Clickbank Products

Was Jesus invented through ancient myths?

THINK THIS ARGUMENT WORKS? WELL..NOT REALLY!!

Where in the World?

PROOF OF THE REAL MOUNT SINAI IN ARABIA!

The Bible bends all natural laws and rules because it is a supernatural book.
It cannot POSSIBLY be understood by a natural mind focused upon natural understanding. That is what Nicodemus discovered when he came to Christ trying to understand, with a natural mind, supernatural events and teachings.

Because scientists being naturally skeptical, have minds trapped in the box of the five physical senses they cannot focus therefore on the supernatural aspects to understand the biblical 'Birdseye view' of God, who sees things from OUTSIDE time and space, the box that we as finite are limited within .

There was a reason why Jesus said you must be born again. It is a SPIRITUAL rebirth [Both of Mind and Spirit] that is needed to release the hidden evidence of things we cannot witness from inside this physical 'BOX' universe.

I KNOW from personal experience that the Bible is true but I cannot convince you, you must find the truth yourself. THAT'S HOW LIFE WORKS!

Spend less time developing your skeptical natural mind and THAT'S WHAT YOUR DOING, and more time focusing on what Christ taught and you will discover as I have, the truth. You can only interpret the Universe through the shaded lens of your own understanding!
There was an error in this gadget

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Part 6 - My Response to an Atheist Essay! God's Character Defended!

She states about Hell

“However, you don’t have to hurt anyone to get into Hell. All it takes, according to Scripture, is knowing about Jesus and not accepting him as Savior. It doesn’t matter how virtuous you are, how much good you do, how happy an environment you create for others. Given this, the voluntary entry argument doesn’t make sense. 

The same argument could be used to justify the sending of Aryan opponents of Nazism to concentration camps: they voluntarily chose not to give homage to Hitler, so they chose to be interred.  

Why should we blame the Nazis for the inmates’ choice?

Why should we blame God for the choice of the damned?”
  

 Oops, not so fast with that approval clapping........
Of course the FACT that the Jews DID NOT CHOOSE TO BE INTERNED OR TO DIE DOES NOT ENTER HER MIND WHEN MAKING THIS POINTLESS POINT!



Another Technical Foul


 The major difference here is that the Jews were in no way meant to pay homage to Hitler, from the beginning they were to die, his plan was extermination not worship so the analogy is silly at best!


DID THEY GET WHAT THEY WANTED?


 YOU WILL NOTICE HER CHOICE OF AN ANALOGY, SHE EQUATES GOD’S PERFECTLY JUST BALANCES WITH A “CONCENTRATION CAMP and THE SOLDIERS OF HITLER”.

Why? She's building a Straw-man to knock over with common sense!

Because this invokes the worst of memories and causes the mind to attach this horror to what God did concerning Salvation, more to the fine point, HOW SALVATION WORKS. Once you accept this analogy, you have attached a false premise and a sick picture of God all in one!

This argument against the most perfectly JUST and EQUAL PLAN OF SALVATION COULD ONLY COME FROM SATAN HIMSELF! It is an unfair comparison in the least and of no real debate value!






A false conclusion that God is unjust for His actions is what began the birth process of atheism, in Satan's heart n the beginning. Satan at the moment he fell into pride was usurping his lower place in creation and assuming that the God of greater power didn't exist in his heart, that's the true definition of what an Atheist has done!


It is very important to keep that fact in mind.

A conclusion that the Almighty Righteous God is unjust or wrong for any of His actions cannot be arrived at except through the total depravity of those who draw such a conclusion, assuming that God is subject to human frailty and decision making. When the truth is that God's decisions are above reproach.
So in order to understand how atheism had it’s origin, It is crucial to realize that the total depravity of the nature of Satan is the key principle that underlies the origin of atheism.


Satan has CORRUPTED MORAL PRINCIPLES, AND IS DEVOID OF GOOD IN ANY FORM- THEREFORE “HE” IS THE BEGINNING OF THOSE WHO ATTEMPT TO DEFY GOD’S CHARACTER!

Even though the conclusion that God is unjust is a high error and was known as such by Satan, his total depravity nevertheless made it impossible for him to conclude otherwise, when we see God through man's failures GOD LOSES the character battle.

Depravity directs the hearts of its graceless subjects against God even though they know better. This is because of the very diametrical opposition of depravity to God and His Law. 

The nature of both human and demonic depravity is an unvarying and uncompromising principle that works apart from what its subjects know and remains opposed to God at all times despite God’s actions and despite their knowledge that it is impossible for God to be wrong.

The negative expressions of God toward the existence and outworking of the depraved natures of humans and demons is always right, whereas the negative expressions and opposition of the depraved natures of humans and demons toward God are always wrong. 

The very antithetical nature of the depravity of graceless humans and demons invariably enslaves them to react negatively to God regardless of what God does. Therefore, their depravity reacts negatively to God, despite the fact that God can never do evil and despite the fact that He is always perfectly innocent.

Here lies also the origin of insanity, WHICH MEANS TO BE TRAPPED IN A CYCLE OF DOING THE SAME THING OVER and OVER AGAIN EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT. Atheists use the same lame reasoning against God over and over with the same results, but never see the circular reasoning as wrong.

In order for Satan to have endeavored to judge God, there had to be in place some type of opinion, philosophy, religion, charter or law by which he used to try to judge God.
But God is not subject to anything. Nothing exists whatsoever that God is subject to or responsible to obey except his own word. 

THIS REMINDS ME OF THE FUNNIEST ARGUMENT AGAINST GOD BEING GOD, I HAVE EVER HEARD.

“Who created God? 

A super God, and who created the super God?

A super,super God?




AS IF THIS WAS A SERIOUS BLOW, TO GIVE THE “I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I? “DEFENSE! 

God is not subject, SITUATED OR PLACED UNDER HIS OWN LAW even to the most noble law in the universe – the TEN COMMANDMENTS- which He made for mankind, nor to any law made for the angels. He is above all laws and does only His own will staying in perfect alignment with his word.

Why?

If this were true that ANYTHING IS ABOVE GOD, GOD CEASES TO BE GOD- THEREFORE THERE IS NO GOD AURGUMENT!

GOD’S LAW IS A REFLECTION OF HIS PERSONAL MORAL CHARACTER, GOD has Moral sense, an innate or natural sense of right and wrong; an instinctive perception of what is right or wrong in moral conduct, which approves some actions and disapproves others. This is HOW God intended Adam and Eve to find our about sin and NOT by experiencing it first hand!

God’s WILL IN THE UNIVERSE ALWAYS FOLLOWS HIS LAW, BUT BECAUSE WE ARE “FINITE IN UNDERSTANDING” WE DO NOT HAVE THE BIG PICTURE AS HE DOES SO WE “MISUNDERSTAND” HIS CHOICES IN CONNECTION WITH HIS LAW BECAUSE WE ONLY SEE IN PART AND KNOW IN PART.

So there is no law He can possibly violate by any of His actions. Therefore, He cannot be rightly judged to be wrong in any action He performs.

I can hear the Atheist now, “What? so God is not held to his law”? NO THAT’S NOT QUITE WHAT I MEAN BY THIS, YOU SEE..GOD IS THE MOST ADVANCED MORAL PERSON EVER TO BE, SO HE HOLDS HIMSELF TO HIS OWN STANDARDS BECAUSE HE IS THE SOURCE OF ALL MORALITY.


An example of this is found in 
Heb 6:13


“For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he swore by himself,…….

Heb 6:16
“For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.”

Heb 6:17

“Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

Heb 6:18 

“That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us”

God is the LAW, THAT ALL LAWS PROCEED FROM.

The only choices Satan had by which to seek to judge God were in some form of his own depravity – Either choice would be the evil one attempting to judge the Righteous One – evil trying to condemn the righteousness as being evil – an impossibility and absolute deception.

But he probably chose the latter so as to make God deceptively appear wrong by His own Law. Again, an impossibility and absolute deception. This was the actual deceptive and utterly foolish birth of atheism. Atheism didn’t receive its origin by a true absence of proof of God’s existence, because there has always been and always will be overwhelming proof to the contrary, it came from viewing God's character from a depraved heart.

Atheism had its origin by the expression of Satan’s depravity toward God, and it is embraced, maintained and perpetuated among graceless humans as a result of their total depravity. In other words, atheists follow in the footsteps of their master, the devil WHOM THEY DENY.

Now I will deal with the silliness of attacking salvation’s “ENTRANCE FEE! 

She said ONE TRUTH HERE THAT NEEDS REPEATING:

“All it takes, according to Scripture, is knowing about Jesus and not accepting him as Savior.” 

This is absolutely TRUE EXCEPT FOR THE KNOWING PART; IT’S INTIMATE PERSONAL INTERACTION OR NOTHING WITH GOD, the ONLY thing standing between you and hell is JESUS!

THAT’S HOW GOD PLANED IT AND IT IS THE SINGLE MOST FAIR WAY THAT HAS EVER BEEN DEVISED TO REDEEM MANKIND FROM HIMSELF AND SIN!
PLEASE, THINK FOR A MOMENT HERE…HOW COULD IT EVER BE FAIR TO JUDGE MAN ANY OTHER WAY?

 
John 3:14-21 SAYS:

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. “

{ Did you hear that, NO PERSONAL SIN SENDS YOU TO HELL- ONLY NOT RECEIVING JESUS IN YOUR LIFE, it cannot get any simpler than this yet Atheists seem to think its not that simple, it must be harder some how! }

“And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men { Atheist’s} loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.  For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.”

Now why is this such a sticking point to the Atheist?

In their thinking it is UNJUST TO SEND US TO TORMENT BECAUSE OF A PERSONAL CHOICE IN LIFE AND THAT WOULD MAKE ALL THE FUSS OVER SINS THAT WE COMMIT AGAINST GOD- DISPROVED!
SO THAT WE CAN DO AS WE PLEASE WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES!

That is a FALSE CONCLUSION, SALVATION’S ENTRANCE FEE IS FAITH IN HIS SON [ THE DOOR] BUT PERSONAL SIN “STORES UP WRATH”AGAINST THAT DAY OF JUDGMENT, WHEN GOD WILL JUDGE THE WORKS OF MEN TO DETERMINE THEIR “AMOUNT OF TORMENT WHICH THEY NOT HE HAS STORED UP TO THEMSELVES FOR ETERNITY! 

This is an equitable judgment, for you are NEVER PUNISHED BEYOND YOUR OWN CHOICE- IN LIFE OR IN DEATH! Its simple and Just no matter how men misapply it to life lived in sin.
If the entrance to heaven were by virtue of PERSONAL RIGHTEOUSNESS, NO ONE COULD EVER BE GOOD ENOUGH TO GET IN….AND IF THE ENTRANCE TO HELL WERE SIMPLY BASED ON PERSONAL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS NO ONE COULD EVER AVOID GOING THERE, BUT GOD MADE IT SIMPLE TO AVOID HELL AND SIMPLE TO GO TO HEAVEN- whay more do you want?

Atheist’s SIMPLY DON’T LIKE THE CHOICES so they wish to create a THIRD OPTION TO PARADISE: EAT OR BE EATEN AND NOT EVERYONE CAN MAKE IT! Evolutionary salvation is one of the most unjust and unfair ways to get ahead in life that could ever have been devised by man, but yet they accuse God of the terrible crime when its their hearts that block the way and not God!

THEIR PARADISE IS 'THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE' WHERE THE WEAK ARE FOOD FOR THE STRONG!

BUT I ASK YOU, WHAT DO ANIMALS NEED WITH LOGIC IN A WORLD LIKE THAT?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please, if you are a skeptic, DO NOT swear or name call, if you cannot be civil then your comment will not be seen. If your evidence is that weak, then my point is made before you comment!

Popular Posts

About Me

My photo

Before you look at the links below know this about me, I do not know everything about anything, I know only what God has revealed to me.

Proving God exists CANNOT be done for the person who is not open to hearing and seeing the evidence as God sees it. Faith is the KEY to releasing all the evidence contained in creation, in man's heart and his mind. Without FAITH no one can ever please God so to throw away faith as unimportant destroys our receptivity to the evidence!

I was a hypocrite, a sinner and a fool, sometimes even as a believer but as long as God is in control I'm forgiven and healed of every form of human shortcoming. Nothing can stand before the evidence contained in Faith.....NOTHING!


LEARN MORE ABOUT ME AND MY MINISTRY HERE!

http://hopefromdispair.blogspot.com/

http://skepticalofskepticism.blogspot.com/

http://truthinprophecy.blogspot.com/

http://affiliatesgoldenchest.blogspot.com/

http://endwashingtonwaste.blogspot.com/

http://alltheusefulidiots.blogspot.com/
WebRep
Overall rating
 

It Stands Unrefuted by Scientists ANYWHERE!


The following reports are in one of three formats. To view the ones in PDF format, use
Adobe Acrobat Reader. To view the ones in RTF format, you may use MS Word.

Reports Dealing with Radiohalos

  1. Gentry, R.V. 1968. "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos." Science 160, 1228. HTML PDF
  2. Gentry, R.V. 1970. "Giant Radioactive Halos: Indicators of Unknown Alpha-Radioactivity?" Science 169, 670. HTML PDF
  3. Gentry, R.V. 1971. "Radiohalos: Some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radioactivity." Science 173, 727. PDF
  4. Gentry, R.V. 1973. "Radioactive Halos." Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23, 347. PDF
  5. Gentry, R.V. 1974. "Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Science 184, 62. HTML PDF
  6. Gentry, R.V. 1975. Response to J.H. Fremlin's Comments on "Spectacle Halos." Nature 258, 269.
  7. Gentry, R.V. 1977. "Mystery of the Radiohalos." Research Communications NETWORK, Breakthrough Report, February 10, 1977. HTML PDF
  8. Gentry, R.V. 1978a. "Are Any Unusual Radiohalos Evidence for SHE?" International Symposium on Superheavy Elements, Lubbock, Texas. New York: Pergamon Press. PDF
  9. Gentry, R.V. 1978b. "Implications on Unknown Radioactivity of Giant and Dwarf Haloes in Scandinavian Rocks." Nature 274, 457. HTML PDF
  10. Gentry, R.V. 1978c. "Reinvestigation of the α Activity of Conway Granite." Nature 273, 217. HTML PDF
  11. Gentry, R.V. 1979. "Time: Measured Responses." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 60, 474. PDF RTF
  12. Gentry, R.V. 1980. "Polonium Halos." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 61, 514. HTML PDF
  13. Gentry, R.V. 1982. Letters. Physics Today 35, No. 10, 13.
  14. Gentry, R.V. 1983a. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 4, 3.
  15. Gentry, R.V. 1983b. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 11, 124.
  16. Gentry, R.V. 1984a. "Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science 1, 38. HTML PDF
  17. Gentry, R.V. 1984c. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 4, 108.
  18. Gentry, R.V. 1984d. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 12, 92.
  19. Gentry, R.V. 1987a. "Radioactive Halos: Implications for Creation." Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II, 89. HTML
  20. Gentry, R.V. 1998. "Fingerprints of Creation." Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12, 287. HTML
  21. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1973. "Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Pb Isotope Ratios and Search for Isomer Precursors in Polonium Radiohalos." Nature 244, 282. HTML PDF
  22. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1974. "'Spectacle' Array of Po-210 Halo Radiocentres in Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical Enigma." Nature 252, 564. HTML PDF
  23. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1976a. "Radiohalos and Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification." Science 194, 315. HTML PDF

Reports Dealing with Helium and Lead Retention in Zircons

  1. Gentry, R.V. 1984b. "Lead Retention in Zircons" (Technical Comment). Science 223, 835.
  2. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982a. "Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Science 216, 296. HTML PDF
  3. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982b. "Differential Helium Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Geophysical Research Letters 9, 1129. HTML PDF

Reports Dealing with Astronomy and Cosmology

  1. Gentry, R. V. 1997. "A New Redshift Interpretation." Modern Physics Letters A, Vol. 12, No. 37, 2919. (This paper was also posted in 1998 on the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: astro-ph/9806280.) HTML PDF
  2. Gentry, R. V. 1998. "The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: gr-gc/9806061. HTML PDF
  3. Gentry, R. V. 1998. "The New Redshift Interpretation Affirmed." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: physics/9810051. HTML PDF
  4. Gentry, R. V. 2003. "Discovery of a Major Contradiction in Big Bang Cosmology Points to the New Cosmic Center Universe Model." CERN Preprint, Ext-2003-021. HTML PDF
  5. Gentry, R. V. 2003. "New Cosmic Center Universe Model Matches Eight of Big Bang's Major Predictions Without the F-L Paradigm." CERN Preprint, Ext-2003-022. PDF
  6. Gentry, R. V. 2004. "Collapse of Big Bang Cosmology and the Emergence of the New Cosmic Center Model of the Universe." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 56, 4. HTML PDF

The first three astronomy and cosmology papers may also be obtained by going to the the web sites of either Los Alamos National Laboratory or arXiv.org. arXiv.org is currently adminstered by Cornell University.

NOTE: For more information about the Big Bang's fatal flaws and "The Great 21st Century Scientific Watergate," please check out our sister site, www.orionfdn.org.

1987 Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences

  • Our open letter of March 24, 1987, to Dr. Frank Press, president of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Press claimed that "evidence for creationism" has been scientifically invalidated, though he well knew this has not been the case for the polonium-halo evidence. Our letter once again requests him and other evolutionists to publicly explain how the polonium-halo evidence for creation has indeed been invalidated, this time on April 13 at the University of Tennessee. We suggest that Dr. Stephen Gould be the first one to speak on behalf of the academy, given his strong language denouncing the term, "creation science." HTML GIF

  • Our Knoxville Sentinel ad on April 12, 1987, announcing our presentation on the evening of the 13th at the University of Tennessee. Included in the ad was a copy of the above open letter to Dr. Press. HTML GIF

  • A press release from the Society for Creation Science, announcing the reading of Dr. Press's written reply that evening, April 13, 1987, at the University of Tennessee. HTML GIF

Year 2000 Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences
  • Our letter of March 22, 2000, to Dr. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Alberts claimed that evidence for special creation has been experimentally falsified.

  • This letter requests the Academy to publicly explain at Wichita State University on March 30, 2000, why it has chosen to reject the published evidence for the Genesis creation, evidence which after more than twenty-five years still stands unrefuted in the open scientific literature. HTML

Did you know that scientific evidence abounds to support the biblical accounts of creation and the flood?

Were you aware that reports outlining this evidence passed peer review, and were published in the open scientific literature?

Have you heard that, decades later, this evidence still stands unrefuted by the scientific community?






Watch a real debate about God right here!

Professors Richard Dawkins and John Lennox go head-to-head once again for another remarkable match of intellect.
This time, the same two Oxford Professors who debated in Birmingham's 'God Delusion' Debate are at it again on their home turf at the site of the famed 1860 Evolution debate between Huxley and Wilberforce.