Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Women, Adorn Yourselves With Modest Clothing

"Likewise, women ought to adorn themselves modestly and discreetly with proper clothing, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments" 1 Timothy 2:9
Paul Washer's wife says, "If your clothing is a frame for your face, from which the glory of God is to shine, it's properif it draws attention to your face. If your clothing draws attention to your body, to outline it, to make it noticed, then it's sensual." This is a good rule of thumb to live by.


Gospel singers Yolanda Adams and Erica Campbell's opinions on this matter, along with several contemporary "Christian" women, conflict with the biblical interpretation. Yolanda Adams, arguing in defense of Erica Campbell's form-fitting dress seen above-left, claims that Erica Campbell was not trying to be sexual when she decided to wear the dress, but that it was simply a matter of style: "I know for a fact that Mary Mary, because I've known them for years, they don't try to be sexual," Adams told Think Positive magazine. "Some of the things that they want to wear, they're in style." Erica Campbell claims wearing that dress is about "confidence."

A Christian is not concerned with what is or is not "in style." They are concerned with modesty and what brings glory to God. Just because something is "in style" does not mean a Christian should be caught dead in it. Discernment, ladies! String bikinis are "in style," yet for a professing Christian woman to wear one is indecent and immodest. Only a couple decades ago, the secular authorities would have arrested these professing "Christian" women for the things they wear to the beach these days. Confidence has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Paul Washer's wife is correct. When women are drawing attention to their figure, or parts of their figure, by what they choose to wear, what they are doing is wrong!

I know several professing "Christian" women who claim that the questionable clothing they wear is a matter of being "comfortable." When you are wearing tank tops or t-shirts where the neckline drops to the bottom of your cleavage (let alone exposing your cleavage in the least), your choice in clothing has nothing to do with being "comfortable." You are merely lying to yourself. Every other man and woman knows exactly why you are wearing those kinds of clothing.

It has nothing to do with wearing sheets and moomoos, the way that ignorant and rebellious individuals like to exaggerate the issue. A woman can wear decent, modest clothing and still exhibit style, grace, and beauty. But this concept is foreign to worldly women and lost on their ignorance. When they have grown up in Sleeze Town and are influenced by Sleeze Town, they cannot see any clothing but Sleeze Town clothing as "comfortable" and "in style." I have seen secular women exhibit more modesty in their choice of clothing than many contemporary "Christian" women do. When a secular woman has more dignity in how she presents herself than a professing Christian woman does, there is something wrong.

Paul Washer is correct when he says, "In Philippians we are told to think on things that are excellent, that are noble, that are just, that are right, that are true. The way a woman carries herself and the way she dresses ought to promote the following types of words: modesty, discretion, wisdom, beauty, elegance and refinement, but not sensuality, luxury, extravagance."

Sunday, July 17, 2016

Borrowed Faith

Many professing "Christians" have never made the Christian faith their own. They merely borrowed it from their parents for a time being. Make no mistake about it, those who merely borrow the Christian faith but never embrace it personally for themselves will end up spending eternity in Hell.

While many parents are brokenhearted when their children reject Christ in their adolescent years, what is worse is those parents who are lulled into a false sense of security simply because their children toed the line of faith until they left home. A borrowed faith leaving home is often the same as broken faith. The result is the same, it is just delayed.

The number one sign that your children are just borrowing your faith is that they rarely, if ever, ask questions.

Make sure your children own their faith. If they are not asking questions, start asking them questions.

Why Aren’t They Asking Questions? (from Natasha Crain)
  • They may be just uninterested enough to not ask questions, but not so uninterested as to reject Christianity altogether. They’ll just borrow your faith for a while because that’s what’s in front of them on the buffet.
  • They may not yet see the importance of Christian belief in their lives. It’s perceived as just another subject they’re learning about, like math. They’ll just borrow your faith for a while because they don’t think it’s important enough to think more deeply about.
  • They may not have been exposed to enough non-Christian ideas yet. Their faith isn’t being challenged in preparation for the adult world. Challenge them. If you don’t, non-believers soon will. They’ll just borrow your faith for a while because they see no need not to.
  • They may be scared or uncertain of your reaction. They’ll just borrow your faith for a while because that’s what they think is expected of them.
  • They may be getting answers elsewhere – usually not the answers you’d like them to have. They’ll just borrow your faith for a while because they don’t want to rock the boat at home.
Here are 65 apologetics questions that Natasha Crain says that every Christian parent needs to learn how to answer:
Questions About the Existence and Nature of God

1. What key arguments are there for (and against) God’s existence?

2. What are the practical implications of an atheistic worldview?

3. Why would a good God allow evil to exist?

4. Why would a good God allow suffering to exist?

5. Why would God command the death of so many people in the Bible (e.g., the Canaanites)?

6. How can a loving God send people to hell?

7. Why does God remain so “hidden?”

8. Why does the “Old Testament God” seem different than the “New Testament God?”

9. Why would God need people to worship Him (isn’t that egotistical and arrogant)?


Questions About Truth and Worldviews

10. What is the difference between absolute and relative truth?

11. How can it be reasonable for Christians to claim knowledge of an objective truth?

12. What is the role and danger of using “common sense” in evaluating truth claims?

13. Isn’t hell an unreasonable punishment for not believing in a specific set of truth claims?

14. How can Christians think their personal religious experiences with God are any more “true” than those of adherents to other belief systems?

15. Do all religions ultimately point to the same God? Why or why not?

16. What are key similarities and differences between the world’s major religions (e.g., Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism)?

17. Is Christianity a less intelligent worldview than atheism? Why or why not?


Questions About Jesus

18. What extra-biblical evidence is there that Jesus existed (as a historical person)?

19. What major Old Testament prophecies did Jesus fulfill?

20. Was Jesus wrong about the timing of his second coming? Why or why not?

21. What are the key passages in the Bible that show Jesus claimed to be God?

22. What does the Bible say about the exclusivity of Jesus with regard to salvation?

23. Why did Jesus have to die on the cross for our sins to be forgiven (couldn’t God have just pardoned sins without a gruesome death involved)?

24. What are the four minimal facts of the resurrection that are “so strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones?”

25. What are the main theories non-believers have about the resurrection (e.g., unknown tomb, wrong tomb, disciples stole the body, authorities hid the body, etc.)?

26. Why do Christians believe a supernatural (bodily) resurrection explains the minimal facts better than all the other theories?

27. Why does it matter whether or not Jesus was resurrected (and that the resurrection wasn’t simply a metaphor)?


Questions About the Bible

28. Who selected what books are in the Bible?

29. How were the books of the Bible selected?

30. Why were some “books” we know about today (e.g., the Gospel of Thomas) left out of the Bible?

31. How can we know that the Bible we have today is a reliable record of the original writings?

32. What major “contradictions” exist in the Bible (and what are the explanations)?

33. Does the Bible support slavery? Why or why not? (Don’t laugh at this and the next two questions…these come up constantly in discussion with atheists.)

34. Does the Bible support rape? Why or why not?

35. Does the Bible support human sacrifice? Why or why not?

36. What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

37. How do Christians determine what parts of the Bible are prescriptive and which are descriptive?


Science and Christianity

Young Earth Creationism

38. What is Young Earth Creationism (YEC)?

39. What are key pieces of scriptural support for the YEC interpretation of creation in six 24-hour days?

40. How do YECs determine that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old?


Evidence for an Old Earth (i.e., billions of years old)

41. What areas of science have implications for the age of the earth?

42. What are major methods scientists use to estimate the age of the earth, and what is their consensus on the estimate?

43. What is the relationship between belief in a global flood and the age of the earth?


Old Earth Creationism

44. What is “Old Earth Creationism (OEC)?”

45. What are the major reasons OECs reject the YEC interpretation of creation?

46. What are the key pieces of scriptural support for the OEC interpretation?


Intelligent Design

47. What is Intelligent Design?

48. Why do Intelligent Design proponents consider it a scientific theory and not a religious one?

49. What are the major reasons Intelligent Design proponents reject evolution as a sufficient explanation for the existence of life?

50. What does it mean that the universe appears to be “finely tuned?”


Evolution

51. What is evolution (from a purely scientific perspective)?

52. What are the key pieces of evidence for evolution?

53. What are the key questions evolution has not answered?

54. What do people mean when they talk about “macroevolution” versus “microevolution”?

55. Why do evolutionists reject the theory of intelligent design?

56. What are the theological implications for an acceptance of evolution?

57. What are the theological implications specifically for Adam and Eve not being literal, historical people?


Other Science and Christianity Questions

58. Why would Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christians differ on their view of origins?

59. How can Christians believe miracles are possible, given what we know about science (e.g., the miracle of Jesus’ resurrection)?


Other Important (and Common) Questions

60. What does it mean (biblically) to have faith, and how is that different than the popular definition of faith?

61. If Christianity is true, why are there so many Christians whose lives look no different than those of non-believers (aren’t many Christians hypocrites)?

62. Why are there so many denominations (and does the fact of many denominations invalidate the truth of Christianity)?

63. Is Christianity “responsible” for millions of deaths throughout history? Why or why not, and what implications does the answer have for the evaluation of Christian truth claims?

64. What happens to people who have never heard the Gospel?

65. Why don’t miracles happen as frequently today as they did in the Bible?
Parents, it is your responsibility to teach your children biblical and spiritual things and to guide them to embrace the faith as their own. They are your responsibility. Not the pastor's. Not the church's. Yours! If your children grow up in a "Christian" household but never embrace Christianity due to a lack of knowledge and understanding concerning the faith, that is on you. Their blood shall be on your hands.

Growing up in a "Christian" household, going to church every Sunday, reading your Bible, saying your prayers, asking Jesus into your heart, walking an aisle, signing a card, etc. . . . none of these make you a Christian or a child of God. Christianity is not inherited. God does not have any grand children.
"Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it." Proverbs 22:6

Saturday, July 16, 2016

Circumstantial Evidence

Books, movies, and television consistently attempt to downplay circumstantial evidence as if it is not enough to convict a criminal of a crime. This is false, and it is just one of hundreds of lies perpetuated in books, movies, and television that the average person is utterly ignorant to and gets brainwashed by because of frequent repetition. If you repeat a lie loud enough, long enough, and often enough, the average person will begin to believe it because of their sheer ignorance. That is why public school systems exist, so that you can dictate what they learn and indoctrinate them all at once by brainwashing them with false information. Like I frequently state, education merely serves to teach you how to think and believe the way your teachers think and believe. Unless it is something like mathematics, it rarely ever teaches you how to think objectively let alone how to think for yourself. The world does not like people who think for themselves, whether in the work force or elsewhere. Present day society is demonstrating that more and more.

Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence. Eye witnesses are direct evidence. Everything else is circumstantial evidence. A fingerprint at a crime scene is merely circumstantial evidence. The same weapon found at a person's house is circumstantial evidence. In many cases, circumstantial evidence it all that exists and is more than enough in convicting a criminal of a crime. Here are a few quotes taken from legal books with regard to circumstantial evidence:
Circumstantial Evidence
n. Evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. There is a public perception that such evidence is weak ("all they have is circumstantial evidence"), but the probably conclusion from the circumstances may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a vital fact ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, and "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case). Particularly in criminal cases, "eyewitness" ("I saw Frankie shoot Johnny") type evidence is often lacking and may be unreliable, so circumstantial evidence becomes essential. Prior threats to the victim, fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, ownership of the murder weapon, and the accused being seen in the neighborhood, certainly point to the suspect as being the killer, but each bit of evidence is circumstantial.
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Rights reserved.
Circumstantial Evidence in the law of evidence, indirect evidence of a fact in issue. An inference of the fact in issue can be made from a consideration of a number of other facts. It is sometimes spoken of as a chain but better considered as a cable: the more strands, the stronger, and the absence of one of the strands does not break the connection. The lay person often considers it in some way inferior, but not the lawyer, who appreciates the difficulties inherent in direct eyewitness evidence. Nonetheless, it is only as good as the strands that comprise it. These may have to be evaluated in their own right, otherwise a sound inference maybe based on a defective premise, as where Othello, asking for proof of Desdemona's infidelity, was answered by Iago: 'It is impossible you should see this, Were they as prime as goats, as hot as monkeys, As salt as wolves in pride, and fools as gross As ignorance made drunk: but yet I say, If imputation and strong circumstances, Which lead directly to the door of truth, Will give you satisfaction, you might have it.' (Act 3, Scene 3, line 400).
Collins Dictionary of Law © W. J. Stewart, 2006.
Circumstantial Evidence
Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove.

Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.
The following examples illustrate the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence: If John testifies that he saw Tom raise a gun and fire it at Ann and that Ann then fell to the ground, John's testimony is direct evidence that Tom shot Ann. If the jury believes John's testimony, then it must conclude that Tom did in fact shoot Ann. If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann. The jury must determine whether John's testimony is credible.
Circumstantial evidence is most often employed in criminal trials. Many circumstances can create inferences about an accused's guilt in a criminal matter, including the accused's resistance to arrest; the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the accused's presence at the time and place of the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct of the accused. In addition, much scientific evidence is circumstantial, because it requires a jury to make a connection between the circumstance and the fact in issue. For example, with fingerprint evidence, a jury must make a connection between this evidence that the accused handled some object tied to the crime and the commission of the crime itself.
Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence" (Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.
Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
When addressing the circumstantial evidence surrounding the baptismal accounts in the Bible, each individual piece of circumstantial evidence builds up to make a monumental case against immersion as the proper mode of baptism. Yes, the secular world used baptizo (βαπτιζω) largely for immersion. But this is not how the biblical writers used it, which the circumstantial evidence shows. The secular world would used a particular Greek word in a particular way, but the biblical writers used it in a completely different way. In secular Greek literature, yes, the word meant to immerse. But the biblical usage does not support immersion, and Romans 6:4 has nothing to do with baptism whatsoever. The use of this verse is hermeneutical reaching on the part of Baptists and others. When studying the Bible, we need to look at all the evidence, both direct and indirect. Circumstantial evidence is frequently enough to decide a case.

Sunday, July 10, 2016

It Is By Grace You Have Been Saved

A man is saved only by grace—only by grace! (See Eph. 2:5 and 2:8.) Faith is the instrument or vessel, and works are the evidences that prove, perfect, and complete that faith. (See James 2:22.)
"... (by grace you have been saved)," Ephesians 2:5

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9
"For by grace you have been saved." Through what? "Through faith." What is not of ourselves? "Faith." Why? "It is the gift of God." Why is it a gift of God? "That no one should boast." If you are saved by your faith, you can boast in your faith, which makes your faith "a result of works." Something you did. Something you look to in order to obtain salvation. Faith in your faith. You can say, "Look how great my faith is! My faith saved me!" No! God saved you! And for nothing you have done or will do, and for nothing in and of yourself. He saved you for His glory.
"But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are." Acts 15:11
Salvation is not the result of works. Anything you look to (other than Christ Jesus Himself) in order to obtain salvation will land you in Hell. Faith and works (works of the Law or good deeds) can be things you look to. Anything you do in order to obtain salvation will land you in Hell. Faith and works (works of the Law or good deeds) can be things you do.

Faith and repentance are both gifts from God. You cannot exercise faith unless God has granted faith to you, and you cannot exercise repentance unless God has granted repentance to you. If God grants you one, He will also grant you the other. In order to believe and repent, you would have to change from unregenerate to regenerate, you would have to change your heart of stone to a heart of flesh, you would have to change yourself from being dead in trespasses and sins to being spiritually alive; none of which you can do yourself! Once those changes have taken place by God's grace, you cannot reverse them. God saves us entirely or we are not saved at all!
"You do not believe, because you are not of My sheep." John 10:26

Saturday, July 9, 2016

Sign Here!

by F. B. Meyer, "The Blessed Life"

Dear Christian reader, seek some quiet spot, some still hour, and yield yourself to God.

Make a definite consecration of yourselves to God. With most it would be sufficient to write out Miss Havergal's hymn, "Take my life, and let it be," and to sign your name at the bottom.
Take my life and let it beconsecrated, Lord, to Thee.
Take my moments and my dayslet them flow in ceaseless praise.
Take my hands and let them moveat the impulse of Thy love.
Take my feet and let them beswift and beautiful for Thee.

Take my voice and let me singalways, only, for my King.
Take my lips and let them befilled with messages from Thee.
Take my silver and my goldnot a mite would I withhold.
Take my intellect and useevery power as Thou shalt choose.

Take my will and make it Thineit shall be no longer mine.
Take my heart it is Thine ownit shall be Thy royal throne.
Take my love my Lord, I pourat Thy feet its treasure store.
Take myself and I will beever, only, all for Thee!
 
Sign here ____________________

Thursday, July 7, 2016

The Dilemma

If we are saved by faith alone, then James is wrong, which means Scripture is wrong. James said that Abraham was justified (declared righteous before God) by his worksand not by faith alone. Paul had said that Abraham was justified (declared righteous before God) by his faith. If it is by faith only, then James' statement is in error. Either it is one or the other, or it is both together. A couple verses earlier James contends that faith by itself, in and of itself, without works, is incomplete and imperfect. If we are saved by faith only, without the need for anything else, then faith would be perfect and complete, which again means James is wrong, which means Scripture is wrong, which would mean that Martin Luther was correct in wanting to remove James from Scripture, which begs the question, "Why did we include it as part of the canon?"

Paul and James should not be pitted against each other. They should be brought together in harmony. Abraham was justified both by his faith and by his works when he offered Isaac as a sacrifice. Everywhere that Paul speaks of faith and works of the Law, he is addressing Jews who seek to obtain salvation by keeping the Law.

Anyone who seeks to obtain salvation by keeping the Law or by doing good deeds will find themselves in Hell. Remember, Paul argues that the Law is good and right and holy, so do not have a negative attitude toward the Law. There is nothing wrong with keeping the Law (such as the Ten Commandments) or with doing good deeds. The problem is when someone thinks they can obtain salvation from keeping the Law or doing good deeds. We should not look to our works (works of the Law, good deeds) for salvation, nor should we look to our faith for salvation (having faith in our faith). We should be ever looking to and upon Christ Jesus for salvation and nowhere else.

As John Owen has said, "Obedient faith is what saves." Paul argues, in Romans, that you are either slaves to and obedient to sin and the devil, or you are slaves to and obedient to God. There is no other option. If you read carefully through the New Testament, you will see all sorts of commands/demands for obedience from the Christian, including commands/demands for holiness. Abraham was obedient in offering Isaac, which is why James said that his works completed/perfected his faith and that he was justified by his works.

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Are We All God's Children?

"It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons." Hebrews 12:7-8
Non-Christians, and even certain "Christians," seem to think that we are all God's children. We are all God's creation and we are all made in God's image, but we are not all God's children. Where this heretical concept originated from I do not know, but it is completely false. If you have not been saved by Christ Jesus, if you have not been adopted, if you are not chastised by God, then you are illegitimate children. In other words, you are not children of God. Only genuine Christians are children of God.
"For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, 'Abba! Father!'" Romans 8:15

"And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body." Romans 8:23

"But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons." Galatians 4:4-5

"He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved." Ephesians 1:5-6
These verses can only be applied to true, genuine, born again believers. The idea that we are all somehow God's children is a lie placed in people's hearts by the devil so that they erroneously question why a good, loving God would condemn His children to eternity in Hell. The lost are condemned to eternity in Hell because they have broken His laws and are not His children. Any Christians who have swallowed this heretical line of reasoning need to spit it out and get back to the truth of the Scriptures.
"Beloved, now we are children of God..." 1 John 3:2
The "beloved" that John is addressing in his letter are Christians. "Now" indicates that before we were not, and that something has changed. Every single individual who has ever lived on this planet, or ever will, has not been, is not, and will not be a child of God. God only loves those who are His. He knows His own because He chose them in Christ from before the foundations of the world. He is long-suffering with the rest of humanity merely for the sake of those He loves; His children whom He gave to Jesus as an inheritance. Ergo, God does not love everybody and His love is very conditional—not unconditional.

Sunday, July 3, 2016

Dispensationalism's Muslim Anti-Christ

Several Christians are jumping on the bandwagon that teaches that the so-called "Anti-Christ" is the same as the Islamic Mahdi. The first people I heard teaching this were Ergun Caner and Walid Shoebat, both of whom have been exposed as false teachers and have refused to repent of their deception and other sins. Some Christians even claim that the Qu'ran speaks of the so-called "Anti-Christ" and his making a peace treaty with Israel and breaking it, etc., etc., etc. After doing a search online and visiting dozens of websites in order to find any verses quoted from the Qu'ran that teach such a thing, I came up empty handed. The Qu'ran contains no such verses! Various Hadiths, on the other hand, do.

The Sunni Muslims and the Shia Muslims both have differing views with regard to the Mahdi. One believes the Mahdi is beyond human while the other believes he is a normal human. One believes he will be their 12th prophet in a line descending from Muhammed while the other believes he will simply be a ruler of Islam. The idea that this Mahdi and the so-called "Anti-Christ" are one and the same is concocted from mere similarities in details. Similarities in detail prove nothing! Atheists find similarities between Jesus and Egyptian myths. Does that mean that Jesus and these Egyptian myths are one and the same? No, of course not!

In various Hadiths, Isa (Jesus) is said to return to aid the Mahdi. If the Mahdi is this so-called "Anti-Christ," then why is Jesus helping him? These Hadiths say that the Dajjal (Deceiver or Liar), or several Dajjal, will appear and speak against Allah and his prophet (Muhammed). They say that the Dajjal will deceive Jews, Christians, and Shiites. Apparently one detail regarding the Dajjal is that he will arrive on a white donkey. Jesus is said to return on a white horse. A donkey and a horse are two completely different things. But from this detail, these Christians claim that Dajjal is Jesus. If Isa is Jesus and is helping Mahdi, and if Isa battles against the Dajjal, how can Jesus be both Isa and Dajjal?

This new form of Dispensationalism is once again guilty of hermeneutical reaching by trying to force interpretations onto Scripture that are not natural. Not only that, but this teaching of the "Anti-Christ" and Mahdi being the same person is somewhere between 10 and 15 years old! Not only do Dispensationalists attempt to interpret Scripture based on news headlines, but now they are attempting to interpret Scripture based on outside texts that are not inspired simply because some details seem to be the same. Shall we use Egyptian myths and attempt to interpret Scripture, also?

The Qu'ran and the Islamic Mahdi have nothing to do with the Bible because the so-called "7-year Great Tribulation" and the so-called "Anti-Christ" do not exist in the Bible. These interpretations were imagined in the 1800s. Using a single Scripture reference from Revelation speaking of beheaded saints as a proof text is a sad example of eisegesis. The Roman Catholic Church during the Crusades and the Inquisition lived by the motto "Convert or die by the sword" just as Islam does today.

Saturday, July 2, 2016

The Deliberate Ignorance of Evolutionists

How Evolutionists can believe—by faith—that everything on this planet and in our universe just happened by random chance is beyond me. Evolutionists are clearly greater men and women of faith than I am, because there is not one shred of evidence or true, honest, hypothesize-test-observe-repeat science to substantiate or support it. Evolution is a science-fiction fairy tale for the willfully ignorant (dumb on purpose). The truth is, every single person on this planet knows intrinsically that the theory of evolution is a lie. They know it in their heart of hearts, yet they deliberately choose to ignore the red flags their conscience erects.

For example: Despite being taught that the layers of dirt are "millions" of years old and took "millions" of years to form, they ignore the fact that nowhere on this planet will you find those layers in the exact same order. If the world formed as they claim it did, then the order of these layers should be universally the same. Apart from that, you think they would clue in to the fact we find trees (living or dead) erect through several of these layers. Do they honestly believe these trees (living or dead) stood idly by for "millions" of years while the layers of dirt slowly built up around them? Dead trees would have rotted long before a million years of dirt could surround it. Life would have happened to living trees, so a million years of dirt would never surround it, especially not still alive. Evolution is believed by faithnot by science because there is not one single instance of science to support it.

Are you aware of the number of complexities that exist within every plant, animal, insect, mineral, etc., etc., etc.? Are you aware of just how many random chance events it would take to create each and every complexity? Let alone the union of them all being in harmony together with itself as well as the environment around them? The digestive system, the digestive juices, the lining of the stomach to protect against the digestive juices, hunger, etc., etc., etc. They must all develop together or else it results in death. So much for "survival of the fittest" since there would exist none.

All the various minerals and alloys just happened to develop randomly, with their complex and unique attributes? Give me a break! Pure random chance somehow magically knew that we would need oxygen to breathe and therefore evolved the necessary components for it? Are Evolutionists seriously dumb enough to actually believe this?!? There are a thousand—tens of thousands—examples I could share regarding the complexities of life and our surroundings that no amount of random chances could ever account for. Something or someone has to be eternal. For the Evolutionists, it is dirt; for the Christians, it is God. All the facts are stacked against Evolutionists and yet they choose to be deliberately ignorant, believing a fairy tale of epic science-fiction proportions.