"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." Mark Twain

"Ray Comfort blurted: 'My apologies for my poor English. I'm originally from New Zealand (a British colony) and over the last 21 years of living in the United States I have had to change much of my English to fit American English. I do, however, have an excellent American editor who kindly weeds English English out of my books...but not my blog. I will try and keep your vexations in mind, in future.' Too bad you don't have a fact checker either....Could keep that footy goodness taste out of your mouth you get so often...." J Diver

Let me blurt out a little more. Who is to say that I am incorrectly expressing myself if I say, "I have been an American citizen for years and yet I ain’t speaking American English"?

My English teacher abhorred the popular American use of the word "ain’t." Yet the word originated in England. It goes way back to 1706 when it was popularized by colorful characters in the writings of Charles Dickens, etc., which led to it being eventually banished from correct English. But not in the United States.

That isn’t the only word that is annoying to some. Try counting the times you hear Americans say the word "like" (and then mention it to them), and you will probably end up friendless. I once quietly counted someone say it 82 times in ten minutes.

The problem is that language evolves. Not only that, but your "fact checker" evolves also, especially with the subject of evolution. What evolutionary believers thought were facts 100 years ago weren’t facts at all. They were incorrect assessments, and what you believe are scientific facts today, will be laughed at in 100 years time.

The evolutionary believer has built his faith on shifting sand--perfectly described by Mark Twain's "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." It isn't so because there's no fact-checker.

The Christian’s faith, however, is in an immovable Rock--Jesus Christ. We trust a Person, not a belief. Plus, we know what’s right and we know what’s wrong, because we have the fact-checker of the Scriptures to tell us.

So dude, we ain’t the ones like running around with a foot in the mouth when it comes to facts. It’s like evolutionary believers. Like totally.

If you are struggling financially, send your name to BNA@livingwaters.com

Who are the "Evil" Ones?

I had to smile recently when I knew that some of the local Atheist Central atheists were waiting for me to mention the Noah’s Ark "discovery." When I did mention it, someone said that I "took the bait." He was right. I couldn’t help it.

I’m smiling because at the same time I have been waiting for an atheist to mention that another evolutionary hero is a believer in aliens. But not much has been said. Yep. Stephen Hawking, evolution believer extraordinaire, not only believes in aliens but he thinks that we need to take care or they will wipe us all out. He must have been watching "Expelled."

Of course I shouldn’t be shocked. Anyone who believes in evolution, when it has no empirical evidence, will swallow anything. But he’s not the only one. Other scientists have spent millions setting up listening devices, waiting for a "hello" from aliens:

"NASA scientists have been searching for extraterrestrial life on other planets for some time...British physicist Stephen Hawking said this week aliens might be traveling through the cosmos right now - but he warned they might have evil intentions."[1]

That’s the problem when you deny the existence of sin in the human race. I would be much more concerned for the aliens. If we had any contact with them, no doubt we would start a war and kill them.

Do you think I’m a little hard on the human race? In the last 100 years there have been over 100 major wars, resulting in the deaths of over 100 million people.

1917-21: Soviet revolution took the lives of 5 million, 1931: Japanese Manchurian War (1.1 million), 1932-33: Soviet Union vs Ukraine (10 million), 1936-37: Stalin's purges (13 million), 1939-45: World War II (55 million) including the holocaust and Chinese revolution, 1946-49: Chinese civil war (1.2 million), 1950-53: Korean war (3 million), 1958-61: Mao's "Great Leap Forward" (38 million), 1964-73: USA-Vietnam war (3 million), 1966-69: Mao's "Cultural Revolution" (11 million), 1975-78: Menghitsu, Ethiopia (1.5 million) and 1975-79: Khmer Rouge, Cambodia (1.7 million). [2]

Notes:
1. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2951855/Nasa-Evidence-of-life-on-mars.html
2. http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html

Ark-eological Discovery

The headline said "Group claims to have discovered Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat, Turkey." Then we are told that "Chinese and evangelical explorers believe they may have found Noah's Ark - 4000m up a mountain in Turkey…The team said it had recovered wooden specimens from a structure on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey that carbon dating proved was 4800 years old, around the same time the ark is said to have been afloat."

Sure. It sounds too much like the language of evolutionists for me to believe that it’s the Ark. The explorers "believe" they "may" have found it. Then they are trusting in good old carbon dating. Photoshop has changed everything. There have been too many hoaxes in the past for me to be a believer.

If it is the Ark, may it wake up the biblical sceptics. I’m sceptical by nature, but I’m not a biblical cynic. But any cynicism was dealt with, the moment I came to know the Lord.

And if this is just another hoax, it’s no big deal. My salvation isn’t dependent on (or in need of) scientific confirmation of incidents in the Bible, but on my relationship with God. His reality confirms His Word.

I guess it’s just a matter of time. Local Turkish officials are seeking to give this "World Heritage status" so the site can be protected while a major archaeological dig is conducted. When they get unbiased secular archeologists digging, I will sit up and take more notice. Maybe Professor Dawkins could help with the dig...

Pakistan's Diamonds

"Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods...If you claim to know your God exists, your knowledge would also have to be infinite, considering how well said deity conceals himself. Based on the complete lack of any compelling evidence for belief in any species of god, I believe that none exists." Sarah

You said that atheism is a "lack of belief in any gods." In other words, you think that you don't have any belief that god exists. Then you said "I believe that none exists."

You let the cat out of the bag. It jumped right out and you didn’t even see it. You do have a belief. You "believe" that God doesn't exist, and because you have admitted it publicly, expect to be chided by every other atheist who hides behind the excuse of "I have no belief." They do, and you do. You have faith, and you have so much faith in that faith, you are betting your eternity on it.

Your second mistake is one that atheists often make. They will admit that to say "There is no God," a person needs absolute knowledge. You need to know everything to be able to truthfully say that there is no evidence that God exists. The best you can do is say, with the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God.

If I was to say that there are no diamonds in Pakistan, I need to now what’s within every rock, in every part of the soil, in every drawer, and on every finger in Pakistan, because if there is even one diamond, I am wrong. The best I can do is to say that with the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there are no diamonds in Pakistan.

However, to say there is a diamond in Pakistan, I don’t need absolute knowledge. I simply have to know of one (verify it), and my statement is true.

Don’t feel bad. To become a Christian, I had to admit that I was wrong. I was a believer in evolution and had a real mixed up theology about the things of God. I was wrong, and I am eternally grateful that by the grace of God I came to my senses, repented and trusted in Jesus Christ. I came to know Him. When we do that, we stop justifying ourselves, and instead justify God. In other words, admit that we are wrong, and He is right.

Not a Hint in the Word...

"Psalm 14, for example, is not saying that disbelief in God is folly; it is saying that 'fools' (those who do not live their lives according to the precepts of biblical wisdom literature) are acting as though they don't believe in God, even though all of those in the author's experience would say they did." Steven J.

The Amplified Bible goes back to the original Hebrew and amplifies each word so that we can see its depth of meaning. It translates Psalm 14:1 as "The [empty-headed] fool has said in his heart, There is no God."

The Hebrew word for "fool" is נָבָל. Its transliteration is nabal (pronounced "naw-bawl"). It means "a vile person," someone who is "foolish," "senseless," "stupid," and "wicked."

There isn’t a hint in the verse referring to anyone but those who profess to be atheists—-those who look at this incredible creation (all that is made) and say that they have no belief in a Maker. That is the epitome of empty-headedness, stupidity, senselessness, and in the light of the God-given conscience, wickedness.

Of course, I wouldn't point at someone and say that they are a fool, but I will point out what the Bible is saying to someone who misinterprets Scripture.

However, a man who is truly a fool would never see himself as such. He would rather think that he is wise (see Romans 1:21-22). No doubt you, others (and the folks are "We are smart") will have your own interpretation of those verses also.

It’s Sunday, welcome to Atheist Church.

Let’s begin with the wonderful hymn, To God Be the Glory (written in 1875)

To God be the glory, great things he hath done!
So loved he the world that he gave us his Son,
who yielded his life an atonement for sin,
and opened the life-gate that all may go in.

Watch multi Gospel Grammy winner Andrae Crouch sing My Tribute--To God Be The Glory(same name, different song):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iZm9__sJL8

Today’s sermon is from Luke 2:

"Now there was one, Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, and had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity; and this woman was a widow of about eighty-four years, who did not depart from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. And coming in that instant she gave thanks to the Lord, and spoke of Him to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem" (Luke 2:36-38)

An atheist once wrote and said that people in Bible times only lived to the age of around 25 years. I disagreed with him. Whatever the case, here was one woman who was married (probably in her late teens) for seven years, and had been a widow for 84 years. So she was around 107 years old. She spent all her time serving God with fasting and prayers in the temple.

Fasting is good for the soul. Some people do it for health reasons, but the Christian fasts to humble his soul and to teach himself self control. A person who has the virtue of self control learns to say no to that groaning monster—the human appetite. Those who don’t learn self control, end up with a monstrous stomach that controls the mouth, and bring upon themselves diabetes, and a whole host of other diseases, bringing them to an early death.

America has lost its self control. We have millions who are obese, and are tragically digging their grave with their spoons.

Anna spent her time speaking to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem. The Christian does the same thing. We speak to all those within our sphere of influence, who are interested in being redeemed from the power of death. Are you looking for redemption from death? Then seek Jesus Christ. Call upon His name, and do it today. If nothing happens, do it with fasting. Perhaps you need to humble your soul. Whatever you do, just do it. There’s nothing more important than where you will spend eternity. If the thought of missing food terrifies you, say to yourself, "Man doesn’t live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God."

Collection: this service is free.

Benediction: May you find redemption today, and then spend all of your time speaking of Him to those who are also seeking everlasting life. One last thought. I may be wrong, but when atheists gather together (and I have been to a few atheist gatherings), they don’t sing. This is because they have nothing to sing about ("To nature be the glory"?). However, those who have been given everlasting life by God have something wonderful about which they can sing…and sing we will, throughout the whole of eternity.

Pic. Andrae Crouch

Science and Religious Thought

"Hey Ray, they've finally discovered the main difference between scientific and religious thought: Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings."

Let me finish what you are saying: Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings, Christianity flies you to Heaven, and Evolution flies in the face of true science.

Throughout history, tyrants have carried out their political agendas in the name of "religion." Those who lack any sense of perception say that they were Christians. They don't see any difference between those who are sincere in their faith and those who are fake. "Hitler was a Christian," is an atheist's (and evolutionist's) favorite.

Such talk reveals an evident weakness in their character. If they had any perception at all they wouldn't be an atheist and they wouldn’t believe evolution. But they cling for dear life to an unscientific belief because they believe that what they believe about evolution is "scientific," when it is in reality a fantasy behind a veneer of science.

You can see through both religious hypocrisy and the theory of evolution with one simple act. If you will acknowledge your sins, turn from them and put your trust entirely in Jesus Christ, you will come to know God. And when you come to know God, you will know the truth and the truth (reality) will make you free. See John 8:31-32 and John 14:21.

Hard economic times? Send your name to BNA@livingwaters.com

The Prince of Preachers

Someone quoted the Prince of Preachers this morning. For those who are not familiar with him, Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) had an intellect that was equal to that of William Shakespeare. Both men had a vocabulary of 23,000 words (the average person has about 13,000 words). You may have to read what he says a couple of times. I don’t say that in a condescending way, but because of the language of the era in which they were penned:

"The atheist is, morally, as well as mentally, a fool, a fool in the heart as well as in the head; a fool in morals as well as in philosophy. With the denial of God as a starting point, we may well conclude that the fool’s progress is a rapid, riotous, raving, ruinous one. He who begins at impiety is ready for anything. 'No God,' being interpreted, means no law, no order, no restraint to lust, no limit to passion."

"Those who talk so abominably as to deny their Maker will act abominably when it serves their turn."

"Men of the world are apt to say, 'You are such a set of bigots; you think everybody wrong but yourselves.' Is it wonderful [in the truest sense of the word 'wonder'] that if we think we are right, we do not believe that those who are opposed to us can be right also?"

"He who hates truth soon hates its advocate."

"He that perverts truth shall soon be incapable of knowing the true from the false. If you persist in wearing glasses that distort, everything will be distorted to you."

"He who thinks he never was a fool is a fool now. He who never owns that he is wrong will never get right."

"Instead of being humbled in the presence of scientific infidels, we ought to pity them; they affect to look down upon us, but we have far more cause to look down upon them."

The Response of a Jerk

"Ray -- You responded Dimensio: 'Dimensio...be careful that you don't somehow give the impression that I agree with your beliefs (evolution's) about male/female origins. It think they are childishly foolish. I didn't understand how silly they were.' That's the sort of response a jerk would give to someone. Is that how Jesus would have you respond?" QED

You are right. It wasn’t Christ-like. When Jesus rebuked hypocrisy, He didn’t pull any punches. He said, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are … full of hypocrisy and lawlessness … Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?" (Matthew 23:27-29, 33-34).

I should have been more honest with Dimensio, and showed him that I love him enough to tell him the truth. He is a hypocrite who has (without exaggeration) probably hundreds of times called certain people on this blog a "liar." He is a finger-pointer, and he needs to know that God will judge him by the same standard he judges others. Unless he repents and trusts in Jesus, he won’t escape the damnation of Hell.

"Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?" (Romans 2:1-3).

Am I his enemy because I tell him the truth? Love is not always passive. It will warn when someone is in danger, and every person who is still in his sins (who has not been born again) is in terrible danger of receiving exactly what he deserves. Only a jerk would remain silent.

Forgive me for being too passive in the past.

Unreasonable Men...

A theist says to a professing atheist: "Still waiting for you to provide one factual example of non-life creating life to support your ridiculously unscientific beliefs. If you utterly fail to do so, I have no reason to believe your position has any credibility whatsoever, since factual science says 'all life comes from life'" without exception.

You will be waiting for a long time, because the "new" atheist has the ultimate cop-out cut-and-paste. He’s ready for people like you. He doesn’t know how life came out of non-life, and he doesn’t have to know because "the beginning" doesn’t concern him. It just happened, and one day science will have the answer.

In the meanwhile, he places himself in the lofty position of not having to justify his lack of intellectual stance because he’s not the one making a claim. You are. You say that God exists, so he believes that you are the one who has to provide evidential proof. And he says that he sees no evidence the God exists. That’s the new and convenient definition of an atheist--someone who sees no belief that a god exists.

Then, like a dim-witted blind and deaf judge, he dismisses evidence put before him (such as that which has been made being axiomatic evidence for a Maker) as being laughingly non-admissible. Case dismissed. Then he, in a bizarre self-conceit, proclaims himself wise.

Such is the intellectual embarrassment of the "new" atheism. However, their brainless position isn’t new at all. The Scriptures had them pegged 2,000 years ago:

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools . . . " Romans 1:20-22 (NKJV)

The Bible also speaks of "unreasonable" men. Such can’t be reasoned with, even with such simple common sense. What's more, in a further effort to fortify themselves against the truth, they twist the Bible to mean things it doesn’t say, and the tragedy is, what they do will result in their own terrible and eternal downfall:

"There are some things in those [epistles of Paul] that are difficult to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist and misconstrue to their own utter destruction, just as [they distort and misinterpret] the rest of the Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:16, Amplified Bible).

Evolution’s Explanation for Male and Female

"Ray Comfort replied to 'Raoul Rheits: Raoul...Good question. You briefly explain to me evolution's explanation of why almost every kind of animal, human beings, bird, fish and insect have both male and female. How did it begin, why it happened, and we will take it from there. Thanks.' You didn't ask me, and brief explanations work better for simpler subjects than how reproductive biology changed over a couple of billion years along myriad branching paths…Large-scale adaptive change is simply the accumulation of small-scale adaptive change: just as poodles, Chihuahuas, German shepherds, etc. all have males and females of the breed because they were bred from a common dog ancestor that had males and females, ladybird beetles, penguins, trout, and humans have males and females because they inherited this two-sexed condition from a last common ancestor that already had male and female. Well, at least, this is true of trout, penguins, and us; our last common ancestor with insects may have been hermaphroditic, with distinct sexes evolving separately in arthropods and vertebrates. It wouldn't take much for a hermaphroditic species to produce a mutant that had only one kind, rather than both kinds, of reproductive organs (it could still mate with individuals that had both kinds). Steven J."

So, your belief is that all present dogs exist because there was a male and female dog in the beginning--"they were bred from a common dog ancestor that had males and females." Then, with no explanation of how they got there or why they became male and female, you say "our last common ancestor with insects may have been hermaphroditic" and do the same thing again. You don’t give any explanation as to why there was a male and female insect in the beginning--they all "have males and females because they inherited this two-sexed condition from a last common ancestor that already had male and female."

Your belief is truly nebulous and may cloud the thinking of the simple, but not those who think a little deeper. You are saying that they just "were." There were male and female animals, male and female birds, male and female insects, male and female fish, and male and female human beings.

Your belief is in a childlike fairy tale for grownups. That would be okay with me if you didn’t deceive others with your meaningless eloquence, and at the same time poison them against the truth.

Here’s another attempt to explain the existence of male and female throughout the whole of creation:

J Diver said "It's rather simple really. First you have to realize your presupposition that all animals were created male and female is demonstrably WRONG. Many of the lower animals are hermaphrodites. Specifically earthworms, tapeworms. corals, and several species of fish are both male AND female at the same time! All it takes at that point is a quick and simple mutation and *poof*.... those that have a single sex become more successful at reproduction or their offspring become more viable. All you have to do is open a book Ray. It's not that hard."

It’s magical. It's all rather simple really. It’s like having a fairy-godmother, without having a fairy-godmother. "Poof." It all happened by itself. Just read and believe. It’s easy.

It’s Sunday Once Again.

Welcome to Atheist Church.

Today’s hymn is: "All Things Bright and Beautiful."

All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful,
The Lord God made them all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdLjQa3as58&feature=related

Today’s sermon is from Luke Chapter 2:

"Which you have prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel. And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him. And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." (Luke 2:31-35).

Simeon was told by the Lord that he wouldn’t see death until he had seen Jesus. He then prophesied over the baby, and said that God had prepared salvation through this tiny child, not just for the Jews, but for all the nations. This was a marvelous thing that caused Joseph and Mary to marvel. The promised salvation would be universal.

Later in His life, when Jesus spoke of the "sign" He spoke of the cross upon which He would suffer and die. The cross was to be the center-point of Christianity. Without the cross, there would be not gospel and no message of everlasting life. The cross is the stumbling block of the wicked. It is a sign that is spoken against. It is "foolishness to those who are perishing," because when the moral Law is denied a suffering Messiah is superfluous. However, when any sinner admits that he has transgressed the moral Law, the cross becomes His redemption from death.

Then Simeon directed his prophetic words at Mary and tells her that a sword would pierce her soul. She would anguish as she witnessed the unspeakable horror of seeing her beloved son crucified. But this happened so that God could extend His mercy to the humble, before He judged the hearts of humanity on Judgment Day.

Sinners have no idea that their thoughts are seen by a holy God who sees lust as adultery and hatred as murder. Those who understand the Law and the standard by which they will be judged, will flee to the cross where they can find mercy and grace.

Announcements: The winners of the financial gift and vest will be announced early next week.

Collection: This service is free.

Benediction: May you come to know the Lord this week, and let it become the most special week of your life--throughout eternity.

For Atheists Only

This is a medium-sized vest (40"-42" chest), Crocodile Dundee style, very high quality leather. A financial gift is also available for those who are struggling in this economy. Apply with names only to BNA@livingwaters.com saying if you want the vest or the finance. Thank you. (click on the pic. for a better view).

Professor Theodosius Dobzhansky's Problem

What do you make of Christians who nevertheless believe in evolution, such as the famous biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky? He specifically wrote "I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God’s, or Nature’s method of creation."

True, Theodosius Dobzhansky believed in God. It’s hard not to in the face of this amazing creation. After all, the most intelligent of us can’t create a grain of sand, a frog, a bird, or the simplest flower, from nothing. We don’t know how to do it.

So how intellectually dishonest is it to say that there was no intelligent and eternal Creator? So one doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to believe in the existence of God. All we need is good old common sense, and that’s what Professor Dobzhansky had--common sense, and there are plenty of other intelligent people who believe in evolution and in God’s existence.

However, those who believe in God and evolution have to throw out Holy Scripture, because the Bible tells us that God created male and female in every kind of animal, and then He gave them the ability to reproduce after their own kind (see Genesis 1). We are told in Scripture that there is one kind of flesh and man, and one kind of flesh of beasts.

So the god of evolution and the God of the Bible are incompatible. Evolution didn’t "create” anything. It doesn’t have any genesis, and its explanation as to why there are male and female within every animal is ridiculously nebulous.

Those who choose to believe in any other god are guilty of violation of the First and Second of the Ten Commandments--something called "idolatry"--making a god in our own imagination, and that was the professor’s problem.

Never a Man Spoke Like This Man

You've talked about the theory of evolution being like a cloud -- it changes constantly as new evidence is uncovered. Isn't it also true that the basic tenets of Christianity have changed over the past two millennia as views about the Bible and Jesus’ preaching changed? (For example, the question of whether Jesus was divine was unsettled until several hundred years after his death -- some argued that he was wholly human, others argued that he was not human at all and his suffering was merely an illusion.)

When you say "For example, the question of whether Jesus was divine was unsettled until several hundred years after his death -- some argued that he was wholly human, others argued that he was not human at all and his suffering was merely an illusion," how do you know that? How do you know that is true? Isn’t it because you believe history books? You have no way of substantiation.

There is no question (nor has there ever been a question as to the divinity of Jesus) for those who believe Scripture. For example: "In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John 1:1-3, 14).

Or "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" ( 1 Timothy 3:16, KJV). Notice the word "without controversy." These are only two verses of many that speak of Jesus being the Creator, manifest in human form.

To say that Jesus of Nazareth was merely a man leaves us with a dilemma that he was unquestionably a con-man or a mad-man. If He was just a man, He suffered from the ultimate delusions of grandeur. He believed and said again and again that He was God in human form. He spoke of His preexistence, His power over death, that all humanity would be resurrected from their graves at the sound of His voice, that He was the very source of life itself, that those who ate of His flesh (a spiritual not literal--as some believe) would live forever. He said that if we thirsted, we were to come to Him and drink, that He was exclusively the only way to God and eternal life.

If he was a mad-man, then we have to attribute such incredible wonderful and wise words spoken in the Sermon of the Mount to someone else. Insane people don’t say the things He said. Who then said them? If it wasn’t Jesus, then we should fall at the feet of whoever it was and call Him "Lord."

My challenge to those who profess to be open to truth, is to humbly read--without presuppositions, Matthew chapters 5-7, and objectively look at the words of the Savior. Or read the Gospel of John. You will no doubt conclude (along with the temple guards the Pharisees sent to arrest Him)--"Never a man spoke like this Man."

A World Without Religion

"Imagine, for a moment, a world where religion never existed, for whatever reason. Its citizens go about their lives having never heard of any religion. In your mind, what would the world be like -- worse, better? Why?"1.

I think that a world without religion would be a much better world. Imagine no 911. Imagine no terror-threats from Islam. No suicide bombs. Imagine no pedophile priests or money-hungry televangelists. Imagine no Roman Catholic Crusades against innocent people or torturous Inquisitions against those who denied their religion.

Imagine no religious nuts carrying signs at soldiers funerals saying that it’s good that they died or that "God hates fags." Imagine no religious hypocrisy, and no trail of human blood down through history through the mass of religious wars. No witch burnings, no hindrances to science . . . imagine.

The Bible only mentions "religion" five times. Three times the Apostle Paul uses the word in reference to his pre-Christian life. The other references are in the context of religious hypocrisy (see James 1:26-27). I try and distance myself as far as possible from those religious folks who insist that salvation comes from religious works. I don’t believe that, I don’t practice that, and I don’t want to have anything to do with that.

Man has always used religion for his own political or economic gain. Hitler did it. America does it. Iran does it. The Pharisees in the time of Christ did it.

Religion is very grimy and murky bathwater, and those who don’t look carefully can easily miss the baby. A world without religion…how wonderful that would be. May God hasten the day.

1. Adapted from, scienceforums.net interview

Somebody's breaking the Ninth Commandment...

"Christians: Your hero Ray Comfort is lying. Again. He said--'Like when the professor said that he believed we were the products of aliens. He didn’t mean that.' He didn't say it, either. I challenge any one of you Christians to either verify that Dawkins actually believes that life on this earth came from space aliens, or else call Ray on his lying." captain howdy

Richard Dawkins said, "It could come about in the following way: it could be that, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet . . . and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." (Italics added) "Expelled."

Notice his use of the words "could," "probably" and "perhaps." This is the normal language he uses and almost all evolution believers use, when speaking of the theory of evolution--the language of "speculation." This is what Professor Dawkins believed at that point. Then he back-tracked and said he didn't mean it--but he let the cat out of the bag in front of a camera.

P.s. After reading the fiery comments, I have to admit that atheists defend Dawkins like faithful Catholics defend the pope. You are very loyal to your hero.

Dawkins and the Pope

The Sunday Times headlined: "Richard Dawkins calls for arrest of Pope Benedict XVI. RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain 'for crimes against humanity'"1.

Dawkins sure had the big talk. Last month he asked the question, "Should the pope resign?" and answered,

"No. As the College of Cardinals must have recognized when they elected him, he is perfectly - ideally - qualified to lead the Roman Catholic Church. A leering old villain in a frock, who spent decades conspiring behind closed doors for the position he now holds; a man who believes he is infallible and acts the part; a man whose preaching of scientific falsehood is responsible for the deaths of countless AIDS victims in Africa; a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence: in short, exactly the right man for the job. He should not resign, moreover, because he is perfectly positioned to accelerate the downfall of the evil, corrupt organization whose character he fits like a glove, and of which he is the absolute and historically appropriate monarch. No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign. He should remain in charge of the whole rotten edifice - the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution - while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears."2.

This month, Protestant Dawkins apparently had linked with fellow atheist, Christopher Hitchens, on a social agenda to make sure that justice was done.

The thought made me smile, because no one takes on the pope. He’s too big, too powerful, too lofty, and too loved by too many for two atheists to hold him accountable for anything. It’s a matter of survival of the fittest. The two out-spoken atheists would be lucky to get a balcony-wave in their general direction, let alone their day in court with the pope.

I had more skepticism than a combined Hitchens and Dawkins would have at a Benny Hinn healing meeting.

Of course, it wasn’t true. The good professor was all talk. He said that any talk of an arrest was an exaggeration. A misunderstanding. Media spin. Like when the missing link was found in 2009. Hype. That’s all. Like when the professor said that he believed we were the products of aliens. He didn’t mean that. And he didn’t mean this. David didn’t have a tiny stone to sling.

Notes:
1. http://ow.ly/1wZuk
2. http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5341

An Inuit hunter asked the local missionary priest: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?" "No," said the priest, "not if you did not know." "Then why," asked the Inuit earnestly, "did you tell me?" -ANNIE DILLARD. Abe

The priest wasn’t telling the truth. I have used the same scenario in The Evidence Bible to show the foolishness of such a thought. God would be unjust to send anyone to Hell for not knowing something:

"No one will go to hell because they haven’t heard of Jesus Christ. The heathen will go to hell for murder, rape, adultery, lust, theft, lying, etc. Sin is not failing to hear the gospel. Rather, "sin is the transgression of the Law" (1 John 3:4). If we really care about the lost, we will become missionaries and take the good news of God’s forgiveness in Christ to them."

The confusion comes from misinterpreting the meaning of John 16:9: "Why will sinners go to Hell? Much damage has been done to the cause of the gospel by telling the world that they will go to hell 'because they don’t believe in Jesus.' This makes no sense to the ungodly. It seems unreasonable that God would eternally damn them for not believing something.

"However, the verse can be explained this way: If a man jumps out of a plane without a parachute, he will perish because of the results of gravity. Had he put on a parachute, he would have been saved. In one sense, he perished because he didn’t put on the parachute. But the primary reason he died was because of the effects of unforgiving gravitational pull.

"If a sinner refuses to trust in Jesus Christ when he passes through the door of death, he will perish. This isn’t because he refused to trust the Savior, but because he transgressed the Law of God. Had he 'put on the Lord Jesus Christ' (see Romans 13:14), he would have been saved; but because he refused to repent, he will suffer the full consequences of his sin. Sin is not 'failing to believe in Jesus.' Sin is ‘transgression of the Law’ (see 1 John 3:4)." From,The Evidence Bible.

It’s Sunday once again.

Welcome to Atheist church.

Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee;
Let the water and the blood,
From Thy wounded side which flowed,
Be of sin the double cure;
Save from wrath and make me pure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7Sn5rV6oM0&feature=related

Today’s Sermon is from Luke chapter 2:

"And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, Lord, now let your servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation..." (Luke 2:24-30)

Skeptics often say that Christianity says that all Jews go to Hell. But that’s not true. Those who believe that have no idea where Christianity has its roots. They are in Israel. The promise of the Christ came through the Jews. Jesus was Jewish, the disciples were Jewish, the first converts were Jewish. Christianity is Jewish, and here we have an aged Jewish man who was "waiting for the consolation of Israel." He was waiting for the promised Messiah--the one who would open the door of immortality to mortal man (he wasn't the only Jew who was saved--see Hebrews 11). God Himself had revealed to him that he would not die until he saw "the Lord’s Christ."

God then led him into the Temple at the precise moment that Joseph and Mary took Jesus into the temple to be dedicated to God. Simeon knew who Jesus was because God had prepared him for that amazing encounter. From that moment, he was ready to face death

Simeon had assurance of salvation because he had faith in the coming Messiah. He was justified through faith, just as so many Jews (listed in Hebrews chapter 11) were also justified by faith. Simeon was a Jew who knew who Jesus was because God showed Him to him.

Every Christian has had the same experience as Simeon. God shows us who Jesus is. When Jesus asked His disciples "who do you say that I am?" Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 16:13-17). God reveals who Jesus is to those who repent and trust Him, and from that moment, like Simeon, you can look death in the face without fear and say, "Lord, now let your servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen your salvation..."

No collection:

Announcements: The winner of this week’s financial gift is Kelley.

Benediction: May you be open to hearing God’s voice through His Word, so that like Simeon you can face death without fear, because your eyes have seen the Lord’s Christ.

Thanks for joining us today.

Picture: Simeon's Moment, Artist: Ron DiCianni
http://www.tapestryproductions.com/products/artist/rondicianni/simeonsmoment.php

I figured out what to do (see new sidebar text). Thanks for your kind input. My apologies to those I offended.

Those of you (atheists) who would be interested in receiving $100 to help you out financially, send your name today to: BNA@livingwaters.com There are plenty of atheists who are okay with this. Those of you who are offended by it and keep quoting Bible verses to try and get me to stop, should deal with it, or move on to a site that doesn’t upset you. I’m sure there are plenty.

We also have two free leather vests this week (pictured). Please state your size (S. M. or L.)--same email address. Just give your name. Atheists only--not international for these two. Thanks.

"I do not know the nature of or what caused quasars. Does that mean I'm not an atheist? What does this have to do with the lack of sufficient evidence for any deity? Are you actually saying that to be an atheist you must claim to know everything? So then your God is an atheist?” JG

A quasar is a small part of the creation of Almighty God. He is their Creator, and yet you plead ignorance as to who made them. You don't know. You also say that you don’t know who or what made the Grand Canyon, flowers, birds, the trees and everything else in the universe. You say you don’t know, and you say you don’t know because you lack knowledge. That means you are an agnostic--you don’t know. So you are not an atheist, although you may believe that you are one. Even a professing atheist such as Richard Dawkins, who believes nothing is the initial cause, can’t claim the title "atheist." This is because he only has a belief. He doesn’t know. He too lacks knowledge. To be a true atheist you have to have all knowledge (omniscience), and no one has that but God.

So there cannot be such a thing as someone who knows that God doesn’t exist, only those who don’t know, such as yourself. Conversely, someone doesn't need absolute knowledge to know something. You can know who built your house, without having omniscience.

"A happy man is too satisfied with the present to dwell too much on the future." Albert Einstein

While there is a place for not worrying about the future and letting it take care of itself, there is one "future" we must all consider. Jesus spoke of a man who completely ignored his eternal future and was called a "fool" by God Himself.

Most people don’t consider that there is something far more important to God than human happiness. We tend to think that we are somehow owed happiness by God--that He is obligated to make sure we live a happy and healthy life.

Hitler was no doubt happy when things were going his way.

God is not anti-happiness, however, the thing that pleases God is something the Bible calls "righteousness." So those who want to please God should take Einstein’s advice with a grain of salt.

If you and I are happy we should make sure that our happiness springs out of righteousness, not out of sin, and that can only happen if our sins are forgiven through trusting in Jesus Christ. Then we should dwell constantly on our eternal future. Everything we say, do, and even think should be in the light of God’s smile or His frown. To claim have everlasting life, and not to do so is to play the hypocrite.

Pic. A happy Hitler

"I am sure your 'fishing lures' of free gifts will draw some people in, maybe even get them into your net. After all you said yourself (as does the NT) that Christians are to be ‘fishers of men’ and evangelism is really a fishing expedition. Most of us are intelligent enough and not so desperate to realize what you are doing, but then Christianity always did appeal to those who are desperate and needy." nature observer

It seems that you may be insulting the intelligence of your atheist friends. A gift of $100 to help a struggling family to put food on their table may be a "lure" to you, but to them it’s a God-send (figure of speech).

I had an aunt once who couldn’t take a gift. She was so proud. If someone gave her something because they cared about her, she would hand it back. I guess she thought that she was doing the right thing. But she insulted the giver.

There seems to be a tinge of pride and even condescension in your words. You are more intelligent than other atheists. You are not as desperate as them. Not at the moment.

You would rather starve than take a gift from a Christian.

Tell me--if some atheist somewhere in the world gets a monetary gift from me and because of it, softens to the gospel, what do I get out of it? I don’t want his money. I have already shown that by giving him money. I’m not saying he should join a particular church. Never once have I encouraged anyone to join a church. And I certainly don’t want him to show up on my doorstep.

I don’t have my own church, so what’s the "net" of which you speak? Is it the tangled web of Christianity? Why should you care? If you do care, then send me your email address and I will put you in contact with needy atheists who would appreciate your financial help.

Or is it that you feel threatened by an expression of Christian love?

"Jeffrey said...I tend to think there was never a time when there was nothing, that our universe had a beginning in time, that the cause of that beginning is unknown and probably unknowable, but that there is no particular reason to believe it possessed intelligence and purpose (i.e., that it was God)."

If someone doesn't know what caused the universe, they are not an atheist. They may hold onto the label, but in truth they are "agnostic." Etymology: "Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more to know."

The dictionary says the same thing. Agnostic: "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable."

You say that you believe "that the cause of that beginning is unknown and probably unknowable, but that there is no particular reason to believe it possessed intelligence and purpose (i.e., that it was God)."

So you are not an atheist. You are an "agnostic," and you therefore can't speak on behalf of the true atheists, who, like Richard Dawkins, believe that nothing created everything. He is a true atheist, and his belief is unscientific. Agnostics plead ignorance. They don't know.

Never forget that the word "agnostic" is from the Greek word gignōskein which means there is "more to know." That which is designed must have a Designer. So keep an open mind when it comes to God.

Closed and ignorant minds tend to become a prison to those that have them.

Atheist Church--Easter Service

Welcome to "Atheist Church." It’s an honor to have you here on this Easter Sunday.

Let’s begin with an appropriate hymn for Easter: Amazing Grace

Think about the words of this song, that was penned by a cruel slave-trader who tasted of God’s mercy in Christ:

Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.

'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears relieved;
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believed.

You eyes may sweat a little, as you listen to Chris Tomlin sing this amazing song about an amazing grace:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqJsBRFdrA0

Today’s sermon is taken from Luke chapter 2:
“And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.” (Luke 16-23).

Easter can be a time of sacrifice--when many (who wouldn’t normally darken the door of a church) endure a boring sermon--thinking that they are somehow balancing the scales with God. However, for the Christian every day is "Good" Friday. A day doesn’t go by when thoughts of God’s love don’t flood his mind.

Eight days after His birth, Jesus was circumcised, and taken to Jerusalem to be dedicated to God, where a sacrifice was made. The Jews continually offered sacrifices for their sins, often in the form of a helpless lamb. However, these only provided a temporary covering for sin. They had to continually come back with more. But Jesus was the Lamb of God who had come to, once and for all, remove sin. His sacrifice sufficed the Law of a holy God.

Those who don’t understand the necessity for a sacrifice may be helped by looking for a moment at the sacrifice of the Incas. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that all isn’t well between God and His creation. Earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, disease, suffering and death are clues that all is not right. So the Incas would take their most prized possession--a beautiful virgin, and offer her as a sacrifice. In essence they were saying, "Look God, we are giving you something of great value to us--a huge sacrifice. Does that appease your anger against us?"

Of course God forbids human sacrifice. He calls it an "abomination,' and He mercifully withheld Abraham’s arm when he was about to sacrifice his son Isaac. We know that Abraham proved his love by his willingness to give his only son back to God. This was a powerful Old Testament "typology," an evident illustration of how God willingly gave His only Son as a sacrifice for the sin of the world.

But those who don’t understand that still make sacrifices today. Especially at Easter. They sacrifice an hour, and endure a painfully boring sermon. That’s also an abomination to God (see Proverbs 15:8). The only sacrifice that was will wash away our sin and open the door to forgiveness of sins, is the one He provided in the Savior when He allowed Him to be crucified, and then raised Him from the dead. That’s what we celebrate at Easter.

Announcements: This week’s winner of the $100 is L. S. (U.K.). We know that those in the United Kingdom are also feeling the economic squeeze, and hope this helps in a small way.

Collection: There’s no collection. This service is without charge.

Benediction: May you understand what happened at Calvary 2,000 years ago, and appropriate it personally.

The vest winner is Taylor Kessinger.

Free Atheist Vest

This is a garment-leather (soft) pig-skin vest. It's medium size, male or female. If you are an atheist living in the United States and you would like this--either for yourself or to sell on ebay, send your name to BNA@livingwaters.com today, mentioning the vest. We will contact the winner for his or her address.

From the moment Albert Einstein came into a place of eminence, he became public domain. Decades later, he still is. Theists and non-theists alike continually use him as an intellectual measurement in a tug of war. Who’s side was he on? Did he believe in God or didn’t he? Theists provide a mass of quotes to show that he did believe in the existence of God, but atheists are quick to retort that it wasn’t the God of the Bible, and think they have gained ground by saying so.

In truth, Albert Einstein was no different than most of us when it comes to a belief in God. He was what the Bible calls, an "idolater." He had his own conception of God. He made a god in his own image and was in transgression of the First and the Second of the Ten Commandments. "You shall have no other gods before Me," and "You shall not make yourself a graven image," are not confined to physically shaping a stone or wooden god. The Commandments include a god shaped in the mind.

There is a serious problem though for the idolater. By their very nature idolaters reject the God of the Bible. The two aren’t compatible. The God revealed in Scripture forbids the giving of homage to the non-existent, and in turn, the idolater refuses to give homage to the God of Scripture.

Here’s how it works. The average idol maker is offended by the thought that God would be vindictive. He is affronted by any thought of the existence of Hell. He therefore creates a god that is non-vindictive. His god is rather an impersonal but benevolence force. He has no sense of right or wrong, justice or truth. But there’s the problem.

This "benevolent" deity stands by and cruelly lets children starve to death--40,000 every 24 hours. He lets people die in agony of cancerous disease. Millions of them. He coldly watches as hundreds of thousands are crushed in earthquakes, drowned in floods, struck by lightning, and ravished by tornados and hurricanes.

Then, as time passes, as the pains of daily life come to the individual idolater, he cannot reconcile what his "loving" God allows to come his way. So he either becomes embittered (or disillusioned) at the thought of God existing. He loses faith, because his god let him down.

Such was the tragic case, it would seem, with Albert Einstein. He rejected the God who revealed Himself in Holy Scripture, shaped an idol for himself, and then discarded it when the pains of old age took their predictable hold, and pulled him closer and closer to death. But it was only right that he should toss the idol. His god could do nothing for him. It was impotent . . . nothing more than an imaginary friend.

$100 for groceries, or whatever

If you are an atheist who is feeling the economic squeeze, and you would like to be in the draw, you must send your name to BNA@livingwaters.com today. This is open to atheists outside of the United States. We will announce the winner during the announcements at the Atheist Church on Sunday.

Interesting stuff--kindly collated by "Sooty"

The Month In Review: March 2010
Data is taken from all comments posted in March for all threads begun in March.

Number of threads by Ray: 39
Number of blog posts: 4118
Number of different bloggers: 331

Top 10 Bloggers (by number of posts)

1. Steven J. [176]
2. BathTub [121]
3. Dimensio [112]
4. darkknight56 [109]
5. ITs All About Jesus!!! [107]
6. Dale Jackson [100]
7. Iago [100]
8. Chris B [97]
9. Raoul Rheits [85]
10. Lurker [83]

Pretty high atheist concentration. I think Steven J is pretty safe at the top hey?

Atheist Central Initiatives
1. Weekly grocery giveaways.
2. Comfort made jacket giveaways.
3. Atheist church services.
4. Restaurant voucher giveaways.

(I love being around this place)

Notable Notes:
1 This month saw MollyKnits leave AC... Only to return 1 week later. (We love you Molly!)
2 Ethan did not post at all this month. (Where are you Ethan???)
3 Bathtub mentioned 'Aron Ra' a total of 10 times (Everyone needs a hero!)
4 The atheists almost went 1 month without mentioning the 'she-bears' from 2 Kings 2. Unfortunately MVP let the team down on the 28th. So close!

Atheist in Focus: Steven J.
Total number or words (excluding quotes): A staggering 44,073 words!
Percentage of total comments on blog (by total word mass): 7.0%
Number of posts I actually understood: 4 and a 1/2.

Atheist in Focus: Dimensio
Number of times 'serial liar' was used: 40
Number of times 'serial liar' was used towards a one 'Mr Burton': 40
Number of times 'demonstrable/demonstrably' was used: 34
Number of times 'please substantiate this assertion' was used: 14
Number of times something was considered 'not credible': 26
Number of meaningful posts: 0

Now for the awards:

Less Intelligent Quote of the Month: Philosophical Theist

"Obama has given every assurance... that federal money must not be used under any circumstance to fund abortion. I trust him..."

(Note: In the interest of competition, this award necessarily excludes all Iago's comments.)

Humorous Quote of the Month: It's all about Skycake !!!

"Next you'll be telling me these aren't the droids I'm looking for."

(sometimes you guys crack me up!)

Scary Quote of the Month: Iago (you little winner!!)

"So Ray if I was alone with you, and no one else around to witness the actions, then whapped you in face with a baseball bat..."

(Ok, he's just getting creepy now)

Most First Posts: It's All About Jesus!!! 5

(Aside from Terry, it was really quite spread as expected. The next highest number of first posts was 2 - for Wait What, Ryan Anderson, Iago, Chris B and Hank)

---------------------------------

Well, a good time was had by all in March. Have a great April friends.

The Bathwater

'"You are not an animal.' He he, Genius. This is one of the funniest things about Modern Creationists. They are so afraid of science that they spurn and throw away so much that they are afraid of acknowledging, that they actually throw out discoveries and findings by God fearing Creationists too. It's a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater..." BathTub

There’s no baby with the bathwater Bathtub. You are higher than the animals, in that you are a moral creature. The dictionary tells us that the word "creature" is "anything created, whether animate or inanimate." You were created by God with an inherent knowledge of right and wrong. That's why a civil court will punish you if you step over certain moral boundaries. No animal sets up court systems and strives, at tremendous cost to itself, to see that justice is done.

We alone do this because man was made in the image of God, as male and female, with the ability to reproduce after his own kind, and as a morally accountable agent.

Evolution has no explanation for man’s beginning. Some of its believers think that perhaps there was a big bang, but they don't know where the materials came from for it to take place. They don't know what was in the beginning, but they are certain that there was no God. They believe the scientific absurdity that life rose out of non-life. It was simply a case of evolution-did-it.

Evolution is ridiculously nebulous when it comes to the origin of male and female, and it hangs all of its faith on non-existent evidence for species-to-species transitional forms.

No, there’s no baby, and the bathwater is pretty murky and should be quickly flushed down the drain. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with science. It’s simply a pseudo-science of an unproven theory, that gives man temporary license to act like an animal.