Posts Tagged ‘refutation’

Hypocritical Arminians of 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’s ranting against Calvinists, but I recreated it about an hour or two ago, and expanded it, here it is:

According to

“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 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.

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

Earth Can’t Be At the Center of the Universe Says Scientist, Cuz, “It Doesn’t Seem Physically Relevant”

September 19, 2009 Leave a comment

Dark Energy, Dark Minds, and the Center of the Universe

Mathematicians Blake Temple and Joel Smoller have come up with a mathematical formula that makes dark energy an unneeded component in explaining the supposed expansion of the universe. It is arbitrary in that it requires the Big Bomb propaganda even though anyone could just as easily explain the energy needed by simply saying God supplied it (no one has any evidence that a Big Magical Bomb From No Where went off billions of years ago).

Discovered in 1998 with the finding that exploding stars in distant galaxies are spreading away from us at an increasing speed, dark energy has puzzled cosmologists for a decade, unable to understand a force that acts across vast distances to push stars apart. Physicist Michael Turner of the University of Chicago famously said that the only thing really known about dark energy is its name. You can read their formula here, in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science.

They claim that instead of magical dark energy causing the universe to expand, that it was the magical Big Billions of Years Old Bomb That Exploded Billions of Years Ago. (13.7 billion years ago).  U.S.A. Today, manned by Darwinist God-haters at the editorial helm, try to make this seem like a bad thing since it requires that Earth be at the center of the universe, which would make the Bible look true, and the God of the Calvinists appear to be the real God. The USA Today blogger who announced this finding, tried to spin this finding into something that couldn’t be true by finding a Darwinist Head-banged Up physicist for a comment against the COU formula:

The only problem is that for the equations to work, we must be “literally at the center of the universe, which is, to say the least, unusual,” says physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University in Tempe. “I think this is plausible mathematics, but it doesn’t seem physically relevant.”

That’s word salad if you hadn’t noticed, from both the U.S. Today blogger and everyone else in this story but God.

False Prophecies In the Bible: Did the Apostle Paul Make Vague Prophecies?

August 10, 2009 Leave a comment

Every now and then, like a few hours ago, I wonder about this prophecy, wondering how you could know if it came true, since it I thought it was vague and there was no way to accurately measure it against the usual past behavior of mankind:

I found others had thought the same thing here:;_ylt=As.c.hqLWgQ.d0i5DR3BmOHd7BR.;_ylv=3?show=jsM8F4bLaa

But those few hours ago I started thinking about how such seeming mistakes in the Bible were often shown not to be mistakes if the context was studied carefully. But without going to read the passage again I thought what might be some possible solutions, and one of them was that Paul was talking about what would be going on in the Christian group as a whole, Christian as in those who practiced obeying Christ in some way, or what they and some others believed to be obeying Christ, like washing the feet of others to express reverence for Christ and abstaining from drinking alcohol while acknowledging in some way or saying in some way that they are Christians every now and then, as opposed to those who simply called themselves Christians but clearly had no interest in obeying the Bible and didn’t doso intentionally.

Well it turned out I was in part right (notice the second half of the second-to-last sentence:

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. – 2 Timothy 3:1-5

If Paul were merely speaking of the world in general, and Paul didn’t display any regular stupidity as a Christian, then it would have made no sense for him to have mentioned “lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God” since everyone knows that the world (non-Christians in other words) do not love God. And for those who are Catholics who believe the world is mostly or at least half Christian because of them, well one: If Catholics are half or most of the world then they can’t be true Christians since they don’t fit the Bible’s qualifications of what the size of the church would be, and two, the "world" knows that Catholics are hypocrites and have a problem with child-molestation in their church, and those are not indications of people who obey "Love one another" / Christ or as some would say, an indication of a "holy" group.

The argument that Paul was being vague when he spoke about disobedient children can also be shot down in that a child in the Bible, doesn’t necessarily mean a kid, as in a kid younger than seven, who are known for being rebellious till they become more physically self-controlled (like gaining the ability to refrain from throwing fits whenever they are angry or sad).

I’ve discovered that a strong obedience to parents has been the normal behavior of children/young adults/teens to their parents for thousands of years and that the rebellion of children seems to have started when the heretic Jaocb Arminius began preaching against John Calvin. The teaching of Arminius that God loves everyone and that by our own goodness can we earn eternal life and a home in Heaven spread all over the world corrupting hundreds of millions of not over a billion, even strengthening the Catholic Church which also believed that forgiveness of sins could be earned and even BOUGHT WITH MONEY!

Those who believe Arminius’ work-for-it/God-gives-endless-second-chances heresy are the type to think they can let loose and then repent even at their death bed or do one or a few good deeds to erase their history of evil. Hypocritically, but typical of sinners, these Arminians accuse Christians who don’t believe that salvation can be earned or gained with a click of the fingers as being the ones who teach, “You can do whatever you want because God loves you.” Their confusion is deep and their blindness severe.

I discovered that this rebellion accelerated when Elvis began his rise in fame, and from there it has gotten worse and worse. A few months ago, maybe last year, in a Facebook group called “I Hate It When My Parents Ask Me Who I’m Texting” or something like that, I saw a teen’s comment which said, “I just say, “Shut up fag” to my dad”. No one condemned him for it. If that’s not disrespectful, what is? And have you ever heard of such extreme casual contempt for a parent? Has such hate for parents been known to be common in history? Have any of you ever read in any history book anything like what I said that teen said about his parent, at least in their youth? And consider what the teen said he said that for: for merely being asked who he was talking to or who was talking to him. I actually spent many hours collecting information on the rise of teen rebellion, and it became very difficult to work on with other things going on in my life (for example dealing with stalkers).

Another seeming problem or argument that could made is that the Bible already mentions that the church at that time was having problems, and Revelation mentions problem congregations as further evidence, yet, two thousand years about have past since then, so that would mean the last days have been for the past 2000 years, which of course seems absurd. An argument against this is that the problem churches and members of the church that the Bible mentions are few. There are about four if I remember right, specific false Christian people mentioned after Acts, and Paul mentioned that Christian women in Corinth were doing wrong by praying without their hair being covered, and a few false Christs were around, James mentioned the Jewish congregation he was speaking to had mistreated poor people among them, and a group of heretics known as Gnostics was mentioned by John, and then there was the corruption in seven churches that Christ mentioned in Revelation. That doesn’t sound like an epidemic of false Christians.

Revelation further gives clues as to when the evil behavior of false Christians would be very visible in it’s statements against what is clearly the Catholic Church (Revelation 17:9). The Catholic denomination seems to have begun within a year or two of 50 A.D. and Revelation seems to have been finished before 70 A.D. Being that it doesn’t point out any Catholic person in particular and speaks about them mostly or entirely in the future tense, it was probably still a small denomination at that time, and so it couldn’t be said that Paul’s 2 Timothy 3:1-5 had been fulfilled yet.

Next there is a shocking appalling gap in which true Christians seemed to have entirely disappeared after John, who wrote Revelation, died, and in which the Catholic denomination nearly covered Europe (stopping about after October 31, 1517), which is when the Reformation / rebellion against Catholicism began. I’ve never heard of any "disobedient to parents" problem during the Catholic Domination (when true Christians were no where to be found). There are no historical records I could find in which Catholics mentioned having a mass problem with children being disobedient to their human parents, and can’t find any either in reference to any ancient group of people (which is evidence that Paul’s prophecy wasn’t vague and speaking behavior that was typical of children during his time or in the past).

A way in which we could discover when any noteworthy mass rebelling against parents occurring is to look for a change in the usual behavior of older children towards their parents in records throughout time. If it occurred, naturally a word or phrase would be made to point out this new behavior to make it more convenient to talk about rather than “the epidemic of disobedience of older children towards their parents”. One word used to speak of older children made in modern times is the word “teen”. It is first known to have been used in 1673. This is what the historical records show concerning the history of Christians which would have had a major effect on the behavior of false Christians, including that of young adults, also called “teens”, and later, pagans, and to a lesser degree, true Christians.

This rest of this topic became very long, so I’ve decided to continue this in a book. If you want to help me out with that buy some books, games, or rare palm seeds through my store links to the right of my journal entries.

And yesterday night, on Auguust 11 (I don’t know why this journal entry is dated August 10th, it seems like it should say 11), George Noory once again revealed the stupid logic of pagans like himself, as did his boring guest who sounded like a so called “random caller”:

Guest “Ghost hunter” John Kachuba said, “The third thing [possibility] is, is that they [ghosts] are real." George Noory replied, “And you have to make that assumption.” John replied, "Right." Wrong: You don’t have to make guesses based on no facts, no evidence and in deliberate ignorance of the evidence. Unless someone is tormenting you to make a baseless guess, you can’t say, “you have to” or “I’m forced” and even then, ultimately, your will is under your own control.

SciAm, Wikipedia, Wikiquote and Exposed: A Refutation In Defense of Ben Stein

December 25, 2008 Leave a comment

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy – Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871.

It has been claimed that to quote Darwin in this way (including leaving out "excepting in the case of man", on Darwinian propaganda websites like wikipedia, wikiquote and, is misleading because of what Darwin wrote soon after those sentences. I agree that it is deceptive if the intent is ot make Darwin and other Darwinists look worse than they are. However, it makes sense to leave those parts out if you want to avoid complicating an explanation. I suspect that Ben Stein and certain Christians left those parts out was because of that and didn’t know how to explain why those parts he left out were not enough to prevent people like Hitler from using Darwinistic Evolutionary Theory to try and exterminate all Jews, Gypsies, and other races. They also may have left those parts out because they saw it as dishonest of Darwin himself to say those things, like someone with hatred in their heart ranting about how evil Christians are, but then to say near the end of their rant, "But a few Christians are decent… and if we were to exterminate them there would be a dark cloud around while doing so."

Furthermore, for Darwinists to claim that Darwin is being taken out of context in the way they are doing so is itself misleading in another way, and those websites which make this claim, not suprising to me, do not explain why to quote Darwin that was is misleading either). Those who claim to quote Darwin this way are the ones who are misleading, because they are misdirecting people from this part of what he said, "The aid which we feel impelled to give is mainly and INCIDENTAL RESULT OF THE INSTINCT of sympathy". Darwin did not say, "The help we want to give to others who are weak, stupid or diseased is due to a God programming us to be that way because he doesn’t want us to be uncaring to those kinds of people and we should not resist this instinct to be compassionate he gave us because he’s shown that he should be obeyed, and will punish us if we don’t obey him, and because we would not want others to treat us hatefully or to neglect us if we were or became weak, ignorant, feeble-minded, or diseased. And after that Darwin merely implied, without explaining why in the way I pointed out, that it would be evil not to help the weak, stupid and diseased, and so if someone were to believe, as Darwin taught, that the desire to want to help someone or to have sympathy is merely a meaningless product of a mindless process of evolution, and therefore NOT evil if we go against, and that to go against it would simply be natural and part of the process of evolution, or "survival of the fittest" as Darwinist put it. And, as evolutionists themselves teach, "Science is always progressing, it’s never perfect, we scientists are still learning," and therefore it is perfectly reasonable by their own excuse there, to quote Darwin that way, but to dismiss part of what he said for "progress", "evolving", "learning", "correcting" and "becoming more fit". The Darwinist Richard Dawkins himself would admit that there is no such thing as evil or good, and that Darwin was wrong to teach that there was, and that Darwin was either still partially deceived by religion, or afraid for some reason, like for fear of being seen as a cold monster, or insane, that there was no such thing as good or evil. So again, to claim that it’s deceptive to quote that part of Darwin I or others do, and not mention the rest, or to leave some sentences out in the quote, is what is the lie. There is no law in the Bible that says, "You must quote every word and sentence a person says or else you’re automatically misleading or lying or both," except the one that Christian-haters or religion-haters or confused person has made up. Furthermore, if it’s true that we merely evolved without God or with God merely watching us evolve, as these Darwinists who accuse me and others of lying claim, then there is no sin, and it’s not wrong to mislead, to lie, as they imply it is.

Furthermore, Darwin’s entire rant was wrong: Rancher’s, unless they are morons, don’t simply kill their "inferior" animals because such animals can be sold to those who don’t have any or if an animal is a runt, which Darwin and many Darwinists would see as inferior I’m sure, it is can made a pet or sold as a pet. On top of that, if the rancher want’s to increase his food or pet supply, he or she can allow the "inferior" animals to multiply in a seperate grazing area if there is enough for both them and the better animals he or she owns. So Darwin was stupid and short-sighted to teach that only smart ranchers kill their inferior/lesser animals, and stupid and short-sighted are the Darwinists who imply that Darwin was correct about that.

Darwin lied and gave a confusing message. In conclusion, let the war continue against those in America who apply this Darwinian reasoning to human beings, which are not animals any more than angels are animals. The ones who are most spiritually fit, will survive this war and prosper forever.