Archive

Archive for November, 2009

Hypocritical Arminians of Bible.ca Refuted

November 30, 2009 Leave a comment

I meant to post this last year, but hard drive failures and my lap top screen being cracked on my main laptop, harassment from neighbors and cyber stalkers caused me to lose track of my original refutation of bible.ca’s ranting against Calvinists, but I recreated it about an hour or two ago, and expanded it, here it is:

According to Bible.ca:

“1. Every Bible passage that says, “If you hold fast the word” must be deleted. To the Calvinist, there are no ifs. These passages make no sense to them.”

My response: Because you said so. For the Arminian, there is no grace, no verse can be literal enough when it plainly states that salvation cannot be earned, so they have to resort to making a mere claim, and pretending any verse is evidence of their mere claim.

“2. All passages for watchfulness should be deleted: “be faithful unto death and I will give you the crown of life”. Why be faithful if you already have and can’t lose?”

My response: All passages referring to God implying and stating that salvation cannot be earned should be deleted, and no one should be faithful to God if they can’t take credit for having saved themselves by some supposed goodness of their own. “Pride comes before a fall” is deleted from their hearts.

“3. It would certainly lessen a Christian’s fear of sin and lead to increased sin.”

My response: Your personal certainty is Scriptural evidence, let alone any kind of evidence? And you are, who that I should care about your certainty, your feelings? And no, what increases sin is not the belief that God is forgiving, merciful, doesn’t abandon those he loves and doesn’t break his promises, but telling people that if they sin that they don’t need to trust in Jesus as having told the truth when he said taht he suffered and died for all their sins, that you don’t need to have faith in God, trust him, and can doubt his word, believe that God was a liar, believe that it’s good to interpret God’s word so that it suits your personal pride, and can just ask for forgiveness again and expect to be forgiven despite your your doubt and arbitrary beliefs.

“Historically, such an increase of sin based upon this theology has been documented.”

And so well documented Mr. Pretentious that you conveniently didn’t show any of this documentation, nor did you even mention a single reference to any of this supposed documentation. The only increase in sin was your lie upon lie, and preaching out of jealousy of those who preach the truth out of love. I can imagine your insane “refutation” now:

“Just believe me and you’ll be forgiven of your sins, you won’t increase in sin at all after wards, but those faithless Calvinists who do whatever sure will.”

The real iffers are you Arminians, who have many among you who’ve said to those who’ve spoken the truth, ” ‘If ‘ you’re right, but where’s your proof? ” despite the “proof” repeatedly being shown to you. Maybe this will get through to you, (and though bible.ca didn’t use the “race” argument I call it, some do, so I’ll set them straight now):

“Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets a prize? Run in such a way as to get the [one] prize.” – 1 Corinthians 9:25

I’m guessing that many Arminiests use this verse or would given the right circumstance, to show that eternal life can be earned, at least one, maybe two of them have use these verses on me as evidence of this. But they are taking them out of and twisting the meaning of those verses by themselves. The previous two verses say:

“To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.” Not,

“I’m working for salvation because God’s not in control of my will or anything else and I have some goodness in me that allows me too, and I decide my destiny, no fate but what we make.” or some other nonsense like that. Further, Paul is talking about a single prize for multiple runners in a race, if this were about eternal life than he’s saying that only one person will get eternal life. Obviously then Paul is not speaking literally but metaphorically. But some Arminian might say, “Yes he didn’t mean just one person will get eternal life, it was a metaphor,” but that argument is false because there is no evidence he’s talking about earning eternal life as I pointed out, further, I didn’t say that merely because Paul was speaking metaphorically that that meant he wasn’t talking about salvation, my point is that he clearly didn’t make a two-sentence teaching that was self-explanatory and obvious as many Arminians think or would claim it is.

So what did Paul mean then? Paul next said,

“Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a that will last forever.”

Are Arminians training to get eternal life, or working for eternal life and / or trying to keep it by obeying God’s law? They aren’t “training” to get it. Paul is saying that the competitors concentrate to win, possibly suffering even to win, he mentions training because some races are short, but training often takes a long time since no one is born in shape and people don’t spend their lives running around to win races, and in the same way no one is born being religious and perfectly obedient to God, knowing and understanding his word or having instant preaching skills. It takes time, a long time to know and understand God well, to obey him well, and to get good at leading people to Christ who have different beliefs and widely varying intellectual and language skills. And what is this eternal crown? A crown is an object of glory symbolizing a person’s very high status. Paul even said,

“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory” – Hebrews 2:9

and Peter said,

“And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.” – 1 Peter 5:4

Jesus called it “the crown of life” (Revelation 2:10), a statement which supports Peter’s comment about this crown being so glorious that he refers to it not merely as a “glorious crown” but “of glory”, as if to say “of God’s glory”, however according to Scripture God will not share the glory that radiates from himself, so this type of glory God will give could only be something similar, and incredible, but not so similar as to be not a big difference. The similarity being that the glory will be incredible like God’s. It is also clear that this glory will radiate outward from around our heads because God doesn’t say, “a robe of glory” or “belt of glory” or “ring of glory”.

But what about this verse:

“Hold on to what you have so that no one will take your crown.” – Revelation 3:11

Though that verse isn’t talking about eternal life, why did Jesus say that Jesus already had their crown? It was because the way they were living at that time was leading them to getting this special reward. However, if they stopped being as obedient as they were or turned from God, they wouldn’t obtain it. So, this isn’t a reward that can be earned with a few good deeds or easy obedience, unlike what I assumed at one point (assuming isn’t good), which was that they had already earned this special reward.

Darwinist Richard C. Hoagland Supports Lying To Keep The Peace

November 30, 2009 Leave a comment

“[The] social fabric requires lies to hold them together. Don’t you agree?” said and asked Richard C. Hoagland on Coast to Coast A.M. last night, a Darwinist and Big Bomber believer who spends his time rambling about Torsion Field Physics, the face and pyramids on Mars, and NASA, hoping to be seen as a legitimate scientist by mainstream scientists and “the masses”. Ian Punnet, who was hosting that night, didn’t say a word against that statement, and that wasn’t a surprise to me, being that he’s a hypocrite who claims to be a Christian yet strongly opposes the Christians who believe in absolute truth and promote it.

I wonder, if because Richard is desperate to embraced by NASA and the federal government, agreed with the Darwinists among them, that lying is a necessary thing, so that they would accept him as one of their own and let them in on their secrets and share their power with him.

Darwinist and Liberal ‘Integrity’ Torched by ClimateGate

November 30, 2009 Leave a comment

Has anyone noticed how Darwinists were the ones who were mainly promoting and worrying over global warming, and that it was the opposite in the case of Creationists?:

And now, it’s recently been found that the some of the top global warming scientists, all Darwinists, had been lying about there being a global warming trend, and that Earth had actually been cooling, possibly about to enter another ice age even (on the ice age site is a link to a book being sold which goes along with the false claim that Earth is billions of years old, and that animals suddenly evolved new useful features or into other animals because of magnetic reversals, but obviously magnets don’t cause people to grow wings or tails).

One notorious psuedo-scientist, a trolling idiot, claimed that it wasn’t true that Darwinists were the ones always promoting global warming when a notorious plagiarist atheist and wannabe-wise woman noticed the same thing months ago, claiming, “Not true” because oil companies were denying global warming. So a few oil companies are the majority of Darwinists? There are so many millions of Darwinists oil companies that other atheists not apart of any oil companies or any company at all are just a small minority? And how can oil companies deliberately lying (lying in their own minds) count as people who sincerely deny the truth, if, again, they “knew” they were lying? How absurd and stupid atheists are, especially Darwinist ones.

On top of that, Mr. “Not True” Atheist was lying about all oil companies denying global warming, though in my judgment in his ignorance being that he busies himself trolling Christian creationists, desperately and frantically posting mere claims without evidence to defend anti-Christian doctrine, like he did in this case, rather than carefully researching.

Here’s another passage, 2 years older than Mr. Not True’s lie, which refutes it,

And just a few words later, months before the Prison Planet article, this Businessweek article then says,

There’s a maddening grammatical error in the top part of that article by the way.

So, Psuedo Christian Science Monitorers, who seven months ago mocked Christians and those who believed in Intelligent Design scientists over their disbelief of global warmin, lumping them in with astrologers, and who continues to mock them, clearly, the jokers, are you, the evil type: mockers. Not April fools, you liberal fools.

What Is Mike Huckabee’s Gospel and Why Won’t He Tell Us?

November 30, 2009 Leave a comment

Ever since I saw this video last year, in which Mike Huckabee, a supposedly true Christian, had praised Clinton, I was suspicious of Mike.

After or about the time I saw the video I tried hard to find out what his Christian beliefs were, but failed. And a few hours ago learned that he is trying to hide most of his religious ones. and has given the appearance of trying to hide a bad mistake in his past (the pardoning of an evil man who a few hours ago murdered some police), by blaming it on some prosecutors instead, and not mentioning that he was the governor at the time over this evil criminal.

Last night, after hearing a Catholic radio show host, Billy Cunningham (who tonight before closing out implied that we can deserve eternal life), get surprised over hearing a caller present information that showed it was Huckabee who released this criminal, I decided to look again into Huckabee’s beliefs, and though finding out some good news, found some evil news, apparently true, about him. Here’s something from Mother Jones Magazine:

At an early debate, he indicated he does not believe in evolution, but at a more recent debate, when he was asked by Wolf Blitzer if the creation of the Earth occurred six thousand years ago and only took six days, as stated in the Old Testament, Huckabee said, “I don’t know. I wasn’t there.”

Yet some other things he’s said indicates that he does believe Genesis is literal, at least partially. Though his “I wasn’t there comment” was illogical, and showed a lack of trust for that part of the Bible, whether he meant it to seem that way or not, it did make it clear how much more absurd it would be if he were asked, “Do you believe that this endlessly beautiful, extremely mathematically ordered universe fine-tuned for life hear and earth and seemingly trillions of other planets (and possibly the existence of billions of other universes with life) all came from a giant explosion

During a CNN/YouTube debate, the Republican field was asked by a man holding a Bible, “Do you believe every word of this book?” Huckabee said that portions of the Bible should “obviously” be seen as “allegorical.” He again stated that he could not know the exact meaning of parts of the Bible, saying, “There are parts of it I don’t fully comprehend and understand, because the Bible is a revelation of an infinite god, and no finite person is ever going to fully understand it.”

“Huckabee has indeed mixed religion with policy previously. In 1997, when he was governor, he answered a question about capital punishment during a call-in show:

Interestingly enough, if there was ever an occasion for someone to have argued against the death penalty, I think Jesus could have done so on the cross and said, “This is an unjust punishment and I deserve clemency.”

Huckabee’s argument: since Jesus didn’t say that, according to the New Testament, capital punishment is fine.” – MJ

From an article titled, Where Word-Faith Meets Southern Baptist

Republican hopeful Mike Huckabee reached out to a questionable funding source this week—Texas televangelist Kenneth Copeland, one of the targets of a Senate Finance Committee investigation into the funding and governance of “prosperity gospel” ministries. …

According to video clips of the conference obtained by Trinity Foundation, an investigative watchdog group in Dallas, Copeland revealed that Huckabee had pledged his total support to Copeland’s ministry while dismissing the Senate investigation.

Video clips of Copeland’s comments are posted on The Wittenburg Door Magazine website.

One video clip shows Copeland describing a phone call from Huckabee regarding the Senate investigation:

“[Huckabee told me] Why should I stand with them and not stand with you? They’ve only got 11 per cent approval rating.’ And then he said, ‘Kenneth Copeland, I will stand with you.’ He said, ‘You’re trying to get prosperity to the people and they’re trying to take it away from ’em.’ He said, ‘I will stand with you any time, anywhere, on any issue.’ That settled that right there. I said, ‘Yeah, that’s my man! That’s my man, right there.'”

And then, about about 7:14 A.M., thanks to God and no thanks to a certain irreligious, suicidal though God-believing neighbor suddenly blasting her stereo at 6:32 A.M., I found this from concordmonitor.com:

It was a regular Sunday in January 1992 when Huckabee told his congregants that he was leaving the church for politics. In his 2007 book Character Makes a Difference, Huckabee says he had grown increasingly frustrated with church life. He’d lost the idealism that marked his earlier days as a pastor.

“In my early years of ministry, I was quite idealistic, thinking that most people in the congregation expected me to be the captain of a warship leading God’s troops into battle,” Huckabee said. “As the years passed, I became increasingly convinced that most people wanted me to captain the Love Boat.

“Too many people seemed unconcerned about how many marriages were salvaged, how many kids got off drugs, or how many teen pregnancies were prevented,” he said. “Rather, the chief concerns seemed to be whether the menus for Wednesday night dinners were appetizing, what color the softball jerseys would be, how loud some guest musicians might sing, whether the coffeepot was ready in the Sunday school building, and whether there were paper towels in the women’s rest room.”

At 8:56 A.M. I found this: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18821021. Here’s the most significant part I could find besides, once again, the glaring lack of at least a one sentence how-to-be-saved statement:

“I wasn’t bitter or angry [about leaving my position as a pastor]; I just wanted my life to count for something more than being an ordained cruise director.” Commenting on that passage, Huckabee said in an e-mail: “I didn’t leave the ministry, as I am still ordained. The good news is that churches have been changing over the past 15 years – with not only a continuing and proper focus on eternal issues”

How can your life count for anything as a Christian, how can you lead righteous people into battle against sin, if you wouldn’t acknowledge the heart necessary truths to do so?

Yes, many Christians do have messed up priorities, sadly. But if only you would get yours straight, and not forget that the gospel of salvation is a higher priority than getting kids off drugs, preventing abortions, being concerned about what age a young adult has sex at and when a young adult female gets pregnant, and the uselessness of telling people to be moral for the Hell of it, as if that was all God was about.

Like Huckabee just said, at 9:57 A.M., who could take the time to mention the petty Tiger Woods car crash just now, but not the murders committed by the hardened criminal he pardoned, let alone that it was he who pardoned him and with no indication that he gave the gospel to this criminal: “There’s nothing ilke a dose of hard time to make us rethink our priorities.”

The apostle Paul said,

“For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—
not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be
emptied of its power.” – 1 Corinthians 1:17

Glenn Beck: A Dangerous, Passive Agressive, Mocker

November 30, 2009 Leave a comment

Glenn Beck, about two or three weeks ago, was obviously trying to incite conservatives and Republicans to war, at least two prominent liberal radio show hosts noticed this. This man is more evil than liberals, as he uses Christianity to try and justify his war-mongering, which can mislead people into thinking that true Christians are war-mongers. Though making such a stereotype is not justifiable despite Glenn’s subtle, but obvious calls to violence. And how can this man be expected to be taken seriously when he spends his time, often, which moronic co-hosts, mocking others and making childish jokes in snide arrogance? He bashed and bitterly mocked hundreds of thousands of 9/11 Truthers and he thinks he’d be safe in a war after that? I’m sure plenty would be gunning for him for his hypocritical, arrogant, traitorous, mocking.

Even on his new book, Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government, he shows himself to be a moron. What is meant to be conveyed by such a picture? A pouting general with a black eye? Meaning? I think it means: “Look at all these gullible idiots who will buy my books and listen all day long to me no matter how obvious I make it that I’m preaching for fame money.

True Christians are caught between violent anti-Christians, liberals, and fundamentalist false Christians. We should find another country to move to the moment it becomes clear that these three groups intend to go to war with each other, lest they attack us in their narcissistic role-play, with some pretentious excuse like, “If your not part of the solution you’re part of the problem.”

Meanwhile, we should pray often that there will be no civil war, or not any time soon, and that the state governments and federal governments will stop being oppressive and turn to God. Though that is not going to happen any time soon according to the Bible, prayer from enough decent and righteous Christians will help slow the increase in bad behavior by non-Christians and also keep other Christians from sinning as much.

Why Christianity is Wrong and Destroying America and the World

November 28, 2009 6 comments

Why Christianity is Wrong and Destroying America and the World

by Lucky the Liberal

Hello, I’m Lucky the Liberal.

I’m succesfful and have my own house and have many friends and parties in it all the time with educated people from universities and also buddhists come over and its all paid off its big im rich and I went to college, also im neutral because im an atheist therefore you should listen to me.

Today we’ll be learning why Christians are bad people

One, Christians r bad bcuz they read teh bibLe alot and they keep saying God ovr n over.

number 2 also they did you notice they have way more websites and books then athiests? and so therefore they are lazy.

Three: they dont use theyre churches for homeless people and they should. If I were in charge of America I would convert all churches to homeless shelters.

Also Christians fundmentalists –  THATS the worst kind of christians – they deny evolution, big bang and spotaneuos life generation from soups puddles therefore they are stupid. They ahve no education and theyre hypocrites since they teach science but say theres no evolution big bang or sponteuos generations from soup puddles. Ok. So, do you see why liberals are way more smart and useful than Christians, specually the fundsementalist ones? See we don’t wastes time we speak the truth, we have facts and refrences, like this watch, look:

Richard Dawkins, who wrote Origins of Species,  bones in museums, and also a dinsaour creationist museam got shut down bcuz the owners didnt want to pay taxes which is clear proof they are wrong,

We are better at spelling and we had a survey that showed we’re smarter than religious people. Well some liberals are religious but its not much so that’s why I said we’re smarter than religious people. Oh and also we get along with the rest of the world better, so also yes therefore that’s proof we are right and the peaceful ones. More references: Multiple studies by scientists (and all scientists are libearls), so we have all the research and facts on your side.

So as you can see it’s liberals, who, advance the, world, make great technologies, are not the ranting ones, and we dont need to hear about Hell to do good and dont have sky daddies in the clouds. Oh yeah notice how Christians always right big paragraphs and say sooo much stuff and so YOU CANT READ IT!!!???

oH ALSO another huge refrence is wikipedia and it’s clearly the truth. Its better than all other encycleopdias because its got references for everything it says and none of the people in charge of it are bad they are all good because they are in charge. if they werent good why would they be in charge of it?

Also christians burned alexandrias library, bcuz they hate knowledge and they are primitive and simply like bacteria. Atheists didnt want to burn the library instead they wanted to make great civilizations and save lives. Atheists are perfect and never say or do anything wrong.

See I’m logical. Now stop wasting peoples money and time you stupid Christians and making global warming and melting icebergs with your Bibles and God talk!!!! BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!!! OH YEAH: GO OBAMA!!! HE’S FOR CHANGE AND CHANGE IS ALWAYS GOOD AND BEST!!!!

P.S. my name is really Smile Amani and I love to help peolpe on Yahoo Answers. My bests friends is Novangelis, Footprints in the Sand, Gorgeoustxwoman, Grim Jack, Tash, Batgirl2good, Pangel, Great Gazoo, Green Witch, Spike (I love you Spike what happened to you? Did you ever lose all that fat?),  Babbling Blue, Psuedodododia, Justin His Royal Highness and we all think its funny to put babies in microwaves. Oh speaking of babies, stop preventing kids from aborting their babies you mean Christians! We need to teach rapists a lesson by killing their babies instead of letting them turn kids and women into baby machines which is why rapists rape! Also we can use their stem cells for science and we need to them to save real lives, not protolplasms festuses which arent even human! And one day maybe we can get so advanced that i can get stem cells put in my brain so that Im finally good at math and science and can help the world better and keep more babies from being born who will just be poor and pollute the world!

Copyright Lucky the Liberal 2009-infinity.

Source:

atheist, no god no guilt

In Response to Frances Kelly’s Request To Receive an Opinion on Channeling

November 25, 2009 4 comments

Channeling is forbidden by the Bible, it is the same as trying to speak with the dead, whether the person channeling knows it or not. They are opening themselves up for communication from a demon, and demons are all liars, everyone except Satanists and those as deluded as them know that demons, are, by definition, evil beings.

There is no evidence that any channeler has ever channeled an alien, all the evidence suggests that they are either lying or a demon is speaking through them, as the things that come out of their mouth is always wrong in some way, and always fits a certain type of communication style, that is the person supposedly being channeled always claims (and they are always things that anyone could make up, like about Atlantis) that what it is saying is fact, never opinion. For example, something lie this, “The Atlanteans lived 10,000 years ago but destroyed themselves in their carelessness), and that is the sign of a prideful liar. I’m not saying that people must arbitrarily saying, “This is my opinion” but I’ve heard and read supposedly channeled aliens and dead humans, and there is always something that goes against the Bible. Why isn’t there one single spirit that agrees with the Bible? If you claim it’s because they find out it’s wrong, well then why don’t any say, “I was a former Christian and learned this part of the Bible was wrong.” No, it’s always, “Go for the kill” so to speak, in other words, get the lie out as fast as you can. And the lack of sophistication also shows that the beings speaking are careless about the truth (not bothering to be clever about it like saying that they were a former Christian or that they also had a Bible on their planet that turned out to be false and that they learned their lesson). This is evidence of low intelligence or a lack of concern for the truth, of a personality that just goes about sloppily bashing the truth as if it were a joke. On the other hand it could be that the reason we only hear stupid spirits that lack sophistication is because God only allows the stupid ones to possess a person or speak through them. The reason for that may be that if more clever spirits were allowed to use a person to speak, that the deception would make it more difficult for people in general to tell the truth from a lie, a level of difficulty that God doesn’t want the world in general to have to deal with for whatever reason.

Evidence of God or at least some superior being imposing a limit on what these spirits can do is that it’s known they can sometimes possess people and do things that humans are not able to do naturally: manipulating objects without touching them, speak in languages not known to the person being possessed, do things that are so painful that it’s unlikely that even an insane person would do them (like repeatedly biting on things that cause teeth to immediately break off or scratching things with your fingers so that your nails ripped off), floating, saying things that couldn’t be known without having been spied on or seeing and hearing a person’s memories, making smells seemingly out of no where (probably by transmuting the particulates in the air into some other form that smells),  changing the temperature of the air or an object, making or projecting images like of an object or possibly of some creature (which may be a demon or part of a demon itself rather than a projection or temporary manipulation of matter), making vocalizations or music on audio recordings that were apparently directly imprinted onto the recording, making images directly onto video recordings so that the images couldn’t have been seen by anyone, causing wounds that don’t get infected, and that can remain opened for long periods of times and bleed greatly without the person they’ve wounded, dying (stigmata), HOWEVER, that these powerful spirits aren’t doing this whenever they want, and let us know now and then that they don’t like to hear or see anything that is strongly related to God (for example a certain famous prophet who commanded that his followers randomly terrorize non-believers, and that command is recorded in their holy book) was said to go beserk when he saw crosses, suggests that it’s God who is limiting them. And note that no one has ever heard of a spirit being saying, “Stop talking about Shiva! I don’t want to hear about Zeus!” to someone trying to cast them out using their names, but only throwing fits when hearing something like, “In the name of Jesus,” or verses from the Bible, and so on. Though God seems to have limited the kinds of spirits that can possess people, he has allowed much great deception in the form of misleading people as to what the true religion is (as opposed to allowing any supposed alien or dead human to teach that there is no God). For example implying that no one goes to heaven but just reincarnates or reincarnates a certain amount of times then goes to Heaven, or that Catholicism is the true religion (a few times Catholics or people that could be persuaded to become Catholics have seen or at least claimed to have seen visions of angels fighting or while possessed, supposedly hate to be touched with holy water, and the holy water concept is strongly associated with the Catholic religion). You never, not even in movies, see a possessed person being exorcised by an Episcopalian priest, a Mormon, or Baptist, it’s always, suspiciously, a Catholic, and since the New Age, by sorcerers/witches and or mediums. The malicious intent of the demons is also evident by their choice of what they throw fits over with regards to who and how they are repelled: Catholic priests, mediums, and witches. Why these three? Here is a psychological analysis again:

1) Catholic doctrine and the Bible forbid channeling or consulting demons, casting spells, and even fortune-telling. And demons give us the impression that Catholics can repel them, but not other types of groups that many consider Christians, whether considering them to be hypocritical Christians or not. And a careful study of a certain chapter in Revelation indicates that God considers the Catholics church to be the “whore that rides the beast” who is “drunk with the blood of the saints”. In other words God considers them to be unfaithful, both physically and spiritually adulterous (including not being faithful to God) and to be responsible for the deaths of a great many true Christians. The clue is the reference to the city on “seven hills” in this chapter (Rome is the only known city on seven hills with great influence of the world). Now if you suppose that Satan is a very malicious liar, and a clever one as the Bible teaches he is, then it’s makes sense as to why he would want to give the appearance that one “Christian” group (that God took the time to write about as being the worst on Earth), as being the only Christians powerful enough to stop him, or that even have a chance (Catholic priests have a high failure rate of getting rid of demons, and as far as the evidences shows, they don’t actually get rid of any demons, but rather the demons leave on their own, and according to the Bible, possess the same person again, and probably sometimes when their are no priests around or anyone to notice the possession, (like hidden abuse)).

2) Demons give the impression that mediums and witches can make them leave, at least in the mass media (for example no medium has ever been shown being attacked by a demon, a ghost investigator was recently attacked/possessed, supposedly, and it can be seen on youtube, but there was no indication that he was a medium or a witch that I knew of). Now what makes no sense about that, is that, again, traditional and official Catholic doctrine teaches that mediums and witches are evil and are under the persuasion of Satan, and if Satan, then the rest of the disobedient angels/demons, as Satan is their leader. The Bible also implies this.

Notice the polar opposites: Catholics, supposedly the only true Christians or rather only ones who will make it to Heaven and live forever in peace, and the mediums and witches, mediums who are said to channel demons, and it’s implied that witches, even if they don’t know it, rely on Satan/demons to accomplish their magic. Do you notice the irony, or the joke of this “Trickster”, this comedian, this mocker, called Satan?:

He’s simultaneously promoting the Catholic denomination, which at least in the opinion of 50+ million Christians is the most hated by God of of all Christian cults and the mediums and witches, whom Satan works and speaks through, and more ironic, is that Satan often uses mediums to console those who are tormented over the loss off someone they loved. In other words Satan is making it look like the worst cult on Earth is the true religion while causing great confusion also by making it look like Catholicism is completely wrong, by putting mediums and witches in a good light. And this makes the Bible look wrong to those WHO KNOW that the Bible forbids speaking to the dead and witchcraft, and which implies that the Catholic denomination prevents lasting peace.

Is what I’ve said just ranting? If so, then show the flaw or flaws in my logic. Note: simply telling me that the Bible is false is not evidence of anything, let alone scientific evidence, also showing any supposed evidence that it is won’t be accepted by me, since I’ve already examined it all, and though I’m not a professional biologist or physicist or archeologist, I don’t need to be anymore than any who disbelieves the Bible needs to be in order to “know” it’s not true, rather we can read the research of those who are and examine their trustworthiness in various ways to know if they are telling the truth, or if their research makes sense. And for those of you who think, “Well if you won’t except the only evidence that the Bible is false then you’re preventing anyone from showing your reasoning is false”, that’s wrong, because you can view my belief in the Bible as true as a hypothesis that it is true, and then look for any flaw or flaws in my exposition based on that hypothesis.

For example, if someone wouldn’t accept that the basic evidence for macro-evolution were true, and wrote a exposition based on it, that wouldn’t prevent me from showing that their exposition was wrong (if it were long enough) being that flaws are inevitable in any teaching based on a lie, especially a great amount of lies as many think the Bible is.

A Challenge for Taylor Marshall and all Catholics

November 16, 2009 1 comment

This post can also be reached at taylormarshall.tk

Stop Funding a Chronically Child-Abusing Institution

This is in response to Taylor Marshall’s posts here and here.

Take these verses to your heart Catholics, both non-Christian Catholics and Christian Catholics, take these verses to your heart and keep them there:

“Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.” – Proverbs 26:5

“Father, IF YOU ARE WILLING, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but YOURS BE DONE.” – Luke 22:42

CATHOLIC RESPONSE: “OH THAT LAST VERSE IS HERESY! HERESY! HOW DARE YOU POINT OUT THAT NOT EVEN JESUS’ WILL IS DONE OVER GODS’! THAT WOULD MEAN WE’RE DESTINED TO DO WHATEVER GOD WANTS US TO!

Oh but wait didn’t Shawn “the hypocrite Catholic” Hannity, supported by millions of Catholics, say that God controls his destiny? yes he did.  OH MY GOD THAT HERETIC! But, hey not as bad as saying Jesus suffered for the world’s sins in Hell, bcuz Hell has anti-Catholic germs!

So much for Catholics claiming predestination is a lie, man, when will they get their lies straight? Which “fairy tale” should I believe Catholics when you keep making up arbitrary reasons to hate Calvinists?

You Catholics are the insane hypocrites, the ones who exchanged the truth for a lie, the whore that rides the beast, drunk off the blood of millions of Christians killed over her 1000+ year reign.

When will you stop molesting and raping kids and giving money to the leaders who protect the ones who commit those crimes, while vilifying Calvinists as being the untrustworthy unloving ones?

A Challenge to Taylor Marshall’s Childishly Stupid, “John Calvin’s Worst Heresy” Rant

So you support using Hank Hannegraff, a heretic deserving of death according to the Catholic Church’s tradition and popes, is now who Catholics are turning to to try and silence Calvin’s “heresies”? And how is claiming, more than once, that Calvinists teach that God is a cosmic rapist, “politely disagree[ing] with Calvin”? Taylor? But if you think ranting about saying Jesus went to Hell rather than suffered on Earth only is the worst thing to say rather than calling God a rapist, it’s no wonder you don’t know what polite or impolite is.

Isn’t Mr. “God Is A Cosmic Rapist If He Loves You and You Hate Him” aka “Mr. Steal Credit Then Try and Sue You If You Show That I’m a Liar”  such a good, trustworthy reference? But what would the Catholics know, who are so stupid that they can’t take a giant 50,000,000 killed in 1000 years (plus 1000+ kids raped and sodomized by Catholic parents, teachers, monks, nuns and priests every year in place of mass murdering “rebel” Christian when the Calvinists stopped their murdering) hint? Sadly we are hardly able to put a stop the hypocritical daily murder (aborting) of  babies by Catholics, while Catholic leaders pretend abortion is a bad thing. Yep, that hate had to have some other way of coming out if not by murder: prostitution, hoarding money away from the poor, sexually abusing kids, even homosexual child molestation (so what was that about Calvin’s “worst heresies”?) and cutting up babies in “kids”, without even numbing the babies first, and then throwing them away as if they were trash. Oh Calvin was the worst wasn’t he?

In testimony before a British parliamentary committee in the late 1990s, one boy spoke of the criminal abuse he was subjected at the hands of Catholic priests at Tardun in Western Australia. A number of Christian brothers competed between themselves to see who could rape him 100 times first, the boy said. They liked his blue eyes, so he repeatedly beat himself in the hope they would change colour. As parliamentarians reflected at the time, the term “sexual abuse” seemed wholly inadequate given the awfulness of his experience.

Why not turn to Satan too while you’re at it? Why not use him as a reference for refuting Calvin? You use one of his sons, why not the father oflies himself? Yet you block my comments for being ad hominem attacks, and make challenges to us oh so bad Calvinists, but can’t be bothered to let anyone reply to your challenge. What a flaming hypocrite Taylor is.

Jesus said, “You shall know them by their fruits” and to beware of false prophets who are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Wasn’t that just so horribly polemical of Jesus, calling Satan the father of those horrible hypocrites?

And why would saying Jesus went to a certain location be a heresy? GOT YOUR MORALS AND PRIORITIES MIXED UP MUCH? WOULDN’T TEACHING SALVATION INCORRECTLY BE THE GREATEST SIN, AND SECOND TO THAT, ABUSING KIDS SO THAT THEY ARE BENT AGAINST DOING ANY GOOD IN THE FUTURE? DUR? YOU SICK BLIND HYPOCRITES WHO KEEP PAYING EVIL LEADERS WHO PROTECT CHILD-ABUSING CLERGY? DUR? SICK HYPOCRITES YOU ARE, YET YOU THINK YOU ARE THE ONES WHO ARE GOING TO HEAVEN, YET YOU THINK THOSE WHO TEACH THAT GOD’S WILL IS ALWAYS DONE ARE THE EVIL ONES.

You Catholics suuuuure have a thing for homosexual molestation and SODOMy of little male kids. Oh I can just hear that hypocritical cop out now: “Well everyone sins” Nowr nowr nowr you hypocrites: JESUS DIDN’T SAY, “OH WELL UR ALL DRUNKS AND RAPISTS, EVERYONE SINS”, NO HYPOCRITES, HE SAID, “YOU WILL KNOW THEM BY THEIR FRUITS” AND TO BEWARE OF WOLVES IN SHEEPS CLOTHING, AND THAT SATAN WAS THE FATHER OF THOSE WHO ARE ETERNALLY CONDEMNED, NOT “WELLYA ALL SIN”. AND HOW CONVENIENT FOR YOU HYPOCRITES TO ONLY PULL THAT BULLSHIT EXCUSE OUT FOR YOURSELVES, BUT NOT CALVIN, WHEN OH MY GOD NO HE SAYS JESUS SUFFERED IN A LOCATION THAT YOU DON’T LIKE, OH NO, “HELL”, CUZ, CUZ IT’S GOT GERMS!

If only your hypocrite friends on the John Calvin’s worst heresies blog would be fair and not use that nonsense “ad hominem attacks” excuse to block this reply, while permitting ad hominem attacks on Calvin, if only they would stop condemning Jesus’ ad hominem attacks on the pharisees, but they won’t, because Satan is also the father of the Catholics and their child-abusing pharisees, then I wouldn’t have had to personally send you this message.

And yeah, like you really care if Jesus went to Hell or not while you obsess on Mary, “saints” and angels, worshiping them and pretending it’s just “veneration” to treat them higher than Christ, while only paying nonsensical lip service to Jesus, like, “HELL HAS GERMS HOW DARE CALVIN SAY JESUS WENT TO HELL! THAT’S THE WORST!”. To you morally warped idiots. Jesus is just a ghost on a piece of toast to be starred at for a few minutes now and then.

It you who need to stop your ad hominem attacks yourself you hypocrite, and to stop blocking comments that refute you on your lame blog posts.

Related Post:

Taylor Marshall’s, ‘A Challenge to Protestants’ On Who Has God’s Spirit, Defeated

Shawn Hannity and His Worthless Catholic Religion

November 12, 2009 Leave a comment

“We praised our veterans, we acknowledge our freedom and liberties come from them.” – Shawn Hannity, Shawn Hannity Show, 11/12/2009, forgetting God, the civilians parents who raised the troops, and the civilians who supported them.

“If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.” – James 1:26

He gave you manna to eat in the desert, something your fathers had never known, to humble and to test you so that in the end it might go well with you. You may say to yourself, “My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.” 18 But remember Yahweh your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your forefathers, as it is today. – Deuteronomy 8:16-18

And not only should you be careful with restraining your mouth, you should make sure that you speak when it is required:

“Don’t hate your brother in your heart, [instead] rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.” – Leviticus 19:17

On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. They shouted, “This is the voice of a god, not of a man.” Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died. – Acts 12:21-24

On Baptism and It’s Alleged Necessity for Salvation: Is Baptism Necessary For Salvation?

November 9, 2009 Leave a comment

This post can also be reached at aboutbaptism.tk or onbaptism.tk

Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. (Mark 8:35)

What is the gospel? Is it, “accept Jesus into your heart and be baptized with water for the forgiveness of sins”?

Many deceivers have gone out into the world to mislead people about salvation, either on purpose or by accident. Here I show all the verses that are used most to teach the heresy that baptism is what saves a person or what is necessary to.

One heretical Lutheran church deceptively says,

“Holy Baptism, water applied in the Name of the Triune God according to Jesus’ institution (Matthew 28:19), truly saves (1 Peter 3:21), causes one to be born again (John 3:5; Titus 3:5)”

Notice they don’t quote the verses? On their page they don’t so so, all you have to do is search for the above quote and see that. If baptism is so important for salvation, why don’t they quote the verses? I will:

“and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[a] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21)

Notice it doesn’t say “baptism saves you” as these liars try to make it appear? It says, “this water symbolizes baptism“. How did they “miss” that word? And notice they didn’t reference the verses that came before that? Why not? It’s because it showed that this verse wasn’t talking about being saved by water. The verse, in context clearly shows that:

“For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous [man died] for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism” (1 Peter 3:18-21).

Notice that this passage, 1 Peter 3:18-21, is talking about Christ’s death to save us,  and his preaching to SPIRITS in Hell? Can spirits be baptized? No, because water is material and water doesn’t atone for sin, Christ taking God’s anger upon himself for the sins of those he came to save is what atoned for it, not having water sprinkled on you or going under it. And how was Noah saved or any of the Christians who lived before John the Baptist of Christ was born? Noah didn’t immerse himself in water nor did any of his family according to Scripture, they avoided the rain and flood by getting in the ark, which symbolized Christ’s body. The ark shielded them from the water and kept them from going into it. So not only does that negate the claim that you must go under water to be saved, it negates the claim that you have to be baptized at all to be saved. Just like Peter said, it’s symbolic. None of those before John the Baptism came needed baptism, so why would it would be needed when Christ was born?

More obviously symbolic language concerning baptism:

“for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” (Galatians 3:27)

When a person is baptized do they suddenly have the body of Jesus on them like clothing?

That Lutheran church also quotes Matthew 28:19, which says,

“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

Does that say baptism saves? No. If it did and was required, then God, speaking through the apostle Paul would not have said,

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” (1 Corinthians 1:17).

Another verse they used is,

“I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” (John 3:5)

Would this church like to explain how you can be “born of water”? If they can’t, why do they claim it’s talking about baptism? Again they fail to accept that Jesus didn’t always speak literally. Water symbolizes God’s word:

Just three chapters later after John 3:5, Jesus said,

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63)

And what came before John 3:5?:

“For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.” (John 3:34)

So, the Lutherans took God’s WORD out of context again. And here is where God make it clear that water represents his word:

“He sends his word and melts them; he stirs up his breezes, and the waters flow.” (Psalm 147:18)

The words of a man’s mouth are deep waters, but the fountain of wisdom is a bubbling brook.” (Proverbs 18:4)

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.” (Ephesians 5:25-27)

Does God literally want husbands to take pages from the Bible or pieces of paper with verses on it and to rub them against their wives? Obviously not. The Bible also symbolizes Christ as the future husband of the of church, and once as the husband of Israel, which represent the true church.

“Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:15-16)

Ironically this verse is used by those who believe in baptism as one of two key verses that are evidence that we must be baptized to be saved. But notice that the second half of what Jesus said leaves out baptism as being a requirement. I imagine however that it could be argued that Jesus was merely emphasizing the importance of faith, and that it’s more important that baptism, because baptism alone is useless, however that’s not the only verse on baptism as I’ve shown here. Furthermore, Jesus did not say even in this passage that baptism is necessary to be saved, anymore than Jesus said, “Unless you obey God’s Law you cannot be saved” which many false Christians of all types teach, except Calvinists types (which is twisted from the verse, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21). Ironically, many Lutherans realize that that verse isn’t teaching that you can be saved by obeying God’s laws or doing good deeds, and realize that Jesus was saying that obedience is evidence that you have been saved, why then do they fail to see that baptism is also evidence, especially when they quote 1 Peter 3:21, which again, says, “…symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.” For the person who goes through baptism it is evidence to them that they are saved especially, since they know their own heart, but those judges on the outside, only have their words and behavior to go through, and can’t feel what another person feels.

“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.”, said by Peter.

Notice that neither Jesus nor Peter did not say “with water”? Notice that Jesus didn’t say, “but whoever is not baptized” let alone, “ but whoever is not baptized with water“? No, the emphasis instead was on faith. For, “without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6).

The Lutheran liars also reference Titus 3:5, which ironically refutes that baptism is necessary, it says,

“he saved us, not because of righteous things we have done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit”

First,  where does that verse say, “water” anywhere? And how is “rebirth” a word for “water”? Rebirth is an action, a verb, not an object or a noun. Second: He is talking about the action of the Spirit entirely: it says that the rebirth and renewal is by the Holy Spirit, not, “rebirth by water baptism and renewal by the Holy Spirit“. Third: How in the world did they miss the first part of that verse!?: “he saved us, NOT BECAUSE OF THE RIGHTEOUS THINGS WE HAVE DONE, BUT BECAUSE OF HIS MERCY”. How hard is it to understand “things we have done” unless you are severely spiritually blind to the truth, so blind you can’t figure out how to be saved? Or are there any Lutherans or anyone else who would like to argue that baptism isn’t a “righteous act”? Putting words in God’s mouth is a sin, it’s like adding to his word words which aren’t there.

Another key passage used by those who believe that baptism is necessary is the first verse of this passage:

“Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?’ Jesus replied, ‘Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.” (Matthew 3:13-15)

The problem is that Jesus didn’t need to be saved, and that is what baptism is for according to baptism-for-salvation-believers (b.s.b.’s). So then why did Jesus get baptized?: Jesus said, “for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness”; in order for us to be saved someone perfect had to obey all of God’s laws perfectly. If God had commanded God-followers to be baptized, and that seems to be the case since John the Baptism was baptizing many, and even Jesus went to be baptized, then it would make sense that Jesus was fulfilling this law in order to cover any Christians who had failed to be baptized or perhaps, Christians who when being baptized, weren’t having pure thoughts at the time. So, Jesus was fulfilling a law in the place of those he came to save, just as he fulfilled the law of a thanksgiving sacrifice or sacrifices, observing the Passover, and other obsolete Old Testament laws.

Also, it seems as if John the Baptism was saying he wasn’t baptized, if this is the case, how could an unsaved man be baptizing others? And if he had been baptized, and was already saved, why would he need Jesus to baptize him? So it makes no sense that baptism is a requirement for forgiveness/salvation.

If that still doesn’t convince you, here is one verse that should at least make you seriously doubt it:

“For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” – 1 Corinthians 1:17

In context, Paul was saying that it was wrong for the Corinthians to boast about who baptized them or seek I suppose, to be baptized by a certain person. Someone might argue that that is why Paul said what he did, not because baptism wasn’t necessary to be saved, but, notice Paul did not say, “For Christ did not send me to baptize in my name or anyone elses name…”, he simply implied that it was the gospel that saves unlike baptism. And suppose someone argues that it was “understood” that Paul meant “not baptize in my name or some other mere human”, I believe they would be wrong, because, “God is not the author of confusion”, and I think he would be, if that is what he meant, but did not say it. I believe God is the author of simple, medium, and hard to understand things, but not confusion.

And for whoever believes that water baptism is required for eternal life (including you anti-Trinitarians), even though the Bible never states that it is, why then don’t you believe the Bible when it does state, and emphatically,

“Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.'” (John 6:53)?

Why do you accept one part which is not plainly stated, and reject the other that is, and with great emphasis on it being true? If Jesus clearly here is not being literal, why can’t you accept then that neither he nor the his disciples or apostles ever said that you must touch or go under water for eternal life?

And in what verse does it say that Jesus baptized Mary when she cried at the feet of Jesus? Instead he forgave her right after wards, to the anger the Pharisees. And in what verse does it say that Jesus baptized the blind men he healed after they called out to him for sight? What verse says that Jesus while crucified baptized the thief that turned to him who was also crucified? If baptism was necessary for salvation, so much so that even Jesus needed to be baptized, then he condemned to eternal death those he forgave without baptizing them. So then the people who teach that baptism are necessary are not healed of their sins, but still blind and off to the side of the path of life.

The gospel is:

“How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, ‘Your God reigns!'” (Isaiah 52:7)

“Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him. He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

”The Spirit of the Lord is on me,because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.'” (Luke 4:14-19/Isaiah 61:1-2)

“Like cold water to a weary soul is good news from a distant land.”
Proverbs 25:25

Does the Bible Teach Predestination Or That Man’s Will Controls His Destiny?

November 9, 2009 Leave a comment

According to the Bible, God controls all things, and indirectly controls our will through our emotions (heart). But since he does not directly control our will, we are still responsible for our emotions. It’s like when you get an animal to move in the direction you want by leading it with food.

“The king’s heart is in the hand of Yahweh; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.” – Proverbs 21:1

“For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: ‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’

Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you might say to me:

‘Then why does God still blame us? For who [can] resist his will?’

But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?” – Romans 9:17-21

When the Pagan Romans began mass murdering the Christians of Rome, and later when these Pagans started becoming Catholic making a pagan Christianity, they began to dominate the world, at what little true Christians were left they tried to kill too. I’m not saying that they knew who the true Christians were, but that because of their ignorance, or misundertanding, and Satan’s influence of their heart (God controls the heart of Satan), they would end up killing Christians who were truly forgiven by God. This went on for hundreds of years, and whether or not there were any true Christians left, I don’t know, or whether over the years there would be some Catholics, who when they read the Bible, become a true Christian, I don’t know, because for hundreds of years there is no record of any Christian who wasn’t a heretic. Even Martin Luther, when he understood the Bible more correctly, even he did not seem to be forgiven, and I say this because he thought that you must be baptized to be forgiven, which is what people who don’t understand the Bible correctly on the subject of salvation tend to believe, or always believe. People who believe you must be baptized to be forgiven also usually believe you must earn your salvation/forgiveness, and according to the Bible, no one can earn salvation, and those who try are only angering God more, because God requires perfect obedience.

“In regard to baptism, [Luther] taught that it brought justification only when conjoined with [faith in God], but that it contained the foundation of salvation even for those who might later fall.” – http://www.tlogical.net/bioluther.htm

In other words he thought that belief in the Bible being God’s word, and that God existed and had the power to save and could save, combined with being baptised, would save you, and that even if you later lost faith in these things, that baptism somehow kept you forgiven of your sins.

Quotes:

“Further, we [Lutherans] say that we are not so much concerned to know whether the person baptized believes or not; for on that account Baptism does not become invalid…

Further, we say that we are not so much concerned to know whether the person baptized believes or not; for on that account Baptism does NOT become invalid…” – The Large Catechism (Infant Baptism), Martin Luther

About John Calvin:

“Calvin taught two sacraments: baptism and the Lord’s supper. He differed from sacramentalists [like Luther] who believed that the sacraments were a means of receiving justifying grace. Rather, they are the badges, or marks, of Christian profession, testifying to God’s grace.” – http://www.theopedia.com/John_Calvin

Another biography of Calvin: http://www.tlogical.net/biocalvin.htm

Calvinism is the teaching that (though we all start out sinless) that we sin and become more sinful from then on, becoming more and more addicted to disobeying God and hardened against the truth, and that we can’t break free from this unless God changes our heart and enables us to understand how to truly be forgiven of our sins (the key being that we must trust that Jesus obeyed God’s laws perfectly in our place, that Jesus suffered and died for all of our past and future sins, including the sin of disbelief in God or rejecting him in anger – and rejecting him is always an act of anger, and trusting that you are forgiven forever and will never end up in Hell or be punished forever in any way then.)

Calvin did not say exactly those things as I said them, but he did in his own way, and it’s because of the Bible, and God’s work through him, that there are many true Christians today.

Martin Luther, the German Refonner, was born at Eisleben (23 m w. of Halle) Nov. 10, 1483, and died there Feb. 18, 1546. His father, Hans, was a miner, formerly living at Mohra, while his mother, Margarete (nee Ziegler), came from a family of the middle clans. …

Joh Calvin’s Teachings

Calvin’s teaching’s are:

1) That humanity is totally morally corrupted. Due to the Fall, the original relationship that Adam and Eve enjoyed with God was severed by sin. This affected the entire human race, corrupting the heart, mind, and will of every person born.

In other words he meant that no human whom God has not forgiven and whose heart he has not changed, is considered good by God (no one can feel love for God till God changes their heart, so any attempt to obey God will always fall short of being pure/good). That is a Biblical teaching:

“All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.” – Psalm 14:3

Now whether or not Calvin needed to say, “Totally” or “Completely” corrupt, I don’t know, since it seems to mean that a person if unforgiven can’t do anything right at all, but the Bible doesn’t teach that. I don’t think most Christians, even Calvinists, believe that a person if not saved/forgiven, can’t do anything right, but we believe that the unsaved/unforgiven will always fail by not loving God when they obey him, like a child who obeys a parent, but hates the parent.

Psalm 53:2-4 (New International Version)

“God looks down from heaven on the sons of men
to see if there are any who understand,
ny who seek God:
Everyone has turned away,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.
Will the evildoers never learn—
those who devour my people as men eat bread
and who do not call on God?”
Psalm 53:2-4

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered.
“No one is good—except God alone.”
Luke 18:18-20

Jesus didn’t mean that he wasn’t good, he was speaking in a riddle, saying that he was God, and that God is the source of moral perfection, and is really the only one who is good because he does not need anyone to keep him good, but is by nature good.

“You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” – Romans 5:6-8

2) Calvin taught “unconditional election”. That is the teaching that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon foreseen faith (especially a mere decisional faith). God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation. This is based on various verses, including these ones:

[the children of the Jewish Christian Rebekah] had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. – Romans 9:10-16

3) Calvin taught “limited atonement” which is the doctrine/teaching that Jesus only died for all the sins of a limited number of people, and not every human ever born.

This is based on the verses which teach that some will go to Hell, and suffer for their sins. If Jesus had died for the sins of all, then then it wouldn’t make sense for anyone to suffer for them, because Jesus already did so God would not get angry again after having already satisfied his justice. For God to punish someone for what Jesus already suffered for, would be unjust and would mean that Jesus suffered for no logical reason, since God knowsthe future and so did Jesus, so then why would Jesus suffer for someone who wouldn’t need it? It’s unbelievable. Here is a verse which shows that Jesus did not obey God/suffer/die for everyone:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven [which are the true Christians whoses hearts God changed]. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'” – Matthew 7:21-23 and,

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the [most lowly of those in need], you did not do for me.’ Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” – Matthew 25:44-46 and,

“there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; 5if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people… if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.” – 2 Peter 2:1-9

4) Calvin taught “irresistible grace” which is the teaching that:

a) God’s love for a person, and

b) the Holy Spirit allowing them to understand the knowledge given to them of how to be forgiven – knowledge given to them by someone preaching to them – and

c) the Spirit changing their heart to be sorrowful and regret disobeying God, and

d) the Spirit causing them to decide to stop disobeying God (which is called repenting of sin), and

e) the Spirit causing that person to call out to God for forgiveness with

d) trust that Jesus suffered and died for all their sins and that they have eternal life.

I don’t know if it also means that a person will from then on obey God throughout their life and forever, but that’s what will happen. It’s also the teaching that a person will be unable to not be able to resist God’s changing their heart and mind to do these things, but can only be saved once God starts and continues to change them.

5) Calvin also taught “perseverance of the saints”, which is teaching that those “called” by God to come to him and be saved, and justified by Christ’s obedience and sacrifice, will be permanently exalted in status above those who are condemned, will be beautified, and that their bodies will be made immortal.

The Bible refers to “saints” as anyone whom God loves, it’s not what Catholics twisted it to mean, which is a “a miracle-worker”.

So these five things are what Calvin taught, and what he considered the most important things to know in order for a person to be saved, not lose faith and to an obedient life to God. Because if we have no belief that God will save us from our addiction to sin, from sinning, from pain and death, if we believe that we can defeat God’s will, and that we will be treated no different from those God does not love, whom he has not forgiven, then how can we behave and think no differently from them, from those going to Hell? Without trust in God’s abiity to save and keep his promises, we will fail.

Moon (Movie) Review

November 3, 2009 Leave a comment

I expected to see a so-so rating for the movie Moon, but saw that it was very high. I found what in my opinion is a good review of it:

Cheap-Shot!!!, 26 October 2009
3/10

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

As with most films, there is a requirement on the part of the audience for some suspension of disbelief. There are varying degrees but generally the better Directors make these leaps of logic invisible as they service the plot or heighten the drama.

“Moon” begins with a leap of logic that is too nonsensical to ignore. Why is the main character alone in a moon base?

Within the first few sequences he burns his hand, bangs painfully into a robot and ultimately crashes a moon buggy.

The use of ‘technical advisers’ would have immediately shown the premise of “Moon” to be utterly implausible. Yet this is of no consequence for the Director. He assumes and rightly so judging by the overwhelming praise this movie is getting, that the audience will be ‘too stupid’ to question the very premise of the story.

The ‘hero’ has visions of a dark haired woman in the first part of the film but these visions are conveniently forgotten for no explicable reason.

When the clones introduce themselves, they do so in an almost casual way, which is at odds with the gravity of the situation. The original clone is weak and confused while the new clone is angry and strong. Subtlety of performance is not an issue.

The rest of the view can be found here:

http://www.imdb.com/user/ur2161307/comments

If the budget of this movie was small, I can understand the high ratings, but if it was a million or more, it deserves a bad rating, in my opinion.

H1N1 Vaccine Endorsed by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

November 3, 2009 3 comments

I just found this:

Officials Tell Wary Americans: H1N1 Vaccination Is Safe, Get It

Wednesday, October 07, 2009
By Marrecca Fiore

Since April, when the H1N1 flu made its first appearance in Mexico and quickly spread to a worldwide pandemic, health officials in the U.S. have been promising to make a vaccine available as soon as possible.

Now it’s here, and there’s a new challenge: getting people to take it.

A recent poll by Consumer Reports found that two-thirds of parents plan to delay or skip getting their children the H1N1 shot altogether.

Some believe the vaccine was rushed and not adequately tested. Others just don’t trust flu shots in general and avoid them each winter like the plague.

But government officials say those concerns are irrational. H1N1 flu has hit children particularly hard — 36 youths in the U.S. had died from it through August — so they are advising parents very strongly to do what’s best for their kids and get them vaccinated.

“I think many of the concerns by parents are based on the perception that this vaccine has been rushed into production and may not be safe,” said Tom Skinner, spokesman for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“And we understand parents’ concerns — they want what is best for their children. We often tell people the best antidote for fear is information. And we ask them to really seek out sound and reliable information from sources they trust.”

Skinner said the vaccine was made in exactly the same manner as the seasonal flu vaccine, which has a “very, very good track record as far as safety is concerned.”

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius made the rounds Tuesday and Wednesday morning, appealing to all Americans to get the vaccine and trust that it is safe.

Sebelius unconditionally vouched for the safety of the vaccine, saying it “has been made exactly the same way the seasonal vaccine has been made, year in and year out.”

Health experts say most fears about the flu vaccine, especially the seasonal vaccine, are unfounded.

The flu shot does not give people the flu. Side effects are generally mild — soreness and swelling at the injection site, headache, occasional fever and body aches (the mark of a healthy immune system responding to something foreign entering the body). Less common side effects include coughing, runny nose and nausea, especially in young children.

The incidence of more severe side effects is extremely low. Guillain-Barré syndrome — an autoimmune disease that attacks the peripheral nervous system and can be fatal — occurs in 10-20 people per 1 million adults, regardless of whether they’ve received a vaccine or not.

According to CDC tracking, there is correlation, although the cause is unproven, of one additional case of Guillain-Barré per 1 million people who have received the flu shot. Health officials say people have a better chance of getting struck by lightning — 1 in 700,000 chance — than they do of getting Guillain-Barré from a flu shot.

Fears about Guillain-Barré and the flu shot stem from a 1976 incident in which there were 500 cases and 25 deaths stemming from a bad batch of swine flu vaccine.

Sebelius this week assured that it will not happen this time around.

Appearing on morning news shows to step up the Obama administration’s campaign for vaccinations, Sebelius said that “the adverse effects are minimal. … We know it’s safe and secure. … This is definitely is a safe vaccine for people to get.” …

After you Miss Sebelius, and your friend President Obama.

Amazing Stories on Coast to Coast AM

November 2, 2009 Leave a comment

There were some really amazing stories on the past few shows of Coast to Coast AM, I’m glad I didn’t stop listening. And speaking of amazing stories, it is really frustrating when George doesn’t ask a caller talking about an amazing event where the amazing event happened. It’s almost maddening when he does that. I don’t get how he can make such horrible oversights for someone who is supposed to love the wonders of the universe, but I’m suddenly reminded of how he said that he doesn’t think about the show after he gets off, and how someone in a forum said last year (I think last year) that George evidentally didn’t care too much about the quality of the show. Though Ian Punnet’s voice is really annoying, and his smug vocalisations, snorting and stupid jokes, at least he consistantly asks where the events happen if they aren’t specified and for extra details.

One amazing story was fro someone in Britain who recounted how an alien Grey, which was levitating a large farm animal up into it’s ship, stuck it’s snake like tongue out at him and seemed to smile and wave at him in jest. He was obviously telling the truth, and I wondered how I would have felt if that had happened to me. I one saw a pair of UFO’s flying in perfect synchronization, but I wasn’t that amazed, not much at all, because it was far away, the sight didn’t last long, and I was frustrated that I didn’t get any pics of them.

I’m also reminded of something really disappointing though not surprising that my favorite host, George Knapp, said last week, which was that we should just all think of ourselves as Earthlings and not black or white or Christian or Muslim in order to have peace. That’s really naive and plain stupid, since our group distinctions help us to know friend from enemy and to be able to understand history and beng of different races helped us learn about genetics. He basically said, “Let’s just forget about the details and pretend there’s no differences between us,” and might as well have said, “Let’s just all think of ourselves as mattter and energy.” Imagine if instead of distinguishing between who was a scientist or good and science and who was not, we instead just thought of ourselves as Earthlings, how much progress would get done in any field with reasoning like that? Or if instead of distinguishing between the types of cars we simply thought of all cars as just cars, with no differences. What George was doing was promoting that old failed, “Just tolerate whatever and be at peace (except with those who claim to have the absolute truth about God (and say that we sinners who need God’s forgiveness to be saved.”)

If it were as simple as George makes it seem, there would be peace, but when we believe that we have life-saving truths and think someone else is pushing lies that endanger our lives, we are then divided and not one with everyone.

I saw the movie Moon, and right now, I’ve decided it was a waste of time to watch, and really annoying on some moments and I didn’t appreciate the nude scene. There wasn’t much unique about this movie. I recommend it be avoided.