New Atheist Voice Against Christianity

'Yes my four year old daughter told me that the only person who would ever help her to be a good girl was Jesus Christ, because she could not do it on her own. I have never told her this. I would have thought this is too deep for a four year old to understand. That she was a sinner, she could not control her sinful nature. She wanted to be good but she could not, instead she did things that where wrong no matter how she tried to be good. Her theology is far deeper than that of many preachers today. I mean she gets it. It is only by the finished work of Christ on the cross that we can be delivered from sin.'

The above comes from the blog of a Christian mother doing her best to raise her four year old daughter with honest Biblical principles.

Sent to me by a friend, the reason I advertise this blog is for Christians to take a moment and read the responses by Atheists to this mother's post regarding the Christian faith and her child.

She gives a clear testimony of the forgiving, saving knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and many begin to claw and gnaw like rabid wolves against it. Sadly, many of them simply 'receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto [them]: neither can [they] know them, because they are spiritually discerned,' 'In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.'

Pray for them, both the Atheist and the Agnostic, but please realize that the voice of that spirit of antichrist is making its way across American and this whole world.

There is already a boasting of 'Why believe in a god?' campaign coming this year. 'The American Humanist Association unveiled the provocative $40,000 holiday ad campaign Tuesday.'

Interestingly, at the same time unbelievers would have us (or like to) sensor our voice of praise and trust in Christ, so they don't have to hear it (and be convicted of sin?), their claim is '"We are trying to reach our audience, and sometimes in order to reach an audience, everybody has to hear you," said Fred Edwords.'

New Atheism, Antitheism, it is on the rise. Don't just sit there with your head in the sand Christian, 'Put on the whole armour of God' for the spiritual warfare is upon us more everyday.

Seeking To Have the Next Generation Accept Homosexuality

Apparently, there has been some dismay concerning, “The State of New Jersey mandates that all school children be taught a diversity curriculum by the fourth grade”. [Article]

You may ask, what was the problem some had with the “diversity curriculum”?

The school showed a film, “That’s a Family!” which, “looks at diversity through the eyes of children who talk about their own families.” There was a topic on single parents, traditional parents, adoptive parents, divorced parents, but then they also had lesbian parents (Betty and Kim).

As Christians, we realize what Scripture says about marriage, and what it says about homosexuality. Currently, the majority of society does not see homosexuality as a moral, acceptable alternative lifestyle, which they would like to receive the same benefits and name as the moral, acceptable marriage of heterosexuals.

It should be obvious, to any honest onlooker, that the purpose of showing third (or now fourth) graders such a film, is to give them the impression that homosexuality should be, just as acceptable and equally moral as heterosexuality. It is clear, that since they are unable to force this pretence on modern society, they are reaching out to convert the children; therefore, hoping the children will one day bring the sinful act of homosexuality into the minds of the people, to be a moral and acceptable way of life.

I checked it out, and apparently, “New Jersey began issuing civil union licenses to same-sex couples in February 2007, joining Vermont and Connecticut in pioneering the marriage alternative.” This gives reason as to why the “diversity curriculum” in New Jersey would desire to include homosexuality in its teaching of “Family”.

As it has always been, the fight is for our children. Are we going to properly pray, read, and study God’s Word to teach it to our children, or will we allow the world to continue to discredit Scripture, calling it archaic, to embrace that which God calls sin, in turn demanding that God judge and condemn America, as He did Sodom and Gomorrah?

To deny acceptance, to be given to homosexuality, is NOT to say one agrees with hate crimes that may be committed against them. It does say that we believe homosexuality to be a sin against God, and is therefore NOT moral and should not be accepted in any way, shape, or form.

One may claim I am just intolerant, and should promote tolerance.

I reply, stop being intolerant of Christian values, and be tolerant to what is right and intolerant to that which is ungodly.

“Alleged” Child Rapist Barbecue

“"I stuck him in his butt!" Linda Rhodes told MyFOXdfw.com, explaining how she and her son John Jennings apprehended the 17-year-old suspect Friday night in Garland, Texas.”

Click here to watch the video report from MyFOXdfw.com.

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?

Night Clubs for Kids

Now here is a novel idea. If it isn’t bad enough that night clubs often (if not always) lead to drinking, fornication, and mostly anti-Biblical forms of activities, why not make it look pleasant, safe, and nothing wrong with it for our children under eight (8)?

Here is an article from MSNBC, here, that says:

On a recent Saturday afternoon at a grungy, darkened nightclub on Manhattan's Lower East Side, toddlers with fake tattoos jumped up and down on a crowded dance floor.

To accommodate the stroller set, nightclubs have to make a few adjustments—like making sure floors are cleared of last night's broken glass.

What good can possibility come from such? What is with us parents here in America? We’re not doing this for our kids; we are doing this for ourselves.

Capitalizing on Gen-X parents' appetite for all things hip, bands like the Terrible Twos, the Sippy Cups and the Dirty Sock Funtime Band are doing shows that make Mom and Dad feel less like June and Ward Cleaver and more like Gwyneth
Paltrow and Chris Martin.

Is it fun for the kids? Of course, but more than fun, is it right or is it harmful? Do we really believe that we can bring a child to a night club when they are eight, then expect them not to want to go when they are eighteen? Will it be just as innocent?

I suspect the POSSIBLITY will increase for them to trade in their milk for alcohol, their candy for smokes (and maybe drugs), their toys for fornication, and their giggles for cursing.

Do you find a problem with this, or am I out on a limb by myself here?

Baptists and Child Abuse

An article by the Christian Post was recently brought to my attention, here. It is quite disturbing to see the actions of proclaimed Baptists being used to pose questions such as:

“It seems to me that a more compelling story would focus on the bridge between faith and abuse. Of course, I am not claiming that faith inevitably leads to abuse. However, there is reason to explore the possibility of some connection.” [Link]

Not so much that people are claiming such, but that we as Christians are bringing such a negative thought pattern toward God, our Savior Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Scriptures.

The world has a right to say, “You are supposed to be a Christian, why are you doing that?” Even Christ said, “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” [Matthew 7:20]

We as Christians can’t just sit back and say, “Well, non Christians do it too.” Dare we make the same claim as them, “You’re no better than I am.” Indeed we are not. Do we as Christians not have the Father, Christ, and the Spirit working in us to do that which is right? We are not strong in the flesh [Romans 7:18], but in the Spirit.

Sure there are those that claim to be Christian that may only be liars or lost in their on conceits, but the true Christians should be such a light to the world that the fakes are overshadowed to the point that even the lost knows them to be but false witnesses.

As Christians we should help each other and the world with regard to our local churches. I don’t think we need a security team from the SBC coming in and searching each individual church to see what is going on, but there must be accountability.

We must have communication with our children and be on guard, for the Lord has graciously given them to us as parents to “bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” [Ephesians 6:4]

I am not claiming that we need to be overly suspicious of everybody we are around, but we cannot be negligent in our thinking that those we consider more spiritual than ourselves are unable to sin either. Sometimes I wonder if it is simply selfishness on the part of the parent in that they send their kids off with others just so they can do as they please.

As a local church, especially of the SBC which do in fact have a Convention, we should record offences of serious type and if that individual leaves our church, I dare say, it should be made known to other churches so that they are not caught unaware. Before one stands up against such, we do have a “Letter” that is supposed to be used for such things already in place within our local churches. Is it being used correctly?

Friends we as Christians are losing the battle of winning lost souls to Christ as the world points its fingers at us saying, “If this is Christianity, I don’t need it.” God help us!

Do All Babies Go Heaven? If So, Why?

Sometime back the topic of "all babies going to heaven" came up in a group that I frequently visit. Recently a person present me with the notes they had that one had used to proved that indeed all babies go to heaven because they are innocent. Below I have color the notes in blue with my comments being in green.

Please feel free to agree or disagree and present your case.

As I begin this reply, please keep in mind that I am NOT saying all babies go to hell, some babies go to hell, or no babies go to hell. I do firmly believe ALL must go through Christ, whether baby, child, youth, or adult and therefore it is not simply because they are innocent.

Are Babies safe? Babies can not be saved in the normal sense
I really don’t understand the answer here. I am not sure what the “normal sense” means. If they are speaking of walking an isle, praying a prayer, confessing sin, etc. I guess not, but neither did the OT saints who are just as saved as any NT saint is. We must remember that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb [Luke 1:15] and Isaiah was called from the womb [Isaiah 49:1]. As mentioned later.


Are they under a special plan? Deut 1:39.. No knowledge of good and evil
To use this as a proof text that all children get to go to heaven, one could also use Moses being refused the opportunity to enter this same land as a Christian losing salvation and not being able to go to heaven – and for 1 sin.


James 4:17 Is it not sin if he doesn't know good and evil?
This verse speaks of a Christian that knows what is good and does not do it is sinning in disobedience of what God says he SHOULD do. This reference is not talking about what God has said NOT to do.


Jer 19:4-5 the small children and babies sacrificed were called innocents (clean, blameless, guiltless, exempted)
This is speaking of the fact that babies (it only says sons) had done nothing worthy to be offered as sacrifices. This is not speaking of sin, for even an adult would have been innocent of not being worthy of being sacrificed to false gods. It means it was not their choice.


I Cor 5:10 judgement according to works, sin committed during this life.
This reference is telling Christians who not to have company with. This deals with nothing concerning about babies or judgment of works.


If God sent a baby to Hell he'd be basing judgement on something else. His mercy and grace would be violated. There would be no divine judgement as the child would have no idea what he'd done.
First, mercy IS NOT giving someone something they DO deserve.
Second, grace IS giving someone something they DO NOT deserve.
If by reason we are saying babies are not “saved in the normal sense” and are “under a special plan” because they don’t “know good and evil” and we are only judged by “sin committed during this life” – it would bear to reason this person is saying they do not need mercy or grace at all, for they have done nothing wrong to require either.


God deals with his creations according to what they are and what they have done. He remains just, righteous, merciful
Adam disobeyed God, therefore a sin nature and dead spirit is passed down to every child when they are conceived, not when they reach an undisclosed time often called “the age of accountability”. There is not a single baby conceived that is innocent in the eyes of God, because fellowship has already been broken with mankind with Adam.


Sin is transgression...willful, knowingly, stubbornly choosing to cross the line. Infants and small children are not capable of this
Consider John 3:18, He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
So then, are we condemned because we sin or because we do not have faith in Christ? So granted, John the Baptist and Christ preached repentance to the world, for those in the world have sins to turn away from. Though repentance is not enough to save, for clearly faith in Christ is preached. Yet the wicked speak lies from the womb [Psalm 58:3].


Jer 1:5 The prophet had a special relationship with God before his birth.So did John the Baptist. If these two had died before birth would they have gone to Heaven?
This is only proof that these men were chosen by God for a purpose, not a standard of “all babies go to heaven”, especially since these did not die, but lived to obey God. What if’s don’t prove anything.


"Therefore the death of an infant is proof of its salvation" (R.A.Webb)
A statement of personal thought, with no biblical support. What about death of a 10 year old?


Luke 18:15-17 Jesus prays over the little children told disciples to forbid them not to come, to allow them
1) We know adults must come like little children
2) a child's faith is enough, the right kind, quality
3) There is a special relationship between Jesus & babes
4) "of such is the Kingdom of Heaven" Is Heaven occupied by billions ofsouls of babies?
I agree Christ told them to bring him the child and forbid them not to come. Christ did not say heaven was full of babies. He said, “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.” [17]. Christians are called the children of God. As a child puts faith if what their father says and believes him, so must we with the heavenly Father.


II Sam 12:7-10, 14-18. 23 David's child
Babies are safe because
1) they do not meet the conditions of judgement
2) God takes note of their innocence
3) Jesus claimed a special relationship with babies
This text is most likely of all the text presented that babies may all go to heaven. For we know that David went to Paradise and so met his child there. Although, it could be that God gave David special revelation as to that fact for his child alone. Both are “white page” reading at best. Even if we take the passage to conclude all babies go to heaven, it does not anywhere in the text or context state that they are received by Christ into glory based on their innocence – again, if that be the case, they need no Savior.


With that said, I truly believe that scripture teaches even babies (including aborted babies) must believe in Christ to go to heaven. Now before I draw negative feedback saying I believe they go to hell because someone says, “But they can’t get saved because they can’t hear or understand the word preached” – I gave examples of John the Baptist and Isaiah, and even David speaks of God being his from his mother’s womb [Psalm 22:10].

We must remember God is the creator, not us, therefore it is possible for the Spirit to draw babies (aborted or not) to have faith in Christ.

There is no scriptural support for one to claim babies get a free ride into heaven because they don’t know good and evil, because they are innocent of sin, and/or because they are pure – for that, my friend, would mean they need no Savior at all.

It has also been brought to my attention that babies cannot confess as Romans 10:9, 10 says they should:

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

We must remember this was Paul talking to those which have recently denied Christ. They must now believe and confess Him.

Also if we make this the standard, we are saying most deaf and mute are unable to get saved.

God forbid...