In my own opinion, Australian Creationist, John Mackay destroys the Professor in this debate. The ultimate question is; how did LIFE come from non-life?!
religion
All posts tagged religion
“The issues which today confront the nation are clearly defined and so fundamental as to
directly involve the very survival of the Republic. Are we going to preserve the religious base to our origin, our growth and our progress, or yield to the devious assaults of atheistic or other anti-religious forces? Are we going to maintain our present course toward State Socialism with Communism just beyond or reverse the present trend and regain our hold upon our heritage of liberty and freedom?”
If the spate of recent terroist attacks in New Jersey and Paris had been committed by those who follow Scientology or Mormonism would there be a parade and a special day declared to honor their religion?! Hold that thought for a moment.
“A Muslim slashed a New York cop with a meat cleaver on September 15. Another Muslim planted bombs in New York and New Jersey; one went off, wounding 29 people in Chelsea on September 17. In response, the city of New York is honoring all the contributions Muslims make to the city. Mayor Bill de Blasio seems to think that his primary responsibility after every jihad attack is to make sure that no one thinks ill of Islam. Stopping jihad attacks? That’s farther down on his list.
The thinking here appears to be that if we welcome Muslims and laud and applaud them, they will not be driven by our unkindness to become “radicalized” and will not join jihad groups. So we should see a dropoff of jihad activity now in New York, with everyone being so nice to Muslims, right?
We’ll see. De Blasio has been mayor for a few years now, and he ended a surveillance program that Muslims hated. That didn’t stop the meat cleaver jihadi or the bomber. I doubt that de Blasio’s scheme will have any success in the future, either.” https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/09/after-two-jihad-attacks-in-nyc-in-september-de-blasio-names-september-25-muslim-parade-day
In this so-called war on terror, who is the enemy? It’s not Islam so-says the politicians and most of those on the left. The politician says it is those extremists who only “think” they are Muslims who commit these acts. Therefore if these extremists are not Muslims what are they? If they are not Muslims what are they “extreme” in? Are they “extreme” in their reading and understanding of the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad or have they converted to Scientology or Mormonism?
So, how do we identify the extremist? Do we wait until they attack and murder or may these “extremists” be identified as they live and move among us?
In these photos which one would you identify as a terroist? Allow me to tell a story. Last year, my wife and I were visiting our daughter in Chattanooga, Tenessee. While we were eating at a restaurant our daughter called and told us to stay where we were as a gunman was out and about shooting military personnel. That gunman was the boy in the red shirt; Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez. From the photo he doesn’t look like a terroist but he was. Firstly he was a Muslim and secondly he hated America and Americans. Of course after the murder of four Marines and a Sailor the psychobabel began and various explanations made to explain why a boy by the name of Mohammad did what he did.
Well, that was last year and so far in 2016 the United States has seen more of the same. Why does it continue? One BIG reason is because the politicians will NOT identify the enemy. Yes, the simple truth is “…you cannot fight effectively unless you can identify your enemies.” http://www.businessinsider.com.au/33-strategies-of-war-you-should-apply-to-everyday-life-2012-5?r=US&IR=T#declare-war-on-your-enemies-2
So, what is the key to beginning to stop these murderous acts of terroism; IDENTIFICATION of the enemy! However, political correctness will keep us vulnerable to more of the same!
“Charles Spurgeon was the premier English preacher in the late 1800s, known as the ‘Prince of Preachers.’ He statement, ‘Of two evils, choose neither’ has been widely quoted by preachers, politicians, and pundits during this political season. However, Spurgeon’s actual quote from The Salt Cellars: A Collection of Proverbs & Quaint Sayingshas nothing to do with voting. It relates to when a Christian is faced with a choice of obvious sins such as lying or stealing–he is to choose neither.
A statement made by Michael Marcavage is often attributed to Spurgeon in an attempt to trash Trump. Marcavage said, “Christians must turn from the endless cycle of voting for the lesser of evils and expecting an unrighteous act to produce a righteous result. From a communist to a cultist, choosing the lesser of two evils is still evil, and never should we do evil that good may come.” The attribution to Spurgeon is used to thump Trump.
Spurgeon declared in his sermon Particular Election: ‘Let us, whenever we shall have the opportunity of using the right of voting, use it as in the sight of Almighty God, knowing that for everything we shall be brought into account, and for that amongst the rest, seeing that we are entrusted with it. And let us remember that we are our own governors, to a great degree, and that if at the next election we should choose wrong governors we shall have nobody to blame but ourselves, however wrongly they may afterwards act, unless we exercise all prudence and prayer to Almighty God to direct our hearts to a right choice in this matter. May God so help us, and may the result be for his glory, however unexpected that result may be to any of us!’
He also said, ‘Discernment is not simply a matter of telling the difference between what is right and wrong; rather it is the difference between right and almost right.’ All men have at times lusted but is a wife to be nonchalant, noncommittal, and nonresistant if her husband watches porn every night? Both are evil, but one is less odious than the other is. No, all sins do not carry the same penalty and are not rated equally offensive. As Spurgeon suggested, discernment is required to differentiate between options–the difference between right and wrong and the difference between wrong and very wrong–ergo, Trump or Clinton!
At the 9/11 terrorist attack, people in the burning Twin Towers had a choice between being burned alive or jumping out the windows. More than 200 people jumped to their deaths. They found themselves in a position where no decision was the “right” decision but had to make a decision. They had to make a choice and they each chose the most preferable one although each decision produced a horrible death. They considered one death less offensive than the other.
John Barber wrote, ‘Imagine our two families are miles from land in a sinking boat. Suddenly, out of the mist, come two boats to save us. One is captained by an adulterer; the other is captained by a thief. Which boat will you get into? You say, ‘Neither one. I’m waiting for the evangelical boat which is captained by a devout Christian who will end abortion.’ I say, ‘You’re kidding, right?’ You reply, ‘Both these guys are reprobates and I’m not going to choose between two evils.’”
“There are no other sane options so which captain do you permit to save you? Of course, you prefer to give your business to a born again, anti-abortionist, conservative, constitutionalist, free enterprise, King James Bible quoting, creationist captain who homeschools his kids and tithes to his local Bible-preaching church. But you don’t have that option and it really doesn’t matter since you are going to drown or be devoured by hungry sharks. You choose the boat that appears to be stronger, safer, and swifter and believe that the character of the captain is irrelevant at this time. However, his ability, his availability, and his agreement to save you are very relevant.
Matt Barber of Barbwire.com wrote, ‘These are perilous times, and we’ve got difficult choices to make. When we’re sinking, sometimes God sends us a boat with a reprobate at the helm. He has a history of doing quite a lot with reprobates.’ That He does.
Many Christians and Conservatives demand perfection but perfection doesn’t exist. Many profess to be principled people who demand a “whole loaf” insisting on getting everythingthey want instead of something. The “half-loafers” see the big picture and are willing to accept small victories always keeping their eyes on their goal. One good example is the Homosexual Lobby. Look where they were only 20 years ago and today they are in the catbird seat. They had one failure after another punctuated occasionally with small victories until they won. Now they have convinced the American people that a hormone-infused teenage boy has the right to ogle nude young girls in bathrooms, shower rooms, etc., and those of us who disagree are brutes, bigots, and bullies! The homosexual crowd accepted less than what they wanted until they got what they wanted.
As a member of the Indiana House of Representatives, I did not always get what I wanted. I never voted for evil but I had to make decisions: a full loaf or half a loaf.
I ask the Never Trumpers and the critics of ‘the lesser of two evil’ principle what a legislator should do when confronted with voting for an imperfect abortion bill as happened in North Carolina.
In the NC legislature, a bill was before the Joint Finance Committee of the House and Senate dealing with abortion funding for poor women. A famous Pro-life leader came to town and convinced the pro-life crowd that they should go for the whole loaf; after all, it was the right thing to do. No abortions. The alternative to the bill was to add an exception for the life of the mother and fetal deformity. The problem was that about 100 babies would be killed if they had a known deformity in the womb. A long-time friend of mine was a full-time lobbyist for the Christian school movement in the state and had the authority to speak for them and the pro-life people. He and another preacher decided to go with the ‘whole loaf’ people who didn’t want any babies killed. They decided that the “lesser of two evils” is still evil.
Senator Harris was manager of the bill and asked my friend and the local pastor in private, ‘Is this what you want me to do? I’ll do whatever you say.’ They told him ‘No exceptions.’ My friend knew they had the votes to pass the bill with the two exceptions that would greatly limit abortions. The Senator followed their admonition and the vote was taken and they lost bigtime. My friend said, ‘I was standing against the concrete wall inside the room and I was sick inside. We had just sounded the death knell for 8,000 babies through tax-funded abortions. I have never gotten over that. We clearly had the power of life and death in our tongues when we talked with Senator Harris. In order to save 100 babies, we sacrificed 8,000 babies.’ I wept when he told me that.
The Christian lobbyist said he can still hear the Senator, a godly Baptist deacon ask, ‘Is this what you want me to do?’ My friend said, ‘It still haunts me to this day.’
He told me, “We tried to respect the position of Christians who would not go the route of the lesser of two evils. We were such nerds! It was the stupidest thing I ever did in my whole life! So, I’ve got a tumor in my soul when it comes to deciding ‘the lesser of two evils.’ I have to be patient with Christians who struggle to escape the ‘lesser of two evils’ dilemma. But there is no escaping it. When that’s what it is, that’s what it is.’ God never promised all our decisions would be easy.
Most people don’t understand that in every election we must choose between the lesser of two evils since no two candidates are equally principled. Our choice is not usually between an openly vile person and a virtuous person who loses his temper at times but between people who in totality are at different places on the general moral spectrum.
I don’t like Trump but I will vote for him even though I’m not sure he is trustworthy; however, I know I can trust Hillary to do what she has always done and she has the cash and consultants if not the character and charisma to actually win the presidency! She will continue America’s slide onto the garbage heap of history so I’ll go with the ‘lesser of two evils’ or ‘half-loaf’ since the other loaf is wormy, worthless, and wicked.” http://donboys.cstnews.com/trump-and-the-fallacy-of-the-lessor-of-two-evils
Last year (2015) my wife and I were in the states visitng family. This visit took us to Chattanooga, TN. While we were there two memorable incidents occurred. In Charleston, 
SC Dylan Roof entered a church where blacks were meeting for prayer and murdered nine people. The other memorable incident took place in Chattanooga. My wife and I were eating at a restaurant and our daughter called us from work and told us to stay where we were as a shooter was on the loose. We later learned it was Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez who murdered one sailor and four Marines.
What I want to bring attention to is what transpired after these events. As far as I can find out not much changed after the Chattanooga murders. ISIS (even though it is not Islamic according to the PC folk) is still doing its thing, Mosques are still open, the Koran is still in print and the Islamic flag still flies.
What occurred after the Charleston murders? The Confederate flag was a point of great controversy!! but nothing Islamic seemed to be a point of contention! Even some statues of Confederate soldiers have been desecraated or removed altogether. http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/24/war-on-the-confederacy-is-a-war-on-the-past/ I do not agree with everything in this article but it is worth reading.
My point to ALL of this is how these two situations were treated so much differently. One would think the Confederate Flag pulled the trigger that killed nine people! While the Muslim boy murders military personnel there is not one word of condemning the Koran or Islam! Something is going on here!
The following video is worth your time to watch and hopefully will help you understand the great heritage one has from being from the South; whether black or white.
http://www.southernheritage411.com/
Well, the issue of two sodomites getting together and calling it marriage is confronting all of us in the face again. Those of the Sodom and Gomorrah lifestyle are almost evangelistic in pushing for the misnomer they call same-sex “marriage”.
In rural New South Wales, Australia “A Dubbo businesswoman and marriage equality advocate has accused the federal government of avoiding action on same-sex marriage, following reports a plebiscite on the issue may be delayed until 2017.”
This annoyed “Local Coffee Co owner Karen Payne, who opposes a plebiscite and subsequent costs, has criticised the delay.
‘The consensus is that marriage equality would pass through the upper and lower house if it went to a vote today,’ Ms Payne said.”
Ms. Payne “…suggested it could take a strike to prompt the politicians into action.”
She told the newspaper, “I sometimes wonder what would happen if all LGBTI people decided to go on strike until the marriage equality issue was resolved,”. http://www.dailyliberal.com.au/story/4113247/mps-do-your-job-payne/?cs=112 I hate to shock Ms. Payne but I think the world would go on in spite of the strike.
Now, of course I don’t for one minute think quoting the Bible to Ms. Payne or others in agreement with her on this sodomite issue will change anything but here goes. Genesis 2:20-24 “And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
The Lord Jesus said in Mathew 19:4-6 “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Then Romans 1:22-27 tells us that “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” Pretty clear, I think!
Then there is 1Corinthians 6:9, 10 “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
I relinquished my government approved religious celebrant’s license several years ago because I knew there would come a time when the government of the day would sanction two sodomites getting together and calling it “marriage”. However, God settled the issue in the beginning of time and no matter what a government or a nation decides I “ought to obey God rather than men.”
Mr. Obama, it is wrong to kill “innocent” people but is it wrong to kill non-Muslims?
Zechariah 2:8 “For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.“
Romans 10:1 “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.”
It seems if you are a white conservative male, you are to keep silent unless asked to speak. Well, “A free speech revolution is just over the horizon. Several recent events are demonstrating that Australians are sick and tired of a political class that gets to decide the limits of public debate and restrict the free flow of ideas. Such a system is anti-democratic, and it is being rejected.
Three key events are shaping the debate on freedom of speech, and in particular, the infamous section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. This insidious provision infantilises Australians by presuming we are all so mentally feeble that the law ought to be used to protect us against being offended or insulted.
Section 18C makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person on the basis of race, colour or national or ethnic origin. This law has been the subject of sustained criticism for its clear restriction on freedom of speech.
The first of the three events that are leading to a growing understanding of the dangers of section 18C has its origins back on May 27, 2013. Alex Wood, then a 20-year-old engineering student at the Queensland University of Technology, was looking for a computer on campus on which to do some study. He found a computer lab and sat down to complete his homework at one of the free terminals.
A short time later, Alex was approached by a university administrator named Cindy Prior, who asked Alex whether he was indigenous. He replied that he wasn’t, and the administrator told him that the computer lab was reserved for indigenous students at the university and asked him to leave. Alex obliged, and went looking for another computer lab in which to complete his work. Once he had found another computer, he logged on to Facebook, and posted about his experience at the indigenous computer lab.
His post on the ‘QUT Stalkerspace’ page read: ‘Just got kicked out of the unsigned indigenous computer room. QUT stopping segregation with segregation.’
Several other students replied to Alex’s post. Prior, upon becoming aware of the post, had the comments scanned and sent them to an equity officer at QUT and asked that action be taken against the students. The officer contacted Alex and asked him to delete the post, to which Alex agreed. When he went back to the page, it had already been removed.
This sequence of events has snowballed into what has become a three-year legal saga. Prior first made a formal complaint to the university, but was not satisfied with the result of that process after a year of negotiating with QUT.
She then made a complaint under section 18C to the Australian Human Rights Commission. The AHRC investigated the matter without notifying the students that a complaint had been made against them. And finally, after the AHRC could not resolve the dispute, Prior lodged an application to the Federal Court of Australia. The case is ongoing and a decision is expected soon on whether it will proceed to trial.
This is not the sign of a healthy, thriving democracy. Students at university should be free to write on Facebook pages without racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, and risking official sanction. This is not acceptable in a liberal democracy based on the rule of law.
But the troubling conduct of the AHRC extends beyond conducting secret trials of university students for making remarks online. Just last week, race commissioner Tim Soutphommasane pleaded with the public to make 18C complaints to the AHRC about a cartoon in this newspaper.
The cartoon, by Bill Leak, depicted an indigenous man who appeared not to know the identity of his own son. There’s no doubt the cartoon was provocative – that’s the role of a
cartoonist. They poke and prod accepted wisdom and social conventions in ways that people can find uncomfortable.
But a government bureaucrat using his position to make public pronouncements about what is acceptable to print in newspapers is intensely, classically undemocratic. And Australians are sick of it. One of those Australians is NSW Liberal Democratic senator David Leyonhjelm, who has shown his 
disdain for 18C by lodging a complaint under the provision he wants to repeal.
Leyonhjelm ignored Soutphommasane’s instructions and instead complained about an article by Fairfax’s Mark Kenny, in which Kenny described Leyonhjelm as an ‘angry white male’.
Leyonhjelm has been open about the fact that he is not offended by the description but that others may be. While there is obviously an element of mockery behind the complaint, the case will be a fascinating glimpse into the thinking of the AHRC, and whether there exist double standards depending on the ethnic group to which potentially 18C-breaching conduct is directed.
The tide is going out on 18C. ‘Offend’ and ‘insult’ must go. Watch this space.” http://ipa.org.au/news/3548/time-to-act:-curbs-on-free-speech-must-go
whatyareckon 