Saying the things polite Christians don't.

The Atheist Hypocrite

Here are a few questions you can throw at the atheist that might just take them a little off their game. I won’t be so arrogant to claim that these are all evidences of God but they are certainly food for thought.

1.  Why do we have a seven day week?

A Google search here will turn up the expected suspects, The Romans, The Greeks. With a little luck you may stumble upon the earliest recorded instance of the seven day week. Genesis.

2.  What about the moon dust?

When NASA were planning the first moon landing they were concerned that the lunar module would sink into metres of dust. This is because it is known just how much dust accumulates and therefore, it can be estimated just how thick the layer of dust on the moon’s surface should be – assuming the moon is billions of years old as is the secular standing.

Of course, the moon dust was not metres thick! Instead it was only a fine layer. This discovery supports the creationist and a young earth. So naturally, the secularists changed the science:

You will now be referred to an article published in New Scientist In 1976, by D.W. Hughes. Hughes claims a volume of space dust 1000 times smaller than that previously thought, a figure small enough to deposit a layer of a few centimetres over 4.5 billion years.

(Please note the date of this study, 1976. Since 1976 science has made leaps so great as to be almost immeasurable. The digital age has dawned. We have seen technological advances become so frequent that the astounding is now commonplace. Young people barely raise an eyebrow when confronted with the next ‘miracle’).

I mention this because the same site that I sourced this information from, The Secular Web, accuses creationists of being out of date, and of doing no outside research.

Yes, this, and they quote an inside source from ’76.

Oh, and these fools still bow and scrape at the altar of Darwin! 150 years on, disproved and discredited. Perhaps there has been too much time in the field.

Way Off the Track:

Nothing burns me up more than someone criticising me for doing something that they themselves, are guilty off.

Hypocrisy! I absolutely detest it! Our Lord Jesus also held hypocrites in a dim light.

Matthew 15: 7-9

7 “You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9  They worship me in vain;
Their teachings are merely human rules.’”

It’s okay for an atheist to accuse me of not knowing what I’m talking about but apparently they feel it isn’t necessary for them to do the research.

Recently I challenged an evolutionist on how new information managed to find its way into the DNA of a more highly developed specimen on the evolutionary tree. It seems like a reasonable question to me; if a creature grows an extra set of legs, an opposable thumb, lungs . . . where did this genetic information come from? To the best of my knowledge we have not yet discovered a gene that allows its owner to grow new genetic material. So, I asked the question.

I was told – in language that leads me to believe this atheist studied their craft in a waterfront bar – that I ought to buy a book and learn just what evolution is. ‘kay?

The 21st century definition of evolution has the hidden tagline . . . only valid when unquestioned. Trying to validate the claims is a crime unto itself. This pseudoscience is to be accepted without question.

As is that of the Big Bang Theory. How dare I mention evolution and the Big Bang Theory on the same page. In the same sentence no less. This is sacrilege. And what do the three, atheism, BBT, and evolution possibly have in common? Yes, I have been asked that very question. More often though I am simply asked, What does BBT have to do with it (evolution). Somehow the atheist evolutionist has managed to draw a divide between that and the Big Bang.

It would seem to the most unimaginative mind that the two are inexorably connected. In its wake, the Big Bang left one of the three following possibilities:

1/ That the earth was a barren chunk of rock upon which, due to a fortuitous mixture of chemicals, temperatures, and substances/circumstances unknown, simple life commenced, and, through further substances/circumstances unknown, developed over the years into the high tech beings we know and love today. Furthermore, said development took place leaving no trace or link between the former and latter selves. Subsequently referred to as Missing Links. Their non-appearance being a disappointment to Mr Darwin himself, who said inasmuch that this would disprove his touted theory.

2/ A chunk of rock that was visited by travellers from another solar system. These folk deposited some of their number on this planet and sort of hung around for a few billion years just waiting to see what happens.

3/ A formless chunk of rock upon which God created every living thing as we know them today and the conditions favourable for them to thrive and reproduce.

The first two do not answer the question:

Where did the first atom come from? It’s all well and good to accept the Bang but what went bang? Here the atheists get cute. They usually begin their answer with something like:

“Like most uneducated creationists . . .” They go on to say it wasn’t actually a bang, an explosion, but an expansion of a singularity.

A singularity? Can we be more vague. Time and energy, we are told (oh, yes. There was plenty of energy before the singularity), expanded spectacularly creating everything as we know it. This super dense singularity probably existed in another universe and when it expanded – for no apparent reason – it made everything.

Simple. Why can’t we idiotic creationists get it through our thick skulls?

But where did this super dense singularity come from? Where did all this energy which preceded the expansion come from? These are fair questions but they are invariably met with a kind of smug hostility.

The truth is they cannot answer these questions.

If they were capable of being entirely honest with themselves they would admit that they cannot answer these questions to their own satisfaction either.

But I digress. I did propose some questions to give your pet atheist a grilling. That couple can go on the list. Have a look at these too.

3.  Why are you so antagonistic towards Christianity?

There are a 1000 religions that the atheists could single out but Christianity seems to come under the brunt of their attack. It follows to ask – Why? Not believing in something hardly seems to be a position worthwhile investing any energy to advance.

The truth is that Christianity is The Truth. I believe that whether they recognise it or not that this Truth is visible through the clouds of smoke and mirrors put up by the atheists. The only valid reason for attacking Christianity is that they see the Truth and it is a threat.

Islam is not attacked because it is a lie. Likewise with Hinduism, the Moonies and so on. Christianity is the only religion that threatens their perilous worldview.

4. Why make the assumption that Christians or Creationists are uneducated?

This is one that really gets my goat. The smug attitude of these people. Really, I’m certain they believe that they’re the only breed who have cracked a textbook. But worse is their unquestioning adherence to the belief that the college professor has it right. They taught it at university so it must be right. Then the atheist will turn to the creationist and say, “Uneducated fool!”

Yet as a group, atheists don’t practise what they preach: frequently I find that they haven’t read the Bible, or those that have did so at a Catholic school and had a study and worship regimen forced upon them. This is often the sole source of their scriptural enlightenment (and frequently their resentment).

So often the atheist who is telling me to study evolution, learn what it is all about, are totally ignorant.

I was recently told, “Why should I read a book that says the earth is flat?”

For the record. The Bible does not say the earth is flat. Nowhere in its pages does the Bible even remotely suggest such a thing. To the contrary, the Bible tells us in Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth . . .

There are many such quotations. Furthermore Jesus tells us in Luke 17: 34-36

34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.

35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Note that while 2 sleep, presumably at night as the 24 hour shift way a long way off, 2 were at work in the field. Jesus was telling us many years before the astronomers learned of it, that the earth is a sphere. How could part of a flat earth be day, and part, night.

And the Old Testament tell us that the stars are infinite. This, when science was telling us that they numbered 5,000.

In Conclusion.

I really wanted to present a one-sided argument. That is the way in which Christianity has been, and is being, attacked. But in all fairness I couldn’t. Science has brought us so many wonderful things. One day we will have a cure for cancer. I don’t doubt this for a second. I’m just as certain that when we get this cure it will come from the scientific establishment. There will be a Mars landing, and a cure for HIV.

Science has given us air travel, antibiotics, vaccines. The list is almost endless. But let’s not forget that these are the people who not so long ago gave us Thalidomide, the wonderful morning sickness cure, and the atom bomb.

We must be careful to avoid the trap of thinking science is the solution for all of humanities ailments. The high, and ever increasing rate of crime, will only be solved with the application of time honoured spiritual principles. A glance at the causes should lead us to the solution. Even the most jaded atheist would not deny that there has been a major breakdown of morals over the last 50 years. They will argue that this is in response to the religious boot being lifted from humanity’s neck. But it doesn’t matter; the end result is that people are not getting their morals from the church anymore. Free will has spoken. Science, in this case the Social Sciences, has come to the rescue.

It is ironic that the very science used to refute Christianity, also supports it. This isn’t shouted very loudly, and I am certainly not knowledgable enough on the subject to add much to the argument. I have heard some wonderful scientific arguments for Christianity from some of the worlds great preachers. I’m sure most who read this have also and I’d invite you to leave any scientific arguments for Christianity and Creation in the comments.

This is an area of my own education that I would like expanded.

I leave this with a wonderful quote. Unfortunately I don’t know who it’s attributed to, nor do I remember where I heard it. It’s one of my favorites.

Once upon a time a scientist was asked if he believed in God.
“Of course not,” he responded. “I am a scientist.”
After some years and many long hours of study had passed, he was asked the same question.
“Of course I do,” he replied. “I am a scientist.”

Random Ramblings on Atheism

When I comment on a Utube clip and express my Christian faith I invariably come under attack from the atheist brigade. Just why these people seem intent on slathering abuse upon me mystifies me. I’m not an influential celebrity, and I’m not dragging hordes from the streets, depriving them of their liberty, to listen to my rhetoric. I’m just an ordinary man who believes in One Extraordinary.

Yet the abuse is that of the type you’d expect would fall upon pedophiles.

Why? Why the sentiments that fuel the attacks, and why the passion of their delivery?

I have a small understanding of the objections if I were witnessing on a secular site, but what about when the topic is Christian? And this raises a third question: why are atheists viewing and reading Christian material?

I have no objection to atheists visiting Christian sites. To the contrary; the more the better. Perhaps some will be saved by doing so.

Assuming then that the atheist is not viewing the video, reading the post, simply to cause trouble – and trust me, there are a lot that do – then why the interest? I don’t feel the need to visit atheist Web sites or Utube channels.

The only conclusion I can arrive at is that some people just like to know what’s over the fence.

Like the old tale of the elderly lady who calls the police because from her kitchen window she can see her neighbour sun-baking nude.

“I can’t see anyone nude,” the policeman told her as he peered through the window. “In fact I can barely see into his garden.”
“Silly policeman,” the old woman replied, “You have to stand on a chair and use these binoculars!”

Such is the atheist who watches a Christian video, reads a Christian blog or sermon, and can’t restrain himself.

Here’s a tip: watch something else if you are so offended! Isn’t that what you tell Christians when we protest about the sex and foul language on TV?

“Hey, Buddy. Censorship starts at home,” they say.

Well, swallow some of your own medicine. I’d love to see atheists watching Christian media. But not if the motive is a vendetta. In that case, “Beat it. Scram!”

Then we come to the atheist web site. Now, the term, Atheist Web Site, makes one think of a site whose primary message is the spread of glorious atheism, the wonderful feeling that when the wind is in your face and the wolf has torn down the front door, is snapping his chops, that you needn’t bother with prayer . . . that you’re on your own. . . .

Thank goodness I don’t have to pray at a time like this. Phew!

Atheism marketing itself. That’s what comes to mind when confronted with an atheist link, a UTube clip, podcast.

But no. Don’t be fooled. Their tenet is not Pro Atheism, but Anti Christianity.

I have yet to find an atheist site that holds the Hindus up to account. The Buddhists don’t get a mention. Nor do The Sikhs, Lamahists, Krishnas. For that matter I was pushed to find even a single reference to The-Religion-of-Peace. Nothing: despite the fact that they flew planes into the World Trade Center, killed 202 in the Kuta nightclub bombings in Bali, 2002, and on and on and on.

These people kill their daughters for honour. They mutilate the girl’s genitals by barbaric female circumcision, and for their entire lives Islamic women are treated as 2nd class. They will be denied equality on every front. A Muslim man treats his camel with greater dignity.
Not a mention of these good folk in the vast majority of atheist postings.

One of the more prominent sites, The Thinking Atheist, a contradiction in terms if there ever was one, is exclusively devoted to anti-Christianity. The owner of the site explains this by saying that Christianity is his or her background. Fair enough. But to only publish that which is within the writer’s personal experience can lead to a biased account of the truth.

Research is a dirty word to those seeking to discredit Christianity.

To say that there is no God is the height of ignorance. The atheist will say the same thing of Christians at this suggestion. The claim that to declare the existence of God is not only ignorant, but gullible.

There is a difference between the Christian claim for and the atheist claim against: the Christian can back up their assertion with changed lives, despair giving way to hope, with 1000s who had stood at the precipice and had come back – and the atheist can not.

(There is not room in 100 blog posts for a full exploration of the evidence for Christianity but it’s readily available for those prepared to look.)

That’s lives affected. Now the truly cynical might argue that this is subjective; lives healed, destructive habits cured – a man with an horrific drug addiction that had cost him his work, home and family, set free, and gone with the addiction the associated behaviours: lying, thieving etc (I’m writing of myself now) – this could be a unique perception. Despite the 1000s of similar stories to the contrary.

But Christianity is also supported by a profusion of objective evidence. There are at present over 5700 pages, or part pages, and over 2000 containing all or portions of the Gospels.

In 1946 in a system of caves not far from the Dead Sea were discovered what’s now widely known as The Dead Sea Scrolls. Among the 850 or so scrolls are now identified 19 copies of the Book of Isaiah, 25 copies of Deuteronomy and 30 copies of the Psalms.

Perhaps the most important aspect of this find was the proof of the accuracy of contemporary texts. The atheist can no longer argue that the Bible has been radically altered. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved the modern books to be 99% accurate. Segments have been found from over 500 manuscripts.

If scholars reject the accuracy of Biblical documents they must also reject that of Plato;7 copies, Homer; 643 copies for example. Documents supporting the New Testament number over 24,000.

This is by no means exhaustive. In fact I’ve only scratched the surface of Biblical evidence for the Holy Scriptures.

Then there’s the non Biblical evidence supporting Jesus and New Testament accounts. This list is quite understandably, not as voluminous, but it’s within an easy internet search.

Some people, however, will refuse to be convinced. They just will not believe. Then there are those who refuse to allow us the freedom to believe.

If you, like myself, live a pretty ordinary life in the west, you greatest opposition, discounting disgruntled family and friends, isn’t going to come from Islam, the Mormons or JWs, but from atheists. This is by far the most militant group the average citizen is likely to encounter.

I heard a great quote on the other day. It really made me smile.

Why would someone invest so much energy in fighting something they don’t even believe in?

That just about sums up all I’ve been trying to say for the last 1000 words or so. You don’t see the adults at Christmastime lining the malls chanting, “Santa is fake! Your gifts come from your parents!”

People just don’t usually put much effort into something they don’t believe in. Some may argue that Christianity damaged them and they want the world to know it. Fair enough. But once again, these folk just haven’t done their research.

Genuine Christianity, in belief and in practise, will never hurt anyone.

Jesus is the God of love. Love never harms. For the atheist who won’t consider that statement, who shuts off at the mere mention of His name, consider this.

The practise of the real spiritual principles found in genuine Christianity is never detrimental to a person’s physical, mental, or emotional health. It is simply not possible.

Just this morning I joined a Google discussion on the Evolution/Creation debate. I decided not to aggressively defend Christianity, which is my normal position, but to ask some fairly gentle, innocent questions of the evolutionists. Such as: Could you give me an example of evolution? How can we reliably know what happened 20 billion years ago? Assuming such a time existed.

Needless to say I was met with hostility and mockery. I don’t understand evolution I was told. I am a blind fool who has been led by the nose.

Okay. I’m an idiot. Enlighten me. If there is a clear example of evolution that cannot be contested, show me. I will keep an open mind.

No comers so far. Ironically the very folk who accuse the Christians of closed mindedness shut themselves off to the possibility of something other than their charter.

I’ll leave this post on that note. I am open to the possibility that I don’t have all the answers. I will listen to an evolutionist who wants to prove his case. I will hear them out if they don’t shout me down.

I wonder if they will do the same . . . . 🙂

I was listening to Todd Friel on Wretched Radio the other day, while Todd was talking to students at a Catholic University. He was asking how people felt about the bill recently passed banning late term abortions. (This was a prerecorded podcast from 2011 but for the purposes of this post the date doesn’t matter).

I was really surprised to hear a couple of young women who identified as both Christians, and pro-choice.

Mhm. Really? Now that is an interesting position. See, my Bible says, Thou shall not kill. It’s probably one of the simplest commands and it’s not open to interpretation. We know what killing is. We know what happens when one is killed. It’s easily understood; don’t do it.

Jesus saw no need to correct the matter. In fact He reinforced it, telling us to turn the other cheek. The implicit understanding was to do this rather than striking back.

Now the questions which arise obviously at this point are, “Is the zygote, cell-cluster, embryo, foetus, alive? Did this union of sperm and egg, this conception, produce life, and at which point afterwards did life occur?”

Knowing that they will have to admit that abortion is murder if indeed the above is a human life – and what other kind could it be – the typical Pro-Choice blunder is to argue that it is not.
Life begins, they say, when the foetus is able to
live outside of the womb.
There are other responses the Pro-Choice lobby may give but the is the main one I’d like to shoot down.

The following is a portion of an article sourced from The Independant.ie

The large studies, led by teams at University College London (UCL) and Queen Mary, University of London, compared babies born between 22 and 26 weeks in 2006 with those born between 22 and 25 weeks in 1995.

The first examined immediate survival rates and health. Researchers found that overall survival rates increased by 13% during this period.
However, the proportion of premature babies who experience serious health problems has remained “largely unchanged”, according to two studies.

___________________________

Consider this: Preterm birth mortality is improving. It’s fair to say that this is due to advances in medical science, prenatal care and technology. In all likelihood this trend will continue.

It is easy to envision a time when technology will permit the premature birth to survive at any stage of its development. We can see the zygote growing to full term outside of the womb.

Now, when such a time arrives, and it will arrive, will medicine have accomplished the impossible and created life where there was none? Remember, life begins when the infant can live outside the womb (presently about 23 weeks). Ten minutes post conception presently has no chance.

When that conception can live outside the womb, albeit aided by technology, will the Pro-Choice people stand by their determination of when life begins? I hardly think so.

The stage of development at which life begins does seem to be the tipping point for those Christians who won’t take a life but will have an abortion. This person needs convincing of the fact that life begins at conception, not at a date determined by convenience.

It’s believed, that life starts when the foetus can live outside the mother’s body because a doctor said so. There is nothing to support this. As advances in science allow for this to happen at an earlier stage of development, the same reasoning says life must accordingly begin earlier.

That is absurd! Life either begins at 23 weeks or it does not. This is not flexible like the onset of puberty. One is alive or not alive.

Medical science may well be able to save a life, preventing it from expiring, but it cannot create life where there has been none.

This is the province of The Almighty God. The existence of life is one of the great evidences of our Creator. Scientists may alter, delay, advance and correct (any imperfections in the embryo which may be corrected by geneticists or surgeons exist as a result of the Fall and were not God’s intention), but they cannot create life.

Any expectant mother can tell you she is carrying a life well before 23 weeks. Even those intent on aborting the pregnancy, if they could hear the truth through the mountains of denial, would say the same.

Here’s a word for the atheist: Human beings are the only species that deliberately murder their unborn. Nature shrieks when a child is aborted. It goes against the harmonious operation of every atom in the universe. The miracle of birth disrupted.

God, the Master of Life, its Creator and Sustainer has a plan for you. He has a plan for every single one of us. He has a plan for the unborn child. Abortion disrupts that plan.

Getting back to the young women being interviewed by Todd Friel. How is it possible for a person to identify both as Pro-Choice, and as a Christian? If it isn’t a case of massive denial, it has to be a case of ignorance of the facts. This is assuming, of course, that the women are Christians. Many who say they are, are not.

The Lord said it is a narrow gate that few find. Put quite simply if she is a Christian, she would not find a premise on which to stand her Pro-Choice sentiments. She is most likely an unsaved woman who likes the idea of the abortion safety net? The Lord changes our thinking. A saved person would not, could not think that way.

Substitute any other sin in place of the word, ‘Abortion,’ and say the following: “I am a Christian who is in favour of theft. . . . In favour of adultery . . . of murder, lust, bigamy.”

If you can stomach that then perhaps you can say, “I am a Christian who is in favour of abortion.”

Harry K.

I wrote this piece a few years ago, published it on the Internet with the title, Spiritualism, the Highway to Hell, and promptly forgot about it. Since then it has been smashed and bashed under the hammering of 40 hits. Just how many of these were ACDC fans I don’t know.

I decided to republish for a number of reasons, not the least being that no one was reading it, and I do feel that this is one of my posts that needs to be read. Secondly, things have changed. I’m a better writer now and I’ve had time to distance myself from the work. Therefore, I figured it could also do with a rewrite.

This is an honest, perhaps slightly satirical look at the spiritualist church and it’s challenge to Christianity.

Before I start slashing and tearing at the Spiritualist Church I would like to point out that I speak from personal experience. A few years ago, during a period of loneliness and vulnerability, I attended one of these churches (can’t remember the name but they are all pretty similar; Church of the White Light, The Shining Star etc. All names meant to convey something uplifting, healing and mystical). I went back more than once, simply because I have always lived by the philosophy of a fair go.

At the time I was living a long way from Christianity.

My initial impression was that here was a decent, friendly and accepting bunch of people. They were definitely not mainstream society. I shared a coffee and a chat before the service commenced.

These folk were the proverbial square pegs. I am not being judgmental that’s just the truth. I have spent my life as something of an almost square peg, hexagonal perhaps, and have overcome many of the obstacles I faced, so I know one when I see one. Just imagine any fringe society group and then imagine a sub-group who wouldn’t even fit in there. They were accepted here.

They were friendly and they welcomed me and that is what I needed most at the time.

A bunch of New Age magazines were on a table and in a quiet moment I leafed through these.

Wow! Accepting was an understatement. Everything was okay by these guys. It didn’t matter if you were Hindu, Buddhist, into Mind Control, Meditation, chakras, you name it. Anything but Christianity.

Why the bias against Christianity? I soon learned.

The service started pleasantly. Everyone sat on chairs in a circle, someone put on a cassette and we sang a few songs. Innocent enough. The songs were all selected to validate this atmosphere of brotherly love.

The service consisted of a meditation session (which I found enjoyable), a visit from a clairvoyant (which I am too cynical to be bothered with), and a talk by one of the elders.

Here it was. You have never sinned so why feel guilty? Everything is okay. You are loved. Love. You can be whatever you want to be, do whatever you want to do, live however you want to live. You can justify this knowing that if it makes you happy it must be God’s will; because God loves you and wants you to be happy.

Okay, I thought I had heard reason for their grudge against Christianity; everything they taught was opposing the basic Christian tenets. For instance…

To be told you have never sinned is very appealing. Especially if one has spent their life feeling guilty over their behaviour. With this snippet a world of religious guilt can fall off one’s shoulders. Shame it isn’t true. The Bible tells us all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

But if you can’t buy that, and the concept of sin is too much for you, consider this; guilt is a human emotion that tells us when we have done the wrong thing. We don’t always pay for our mistakes and guilt is there to clip us around the heart when there is no-one to clip us around the ear. Appropriate guilt is one of the fundamental tools of spiritual growth. When guilt gets excessive or misplaced it should be dealt with by professionals and not some spiritual airhead.

Lifestyle. Live how you want to live. This isn’t true either. Many lifestyles are condemned by the Bible and it is easy to see why some people would rather embrace a church which condones anything, than make difficult and painful changes. Any religion, however, which does not require a person to change, to turn away from inappropriate lifestyles (those lifestyles which cause you guilt), isn’t a religion at all but a social club.

It is possible to live free of guilt. This is accomplished by asking Jesus for forgiveness and turning away from practices that make a person feel guilty. The process is called repentance.

Here was a church that lets you worship whatever you want, Buddha, Mother Earth, Krishnamurti, you name it. How can this be?

I can’t accept that we were thrown together on an assembly line with a multitude of creators. The argument that there can be more than one Supreme Being does not stand up to logic. How can there be more than one tallest mountain, fastest animal, hottest day? This all embracing attitude looks very attractive but it falls apart under even casual scrutiny.

Someone told me that they had had a wonderful morning observing a spiritual sunrise. Huh? Get with it! There is nothing spiritual about a sunrise. Spirituality is a measure of the Godliness in a person, or a measure of that thirst, that desire for Godliness. Sorry, a sunrise, a walk on the beach, dolphins dancing in the rain, these don’t fit. But apparently it is okay to believe this.

What then, if anything goes, is the problem with Christianity? My question was not answered until I read the book Dark Secrets of the New Age by Texe Marrs.

When I first encountered this book it was awfully difficult to get my head around Texe’s concept of a new world order with Satan at its head. But the more I thought about it, the more I looked around, the more I realized that it is the only explanation that fits.

All these spiritualist movements, new age nuthouses, crystal gazing idiots, aroma sniffers, are united in their common goal; to stamp out Christianity. This is the Great Evil; living under the crushing weight of sin. And Christianity is the culprit.

Yet the really big con is that few of the participants even know it. Most sincerely think that their bumper sticker Practice Random Acts of Kindness, or I Believe in Angels, is somehow a force for good in an otherwise crappy world. This is the saddest part.

Walk into any bookstore and see how many New Age titles are on display. Now compare this with the number of Christian titles on display.

Open any Women’s magazine (I haven’t worked out why this rarely occurs in men’s magazines) and see how many ads there are for psychics and clairvoyants. Many even have columns dedicated to these twits. Now see if you can find an article by a priest or pastor in the same magazine.

All this stuff is designed to get people to look anywhere rather than to God for the answers to their problems.

That’s it in a nutshell. The Spiritualist movement, or the New-Age movement is a satanic distraction. It has no worth whatsoever but actually has a negative value in that it keeps seekers away from Christ.

These were seekers that I met during that lonely period. Other people who, like me, were drifting along life’s highway, trying to find something better.

My search eventually led me back to the cross. I became a Christian at 16 but got sidetracked. Churches should have some responsibility towards newly converted Christians. (Another post coming up I think :-)). It took nearly 30 years before I returned to Christ, battered, beaten and thoroughly broken. In this condition I was ripe for an easy path.

The whole purpose of the spiritualist church is to keep you away from Jesus Christ. It accomplishes this by offering a wide road with a broad gate. Ironically there are no spiritual disciplines required, nothing to believe, nothing to practise, no one to worship.

They don’t worship Satan. They don’t worship Christ; and that’s okay with Satan.

But Jesus told us to enter by the narrow gate, Matt 7:13. He told us that the road to destruction is wide and easy. Most people take it.

I had a narrow escape. God had His hand on me and He led me home.

The message I have regarding the Spiritualist church is this. Don’t go there. Don’t even put foot in the door.

HARRY K.

Brian Cox – Know all

I really didn’t want to take on the atheists. Not because I’m afraid of them, or even threatened by them, I’m just tired of the battle. On Utube I seem to get embroiled in these 35 word squabbles that go nowhere and solve nothing. In fact whenever I engage an atheist I find the discussion goes nowhere.

I am a Christian. Therefore I am a Creationist. But I am undecided on the young earth theory. I’m not rejecting it mind, so don’t get upset if you are a young earther. I could simply swing either way given a convincing enough argument. On the question of creation on the other hand, I am closed to debate. God created the universe and everything in it by the Power of His Word.

The atheist discussions go nowhere because invariably, at some point, I will be abused or treated with derision or hostility. I once asked an atheist why he and his kind were so hostile towards Christians and he said, “It’s not hostility, it’s contempt.” He went on to explain that he finds our beliefs so ridiculous that to hold them fervently, is contemptible.

In other words the atheist’s hold us as we hold them. The difference is that they respond with contempt, while we get frustrated.

Personally, I believe that frustrated with their inability to answer the big question, the atheists respond with bluster.

I guess where I get lost is in the idealism of a non-belief. I’m not talking about those who hold the belief – that nothing exploded and made everything – but the militant atheist who just doesn’t believe in God and is passionate about it.
It’s kind of like writing an essay about not playing the piano.

At the end of the day, I’ve lost the zest for the battle. The idea of butting heads with a dogged atheist just makes me tired.

But when I saw Brian Cox, the rock star physicist, last night on Sixty Minutes, I sat up in my chair, gripped the armrests, held my breath, and realised I could still fire a salvo or two.

I didn’t comment or guffaw while Cox blathered on about what went on on the earth 60 billion years ago, as if he were there. (That’s 60 billion years: a six with ten zeros). My wife was watching me expectantly however. He talked about how scientists deserved the acclaim lauded on footballers (hard to argue against that). Then, about ten minutes into the interview, he dropped the bombshell.

The interviewer asked him how he coped with the opposition from the creationists, the young earthers. Cox’s flippant reply, “Rubbish! It’s really utter nonsense.” He said dismissively. He laughed.

The way he said it was the cruncher. I’ve been told creation is nonsense by the Big Bangers a thousand times. Well, not a thousand, but often enough that this, or a variant of it, is expected. Cox said it as if it was a proven certainty. With an undertone of contempt at the very suggestion, he dismissed the idea. And Sixty Minutes, fawning at his feet, let it go unchallenged.

Brian Cox is a clever man. He is a particle physicist, a professor, and a member of a lot of wacky-doo fellowships. He has spent many, many years cracking the spines of textbooks. Probably wrote a few. Very smart indeed. It fascinates me that such a brilliant mind can believe in a creation sans Creator. He has been led by the nose by his masters before him who, not surprisingly, were evolutionists.

In the other corner is your’s truly, Harry K, a Christian, a writer, a jazz musician, a man of normal intelligence, self educated (I left school at 14, grade 9), and in no doubt of the power of God and that I am His finest creation.

Okay, the lines are drawn, but here I must disappoint. You’ve heard the arguments all before. Thousands of Christian men and women have written and spoken on the myriad of topics supporting creation. The science also supports creation. Do a Google search of the science supporting creation. You will be amazed at the volume of work.

Creationist Kent Hovind has offered, since 2002, a reward of $250,000 for scientific proof of evolution. So far it has gone unclaimed. Surely some clever Big-Banger could put their hand up for this money? No?

I know they say I mustn’t confuse the Big Bang with evolution, but isn’t the process supposed to be: Big Bang – Primordial ooze – life starts in that ooze? It seems that the two are inexorably connected.

God could have created the world with a Big Bang and then placed man, fully developed, on it. Would Cox and his cohorts give this due consideration? Cox’s derisive snorting leads me to suspect otherwise.

Cox worked for a while at the Large Hadron Collider, that $9 billion essential on the French/Swiss border designed among other things, to prove the Big Bang.

A great proportion of scientific disciplines are public funded and accordingly we should be entitled to a say on how that money is spent. Some studies are a must, the fight against AIDS, a better antibiotic for example, while others are selective, the benefits, if any, more obscure. The latter would include space exploration, weapons research, and the Large Hadron Collider. For that matter we could include the entire study of Particle Physics.
How does it help us? Can it feed us? At the very least such projects should be shelved while we sort out world hunger.

I confess; I am an idealist. Such things are not going to happen while man is in control. Meanwhile, if the LHC must exist they could at least conduct their experiments without bias. Trying to replicate the Big Bang is a preconception. They commenced the study with the assumption that the Big Bang did happen and the universe started with that.

We can conclude, quite reasonably, that Cox is a leader in the unnecessary field of Particle Physics. There is nothing wrong with working in a non essential industry. Most of us do. All we really need to support our bodies is food, shelter, and clothing. The difference is that the non essential jobs that most of us do add something to our lives; the work of Brian Cox and the LHC does not. It is an expensive drain on society.

All that money to recreate the Big Bang. Not to prove it, that it happened is a given, but to recreate it. Needless to say they couldn’t do it. They got some pictures that could have been created with a child’s kaleidoscope as accelerated particles crashed into one another.
No planets, no atmosphere, no oceans, lakes, not even a microscopic germ sized life form. Nothing was created. Things were moved about, made to perform in a certain way, but zero creation.

Still they mock the Creationist. The Bible has something to say about that.
Jude 1:18 They said to you, ” In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.”
John 3:20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.
Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
there is none who does good.

Or a word from Herbert Spencer, philosopher, ardent evolutionist:

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation.

I might suggest that Brian Cox has not read these words, written by a man who history will remember, was his better.

Men like Brian Cox make the world a little more difficult to live in just by opening their mouths. He is over educated ( I have heard the intellectual described as: Someone who has been educated beyond their capacity ), but lacking in wisdom, wordy, but lacking in tact, discretion. He has enough brains to talk but not enough to shut up.

What really worries me is the hordes of folk who hear Brian Cox and assume because of his education, his celebrity, that he must be right. In a few words he rubbished the faith of millions and plenty are ready to believe him.

It should be remembered that Brian Cox’s opinions on spiritual matters are like the opinions of empty headed movie stars who try to convince us to vote a certain way.

I have to pray for Brian Cox. And for myself, for my own very evident anger and resentment. I’ll pray that God will open his eyes and show him the Truth.

He did if for Saul on the road to Damascus. Why not Brian Cox?

Turning Away the Gay

image

The marina and main beach

I live in a major country town on the East coast of Australia, called Coffs Harbour. The town is on the Pacific Highway about midway between Brisbane and Sydney. Nestled between the rich green hills and hinterland to the west, and the ocean to the east, with an almost perfect climate, it is, simply beautiful.

Coffs Harbour has a seasonal population of between 40 and 65,000

image

The area abounds with spots like this

Somehow, up to now, we have escaped the major development frenzy that has turned Queensland’s beautiful Gold Coast into a concrete jungle. Coffs has plenty of unspoilt beaches and the sunshine to go with them. There are no shadows of skyscrapers on the dunes.

Clocks run a little slower in Coffs.

image

The marina

Needless to say, tourism is a major industry here. The business is very seasonal and many business owners would tell you that without the busy tourist seasons, they couldn’t hold on. Unlike the Gold Coast which is within an easy drive of Brisbane, Coffs has no nearby major population centres. It’s about 4 hours drive to Brisbane. A bit too far for a day trip. Consequently, people who come here make an effort to do so. They tend to stay, at least overnight.

And so our secular City Council, charged with the task of bringing the tourists to town, reasoned that we needed a homosexual shot in the arm.

Yes, that’s right. Did I mention that included in our population is the national proportion of children? Maybe more than the average; the area is popular with families and young people.

Of all the demographics to entice our councillors decided to go for the 2%. They said they wanted to make Coffs Harbour the premier gay destination in Australia.

I can see the billboards now… (should I write it? I can take it out later… This is a Christian blog)

Heavenly Homo Holidays!

I mean, Come on!… we’ve already got the Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras to our national shame. I think its full title is the Sydney Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Mardi Gras. That cesspool of filth is so well known now it’s simply known as the Sydney Mardi Gras. They dropped the gay and lesbian part safe in the knowledge that deviant communities the world over know what it is.

Celebrating their sins

Celebrating their sins

And they wanted to do this to Coffs Harbour. The promotion would not be the salvation of local tourism, but the end of it. Straight away it offended the Christian community and they are a considerably larger demographic than the LGBTs. (Sounds like a car, doesn’t it? LGBTs, five speed, fully optioned. LGBT, straight to Hell).

The promotion kicked off in time with the first annual (We’ll see about that) Coastout festival.

The next thing would be homosexual marriage packages. Homo Honeymoons. Sorry, couldn’t resist it.

To many of us who live here, Coffs Harbour is as good as it gets. For me it’s an earthly sample of heaven. If you could see where I came from, when I was living for myself, you would understand why I feel this way.

So, we fought back. The Christian churches, well, some of them at least, objected to council. They telephoned, held meetings, prayed.

And…it went away! Well seemingly. I wouldn’t expect the LGBT community in Coffs to go skulking back to their closets quietly, but they appear to have done just this.

Never doubt the power of prayer! A search of the local paper, The Coffs Coast Advocate, of Coastout revealed nothing more recent than 2011. Of course this could be that the paper lost interest; gays harp on about their sexuality so much that one might wonder if they have anything else to offer.

When I set out to write this my intention was not to attack the LGBT community but rather the elected officials whose job it is to service and enrich the entire community. I found it difficult to draw a line between the two.

The Town Council is answerable to the community who reply with their votes. It is easy to understand, though not condone, why they kowtow to the LGBT.

Most importantly is that both groups, and everyone else, are answerable to God.
The LGBT people around the globe are getting louder and stronger. It’s worth remembering though that it is the Mouse That Roared. No matter how noisy they get, they represent only 2 – 2.5% of the population. A group this small can only have this big influence because we permit it.

I also believe I will be held accountable for my silences.

The problem is on the back burner in Coffs. It is going to get worse. The Bible tells us this, and as long as we have spineless politicians who have never read it, there will be more for me to write on the topic.

I ask you to join me in prayer that the Holy Spirit will sweep through the LGBT community in Coffs Harbour, for only He has the power, and create the only real, permanent change.

I think most Christians would agree that we ought to be witnessing to anyone who isn’t a Christian. That’s practically a given. So then, our first task must be to qualify our audience. Are Catholics Christian?

They look like Christians. They have a Bible on the lectern, a crucifix on the wall. But sadly, that’s where the similarity ends.

Christians don’t pray to Mary. Nor do they pray to the saints. We hold Mary in high esteem, she is mother of our Lord Jesus, but that’s where it ends. Catholics turn to Mary in prayer, hold her in adoration. Catholics call this idolatry veneration, but the practise goes far beyond this. Statues of Mary adorn Catholic churches and there are prayer cards in the millions printed to the Blessed Virgin.

Among the names given to Mary perhaps the most damning are The Queen of Heaven and Mary as Co-Redemptrix.

Co-Redemptrix! Just pause here and think about that. Mary, as co-equal with our Lord Jesus as the Author of Our Salvation. Now, when you have swallowed that, ask yourself if Catholics are Christians.

A Christian depends on Christ for his or her salvation. Christ alone. Even if Mary could influence her Son (she can’t), Christians would not turn to her because Christians depend on Jesus alone for salvation.

Mary can do nothing. She cannot hear prayers, she cannot answer prayers, the Bible is quite clear on that. Ecclesiastes 9:5. All Catholics succeed in doing when they pray to Mary is breaking the 2nd Commandment.

Then we have prayers to the Saints. I remember a tv news segment about the Australian woman, Mary MacKillop, who was canonised in 2010. The interviewer was talking to a teenager in hospital. The teenager was delighted that Mary, formerly a nurse, was sainted. She (the teen), believed that her prayers to Mary MacKillop would make her well. This really tore at my heart. Inside I was shouting, ‘Pray to Jesus!’ And I was wishing the interviewer would say something. But of course, she didn’t.

Prayers to saints are like prayers to the Virgin Mary; useless and a breaking of the 2nd commandment. A person might as well pray to an old bed-sock. Yet the Catholic prayers to dead saints must far outweigh their prayers to Our Father, who, ironically, is the one who can answer prayers.

The next damning practise of Catholics is the teaching and belief of purgatory.

The idea of purgatory was kicked around as early as the 5th century but it wasn’t until the 11th century that it began to take shape as we know it today. Finally in 1254 at the Council of Lyon it was given its definition as a place where those without mortal sin may be cleansed after death.

Purgatory has been a real money spinner for the Catholic Church as they sell indulgences and hold Masses, for a price, for the dead. Who wouldn’t pay a few bucks to have the blowtorch removed from their loved one’s feet? But even this is not the real evil of Purgatory.

You see the concept of Purgatory assumes that when a person dies they still have unresolved sin. They go to Purgatory to be punished for this sin. The time they are in Purgatory can be shortened by purchasing indulgences or having a mass said for them. There are rules about who goes to purgatory but the short version is that it is just about everyone.

The real evil is the assumption that what Jesus did on the cross was not enough. When a person dies they still have sin to be dealt with. This is about as Unchristian as it gets. If any one thing disqualifies a Catholic from Christianity it is the belief in Purgatory.

As every Christian knows, that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Rom 10:9

We are rendered lily white when we become Christians. JESUS DID IT ALL. There is nothing remaining to be punished for in this man made Purgatory. Jesus forgives us every single infinitesimal sin. He leaves nothing. And if you believe otherwise, well, you are probably not a Christian. You see, believing in Jesus, which means more than simply believing He walked among us, but means believing in who He is and what He does. It just doesn’t add up that a person can believe that Christ doesn’t completely forgive, that He leaves something for purgatory, and still be a Christian.

Okay, so what if I’m a Catholic who doesn’t believe in Purgatory? Suppose I have a priest who has never spoken about it.

You don’t call this guy, Father, do you? Matthew 23:9 has something to say about that. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Have you heard of the concept of Papal infallibility? This is a dogma that says that the Pope is free from the possibility of error. He can’t be wrong. Forgive my ignorance but I thought there was only One to whom perfection could be attributed.

What about transubstantiation? This is the concept that the bread and wine used to represent the Blood and Body of Jesus in the Holy Communion actually becomes His Flesh and Blood. Read that again. It’s a very weird belief.

Okay, I’ll admit it, I am nitpicking.

Naturally all we can do is look at the behaviour and practises of Catholics. Only God can see the heart. I’m sure there are some Catholics that for whom Jesus is first, front and centre, every time. Unfortunately these are few and far between.

Should we witness to Catholics? Yes. There are just too many points of difference between a Christian and a Catholic. I have by no means made an exhaustive account of them.

I would mention that we ought to be gentle in our approach to Catholics; most are sincere in their faith, and practising Catholics are, for the better part, fairly decent people. Catholics breed Catholics. There is often a long family history with the church and we shouldn’t start our witnessing with the artillery. This can only cause resentment.

As always proceed with prayer. Lifelong held beliefs are tough to break and you will be rejected. But nothing is impossible with God.