etc.

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

atheist20nothing-cam-5386567

Cat Stevens

Note that he ultimately blames the victim, he still blames Salman Rushdie, “The book itself destroyed the harmony between peoples and created an unnecessary international crisis.” The book destroyed harmony and created an international crisis? Rushdie destroyed harmony and created an international crisis?

Nay, the Ayatollah Khomeini, his fatwa and the particular Muslims who supported it destroyed harmony and created an international crisis.

Next, note that for some reason he decides to throw some raw meat at both, those who oppose and support him,

ethics morals

Of course, the statement that all aborted babies are going to heaven anyhow is pointed at theists.

If the only point of life is to get the heaven bound to heaven quickly, then a holocaust perpetrated against all theists would be justified. Why not send all people who believe in heaven there right now?

No indeed, belief in heaven does not mean that it is in any way acceptable to murder a beautiful, innocent and defenseless baby in an inhuman, subhuman and inhumane, dismembering, brutal and painful manner for money.

Apologetics

Was the Bible’s character Samson buff? Was he a hulking bodybuilder-like individual?

The question may see irrelevant but it seems to me to cut to the core of distinguishing between what the Bible says about him (and others?), on the one hand, and what we make of him (and others?).

Certainly, we seem to tend to picture him as a big, tall, muscular, macho guy with an all around impressive physique. Most illustrations of him—from film to paintings and cartoons—do depict him as such. Yet, how did we end up with this idea of Samson?

Da Vinci Code / Angels and Demons / Templars

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

atheist20nothing-cam-4061640

Maryology

At a glance:
The Bible teaches that it is God, it is Jesus, who is full of grace. The Catholic prayer Hail Mary includes some un-biblical teachings.

Roman Catholic Prayer, “Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among woman, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.”This prayer is also known as the Angelic Salutation or Ave Maria.

Angels and Demons

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

atheist20nothing-cam-2371735

Dan Brown – The Da Vinci Code, part 4 of 4 : Richard Dawkins' Delusions

Richard Dawkins’ Delusions

Professor Richard Dawkins has written:

“I don’t think it is too melodramatic to say that civilization is at war. It is a war against religious bigotry. In Britain recently our newspapers have shown crowds of fundamentalists (they happen to be Muslim rather than Christian, but in this context the distinction is of no importance) baying for the death of the distinguished novelist Salman Rushdie, displaying his effigy with its eyes put out and publicly burning his books. The truly appalling thing all such people have in common, whether they are incited to murder by ayatollahs or to less violent observances by television evangelists, is that they know, for certain, that their particular brand of revealed truth is absolute and needs no reasoned defense.”1

Richard Dawkins makes so many fallacious statements that one hardly knows where to start. Let us begin by pointing out that Richard Dawkins takes his aim against religious bigotry while failing to take the next logical step. The next step is to admit that bigotry can be based on religion, yes, but also on politics, resources/territory, racism, secularism of every sort, etc.

Richard Dawkins is famous for making shockingly simplified, generalized statements about those people (whoever he happens to be belittling). He combined this with his tactic of discourage the art of thinking: the distinction is of no importance…all such people have in common…[those people offer] no reasoned defense. Thus, his advice is: don’t bother considering distinctions, they are all the same, they are all ignorant and incapable of reasoned defenses. This coming from an atheist mind you, the very height of we are right and everyone else is wrong.

What if we were to generalize about atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, in the same way that he generalizes about theists? We may say: whenever atheists have gained power they became responsible for millions upon millions of deaths. They did not commit violence and oppression in the name of religion. And any distinction between them and Richard Dawkins is of no importance.

Furthermore, one can barely imagine what might have been meant by such a non-specific statement as the comparison of incited to murder on the one hand and less violent observances on the other.

Did Jesus teach the serpent seed of Satan theory in the parable of the sower?

The serpent seed of Satan theory promulgates the concept that Satan engaged Eve in sexual relations with Eve and was thus Cain’s father; making Cain his literal son and meaning that Cain’s bloodline literally carry Satanic genetics.

Matthew 13 records Jesus’s telling of a parable thusly:

Behold, a sower went forth to sow; And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up: Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them: But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

The disciples asked Him, “Why speakest thou unto them in parables?” and He replied “Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.”
After some discussion, Jesus explain the parable:

Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

Note that, as emphasized above, this is about actions and not genetics; heareth, understandeth, received, dureth, offended, becometh unfruitful, beareth and bringeth.
Moreover, “the wicked one…catcheth away that which was sown in his heart” and does not sow a genetic bloodline / seedline through Eve. Mover, those who fail to produce fail to do so due to “tribulation or persecution…because of the word” and “the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches” and not genetics.

Jesus then tells another parable:

The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

We are also told:

All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Serpent seed of Satan theorists like this last statement because they fill it up with their theory and claim a new revelation kept secret from the foundation of the world.

The disciples specifically ask Jesus to elucidate “the parable of the tares of the field”:

He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one…

We seem to be getting somewhere, into serpent seed of Satan theory territory, already since there is a juxtaposition between the “children of the kingdom” and “the children of the wicked one.” Jesus continues with:

The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

One must be careful when dealing with the issue of two seedlines as one could be claiming that there are two seedlines that are based on genetics (which is un, non, and anti-biblical) or that there are two seedlines that are based on actions, on sin and on rebellion (which is biblical). Simply stated, we know that “the children of the wicked one” are accounted as those committing wicked actions (not genetics). Yet, the issue is that Jesus explanation of this parable does not specify that specifically. This is why one must not take a text out of context to make a pretext for a prooftext.

The greater context of this issue is found in texts such as John 8 and 1 John 3 which do specify that it is about actions, sin and rebellion and not about genetics. Even YHVH’s statements and cursing of Cain in Genesis 4 make it clear that it was about actions and not about genetics.

John 8 has the Jews stating that they are “Abraham’s seed” and “Abraham is our father” and has Jesus agreeing that “ye are Abraham’s seed” and/but also stated, “Ye are of your father the devil.”
This is the case because of actions, sin and rebellion as the text emphasizes “continue in my word,” “know the truth,” “committeth sin,” “abideth,” “the deeds,” “love,” “lusts…ye will do,” “murderer,” “liar,” “honour” and “dishonor.”

1 John 3 refers to “the children of God” and “the children of the devil” which we can tell apart not based on genetics but based on “whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God” and also “neither he that loveth not his brother” are of the devil. This text even specifies that Cain “was of that wicked one, and slew his brother” and provides a Q&A, “And wherefore slew he him?” it was “Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.”

Abortion’s Arguments: Pro-Life displays are offensive

What we mean by “displays” is graphic photographic displays of what Pro-Abortion proponents call “byproducts of conception,” i.e.—and there should be no sugarcoated way to say this—discarded, mutilated baby corpses.

Of course, these are not Pro-Life displays but are Pro-Abortion displays as they are the visual record of that which Pro-Abortionists support with thoughts, words and votes.

There was such a display at our local university and people actually took the time to write up protest signs that said things like “I’m offended or insulted by this display.” This makes one wonder when right and wrong came to be based on pure emotional offence. Also, what happened to the politically correct commandment, “If it offends you do not complain but just look away”? Obviously, it is utterly repulsive to look at such photos but the real oddity is that the photos offend people and so they protest the Pro-Lifers. See the point?

The photos are offensive because they are offensive. They are offensive because they depict the results of offensive actions. They are offensive because they make Pro-Lifers face that which they support. If you are offended by the photos then you should not be upset by the effect but you aught to strike at the cause. It is abortion that produces such gore.

Protesting the Pro-Lifers for interfering in the neat little out of sight, out of mind plan of the Pro-Abortionists is tantamount to protesting the Jews for displaying photos of victims of the Nazi holocaust. The reason that the images are offensive is that abortion is offensive. Ceasing abortion would likewise cease such offensive photos.

Someone pseudonymed redmcclain explained Why I Escort (January 22, 2007 AD, here, escort means ushering women into abortuaries so that they are comforted as they prepare to end their very own baby’s life).
Redmcclain complains about, get this, “large vivid signs of innocent looking babies.” Note that in her stunningly twisted mine the babies are innocent looking (not actually innocent?).

Notice the morally bankrupt view presented here: abortion is not immoral but showing the effect of an abortion is immoral. If the result is offensive then the cause is even more so.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BOOKS:

Bernard Nathanson, The Hand of God: A Journey from Death to Life by the Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind

Randy C. Alcorn, Why Pro-Life?: Caring for the Unborn and Their Mothers

Randy C. Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments Expanded & Updated

Scott Klusendorf, Pro-Life 101: A Step-by-Step Guide to Making Your Case Persuasively

ESSAYS:
“Sacred Abortion”

Richard Dawkins – On Abortion, Tadpoles, Rape, Cows, Murder and Sheep

The Exorcist’s Abortion and the Satanist’s Repentance

George Tiller, Abortionist Murders, and the Richard Dawkins Correlation

Is pro-life and pro-death penalty a contradiction?

Dan
Barker – His Views On Human Dignity

The
Abortion Money Machine Rolls Out the Ads in the UK

Pro-abortionists target pro-lifers

Greg Koukl on pro-abortion “logic”

Abortion and the Intolerance of the Pseudo-Tolerant

Abortion and Homosexual Marriage – The Faulty Correlation

Sam Harris – The Dehumanizer