Archive for the ‘Morality’ Category

In California, Conservatives have been cheated once again with Governor Arnold


The word “MOM” and “DAD” is now banned in schools in California

Talk about stupidity

Read Full Post »

Applying Presuppositionalism against Secularism by showing who can account for specific observations derived from the books on Harry Potter.

I thought this might interest some of you out there.

The links to the Alpha Omega Ministry Blog:



Read Full Post »

Who’s responsibility is it to protect yourself?

I could finally sit down and write here on wordpress for a little bit!

What a tragedy it has been for the Virginia Tech shooting incident. That was alot of people.

For those who were interested, Xanga featured had this Xanga user who went to Virginia Tech that might be interesting for some of you here: http://www.xanga.com/whosjennel/584546877/please-pray.html

Don’t want to be too political but I found this Blog made some good points

The question that has been in my head is, who’s primary responsibility is it, for the protection of your own life–is it the state, or you? Who would be better at defending your own life???

For over a hundred years, U.S. courts have ruled that individuals have no right to police protection. But given the numerous — almost routine — warnings from police spokesmen not to “take the law into your own hands” by resisting criminal violence with reasonable force, you really can’t blame people like the Shourds for thinking they have a right to the protection of the State.

You could read the rest here: http://golubski.blogspot.com/2007/04/bleating-for-security.html

You ever wonder about what goes through someone’s head that does things like this?

It such an evil…yet, not to make light of what he has done but I wonder what could possibly drove him to be so mad and angry to do such a thing?

Its a tragedy for everyone…

Read Full Post »

Many of those who cite that the Bush Administration failed in their strategy often times have no strategy of their own.  While this blog are not run by theonomists, I myself personally have enjoyedsurveying the writing from the Christian Reconstruction movement; as those who are theonomists know, the movement is not necessarily monolithic.  But one thing I appreciate their offer is the idea that “You can’t beat something with nothing!” In other words, you could give refutation to something (Atheism, Liberalism, etc) but you got to have something positive too.  That is why Theonomists are interested in constructing a Biblical concept of culture, legal system, the family, etc.

Yet, there are those withinthe quarters of this movement who are critical of the War in Iraq.  I recently had a discussion on a blog of a known name of the Theonomic Presuppositionalist’s camp that is against the Iraq war.  His name is probably well known to some of the readers here.  Being a protege of Bahnsen, I expected a penetrating analysis of not only why the War is wrong, but in light of the theonomic spirit of “you can’t beat something with nothing!”, I don’t think it is not unfair to expect him to offer a solution.  

What I got was pathetic.  He offered several simplistic and naive suggestion.  The most stupid plan was this:

“Reinstate the Baathist government. Acknowledging our crime in invading a soveriegn nation without justification, the U.S. government should do all in its power to restore Iraq to status quo ante bellum.”

Did you read that? This is the solution that this particular individual wants: To have the old government of Saddam’s reign be reinstated into power!  His blog has discussion about the wrongs of killing innocent people as an evil, yet does he know how many people the Baathists killed?  Are we going to install a government that has formerly been the power hold on the institution that implemented the killings of innocent Iraqis? And does installing this evil government back on its feet mean that American troops will be fighting for the very evil government we removed???  When American troops accidently take the life of innocent Iraqis it is wrong and they should not be given the authority of power, but when a Baathist commit mass murder in Mass Grave Sites, they should be allowed to retain their power.  What a double standard!  And by what Standard is this okay? An arbitrary racial basis?  Is this consistent with Theonomic principles? 

Also, in order for them to rise to power again, aren’t the Baathists going to be killing a lot more people since so much of the South opposed them?  And does this guy even realized that the Baathists are fading?  They are no longer a real political force in the political landscape of Iraq: others have filled the vaccuum.  Iraq is changing.  This blogger doesn’t even realize this.  Yet this individual and others like him go on long emotionally driven diatribes to sound secure in their ignorance by going against their fellow theonomists who have ‘left the camp’ by not supporting them.  Its one thing to give loaded words and lingo to make one feel more confident in one’s position by calling people Neo-Cons, fags and Jewish bankers, but when pressed to lay down a positive plan, we discover that their solution is to bring back a reign of terror for Iraq.  What a plan huh?

When I told him that his ideas were crazy, he had a new entry up, and referring to me he stated,

“beforehand that my proposals for what our nation should do in regard to its waging an unjust war against Iraq would seem outlandish to many (”crazy” as one commentator put it). They are outlandish because we all “know” such things do not happen. For the last century, the winner takes all with no thought to justice.”

But what is his plan for Justice?  What exactly has to be done to make things just according to this Theonomist who sees a threat from the ‘secret government’ that controls the Republican and Democratic Party?

It is to reinstate the Government that has gassed innocent Kurdish villages, tyrannize Shiites, invaded its neighbors, etc. And that’s justice?  And where do you see in the Bible that this is Biblical?  On what theonomic principle?

Further things could be heaped upon this blogger.  But I think this goes to show that those Anti-War Theonomists really need to sit down and think about what they are saying.

Read Full Post »

A girl asked the question, “If God is love why is there hell?”

The question argues against God’s existence, love’s existence, or both. Dealing with the argument against God’s existence, this question’s logic will always be foolish because the assumptions are foolish. Therefore the examples, will be foolish to imagine because they’re foolish to begin with- just like the girl’s question.

Here are the following problems with the question I will address below: The question both assumes God exists, but assumes God doesn’t exist. It assumes the law of non-contradiction but breaks it at the same time. It assumes logic must make sense but doesn’t make sense itself. And lastly it assumes that an objective morality exists while ignoring its divine origin.

First off, the question assumes God’s existence to deny it. How?

Because the question already answers itself, by asking if God could exist, the question suggests God does not exist. This makes several contradictions depending on what assumptions it takes: The question may assume God’s existence and hell’s existence, God’s existence only, hell’s existence only, or God nor hell’s existence.

If assuming God and hell exist, the question seeks to illustrate that they contradict, and reason that God and hell can not mutually exist. But if neither can exist together, then why ask a question that assumes they both exist? A similar question might attempt to prove oranges and apples cannot sit on a table together, when they’re sitting right in front of you. Or explained another way, the question attempts to prove circles and rectangles don’t exist by reasoning that if circles and rectangles did exist, they would contradict even when they do exist. Unless of course the questioner believes that reality contradicts.

If assuming God exists but hell doesn’t or vice versa, then the question still attempts to show a contradiction that makes no sense. It would be like assuming oranges don’t exist, then proving that apples cannot exist because oranges. In other words, starting with the premise that oranges don’t exist, and another premise that apples do exist, and then concluding that orange can’t exist because apples exist.

If the question assumes that that neither God nor hell exists, then the question becomes even more nonsensical or absurd. The question attempts to prove that God doesn’t exist because a non-existent God and non-existent hell cannot exist together. That’s like saying square circles and round rectangles don’t exist because square circles and round rectangles cannot exist at the same time.

The assumptions also lead to the second problem: The question appeals to the law of non-contradiction while breaking it. The question argues implicity that God and hell cannot exist at the same time and same sense and contradict. But the question cannot both assume God doesn’t exist and prove so by assuming God exists. That’s like showing square circles don’t exist by imagining a square circle- it contradicts.

The third problem is the question assumes logic should make sense. By this I mean that the question assumes that statements, like the one made above shouldn’t be contradictory. That’s why the question assumes that the question makes sense and God doesn’t.

The fourth and last problem is the question assumes morality. If I’m not logical do you need to listen to me? If I am logical what if you don’t listen? Does listening to logic make a difference? It should. It’s the difference between wisdom and foolishness.

If logic did not make a difference then why ask the question in the first place? Who cares if God is unloving! To imply that hell is unloving, you first have to know what is loving. If the girl asking doesn’t believe God exists, then why does her non-existing God have to be loving? Christians believe God is love and God exists, but in this case, an athiest is arguing that God should be loving to prove God doesn’t exist. If her argument doesn’t make sense, it shouldn’t because the argument is foolish.

Let’s think of this scenario: A God that loves you, decides to force you to be in his presence forever. Even if you hate him. Even if you deny his existence. Even if you break his laws. Even if you curse him. This scenario makes God’s heaven seem like hell, and hell (eternal seperation from a God they hate) like heaven. I can list a few people who’d rather go to hell then be forced to be in God’s presence. Thus, this question does not make sense in an atheist worldview, much less a Christian one. It’s a nonsense question, borrowing the idea of love, the idea of God, the idea of Hell, and combining them while appealing to a subjective sense of morality and attempting to be objective.

I would answer the question “How can God be love if He sends people to Hell?” with another question, “What’s wrong with that?” Even asking the question assumes there is a morality that applies to everyone. So go ahead. Ask. And borrow from the Christian worldview, taking Christian sense and making atheist nonsense.

An atheist stirring love, logic, morality, God, and hell all together gets instant nonsense.


Read Full Post »

In my business law class, my professor began the lecture by asking if ethics could be taught. Some students said yes. She said, “No ethics can’t be taught.” She continued on saying, “They come inside of you, from your parents, your friends, and your environment.” Even more interesting, my professor broke us into groups, so we could discuss what we would do for certain scenarios.

“What if you saw a classmate cheating? What would you do?”

My group wasn’t very talkative. But our consensus was we wouldn’t say anything.

Out of around 30 students, all six groups said they wouldn’t do anything.

The next question she asked was, “What if your classmate was your friend?”

My group said, “We’d cheat together,” which got a good laugh in the class.

She also asked, “What if you saw your co-worker taking money?”

Interestingly enough, almost all the class said money was different, and so they would either confront the co-worker, or tell the boss. One explanation was, “the boss might think it was me.”

The last question was, “If your company policy was no dating, but you found a guy or girl that was everything you ever wanted- what would you do?”

All of the class would date them. Some while still working, while other students would find another job and then date.

At the last part of the lecture my professor exclaimed, “There’s no such thing as right and wrong!”

Read Full Post »