You May Have Your Doubts...

"This is the second time I've asked this question and no answer. Even Name can't tell me why John the Baptist recognized Jesus as messiah when he baptized him and later had to send two of his disciples to ask Jesus if he was the messiah." Milocat

Many have surmised that John was having doubts. It does seem that way, but it's hard to reconcile with the fact that when he first saw Jesus, he knew exactly who He was. He said, "Behold, the lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29, 36). When Jesus was baptized, the heavens were opened, John saw the Spirit of God descending upon Jesus like a dove, and he heard a voice from Heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:15-17).

However, two years of languishing in prison may have made John wonder about what he had seen and heard. If Jesus was the Messiah and He was doing miracles as John had heard that He was, why didn't He get him out of prison? Perhaps his question was really, "Have you forgotten about me?"

We know from Scripture that God didn't deliver John the Baptist from prison. Instead, He allowed him to be murdered. Yet he wasn't forgotten. Death doesn't separate us from God. It takes us into into His immediate presence.

However, those who have experienced the new birth (which began on the Day of Pentecost--see Acts 2) have a great advantage over John. They aren't reliant on mere visions or voices. I'm a Christian because God transformed me through the new birth of John chapter 3. He made me a new person overnight, opened my understanding, took me out of darkness into light, gave me His Holy Spirit, forgave my sins, and granted me everlasting life.

The first time I was born, it was dramatic in the truest sense of the word. I didn't exist, and then in just nine months I was birthed as a screaming, eating, sleeping, breathing, seeing, human being. The second time I was born, it was just as radical. You may doubt that, but it's something I can never doubt, even if I wanted to.

Breaking Atheism's Sunday Boredom

"Then the disciples of John reported to him concerning all these things. And John, calling two of his disciples to him, sent them to Jesus, saying, 'Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?' When the men had come to Him, they said, 'John the Baptist has sent us to You, saying, 'Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?'' And that very hour He cured many of infirmities, afflicti ons, and evil spirits; and to many blind He gave sight. Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Go and tell John the things you have seen and heard: that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me" (Luke 7:18-23).

The Messiah's ministry was accompanied by miracles. Power flowed from His body. He healed the sick, raised the dead, caused the deaf to hear, the blind to see, the lame to walk, He cast out demons…and He preached the gospel of salvation. He told them that they were sinners, heading for Hell, and yet God in His great mercy had provided a Savior so that they could have Heaven.

Jesus said, "And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me." The Bible calls Jesus Christ a "stumbling block," and a "rock of offense." If you don't know what that means, attach your name to His and you will quickly find out.

You may be the most popular dude on the planet, but the moment you say that you have surrendered your life to Jesus Christ, the world will see you as a homophobic, brain-washed, self-righteous, hate-filled, dim-witted, anti-science, trouble-making, self-righteous, fear-mongering, anti-choice, war-causing, hypocritical, religious bigot.

You will be considered to be part of a fanatical sect--a cult that's responsible for the Roman Catholic crusades, the Catholic Inquisitions, witch-burnings, and every other religious atrocity that has occurred down through the ages.

Jesus warned that because you belong to Him, you will be hated for "His name's sake," men will separate you from their company, and people will even kill you thinking that they are doing God a favour.

But that's okay. This is because we know that the world hates Him because He speaks of their deeds, that they are evil, and we are hated because we belong to Him. We are highly favored...blessed by God with the gift of everlasting life.

The flight may be a little bumpy, but the landing is safe, and that's all that really matters in the light of eternity.

The Difference Between a Dummy and an Atheist

Someone gave me a dummy recently, which I put in the corner of my office. Almost everyone who enters my office is taken aback (EDIT} by his presence. He has eyes, ears, hands, feet, and a head. He looks like a human being. So what's the difference between Ernie and the average atheist? Ernie doesn't have a brain, he can't speak, and doesn't have consciousness. He's not flesh and blood. He doesn’t have a soul.

I recently interviewed a professor of biological evolution at UCLA. Even though we clashed philosophically, he conceded on the point of the existence of the soul. The thing that made him change his mind was the knowledge that in the Bible, the word "soul" and the word "life" are synonymous. He said that if that was the case, he believed that man has a soul.

Everyone has a soul. It is the soul of man that makes the brain work. If someone dies (the soul leaves the body) the brain no longer works. It is your life that looks out of your eyes; it's your life that speaks through your mouth, and it's your soul that is reading and analyzing these words.

However, man is more than just a soul. He lives in an incredible machine of working and moving parts--his amazing eyes, to his hands, and his brain. His beating heart pushes oxygen-enriched blood (that was being pulled in by his lungs) around his body and gives life to his flesh. We certainly are "fearfully and wonderfully made."

But man is more than a body and soul. He has something the Bible calls a "spirit." The body is his machine, and the soul is the power that moves the machine, but the spirit is the part of him that makes him conscious of his Creator. It is because his spirit is "dead in trespasses and sins" that he doesn't know God. Every testimony from every atheist confirms that biblical truth.

He knows of His existence because of creation and his conscience, but he doesn't know Him experientially until his spirit comes alive through the new birth of John chapter 3.

Without the new birth, you will die in your sins and lose your soul. You will lose your very life, your most precious possession. So prove that you are more than a dummy. Use your God-given brain and obey the gospel, so that you will be saved from death and Hell, and find everlasting life that is alone in Jesus Christ.

Why the Atheist Runs from God . . .

Every argument, every angry word, all the mockery, etc., that comes from the mouths of atheists does nothing but strengthen my faith in God. This is because I understand their perspective. They are like blind men who don’t believe in light. It makes sense that they mock what they don't know, and that they especially mock the gospel, because God has chosen a foolish message to confound the proud.

The atheist doesn't know about God, but God knows all about him. He knows when the atheist sits down, and when he stands up. He sees his coming out and his going in. He knows this thoughts, and He even sees him in the darkness, as though it was pure light. Check out Psalm 139 for details.

Before my conversion, such thoughts gave me the creeps. But after my conversion I understood why. I was like a criminal who hears that he has been under police surveillance for years. His every word has been secretly recorded, and his every unlawful deed captured on video. The law has been watching his crimes and it has built up its wrath.

Such thoughts are not pleasant for any criminal, and that's why any thought of God (His omniscience and moral accountability) are not at all comfortable for guilty sinners. Thus the denial of His existence. There are lots of guilty heads in the sand of atheism.

However, now that my sins are forgiven and have I equity with God's Law, I am no longer a criminal on the run. I have been acquitted though faith in Jesus. I can face that Law on Judgment Day (a Law that equates lust with adultery and hatred with murder) without the slightest guilt or fear. How about you?

The Unicorn Myth...

This will be of interest to those of you who think that the Bible mentions the mythological “unicorn.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mHAsG1hky0

Earthquake in New Zealand

As many of you know, our home city of Christchurch, New Zealand, was hit with a massive earthquake Monday (2/21). This is the city where I spoke in front of a large Cathedral in the local Square for many years (pictured--before and after the quake).

My heart goes out to the many who have lost loved ones. Sue and I appreciate those of you (some atheists--who were kindly sympathetic) who have contacted us and assured us of their thoughts and prayers.

Our eldest son and his wife and child were visiting Christchurch when the earthquake struck. They are okay, and so are all of Sue's and my relatives, for which we thank God.

Many in the city had very frazzled nerves even before this quake. A 7.1 hit six months ago with no fatalities, and since then there have been more than 4,500 aftershocks. This one was much worse. None of my family know the Lord. May this make them realize the fragility of life.

Back in 1971, just before my conversion, a surfing buddy who was deeply into pornography got his girlfriend pregnant, was married at 16, and had the baby girl adopted.

At the age of 16, she searched out her natural parents, found them, and turned up at their doorstep, pregnant. My friend became a grandfather at 32 years old.

I tried to witness to him when I went back to New Zealand in 1992, but it didn't work out too well as it was in his surf shop, and customers kept coming in. Although he did say that he wanted to ask God about his younger brother, who had tragically committed suicide because he got into financial difficulty.

For some reason I thought about all this, this past Sunday, found his surf shop online, emailed him and was amazed to get a reply. He said that my god (he used a small "g") really scared him with the big earthquake they had six months ago (he used profanity to say how much it scared him). I then wrote back and said that I failed to tell him something when I last saw him, and added that Jesus said if you lust after a woman, you commit adultery with her. I said that Hell was real, and that God made a way for us to be forgiven and have everlasting life.

He responded "That is scary, you mean I have committed adultery about 140 times already today? Hell won’t be so bad – at least all my mates will be there and all the naughty girls. Just don’t tell me it will be onshore all day every day. That will really make me gnash my teeth. Heaven sounds really boring -- all the goody two shoes kids drinking tea and singing hymns all day. Is there surf there?"

I emailed back that there would be no friendship or any pleasure in Hell and talked about his misunderstanding of Heaven, hoping he would get back to me.

The following day, the earthquake struck. His shop was very close to the epicenter. I don't know what happened to him.

Amazing Scientific Discovery

New York, 4:47 EST, February 21. Evolutionary biologists at the Institute of Natural Biology in New York have discovered a well-preserved fossil of what they believe is a legless, carnivorous reptile. It was found deeply embedded in ice on the slopes of the province of Quang Ninh, in Vietnam [EDIT], and is believed to be 120 million years old. This snake-like creature clearly had vocal cords and may have been able to communicate audibly.

If scientists had found such a snake, would you believe it? I'm sure you would, if there was fossil evidence. After all, animals do have the ability to think. Who could argue with the overwhelming evidence that many have some sort of language, and that they have an understanding of what they are communicating? Dogs speak to each other in the night. Birds alert each other to danger, and elephants that mourn the death of one of their own, will trumpet some sort of communication to other elephants.

Then there's "Koko," the Western Lowland Gorilla, who, according to the animal's trainer, was able to understand more than 1,000 signs based on American Sign Language, and was also able to understand about 2,000 words of spoken English.

So it is clearly possible for an animal to make its thoughts known to human beings. But when I recently asked atheists if they thought animals could speak, there was instant mockery. I suspect that was because of the implications...could a snake or donkey talk, as portrayed in the Bible? No doubt it was deemed ridiculous because I was speaking of the miraculous and therefore involving God. But let's set aside the Supernatural for a moment and look at this from a purely natural perspective.

The consensus seemed to be that a snake could never talk, not because it lacked the intelligence to do so, but because it lacked vocal cords. After all, snakes, like many animals are very intelligent. Before you laugh at such a thought, think of the amazing seeing-ability of the eagle, the smelling ability of a bloodhound, or the skill needed for a bear to catch fish in his bare hands.

Unless you believe that they are all dummies, and that they were given incredible physical ability but left lacking mentally. But the two cannot be separated.

So, the thought that animals can't speak because they lack the physical means to do so, seems to be a correct deduction. But imagine if animals could speak. What secrets would they reveal? Doctor Doolittle did much to stir the human imagination.

But it's my belief that two animals did speak, not because of their natural ability, but because they were given supernatural ability. I also believe that one Man walked on water, fed 5,000 with five loaves and two fish, and many other mind-bogglers.

But don't laugh too much. If you believe in evolution, you believe that primates can audibly communicate. You even believe that they speak English and many other languages. This is because you believe that you are an English-speaking primate. Now that is funny.

Something for Atheists on Sunday...

"And the disciples of John showed him of all these things. And John calling to him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Are you he that should come? or look we for another? When the men were come to him, they said, John Baptist has sent us to you, saying, Are you he that should come? or look we for another? And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and to many that were blind he gave sight. Then Jesus answering said to them, Go your way, and tell John what things you have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me" (Luke 7:18-23).


Does the name of Jesus offend you? Do you honor Him or do you treat Him with contempt? Or do you dishonor Him by using it as a cuss word? Have you ever done that with Ghandi, Buddha, Mother Theresa or Hitler? Why is it only done with the name of Jesus? Why does Hollywood use the name of Jesus Christ as blasphemy in its movies? It’s because they are offended by Him, and so are their patrons. It’s not only His name that offends, it's His teachings. The first time He opened His mouth in a pulpit His hearers tried to murder Him, and they did it because His words were with power. They still are. They produce guilt in the guilty. I remember the uncomfortable feeling the name of Jesus had on me before I was a Christian. His name makes demons tremble.

Do you love Him? Did you know that if you don't love Him, you are under the curse of God? (see 1 Corinthians 16:22).Whether you love Him or treat Him with contempt, you will one day bow the knee to Him. Everyone will. You can either do it willingly in repentance, or in terror when He comes in wrath:

"And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power..." (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9).

More than 800 years before He came to this earth, the Scriptures gave a sober warning: "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him"(Psalm 2:12).

Thanks for your input on the possibily of talking animals. I will post about the subject on Monday.

For the "seeing is believing" folks...

This picture is for those atheists who thought that I wasn't being truthful when I said that scientists put a camera on an eagle and filmed the wing. In case you think I faked the picture, you can see the Japanese network on one side, and the National Geographic symbol on the screen (then again, I could have faked those as well). See how much I love you guys...

What evolution believes...

"Wow, next you'll claim that a crocoduck is a viable transitional.... LOL." Cameron

"Ray, you really think National Geographic makes up their evolution programs? You really are stupider and crazier than I thought (and I didn't have a very high opinion of you to start with)!" Kiwi Skeptic

"NOBODY is expecting dogs to give birth to kittens. Only people like you expect this because you don't know what evolution is. And yet you have the arrogance to talk as if you are an authority on the subject. It is laughable." Matt Volpato

Of course, evolution doesn't expect dogs to give birth to kittens. However, believers are still (after 200 years) looking for "the missing link." This is anything that would give credence to the belief of evolution. There should be evidence that shows species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record (one animal slowly evolving into another), or evidence of one in a living form. That's what evolution believes--that man had a common ancestor with primates and that both man and animals we see today are not what they were millions of years ago.

But there's no evidence of that--just nebulous conjecture.

In 2009, the National Geographic News reported that leading scientists were asked for their picks of the most important fossils that show evolution in action. They headlined "Seven Major 'Missing Links' Since Darwin," and the number one missing link was a "Fishapod."

They don't have empirical evidence for the Fishapod, but they do have a painting. This is an artist's rendition (his mental image) of what the Fishapod may have looked like. He did a good job.

Among the magnificent seven, you will also find nice paintings of "the Walking Whale." Researchers think that the whale could have once been a sort of hyena with hooves. So this creature could rightly be called a "Whale-ena." Then there's the old "Halfway Flatfish" (perhaps you could make up your own name for this pretending creature).

NASA's earth observatory said that the Fishapod was a fish with four "legs" and a crocodile head. It really is a "Croco-fish," or it could have easily been called a "Crocoduck," (if it looks like a duck...).

So now you know what modern evolution is and what its many believers believe. It's the laughable belief that somewhere out there, there may be evidence for this fairytale for grownups. It would just be a harmless belief for the simple unscientific folks, except for the fact that it gives an excuse for guilty sinners to reject God's gift of eternal life. What a tragedy.

Sources: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/photogalleries/darwin-birthday-evolution/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0919_walkingwhale.html

Picture: The Fishapod

Copying the Designer...

The airbus A380 is the world’s largest commercial plane. The secret of flight is the lift that planes are able to get because of the wing shape. However, designers of the massive plane had a problem, in that the thinner end of each wing wasn’t able to get lift. They couldn't extend it because it would make the plane too big for most airports.

So scientists placed a camera on the back of an eagle to watch the wing in flight, and found that the bird was able to deal with the same problem, by making the feathers on the end of its wing stand almost vertical while in flight. They copied God’s design of a bird's wing (just as the Wright brother’s did 100 years earlier), and solved the A380’s problem.

Source: http://www.airbus.com/innovation/eco-efficiency/design/biomimicry/

The silly ol' Bible...

"Alright Ray in simple words please tell us why it is OK for a Christian to enjoy a rare steak in light of this passage from Act 15:29 'You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.'" Iago

I wouldn't eat an under-cooked steak. This isn't only because the Bible says not to, but because science says the same thing. Scientists tell us that food contains unseen bacteria which can result in food-borne illness. The way to kill them is to well-cook the meat. It's no fun getting up in the night and having your body wracked with pain, as it ejects these toxins.

Still, many people nowadays like their meat still moving on the plate. Although most of these infections are unreported, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated that around 76 million people in the United States become ill from pathogens in food. Of those, about 5,000 tragically die. I'm sure they wished that they had taken notice of what that silly old Bible out-dated says.

The same portion of Scripture also tells us to abstain from sexual immorality. You can also save yourself a lot of pain by taking notice here as well. If someone obeys God’s instructions and remains sexually pure until marriage, they won’t get gonorrhea, sexually transmitted herpes, syphilis or sexually transmitted AIDS.

That means that they won't have a problem with painful urination or pelvic pain, painful blisters, horrible headaches, swollen glands, itchy skin, genital bumps, genital warts, foul discharges, and ulcers. These are just some of the symptoms that come from sexually transmitted diseases that result from being sexually immoral. Some of these are incurable and can be past onto the one you love. Of course many are dead because of these diseases also. They thought they knew better than God, and ignored the voice of both conscience and Holy Scripture.

Now Avaliable...

Perhaps for a fleeting moment...

Ray said God's 'hand' on you is anthropomorphic. What in the h...[pause] Ray, have you lost your m...[pause]. Ray, could you please explain that last thing you said? Thanks. captain howdy

The dictionary definition of anthropomorphic is "the attribution of human form or behaviour to a deity, animal, etc." The word comes from the Greek language: anthropos "human," and morphe "form." I tend to stay away from large words because my goal isn't to try and impress, it's to impart truth, and the most effective way to do that is through simplicity.

Simply stated, God is Spirit and likened to the wind. He is omnipresent and is nothing like you and me. Yet the Bible uses human words to describe Him. It speaks of His mind, His nostrils, face, hand, ear, eye, etc. Yet God doesn't have a physical hand, eye, or ear. The use of word such as "anthropomorphic" simply helps us to understand that He touches, sees, and He hears. It brings the infinitude of Almighty God (in one sense) down to the very low level of human understanding, even though we can't begin to understand the exceeding greatness of His majesty and power.

How could any Being create the universe and fill it with His presence? How could He create time? The sun? How could He make the mind of man with its independence, its personality, and its amazing ability to perceive, imagine and create? How could He form the eye, with its 137 million light sensitive cells? Or even make a tiny hummingbird?

But when our minds, for a fleeting moment, do grasp what God must be like, something else takes our breath away even further: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory" (1 Timothy 3:16).

The amazing consequence of such an inconceivable incarnation resulted in our justification, and that came because of the unwarranted imputation of perfect virtue.

The Atheist Worldview...

"Mr. Comfort, I have to disagree with you on a couple of things. First, as an atheist my life is not purposeless. It does have meaning. Primarily it is for the people I love and those that love me. Second, I don’t use atheism as an excuse to engage in the things that you listed. I know other atheists that are the same. I hope you have to good day." Zathras

I have to respectfully disagree. Let me ask you a few questions. What is the ultimate purpose of your existence? I know that you love your family--that's what you do while you are here. But why do you exist? If you can’t give me an answer, then you have no purpose to your existence. The second question is, do you love the God who gave you life? Are you thankful to Him for everything you have--your loved ones, your eyes, the ability to think, for food on your plate, for the fact that you can breathe?

As an atheist, you will have to answer that you are not. Of course you don't thank God. You are thankful for life, but not to God because you don't believe He exists. In so doing, you are guilty of the greatest of all sins. The greatest Commandment is to love the Lord your God, with all of your heart, all of your mind, all of your soul, and all of your strength. If that's the greatest Command, then the greatest sin is failure to do so. You are guilty of gross ingratitude; and you are guilty of it because of your atheistic worldview, and I'm sure you know of other atheists who are the same.

Something for Atheists on Sunday

I have what may be a moral dilemma for some of you. Think carefully before you answer.

It's 1943. A German officer armed with a machine gun has commanded you to get into a bulldozer and drive it forward. In front of you are hundreds of Jewish men, women, and children, who have just been shot and thrown into a mass grave. many of them are still alive. You are to cover them with soil--to bury them alive.

You know that if you refuse, you will be instantly shot by the officer, and tossed into the grave, dead or alive. Then he or someone else will drive the bulldozer. Do you obey him?

If you bury them, are you guilty of any crime? If you say that you would simply be following orders, was any Nazi therefore guilty of a moral crime when six million Jews were slaughtered? After all, they were all just following the orders of one man...Adolf Hitler.

The Problem of dogs...

"I've heard and read of babies and toddlers who died. Had they broken the ten commandments? I had a dog who died. Did it break the ten commandments? And then of course there's the whole problem that if we die because of our sins, and Jesus paid the price for our sins, and, in fact, undertakers have not been put out of business at all, because death continues to devour the entire human race, Somebody forgot to collect Jesus' payment, which speaks ill of the efficiency of the divine economy..." Steven J.

It makes sense that you come to this conclusion. This is because of your idolatry. The god you don't believe in doesn't exist. You have an erroneous image of God. This was the problem with the religious leaders at the time of Christ.

Think of how Jesus answered them when they asked Him a question about God and the afterlife. They created a scenario about a woman who had seven husbands, each one dying and going to Heaven to wait for his wife. Their big stumper was "In the resurrection, whose wife shall she be?" They thought it was a real "Gotcha!" It wasn’t. Jesus told them that they were in great error, because they neither understood the Scriptures, nor the power of God. And that's your problem.

First, to understand the Scriptures you need the Holy Spirit, who comes via the new birth (see John 3:1-5). If you obey the gospel and repent and trust in Jesus, God will give you the Holy Spirit, who will open the eyes of your understanding and lead you into all truth. Without Him, you are like a man who tries to read a book with the light off.

Second, you don't understand the power of God. As an atheist, set aside your belief for a moment and think about all the massive stars, the beautiful birds, DNA, etc. Don't skip over the thought. Think about how big those stars are, how they float in space, have their own governing laws, etc. Think of all the colorful birds--the structure of their feathers, their amazing fast-moving eyes, their instincts, their little beating hearts, their ability to fly, etc. Think of the incredible structure of DNA and how it works.

If God made those things, then He must be breath-takingly, mind-blowingly (I'm making up words here), awesomely powerful. Then consider the trillions of other utterly amazing things in creation. Hold that thought, and then consider the fact that if He can do all that, He can handle your minor problem of toddlers and dogs.

Black or Green?

Sue and I were watching football on TV recently, when I froze the picture on a spectator, and told her to look at his strange green shirt. When she said that the shirt looked black to her, I had the thought that she might be going colorblind. It was clearly green.

Knowing that women are usually right, I stood up and walked across to look at the TV from her perspective. Sure enough, she was right. The shirt was black. But when I sat back down in my seat, the shirt turned back to green. We couldn't both be right. Or could we?

As I looked closely at the TV screen, I noticed that light from a window that was behind me was reflecting exactly on the man's shirt. The light, or the absence of it, changed the color of the shirt, depending on your perspective.

From an atheist's perspective, Christianity looks like a black and lifeless stump. Christians really stink. But Christians see Christendom as a huge, beautiful, green, fruit bearing tree. They can't both be right. Or can they?

Look at how the Bible addresses the two differing perspectives:

"Our lives are a Christ-like fragrance rising up to God. But this fragrance is perceived differently by those who are being saved and by those who are perishing. To those who are perishing, we are a dreadful smell of death and doom. But to those who are being saved, we are a life-giving perfume..." (2 Corinthians 2:15-17 (NLT).

So who is right? Do Christians stink of "a dreadful smell of death and doom," or are we a really "sweet" smelling people? It all depends on the light you have. If you are godless, you have no light at all. But when you come to the light, you will not only see biblical Christianity in a completely different light, you will understand why you so scorned it, and why you had such contempt for those who love God. It is for the same reason criminals scorn the police, and hold them in contempt.

Charming Little Pup...

I have to admit, this is not a cute puppy. There's nothing in the dog that draws out affection. His teeth are yellow and crooked. Half of them are missing. His skin is wrinkly, and his ears look like the dried pig's ears they give to dogs to chew on. He is balding, and what is left of his hair is thin and grey. His eyes are not bright and wide, his nose is dry and crusty, and he's sitting with his ugly foot in his ugly mouth.

Nope, he's about as cute as a wart...and it looks like he's got a few of those pushing through too.

Such is our state before God. There's nothing in us that it likeable and that draws His affection toward us (see Isaiah 64:6). We are selfish, hateful, blasphemous, self-righteous, ungrateful, wicked, and even repulsive. The best of us is one ugly puppy. The Bible teaches that nothing in us is desirable and worthy of His love. That comes solely because He is love and because of His mercy.

Look at this verse: "For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life" (Romans 5:10, NKJV).

Not only were we not attractive to God, but when we were blasphemous enemies of God, Christ died for us (see Romans 5:8). This is hugely consoling for the Christian because it means that if I live to get old, when my hair grows thin, when my ears become long and floppy, my teeth become yellow and fall out, my skin gets wrinkly, my eyes fail, and my mind goes--when I'm just one ugly puppy, He is still the lover of my soul. His love isn't dependent on me. It is dependent on Him. How cool is that!

A Scientific Impossibility...

"Ray Comfort is a dishonest propagandist. He has been told hundreds of times that no atheist claims that atheism says 'nothing created everything'--yet he just repeats it anyway, over and over and over." Captain Howdy

• "It's no miracle, it requires no magic man in the sky, particle/anti-particle pairs just pop into existence constantly." PZ Myers, "Something Comes From Nothing. "http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/something_comes_from_nothing.php

• "If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity." Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff, "A Universe from Nothing."

• "Lawrence Krauss gives a talk on our current picture of the universe, how it will end, and how it could have come from nothing."

• "So now you have an idea of just what went on in the early Universe, and how we got from nothing to something. But if you want the really short version, it runs like this, 'First there was nothing, then there was the Big Bang, and energy cooled down into matter, and we're made of matter, so here we are.'" Karl S. Kruszelnicki, "News in Science"

• "Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know." "All About Science"

• "It is now becoming clear that everything can -- and probably did -- come from nothing." Robert A. J. Matthews, physicist, Ashton University, England

• "Space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it." Cornell University "Ask an Astronomer."

• "The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere." Discover magazine, April 2002.

• "Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness - a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility. (Pagels, 1982, 247)." --"How the Universe can come from Nothing."

• "Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku [a theoretical physicist at City University of New York] says it also may have sprung from nothing . . . " Scienceline.org

• "Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific." Paul Davies, physicist, Arizona State University

• "Assuming the universe came from nothing, it is empty to begin with . . . Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God." Victor J. Stenger, atheist, Prof. Physics, University of Hawaii. Author of, God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

• "This initial paucity of information is consistent with the notion that the universe sprang from nothing." The Universe Sprang From Nothing, Seth Lloyd, Physicist

• "Few people are aware of the fact that many modern physicists claim that things -- perhaps even the entire universe -- can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes." Creation ex nihilo -- Without God (1997), Atheist, Mark I. Vuletic

• "To understand these facts we have to turn to science. Where did they all come from, and how did they get so darned outrageous? Well, it all started with nothing." --"Fifty Outrageous Animal Facts," Animal Planet

• "To the average person it might seem obvious that nothing can happen in nothing. But to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something." Discover Magazine "Physics & Math/Cosmology"

• "It is rather fantastic to realize that the laws of physics can describe how everything was created in a random quantum fluctuation out of nothing, and how over the course of 15 billion years, matter could organize in such complex ways that we have human beings sitting here, talking, doing things intentionally." (Alan Harvey Guth theoretical physicist and cosmologist). Discover Magazine, April 1, 2002

• Richard Dawkins: "The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years AFTER THE UNIVERSE EVOLVED OUT OF LITERALLY NOTHING is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice." "From tail to tale on the path of pilgrims in life", The Scotsman (April 9, 2005, CAPS added)

• "But the latest scientific consensus asserts that the universe sprang naturally from nothing because the total energy of the universe equals zero (thanks to negative energy). Nature abhors a void and fills it with quantum fluctuations." "Is Everybody 100% Positive There is no God?" http://www.atheistnexus.org

• "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing...Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." "Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

• "To be fair, I actually think Ray won this round. He was challenged to show where atheists say 'everything comes from nothing', and he did ... There ARE atheists who say 'everything came from nothing', regardless of the details of the specific definitions in use." Whateverman (from WEARESMRT--atheist website)..

NOTES:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/something_comes_from_nothing.php
http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html
http://richarddawkins.net/videos/4490-39-a-universe-from-nothing-39-by-lawrence-krauss-aai-2009
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2002/09/30/306464.htm
http://big-bang-theory.com/
http://creation.com/the-universe-is-nothingness-the-latest-cosmological-wild-guess
http://www.braungardt.com/Physics/Vacuum%20Fluctuation.htm
“IS EVERYBODY 100% POSITIVE THERE IS NO GOD?” http://www.atheistnexus.org

Observable Speciation...

"BobGreen said...I accept the fact of evolution because it has been observed. 'Dear Bob,Observed? Where?' [Bob replies]: If you would care to Google on 'Observed instances of speciation' you will find plenty of examples, for example from the talkorigins site. However, beware, you will also find plenty of religious sites anxious to push their religious agenda. Religion is irrelevant with respect to science."

"Speciation" is the cornerstone of Darwinian evolution. If it has been observed, then evolution is true and the Bible is false. Speciation is the crossing of one species into another species. The official definition is "A process whereby over time one species evolves into a different species (anagenesis) or whereby one species diverges to become two or more species (cladogenesis)." The Encyclopedia Britannica simplifies it a little with "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution."

The author of Talkorigins attempts to characterize "species" with:

"One aspect is the idea of reproductive compatibility and continuity within a species. Dogs beget dogs, they never beget cats! This has a firm grounding in folk knowledge. The second notion is that there is a discontinuity of variation between species. In other words, you can tell species apart by looking at them (Cronquist 1988)."

It's not just dogs that reproduce dogs and cats reproduce cats. Throughout all of nature, we see elephants bringing forth elephants, horses produce horses, fish produce fish, insects produce insects and birds bring forth birds. The second point was that we can tell each species simply by observing them. Even with the hundreds of varieties within the species of dogs, if you hold up a picture of one to a toddler, whether it is a Great Dane or a tiny Chihuahua, the child will say "Dog!" It's the same with horses, even though there are different shapes and sizes within the species. All the Animals have a certain look and they reproduce within their own "species" or as the Bible puts it "kinds."

Let's now look at the talkorigins site and study the article titled "Observed Instances of Speciation" of one species evolving into a "new" and "distinct" species.

The article is broken into five parts: 1. Acknowledgments, 2. Definitions, 3. Context, 4. How to tell if speciation has occurred, and finally, 5. "Observed instances of speciation."

The writer begins Part 5 with, "Observed Instances of Speciation. The following are several examples of observations of speciation." However, at the beginning of the article he gives an important qualification. He says, "Part 5 describes a number of observed speciation events and several experiments which (in my opinion) failed to produce speciation." Huh? His evidence for observed speciation doesn't exist? So if they aren't examples of "observed speciation," why are they listed as "Observed Instances of Speciation"? It's because there aren't any.

He even pleads for evidence: "If you know of observations that I should include, let me know and I will chase down the reference, read it and modify the file." Here is one example he gives of speciation that he says isn't an example of speciation:

"The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea."

The scientist crossed a radish with a cabbage. He crossed two vegetables. This is given as an example of observed speciation of one species evolving into another species. No wonder the author disassociates himself with this "evidence." This has nothing to do with evolution. Crossing different types of vegetables is common and is done with fruit, dogs, beetles, worms, bacteria, and cats. Remember the Encyclopedia Britannica definition of "speciation" is "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution."

There is no new species when a vegetable produces a vegetable. There is no speciation. This is just another example of evolutionary smoke and mirrors to deceive the simple.

But Talkorigins has more evidence, in another article titled: "Some More Observed Speciation Events." This is written by James Meritt. He says,

"Someone writes: I have a friend who says since we have never seen a species actually split into two different species during recorded history that he has trouble believing in the theory of evolution. Is this bogus and have humans seen animals bred into different species? (The various highly bred English dogs come to mind but I suppose this would be easier to find in vegetation. Corn, wheat strains? Donkeys and mules?) This is bogus. We've seen it happen naturally without our tampering with the process."

Then he gives examples of this observable evidence of speciation:

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

He points to an experiment from the 1940’s in which a windflowers produced wildflowers that "were similar in appearance to the hybrids." They were still wildflowers. Once again no evolution has taken place. There is no new species. Remember that speciation is "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution."

Speciation has never been observed, because it has never taken place. All of nature--animals, fish, birds and insects bring forth after their own kind, just as the Bible says.

Is it true that "Religion is irrelevant with respect to science"? At least one person would disagree: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"--Albert Einstein. Rather, evolution has nothing to do with science. It is an unscientific, unobservable, and unsubstantiated theory.

NOTES:
http://groups.molbiosci.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-S/speciation.html
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/558635/speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Something for atheists, on Sunday

"And it came to pass the day after, that he went into a city called Nain; and many of his disciples went with him, and many people. Now when he came near to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her. And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said to her, Weep not. And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto you, Arise. And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother. And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people. And this rumor of him went forth throughout all Judaea, and throughout all the region round about" (Luke 7:11-17).

This poor woman had lost her husband, and then her only son was died. Life dealt her a double blow. Now she was alone. Her neighbors and friends sympathized, but no one could take away the pain or bring back her dead son. But Jesus had compassion on her, and He wrecked the funeral. A word from Him, and the undertaker had no body to bury. Imagine if there was Someone who could do this for you. Someone who could stop this mysterious “death” thing that devours the entire human race. It swallows kings, presidents, doctors, scientists; no one escapes.

Imagine if there was something that could be done to stop the cold hand of death...that could put the undertaker out of business. You don’t have to imagine anything! There is One who can save you from death, and you can experientially prove it to be true. Jesus Christ is the undertaker’s nightmare. The Bible says that Jesus came to destroy the power of death, and He did it by leveling the scales of eternal justice. We will all die because we have violated God's Law (the Ten Commandments), but Jesus paid our fine on the cross, and then rose from the dead.

That means that God can commute your death sentence, because your fine was paid by Another. So weep no longer. Instead, stand still and think of your many sins. Think of what God did for you through the suffering death of the Savior, then repent and trust in Jesus. You need no longer be held captive to the power of death, once you come to know, fear, and glorify God.

God bless Professor PZ Myers...

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris. He is (was) also a popular atheist blogger, who revealed a longstanding embarrassment about atheists who say that they "lack a belief in gods." In an attempt to try and legitimize the philosophy of atheism, he distanced himself from those who misrepresent his personal convictions. But in his effort to swat those who bug him, he hit a hornets nest. The reaction was stinging. He said,

"Only this time it isn't a mob of religious fanatics and anti-choicers who have called me pond scum who will go to hell, an insect souled vile man, ablack-souled amoral monster, pure evil, morally depraved, with a depraved mind, descend[ing] down the various stages into madness, and so forth…but I have this time managed to antagonize a bunch of atheists."

And no wonder. He made the mistake of pointing out the non-existent foundations of atheism. He showed how unthinking it is to say that you have no beliefs in any gods. Modern atheists changed the definition of "atheist" from "someone who doesn’t believe in the existence of God," and in doing so, thought that they had outwitted the opposition. They pled ignorance to the God issue. They believed that it was intelligent, but their "reasoning" wasn’t clever. It was stupid, and the learned professor said so.

He who says that he has no beliefs that there are any gods, believes that there is no evidence that any gods exist. Belief (trust) is the foundation for marriage, for our convictions about history, for all human relationships, for the health of our monitory system, for flying in planes, driving in cars, eating food prepared in restaurants, drinking bottled water, for taking medicine, our convictions about the age of the earth, for calling a number on your phone, having surgery, for accepting the hypothesis of evolution, and a million and one other things.

In reference to the many atheists who believe that they don’t have faith, Myers betrayed their trust when he said,

"Boy, I really do hate these guys. You've got a discussion going, talking about why you're an atheist, or what atheism should mean to the community, or some such topic that is dealing with our ideas and society, and some smug [obscenity] comes along and announces that ‘Atheism means you lack a belief in gods. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term.’ As if atheism can only be some platonic ideal floating in virtual space with no connections to anything else; as if atheists are people who have attained a zen-like ideal, their minds a void, containing nothing but atheism, which itself is nothing. [He then calls them ignorant people]."

But the professor didn’t stop there. He also dismantled another foundational argument of modern atheism. One of their biggies is to say that we are all “born” atheists. As babes, we arrived with no belief in the existence of God. He said of such infantile beliefs,

"Nope. Uh-uh. Same problem as the Dictionary Atheist — it implies atheism is simply an intellectual vacuum. Babies aren't Christians or Muslims or Hindus, and they aren't atheists, either, because we expect at least a token amount of thought is given to the subject. If babies are atheists, then so are trees and rocks — which is true by the dictionary definition, but also illustrates how ridiculously useless that definition is. Babies might also have an in-built predisposition to accept the existence of caring intelligences greater than themselves, so they might all lean towards generic theism, anyway. Mommy is God, after all."

Then he took a swing at atheists who admit that they don’t know for sure that God doesn’t exist. He said,

"I have heard this so often, the hair-splitting grammatical distinctions some atheists think so seriously important in defining themselves. All you're doing is defining yourselves as [obscenity] retentive freaks, people! Get over it. Either way, you're an atheist — and that goes for the over-philosophized fussbudgets who insist that they're agnostics, not atheists, because they aren't 100% positive there aren't any gods, only 99 44/100ths positive."

But this is the "trivial" belief of the pope of atheism, Richard Dawkins. He said that he couldn’t know for sure that there was no God. He told Ben Stein that he was 99% sure God did not exist. Professor Dawkins said,

"Well, technically, you cannot be any more than an agnostic. But I am as agnostic about God as I am about fairies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot actually disprove the existence of God. Therefore, to be a positive atheist is not technically possible. But you can be as atheist about God as you can be atheist about Thor or Apollo. Everybody nowadays is an atheist about Thor and Apollo. Some of us just go one god further."

No wonder angry atheists came at him from all angles. He even spoke to the nasty prejudice they had towards people of faith, lumping them in with murdering terrorists. He said,

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. The second sentence is false. Religion does not turn you into a terrorist. The overwhelming majority of religious people have similar values to yours; my church-going grandmother would have been just as horrified at people using their faith to justify murdering people as the most hardened atheist, and there have been atheist individuals who also think they are justified in killing people for the cause. So stop saying this!"

Good advice professor. Those who love God don’t hate anyone. They love atheists, and even love their enemies. The professor then tried to build up what he has just smashed down. He said,

"You are an atheist — take pride in what you do believe, not what you deny. And also learn to appreciate that the opposition hasn't arrived at their conclusions in a vacuum. There are actually deeper reasons that they so fervently endorse supernatural authorities, and they aren't always accounted for by stupidity."

Yes, take pride in your scientifically impossible belief that nothing created everything, that you are nothing but a primate, and that you have no purpose for existence. Atheism leaves you with no knowledge of your origins, no knowledge of what you are doing here on earth, and tells you nothing about what happens to you after you die. It gives you nothing of substance because it is nothing. It keeps you from repentance and faith in Jesus that will put the truth into your hands and bring to everlasting life.

NOTES: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/why_are_you_an_atheist.php
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Steve Paulson, The Flying Spaghetti Monster

P.s. My apologies to Professor Myers for misspelling his name in the first posting.

If you need a good laugh...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euGLMWn0_ZY&feature=related

Old news...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1e4FUhfHiU&feature=related

It took this father of atheism a lifetime to work out that if things are made, there must be a Maker. With due respect, it really is the ultimate "duh." Obviously, as death came close and as the ability to enjoy the life that godlessness offers, Anthony Flew was able to use his God-given brain for the first time with this issue, and figured it out.

"Flew's volte-face on the existence of God was all the more remarkable given the volume of his writing in the atheistic cause and his vehement denial of internet rumors in 2001 that he had renounced his atheism. His response was entitled Sorry To Disappoint, but I'm Still an Atheist! In 2007, however, he was able to publish There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind."

He changed his mind, because he thought.

Younger atheists fight such common-sense thinking, tooth and nail. For them, the foolishness of atheism is a hill to die on, because it gives temporary license to the pleasures of fornication, pornography, adultery, homosexuality, etc. This is why so many professing atheists embrace as a drowning man the unscientific, unprovable, unthinking, theory tale of evolution. For them, it fills the gap for their purposeless existence.

Yet, tragically, Anthony Flew didn’t publically embrace the Savior. He simply acknowledged how wrong he had been for 50 years; something for which he should be greatly admired. Take his advice. Look around. Open your eyes. Think. Change your mind.

Notes:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html

Bible buffet...

"Andy Duchemin said...Ray, even your bible says that the dead are not conscious. Ecclesiastes 9:5 says...'For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten.' Are you saying the Bible has it wrong and you have it right? That sounds like heresy to me Ray."

The Bible is like a fiddle. You can play any tune you want with it, if you want to. For example, Psalm 14:1 clearly says that there's no God. Such "buffet" reading of the Bible is called "twisting the scriptures" to your "own destruction."

Try reading Ecclesiastes 9:5 in the context of the whole book--especially the conclusion of Solomon's philosophy about the futility of life, because of the reality of death.

Here is his conclusion: "For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil" (Ecclesiastes 12:14).

Please repent (confess your sins to God and turn from them) and trust the Savior for your eternal salvation. That will give you the proof you are not looking for.