Experimental Mind Control

"Experiments in influencing human behaviour through the administration of mind- or personality-altering drugs to unwitting subjects."

Tell me it isn’t so, CIA. [“Family Jewels”, Not PDF number, but actual page 425 of report]

Hmmm…
Is Project MKULTRA real or do they only want us to think it is?


[2 Thessalonians 2]
I don’t know, you tell me.

Rethinking Evolution

Is Darwin due for an upgrade?

Is this to try and plug the holes in the theory?

I can’t help but wonder.

Unnecessary Blasphemy

Scripture declares:
Ezekiel 3:18, When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

For this reason, do to the recent boast of using the name of God and Jesus Christ in vain on my blog, which I have not allowed to be posted, I have decided to post this warning to both the believer and non-believer.

The commandments of God are very clear in that one is, “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”

In the Old Testament law of Leviticus, “he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him”.

Today there is physical grace and mercy whereby a blasphemer is not put to death, and I am in no way saying that we should put into law that all blasphemers should be put on death row, I would much rather all people to repent and turn to Christ.

I am saying that although today blasphemers are not brought before the people and put to death, it does not mean that God does not still hold the person guilty, for it is written, “That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.”

In my lifetime I have heard the taking of “the name of the LORD thy God in vain” by the following groups and ways.

1] By Christians and non-Christians that simply use the name God while playing sports or other things instead of “goodness”, “man”, and other words in a moment of exasperation or such.

2] By Christians that claim to believe in God and His Book, claim to love Him but may or may not act like it, and use His name alone or in conjunction as in cursing, but also sometimes in excitement but not necessarily over godly things.

3] By Atheists that claim they do not believe in God or Jesus Christ or that they actually exists or ever existed, but use their names alone or in conjunction as in cursing.

I ask why is the blasphemy of the name of God and the Lord Jesus Christ necessary. Is it done for the sake of trying to upset others; is it done because there is such a hatred for God and Christianity; or is it simply something that really just comes from within without the thought of what one is really saying?

Continue as you may, but please consider the warning.

Racist Names In Science

I saw this information in a blog I visit and couldn’t help but share it.

“The International Space Nomenclature Council today adopted the term 'emplacements de hauts gravité super' - or 'super high gravity locations' - as the official replacement name for black holes.”

You ask, why the name change?

“Originally named in reference to the fact that light cannot escape their intense gravity, the term 'black hole' was increasingly criticized as being insensitive to African-Americans and African-Europeans.”

“"We're glad the council finally took action on this issue." said Isaiah Herman, Chairman of the National African-American Coalition of People. "The unimaginable destructive power of these super high gravity locations was giving the word 'black' a negative connotation throughout the universe."”

I doubt seriously that John Archibald Wheeler coined the term “black hole” with any racial meaning, so why must we today in 2007 still be looking for racial slang in what appears to be every tiny little thing?

It seems that some wish to spend their lifetime looking for racism in everything that exist while all the while crying we should put racism behind us.

Carbon-14 Dating

BEAST said...

My question here: Do you actually understand the concept behind carbon dating? If you don't, tell me and I will dedicate one post just for your poor grasp of science. My advice to you: Don't make yourself stupid by writing what you do not understand. Picking up Christian websites to debunk evolution is simply ludicrous.

---

Beast,

Since I don't know much, I would be most interested in your post of Carbon Dating. While you compose your post, could you take into account the following assumptions?

First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years.

The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years.

Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere.

To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 – he assumed that they had reached a balance.

Finally, Dr. Libby and the evolutionist crowd have assumed that all plant and animal life utilize carbon-14 equally as they do carbon-12.

It seems like "the carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin" has caused quite an issue. :)

Also, since you like penguins, I thought you might like this, "But there are some problems again, because penguins living in the Antarctic today have yielded 3000 year old carbon 14 ages when tested. Seals killed recently gave ages of 1000 years."

"While carbon 14 specialists expected the scale needed correction,"They are all surprised it's that large," says Fairbanks."

Carbon Dating

Inaccurate Dating Methods [Also considers 7 assumptions]

Problems with Radiometric and Carbon-14 Dating

Thanks.

Do the Gospels Deserve Our Attention?

We have another good question from a blogger asking, “The Gospels were written decades after the supposed events they described by individuals who were probably not eyewitnesses given the short life expectancy during that era.”

They claim the most common response they receive from Christians is, “If the story is false or embellished as you speculate, why would early Christians die for a story that was obviously untrue?”

---

I must also ask (the questioner), to establish the premise: By what authority do you conclude your ideas of when and by whom the Gospels were written?

---

I must admit that I agree with the author in that simply claiming that people becoming martyrs over the belief that something is true does not in and of it self make it true. In example they give the Muslims. Muslims indeed martyr themselves for a belief they hold, which any Christian must confess disagrees with the Word of the True God, I AM. Yet it could be noted that Christians usually become martyrs by the hands of others, whereas Muslims usually become martyrs by their own hands.

A quick source [Christistheway.com] followed by a more detailed source [bible.org] for each gospel:
Matthew, Matthew: Introduction, Argument, and Outline
Mark, Mark: Introduction, Argument, and Outline
Luke, Luke: Introduction, Outline, and Argument
John, John: Introduction, Argument, Outline

Above the actual author, date, and eyewitness account is the inspiration of God whereby the Holy Spirit moves elected persons of God to write that which are the Words of God.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Being inspired [God breathed]; this ensures that the author, though able to use their own style of writing and experiences are moved by the Holy Spirit without error to write the inerrant infallible things of God. They do not simply write all that they know or want to, but that which the Holy Spirit gives them utterance [2 Peter 1:20-21].

Secondly, time is not a factor, for the Holy Spirit (being of the Trinity) knows all, and is able to give man total recall of all that was, is, and will be, to the desire of God’s purpose. Christ gives this promise to His followers in John 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Thirdly, for the sake of the authors, Matthew and John were for sure eyewitnesses to the ministry, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ [Matthew 10:2-4, 1 Corinthians 15:4-6]. As for Mark and Luke, the above links can be viewed for more information but their gospel accounts (though some may go to great links to show where they vary) leave no margin of variance that can be deemed as proof that they are uninspired or made up.

The question then of the atheists or agnostic may be: “Isn’t it circular reasoning to consider the Bible inspired, because the Bible says it is inspired?”

This is a good question, but does not prove their idea that the argument of circular reasoning must discount the inspiration of Scripture, for their argument also attacks the very ideas of science itself which they deem to think right.

Example:
"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning . . because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of science, January 1976.

Other reading:
Agnostic asks whether biblical Christians commit circular reasoning.
Dating Rock Layers

Why You Can Believe The Bible

My Personal Corrections or Thoughts toward “Christianity in Four Acts”

An atheist blogger has done their best so simplify Christianity into what they call “Christianity in Four Acts”. As a Christian, I first ponder why the post at all. Is it to promote Christianity, mock Christianity, or simply to understand Christianity? I will assume they may actually desire to understand Christianity, so below I shall give what I believe should be the corrected “Christianity in Four Acts” whereby I believe they erred in some of their thoughts. Please bear in mind that bringing Christianity to such a simple layer of understanding does not guarantee the full understanding of it, nor the importance of it, nor does it remove questions but actually produces more, which could be considered a good thing. To ponder the things of God is a good start.

ACT I

God is indeed all-knowing, all-powerful, and everywhere present, but these are but a few of the attributes of God. God is supernatural and could be considered outside and inside natural time and space. God is the Creator of time therefore outside of time, having no beginning and no ending God is not bound by time. Yet God works within time and sees all that was, is, and will be in a continual state of present. God is not merely somewhere in the great beyond, but is everywhere present with man always throughout all of history.

We know of Him because He has instilled it within our being. We also know because of inspired writers of Scripture by which we have the Word of God to read, study, and meditate upon; along with the Holy Spirit which enlightens us to understanding and acceptance of Truth.

ACT II

All mankind has been born sinners because of the sin nature passed unto all people born of woman by the first man Adam’s sin. We are born spiritually dead in sin in a state of total depravity whereby we do not have fellowship with a Holy God and are therefore seen as unclean in His sight.

As sinners we are worthy of the wrath of God, whereby a sinner is given their reward of their own desire to rebel against God, but He does not glory in their punishment nor is He swift to wrath but is longsuffering toward man that they may repent; sending the sun and the rain on both the just and the unjust and allowing the tares to grow with the wheat till the day of reaping.

ACT III

It is impossible that man can come to God on his own and earn by his own hands the worthiness to be accepted by a perfect, holy, sinless God, for man is corrupt and stained by both the sin nature and the sins of his own doing. Sins can be forgiven, but they must also be paid for.

Through an act of love God the Father sent Jesus Christ His Son to atone for the sins of sinners. Scripture declares man can be saved only by the grace (unmerited favor) of God, by mercy (not getting what one deserves), through putting faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. Whereby Christ is God in the flesh, lived a sinless life, was crucified, buried, and rose again for the justification of those that will accept Him as Lord and Savior. Christ arose in flesh and bone appearing unto more than 500 persons.

ACT IV

Jesus Christ does not show a way, but is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one will be accepted in the eyes of the Holy God without the righteousness of Christ upon them. Through regeneration and the quickening of the Spirit one is brought from spiritually dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ. Although one remains attached to the flesh, which battles against the spirit, whereby one on earth shall never be perfect, till at death they are welcomed into the dwelling of Christ to be sinless forevermore.

Because of this new birth, we have God working in us by which we have the Spirit moving us to do that which is right and to proclaim (witness) the gospel message of the forgiveness of sin and reconciliation to God which can be found only by putting ones faith in Jesus Christ. We witness for the love of God that we may be obedient, for we desire the lost world turn from sin in repentance and accept Jesus Christ as Savior unto salvation, not for annoyance sake or personal gain.


By these four so-called ACTS, does this clear up Christianity and leave us with no questions at all? By no means does it, for there may be yet Christians that disagree with what I have written, whereby they are entitled to their ideas. But the inability to grasped the entirety of God and His plan should be expected for we being the created can not expect to supersede or compare ourselves to the Creator in knowledge, power, or deed. This is the pride of man whereby he is left in a state of condemnation due to his unbelief in a God which He cannot understand and a Savior he will not submit to.

The entire gospel can be summed up in this below, by which one either accepts unto eternal life, or rejects unto eternal damnation. By choice you hold God blameless as to where you decide to make your final abode.

1 Corinthians 15: I declare unto you the gospel…Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

Christ, was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

How is it possible that Christ could take the sins of men upon Himself that we may be saved? Because He Himself is sinless and He Himself is God.

What Makes A Calvinist Hyper?

Hint: It's not red Kool-Aid.

When it comes to Calvinism it appears to me that there are sometimes misconceptions from non-Calvinists. The tendency to group all Calvinists into one group or to claim all Calvinists hold certain beliefs which all may not appears to be easily found. Sometimes it is most likely due to a lack of understanding concerning Calvinism, sometimes it may be just a repeat of what one has been taught, and other times could actually just be the spreading of a serious dislike for the theology and/or the people.

If you find yourself condemning all Calvinists into one group called Hypers, honestly feel that you misunderstand Calvinism, or simply would like to know the difference between Calvinism and Hyper Calvinism, please consider reading the link below.

The topic was brought up on a forum I am a member of and here is a link that was posted:

A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism

Agree or disagree with the theology labeled as Calvinism, but don’t incorrectly lump all those that claim to hold to the Doctrines of Grace as Hypers.

Romans 1 Is Out Of Order: Shut Your Mouth!

House bill H.R. 1592 and Senate bill S. 1105

Watch And Listen To Me Pray

I may get slam dunked for this post, but so be it. I am not presenting a limiting or discouragement to Christianity case here, but more posing a question for some Christian input.

On a recent blog there was a good question brought up regarding public prayer. It appears the blog author’s context is “organized school prayer and "prayer protests."”.

The blog author quotes Matthew 6:5-7, which I will also post here:

5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

First, we can consider the verses. They are in red in the red-letter edition Bibles, so these are the words of Christ. :) The chapter begins with the context of doing things to be seen of men verses doing things because it is right. He compares the hypocrite that simply gives, prays, fasts, etc. so they can appear holy to men, but that one should do these things because they are right and that God knows what we are doing so there is no need to make sure man sees us perform the acts.

If we only had verse 5 then the argument could easily be made that it is not that we cannot stand in the synagogues (now churches) and on the corners of the streets to pray, but that we are not to pray as the hypocrites to be seen when we do it. Can there be a difference you ask? I believe so. It is all in the motive, intent, desire. If one sets a time before they go to a public protests, etc. saying we will all pray at this time, that may be as the hypocrites, but if while at the protests, etc. one or more feel lead the pray and many follow that is not necessarily the same.

As for verse 7, which some have used against the rosary and such, simply means our prayers should be speaking to God not simply rambling a pre-printed prayer or saying words over and over again thinking our annoyance will demand God act. Vain repetition produces mechanical Christianity. I would include “repeat after me” prayers with this also.

Oh, but verse 6: “When thou prayest, enter into thy closet”. What exactly is Christ saying here? Does He mean that we cannot pray at all unless we are in our own closet or that we can’t pray out loud unless in our own closet, or was He simply speaking in comparisons terms of praying where all can see, for personal glory, or where no one can see, for God’s glory?

I find it difficult to believe that Christ sincerely directly meant that one must only pray from within a closet, for I don’t even find Him doing such. What Christ did was not pray to draw attention to Himself.

We are to pray, there is no Scriptural doubt about that. We are to pray everywhere, pray without ceasing, etc., but this can be done without a large group needing to openly draw worldly attention to themselves.

I was recently introduced to a concept called “prayer walking” which involves walking around churches, schools, business, neighborhoods, etc. and praying. This is done in groups of two or three (are can be done alone) and draws no attention whatsoever. Well, no more attention than if we were simply two people walking a dog or simply exercising. You do it with your eyes open and speak to God audibly (or silently) in prayer for the things He brings to mind while continuing to walk (there is no stopping, kneeling, and bowing ones head). Silent and audible prayers can also be voiced on the way to and from work, while shopping, while doing most any activity including being part of a protest or while at school.

What necessitates the need for an outward display of large groups praying? Is it only so we can make sure that people know we are praying for them or against something they are doing? If one only thinks that God hears or answers prayer that is done so everyone knows it is being done, there is a problem. Also the posture or purpose of prayer is not to have one look at the person or people praying and suddenly feel they should agree or join with them. Conviction is the work of God, not man. We pray for God to work in people.

What about you who do not pray, who that are not a Christian, why does public prayer bother you so much? Do you get just as offended or upset with other displays from groups in society? Could you not turn away as people would prefer Christians do when you see something you do not like or wish to take part in? Why use a verse from a Book you do not believe, from a Savior you do not trust, to condemn a people or act you dislike?

Iran: Corrupter(s) of the World Sentenced To Death

While here in America we promote (whether in secret or outwardly) the porn industry and its stars, apparently in Iran there is a whole different idea of what to do with those that promote and partake in perverted immoral fornication.

Take a gander at this CNN article:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's parliament on Wednesday voted in favor of a bill that could lead to the death penalty for persons convicted of working in the production of pornographic movies.

With a 148-5 vote in favor and four abstentions, lawmakers present at the Wednesday session of the 290-seat parliament approved that "producers of pornographic works and main elements in their production are considered corrupter of the world and could be sentenced to punishment as corrupter of the world."

The term, "corrupter of the world" is taken from the Quran, the Muslims' holy book, and ranks among the highest on the scale of an individual's criminal offenses. Under Iran's Islamic Penal Code, it carries a death penalty.

The "main elements" referred to in the draft include producers, directors, cameramen and actors involved in making a pornographic video.

The bill also envisages convictions ranging from one year imprisonment to a death sentence for the main distributors of the movies and also producers of Web sites in which the pornographic works appear.

Is Doctrine Important

The Warning:

Ephesians 4:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

---

Where is doctrine found?

2 Timothy 3:
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

---

How can we learn doctrine?

Epheisians 4:
By pastors and teachers.

2 Timothy 2:
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

---

Why should we learn doctrine?

2 Timothy 2:
16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Titus 2:
6 Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded.
7 In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,
8 Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.

---

How do we test the doctrine we hold and are taught?

Acts 17:
11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Why Are We Waiting On Them

Today we hear a lot about asking, pleading, encouraging, and demanding the lost person to repent of their sin, lifestyles, immorality, thoughts, deeds, etc.

I am not against such, except for the demanding part, for it is not for man to demand, but of God whose commands obedience of mankind. We as Christians are to warn those that disobey the commands of God [Ezekiel 3:18-19] and persuade lost sinners to a Savior (Jesus Christ) which can cleanse them from sin and restore fellowship with God [Luke 14:23].

But our preaching of repentance is not first or only to the lost.

2 Chronicles 7:14:
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

We are to repent of sin and live a Christian testimony.

We are to ask, persuade, and pray for brothers and sisters in Christ to repent of sin and live a Christian testimony.

Only then can we go to the lost world and ask them to do that which we honestly believe and do ourselves. We cannot simply use the parent clause, “Do as I say, not as I do.”

Remember Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:12, Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

Even Christians are still sinners, but have been regenerated and now have God working in us to do that which is right. It is not that we are better than they (the lost) are, but that we are better off because of what Christ has done for us.

Maybe if all of us Christians could get our act together the lost world would see the picture of Christ in us that Christ said should be shinning through.

Lets take a moment to examine ourselves as close as we examine the lost person and lets see what God will do through us.

Does Hell Exist Debate

Take a gander:

Does Hell Exist Debate
(mp3 downloadable format)

Is There More Behind The Discovery of Penicillin

Take a gander:

Penicillin

Pedophile Boast Website, Hoping for Tolerance

If you have children or know of one who does, please read this article by Fox News.

Apparently a 45 year old man, who has never been convicted of a sex crime, is walking a thin line of mental/physical pedophilia. He has had a website (which you can get the link at Fox News) that “has been around for a few years. The police know all about it, yet they say they can't shut it down because the site is legal.”

“McClellan says his purpose is to promote association, friendship and legal, consensual hugging and cuddling between men and pre-pubescent girls. He admitted to FOX News that his "age of attraction" is between 3 and 11 years old.”

His desire seems to be to take pictures of children (most likely without the parents’ consents), and post those to his site so other pedophiles (whether previously convicted of sex crimes or not) will be able to view them as “a way to get some relief”.

Apparently he would also like for people to give tolerance to pedophilia, because he said, “"I really think a lot of this pedophilia hysteria is overblown. I think there are a lot of people like me. They have the attraction but they're not going to do anything physical because of the laws. It just makes me happy to attend these events."”

He even goes so far as to say, “"I know it sounds kind of crazy, but there's kind of a code of ethics that these pedophiles have developed and what it is ... the contact has to be completely consensual, no coercion, if you're going to do it," McClellan said.”

---

This reminds me of the topic I have somewhat discussed concerning homosexuality. It is a known fact that homosexuality is considered morally wrong by society for a very long time with only recently a minority demanding that it be overturned to morally acceptable.

As in this case, we are shown people have morally wrong desires, yet there have been laws against the act. They are not convicted for the desires until the desires moved them to cross over the line. The problem is when the laws are removed for the sake of tolerance.

The claim is that it doesn’t harm anyone and that acceptance of it will build tolerance. So we are to be tolerant of that which is deemed morally wrong, which in turn will make it morally acceptable, therefore creating intolerance of all who then oppose it?

Then consider this pedophile which is creating a website of pictures of children to attract other pedophiles (whether convicted or not of sex crimes). Is taking the pictures personally physically hurting anyone? It seems as if most (if not all) have no idea they are taken until they are found on the site.

Are we to be tolerant of this type of behavior and accept pedophilia was morally acceptable as long as they do not engaged in an act that is against the law too – for the sake of tolerance?

---

I don't know about you but I have no desire to have pictures of my children used to promote, accommodate, or lend relief to a perverted mind that has a sexual desire for children.

Will this be the next "lifestyle" choice that is brought to court demanding equality and tolerance?

Why Is Man Religious

If one were to remove God from all of creation (as some have chosen to do already), how is the idea of man being religious accounted for?

If man only lives in the natural and there is no supernatural whatsoever, by what means would the idea of God or gods, worship, religion, etc. even spring forth from an idea in man’s mind?

How do we account for man having a desire to worship a being (I call God) higher than ourselves?

How has such an (so called) invisible, irrational, supernatural thing taken mankind so strongly as to surpass race, tongue, location, and intelligence?

How is it so strong within mankind that its grips cannot even be totally dismissed by or removed from those which have decided to not believe in a God at all?

Why and how did man ever circum to such an idea as religion without the Creator actually placing it there Himself?

Contrary To Some, Religious Book Sales Up Again

An article by the National Secular Society which some blogs may be showing as proof that “a sharp decline in the sales of religious books has been accompanied by an increase in sales of atheist-oriented books” may be flawed. I have posted the corrected information on one blog only to have the post deleted and apparently I have now been banned. Because of the truth? Even an atheist should give credit to the facts; its just book sales.

Because of this reason I have decided to post the information here.

Association of American Publishers (6/8/2007):
Religious Books posted a small dip of 0.3 percent for the month with sales of $44.2 million; however sales were up by 4.8 percent for the year.

Christian Post:
Book Industry Trends 2007 was released this past Friday by the Book Industry Study Group, Inc. (BISG) – one of the U.S. publishing industry’s leading trade associations for policy, standards and research. It showed that religious books had grown strongly in 2006 with a net increase of 5.6 percent in net revenue compared to 2005.

The newly released stats are contrary to those presented in the sales report released recently by The Association of American Publishers (AAP), which compiled its data in cooperation with statistics received from the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association (ECPA). The AAP report claimed that religious books had a “difficult year” with a 10.2 percent drop in 2006.The difference may be due to a number of smaller publishers, who earned less than $50 million in revenue, included in the report by BISG. This was the second year that BISG included these minorities, allowing for a more complete picture to how religious books are faring.

Book Industry Study Group:
Sales of religious books continued to grow strongly in 2006. With an increase of 5.6 percent in net revenue, this segment showed the highest growth in dollar sales.

NY Times:
The strongest growth segment in publishing last year continued to be religious books, where 263.4 million were sold, up 3.1 percent from the previous year.

How Important is Religion to You: Poll

Not really sure who and where the Gallup Poll’s come from, but this is interesting.

Follow me here:

86% believe in God.

70% believe in a Devil, which God’s Book talks about.
75% believe in angels, which God’s Book talks about.
69% believe in hell, which God’s Book talks about.

32% believe the Bible is the actual word of God to be taken literally word for word.
45% believe the Bible is inspired by God but not everything should be taken literally.

** So 86% believe in God and 77% believe the Bible is from God.

39% wants the influence of organized religion (which is a broad term) over this nation (USA) to remain the same, 32% to be less, and 27% to be more.

57% says religion is very important in their life, 27% says fairly important, and 16% says not very important in their life.

** So 57% believe religion is very important, but only 27% think that its influence should be greater in the US.

63% say they are a member of a church or synagogue, but only 40% had attended in the last 7 days, only 31% attend at least once a week.

** So 86% believe in God, 77% believe the Bible is from God, 57% say religion is important, but only 31% attend church or synagogue a week.

Is it because only 43% consider themselves “born-again” (assumingly that means regenerated by God unto salvation)? Of course this number could be low due to the fact that they associate it with “evangelical Christian” whereas one may claimed to be saved, but not an evangelical Christian.

Do we see a problem here?

86% believe in God, but only 31% are acting like it.

Creation Museum: Affirms A Biblical View of Mankind’s Beginnings

A Creation Museum has just opened in Petersburg, Ky.

You can read the about page or check out their brochure.

A few excerpts from the article at Baptist Press News:

Science, the museum asserts, affirms a literal reading of Genesis. Although many secular scientists scoff at such a notion, the museum's beliefs are more mainstream than evolutionists probably wish was the case. A March Newsweek poll found that 48 percent of American adults believe God made humans "pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

"What I say to evolutionists is, 'Come on, be honest,’" Ham said. "Their starting point is that there is no God. They've redesigned science. … Everybody has a starting point, and everyone needs to admit their starting point, and their starting points determine how they interpret the evidence."

The museum doesn't ignore tough questions that critics of creationism have long been asking: Where did Cain get his wife? How did dinosaurs fit on the ark? If dinosaurs did survive the flood, then why aren't they still around today?

The project also was blessed with the services of Patrick Marsh, who was the scenic designer for the Jaws and King Kong rides at Universal Studios in Orlando, Fla. A creationist himself, Marsh joined Answers in Genesis in 2001 and designed the museum, which features recreations of the Garden of Eden and a section of Noah's Ark. Ham calls it a "walk through" biblical history.

Critics already are calling the museum anti-science -- an objection Ham dismisses. He is quick to note that five Ph.D. scientists are on staff.

"The point we make to people is [that] the origins issue is different from empirical science that built Space Shuttles or put man on the moon," he said. "The origins issue is an issue regarding history -- and you don't have the history; you only have the present. We want people to distinguish those two things. If I wanted to illustrate gravity, I stand here, I hold a pen, and you watch it drop. You can't deny that that happens. But if said to you, 'Show me that hundreds of millions of years ago life arose from non-life,' you can't show me that. All you can do is look at the evidence in the present and try to interpret it in relation to the past."

Kaka': "I Belong To Jesus"

Click for Global icon Kaka' story.

Moral Percentage

A new Gallup poll is out entitled: Americans Rate the Morality of 16 Social Issues

It appears in the article that the main topics are the death penalty and assisted suicide. The May 10-13 polls concluded that 66% verses 27% of Americans are in favor of the death penalty claiming it is “morally acceptable” whereas the moral issue of doctor-assisted suicide is closer divided by 49% “morally acceptable” to 44% “morally wrong”.

Also interesting is that in the case of the death penalty they found “Support for the death penalty is fairly uniform across different age groups, political parties, and between men and women” whereas in the case of doctor-assisted suicide they found “While a majority of whites, Democrats, and liberals consider doctor-assisted suicide to be morally acceptable, a majority of nonwhites, Republicans, and conservatives call it morally wrong”.

Here is just some interesting points I found with the poll, take them how you will:

49% of Americans find doctor-assisted suicide morally acceptable, yet 78% find that suicide is morally wrong. Why is it okay for suicide with a doctor and not without one?

65% of Americans find divorce morally acceptable, yet 91% find that having an affair is morally wrong. I wonder what the ratio of affair/non-affair causes of divorce is. Also does one move from the 91% to the 65% when they get a divorce on the basis of an affair?

59% of Americans say that sex between an unmarried man and woman is morally acceptable, yet 90% find that a husband having more than one wife (polygamy) is morally wrong. If the unmarried man has more than one sex partner would that not be the same or “more” morally wrong due to the fact at least the polygamist does marry and support the women.

64% of Americans say that stem cell research from human embryos is morally acceptable, yet 51% find that abortion is moral wrong. So we are moving away from moral acceptance of abortion of fertilized eggs carried in a womb, but toward moral acceptance of the dismemberment of those which are without.

The poll at the end shows the difference between liberal, moderate, and conservative.

The poll “Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,003 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 10-13, 2007”, so you will have to decide how you believe this shows the entirety of the America population.

What causes these moral ideas in Americans? Who can say which side (acceptable/wrong) is right? Can we judge one above the other or is it all relative? By what authority is acceptance or wrong of moral behavior judged?

Without acceptance of the moral laws of God can there be any moral absolutes?

Write Your Own News Article

A friend of mine sent me this link.
Just thought I would post it here for others to enjoy.

http://www.fodey.com/generators/newspaper/snippet.asp

Baptist Faith and Message: Mistakes or Changes

At one of the blogs I sometimes visit they ask the question of why the wording of the Baptist Faith and Message has been changed regarding the condemnation of persons regarding fallen man.

Here is the different wording:

1925:
He was created in a state of holiness under the law of his Maker, but, through the temptation of Satan, he transgressed the command of God and fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and in bondage to sin, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors.

1963:
Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence; whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin, and as soon as they are capable of moral action become transgressors and are under condemnation.

2000:
Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.

The 1925 edition places the condemnation of man from conception being that we have the corrupt sin nature from Adam and are in bondage to sin, whereas the 1963 and 2000 editions place condemnation not at conception, but after one personally is “capable of moral action” (which is very broad and no one seems to be able to give specifics).

I noticed another difference is in the 1925 it claims man “inherit[s] a nature corrupt and in bondage to sin”, whereas the 1963 and 2000 claim man “inherit[s] a nature and an environment inclined toward sin”. Are the words “in bondage to” and “inclined toward” really synonyms?

What happened between 1925 and 1963 as regarding the people behind the writing/amending the Baptist Faith and Message? Regardless of which version you prefer, there is clearly a distinction.

How Dare You Repent

Most likely we have all heard of the story of Jonah in Scripture. We learn from the book of Jonah that God told him to go to Nineveh and to preach against its wickedness. Jonah eventually went after gleefully submitting to God’s will and preached “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown”.

To Jonah’s surprise, I’m sure, “the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them”.

What further surprised Jonah was that “God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not”.

So we have a preacher preaching to sinners that they need to repent or be destroyed by a holy God. We have the sinners repenting and praying God will spare them. We have God accepting their repentance and changing His mind in that He would now not destroy them because they had repented of their wickedness instead of staying in it.

What did Jonah think about all of this? “It displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry”. Jonah even admits “I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.”, but he is still angry that God is even as he knows He is.

Then God shows Jonah that he had more pity on a gourd which God had made for him that a worm from God had destroyed than the sinners which God had made and had now chosen not to destroy.

I ponder are we any better today? Do we call people to repentance, scare them of hell to come, explain that the wrath of God is upon all that reject Him, and then when they do come we are happy for some yet mad about others?

You say, “No, not me. I am happy for everyone that comes to Christ!” Really?

Why then do we speak mockingly about deathbed conversions, jailhouse salvation, and terrorists’ enlightenment? Sometimes we act as if God can’t or will not convert, other times it is as if we believe they are merely faking it, yet still there are times when it seems that we just don’t believe they deserve it.

Think of the worse person (whether personally known to you or not) and/or the worse place you consider the most non-Christian. Ask yourself if you honestly believe they should be granted salvation by God, would you believe their testimony if given, and would you embrace them as a brother or sister in the name of Christ?

Or would you be mad like Jonah that a sinner received mercy from God?

What Motivates Me As A Christian

What really motivates me as a Christian to witness and do the things of God. Hmmm…

[1] I believe that at conversion, God instilled a desire in me to do that which is well pleasing to Him. I believe through the power of Christ and the working of the Holy Spirit my conscience is pricked toward obedience. True I may not always “feel” like witnessing and I am something lead astray to sin, but even in these times the Spirit hints and urges me that what I am doing is wrong and that I need to be about my Father’s work. Although I may not always submit, I feel his voice is constantly present to lead and turn me. I just wish I obeyed more often even when I don’t “feel” like it. Remember obedience is doing that which we know we should do and not doing that which we know we should not do.

[2] I believe because of regeneration I now have a love for God that compels me to do what is right. When I consider the things that Christ had to endure for my sinful sake, so that I may be made righteous and forgiven of sin, it causes me to love Him more. How I often wish I had a perfect love for both God and man that could force me to do nothing but that which is right in the eyes of Truth. Although this love does motivate me, too often I ponder where I have felled in my love toward both God and man and wish that I could be better. So I try.

[3] When I think of eternity and that I believe hell is real, I am moved with compassion for those which reject the idea of God and refuse to trust in Christ the Savior for forgiveness of sin. I completely acknowledge that I am personally unable to convert them or force them to believe, but it does not change my burden that I wish that it were possible that all that heard the gospel of Jesus Christ would instantly believe and accept Christ as Lord and Savior. Even of those whom the world sees as the most grossly depraved individuals, although I agree that punishment for crimes must be served, I only wish that their soul would be quickened by the Spirit before they leave this mortal world into an eternity of condemnation.

[4] I sometimes ponder the military and those that risk their lives for the protection of others yet do not know the Savior. They serve for the benefit of both Christians and none Christians, yet if they should perish without Christ what benefit is it to them? I wish they would believe.

[5] I sometimes hear a great sermon, or listen to good music and receive a second wind to promote the gospel message and live the Christian life. The emotions although should not, do often play a role in how, why, and when we do things for the cause of Christ. Emotions can be good, but they can be bad. Emotions can cause us to be excited, happy, brave, and ready to perform that which we need to do, but they can also cause us to be depressed, unhappy, fear, and reframe from doing that which needs to be done. And this evolves our lives as a whole and not just Christian witnessing and living.

What motivates you to a desire to do that which is well pleasing in the eyes of God?