Monthly Archives: June 2013

Mormon Racism Revisited or Simply Revised

Thirty-five years ago one Mormon “prophet” decided to capriciously make a liar out of an earlier Mormon “prophet.”

In June 1978, Spencer W. Kimball, then President of the Mormon Church, decided to lift the ban on all black persons, thereby allowing them to be participants in the pseudo-priesthood of Mormonism.

The move by Kimball effectively made a false prophet out of the second President of Mormonism, Brigham Young, who declared that the negro would not be eligible for the Mormon priesthood until all the white guys, or descendents from Abel, received their priesthood blessings first.

Today, several are reminiscing on Kimball’s declaration, but by-and-large are completely ignoring that several of the doctrines which led to the banishment of blacks in the first place are still in effect in Mormonism.

For instance, the whole goofy idea that everyone lived in a pre-mortal spiritual state, having been conceived through some kind of sexual union between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, is still actively promoted among Mormons.

Then, there is the fictitious war that supposedly broke out in heaven, when Satan got all upset over HF accepting Jesus’ plan (Satan’s “spirit-brother”), rather than his to redeem mankind, who had not even fallen yet.

The war in heaven is really about another pagan idea that is bandied about in many Evangelical circles, and that is “Free Will.”  Mormons believe that Satan wanted to vanquish man’s free will to choose and simply save everyone.

Jesus, on the other hand, wished to protect human free will, and let men go to hell (or heaven), if they so chose.  HF was at the mercy of the sinner, waiting for him to make up his mind, rather than the sinner being at the mercy of HF.

All of the foregoing translated into a very bad plot for the negro.  Because, the negro was not always black.  His black skin is part of a curse placed on him when he did not fight valiantly for God during the war in heaven.

President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote,

There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages.  The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there.  Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:61).

Shortly thereafter he would conclude, “The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits” (ibid., 1:66).


But, it doesn’t stop there.  Since all the unfaithful, less-than-valiant,” spirits were now cursed with black skins when they came to earth, they exacerbated their plight by coming through the lineage of Cain.

Cain was white, who turned black, when he killed his white brother, Abel.  In fact, he apparently changed his race due to his indiscretion as well.

The “mark” (Gen. 4:15) that God placed on him for his murder has been interpreted by Mormons, and many Evangelicals, to be a black skin, even though there is nothing in the biblical text to warrant such a conclusion.

Of course, the Mormon hierarchy has tried to put a racial band-aid on the specious conclusion by saying that the negro is only being punished for the actual sins he did commit, which were committed where?  Why, in heaven, in the pre-mortal state, eons ago!

But, in 1978, all things changed, with the exception of one thing.  At that time the black man could receive all that Brigham Young said he could, but he retained the “mark:” his black skin.

According to the Book of Mormon, when the black man, or Gentile and a black man, received the Mormon gospel and repented, “their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people” (2 Nephi 30:6, 1830 edition).

In other words, those of Cain’s descendents would revert back to being “white and delightsome,” rather than cursed and “disadvantaged.”

Yet, there remains an untold number of black men and women in Mormonism, the former of which are now priesthood holders.  So, what happened?

What happened is that the whole racist story about the negro’s curse leading up to the ban was found to be bogus, just like everything else in Mormonism, and those same negroes are either spiritually duped (just like anyone else who might buy in Mormonism), ignorant of Mormon history and doctrine, or they simply have no idea what the Bible teaches.

There was no pre-mortal existence where a male deity copulated with a female deity to create “spirit babies.”

There was no war in heaven, since the biblical passage which speaks of a war in heaven is yet to come (Rev. 12:7).  Moreover, Satan has not been cast out of heaven.  That is yet to come as well (Rev. 12:10).

There was no council held in heaven to debate the merits of who had the better plan of salvation.  That is something that is of God, solely, and is non-negotiable or debatable.

The whole free-will doctrine nonsense that Mormons espouse is fraught with one biblical and logical inconsistency after another.  Not only does it put God at the mercy of fallen man, it actually exalts fallen man to the place of God, which is what the serpent tempted Eve with in the Garden of Eden.

As already noted, a man’s skin color has nothing to do with the fantasy story told by the Mormons.  It especially had nothing to do with the serpent seed doctrine that Mormons like to hang their hats upon, much less Cain’s murder of his brother Abel.

Men and women have a particular skin color because of God’s providential creation of them, and skin color has nothing to do with moral innocence or culpability.

That said, the whole “The black man has to wait until whitey gets his first” is not only extremely offensive, regardless of whether or not a person is a Christian.  It is purely diabolical.

Sin is what separates men from men, and men from God.  It’s not their skin color.  Moreover, it is God’s grace that unites men with men, and men to God.  It’s not their self-righteous actions leading to a change of skin color to “white and delightsome.”

So, thirty-five years have now past since one false Mormon prophet exposed another false Mormon prophet over the race issue.  Several will talk all around what led the Mormons to their conclusions, with very few addressing what remains in Mormonism and just how racist it remains.

Because if those doing the talking actually did get into the nitty-gritty of thinking hard about history and beliefs, then they would soon find that they either had to conclude that the Mormon Church is not doing anyone a favor by hiding behind a facade of prophetic revelation and human sensitivity or that the pundits, writers, and those doing the opining were complicit in promoting false beliefs and racism themselves.

For those who do address Mormonism as the continuing racist entity that it is, and do so by intelligently pointing out the history and beliefs inherent in Mormonism which led to their conclusion, all that can be said is “thank you.”  You are few and far between.

Not only do you do the human race a service by exposing the falsehoods as they are, you are to be commended for revisiting the darkness of Mormon racism and the continuing blight it is up society, and not attempting to revise it by bringing it up and failing to expose it for just how ugly it is and why.


Filed under Mormonism, Racism

Are the Political Alternatives Really Alternatives?

Every day, it seems, one can turn on the radio or the television and hear some talking head railing on his opponent or an opponent’s political ideology.  Ultimately the target at the end of the day is none other than the illustrious President of the United States, Barak Obama (aka Barry Soetero).

Then if the media pundits are not enough, then the politicians themselves get in on the fray, acting like rock stars when a microphone is stuck in their face, they rip and tear at those across the isle, some of which almost seems genuine.

But, when all the air in room has been used up at the end of the day, one is left wondering just what was accomplished, and, just what alternatives were offered that were really any different between the disputing parties.

Liberals tend to want to take everyone’s goods and spread them around to everyone else, regardless of whether they deserve them or not, thereby making people dependent upon the Liberals for handouts to survive.  Conservatives tend to want to enslave people in their own way by hoarding the profits at the expense of hiring more slaves.

Then in between there are all the remaining ideologies which are varying shades of the Liberalism and alleged Conservatism, each of which have their axes to grind as well.

Does anyone really know what’s going on?  Does anyone really care?  Or is all of this bantering, bickering, blustering just for show?  It is obvious that all the talk-show pinheads love it, because it gives them something to stir up their listeners, and make money.

It is obvious that many of the politicians love it, because it keeps them in office.  Plus, the feeling of power must be intoxicating to many of them.

But, once again, what really gets accomplished?  Are the alternatives being offered to solve problems really alternatives at all?  My conclusion is that they are not, which is why we keep seeing this continued downward spiral in morals and ethics among the politicians and the media.

From a Christian perspective, there is God’s way, and then there’s everything else.  Although many Conservatives and Christians wish to confuse the two, Conservatism and Christianity, the reality is they are mutually exclusive.  Most so-called Conservatives are no more Christian in their outlook on the world than are the Liberals.

Oh, they may be Catholic, Southern Baptist, or Assemblies of God, but that doesn’t make them any more Christian than if they were Metropolitan Community Church, Mormon, or Unitarian Universalist.

The label “Christian” is typically tacked on to the Conservative moniker to try and bolster the latter’s image.  But, a label that is devoid of substance is a fraud, and there are a lot of bogus “Christian Conservatives.”

The Bible says, “Let the redeemed of the Lord say so, Whom He has redeemed from the hand of the adversary” (Ps. 107:2).

If these talking heads, politicians, and media types really want to offer alternatives to what the other side is supposedly preaching—and they wish to be known as Christians—then let them say so.

Let us hear an exegetically sound alternative streaming forth from their mouths, instead of all the him-hawing around and speaking with forked tongues.

Otherwise, why should anyone not assume that amid all the special guests, extremist anomalies, and glaring problems, that those on both sides of the political/ideological spectrum are actually on the same side, dividing the American household until it is totally obliterated?

There are Christians and then there is everyone else.  Let the redeemed of the Lord say so, and then begin providing real alternatives to the ideas, that, left to fester among the political and media pundits, will only serve to destroy us.

1 Comment

Filed under Barak Obama, Politics, Radio & Television, Social Issues, The Media

Watching Mormonism Impode Upon Itself

Be prepared in the coming months for a visit from the Mormons (i.e. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).  Why?

Because of the desperate measures taken in the past few months by the Church hierarchy to curb the declining number of “missionaries,” there are going to be a greater number of them wandering neighborhoods, like yours, pestering people.

About eight months ago Mormon officials noted the decline in its volunteer “missionary” ranks from the mid-2000s and reduced the age requirements for anyone wishing to slave labor for the church on their own dime.

Whereas males had to be at least 19 years-old previously to apply to become a “missionary,” now the age limit is 18.  For the females, the age was dropped from 21 to 19.

That change has increased the ranks of Mormon “missionaries” by about 38 % reports the Deseret News, a Mormon news outlet.

But, what is this really saying about the health of Mormonism itself?  That it is on the increase or that it is imploding upon itself?

Initial assumptions are that more “missionaries” means more converts and better retention.  On the other hand, I will argue that it is the latter, mainly because Mormonism has always been a house divided against itself, and Jesus said that such edifices cannot stand (Matt. 12:25).  Let me explain.

Mormonism’s theological base is rooted, at best, in liberalism with a thin veneer of pseudo-conservative moral and ethical values to palliate the general public.

Liberalism has historically rejected biblical inerrancy and authority, which in turn leads to a wishy-washy human ethic where personal feelings become the sole arbiters of the truth.

Mormonism is all about feelings when it comes to anything.  If it feels good, then it must be good, of the Holy Ghost, and true .  If it feels bad, then it must be bad, evil, or false.

Joseph Smith completely rejected the idea that the Bible was God’s inerrant word to man, that He providentially preserved in writing, and would use as not only the guideline for human conduct, but eventually future judgment.

Smith even went so far as to almost completely revamp the biblical text to preserve what he thought God should have said, not what He did say.  It is called the Joseph Smith Translation.

When Smith rejected biblical authority and created the Book of Mormon to fill in the holes created by such a rejection, a virtual Pandora’s Box was opened which revealed one perversion after another.

God is an exalted man and men could become gods.  Men were damned if they didn’t practice polygamy, even though that was later glossed over because the U.S. Government intervened.  The dead could become gods by proxy baptism and a visit from the Mormon “missionaries” in Spirit Prison Hell.  And so on and so forth.

It was a Liberal’s dream come true!  In fact, few Liberals have been as creative as Joseph Smith and Mormonism when it comes to creating a caricature of Christianity.

Yet, caricatures are inherently flawed, some more so than others, and always crumble into nothing when the real McCoy comes along to expose them.

Mormonism over the recent years has tried to repair the cracks in the dam that is about to break with one public relations campaign after another, starting with the “Manifesto” signed by Wilford Woodruff repealing polygamy among Mormons, which was, and remains, nothing but a farce.

Add to that blacks in the priesthood, Mormon “missionaries” toting and giving out Bibles, (rather than a Book of Mormon), revisions in the Book of Mormon to hide discrepancies, a complete revamping of the Mormon Endowment Ceremony, the gay marriage debacle and Proposition 8, the homosexual controversy and Boy Scouts, and now the policy change in age requirements among “missionaries, among a longer list of other PR moves, and I think you get the drift.

Also, to try and prop up the Mormon image, many Mormons headed off to prestigious schools to get degrees in theology and philosophy, to compete in the scholastic world of ideas.

Mormon graduates from Oxford, Duke, Harvard, and Yale, and others recognized among the elite, pepper the landscape, as they skew biblical theology and morality with their liberal educations dressed upon in conservative parlance.

Mormonism is a house of cards imploding upon itself.  Although it tries to outwardly show everyone just how “conservative” it is, inwardly it is liberal and a mess.

This latest effort to clean up that mess, by placing wet-behind-the-ears boys and girls on more people’s front doors to tell them things that are patently uninformed, misinformed, or just downright ignorant, is simply more evidence of that implosion.

Does this mean that eventually Mormonism will completely collapse and no longer be recognizable one day?  Not necessarily.  Anyone who has ever seen an imploded building still know what it was before it came crashing to the ground.  The same will be with Mormonism.

Mormonism may completely implode, but given the hard-heartedness of its leaders, they will still try to make people believe that the rubble is of the finest architecture.

That because they vote Republican, then surely they must be Christian.  And sadly, many will continue to buy into that Mormon rationale.

In the meantime, be waiting for a visit from your friendly neighborhood Mormon “missionary” clearing house.

If you’re prepared, it could be a grand opportunity to take these children sacrificed to Molech and influence them for good.

Perhaps, at least some of them can be rescued from the impending implosion, even though those in the Mormon hierarchy don’t seem to realize that the roof is about to come crashing down on them.


Filed under Mormonism

Bigots calling others bigots

It is common parlance these days for many to label others unjustly for something that whomever does not like personally.  If so and so isn’t a “hater,” then they’re a “racist.”  And if so and so isn’t a “racist,” then they’re “intolerant,” “narrow-minded,” or God-forbid, a “Bible thumper.”

One thought-stopping label that has been pinned on me, particularly by Mormon and Muslim polemicists who cannot argue their position, is the word “bigot.”  In fact, one militant Mormon bravely decided not to include his name on a blog he specifically created to demonize everyone he just did not like.  What was the title of his blog?  The Online Bigot’s Watch.  Now, there’s nothing bigoted about doing something like that, is there?

The Online Bigot’s Watch is a personal ax-grinding blog that was created back in 2007.  A militant Mormon, who went by the screen name “oceancoast” in an online Mormon forum, capriciously decided one day he had enough of all the exposure that critics of Mormonism were leveling against it, and so he decided he was going to settle the issue once and for all.  He was going to become the self-appointed, “Exposer of all Bigotry” (his words, not mine; check out labels at the end of each individual post he made).

So, he set up his blog, and started labeling as many people as he thought, or had come into contact with, were “bigots,” by his own standard.

According to “oceancoast,”

“Bigotry can mean different things to different people. The definition for bigotry that we’ll use on this site is ‘a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.” Bigotry can come in the form of racism, religious intolerance, sexual orientation intolerance, or even political intolerance. It is way too prevelant in our society today, and I hope that this blog will start a discussion on the topic and raise the level of discourse on the web.”

Please note that prejudice involves rendering a judgment before the facts are known, or something that “oceancoast” never proved he possessed when he set out on what really amounted to a libel mission to smear as many people as he could with his skewed definition.

In fact, it was because certain individuals on the list were prepared with the facts about Mormonism that they ended up on his list.

And just who some of those informed about Mormonism that ended up on this Mormon bigot’s list?

James Walker, President of Watchman Fellowship, who just happens to be a former Mormon, and has done an excellent job over the years of exposing Mormonism to be the fraud that it is.

Dr. Robert Jeffress, Senior Pastor at the First Baptist Church in Dallas, who said publicly that Mormonism is not Christian and then correctly labeled it a “cult.”

Myself, Paul Derengowski, founder of the Christian Apologetics Project, formerly known as Apologetics Online.  Not only have I spent over three decades studying and writing about Mormonism and the cults, my website is heavily documented with primary sources to validate every argument against Mormon claims that it is a Christian representative.  It is a cult, just like Walker, Jeffress, et al, have concluded, and that regardless of the number of Mormon blogs that have been or will be set up to defame, personally, those brave enough to say so.

Some nebulous girl/woman by the name of “Jennifer,” that “oceancoast” culled the Web in search of information, that is no longer available, because she said something critical about Mormonism.

Finally, San Francisco performer, Paul Addis (who is now deceased after committing suicide in 2012) and entertainer, Kathy Griffin.  In neither case are the links on the illustrious blog working which “oceancoast” used to demonize either person.

That’s the sum total of this now defunct blog that some continue to see.  It is also the kind of bigotry that other bigot’s link to, to try and demonize or defame any of those listed above.

The Mormon bigot, “oceancoast,” fell on his own sword when he created his blog, and everyone who cites it, for the express purpose of prejudicially libeling others, also impale themselves as well.

Not only was everything he wrote skewed to misrepresent or demonize, “the exposer of all bigotry” became exposed.  It has now been six years since he set out to free the world from untoward thoughts about Mormonism; it has been six years since he last contributed anything to his effort.  Who knows?  Maybe by falling on his sword, he’s now dead as well.

So, if you’re into calling people racists, haters, or bigots, as the means to justify whatever it is that you think needs justification, please be warned.  Those kinds of thought-stoppers or that kind of name-calling is only a reflection of the kind of person YOU are.  You ARE the racist.  You ARE the hater.  You ARE the bigot.

It’s always better to argue based on what you think are the merits of your case, than to engage in prejudicial bigotry and then accuse others of it.  And if you cannot argue the merits, then either (1) re-think what it is that you supposedly believe, or (2) be quiet.

Dying for a lie and playing the part of a bigot in the process are not virtues in life.  If you think otherwise, then go ahead and set up your own blog, and do what “oceancoast” did, and see how long you last.  He didn’t.  Why assume, as a bigot, that you would?

1 Comment

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Cults & Cultism, Hate Speech, Mormonism

Having my own PIG

The Internet can be a wonderful thing in many ways.  Since its advent in the mid-1990s it has grown to become a source of information, community connection, and has made the world a lot smaller place.

Yet, although the Internet can be wonderful, it still contains a lot of darkness.  Mainly because there are some very dark individuals who lurk on the Internet to carry out their diabolical deeds.  They are what I call the Psychotic Internet Groupies (PIG for short).  Their whole mission is to harass, malign, and libel people they just don’t like for whatever specious reason.

Recently I’ve become aware that I have my very own PIG following me around.  It goes by a variety of pseudonyms (false names or sock-puppets): “Aron Nimozovitsch,” “Willard Gibbs,” or “Charles Berlitz,” have been its latest inventions.

My PIG’s whole agenda is to try and discredit or demean me because of what took place at Tarrant County College back in November 2011.  What the PIG does is selectively link to articles on the Internet which are, let’s just say, less than accurate in their reporting.

The PIG does this by placing them alongside comments I’ve made elsewhere on the Net in reference to stories or subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with TCC.

For example, the PIG recently stalked and then linked The Collegian’s (TCC’s college newspaper) article “Instructor’s classroom ‘hostile,’ district report finds” to a comment section on another site dealing with several counties in the State of Colorado, one of which I used to live in, and their consideration of seceding from Colorado.

Within moments of doing the PIG’s psychotic deed, it copied and pasted the very same smear attempt elsewhere which dealt with the atheists successful putting of a granite monument alongside a monument dedicated to the Ten Commandments in Florida.

In neither instance did what happened at TCC have anything to do with the subjects.  The PIG just thought it was cute to keep up it’s misinformed campaign of deception and demonization.

What the PIG conveniently fails to do is point out the lengthy rebuttal to the Executive Summary of Inquiry which clearly (1) rebuts The Collegian article, and shows (2) no investigation took place leading up to the libelous charge made by the TCC administration, and (3) the administration completely blew-off student complaints and grievances filed against the administration and the two Muslim students (Randa Bedair and Mohamad Khorchid).

There are at least 115 discrepancies, lies, distortions, conflations, and anachronisms in the 10 pages that TCC produced as a result of its non-”investigation.”  It is those facts that one does not find in The Collegian‘s article, nor in the PIG’s selective linking to it.

The TCC administrators, like so many today in our politically correct, we’re scared spitless of the Muslim world, listened only to Randa and Mohamad, and no one else.

Yet, idiots like the PIG want everyone to believe that the professor created the “hostile learning environment,” when the PIG wasn’t even there that night—just like The Collegian editor wasn’t, the Star-Telegram, nor the TCC administrators weren’t—and it refuses to include all the evidence and the testimony.

Such is what makes the Internet a dark place, at times, when the PIG can wobble around and hide behind faulty screen names and misinformation, all in an effort to further hide the truth and maliciously destroy whomever to satisfy it’s psychopathy.

Well, Mr./Ms. PIG, you’re not going to silence me, and the truth will eventually destroy you.  Given your style, I have a pretty good idea who you really are, which is why you choose to remain in the dark regarding your real identity.  So be it.

Just remember, if the day comes when you are found out, the same mercy you’ve extended toward me will be returned likewise.  Then we’ll see just how much your Oxford credentials and Humanly Father come to your aid.  You’ll also get to enjoy the wonderful side of the Internet, as you’re exposed for the Psychotic Internet Groupie that you are.

Leave a comment

Filed under Angela Robinson, Barbara Coan, Bill Coppola, Bill Greenhill, Bill Lanier, Erma Johnson Hadley, Islam, Josue Munoz, Ricardo Coronado, Rusty Fox, Sharon Wettengel, Tarrant County College, The Collegian, The Media

Atheist Monument Honoring Nothing—Nice.

In Gainesville, Florida, the American Atheists have won the right to erect a monument celebrating nothing to be placed alongside a monument celebrating the Ten Commandments.  That’s right; a monument celebrating nothing erected alongside a monument celebrating something.  Makes sense to me—not.

Apparently the contradictory atheists are at it once again, doing something that is totally inconsistent with what they claim to believe, which is nothing.  When a Christian group called The Community Men’s Fellowship petitioned county officials to erect their monument, the atheists took exception and sued to have their own monument erected as well.

Bradford County officials finally caved in and now they will have a monument honoring the hypocrisy of atheists all across North Florida and abroad.

A rather comedic comment is reported to have been made by a Dave Muscato, public relations director for American Atheists, when he told The Gainesville Sun that if religious groups are allowed to have monuments “it’s only appropriate that we have matching monuments.”

Here we all been told for the longest time that atheists were not religious, and yet now Mr. Muscato makes this kind of comment admitting that they are.

Another hypocritical atheist remarked elsewhere, “I don’t enjoy being condemned to hell every day…I got really frustrated with the fact that I was supposed to accept what they talked about and what they believed and they thought was real, but they wouldn’t even listen to what I had to say.”

Well, if you, Mr. Atheist, really believed in what you claim, then it wouldn’t bother you one way or another what anyone had to say.  Moreover, you wouldn’t worry about saying anything to anyone, because your worldview prescribes that you keep your mouth shut.

Besides, people don’t condemn anyone to hell, given that until God intervenes in the atheist’s life to redeem him, he’s condemned already (Jn. 3:18).  Yet, since the atheist says he doesn’t believe in God, then it should not bother him one iota if he feels condemned to hell or not.  So, why the inconsistency?

A consistent atheist worldview is predicated on relativism, meaning that the person holding to such a view does not believe in moral right and wrong.  Therefore, to be whining or complaining about what others are doing or saying about anything only serves to contradict what it is that the atheist supposedly says he stands for or upon, which is nothing!

If Bradford County officials and Gainesville Christians in the area would have simply challenged these atheists to be consistent, then maybe they would not now have a monument celebrating nothing placed alongside a monument celebrating something.

Yet, such is the world we live in today, where the foolishness of man has been equated with the wisdom of God, and those claiming to know the wisdom of God cower out of fear to those imposing their foolishness on them.

The Community Men’s Fellowship opined, “We want you all to remember that this issue was won on the basis of this being a free speech issue, so don’t be alarmed when the American Atheists want to erect their own sign or monument. It’s their right. As for us, we will continue to honor the Lord and that’s what matters.”

Actually, that is not correct.  The reason why the hypocritical atheists won had nothing to do with free speech, but a lack of preparation on the part of the Christians in the area to expose the inconsistency of the atheist worldview by taking the atheists to task.

As for saying that the CMF will continue to honor the Lord, that is patently untrue as well.  By erecting a monument to nothing, to stand alongside the Ten Commandments, is an affront to God and every Christian who failed to counter the atheist idiocy by kowtowing to their hypocritical arguments.

An atheist claimed, “I mean, I wouldn’t feel comfortable going to a courthouse when they’re publicly displaying the Ten Commandments.”  Again, if the atheist was consistent, whether he was comfortable, uncomfortable, in a state of total bliss or on the verge of having a stroke, would not matter at all.  He could wisp in and out of the courthouse without so much as a mutter, it wouldn’t matter.

Yet, it is because the atheist is a hypocrite and does not believe what he claims, that he opens his mouth in hypocritical disdain against God and anything relative to Him.  He hates God with a passion and his hypocrisy betrays him at every turn (Rom. 1:30).  Erecting a monument to nothing is nothing more than an outward demonstration of both his hatred and hypocrisy.


Filed under Uncategorized

Atheistic Hostility Toward God is NOT About Evidence

Atheists are such cunning deceivers, not only toward those they frequently try to encounter to garner some kind of respectability for their self-refuting worldview, but toward themselves, as they argue that the real reason why they refuse to believe in God is because there just isn’t any or enough empirical evidence to persuade them otherwise.

The reality, though, is that the atheist’s argument has nothing to do with evidence.  It has to do with morality, or more like immorality, which stems from a fallen nature.  They know God exists , but they suppress that knowledge (Rom. 1:18-19).  They would rather reign in hell than serve in heaven, as the expression goes.

Does this mean that all atheists are as immoral as they possibly could be?  Not at all.  Very few, if any, sinners reach the ultimate level of abject evil.  Even Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, or Pol Pot, as evil as they were, did not reach the level of sin that they could have.  In fact, they may have even done a few benevolent deeds along their way to hell (Matt. 7:11).

Most atheists try to lead clean, civilized, and lawful lives.  They just don’t have any objective reason for doing so.  It’s because of the lack of objectivity, though, that an atheist like Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot can capriciously perpetrate an act of evil upon the rest of the human race, and he feels self-justified in doing so.

Yes, yes, it has been propagated by some that Hitler was some kind of quasi-Christian, but as Jesus said, “By their fruits you will know them.”  So, so much for that argument.

It’s also because of the lack of objectivity that when the atheist appeals to evidence he either cannot be serious or he is trying to pull a ruse.  “Show me the evidence, and I’ll believe in God,” his argument often goes.

Belief in God, though, is not about evidence.  It is about being born of God, as Jesus said.  “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again [literally, from above by God's Spirit], he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Saving faith (i.e. belief) is a gift from God which frees the atheist from the fallacy of futile thinking (Rom. 12:3; Eph. 4:17).  Not everyone has been given that gift (2 Thess. 3:2).  Only a few find the narrow gate by God’s grace that leads to life (Matt. 7:13 cf. Eph. 2:8-9), while all the rest of the atheistically-minded go the way of destruction.

As a substitute for saving faith the atheist exhibits a counterfeit faith; a faith centered in the dependence upon the atheist’s personal senses as the harbinger of truth and knowledge.  If he cannot physically touch, taste, smell, hear, or see the object in mind, then it cannot be true or real.  Little does he recognize that by painting himself into such a corner  he cannot appeal to anything beyond his physical senses to make sense of the world around him without completely contradicting himself.

Until the sinning atheist has been set free by the truth of God (Jn. 8:32), then he will simply go on railing against God, as an enemy of God’s (Rom. 5:10).  The content of his commentary will amount to futile speculations, as he professes himself to be wise, even though he is a fool (Rom. 1:22).

It is because of what God has to say about the atheist that the believer should take note when dealing with him.  Too often the believer falsely assumes that if he can pile up enough “evidence,” then presto!  The atheist will throw down his gauntlet and become a flaming evangelist.  Such is never the case, though.

Instead, the believer should consider God’s advice when dealing with the atheist.  “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him.  Answer a fool as his folly deserves, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (Prov. 26:4-5).  In other words, when he asks for the “evidence,” know that his so-called request is rooted in folly.  Therefore, treat his folly as folly.  Otherwise, before long, he will make you look as foolish as he is.

If one really wants to deal effectively with an atheist, and make him think, go after what he presupposes to be true about anything and why.

Ask him why one should not commit a heinous crime, like molesting a child.  Ask him why he accepts one scientist’s conclusions about the universe, as opposed to another’s, even though both are looking at the same “evidence.”  Ask him why he appeals to faith when his physical senses leave him wanting.

Just be ready for a lot of obfuscation and evasive maneuvers.  Rest assure, though, it is questions like those which eat him alive from within.  It is those kinds of questions which will either make him or break him.  Make him hard for God’s judgment or break him for an infusion of God’s Spirit.

Depending on his responses will also depend on how to proceed.  If hardness is in the making, and all the atheist wants to do is mouth off, then let him, by exiting the conversation.  Conversely, if brokenness is in the making, then simply let the Spirit be your guide.  You’ll know what to say, because you won’t be the one saying it.

Yes, atheistic hostility toward God is not about evidence, it is about morality.  The atheist wants it every which way but loose, while he shakes his fist in God’s face and says, “I defy you!”  His evidential plea is a subterfuge to cover for his defiance.  Don’t fall into the foolish trap of accommodating him.

Challenge his morality and you will challenge him to think.  Play the fool along with him, and he just may make a fool (i.e. an atheist) out of you as well.


Filed under Apologetics, Atheism, Christianity, Foolishness, Recovery from Religion

1-800 Atheist Hotline

So, the Recovery from Religion group is now going to start a 24/7, 1-800 call-in helpline to aid those in religious doubt.

Recovery from Religion is an atheist organization of biblically defined fools and apostates who think that by touting their hypocrisy, that will somehow alleviate the doubts of some stupid enough to call them for advice.

Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, cannot you just imagine what the average counseling session will be like for those who take this invitation seriously?  It might go something like this:

Caller: Hello.  I’m calling today because I’m having religious doubts.

Atheist: Oh, well, you called the right place, because we believe that life is too short to be thinking about things like God, sin, and the hereafter.

Caller: You said believe.

Atheist: Yes, that’s right.  We believe.

Caller: But, isn’t belief part of religion?

Atheist: It depends on what one believes belief is <a smirk is heard in the background>.

Caller: Didn’t you just say that you believe that thinking about God is a waste of time?

Atheist: Yes, but what we believe is based on scientific facts.

Caller: So, what experiments did you conduct to support your facts?

Atheist: We didn’t.

Caller: Then how can you say that your belief is based on scientific facts, when scientific discovery implies doing a few experiments based on an hypothesis and then gathering observable data?

Atheist: Look, do you want help or not?

Caller: How can you help me, when it appears that you’re just as religious as I am, and the reasons for your belief are as doubtful as mine?

Atheist: Oh, we seem to be experiencing technical difficulties.  Is there a good number I can call you back on, in case we get disconnected?

Caller: Sure.  My number is…<click.  Atheist mysteriously gets disconnected before the Caller can give him his number>.

Hopefully there will be an inordinate number of Christian apologists who will flood this atheist “hotline” when it gets up and running to keep them busy answering legitimate questions over why the atheist is acting the fool.  I know I’ll be looking forward to making that special call.


Filed under Atheism, Recovery from Religion, Uncategorized

Fort Hood Fruit Loop to Represent Himself at Trial

Isn’t justice in America wonderful, especially when justice seems to be such a fleeting thing in today’s legal world.

Take for example the latest revelation involving the Fort Hood murderer Nidal Hasan.  Please note that he is a murderer, not an alleged one, as the politically correct and common sense challenged keep claiming.

As of today Mr. Hasan is going to be allowed to represent himself in court as his own legal counsel.  Apparently it has not been enough that this two-bit joker has been allowed to delay justice for the past four years for one idiotic reason or another.  Now he is going to be allowed to make an even bigger mockery of the legal system by playing lawyer too!

Just in case anyone has forgotten, Mr. Hasan is a militant Muslim who on November 5, 2009 decided to set foot on the Fort Hood Army Base and open up fire on his colleagues.  He managed murder 13 and wound 32.  I’m sure all his cowardly Muslim buddies in Afghanistan were proud of him.

Apparently the judge in the case quizzed Hasan for a couple of hours over whether or not he really wanted to play lawyer or not.  He confided he did, even though he also wanted a lawyer to sit at his table just in case things got a little too hairy.  I guess there’s nothing like catering to the murder to make him out to be the victim as well.

When Army Sergeant Alonzo Lunsford discovered Hasan’s desire to represent himself he asked, “What’s going to stop one of us from jumping across that table?”  If I was the judge or one of the MPs, it wouldn’t be me.  Frankly, I doubt there would be anyone else either.

To make sure that Hasan is physically able to endure the long stints of courtroom Q&A, a doctor has testified that he can sit up to four hours before Hasan would have to be allowed to stretch.  Then if his boo-boo is given proper attention, an additional eight hours would be tolerable.

Personally, after what he did, and the four years of his shenanigans he has pulled since, if I was the judge, I would make sure he stayed put until I or someone else needed a break.  He would be the last person on earth I would consider before asking if he needed anything, let alone stretch.  And then that stretch would amount to about 30 seconds; then we would begin again.

According to Hasan he stills manages to dress in his military uniform every morning as he prepares to study the Koran and do his morning prayers.  Now, what was I saying about justice?  This murderous thug disgraced the very uniform that is worn by others with honor, and who he killed, yet he is still allowed to wear it as if nothing ever happened.  “What a country!,” as Yakov Smirnov is famous for saying

Oh, and Hasan’s defense is going to be stellar.  Why, Perry Mason or Johnny Cochran would have been impressed enough to take lessons.  And what is his defense?  He’s going to argue that he was protecting others when he went on his rampage!  What???!!!

Personally, my prayer is that someone in that military courtroom will finally see this Muslim terrorist for the scumbag that he is, that they will stop letting him make fools out of them, and they will send him on his way to hell, as justice deserves.

Perhaps if the trial is run as is should be, a message might be sent to the rest of the Muslim thugs out there contemplating a similar act of terror.  But, then again, contemplation is the last thing on these fine, upstanding, American citizens minds, as they scheme, plot, and strategize on ways to make everyone else as miserable as they are.

So much for the “religion of peace” and the peace it doesn’t bring, even to those delusional enough, like the Major Nidal Hasan’s, who follow it.

Isn’t justice in America a wonderful thing?

Leave a comment

Filed under Islam

Let’s appease the Muslims some more

In Saturday’s edition (June 1, 2013) of The Tullahoma News online an article was published which basically outlined the Obama administration’s continued effort to appease the Muslims at the expense of undermining the Constitution and future attempts to silence criticism of Islam and its opponents.

Apparently what is about to happen is Obama’s henchmen are going to start cracking down on commentary which tends to cast all Muslims in a bad light, mainly because of all the terrorist plots and activities the Muslims have been engaging in, oh say, for the past 1,400 years.

According to the article, “A special meeting has been scheduled for the stated purpose of increasing and understanding that American Muslims are not the terrorists some have made them out to be in social media and other circles.”

While it is true that not all American Muslims are terrorists, Islam itself is a terrorist ideology.  All one has to do is look at its history and doctrine to arrive at that conclusion.

Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.—Surah 9:29.

Then they [the Jews] surrendered, and the apostle [Muhammad] confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar.  Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it.  Then he sent for them [the Jews] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought to him in batches.  Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka’b b. Asad their chief.  There were 600 or 700 [Jews] in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900.  As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka’b what he thought would be done with them.  He replied, ‘Will you never understand?  Don’t you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return?  By Allah it is death!’  This went on until the apostle made an end to them [the Jews].—Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, 464.

Narrated Anas: The Prophet cut off the hands and feet of the men belonging to the tribe of ‘Uraina and did not cauterize (their bleeding limbs) till they died.—Khan, The Translation of the Meanings of Sahih al-Bukhari, 8.520.

I guess there’s nothing terroristic about fighting infidels to the death and subjecting Jews and Christians to an oppressive poll tax, beheading between 600 and 900 Jews, and cutting off apostates hands and feet and leaving them to bleed to death in the desert, is there?

The article goes on to say that Bill Killian, acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, is going to be doing some presentations for the specific purpose of focusing on “Muslim culture and how, that although terrorist acts have been committed by some in the faith, they are no different from those in other religions.”

Excuse me?  If Islamists are no different from those in other religions, isn’t that an immediate insult to the Islamists, who believe that Muhammad is the supreme example of what a man ought to be before God, and he is the example that all men should follow?

Also, if Islam is no different than all the rest of the world religions, then perhaps Mr. Killian will provide similar examples, like those found above, where Jesus, Buddha, or Baha’ullah ever beheaded any, much less 900 Jews, like Muhammad did or ordered their following to go around oppressing those who would not buy into their ideologies.  For some reason I have this feeling that that part of his presentation will be a bit anemic.

Killian then is quoted as saying, “Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were both Christians as was the guy who shot up the Sikh temple…Sikhs are not Muslim.  Many people think they are Muslim, but they split off with the Hindu religion.”

First of all, neither McVeigh, nor Nichols, nor Wade Michael Page (the Sikh shooter) were Christians.  Just because someone mouths off claiming to be a Christian does not mean that he actually is one.  One must look to the leader as the example of what a particular religion represents, not those who claim to be following the leader.  In McVeigh, Nichols, and Wade’s examples, none of them were following Jesus as an example or anything he would have commanded.  They were renegades without a cause.

Conversely, the Muslims have example after example after example where not only are they encouraged to commit acts of terror and murder, their own founder, as seen above, was complicit in at least 600, if not more, homicides all on his own.  Nice try, Mr. Killian, but apparently you do not know what you’re talking about.

Oh, and by the way, the Sikhs are not a split off from the Hindu religion.  It is a composite religion that Guru Nanak (Hindu) and his sidekick Kabir (Muslim) concocted when they rejected certain parts of both religions and embraced other parts.  Although the Sikhs demonstrate many admirable qualities in terms of human relations, the Sikh ideology itself is sorely devoid of the truth, which is only found in the person of Jesus Christ.

The Tullahoma News continued by quoting Killian as saying that “Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction.”  “That’s what everybody needs to understand,” he said.

Well, Mr. Killian, if you’re going to threaten people with that line of argumentation, then you better be prepared to also argue that the First Amendment of the Constitution is not designed to freely speak about certain religious groups, given that literally thousands of Muslim websites have been set up to demean, disparage, and defame both Jews and Christians.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, my momma used to say.

And then you also better be prepared to give an accounting for your sloppy presentation of the facts when you decide to go after those who DO know what they’re talking about and can provide the documented evidence to back them up.  Otherwise, your sorry, bigoted backside is going to be in more hot water than any propagandizing imam at the local mosque is going to be able to assist you with.

The article then introduced a local Muslim propagandist, Zak Mohyuddin, from the Muslim Advisory Council, as one of the other driving forces to curtail free speech and criticism of Islam, who said, “It is the self-interest of Muslims in the United States to counter violent extremism, because we and our children do not want to be viewed with suspicion…The Muslim community is a vital resource in the fight against terrorism.”

If Mr. Mohyuddin was not a spokesperson for the MAC, then he could easily apply for a similar position with the terror-sponsoring group known as CAIR.

The fact of the matter is, what is in the “self-interest of the Muslims in the United States” is not in the best interest of non-Muslim Americans.  Since the days shortly after Muhammad moved to Medina it has been the goal of him, his caliphs, and his followers to eventually dominate the world with his lunacy.  Raining terror down upon the heads of those who disagree with Islam has been a primary tactic of the Muslims and will continue to be until the whole ideology is exposed for what it really is and is then rejected.

So, Mr. Mohyuddin and Mr. Killian, you can tell the informed that the Muslim community is about fighting terror all you want.  But, once again, history and doctrine betray you.  Moreover, this latest attempt to strong arm the public into ceasing and desisting from telling the truth about Islam, its beliefs, and its goal, only serves as another prime example of just how terrorist-driven the whole religion truly is.

Finally, Mr. Killian is quoted as saying, “It’s why we came here in the first place.  In England, they were using Christianity to further their power in government.  That’s why the First Amendment is there.”

Don’t you just love it when guys like Killian make stuff up to try and justify their hypocrisy?  I’m not sure who the “we” is that he’s talking about, but one thing is for sure: there were no Muslims on the Mayflower, nor were there any Muslims in England when the reformers were trying to clean up the Anglican Church from within.

Also, when the Reformers (Puritans and Pilgrims) came to America, they were fleeing the same kind of oppression that the Killians, the Muslims, and Obamas now want to try and re-implement in the form of quashing the critics and then revising what it is that Christians are supposed to believe and say.

Finally, it is ironic, to say the least, that Killian would appeal to the First Amendment to justify this latest bit of idiocy, when it is the First Amendment that he is seeking to undermine to appease the Muslims who don’t want anyone criticizing them for their terroristic acts and doctrine.

Well, bring it on, Mr. Killian.  Go ahead and tell me and others that we can’t tell the truth about Islam and I’ll make it a special point and effort to increase the output of truth about it a hundredfold.

After all, you do want to increase awareness and understanding of just what drives American Muslims and the terror they commit, don’t you?  What better way to do it than to threaten those who know something about it by telling them they can’t?  In fact, why wait?  You do what you think you need to do and I’ll do the same.  May you enjoy the exposure as much as I’ll enjoy doing the exposing.

Leave a comment

Filed under Islam, Muhammad, Muslims