If I should die in my sleep, my wife will be able to say, “He died doing what he loved most.”


Oh, and if you missed Hugo's comment, the answer to who made the comment on the death of Christianity the answer was Adolf Hitler - not an atheist nor a Christian. 

Guess Who?

 Which Atheist Conference speaker gave this address?

“The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity. Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity. And that's why someday its structure will collapse. The only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little. Christianity the liar. We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teaching in conflict with the interests of the State.”

 Answer tonight

"Among the great things which are found among us, the existence of Nothing is the greatest."  
Leonardo Di Vinci 

Just Like I Told You

Those on the outside can’t know this of course, but everything that we are told about Jesus, in the Gospels is true. When you read it, when you live it, when you see it for what it is, when you experience the reality of this truth, spontaneous praise is the natural reaction.

We’re not the first.

Look at Luke 2:20. “And that shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, Just As It Was Told To Them.”

What the angels had told them was happening turned out to be happening just as they had been told. Now, I’ve never seen an angel and I imagine that neither had the shepherds. Was it a dream? A group hallucination? As it turns out, the confirmation of events when they went into town and inspected for and found empirical data confirming what the angels had said, showed them it was neither. 

It was the truth. 

And they praise God.

Have you found your reaction to be the same? The Bible says, “Here is what life is like, here is what people are like, here is what you are like,” and life (observation, testing and verification) proves it to be true. When Jesus says, “Come to Me and I’ll give you rest,” we come to Him and we find rest.

His promised peace and joy are now present in your life.

Perfect love drives out fear and fear is gone.

Praise God from whom all blessings flow.

People often wonder why there is some much wrong going on in the world.

Wrong things happen actually because things are wrong really. 

One of the dangers is to accept disaster as God’s appointment, as part of His design. 

It is not God’s design, but His permissive will. God’s order is: no sin, no satan, no sickness, no limitations.

The unaided intellect of man recognises this and says, “I will declare that sin and evil and redemption and Jesus Christ have never existed. I will conduct my life on rational lines.”

Then comes the permissive will of God: sin, satan, difficulty, wrong, and evil.

It's My Body!

No actually. It isn't. When you hear a woman state that she has every right to do what she wants with her body, that is a stretch, to say the very least. When it comes to abortion, what she is attempting to do is take the life of someone who has her own fingerprints, her own unique DNA, her own heart beat, her own blood type, her own character and deny that person life. At conception what has been created is a human being unlike anyone else in the world. The woman seeking an abortion is intending to hire someone to kill this unique human life. The person being killed is not the woman's body!

Here is the direction our society is headed. Some see this as progress.

“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”

Q: What about parents conceiving and giving birth to a child specifically to kill him, take his organs, and transplant them into their ill older children?
Singer: It's difficult to warm to parents who can take such a detached view, [but] they're not doing something really wrong in itself.
Q: Is there anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale?
Singer: No.
Q: Would it be ethically OK to kill 1-year-olds with physical or mental disabilities?
Singer: [This question] should be raised as soon as possible after birth

Q: Would you kill a disabled baby?

Singer: Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman's right to have an abortion. One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby.

• Peter Singer, Princeton ethicist, "Peter Singer: You Ask The Questions".Belfast Telegraph (November 9, 2006).

I find that sooooo tragic. We are losing all ability to see the value of human life. A whale stranded on a beach engenders more sympathy than a child whose life is about to be terminated. If you are one of those who says, “But it's not a Human Being until it's born,” try this. Take a person, any person of any age and ask, “Was this a human life yesterday?” Go back one more day and ask, “Was this a human life yesterday?” Keep doing that until you can answer, “No. This human life did not exist on that day.”

Do that and you will find that the day being referred to is the day before conception.

Do that and you'll find when human life begins, a life that has a right to exist.

And then make your decision about what to do with this life that's been created.

And in case you think I'm some sanctimonious moralizer, judging others from my holy perch, let me tell you, I understand the feelings that drive abortion. I understand them firsthand. Back in the day when a “girlfriend” thought she was pregnant, my first thought was – abortion. Kill it. Get rid of it. Hide the evidence. We were teenagers in high-school, completely unprepared to raise a child. There was only one option. Right?

Of course not, there were several options, every one of them better than killing the child that we'd created. But there was only one option that wouldn't involve other people knowing what we'd done. One option that wouldn't make school more difficult. One option that wouldn't involve a semblance of responsibility. Luckily it was a false alarm, but had she been pregnant and had we gone through with it, just because I was the one involved wouldn't have made it anything less than killing a human being.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating a return to back-ally abortions. We have to help those who need help. The issue here is that as I've become older, I've grown into someone who is strongly pro choice. But the choice needs to be made before conception. We can't continue to lie to ourselves about what we're doing. We can't continue to act as though casual sex isn't a big deal. It is a big deal and pretending it isn't is destroying our souls. Or is it that because our souls are already destroyed that we pretend it isn't a big deal?

Either way, wouldn't it be nice if some day we could all be honest on this issue? Honest enough to say, “Look, I know that I'm pregnant with a living human being. But I am not willing to carry this child to term. Adoption is not an option because – well, just because - so I'm going to kill my child.” Just admit it. Be honest. None of this pretending that your baby isn't a human until she's out on the delivery table or a certain number of weeks old. Honesty. Clear, beautiful honesty. What a wonderful thing that would be. Make a decision based on clear-headed honesty.

The last generation may have been able to feign ignorance on the issue of when life begins, but not us, not any more. You and I both know very well that if the DNA was examined at three hours, or three days, or three weeks, or three months that the genetic code would not show a tree, or a pig or a walrus or a virus. It's a human life that's been created and that human life is developing within you as it's genetic code says s/he should.


Remember: “If it's not a human life, then you're not pregnant.”

And for the gutless wonders like I was, I mean, come on guys. You know that you created this life. Deal with it like a man. Or at least like a man should deal with it. The world won't end if you allow this person to live. God knows there are enough people waiting to raise h/her for you. And if living a life of self-honesty is asking too much of we modern sophisticates, how about if we just stop screwing around? How about if we stop creating situations where we feel the need to kill our children? How about if we stop having affairs? How about if we become men and women of integrity? Men and women who are responsible, even with our sexuality?

Are we not able to stop being desperate, pathetic predators who use our sexuality to snag a partner or – ah, forget it. It will never happen.

We're too corrupt.

Too self-obsessed.

Too pitiful.

Contrary to what atheists would like to believe, we are not able to be good without God transforming our character.

I'm done talking about this subject. Interacting with a pro-abortion individual this last week has been like wading through raw sewage. Deeply disturbing, disgusting, offensive to a degree that surprised me.

Good luck on your journey

atheists and 2 + 2 = 5

Can you imagine how disconcerted someone would be if they did not believe in the number 4? They could work for generations, for thousands of years searching for the answer to the mathematical problem of 2 + 2 and never arrive at an answer. In the end they would probably wind up saying that such a problem doesn't even exist. Sounds absurd? Of course it does. That's why I say that atheism sounds absurd. Here's the connection.

When asked, “Why is there a mathematically precise, life supporting, moral universe?” atheists that I've spoken to go into intellectual paroxysms, and world-view spasms of contradictions, finally arriving at Richard Dawkins backup plan, “It's not important to ask why.” Pfft!

It's only the most important question in the universe, but when you refuse to accept that the number 4 exists, and when copious amounts of evidence (a universe worth of evidence) points to the reality of number 4, well, atheists are forced to ignore the question altogether. Let me give some examples of the journey this question has taken.

“This question is the darkest in all philosophy.William James

“This question could tear the individual's mind asunder.”

Bernard Lovell

“The attempt to answer this question constitutes one of the most grandiose enterprises of the human intellect.”

Arthur Lovejoy

Really? All you have to do is accept “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” and this question delivers a life-giving answer. 


But no . . .

“Each of us is grazed by the question's hidden power.”

Martin Heidegger

Remember Richard Dawkins who encourages his followers to not even contemplate the question at all? Arthur Schopenhauer says of such people, “The lower a man is in an intellectual respect, the less puzzling and mysterious existence itself is to him.”

All one needs to do is accept, “For in Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things and in Him all things hold together.”

Colossians 1:16

But no . . .

Many primitive tribes have assumed as have modern atheists (those who tried to retain the now discredited and utterly refuted Steady State model of cosmology), “It has always been this way.”

“For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.”

Hebrews 3:4

In the “Principle of Sufficient Reason,” Leibniz writes, “There is an explanation for every fact and answer for every question.” This principle having been stated, the first question which we have a right to ask will be, Why is there something rather than nothing?” 


That sounds like a good start but alas, the a priori world-view that the number 4 does not exist rules out contemplating the question and therefore missing the most important answer in mankind's existence. Leibniz could see plainly that either the universe is necessary (it can't NOT exist) or the Cause of the universe is necessary. Either matter is eternal (and we now know that it can't be) or the Cause of matter is eternal. God's explanation of Himself as “I Am,” was on the tip our knowledge,

But no . . .

The likes of David Hume took centre stage with, “Any proposed answer to this question would be mere sophistry and illusion, since it could never be grounded in our experience.” 


That sounds fine but “cause and effect” IS based on our experience. We have NEVER experienced something coming into being without that thing having an external cause for it's beginning. Remember, the scientific method is based upon observation, testing, verification. So close to discovering the number 4,

“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power, for You created all things, and by Your will they were created and have their being. And He swore by Him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it.”

Revelation 4:11

Friedrich Schelling came close when he stated, “The main function of all philosophy is the solution of the problem of the existence of the world.” Protecting the atheist world-view brought enquiry to the same dismal end.

“For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the Lord made the heavens.”

Psalm 96:5

In, Creative Evolution,” Henri Bergson almost petulantly demanded, “I want to know why the universe exists, since the existence of matter, consciousness and God Himself is a conquest over nothingness.” 


Sadly, as atheists are today running into an increasing number of concrete walls, Bergson makes the absurd claim I predicted in the first paragraph of this post and says the question itself is an illusion, a pseudo question if you will. A question that Heidegger said was “The deepest, the most far-reaching, the most fundamental of all questions,” is of necessity left by atheists in the garbage because the only possible answer, the most logical answer, the most rational answer is Creator God. And like atheists today, Heidegger advised his listeners, “being able to ask a question means being able to wait, even one's whole life long,” [for an answer other than the correct answer]. Atheists know that there is no possibility of a material, natural, scientific answer to the universe coming into being because until Big Bang, literally nothing material, natural or scientific existed. But they will wait until they arrive in hell waiting for a material answer.

Still, reality entices.

“You alone are the Lord. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you.”

Nehemiah 9:6

“It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that things are.”

Wittgenstein. 


Again, forced by his world-view to deny reality, the absurd became preferable and Wittgenstein concluded, “The question is senseless. The riddle does not exist.”

Isn't that profoundly sad? Tragic? When the evidence leads directly to Creator God, those who claim to diligently follow the evidence turn away and refuse to acknowledge that the question even exists. Father Coplestone, in a debate with atheist A.J. Ayer said, “The question is an opening to the transcendent, a way of seeing God's existence as the ultimate ontological explanation of phenomena.” 


It was not to be. Human nature in it's unredeemed state will not tolerate anything that attempts to knock humans off the throne.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Through Him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”

John 1: 1-3

“In the beginning You laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.”

Psalm 102:25

“I should say that the universe is just there, and that is all.”

Bertrand Russel

“Long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being.”

2^nd Peter 3:5

“The beginning of the universe doesn't need a cause.”

Steven Weinberg

“By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was NOT made out of what was visible.”

Hebrews 11:3

When the only possible cause is Creator God, atheism driven science must state the irrational and incoherent as fact. 2 + 2 = 5, because the number 4 does not exist.

“For this is what the Lord says - He who created the heavens, He is God; He who fashioned and made the earth, He founded it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited.”

Isaiah 45:18

Einstein himself believed in the Steady State model of the universe. He had to in order to preserve his world-view. He was even willing to fudge the figures to get what his world-view demanded. The metaphysical implications of a universe with a beginning are so disturbing to atheists that they must adhere to the absurd.

- Astronomer Arthur Eddington - “The notion of a beginning is repugnant to me. I simply do not believe that the present order of things started off with a bang. The expanding universe is  preposterous, incredible, repugnant, it leaves me cold.”

- Physicist Philip Morrison - “I find it hard to accept the Big Bang theory. I would like to reject it.”

- Physicist Victor Stenger - “The universe may be uncaused and may have emerged from nothing.”

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

Genesis 1:1

First Lemaitre, then Hubble, then scientists at Bell Labs showed empirically that the universe is not ontologically self-sufficient. The universe came into being from something infinitely small. What does infinitely small mean? I'll let cosmologist Alex Vilenkin explain. 
“Imagine “space-time [the matrix we live in] has the surface of a sphere. Now suppose that this sphere is shrinking like a balloon that is losing its air. The radius grows smaller and smaller. Eventually the radius goes all the way to zero. Pause for a moment to think of a sphere whose radius has gone “all the way to zero.” No time. No space. The surface of the sphere disappears completely and with it space-time itself and even the laws of physics. We have arrived at nothingness. We have also arrived at a precise definition of nothingness: a closed space-time of zero radius. This is the most complete and utter nothingness that scientific concepts can capture. It is mathematically devoid not only of stuff but also of location and duration. Nothing is nowhere. It’s not anything like a chunk of vacuum because a chunk of vacuum has extension. It’s not anything like anything. It’s nothing.

Alex Vilenkin

What's a non-believer in the number 4 to do? As many an atheist has said to me, “It's only science. Science can be wrong.” What do the leaders in atheism do when the evidence points to a Creator who brought the universe into existence ex nihilo from literally nothing?

“It's not important to ask why.” Richard Dawkins.

You Don't Have The Right To Exist

When the topic of abortion comes up, many who defend the killing of children bring up the issue of conception via rape.

Of course sexual assault is traumatic. Any type of forced or unwanted sexual intrusion is a violation of one's human dignity. On the other hand, coming to life is not a violation of human dignity. Instead, it's a celebration of human dignity. As the saying goes, 

“If it isn't a human life, you aren't pregnant!”

 

Pregnancy is the most natural and biologically intended consequence of sexual intercourse in every animal alive. Despite that, conception, on average, occurs only once in every seventeen thousand sexual assaults. That it's a relative rarity does not diminish the horror of the event for the victim. But is that the child's fault? Should the child be torn limb from limb or have it's brain sucked out as it exits the vagina because someone else committed the assault? Should life be denied because of the sin that someone else committed?

Many people think so. Many people think that those children, conceived in rape should die.

I have something to say about that. All of our seven adopted children were conceived during drunken encounters. None of them were planned. All but one have sustained permanent brain damage from their mother's drinking while pregnant. They're a load. A load on our marriage, on the school system, the medical system and someday at least one may very well become a load on the justice system. All more than enough reason for some people to say that the lives of these children should have been terminated.

Beyond that, two of my daughters were conceived during sexual assaults. I'm not going to use the usual descriptions (beautiful, intelligent, vibrant etc.) because it implies that if they weren't those things it would somehow change the situation. But I have to tell you, if someone came up to either one of my daughters, looked them in the eye and said that because they were the consequence of rape:

. they don't deserve to live,

. they should have been killed,

. they shouldn't have been born,

. it would have been better for society if they had been aborted because someone sexually assaulted their mothers, I'd be very tempted to lay some hurt on that person.

I'm in a discussion right now with someone who in all probability thinks those very thoughts – about my children! Only in the first trimester of course.

I can't imagine loving these girls any more than I do, and for someone to suggest that they shouldn't exist because of how they started, just as though how they began determines how they'll end, seems like insanity to me. 

When a man is in despair he knows that all his thinking will never get him out, he will only get out by the sheer creative effort of God, consequently he is in the right attitude to receive from God that which he cannot gain for himself. 

Chambers

Is Melinda Gates A Racist?

And if not, what's the difference between her (and those who agree with her birth control agenda) and someone who is a racist?

Here's the issue. The world has too many people. Right?

That's what we hear.

That's what we're told.

That's what Melinda Gates says.

There aren't enough resources on this planet for those of us in developed nations to continue living in absolute unmitigated luxury. Since we don't want to share with the poor from the extreme surplus of what we have, the next best solution, according to secular wisdom is:

Someone has to die.

Babies have to be killed.

Others must stop having children.

Life must be prevented from happening.

But not just any life.

It's people with black skin who must be prevented. Those whose skin is dark must be told to stop creating children.

Since a listener says I'm someone who is blinded by faith and ignorance, let's hear it directly from the founder of Planned Parenthood:

"We should hire three or four coloured ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Margaret Sanger's letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need. We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock." Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review.

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race." Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company.

"Eugenics is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems. Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control." Birth Control Review

Too bad these two women lived so far apart in time. Sounds like they would have gotten along marvellously.

I may be wrong, but it seems that according to Ms. Gates, it's those who look different than the dominant white race that must be prevented from having a family. It's we of the white race, the race that has consumed and often wasted most of the world's resources that want to keep “those other people” from reproducing.

All in the name of doing good – of course. It does cause one to wonder, If a Boy Scout helps an old lady across the street even when she doesn't want to cross the street, is he still doing a good deed? 


I use the Boy Scout analogy because guess what? Those other people don't agree with Ms. Gates. You don't hear claims of overpopulation from those living in the most densely populated parts of the earth. People in China are actually fighting to have more children.

Yet to Melinda the problem is simple to diagnose, and its solution is simple to carry out.

Problem: There's getting to be too many black people using the stuff that we want.

Solution: Limit or reduce the number of black people who exist.

It's the richest of us (and Gates is at the top of that heap) who want to limit the number of those living in countries that we in North America and Europe have traditionally exploited; those in the poorest and most populous nations. It's those of us who use the most resources, practically stolen from the poorest countries, the non white countries, who complain that there are too many of them. Once we've stripped them of material wealth, it's just a small step to tell them they're having too many children.

We're actually helping them. Right, Melinda?

“Where books are burned, they will, in the end, burn people too.”

Heinrich Heine

Female Feticide

That's the term that is used when abortion is used for the sole purpose of killing girls (gender selection) as opposed to killing any child with which the woman is pregnant. The latter is simply called feticide.

It's an interesting term. Don't you think?

I fail to see how it is any different than genocide. Only that the victims are younger and more defenceless with no legal representation or protection.

It does lead to some questions:

. Do we have names for those thousands and thousands of children who are aborted because they have Down's Syndrome, cleft palate or in some other way look different than most of us?

. What would we call it if we witnessed a man (abortionists are almost always men) tearing a six month old baby limb from limb until dead because she had a deformed leg, a wonky eye, a poorly performing heart or a short life expectancy? What would we call that?

. What would we call it if we witnessed a man killing a two month old baby because she had Down's Syndrome?

. What would we call it if we saw a man killing a girl who is thirty seconds old because he liked boys more?

. What would we call it if we saw a man online, killing someone and then dismembering that person's body? How about if it's in the doctor's office and he's doing it at the request of the mother? How about if he's sucking out the baby's brain because the mother changed her mind about having another child?

And that is why the term female feticide so interesting.

. The outrage is not because a human life is being destroyed.

. Any grief expressed is not on behalf of the baby being killed.

. Any law against killing the female child is not because a child's life is being terminated with malice aforethought.

No, the anger of female feticide is on behalf of the woman who didn't want the baby girl destroyed. If she did want to kill the baby, and millions of females are killed through “normal” abortion every year, then all would be well.

. In our schizophrenic society, killing the child because of genetic mutation or physical deformity is fine and dandy.

. In our schizophrenic society, killing the child because it isn't wanted is fine and dandy.

. For some reason we have decided that it's not fine and dandy because of gender selection.

What kind of person tells someone, “I'm going to kill you, I'm going to deny you life because you won't look like I think you should”?

Feticide. Accepted practice as long as you do it for socially accepted reasons.