Archive for November, 2009

A Challenge for Taylor Marshall and all Catholics

November 16, 2009 1 comment

This post can also be reached at

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


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?



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 or

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.” –

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.


“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.” –

Another biography of Calvin:

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

*** 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:

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.