When misotheists claim to have found Bible contradictions, they are met with howls of glee from their fellow travelers. It is a fact that is often repeated that they ignore the context of the passage, and Pastor Jimmy keeps showing us.
For today’s post we will tackle the question the Skeptic Annotated Bible asked: Did God command the Israelites to make him burnt offerings?
Here are the two answers which the skeptic believes shows a Bible contradiction:
God commanded the Israelites to make him burnt offerings.
“We must go a three days’ journey into the wilderness and sacrifice to the Lord our God, just as He commands us.”” (Exodus 8:27)
“But Moses said, “You must also [a]let us have sacrifices and burnt offerings, so that we may [b]sacrifice them to the Lord our God.” (Exodus 10:25)
“You shall make an altar of earth for Me, and you shall sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I cause My name to be remembered, I will come to you and bless you.” (Exodus 20:24)
This article may appear to be one of those “atheists are nasty to me so I will pay them back” things, but if you’ll stay with me on this trail, you’ll see where it leads. (Edited for wording 1 September 2022.)
After all these years dealing with misotheists, I should no longer be amazed at their vitriol and bigotry. It seems to be increasing. (It may be a sign of the Last Days, but I will not delve into eschatology this time.) Many professing atheists (Romans 1:18-23) claim to believe in freedoms of speech, expression, and thought, but they seek out and ridicule Christians for doing those very things.
They frequently try to put us on the defensive by dodging what we discuss, introducing new subjects, ignoring replies, more dodging, and attempting to intimidate. They get furious — furious, I tell you — when we don’t let them manipulate us and play “Gotcha!” games.
If you study on it, you may also notice that Christians and biblical creationists are not “allowed” to argue from our own worldview. Those atheists insist that we engage on their terms and accept atheistic naturalism, but they call it “neutral ground” or some such. Christian, if you agree to “leave the Bible out of it”, you’ve just agreed with the atheist that God’s Word is incorrect when it discusses them and their rebellious condition! There is no neutral ground. You savvy that, Pilgrim?
There have been times where I have read comments such as this one: “My atheism is a side effect of being intelligent, rational, logical, and basing my conclusions on evidence.” However, they show an extreme lack of knowledge of science, evolution, logic, and Christianity. Then they make statements about God, the Bible, Christianity, Christians, biblical creationists, etc. Such remarks are simply prejudicial conjecture, indicating that those making them are not interested in serious discussions.
The one I quoted above has frequently stated that he already knows that the Bible, creation science, and other things presented by Christians are “wrong” and will not read them or watch the videos. This is being informed? No. I think that kind of arrogance is a cover for cowardice.
Indeed, he even reacted to a post and said that I don’t “understand what a theory is in science.” Boskus, the Page owner, humiliated himself yet again because he not only attributed the article to me, but if he had read it, he would have learned that it was written by a scientist. Scientists know what a theory is in science, if I recollect rightly.
Over and over, we get proven right by the atheistic goat rodeo denizens who do not display original thought, and especially their lack of critical thinking. F’rinstance, see how alleged Bible contradictions are shredded. Objections to Christianity and especially biblical creation are contumeliously thrown about by those with Atheism Spectrum Disorder, but for those of us with experience, we read and hear the same old nonsense. Mr. Bentley has a short, humorous article on the responses of atheists that I suggest you read.
My previous article on this weblog was a retooled post from Fakebook that examined alleged logic and morality from certain misotheists. It prompted reactions. One was built on complete dishonesty, including putting words in my mouth. I saw that he was just another angry bigot who was justifying his rebellion against Almighty God, and not worth my time. (I reckon he sent about ten visits here with his link.) If you go there, note that he doesn’t exactly enforce the comments policy for his sycophants.
A second reaction was written by an acolyte of the first writer. His comments on this weblog were the same old boilerplate rhetoric. When I stopped responding and allowing his disingenuous comments, he wrote his own post. I was a mite irked when I gave one reply:
To show the brilliance of The Mighty Atheist™, you begin with an ad hominem, using cowboy as a pejorative. This is followed by a hasty generalization about my knowledge of atheists based on just one article. I’ve got some bad news for you, Sunshine, I’ve been writing about atheists, theology, and other things for somewhere around fifteen years. That means I won’t fall for tricks. So, have fun with your argument from silence and other logical fallacies in your vindictive, petty post. Mayhaps when your frontal lobes develop and you can have a rational discussion, I’ll let you comment on my posts again, mmmkay?
I didn’t bother to read any responses.
There are a couple of things I’ve said on other occasions: The days of “You believe, I don’t, let’s turn on the game and watch it,” are long gone. Also, since evolution is foundational to the religion of atheism, they really get on the prod when fish-to-fool evolution is doubted. Things can be going well between a misotheist and a Christian, but express evidence against evolution and supporting creation (especially the Genesis Flood), and they’re ready to slap leather.
I know this trail is a mite long, but the end is in sight.
The secular science industry is dominated by atheists. Although the adored peer review process is saturated with difficulties and some even want it scrapped, they stay with it. A spell back, someone used a vile word and secularists rode into town and shot up the saloon. It began with a “c”. Yep, someone said “Creator“, and it wasn’t even meant in reference to the real Creator that we will all stand before in Judgment.
I mentioned earlier about a post that was written by a scientist. That atheist discussed earlier was angry because the title was, “Many Scientists Believe Scientific Theories Religiously.” It’s true. While they claim to believe things because of evidence, there is no empirical support for many of those things. Just-So stories (here’s a passel of them for example), inferences, bad science, fraud — sure. We get a prairie-schooner full of that. But nothing helpful.
Also, atheists and evolutionists hate presuppositional apologetics, but they are hardcore presuppositionalists themselves! Christians are to presuppose the truth of the Bible, but atheists and Darwin’s disciples presuppose evolution, deep time, that everything came from nothing, and materialism. There is precious little empirical evidence, and it is dragged down by the stones of all of those assumptions.
A post I saw this morning brought all these things together for me. There is a firefight among materialists about the Webb telescope and the Big Bang. Essentially, “Liar! I never said what you said I said!” Meanwhile, accusations against Eric Lerner were shallow, since he has rejected the Big Bang for decades. (His own belief has no evidence, however.) This link is to a secular article that affirms the “facts” of the Big Bang, but I present it here with a coarse wording warning.
All of this is to say that misotheists and evolutionists fiercely guard their origins myth, and despise freedoms of speech, expression, and thought. It is not about evidence, because they really don’t have any! It is a spiritual problem. God exists, they know it, but suppress the truth. Many hate his followers, like this sidewinder:
Many feral atheists have repented and become Christians. There are several in the biblical creation science organizations. Sin affects all areas of one’s thinking, and with salvation and the entrance of God’s Word comes light.
On occasion, I would write a “Note” on Facebook for fans of my Pages. Since Fakebook took away the Notes and made them very difficult to find, I’m putting a few on my weblogs. This one was originally posted in 2020. It’s been edited.
Those “freethinkers’ marching in lockstep, getting their “facts” from atheopath talking points clearinghouses, seem determined to argue with Christians and creationists about practically everything. Can’t let those st00pid dujmb theist be right, especially when they have corrected us on science, logic, theology, or anything else. Nosiree! Although I should not feed these attention-craving trolls, this is a good opportunity to do a bit of teaching.
Many professing atheists seek their identities in denying the existence of God, which is galactically stupid even on the surface. Study on it a spell. How many a-Easter-Bunny-ists write and sell books, form groups, make videos, have people pay money to join their “reason circle” to combat the Easter Bunny, use anti-Bunny profile icons, and more? It’s because there is no Easter Bunny, but they know God exists and suppress the truth! For some inexplicable reason, ridicule is an acceptable substitute for rational discourse and proves them right. Contradiction and ridicule are not refutation. You savvy that, pilgrim?
It is amazing that so many of Satan’s handmaidens reflexively contradict us, thrusting their atheopathy into the bright spotlight. For example, informed creationists often have to correct evolutionists and professing atheists on their own belief systems and scientific truth. Also, you would think that people who claim to believe in reason, science, and logic would have at least some skill in using those things. Instead, we are subjected to bullying and malarkey. Most are all hat, no cattle.
When caught making errors or lying, some simply double down.
Take a look at this example from an atheopath (whose biggest fan ridicules under a fake name) and pretends to be anonymous. He doesn’t even have the courage to read or view the creationist materials he assumes are wrong or lies (a fallacy of relevance that is called Bulverism):
Scientists know that dark matter exists because they can calculate the amount of mass and it doesn’t account for the amount of gravity.
No, that’s a talking point (an erroneous one at that) based on presuppositions of the Big Bang. It has been Frankensteined over the decades, saw a bit off here, add something there…it has little resemblance to the “theory” of long ago. Biblical creationists reject it for both scientific and theological reasons. A few renegade secular scientists also reject it. (By the way, ever read The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner? I thought he was making a case for creation, but instead, he was spinning a yarn for something even more outrageous than the Big Bang.) For that matter, evidence for the Big Bang is so poor, some scientists say that the universe itself should not exist! No wonder that dark matter, a critical component of the failed Big Bang, cannot be found.
So they know something is out there.
Of course, by limiting other possible explanations and seeking to confirm a bias, evidence can be tortured so much, it will confess to anything. People like this should know that God exists because the evidence is all around them.
They just haven’t yet figured out exactly what it is.
Similar to Darwinian Evolution of the Gaps, wishful thinking and hoping that maybe perhaps possibly scientists think that some day, evidence will be found — that ain’t science, girlfriend, that’s blind faith.
But leave it to creationist knuckleheads to deny it.
We’re “knuckleheads” for denying something that scientists admit has no evidence other than something that is occasionally inferred? Makes perfect sense on your planet, but not in reality. They keep searching, but keep failing to detect dark matter. Here is just one example, which I used as a screenshot in the original.
For those who engage the genetic fallacy and reject material from biblical creationists, here is one example from a secular source. Do your homework, there are more.
In their rabid hatred of God, Christians, and especially biblical creationists, bigots like this are fond of perverting Scripture. It’s who they are and what they do, even when the truth applies to them — and they end up proving God right yet again.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23)
The inspiration for this article is…truly bizarre. Like so many other times, an inspiration arrives followed by other thoughts and even circumstances. It began with a shoe.
I found a pair of sneakers tucked away that I had forgotten. Since my wife and I were doing some walking in nature (here are a few photos), I wore those a few times. They seemed all right, especially with good insoles. Then I got a job that involved lots of walking on a hard floor. My feet hurt after the first day, so I used the sneakers. Some pain the second day, less exertion on the third day but I still had pain. Then one broke.
God’s Timing? Humor? Coincidence?
There have been several instances in my past where I believe God was preserving me. The most notable was around 1978. I was a young driver, and I was on the prod while speeding along a four-lane divided highway. My exit was a right turn, down the ramp, and a stop at the bottom of the hill. When I made the right turn, the car kept turning and I went into the ditch. Later, I learned that the tie rod broke. If it had broken while I was going at a high speed, it may have been the end. I wonder if the Lord had an angel holding on to it until then.
In a more recent car-related instance, I had an arrangement with my mechanic in another town a few miles away. He was going to junk the car for me. While leaving that workplace, something snapped and it steered funny. Okay, I was already a couple of miles closer to his place, so I kept going. I “limped” it along with my four-way flashers going and doing as much driving on the shoulder as possible. When I arrived, the mechanic examined it and said, “It’s a miracle that you got here!”
The shoe thing is less dramatic. I had been on those walks, and had worked in them. When I got home, I pulled into a parking place and started to get out — and stumbled. The guy in the car next to mine said to be careful. I told him I had just come home from work. He said, “See how the universe takes care of you?” What fresh evil is this? If I had been thinking, I might have said, “It’s how the Creator of the universe is taking care of me!”
A spell back, I wrote “Evolution, God, and Humor” about — well, what the title says. Was God playing a prank on me with the timing as well as showing his provision? We’ll never know this side of Heaven.
Little Things Matter
These often-overlooked things can be vital.
There is a proverb that has taken many forms for about a thousand years. Here is a common version:
For want of a nail the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe the horse was lost. For want of a horse the rider was lost. For want of a rider the message was lost. For want of a message the battle was lost. For want of a battle the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
As we have seen in analyses of fossils and bones of our alleged evolutionary ancestors, feet are very important in determining a critter’s locomotion. (Indeed, our “cousin” chimpanzees are uncomfortable walking upright for more than short distances. They have “hands” on their feet.) Foot, leg, pelvis, back, neck bone, skull work together. A bad shoe causes foot pain, compensation throwing one’s stride out of whack, leg and back pain…you get the idea.
There are other simple things that pull back the reins and holler “Whoa!”:
Clean drinking water is vital. It’s ironic when a place is flooded but people can’t drink that water.
If the BIOS on a PC or laptop is corrupted, the computer is “bricked.”
A horse can canter or gallop a long way in a short time, but can do almost nothing if it is hobbled. We read in James 3:3-4 that a horse is controlled by a bit, and a ship is steered by a comparatively small rudder.
The last prisoners of the Tower of London are ravens. A superstition is that if they fly away, the Crown will fall and so will Britain. So, their wings are clipped (flight feathers trimmed). Looks like Britain has essentially fallen and become pagan, innit?
Someone made a remark about an article on preventing shark attacks: It didn’t mention staying out of the water.
“Does this article have a spiritual application, Cowboy Bob?”
The Spiritual Application
In “Pinpoint Accuracy — The Takedown of Christianity in the West” (which this child highly recommends), Calvin Smith added something to my original broken shoe inspiration: ball bearings. Although the procedure was flawed, the idea was excellent: The Allies in World War II bombed plants that made ball bearings. Many German war machines relied on them.
As discussed many times in biblical creation science apologetics, an assault on the most prominent parts of the Christian faith and the Bible is difficult for enemies of the faith. Instead, they chip away at the foundations because most major Christian doctrines begin in Genesis. Why trust the Bible if it is wrong in the very first verse? “Science says” evolution happened and the earth is billions of years old.
They get Christians to doubt the accuracy and especially the authority of the Word of God, and in many ways, they are succeeding. That’s why we have to strengthen and promote the truth of creation.
EDIT: I got some new shoes. They cost more than I wanted to pay, but my foundation is strengthened.
This article will touch on several areas, some of the things I have thought about for quite a while. So I will present some speculations with what I think is evidential material, run it up the flagpole, and see if anyone salutes it.
I’ll allow that I have some cognitive dissonance happening. I don’t trust humanistic psychology, but getting some kind of treatment for mental illness can be beneficial. However, some problems fade over time. Even medication (although scientists do not know why one works and treatment is often a crapshoot) can be necessary. Talking with a biblical counselor is most likely the best answer.
There are many unhealthy thinking patterns classified as personality disorders, but the groupings and labels are unhelpful since many have traits that overlap. Some of these resemble psychotic symptoms. Also, Autism Spectrum Disorder is a kind of mental illness. Some people have been misdiagnosed as having some other disorder until the patient was reevaluated. These things help indicate that the field is not exactly scientific.
People tend to throw around words to label others, acting as if they were licensed psychotherapists making diagnoses. “You have cognitive dissonance”, “That’s an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect”, “You’re just paranoid”, and others. They probably don’t even know what the words mean other than spending five minutes looking them up on teh interwebs.
Individuals have personality flaws, and will exhibit “symptoms” found in the lists for psychologists. It’s when some have several indications that a diagnosis could be made correctly. By an expert.
This expression seems to be relatively new. Generally speaking, toxic people bring harm to others, especially their mental well-being. Toxic people feed their own egos by rejoicing in (and causing) distress and harm to others. It is a serious problem in interpersonal relationships, especially when realizing that a family member is toxic. In many cases, they cannot be avoided, so the victim needs to learn skills to minimize the damage.
I was recently told about a woman who eventually left her physically-abusive husband, but he was able to turn the woman’s own sister against her! Fortunately, that was straightened out later.
What is frequently discussed is self-esteem. I’ve heard and read Christians who condemn self-esteem, but I reckon they’re on the prod about sinful pride. There is a reasonable amount of healthy self-esteem in people, including Christians. We don’t want people becoming damaged and feeling worthless!
Among the snap judgements that armchair psychologists make is to call someone a narcissist. A person may appear that way if they spend a bit too much time focusing on their appearance, for instance, or make their personal gratification a priority. Traits here and there do not necessarily make someone a narcissist.
Narcissists can be oh so charming, but will not build you up. They tend to tear you down, and even try to leverage your accomplishments for their benefit. Unfortunately, they seek out certain kinds of people to be their victims. Narcissists are not likely to be planning. Rather, it is a skill that comes naturally.
Sometimes intelligent people can be seen as narcissistic, but that may not be the case. I cannot find a script, but I’ll do this from memory: In an episode of Barney Miller, the genius Arthur Dietrich was making a rather heady remark. Nick Yemana, who had no idea of what Arthur was saying, replied, “I don’t think that’s necessarily true!” Instead of belittling Yemana, Dietrich said, “But it’s possible.” Yemana agreed thoughtfully, “It’s possible.” Great scene! Arthur was very intelligent, but didn’t lord it over others.
Check online and you’ll find many sites and articles dealing with narcissists in your life. People diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder are comparatively rare, but that can be skewed because they may think there’s nothing wrong with them, so why seek treatment?
Consider this: People with inflated pride are more difficult to reach with the gospel of Jesus Christ because they see no reason to repent, and humbling themselves is unthinkable.
Whether someone has been diagnosed with NPD or not, if narcissistic traits are observed, the recipient of their manipulations should be on guard. There are various defensive methods to counteract it. Again, being aware of what’s going on is extremely helpful in and of itself. There are videos (a few are linked below) and articles available online. Unfortunately, spouses, children, and other family members may not admit that the other person has a problem.
These emotional abuses can also become physical. Yes, while it may seem like a harmless aberration, a narcissist can be physically as well as mentally dangerous.
This word has an interesting history. It came from a 1938 stage play, Gas Light, then the Gaslight movie in 1940 (at the moment, available for free on YouTube). The 1944 movie featuring Charles Boyer, Igrid Bergman, and Joseph Cotton is the version most people know. The evil husband wanted his wife’s riches, and when he searched in the attic, he turned on the gas light up there and it dimmed elsewhere in the house. He was trying to drive her insane, and one of his tricks was to tell her that no, the light never dimmed. It’s a tense psychological drama and I recommend it (having only seen the 1944 version). Also, it’s distressing to see what he put her through, even to doubt her own sanity.
There are key traits and phrases that gaslighters have, but a couple here and there do not mean someone is a narcissist or gaslighting. You savvy that, pilgrim?
Unlike the story, to gaslight someone does not have an end goal in sight, but is a wicked method of manipulation. It is ongoing. Narcissists seek gratification, and gaslighting is one method. The gaslighter tells the victim what to think, they have no right to their feelings, plays the victim, and may even claim that they know you better than you know yourself.
Take note that the gaslighter will use other people against his or her targets. Victims are often belittled in front of their friends and family, and the accumulation can lead to the recipient having self-doubt, even to the point of questioning their perception of reality.
One note here is that gaslighting is a tactic of narcissists, but there are other toxic people that use it.
Atheism and Mental Illness
Yeah, I know, them’s fightin’ words. Well, deal with it because I’m going to lay out my controversial speculations.
Atheists exhibit many of the characteristics of narcissists and sociopaths. (See “It All Adds Up: Many Atheists are Nuts,” where I discuss an article on narcissistic sociopaths.) You will frequently see, especially on social(ist) media, that atheists pretend to be smarter than “theists.” They also dehumanize Christians and creationists, which makes it easier to negate our views; some cannot say anything good about, or in agreement with, a Christian!
At other times, atheopaths will act like we’re all amigos on a first-name basis. I’ve been called by my first name, the atheist pretends to be patient and friendly — and told what I think and believe! (Take a look at “Further Adventures in Atheo-Fascism” for a more detailed analysis on how they dodge things they don’t like.) Internet atheists can be the most vile and underhanded.
Gaslighting is obviously most effective in personal relationships, but some attempt to do this online. Atheists ridicule, mock, demonize, and recruit others to join in. This can be used to destroy the Christian’s confidence, and even cause him or her to doubt their memory and thinking — perhaps even to doubt their faith.
When pointing out on Fakebook that an atheopath used a logical fallacy, the response is a laughing emoji.
Catch them in a lie, same response.
Correct a misotheist about their own evolutionary mythology, same response.
Keep one on topic, same response.
Require one to keep to the standards they demand of us and back up their claims…you guessed it.
Do these things sound like characteristics of healthy minds? That’ll be the day! Atheists are exceptionally negative people, and what is deep inside comes out when being keyboard warriors in their safe spaces. Narcissists and sociopaths get furious — furious, I tell you! — when their manipulations fail. If you want to torment online misotheist troll, deny them the attention they crave.
Early on at this WordPress thing (it will never be the home of The Question Evolution Project), I was trolled by a site run by atheopaths. Personal attacks, ridicule, avoiding the content, the usual nonsense. When I blocked that site from commenting here, everything ceased. If they talk about the content here, I’m not aware of it.
I’ll allow it’s mighty difficult to refrain from getting wrapped up into equivalent retaliation, but Christians are not called to slap leather with every internet tinhorn, no matter how wicked and manipulative.
The Spiritual Aspect
When encountering knowledgeable Christians and creationists, Christophobes become even more obstreperous than usual. Why is that?
Non-Christians are the property of Satan. I believe atheists and occultists are closer to him than most people. We do know from Scripture that unbelievers hate Christ in us, and he told us they would hate us. But the one that is in us is greater than the one in the world (1 John 4:4). The spirit controlling them can see the Spirit that is in us.
Atheists are angry, and their fundamentally-flawed worldview is bleak and hopeless. The universe began by chance, life originated by chance from minerals (your mother was a rock and your father was rain), evolution happened through time, chance, random processes, mutations, natural selection — and when you die, you’re worm food. No Judgement, no rewards, no punishment. Yes, very bleak.
Why waste their time tormenting Christians and creationists? I doesn’t make sense to spend so much time seeking their identities and railing against the God they pretend doesn’t exist. But their father Satan requires it. Atheopaths are full of pride as well as wickedness, and it is extremely difficult to get narcissists to realize that they are sinners in need of humility and repentance. We need to pray, share the gospel, be firm but avoid being contentious. Their conversion is not up to us and our golden words (1 Cor. 2:1-2), that is the work of the Holy Spirit. We are to be faithful. And we know what — and who — is real.
Video Links of Interest
These come from secular perspectives, and most have something to sell. A couple are from people who claim to be actual licensed therapists, some are from people who have lived through their experiences. I embedded one below. They provide interesting and probably useful information, but I cannot endorse everything they say.
Bird-to-dinosaur evolution is the majority view in that area, but that doesn’t make it right. Indeed, there are numerous drastic changes (documented in detail on many biblical creationist sites) that make the whole thing risible.
One of my earliest memories as a very young child is seeing a robin pull an earthworm out of the ground in our backyard. I remember watching as the robin tugged and tugged, stretching the worm to its limit in a taut line till it popped out of the ground and the robin enjoyed a delicious repast.
Robins yanking worms from the ground fascinated me as a little four-year-old boy. I used to watch robins run across our lawn, pause and cock their heads, and then suddenly strike the ground with their beaks to get a worm.
I learned that robins use sight, hearing, and touch to find worms. Robins have keen eyesight and can spot the end of a worm poking out of the ground. They also see minute changes in the ground as worms move just below the surface. As the worms move…
Many in the Reformed community have attacked me as “immature” in the faith, or even unsaved, because I don’t accept every point of Calvinism. When I expressed pain and that I was thinking of ending it all, only one showed any concern. Was it because I wasn’t one of them?
Calvinism seems to hinge on the doctrine of election, which I cannot embrace (One thing I cannot get around when it comes to particular redemption is a verse tucked away in Acts 13:48, “And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed”.)
Well, I’m not here to please everyone, and I’ll say that some act like cultists, even like atheists, who want to be “right” and members of an exclusive club. Mayhaps if they explained their positions more clearly, and showed love toward fellow believers who doubt or question some of their views, some degree of understanding could be reached. Hey, want an irony? A Calvinist that’s allergic to tulips.
I wasn’t raised a Calvinist, but I have been immersed in Calvinistic churches for a long many years now, and most of the pastors I listened to on line have been Calvinists. So, I knew it existed, and I knew Calvinism was locked in an eternal struggle against the evil forces of Armenianism.
Those filthy heretics.
And the fact is, it’s not something a lot of pastors tend to address directly. It’s sort of a background assumption that they hold, but don’t talk about, like the value of the Electoral College, or the bennefits of Vitamin D. And with the knowledge that Calvinism is rooted in the clear teaching of scripture, I occasionally wondered how ANYONE could be foolish enough to be an Arminian. But it slowly began to occur to me that, as long…
It’s been interesting to see this case tried in the court of public opinion by people who are ready to slap leather with each other. These jaspers don’t know all the facts. How often does this happen, anyway? As I’ve said many times, people “think” with their emotions, but do not do more than pet the trash pandas.
I’m about to make a case for NOT believing all women, but before I do, I want to state that this case is built on the foundation of the equality between the genders. Of which there are only two.
And while I’m blowing the minds of my Leftist friends, I’ll even define “Woman” for you: An adult human female.
I guess I’m overqualified for the Supreme Court. But I digress.
The Johnny Depp/Amber Heard defecation lawsuit… oh, excuse me, Defamation lawsuit has been playing nonstop, live on the internet for a couple of weeks now as if it’s an important soccer match between Brazil and England. Here’s why it is happening:
Apparently Ms. Heard wrote an article in a major newspaper accusing Mr. Depp of being abusive to her during their marriage, describing herself as a victim of domestic abuse. Because of the #MeToo movement, and the subsequent “Believe…
The Disney company has been showing signs of political correctness, wokeness, and just plain arrogance for years. Now they are way over any lines of decency. Read this article to see what’s going on with the garbage panda.
How about that title, huh? Attention grabbing! But far from being click-bait, I am about to argue that the creative minds behind Pixar’s Turning Red have made a 90 minute advertisement for middle school girls to get into… adult entertainment and the sex trades.
Wow, I feel dirty just saying this stuff. But, here we go.
Turning Red is Trash
TheWrap spoke to director Domee Shi (making her feature directorial debut) and producer Lindsey Collins. You can find it here.
The tile of this article is, as you will see if you follow the link is
‘Turning Red’ Director Domee Shi and Producer Lindsey Collins on Making Pixar’s Horniest Movie Yet (The filmmakers open up about puberty and red pandas)
Yup. That’s what THEY said about this movie. But, WAIT. It gets worse.
Director Domee Shi says this about her intent in making this movie:
This child is often late to the party when it comes to reviewing books, movies, and videos. In this case, A Matter of Faith is a movie from October 2014. God’s Not Dead, which I have not seen, was released in March of that year. I watched this one on 30 April 2022.
Irrelevant, but a fun surprise for me is that it was filmed in Grand Rapids, Michigan. I know the area, having lived near there for several years.
Christian movies are like getting grub from the chuckwagon: depends on who is doing the cooking. The genre has a reputation for Pollyanna-style material and bad acting, and some of that is deserved. For example, the A Thief in the Night films that began in 1972 had a good message about the end times, but acting and production were often poor. If I recollect rightly, the last two were improvements over the first ones.
To be fair, the movie industry is known for being hostile to presenting Christians in a positive light, so enthusiastic Christians filmmakers work with low budgets and whomever they can get to work in front of and behind the cameras. Many are using actors who make no pretense at Christianity, but still do their roles in a professional manner.
Things are changing. While many Christian movies suffer from weak writing, it is incorrect to assume that if it’s faith-based, it’s going to be bad. Can’t be using the genetic fallacy and rejecting the entire genre, we have to judge them on their own merits.
Here’s what happened that brought A Matter of Faith to my attention. YouTube recommends videos, so I looked. The entire movie is available there on a channel supposedly owned by the Christiano brothers of Five & Two Pictures who made it. It can be seen on the cutely-named Freevee (formerly IMDB TV), which is owned by Amazon (an Amazon account is required to use it, but not the overpriced Prime). It is also on Pluto and Tubi. Note that selections change, so it may not be on any of those tomorrow.
I went to IMDB and saw that it had a user review score of 3.7 out of 10. Atheists were out in force to vote the movie down. It’s who they are and what they do. Some were saying “worst movie ever made”, and one hatetheist equated it with ISIS propaganda (hyperbole much?), plus other extremely negative claims against Christianity — especially creation science.
After all, they are compelled to protect their fundamentally-flawed origins mythology because it is foundational to atheism. Many of the reviews did not show any knowledge of the movie beyond having watched the trailer, but yee haw boy howdy, they sure did use the word propaganda quite a bit.
One sidewinder said it had the “same merit as a Jonestown Koolaid commercial” and “I think the purpose of making this terrible movie was to try to enlist new members to a rapidly dwindling cult using hollow logic and citing mythical situations as “proof” to support their weak indoctrination attempt.” I could triple the length of this article by examining the false claims and blatant hypocrisy of many reviews, but we need to move on.
Rachel Whitaker was raised in a Christian home and she is going off to college. Her biology class is taught by Professor Kaman (Harry Anderson of Night Court fame), who has an agenda. He promises that if students attend the classes, they are guaranteed a passing grade. That’s a mite suspicious.
During her first few weeks, Rachel is too busy for church or reading her Bible. Professor Kaman, being the caiman that he is, makes bold evolutionary pronouncements with “evidence” that is strictly conjecture, and Rachel is accepting seeds of doubt.
Her father, Steven Whitaker, is upset that Kaman teaches evolution. (Where has he been? The secular science industry and academia are saturated with people who have a worldview based on atheistic naturalism for many years.) Steve visits the professor to respectfully complain about the evolution-only curriculum. Since the college needs a topic for an upcoming debate series, the professor cajoles Steve into debating him.
One trick is saying, “Evolution versus creationism“, and when -ism is used, it has a negative connotation for many people. That was the title of the debate. However (and this puts burrs under the saddles of fundamentalist evolutionists), both creationism and evolutionism can both be used. Indeed, many creationists have no problem with the word creationism.
A professor with training in evolutionism and a passel of experience in public speaking will debate an inexperienced parent of a student. Seems legit. Actually, biblical creation scientists have a difficult time in getting their secular counterparts to debate. Their challenges are declined or ignored most of the time. If Kaman wanted a hot topic for debate, he could have found several qualified creationists who would oblige.
Please pay attention. Although the professor is an atheist and evolutionist, he say, “I teach what my textbooks tells me to teach,” then praises evolutionary scientists. However, parents who take solace in the fact that there are Christian teachers in the public school system are deceiving themself. The reason is that, like Kaman implies, the curriculum given by the state takes priority.
Another student named Evan met Rachel and said that he had taken Kaman’s biology course. He pointed out that Kaman has an agenda and tried to get her thinking.
Rachel’s father wants to get is message out to Rachel and other students. She is appalled — appalled, I tell you — that her father is going to do the debate. Professor Kaman won’t change his beliefs. Also, it will “ruin me on campus!” Apparently nobody considered the possibility that if Steve pulled out, he would be labeled a coward and things would be worse for her.
A glaring error in the movie is that it was claimed that Kaman teaches that we evolved from apes. According to evolutionary beliefs, humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. (The fact that our putative ancestors sure did look like apes apparently has no bearing on the situation.) The “evolved from apes” thing is something creationists should avoid.
Another weak point in the movie is something that should be discussed. Too many Christians and creationists attempt to defend our views with “memes” and clever sayings that would fit on bumper stickers, but are woefully unprepared in witnessing to atheists and evolutionists. These folks get slapped down by opponents who have learned their talking points and boilerplate rhetoric. Rachel’s father knew what he believed, but not why, and was unable to defend his position in the debate.
Kaman (if he had a first name other than Professor, I missed it) used rhetorical tricks including assertions, appeal to emotion, false definitions (including the common atheistic definition of faith), straw man, and more. He also used the category error of demanding scientific proof of God. While some may claim that the movie makers were creating a straw many with the way Kaman presented his arguments, other creationists and I have seen such things many times.
In addition, there are indeed professors who are openly hostile to Christianity and especially to creation. This Kaman jasper is a representation of many reports that drop down over the transom.
I left out details that would spoil the movie for y’all, but there were a couple of surprises. One had the professor giving what was said in the debate some thought afterward. There is no “everybody gets saved, let’s have a group hug” ending, but there were some unexpected events well as a couple of things that could be predicted by viewers.
A Matter of Faith was recommended by Creation Ministries International, Answers in Genesis, and others. It has some flaws beyond what I have said, but my agenda is to encourage people who watch it and keep in mind some of the things I have said. Ask yourselves and each other questions. F’rinstance, how would layman Steve have fared against Kaman if he had prepared from the numerous materials available online provided by creationists? How about if he knew and used a presuppositional approach?
To make the movie more realistic, they could have done a full, formal debate. (It would also have been quite a bit longer.) I mentioned earlier that Rachel told her father that he would not change Kaufman’s views. That almost never happens in a debate, although it may happen later. Good debates are for each side to present their viewpoints, and to see if they can withstand scrutiny. If you can spare 2-1/2 hours, I highly recommend the “Does God Exist?” debate between Dr. Greg Bahnsen and Dr. Gordon Stein.
Again, I recommend that Christians and biblical creationists see A Matter of Faith. They can spot some flaws, and learn about doing apologetics. Also pay attention and notice that evolutionists live by faith themselves. A link to the video was posted here, but I had to remove it because the video is no longer available to the public.