer: It can't.

Evolution: The Chaos Cult

I recently viewed an interview that Richard Dawkins had with a creationist. During the interview, Dawkins sidestepped any reference to the inaccuracy of evolution by claiming the science was so much better now and the evidence for evolution was overwhelming. When the creationist pointed out that this so-called evidence was often misinterpreted or outright fraud, Dawkins claimed that only happened in the Victorian era.

Excuse me, but if a science starts out wrong and proponents of it won't admit its mistakes and correct them, doesn't that science qualify more for a cultish following than true science?

Yes. Evolution is the "Order from Chaos" Cult -- and very unscientific indeed.

One of the more chilling parts of the interview was when Dawkins admitted that he does not believe in an immortal soul. He claimed that consciousness alone qualifies someone as human. Although he then backtracked and tried to pretend he was for compassionate treatment of the ill, his "science" says that weakness should be obliterated. This means that anyone, the minute he or she loses consciousness, is now only a blob of material and not really human at all.

Kind of reminds you of the arguments for abortion, doesn't it? If a baby isn't born yet, it isn't human and has no right to life -- that's evolutionary thought for you.