Are You Saved?

I remember several months ago a friend of mine sent me my first taste of a Paul Washer sermon. And I can't tell you how much it has convicted me and changed my life. Since then I have made Pastor Washer a part of my podcast collection. I have listened to over 20 sermons and read many articles from him. He speaks the truth of scripture no matter what the cost, which is usually only speaking once at a particular place because he doesn't get invited back. This is probably one of the most profound messages I will ever post. Not because Paul Washer is to be put on a pedestal but because his messages steer men back to Christ and he addresses all those who call themselves Christians but walk a different walk and talk a different talk. My absolute favorite message from him is "Examine Yourself" I have listened to this sermon about four times now and keep it on my pda at all times just as a reminder to ask myself "am I in line with Gods word?. It is my prayer that those of you who listen to these small tidbits of the sermon (who profess Christianity) will be convicted and changed if you are not walking in accordance with the truth. Some of you may even realize the possibility that you were not saved at all. Did you know the scripture teaches that everyone who says "Lord Lord?" will not be saved? (Matt 7:21-23) I speak to people at work all the time who profess Christianity but cannot define to me biblically what a Christian is. In addition they walk around cursing non stop and are looking at extremely questionable websites during the work shift. Yet the Lord says "Be Holy therefore, because I'm am Holy". They are Christians but can barely recall three or four of the ten commandments. I am not judging them but merely making an observation by their own admission.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

If these people will not be saved, what makes us think that just because we wear a Christian necklace or t-shirt that we will be saved? There is so much more I would love to say on this subject but will save it for another post. One of the main things I would like to address are people who profess Christianity but don't believe the bible is true because it was written by men, yet they don't question the college text book that earned them their degree which was also written by men. I assure you the bible is much more reliable than any other book or piece of literature ever written. This is only a mere excuse to avoid the word of God in their lives. But that is for another post. If anyone would like to download or listen to the full message "Examine Yourself" (which I highly recommend with all of my being) there is a link provided at the bottom which leads to Paul Washer's website "Heart Cry Missionary Society". I urge anyone who has the time to do so or an mp3 player or pda available to download and listen to all of his messages.






Remember what Paul said in the scriptures "Test yourself to see whether you are in the faith". One can easily test themselves by reading the book of 1st John and seeing if they "past the test" so to speak. As usual, comments are welcome.

- Heart Cry Missionary Society.com

http://www.heartcrymissionary.com/resources/sermons/paul_washer

Angkor Saw A Stegosaur?

What I don't understand is how evolutionist can just dismiss evidence like this? Seriously, you have to literally ignore this. Is that science? Is it reasonable to just simply ignore where the evidence takes you? The bible calls this "becoming a fool" (Rom 1:22) In other words they became willingly ignorant. I like the way Dr. Hovind puts it in some of his seminars "..they became dumb on purpose" Sorry for the harsh language. Enjoy the article by CMI

Stone carvings adorning the temples of Angkor, reclaimed from the jungles of modern-day Cambodia, depict aspects of everyday life along with Hindu and Buddhist mythology. They are 800 years old.

One of the glyphs appears to show what even most children today would readily identify as Stegosaurus, a dinosaur that evolutionary paleontologists say became extinct millions of years ago—supposedly long before man walked on this planet.

So how to explain the stegosaur glyph? There were no paleontology textbooks 800 years ago to show the ancient carvers what a reconstructed stegosaur fossil would have looked like. Clearly, the evolutionary history is wrong. Instead, dinosaurs once lived alongside man, just as the Bible says (Genesis 1:24–28, 6:19–20, 8:15–19; Job 40:15–19), which explains how the ancient people of Angkor could know what a stegosaur looked like.

by David Catchpoole (CMI)

Big Bang 2? - What Happened?

I also said I would follow up on the LHC experiment for you guys. Here are quick commentaries from AIG for you regarding the initial findings. Glad to say no black holes were produced and nothing was sucked in. I will definitely be following this experiment in the media and hope that it reveals some interesting facts which further support creation and God's word, and expose the big bang theory for what it is, a fairy tale and an attempt to erase the Author, Creator and Perfecter of our faith and bring Glory to man, as though God would even allow something like that to occur.



AIG

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the world’s largest and most powerful particle accelerator, was switched on for the first time this week amid reports it will either re-create the big bang or create world-devouring black holes. So which is it?

Thankfully for residents of earth, rumors of dangerous black holes have been strongly dismissed by physicists, although lawsuits against the LHC are pending in the European Court of Human Rights and in the U.S. state of Hawaii. Meanwhile, the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), parent to the LHC, is eager to begin the full-energy proton–proton collisions the LHC was built for following fine-tuning over the next several months.

The idea behind the 17-mile-long (27 km) circular LHC is to fire two proton beams at one another. Over one thousand magnets in the structure cooperate to accelerate the beams to very, very close to the speed of light; then, at predetermined locations, the beams intersect and individual protons collide. Specialized detectors near these locations will look for interesting subatomic physics, including searching for the much-ballyhooed Higgs boson. That elusive particle, theorized but never observed, will—if detected—explain to physicists “why matter has mass.”

But will such experiments prove the big bang and undo creationist cosmologies? Only in the minds of those who already believe in the big bang! For a closer look at the operation, experiments, rumored dangers, and possible conclusions of the LHC, see this week’s article A Miniature Big Bang or More Hot Air?

Embryos Disprove Evolution

Here is a small yet interesting article on comparisons with animal embryo's found supposedly 600 million years ago with embryo's we can see today. It's a very small article but I think it packs a big punch in that it asks the simple obvious question: Where are the supposed changes over millions and millions of years? I suppose one could answer the way a fellow co-worker of my once answered; "you can't see it because it happens so slow" Hhhmmm......... Enjoy the article.

AiG

Last year in China, geologists discovered fossilized animal embryos, which evolutionists believe to be 600 million years old. One would logically assume that if evolution were true, modern embryos, after hundreds of millions of years of evolution, would be very different from those found in China.

The China embryos, however, appear to be identical to those of animals living today.
Because evolutionist researchers are committed to their belief in a very old geologic column, they automatically assume the embryos found in China are hundreds of millions of years old. The most logical and defendable explanation, however, is that these fossils were formed quickly and catastrophically, most likely during the Flood of Noah’s time 4,300 years ago.

Big Bang 2 to happen?

I'm sitting here in the hospital room reading and Everly is asleep now. I overheard some nurses talking about the big bang and some black holes, so I asked our particular nurse what the conversation was about. She began to say that scientist in Switzerland are attempting to experiment with recreating the big bang. So naturally this peaked my curiosity and began to share with her my passion for the study of the origin of life. She began to say her 16 year old son was similarly interested (though his world views are atheistic) Nevertheless, as our faithful God always does for me, a doorway was opened up for me to share my faith and some little known facts about the anthropic principle and/or the "fine tuning" of our planet. Long story short, she was surprised to hear about a convincing argument for God (who she believes exist and created all things) and I recommended she watch and then pass to her son the "Privileged Planet" dvd. She, very enthusiastically, began to copy the name of the dvd on her latex glove. I hope and pray that God plants a seed and directs her (and her son) to a saving knowledge of his grace.

Article:

Big Bang II to start in Switzerland today.

The world's biggest and most sophisticated science experiment begins in Switzerland later today when scientists attempt to test the Big Bang theory.

Engineers will attempt to circulate a beam of particles around the 27-kilometer-long underground tunnel that houses the Large Hadron Collider at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN).

The $10 billion machine is designed to smash particles together with cataclysmic force, recreating conditions in the Universe moments after the Big Bang.

Scientists have spent three decades building the tunnel and the project has been hit by cost overruns, equipment trouble and construction problems.

The experiment has triggered a number of wild theories, with speculation that it could create a black hole of intense gravity which could suck in Europe and perhaps the whole planet.

Others have claimed that it could allow beings from another universe to invade through a hole in the space-time continuum.

Scientists vehemently reject those claims.

I'm sitting here in the hospital room reading and Everly is asleep now. I overheard some nurses talking about the big bang and some black holes, so I asked our particular nurse what the conversation was about. She began to say that scientist in Switzerland are attempting to experiment with recreating the big bang. So naturally this peaked my curiosity and began to share with her my passion for the study of the origin of life. She began to say her 16 year old son was similarly interested (though his world views are atheistic) Nevertheless, as our faithful God always does for me, a doorway was opened up for me to share my faith and some some little known facts about the anthropic principle and/or the "fine tuning" on our planet. Long story short, she was surprised to hear about an argument for God (who she believes exist and created all things) and I recommended she watch and then pass to her son the "Privileged Planet" dvd. She, very enthusiastically, began to copy the name of the dvd on her latex glove. I hope and pray that God plants a seed and directs her (and her son) to a saving knowledge of his grace.

Article:

Big Bang II to start in Switzerland today.

The world's biggest and most sophisticated science experiment begins in Switzerland later today when scientists attempt to test the Big Bang theory.

Engineers will attempt to circulate a beam of particles around the 27-kilometer-long underground tunnel that houses the Large Hadron Collider at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN).

The $10 billion machine is designed to smash particles together with cataclysmic force, recreating conditions in the Universe moments after the Big Bang.

Scientists have spent three decades building the tunnel and the project has been hit by cost overruns, equipment trouble and construction problems.

The experiment has triggered a number of wild theories, with speculation that it could create a black hole of intense gravity which could suck in Europe and perhaps the whole planet.

Others have claimed that it could allow beings from another universe to invade through a hole in the space-time continuum.

Scientists vehemently reject those claims.

Can TV Be An Idle? Absolutely!

This has caused me to think deeply the next time I turn on the TV. There is great truth in this even though many will say "what's the big deal?" Did not the Lord say "Be Holy therefore, because I am Holy"? And the scripture say "I shall set no wicked thing before my eyes"? So why then would I watch something that will blaspheme the name of my Savior? Though I don't watch too much TV due to a hefty work schedule and a large reading pile ahead of me, when I do, I'm deeply convicted of wasting God's valuable time which we are to be good stewards of. Don't get me wrong, I think there are a lot of great spiritual and educational programming on TV. I guess what I'm referring to are the shows which add no value to your walk with Christ and in fact down right pull you away from Him. Any thoughts?

Fire Proof Trailer

This is "Fire Proof", Kirk Camron's new movie coming out sometime in September. I look forward to seeing it and I hope it hits home for a lot of people. Lets agree together and pray that God would use this movie to change lives (Matt 18:19)

How Did Noah Fit All the "Species" on the Ark?

With my recent evangelistic opportunities (the Lord opened a door for me to preach to my neighbor and a recent employee doing overtime on my shift) I have decided to paste this short article from CSE's site. In addition, my good friend Pedro and I have had some interesting comment sessions on the woodpecker, see comments from my post Could Evolution Do This?
This is also a great explanation and defense for those are presented with the age old question "how did Noah fit all those animals on the ark?" When they ask this question they often have the the presupposition and misconception which is that Noah encountered all the "species" we now see and have today. This is not the case. Enjoy the article - All comments are welcome.


How Did Noah Fit All the "Species" on the Ark?

How could Noah fit millions of species in the ark? That would be simply impossible. And upon this common-sense observation, many make the next logical leap that the Bible is simply in error. But let's reexamine their premise. What is a species? Scientific American asked this same question in their June 2008 issue, showing a clear inability by even the scientific experts to quantify the label "species." Most commonly, a species is defined by its ability to interbreed with like creatures. But by this definition, millions of species populate our planet, and lugging them on board the ark would have been a logistical nightmare. The term "fire hazard" doesn't even begin to describe problems that would have existed on that ark. Such a situation is clearly unthinkable.

But the Bible does not use the word "species." The Bible says that Noah was to bring on board every "kind." So rather than differentiating between twenty-seven different species of fox, perhaps Noah only took two foxes on board, which later produced the many species of fox we see today. Then again, perhaps he only took two of the dog-like kind aboard. There is certainly no reason to believe that the many varieties of dogs in the world (including the fox species, wolves, and coyotes) could not have come from just two of the dog kind. Evolutionists have often laughed at this idea, claiming that the 4,400 years between now and when we believe Noah left the ark simply do not allow enough time for such variation to take place within a kind. And yet they believe that in only a few million years, every plant and animal alive on the planet today was produced out of primordial mud. Watch the CSE Question & Research Team discuss these possibilities in our latest episode of Creation In Common Sense.

Evidence conclusively reveals that variation within a kind can take place in only a matter of decades. Dr. Dmitri Belyaev's work in breeding domesticated silver foxes that produced animals with dog-like characteristics in just forty years is a wonderful example of God's intelligent design in action. See, while evolution would tell us that animals gain new genetic information and evolve into entirely different kinds—even though this is not observed in nature—we do observe an amazing usage of the genetic information that is already present in the cell. In a world of such varying climes and habitats, the importance of the ability to adapt is paramount. And when God crafted the genetic material that would govern the growth of His creatures, the loving, all-knowing Creator also gave them the ability to adjust to their environments to ensure their survival. In this way, God's creatures continue to live their lives, and continue to be living testimonies to the intelligent Designer—God.

Bioethicists and Obama In Agreement?

Interesting and yet piturbing article put out by CMI - I would love to hear thoughts on this. If this doesn't trouble the human soul I'm not quite sure what will.

‘Bioethicists’ and Obama agree: infanticide should be legal

by Lita Cosner

What does Barack Hussein Obama, who is now set to become the Democrat nomination for Presidential Candidate of the United States, have in common with so called ‘bioethicists’ such as Peter Singer and Joseph Fletcher? They all advocate that parents have a ‘right’ to kill their baby, not just before birth, but even immediately after the child is born.

Peter Singer: infanticide-supporting ‘bioethicist’

Peter Singer (1946–) is probably the most well-known bioethicist who, though he is too humane to eat a hamburger and advocates giving rights to great apes, has no qualms about infanticide. To him, an unborn child only acquires ‘moral significance’ at around 20 weeks’ gestation, when the baby is able to feel pain. But ‘[e]ven when the fetus does develop a capacity to feel pain—probably in the last third of the pregnancy—it still does not have the self-awareness of a chimpanzee, or even a dog’, and so he gives greater ‘moral significance’ to the chimpanzee and dog than to the unborn child.

He readily admits that the unborn child is fully human, but argues that the humanity of the unborn child does not obligate society to preserve that life. In Rethinking Life and Death, Singer takes the view that ‘newborn-infants, especially if unwanted, are not yet full members of the moral community’, and proposes a 28-day period in which the infant might be killed before being granted full human rights. In a 2007 column, Singer seems to reverse his position on the acceptability of infanticide in most cases, but makes it clear that it is not because a child acquires a new ‘moral significance’ once it exits the womb, but because ‘the criminal law needs clear dividing lines and, in normal circumstances, birth is the best we have.’ However, he argued in another article that, due to the high rate of disability in very premature infants, doctors should not treat babies born before 26 weeks of gestation if the parents of such a child decide not to treat their infant. Singer asserts: ‘killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.’ Indeed, this sort of thought has been the basis of wrongful birth lawsuits by parents who claim that their disabled children should not have been born.

Situation ethics

Singer’s bizarre views on human life may belong on the lunatic fringe, but they are fairly mainstream in what passes for ‘bioethics’. Singer’s views stem from a philosophy known as utilitarianism, in which the stated goal is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the most people possible. So the ‘right’ decision in any given situation is that which results in the most pleasure and the least pain for the greatest amount of people. The use of utilitarian ethics was popularized by Joseph Fletcher (1905–1991), an apostate Episcopalian minister who became an atheist. He is best known for creating ‘situation ethics’, and was hailed ‘the patriarch of bioethics’ by bioethicist and former Roman Catholic priest Albert R. Johsen (1931–). Situation ethics can be summed in the book transcript of a debate between Fletcher and the Christian apologist and lawyer John Warwick Montgomery (1931–):

‘ … Whether we ought to follow a moral principle or not would always depend upon the situation. … In some situations unmarried love could be infinitely more moral than married unlove. Lying could be more Christian than telling the truth … stealing could be better than respecting private property … no action is good or right of itself. It depends on whether it hurts or helps people. … There are no normative moral principles whatsoever which are intrinsically valid or universally obliging. We may not absolutize the norms of human conduct. … Love is the highest good and the first-order value, the primary consideration to which in every act … we should be prepared to sidetrack or subordinate other value considerations of right and wrong.’

Montgomery scored a powerful point with the audience when he showed that situation ethicists shouldn’t be trusted under their own belief system, because they could happily deceive you if the situation were right.

The Christian viewpoint is that moral absolutes are real (see the articles under Are there such things as moral absolutes?). Where there is a conflict, the resolution is not situational but depends on the biblical hierarchy of absolutes: duty to God > duty to man > duty to property; obeying God's laws > obeying the government. This system is called graded absolutism, where there are exemptions rather than exceptions to moral absolutes, i.e. the duty to obey the higher absolute exempts one from the duty to obey the lower one.

Personhood

Fletcher also popularized the distinction between ‘human being’ and ‘person’ that is central to Singer’s ethics. He proposed a formula to determine whether an individual qualified as a ‘person’, with requirements such as ‘minimum intelligence’, ‘self awareness’, ‘memory’, and ‘communication’. Singer’s denial of the unborn child’s personhood is central to his justification for abortion, as he freely admits that the unborn child is alive and human. Tom Beauchamp goes as far as to say, ‘Many humans lack properties of personhood or are less than full persons, they are thereby rendered equal or inferior in moral standing to some nonhumans.

It’s notable that while the pro-aborts like to claim that science is on their side, they have to resort to fuzzy concepts like ‘personhood’. Conversely, pro-lifers generally point out the genuinely scientific criteria for when the individual’s life begins. And they are on a sound basis. With improved 4D ultrasound technology, it is now possible to view a child in the womb with clarity, and in real time, that leaves no question that he is a distinct living being. Genetic evidence supports this even more strongly:

‘The task force finds that the new recombinant DNA technologies indisputably prove that the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine.’

So the pro-abortion camp changed the definition of ‘person’ from ‘living member of the human species’ to a nebulous definition that could be twisted around to fit their ends (one notices that a bioethicist never seems to think that he himself is not a person worthy of protection under the law). Indeed, as will be shown, a child may fall short of the definition of ‘person’ even after birth.

Evolutionary basis for denial of sanctity of innocent human life

Of course, this view of human life is antithetical to the biblical teaching of mankind as beings created in the image of God, and therefore possessing great intrinsic worth. Bioethicist Daniel Callahan argued that ‘[t]he first thing that … bioethics had to do … was to push religion aside.’ Euthanasia advocate Dan Brock, Harvard University Program in Ethics and Health, argued:

‘This rights view of the wrongness of killing is not, of course, universally shared. Many people’s moral views on the wrongness of killing have their origins in religious views that human life comes from God and cannot be justifiably destroyed or taken away, either by the person whose life it is or by another. But in a pluralistic society like our own, with a strong commitment to freedom of religion, public policy should not be grounded in religious beliefs which many in society reject.’

In Australia, Philip Nitschke (1947–), Founder of the pro-euthanasia organisation EXIT International, said much the same thing:

‘Many people I meet and argue with believe that human life is sacred. I do not. … If you believe that your body belongs to God and that to cut short a life is a crime against God then you will clearly not agree with my thoughts on this issue.’

‘I do not mind people holding these beliefs and suffering as much as they wish as they die. For them, … if that is their belief they are welcome to it, but I strongly object to having those views shoved down my neck. I want my belief—that human life is not sacred—accorded the same respect.’

Of course, the bioethicists would like one to overlook the fact that they believe public policy should be grounded in their own atheistic religious beliefs which most in society reject.

Singer openly derides those who claim that human life is intrinsically valuable:

‘[S]ome opponents of abortion respond that the fetus, unlike the dog or chimpanzee, is made in the image of God, or has an immortal soul. They thereby acknowledge religion is the driving force behind their opposition. But there is no evidence for these religious claims, and in a society in which we keep the state and religion separate, we should not use them as a basis for the criminal law, which applies to people with different religious beliefs, or to those with none at all.’

However, all law stems from some group’s perception of morality; why should Singer’s view of morality be the basis for law simply because it is godless? In light of the fact that most of the atrocities of the 20th century were committed under atheistic regimes, one might think that a religious aspect in ethics is a good thing.

In Roe v. Wade, the infamous 1973 US Supreme Court decision that overturned individual states’ bans on all types of abortion, unborn infants were declared to not be ‘persons’ with the right to life under the Constitution, based on ignorance of when precisely life begins. But the justices did manage to find a ‘right’ to abortion in the Constitution that no one had ever noticed before, or as widely cited legal scholar John Ely (1938–2003) put it:

‘the Court had simply manufactured a constitutional right out of whole cloth and used it to superimpose its own view of wise social policy on those of the legislatures.'

‘Unwelcome’ side-effect of abortion: infants who survive!

The Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) at the national level, and various bills like it in state legislatures, was introduced in response to reports that some victims of botched abortion, who were born alive, were being left to die. Jill Stanek was a nurse who testified about this practice, having seen infants shelved in dirty utility rooms to die. The BAIPA guaranteed infants born under such circumstances the same right to treatment as other prematurely born children, whether or not the parents wanted the child to be treated. The bill passed the Senate unanimously, with even the most pro-abortion senators agreeing that once a child was born, the mother’s so-called ‘right to choose’ ended. In 2002, BAIPA was signed into law at the national level. However, in the Illinois senate, a state version of the law failed to pass repeatedly, thanks in large part to then-State Senator Barack Obama (1961–). The Illinois BAIPA only passed after Obama left the State Senate. Stanek reports that when she testified before a committee of which Obama was a member:

‘Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed. In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.’

At the national level, Obama has proved to be one of the most pro-abortion senators, going so far as to vote against a law that would require an abortionist performing an abortion on a minor transported across state lines to notify at least one parent. He opposed the US Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on partial-birth abortion, the gruesome procedure in which the baby’s body is delivered leaving only the head in the birth canal, when the abortionist sucks the baby’s brains out then delivers the dead baby now that the head has been suitably shrunk

Obama v Christian ethics

It is hard to justify such extremism as support for ‘women’s rights’, especially when, in many places in the world, abortion targets unborn girls over boys. Obama said regarding his own daughters that he didn’t want them ‘punished with a baby’ if they had an unwanted pregnancy. But the Bible regards children as blessings to be thankful for, not as nuisances (Psalm 127:4–5). Many stories in Scripture revolve around women who are heartbroken over their inability to have children and are blessed finally with sons of their own (Sarah, Rebekah, Hannah, Elizabeth), and the Bible speaks clearly about the humanity of the unborn (Genesis 25:21–22, Psalm 139:13–16, Jeremiah 1:5, Luke 1:41–44).

Obama may not openly or even consciously support the utilitarian ethic that Singer and most other bioethicists embrace, but his position on infanticide, devaluing certain human life as unworthy of life, has its roots in evolutionary utilitarian thought and defining personhood separately from humanity. But it should be no surprise—Obama is an ardent evolutionist, saying, ‘Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels’.

However, at least the atheistic bioethicists like Singer and Fletcher are being consistent—one may call their worldview evil and abominable, but not illogical. But Obama claims to be a Christian while embracing positions that are inherently antithetical to any Christian ethic. As inexcusable as it is to claim to be too humane to eat meat while advocating baby butchery, it is worse to be pro-infanticide while claiming to worship the God in whose image the babies are made.

Editorial note:

CMI does not engage in partisan politics; we are, though, very much concerned with the effects on society of evolutionary thinking. Thus, when a candidate for the world's most powerful political position (regardless of party affiliation), not only espouses evolution but shows clearly the outcome of it on their thinking on such biblically serious matters, it is very much within our ministry mandate.

Related articles
Antidote to abortion arguments

Further reading
Human Life Questions and Answers—Abortion and Euthanasia