Quite a few good articles to link to this time; some for education and some for edification.
The Shroud of Turin is NOT genuine. I’ve been saying that since I first heard of it years and years ago.
Romanism’s false hope of purgatory.
The moral law reflects God’s character.
The image of God.
Jesus is NOT a copy of pagan Gods. But we knew this, didn’t we?
A book review of a new biography of Aimee Temple McPherson; she is the origin of the Foursquare Church.
Troubling terms of the “Social Justice Movement.”
The great Flood of the Bible or uniformitarian geology? I’ll go with the former, which makes much more sense scientifically!
The Bad and/or Ugly
The ELCA needs to quit pretending it is a Christian organization. In this incident they are promoting child abuse and perversion. If you are a member of the ELCA, WHY?
Former President Jimmy Carter worships a different Christ — a Christ who accepts an abomination.
Catholic defense of Marian devotion is actually no defense at all, and horribly bizarre unbiblical nonsense.
Sarah Young has a devotional Bible out now, with all sorts of direct teachings from God and Jesus, or so she claims. Stay away from this spiritually dangerous publication.
Matt Chandler continues to implode with false teachings.
Rachel Held Evans has a new book: be forewarned that it is 100% false teaching.
The humorous
Oh, wouldn’t this be great!!
Oh how I wish this was true!
I love these jabs at Joel Osteen — they are so poignant!
11 comments:
Love that jpg! Those virtue-signaling "Christian" Leftists are sickening.
"SECULAR" GEOLOGY WINS!
Martha,
To say "secular" geology wins you must be totally ignorant of real science.
Thanks for playing.
Glenn,
25 reasons the world hates Christians; included in "the world", are many professing "Christians".
The Genesis Flood, yes, of course that is the truth. 2 Peter 3:4-7. And vs 10-11, first global judgment was by water; second will be by fire.
Chandler, unfortunate, but not surprised. There have been other issues with him for a while, besides what P&P mentioned.
Oh, that Tomlin would stop with his hymn hijacking. More than that, that worship leaders would stop using his "versions" of hymns. I won't even sing them anymore. I just sing the hymn verses and go silent when the "Tomlin chorus" occurs. I have respect for the saints of old who had sound doctrine and logical continuity of thought in their sacred music. I do not have respect for the repetitious CCM interruptions that not only add nothing to, but also actually detract from, the hymn.
And, the Martha above, clearly isn't OUR Martha. Our Martha here is young earth creation, literal genesis adhering, and Bible believing.
-Carolyn
An irrelevant question, but a good one. Why would an all-knowing God create the tree of knowledge of good and evil so that Adam and Eve would fall from consuming it after being told not to do so?
PS, to follow up on what I mentioned about Chandler, if I recall correctly, he was involved in the "Acts 29" network, and the Young Restless and Reformed movement for quite some time before the specific things P&P mentioned in that July 2018 article. Both A29 & YRR were concerning due to charismatic leanings and some other theological issues. So I think the drift began a while back, a number of years, I think.
Anyhow, I've never paid much attention to Chandler, since I'm not Calvinist, but I do recall just looking into who he was many years ago when a Christian friend mentioned that she listened to him.
-Carolyn
Anonymous,
The point of creating the tree was a object lesson. They had one command to obey, and, while the Bible gives no information as to the reason, I think using biblical principles we see that God gave mankind the free will to chose right or wrong--to obey or disobey God. God was not looking for puppets or robots. So man was given on rule and could have obeyed that rule, but man chose not to.
I am generally embarassed by attempts to defend statements in the book of Genesis, as they almost always end up relying on supernatural contradictions to observed nature (contentious in the eyes of someone who dedicated their lives to study science/ technology/ engineering). Instead, a curious scientist is bound to point out towards their own assumptions and admit the cases where the postulate can be invalid. If both sides take a gentlemanly approach, we are very quick to find out that the scope of one and the other is very different: evolution is a model (and trying to extend that to a philosophy results in failure), whereas the Abrahamic book of Genesis is a divine philosophy (and trying to put it in mathematical equations results in failure).
Anonymous,
Why is it your ilk always hides behind anonymity?
Your embarrassment should be over your own foolishness. There are NO “supernatural contradictions to observed nature” in Genesis. Only to the “eyes” of someone like you who has studied the faux science of evolution.
Evolutionists NEVER “take a gentlemanly approach,” but instead always attack creationists as being ignorant hicks.
Evolution isn’t a “model,” it is a philosophy with no scientific backing; it is based on speculations, assertions, and assumptions without any factual evidence.
Genesis is factual history, not philosophy.
Take your false teachings and ignorance elsewhere. I’m tired of seeing your comments promoting your atheistic evolutionist religious beliefs.
Mr. Anonymous,
Game over is correct. Troll elsewhere because your comments will no longer be posted here and will be delete from moderation without even viewing.
Meanwhile, I am not the one who is an embarrassment to Christianity, rather it is people like you who always resort to ad hominem attacks when your claims are refuted.
Your claims of no reputable scientists accepting Young Earth Creationism is a bald-faced lie. Of course your ilk claims AIG or ICR, et al, have no reputable scientists!
YEC is NOT a cultic position, and to compare it with the KJVO ideology is nothing but total ignorance of what the word "cultic" means. YEC is the Biblical position and can only be ignored by believing in evolutionism (which actually is a cultic view) and bringing that ideology into the text.
I don't run on emotionalism, but your comment demonstrated that is how you operate. The FACTS, actual science vs faux science of evolutionism, all support YEC.
And, by the way, your ignorance is showing again. The "dome" idea is just that - a theoretic idea as to how things may have been.
Well stated, Glen, and in such an outstanding way.
For those of us who believe in YEC, it doesn't pay to become "overtly emotional" over the debate for I personally have found it difficult to "win" evolutionists over to the day by day creation of this world. Their minds are like black walnuts, difficult to open up inless there's some miracle tool involved in opening up that concrete-like shell.
Debates with evolutionists always, always, always end up in name calling, insults, and just plain emotional foolishness, accompanied with anger, reviling, and often, some form of long term persecution, for mankind had a difficult time understanding the power and Sovereignty of our Mighty LORD.
Thank-you for showing us what "gentlemanship" looks like Glen. You are a class act.
God bless you and yours.
Martha......the one who loves the Genesis Scriptures, and believes.
Post a Comment