Hyper-Calvinism

According to the C.A.R.M. website, Matt Slick defines Hyper-Calvinism as thus:

The Hyper-Calvinist emphasizes the sovereignty of God to such an extent that man's human responsibility is denied. In actuality, Hyper-Calvinism is a rejection of historic Calvinist thought. Hyper-Calvinism denies that the gospel call applies to all; and/or denies that faith is the duty of every sinner; and/or denies the gospel offer to the non-elect; and/or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal; and/or denies that there is such a thing as "common grace"; and/or denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect. Calvinists do not agree with the Hyper-Calvinists.

According to their definition, when I quote Scripture verbatim and ask logical questions to which they are unable to respond, I am automatically labeled a "Hyper-Calvinist." I find it amusing that the more I read and study my Bible and what it has to say for itself, conforming my beliefs accordingly, people start throwing all sorts of accusations my way, calling me a "Calvinist," a "Covenantal Theologian," and now a "Hyper-Calvinist." Funny how when you follow the Bible for what it teaches, you are automatically accused of being a follower of some person or theology you have never heard of.

Years ago, when my beliefs first started changing from Dispensationalism, before I had ever heard of John Calvin or Calvinism, when I shared what I believed and quoted Scripture verbatim, I was suddenly finding myself accused of being a "Calvinist." The more my beliefs started to change and conform to the teachings of Scripture, suddenly I found people accusing me of being a "Covenantal Theologian." Now, I am reading something that accuses me of being a "Hyper-Calvinist."

By the definition given, it would appear that Matt Slick fails to understand Hyper-Calvinism and the Bible. There is a vast difference between "common grace" and "saving grace." Let us get a few things straight here. Is the Gospel call offered to all? Yes and no. Yes, in the fact that we are called to preach the Gospel to all men. Why? Because we do not know which ones will be saved. No, in the fact that it is only applied to Jesus' people (Matt. 1:21; John 10:11, 15; Eph. 5:25). Do all men have the ability to respond to the Gospel call? No, and here is why...

If I am unsaved and someone comes and preaches the Gospel to me... Can I regenerate myself? Can I cause myself to be born again? Can I make myself spiritually alive? Can I fill myself with God's Spirit? Can I replace my heart of stone with a heart of flesh? No! God must change all of those things in order that I may respond to the Gospel call by faith. Faith is a gift from God, so how is faith the duty of every sinner? You cannot express faith until it has been granted to you. Furthermore, if the Gospel call was available to all, and all had the opportunity to respond to it, and God's mercy was universal, then John 6:37 is false: "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." The giving precedes the coming. If you were not given to Jesus by God the Father from before the foundations of the world, then you cannot come to Him.

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:44). "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father" (John 6:65). Do these verses mean nothing to Matt Slick and C.A.R.M.?  According to their definition of Hyper-Calvinism, these verses are also false. Apparently, while not understanding the Bible, Matt Slick also does not understand imputed sin, inherited sin, and personal sin, all of which we are guilty of if God's Gospel call never reaches our ears. Man's responsibility has nothing to do with whether or not he ever hears the Gospel call or whether or not he responds to it. Man's responsibility has to do with the fact that he has broken God's law. By imputed sin, inherited sin, and personal sin.

I am not a Calvinist, nor am I a Hyper-Calvinist. I am a Christian, a follower of Jesus, and while many of my beliefs agree with Reformed Theology, my theological belief system conforms to that which I read in the Scriptures, my Bible. No system of theology is perfect, and I do not subscribe to any particular system of theology or denomination. Where any system of theology disagrees with Scripture, I reject it. That includes Baptist Theology and Reformed Theology. When we hold to these systems blindly and reject clear teachings of the Bible, then we are in error. I strive for my belief system to conform to that which the Bible teaches and to reject all else. I will again quote two of my favourite quotes:

Our only rule of faith and practice is the Word of God. We have . . .

   no creed to defend,

   no denomination to maintain, and

   no confession to bind our minds.

"What do the Scriptures teach?" That is and must be our only concern. If the plain teachings of Holy Scripture appear to destroy or contradict our understanding of any doctrine, then let us relinquish the doctrine, or acknowledge the fact that our minds are both depraved and minuscule, and bow to the revelation of God.

—Don Fortner

Even though there are none to few definitions in the Bible, Scripture, not any theological definition, is our ultimate authority. Theological definitions must measure up to Scripture, not the other way around. [Emphasis mine.]

—John M. Frame

Woman's Role In the Family

"Wives, be subject/submissive (υποτασσω) to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything." Ephesians 5:22-24

"Wives, be subject/submissive (υποτασσω) to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." Colossians 3:18

"Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject/submissive (υποτασσω) to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored." Titus 2:3-5

"In the same way, you wives, be subject/submissive (υποτασσω) to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior." 1 Peter 3:1-2

The Greek word hupotasso (υποτασσω; 5293) means "to subordinate; to subject, put in subjection; to obey; to submit; to yield to one's admonition or advice."

Wives are to be submissive to their husbands "in everything" (Eph. 5:24). While a good husband will listen to the wise council of his godly wife, nevertheless, whether right or wrong, the final decision is his to make and he bears the burden for it before God alone. As we are told in 1 Timothy 2:14, "it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." Yet, who did God hold accountable? Adam. Why? Because he "is the head of the wife" (Eph. 5:22; 1 Cor. 11:3).

In each of the passages above, the reason why a wife should submit to her husband is given: because "it is fitting in the Lord" (Col. 3:18); "so that the word of God will not be dishonored" (Titus 2:5); and "so that even if any of [their husbands] are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives" (1 Pet. 3:1). The ultimate reason is that they are to do so "as to the Lord" (Eph. 5:22). The implication here is that if she will not be submissive to the Lord, then she will not be submissive to her husband, which, then, is disobedience to the Lord. This disobedience is not to be judged by the husband, but the husband is to "love (αγαπαω) [his wife], just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph. 5:25). Agapao (αγαπαω; 25) denotes "to take pleasure in the thing, prize it above all other things, be unwilling to abandon it or do without it." Agape love is unconditional, sacrificial love that is given whether the other person deserves it or has earned it.

In the Garden of Eden, after Eve was deceived and fell into transgression, God pronounced this curse upon her: "your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you" (Gen. 3:16). It does not mean she will desire him affectionately, as some pervert it to mean, but that she will desire his position over her. The logical question here, to those who pervert it, should be: How is it a curse for a wife to affectionately desire her husband? It is not. As God said through Paul, "I do not allow a woman to...exercise authority over a man" (1 Tim. 2:12). This in no way devalues the worth of a woman, especially a good, godly woman whose "worth is far above jewels" (Prov. 31:10). Men and women are equal in the sight of God, being made in His image, but they are made in different aspects of His image and have been given different roles. In the Godhead, while Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are completely equal, nevertheless they have different roles. The Son is equal to the Father, yet the Son submits to the Father. A woman's submission to her husband should be a joyous occasion.

Five Short Rules For Christians

Brownlow North (1810-1875)

1. Never neglect daily private prayer; and when you pray, remember that God is present, and that He hears your prayers.

2. Never neglect daily private Bible reading; and when you read, remember that God is speaking to you, and that you are to believe and act upon all that He says.

3. Never let a day pass without trying to do something for Jesus. Every day reflect on what Jesus has done for you--and then ask yourself, "What am I doing for Him?"

4. If you are in doubt as to a thing being right or wrong—then go to your room and kneel down and ask God's blessing on it. If you cannot do this, then it is wrong.

5. Never take your standard of Christianity from other Christians—or argue that because such and such people do so and so, therefore, you may. You are to ask yourself, "How would Jesus act in my place?"—and strive to follow Him alone.

Transpeople's Ignorance of English

Certain transpeople want to be identified by the pronouns "they" and "them." They ignorantly argue that "singular they pronouns go all the way back to Shakespeare." These individuals need to go back to public school and get an education in English grammar. The pronouns "they" and "them" have always been plural. They were used singularly as a replacement for "he/she" when the identity of the subject was unknown. The use of "they" and "them" as a replacement for "he/she" is bad grammar. Period.

Have any of these people read any works from Shakespeare's era or earlier? Do any of them have a degree in English? I am willing to bet that, no, they do not. Here are some examples of their arguments:

• "If a person is born of a ... gloomy temper ... they cannot help it."— Chesterfield, Letter to his son (1759)
• "Now nobody does anything well that they cannot help doing"— Ruskin, The Crown of Wild Olive (1866)
• "Nobody in their senses would give sixpence on the strength of a promissory note of the kind."— Bagehot, The Liberal Magazine (1910)

Where you find the word "they," you can replace it with "he/she." "They" is simply used in general instances where you are unsure of the identity of the specific person it applies to, much the same way that "he/she" would be used.

A human being can only be either a male, a he, or a female, a she. When a man or a woman stands before you, it is improper and incorrect to refer to "them" or "him/her" as "they." When you stand in the middle of a crowd of human beings, I dare you to point out with accuracy the "theys" and "thems" in the crowd. All you see is hes and shes, which you can easily identify with pinpoint accuracy. The entire mixed group of men and women can be referred to plurally as "they" and "them," but individual males and females cannot!

Like all anti-intellectual know-nothing half-wit fools, transpeople attempt to build strawmen arguments based on illogical reasoning. Yes, transpeople are human, but these people suffer from mental insanity and demand the rest of society accommodate that mental insanity rather than getting them the help they desperately need to face and accept reality and truth. Mocking and making fun of a transperson is no different than mocking or making fun of any other handicapped individual.

Transpeople and their mindless supporters argue illogically and fallaciously that if transpeople were integrated more into society and people used their imaginary self-made "pronouns," that there would not be so many transpeople committing suicide. That argument is in contradiction to the facts. In societies where transpeople are more than integrated and accepted, where people go out of their way not to "offend" them, why are their suicide rates climbing? Simple. Because accommodating their mental insanity does not change a thing. They know that they are not what they are pretending to be and want others to pretend they are

To sum up, "they" and "them" have always been plural pronouns. They have, and are, used as singular pronoun replacements for "he/she" where the general identity of the specific individual is unknown. Proper English grammar uses "he/she," whereas our everyday speech tends to use "they" and "them." For example:

Our new teacher will be coming through the door any moment. I hope they have a better curriculum planned than our previous teacher.

...or...

Our new teacher will be coming through the door any moment. I hope he/she has a better curriculum planned than our previous teacher.

"They" and "he/she" is used when the identity of the specific individual is unknown. The speech is general, applying to whoever fits the bill. But as soon as that teacher walks through the door, there remains no more question as to whether the teacher is a he or a she. Those are the only two options. So pull your head out of the sand and start firing the neurons between your ears, unless your head truly is completely vacuous.

Misquoting the Bible: Matthew 18:20

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." Matthew 18:15-20

How many of you have heard this verse used in support of all sorts of ridiculousness? "Where two or three of us are gathered in His name, He will grant to us whatever we petition." Really? Where does it say that? This again demonstrates why I dislike the notion of Christians having "favourite Bible verses" or engaging in verse memorization. Nine times out of ten, the verse being memorized is being memorized and applied out of context.

Any readers I might have of this blog know how much of a stickler I am for context. The Bible was not written with chapter and verse divisions. We do not get to isolate a verse or a sentence and rip it from its context and make it apply however we desire for it to apply. When people do this, however, it is a great way to expose them as liars. Unfortunately, the church is not discerning enough to spot these liars, pay attention to them, and avoid them. Instead, they seem to flock to them and hang on their every perverse and satanic word.

So what is the context with which we find this oft misquoted verse? It has to do with those who sin against us and our pursuit of dealing with that sin. Note in verse 16 how it says, "if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you." That is the "two or three" that "have gathered together" in His name. You plus one other is two, and you plus two others is three. What we see taking place in this passage is similar to what Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11.

"Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren. Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."

"For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst" does not mean that if two or three Christians gather together and start praying for God to prolong death for someone or to take a disease away from someone, that God will do it. Things like this might happen, but it is not why they happen. One faithful, obedient Christian alone has God's ear and can petition God and have his/her petitions answered. Answered prayer has nothing to do with the number of people focused around it. The more people praying for something does not mean God will listen to or answer it, especially if it is not in accordance with His will.

Professing Christians need to stop ripping Scripture from its context and trying to selfishly force it to apply to self-advancement. Nowhere in Scripture did Jesus ever utter the words, "It's all about you." Read through the entire New Testament and tell me what it teaches. It certainly is not that you are the center of the universe and that it is all about you. That teaching comes from the devil. The book of Philippians should put it in perspective for you: Jesus first; others second; you last.

Two Infallible Books

There exist two books available to mankind that are both true and infallible: the Bible and nature. When mankind reads the Bible, he learns about his Creator, God. When mankind reads nature, he learns about his world. The theologian is the God-appointed interpreter of the Bible. The scientist is the God-appointed interpreter of nature. While both books are true and infallible, human interpretations are not. Interpretation occurs in both theology and science. That means there is a possibility of making interpretive errors in both fields.

When man is not filled with and lead by the Holy Spirit, in the Word and praying daily, he runs great risk of misinterpreting the Bible. When man ignores the unchanging laws that govern our universe, even bypassing the scientific method (experimentation, observation, repetition), he runs great risk of misinterpreting nature. The evidence for both is unmistakable, except to those who have an agenda to prove and to push. When interpreting the Bible, one must look to the context (immediate [surrounding verses], sectional [surrounding chapters], and/or canonical [other passages]). When interpreting nature, one must also look to the context (related data, time in history, the rest of the world).

If scientific claims begin and end at the hypothesis, then it is not science. When claims are made that each layer of rock is millions of years old, an intelligent man needs only point to trees standing upright through multiples of these layers. When claims are made pertaining to dinosaurs, an intelligent man needs only point to evidence found in every country around the world that contradicts those claims. When claims are made pertaining to language, such as "unicorn," an intelligent man needs only point out what the word meant to the original audience. Context is important when interpreting both the Bible and nature. When it is ignored, the interpretation risks being in grave error to the truth.

Truth is like mathematics; there is only one right answer. Our entire universe obeys the rules of mathematics. Opinions are not worth their weight in salt. Opinions are like balloons; facts are like needles to balloons. When facts are presented, opinions must bow before the facts. The Bible and nature are both true. They both point in the same direction. They both point to and reveal the Creator, God. Hence why Paul says what he says in Romans 1:18-21:

". . . that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened."

Questioning Stefan Molyneux

For the sake of argument, let us assume that Stefan Molyneux makes a rational and logical case for atheism against agnosticism and theism in his book Against the Gods?. Let us pretend that there is indeed no God. How does Stefan solve the problem of our existence? Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going? If Stefan applied his self-professed rational thinking intellectualism to the theory of Evolution versus actual science, he would find that Evolution is a much larger impossibility than the existence of God.

In his book, Stefan brings up unicorns as a means of constructing a straw man in attempt at proving his point. However, he only succeeds in demonstrating his ignorance on the matter. Since I have already written on the truth and reality of Unicorns, I will not address it again here. However, I will address scientific impossibilities that leave Stefan, and those like him, with the impossible task of explaining precisely how and why we exist if there is no God and since the theory of Evolution is completely and entirely bankrupt.

Pretty much every text book from grade school through university says something along these lines: "Millions of years ago there was nothing. Nothing means nothing. Then all the dust and dirt in the galaxy began to come together to form a ball smaller than a period on this page. It began spinning faster and faster until it exploded."

#1. If nothing means nothing, where did all the dirt and dust come from?

#2. If nothing means nothing, what caused all the dirt and dust to come together? Where did gravity come from?

#3. What caused the ball to start spinning? Where did the energy come from?

#4. Why aren't all the planets and moons in the universe moving in the same direction? The Law of Inertia states than any object in motion, any pieces that fall off or break off from that object will continue spinning in the same direction until they encounter resistance. Nothing means nothing. That means that when it explodes, those pieces will move outward from the center. The farther out those pieces travel, the further they are apart from each other. There are no objects for them to collide with in order to change their direction. Ergo, everything in the universe should be spinning in the same direction.

#5. If nothing means nothing, how do you explain the fact that our universe obeys the laws of mathematics? Where did numbers and the laws of mathematics come from? We did not invent numbers or mathematics; we discovered them. They are the same everywhere you go.
(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkwCl0ymTfg)

As stated in the last post, the Laws of Thermodynamics all on their own destroy the theory of Evolution. The first Law of Thermodynamics states that matter cannot create itself. Matter does not possess creative power or ability. Ergo, you can scrap the Big Bang theory. The second Law of Thermodynamics states that everything tends toward chaos and disorder. Ergo, you can scrap the theory of Evolution, which claims that everything is getting bigger, better, faster, smarter, stronger. Atheists and Evolutionists need to remember and pay attention to every law that governs our universe, which utterly obliterate the theory of Evolution. Reprehensibly, Atheists and Evolutionists conveniently forget or ignore these laws in order to press their non-science nonsense.

Not only does real science (that which we can test and observe and repeat) of what we can observe about our universe disprove the fabulous fantasy of Evolution, but so too does simple mathematical equations combined with those real scientific observations:

#1. It is a scientific fact that the sun burns off X amount of gas every day. You can measure this and then apply simple mathematics to it. If you multiply that number by only 1 million years, you have a problem. The sun was once so big that it would have touched the Earth.

#2. It is a scientific fact that the moon is moving away from the Earth by X amount of distance every year. You can measure this and then apply simple mathematics to it. If you multiply that number by only 1 million years, you have a problem. The moon would have been so close to the Earth that the tall dinosaurs (previously called dragons) would have been mooned. There is a scientific law, called the Inverse Square Law, that states if you half the distance you quadruple the effect. If you were to move the moon in half of its current distance, the Earth would be flooded twice a day due to the effects of the moon on the water. If you use the rate at which the moon is moving away from the Earth, at only 1.4 million years, let alone "billions" of years, the Earth and the moon would have occupied the same space. Do you remember that law about two objects occupying the same space?

#3. It is a scientific fact that the Earth is slowing down by X amount every year. You can measure this and then apply simple mathematics to it. If you multiply that number by only 1 million years, you have a problem. The Earth would have been spinning so fast at one time that everything on the surface would have been thrown off into outer space. Before you attempt to argue the egregious and erroneous theory that gravity would have been increased, try thinking about a merry-go-round. The faster you get that thing going, what happens? You get forced to the outside. Gravity does not increase.

#4. Consider a spinning wheel. It is a scientific fact that the outside of the wheel has to turn faster than the inside of the wheel. Now go take a look at the Milky Way, or any number of our other spiral galaxies. They are spinning in the reverse. Ergo, you have a problem. If our universe were only 1 million years old, the Milky Way would not look the way it currently does.

#5. It is a scientific fact that the Earth's magnetic field is decaying; it is getting weaker. You can measure this and then apply simple mathematics to it. If you go back only 1 million years, you have a problem. Earth's magnetic field would have been so strong that it would have ripped the iron from your blood.

#6. It is a scientific fact that Jupiter emits twice as much energy as it receives from the sun. Neptune emits even more. You can measure this and then apply simple mathematics to it. How do these planets still have warmth and energy if they are "millions," let alone "billions," of years old? It is impossible! Secular "scientists" cannot even explain this. The evidence contradicts their theory. As Agatha Christie said, "Everything must be taken into account. If the fact will not fit the theory―let the theory go."

Here are just a couple of things that science used to teach and believe many, many years ago (because they refused to believe the Bible):

1. the earth was flat
2. only 1,100 stars
3. earth sat on a large animal
4. nothing—science was ignorant on the subject of invisible elements in creation
5. all stars were the same
6. light was fixed in a place
7. air was weightless
8. winds blew straight
9. sick people must be bled (This is how one of the Presidents of the USA died.)
10. the ocean floor was flat
11. oceans fed by only by rivers and rain
12. hands washed in still water

This is what science knows today, and the passage of Scripture that it is found in. Bear in mind that parts of the Bible were written anywhere from 2,000 to 4,000 years ago.

1. the earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22)
2. incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
3. free float of earth in space (Job 26:7)
4. creation made of invisible elements—atoms (Hebrews 11:3)
5. each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41)
6. light moves (Job 38:19-20)
7. air has weight (Job 28:25)
8. winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
9. blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11)
10. ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6)
11. ocean contains springs (Job 28:6)
12. when dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13)

In the 1920s, science discovered that space is expanding, precisely as recorded in the Bible (Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Zechariah 12:1). In the 1930s "science" came up with the Big Bang theory, assuming that the expansion meant that if you were to reverse it you would arrive at a single point in time much like a drawing on single-point perspective. However, not once did these "scientists" ever put their thinking caps on and consider the problems with such a concept, as addressed in the first five points listed above.

Here are some questions to stimulate your thinking process and to get you started on thinking rationally, logically, objectively, intellectually, and correctly for yourself rather than being spoon-fed a fantastically fabulous imaginative fairy tale such as Evolution.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining the English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
13. When, where, why, and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two- and three-celled intermediates?)
2. Single-celled animals evolve?
3. Fish change to amphibians?
4. Amphibians change to reptiles?
5. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
1. Whales evolve?
2. Sea horses evolve?
3. Bats evolve?
4. Eyes evolve?
5. Ears evolve?
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
5. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
8. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
9. The immune system or the need for it?
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
19. How did photosynthesis evolve?
20. How did thought evolve?
21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?
22. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
24. Is there one clear prediction of macro-evolution that has proved true?
25. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?
26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
27. When, where, why, and how did matter create DNA, which is an intricately complex language system?
28. When, where, why, how, and from what did numbers evolve? Why does our entire physical world obey the laws of mathematics?

Here are a handful of quotes from Atheists and Evolutionists on the ridiculousness and impossibility of the theory of Evolution:

“I will lay it on the line, there is not one such [transitional] fossil for which one might make a watertight argument.” –Dr. Colin Patterson

“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.” –Sir. Arthur Keith

“Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” –George Wald

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.” –Francis Crick

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.” –David Raup

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” –Stephen J. Gould

Stefan fails to grasp the supernatural element presented by Evolution, an element that is one hundred times more supernatural than the existence of God (and requires greater faith than the belief in God) and one hundred times more impossible than the existence of God. Atheists claim that gods do not exist; theists accept that He does. The evidence supports our position, as any rational thinking intellectual can easily deduce.

Answering Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux runs Freedomain Radio. He is a self-professed rational thinking intellectual. He published a book titled Against the Gods?, wherein are many irrational, illogical, fallacious, and anti-intellectual statements and arguments. While I would love to answer and refute every single one of them (and maybe in the future I will), I will limit my answers to some of the ridiculous and asinine statements and arguments made in the beginning of the book pertaining to the existence of God.

". . . gods are entirely self-contradictory entities . . " p.13

It would seem that Stefan lacks a logical understanding as to what "self-contradiction" actually means.

"An eternal being could never have evolved, since it does not die and reproduce . . ." p. 15

Precisely! An eternal being never evolved. Hence the word "eternal." In fact, we never evolved either. If you believe that we did, you believe a bunch of non-science nonsense. God has always been and will always be. There is no beginning or end with Him. Ergo, He is outside the realm of time. Time was created for us. We measure things by time. God does not. You cannot confuse the infinite with the finite. AI cannot confuse its existence with our existence.

". . . [gods] may well be many things, but eternal cannot be one of them." p. 15

Eternal means from one end of time to the other:
<-------------------------------TIME------------------------------->
Eternal is primarily what God is. Ergo, something that is eternal is clearly outside the realm of time. Just because we, as finite creatures bound to time, cannot fathom what that looks like does not invalidate it. Just because a 2D object cannot fathom a 3D object or 3D space does not invalidate the alternate reality. To argue otherwise is dishonest and willfully ignorant (i.e., being dumb on purpose).

". . . consciousness is an effect of matter . . ." p. 15

No, it is not. Rocks are made of matter, yet rocks do not possess consciousness. The existence of matter is the result of consciousness, of intelligence. Matter cannot exist without an intelligent designer. Everything you see before you did not simply exist or come into existence on its own. To act as if it did is to claim that matter or existence is eternal.  Something created it. Something has to be eternal. The question is, What? Either God is eternal, as the Bible indicates: "In the beginning, God . . ."; or dirt is eternal, as the theory of Evolution postulates: "Millions of years ago there was nothing. Nothing means nothing. Then all the dust and dirt in the galaxy came together to form a ball smaller than a period on a page." Either a rational, logical, intelligent being created everything you see before you; or dirt magically created everything you see before you. Bear in mind that matter has no creative power or ability.

The first Law of Thermodynamics states that matter cannot create itself. Ergo, you can scrap the Big Bang theory. The second Law of Thermodynamics states that everything tends toward chaos and disorder. Ergo, you can scrap the theory of Evolution, which claims that everything is getting bigger, better, faster, smarter, stronger. Look at anything that is exposed to the sun for long periods of time. What happens? It fades, it dissolves, it breaks down. What happens to a building in prolonged sunlight? What happens to a soda can in prolonged sunlight? What happens to a car in prolonged sunlight? If you leave your Ford Pinto in the sun, does it eventually turn into a Ferrari? What happens to anything in prolonged sunlight?

Stefan makes the typical colossal blunder of attempting to compare and attribute our limitations to that of an infinite being. That is like an artificially intelligent robot comparing and attributing its limitations to that of its creators, human beings. It is utter foolishness.

". . . omniscience cannot coexist with omnipotence, since if a god knows what will happen tomorrow, said god will be unable to change it without invalidating its knowledge. If this god retains the power to change what will happen tomorrow, then it cannot know with exact certainty what will happen tomorrow." p. 16

This argument is utterly ridiculous and demonstrates a profound ignorance of the subject. Omniscience means all-knowing while omnipotence means all-powerful. Where does Stefan get the idea that in knowing what will happen tomorrow that it somehow needs changing? If God decided to change something, it does not in any way, shape, or form mean that He did not have all knowledge about it. Having all knowledge does not mean that anything needs to be changed.

Let us presume a limited state of complete knowledge. Let us say that I know everything that is going to happen to the stock market during the next week, and I risk losing money. If I know exactly what is going to happen in the stock market, if I do not act upon my knowledge, it in no way invalidates the fact of my being able to prevent it if I choose. If I act upon my knowledge to ensure I do not lose money, it in no way invalidates the fact of my knowing what would happen.

Let us take it a step further. What if I know everything that will happen in the next week, including my loss of money, because I either put it into motion that way or I allowed it to play out that way? Just because I allowed something to happen does not mean I did not know about it or that I could not have changed it if I so felt like it. There is so much that Stefan fails to understand pertaining to theology.

Stefan's argument bears the same ignorance as the postulated question, "If God is all-powerful, can He create a rock that even He cannot move? If He can't, then He is not all-powerful. If He can, then He is not all-powerful." That question is flawed at its foundation. Not only is it ridiculous, but it imposes an irresponsibility on God with His power. You can create the same ridiculous questions pertaining to a moral man and his morality, or any other situation. Postulating ridiculous statements does not disprove reality.

"When an entity is proven to be self-contradictory, creating a realm wherein self-contradictions are valid does not solve the problem." p. 16

Stefan suffers from the fallacy of believing that just because he has said something that it automatically makes it true. Time is not eternal. Time is a created element. Time was created for us. We are limited by and bound to time. The being that created time is quite evidently outside of time. Ergo, there is no creating of an imaginary realm. Again, just because a 2D object cannot fathom a 3D object or 3D space does not invalidate its reality. An infinite eternal being who sees the past, present, and future all at the same time is clearly outside the realm of time. In order to know all things, one would have to be outside the realm of time looking in on it. You would have to see it all simultaneously. Ergo, outside the realm of time. Once again, Stefan confuses our limitations and experiences and attempts to impose them on God. Perhaps Stefan would benefit from taking some time to imagine himself as AI comparing itself to human beings.

". . . an object can only rationally be defined as existing when it can be detected in some manner, either directly, in the form of matter and/or energy, or indirectly, based upon its effects on the objects around it, such as a black hole." p. 17

This is one of the great lies. This argument assumes that science can explain everything, which is a false statement. Science is that which can be tested, observed, and repeated. If the scientific method cannot be applied, then it is not science and it is outside the realm of science. There are hundreds of things that science cannot provide an explanation for, nor will it ever be able to do so. Science is not the end-all be-all of life, truth, and reality. In North America, when you yawn people ask you if you are tired. Do you know what they ask you in South America? "Are you hungry?" Rather than be an ignorant fool and argue "Yawning has nothing to do with eating," I wondered why they would ask such a thing. So, I began to pay better attention to my body. If I slept well but ate poorly, I would yawn. If I ate well but slept poorly, I would yawn. If I slept poorly and ate poorly, I would yawn. If I slept well and ate well, I would not yawn. So both tiredness and hunger have an effect on yawning. Are these the only things that contribute to yawning? Probably not. I think boredom also has an effect on yawning. What is yawning and why do we do it? Science does not know. So the idea that if it exists, science should be able to determine it is absolutely false.

While the premise is false, so too is the conclusion because the existence of God can be detected both directly and indirectly.

". . . that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened." Romans 8:18-21

God can be detected both directly—through the eyes He gave you—and indirectly—through His interaction with and the effect He has on His creation. Anyone with a rational thinking mind and open eyes who looks carefully at the world around them can see the evidence of an intelligent designer—God. Both the Bible and nature speak of, reveal, and point to God. Thus, why those who perish will be without excuse. Their conscience bears them witness, despite their efforts at suppressing the knowledge of the truth.

"A god - or at least any god that has been historically proposed or accepted - is that which cannot be detected by any material means either directly or indirectly." p. 18

 See above.

You see, Stefan really has no opinion on the matter of religion or theology because he has never put in the time to study it or learn about it. If you are not going to educate yourself on a subject by learning all you can about it, then you have no say in the matter. Your opinions are relegated as utter ignorance and foolishness. It would be like me telling my mechanic how to repair my vehicle because I saw some Hot Wheels toys on display in several stores. If Stefan wants to educate himself honestly, there are several sources I would suggest:

First, read the Gospel of John and the Epistle to the Romans.

Atheists who became Christians:

Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis

New Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell

The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel
The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel

Cold-case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace

Real science (testable, observable, repeatable) versus pseudo-science:

Science vs. Evolution by Vance Ferrell

Studies in Theology:

Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof

Systematic Theology by R. L. Dabney

Dogmatic Theology by William G. T. Shedd

A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith by Robert Reymond

Christian Theology by Millard Erickson
The Christian Faith by Michael Horton

The Far Reach of Christians

"The worldling's Bible is the Christian. He never reads the Book, but he reads the disciple of Christ, and he judges the Christian religion by the lives of its professors! The world does not read the Bible—the world reads Christians!" —Charles Spurgeon

You may be the only Jesus the world ever sees. What is your conduct saying about Jesus? The world judges Jesus by the lives of His professing disciples. Do they see Jesus in you?

"A Christian is a walking sermon. Christians preach far more than a minister does, for they preach all week long!" —J. C. Ryle

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in Heaven." Matthew 5:16

"For it is God's will that by doing good, you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men!" 1 Peter 2:15

"As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love." Ephesians 4:1-2

Universal Nonsense

"I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep." John 10:11

"You are to give Him the name Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins." Matthew 1:21

Where does the Word of God proclaim . . .

     an atonement that doesn't atone,

     a redemption that doesn't redeem,

     a deliverance that doesn't deliver,

     a ransom that doesn't set free,

     a Savior who doesn't save?

Nowhere!

Universal redemption is no redemption at all!

Universal redemption is universal nonsense!

"Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her" Ephesians 5:25

"I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me!" Galatians 2:20

The Keys To Everything Christian

Everything pertaining to the Christian life can be summed up with five prerequisites. All five must be present and accounted for if you desire to make any headway in the Christian life. That is not to say, however, that these five prerequisites will help you to become rich, famous, or powerful, or achieve perfect health or any of the other false teachings associated with the Health & Wealth Prosperity movement. Why? Because the Bible promises you no such things! So what do these five prerequisites have to do with? If you desire to know God and to know Him more personally, these five prerequisites must be true of you. If you desire to study the Word of God better and interpret it correctly, these five prerequisites must be true of you. If you desire to live a more godly life, walking in holiness, these five prerequisites must be true of you. For everything actually promised to us in the Bible, which have to do with the Christian life, these five prerequisites must be true of you.

1. Be saved.
    
2. Read God's Word—it is alive.
    
3. Seek the Lord through prayer.
    
4. Be filled with and led by the Holy Spirit.
    
5. Live out your life by faith; live out what you say you believe.

If any of these are missing, how do you expect to know God or to know Him more personally? If any of these are missing, how do you expect to understand and interpret the Bible correctly? If any of these are missing, how do you expect to live a more godly, holy life free from the power of sin? If any of these are missing, how do you expect your relationships on Earth to thrive? These five things are key to everything pertaining to Christianity. Again, that does not mean that having these in place will lead to wealth, fame, and power, because those are not things God desires for you. So false teachers do not need to attempt to twist these to use for their own perverse means.

If you are a genuine born-again believer, how do you expect to make any headway in the Christian life if you never read God's Word or pray to Him? How do you expect to make any headway in the Christian life if you never practice what you claim to believe? If you are not filled with and led by the Holy Spirit, do not expect to be able to live out the Christian life the way the Bible commands you. If you are not filled with and led by the Holy Spirit, chances are pretty strong that you are not a genuine born-again believer.

If you want to make headway in the Christian life, make sure all five prerequisites are true of you.

Desensitized

Whenever I tell other Christians that I can tolerate brief nudity in a movie, but cannot stand when it it shown repeatedly or for extended periods of time, they attempt to treat me as if I am prudish. They fail to realize that if anyone has a problem here, it is themselves. If you were to go back to the early and mid 1900s, it would have been obscene for Christians to watch a movie where the woman paraded around in her nightgown, let alone her undergarments. But nowadays you have Christians attempting to defend the use of nudity in films, even trying to justify vast amounts of it. (This goes for TV shows as well.)

The problem is, these Christians, if they are truly Christians at all and not just vain professors, have become desensitized. They have no concept of morality. Their moral compass is broken. They fail to grasp the concept that "Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled" (Heb. 13:4). Whether watching nudity in films and television or watching porn, you might as well be a peeping Tom as you are looking into the bedroom of other individuals. What do you not grasp about "do not uncover the nakedness" of people who are not your spouse?

The strange people here are not people like myself, it is those who have been desensitized to nudity and porn. I think it first starts with an ignorance that attempts to try and label some of it as "art." That is like saying if I defecate on a canvas and etch a smiley face in it, that it is art. Sorry, but, no, it is not! We live in a world that is increasingly growing desensitized to all sorts of wickedness, attempting to justify it, and coming to its rescue by labeling good bad and bad good. You see this with Social Justice idiots who have no clue what "justice" actually is. In fact, their behaviour and tactics are usually in contradiction to both moral and legal justice.

Desensitization is not a good thing, people. If someone can get mugged, raped, or murdered standing right beside you and you do not even bat an eye, or try to lend a hand, this is a horrific thing. It demonstrates how apathetic and selfish you are. When two people can be engaged in fornication in the open streets or in public areas, while families with children pass by, and this does not phase you, it demonstrates how morally depraved you are. It demonstrates how morally depraved the people committing it are seeing as how they have no care in the world that young children could be seeing it. And then you have brainless idiots who attempt to defend it with stupid sentiments like, "Well, they have to learn about it at some point." If that is true, why not sit your children down in your bedroom while you and your significant other get it on? Use your head, people!

It amazes me how people try and rationalize complete and utter perversion. It sickens me how people who claim to be "Christians," who quite evidently are not, try to defend it and even watch the same kind of trash. A Christian has no business watching such TV shows as Spartacus, True Blood, Game of Thrones, Lost Girl, Bitten, etc., etc., etc. Garbage in, garbage out, people. If you think there is nothing wrong with such shows, then you should be able to pray this prayer over them:

"Dear Lord, we invite You to come join us in this time of viewing. As Your children, we commit this time to You as worthy of our attention. May our family be uplifted by this hour before the screen. And, Lord, we pray that families everywhere would have the opportunity to do likewise. We thank You for providing this program for us, and we ask You to bless the men and women who produced this show and those who made it available. May they have Your blessings to do more of the same. In Jesus' name, we thank You, Amen."

That prayer just exposes you for the hypocrite and liar that you are, parading around pretending to be a follower of Christ Jesus when your words, actions, and character are in complete contradiction to Jesus' words and the entire New Testament pertaining to how a Christian looks and acts. Yes, there are some genuine Christians who are deceived, and that is because they have been desensitized to reality. But it is the ones who try to fight morality and justify the perversion they are watching who are questionable as to their claim of faith, because Jesus would never condone what they are watching. You are the odd one out here, not me, and not other people like me.

You Do Not Need A Degree To Be A Scientist

"I don't discount the layperson even, studying this thoroughly and having a good mind to analyze the information. You don't have to be a PhD to understand the basics of the situation." —Dr. Patrick Moore, PhD in Ecology

Here is an intelligent scientist. You do not need a degree in some field of science in order to discern science and make judgments on certain falsified claims. I get ignorant individuals frequently asking me if I have a degree in science. These people are under the false impression that you have to have a degree in anything to know anything about it, and that is just plain false. Anyone with a shred of intelligence who can think for themselves and analyze the information being given them can spot fallacies and lies that do not add up to reality. As I have said before, society has been brainwashed to believe that people with 4.0 GPAs and the entire alphabet behind their name should not be questioned because they obviously know what they are talking about. No, they do not. All any of that means is that they grasped the information that was taught to them, right or wrong, and were able to parrot it back on tests and exams. It does not mean they have a sweet clue as to what they are doing or talking about.

I challenge scientific claims regularly, and some of the people I talk to, refusing to accept the facts and evidences I challenge them with, resort to this mind-numbing foolery: "What kind of degree do you have in science?" A degree does not make you a scientist. Anyone who tests and observes the world around them and repeats the process is a scientist. Just like you do not need a degree to be a theologian. Everyone is a theologian; the only question is whether their theology is correct. Whatever you believe about God, that is your theology, which makes you a theologian. It does not make you a good theologian, but you are a theologian nonetheless.

When you pay attention to the laws that govern our universe, and actual science that you can test, observe, and repeat, and apply simply mathematics to that observable science, it begins to poke holes in the pseudo-science that evolutionists want to impose upon us. Evolutionists think everyone is an idiot like them and attempt to teach us lies that simply are not backed by actual science. I have given several examples of this in the past, such as stalagmites, stalactites, petrification, etc., etc. Our science text books claim that these take "millions" of year to happen, yet we have evidence that this is not the case. Cowboy boots did not exist millions of years ago, so how is it that we have found one petrified?

I have given many examples of false science in some of my articles, correcting it with logical science. I do not need a degree in science to be able to do this. All I need is an intelligent mind that can read and reason with the facts of reality. When something does not add up, I can say, "Wait a minute...," and point out the flaws in logic and reasoning. When some idiot claims that 99% of the Earth's gold is contained in its core, I can challenge their unscientific nonsense by asking if they have ever been to the core (if one even exists) and if they have seen all this supposed gold. Nobody has ever been past the crust, so nobody knows what the Earth is made of. There is no evidence to support the four layers. It is all hypothesis. There is no model they can use to even make an estimated guess as to what the cross-section of the Earth might actually look like, and doing so is not science. Science is experimentation and observation. If you cannot test and observe it, then it is not science. Period!

Patrick understands that even a layperson with an intelligent mind can make judgment calls on what is claimed to be science. When scientists claim that Tyrannosaurus Rex could not see you if you stood still, how do they know? Have they ever found a fresh eye to do tests on to see whether it could detect you when not moving? No! It is all made up hogwash. It is not scientific in the least. Most the crap they feed you pertaining to dinosaurs is fairy tales. There is no evidence. They assume because it had sharp teeth that it was a meat eater. Pandas have sharp teeth and only eat bamboo. Pigs have flat teeth and eat meat. Their anecdotes lack any genuine science and just jump to ridiculous conclusions. We, if we are intelligent, need to spot these assumptions and call them to task on it, holding them accountable for the lies they are attempting to teach our children.

You do not need a degree in order to understand, dissect, discern, and judge scientific claims. All you need is a working brain that can reason and understands logic. Opinions are like balloons; facts are like needles to balloons. Opinions will never trump facts, no matter how many people believe it. Science is not a consensus, and consensus is not science.