Thursday, April 22, 2010

Iglesia Ni Cristo

I have been discussing many religions that you should be aware of, and this religion isn't any different. There are so many religions where a person is claiming that they are either God, or a Prophet of God. You really need to be very careful about anybody claiming that they are a Prophet of God with a new revelation instead of teaching you the teachings of Jesus. Jesus convinced thousands and millions of people to follow him because he gave them evidence to convince them that he was the Messiah. He displayed miracles, he rose from the dead, and he spoke with powerful wisdom. The Bible warns of false teachers and false prophets, but you shouldn't believe them. When Jesus comes back, it will be like lighting coming from the east to the west. The next prophet will be the Prophet of the Anti-Christ. The Iglesia ni Cristo church was founded in the Philippines. They have now spread to over sixty-seven countries outside of the Philippines.

This church claims that Jesus isn't God, but a created being. However, the scripture clearly states that Jesus said of himself, "I Am who I Am". He was referencing the Old Testament's Name of God. I discussed some of these issues with a pastor from this church when I lived on Guam, and it was amazing how he twisted the meaning of the scriptures around. Many cult leaders are pretty good at twisting the scriptures to mean what they want them to mean, but that doesn't mean that they are right in their conclusion. The Bible is clear that Jesus is God, the Bible is clear that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, and the Bible is clear that Jesus rose again from the dead.

Any religion or church that claims that they are the true religion based on new information outside of the Bible is a false church.

The Inglesia points to their name as evidence that they are the true Church. You can't call yourself something and claim that you have the truth just because of your name. They claim that its emergence in the Philippines was prophesied in the Bible.
"Fear not, for I am with you; I will bring your offspring from the east, and from the west I will gather you; I will say to the north, ‘Give up,’ and the south, ‘Do not withhold; bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth.’"
The fact is, you can't make any conclusions about the Philippines based on this verse.

My warning to you is to be careful of false religions so you don't get sucked into a lie.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

How to Start Making Money Blogging

This post is for those of you who are interested in making money online by blogging. You can make some money with adsense and other means, but I have found that you can make the most money with post advertising. You can sign up with different companies and take what is called an "opportunity". The opportunity will give you instructions on what the advertiser wants you to post on your blog. The amount that they will pay you can range from 5 dollars to 30 dollars or maybe even more. You will take certain opportunities based on your google or alexia rank and the higher the google rank, the better the opportunity you can get. The "Pay per Post" community has also come out with their own ranking called the "Real Rank" which is another way to decide if they want to give you the opportunity. Here are the steps you can do to start making money with your blog.

1)The first thing you need to do is to create a blog. You can visit to create your blog. I would recommend paying the 10 dollars to also get your own domain. You don't have to be an expert writer or a journalist to have a blog. You should spend some time to make sure your blog is grammatically correct though. You should think of a theme of your blog or make your blog general to talk about everyday things. You should try and come up with a creative title too. After you have your blog created, you should post a new post probably at least three times a week. Pay Per Post requires you to have at least 10 post in a month before submitting your blog to them. If you quote another website, you should remember to site your source. However, your post should be mostly original.

2)The higher the google rank, the better opportunities you will receive. Therefore, you should submit your blog to google at

3)You should also submit your blog to places that will analyze your traffic. You can do this by submitting your blog to google analytics at this website: I also use the sitemeter which is located at this site:

4)To increase the traffic on your blog, you should submit your blog to different aggregators. People who become members of these aggregators will visit your blog. You can submit your blog to blog catalog at: Here is a list of aggregators:
5)It might help you to get familiar with changing your layout and adding widgets. You can add Google Adsense to your blog that will increase your income. However, that will only matter if you are getting a lot of hits.

6)You can add code to your blog that will display your google rank or Alexa Rank that will let you see what your ranks are. and

7)You also might want to put a shout box on your blog. Having a shoutbox allows you to network. You will go to other people's blogs and put your information into their shoutbox, and in return, they will return to your blog. In the beginning, this can increase your traffic on your blog. To increase your page rank, you would want good blogs linking to your blog.

8) The companies will pay you through your paypal account. Therefore, you should open up a paypal account. You will need to link it to your checking or savings account. (

9)Most "Pay per Post" sites require that your blog is at least 3 months old. After you have your blog up and running for three months, you can start submitting your blog to websites that will give you opportunities. These companies will have advertisers that will pay you five or more dollars to write a review about their product or website. Usually the review will be about 200 words.
Here is the list of sites that will give you opportunities:

10)After you start taking opportunities, you need to be a little concerned about losing your page rank. Sometimes Google might think that your blog is spam and will remove your page rank. If that happens, the amount of opportunities will also dwindle. It is kind of hard to predict when or why Google will take a person's page rank away because they don't tell you why.
Here are some tips to prevent you from losing your pagerank:

Put the nofollow tags on your links for your opportunities. Make sure that the advertise doesn't have a problem with you putting the nofollow tags. Some advertisers would require you to add the nofollow tag. You would add this to your link: rel="nofollow". The nofollow tag tells google not to follow the link.
Don't put any text link ad scripts or broker links.
Remove any PayPerPost logos.
On the blogger disclosure, you may want to reword, remove or use an image. PayPerPost requires a disclosure, but you might try and use an image.
e) If you do lose your pagerank, you can go to google and ask them to reconsider. You can tell them that you improved your site and that they should reconsider your pagerank. You can do that by signing into google, and under tools, click request reconsideration and follow the steps.

I hope this helps you to be a successful blogger.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Pictures of Japan

These are some pictures taken during my trip to Japan. I was able to travel to Japan when I was in the Navy. I was stationed in Atsugi NAS while in the Navy.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Testimony for Christian Singles Registry

I was hoping to get married in my 20s, but that never happened for me. I am glad I didn't because I wouldn't have met my soul mate if I got married in my 20s. After I graduated from Sacramento State, I joined a penpal club where I met my wife. We corresponded through the mail for a while and then I went to the Philippines to meet her. After we first met, I knew she was the one for me. After I got back to America, we started talking on the phone quite a bit. I was still going to school, but I knew I wanted to get married when I graduated. I proposed to Demcy over the phone and surprisingly, she said yes. I flew over there during my school break and we got married on Christmas Eve. Getting married in the Philippines was quite an experience. The Mayor married us, but we had a paperwork issue. For a foreigner to marry a Filipino in the Philippines, they have to get a permit. I wasn't aware of this, and either was anybody else. The Mayor's office wasn't even sure where I would get the permit to get married, but they knew I needed it. We finally found out that we needed to get it from the American Embassy. We thought we had to go to Manila to get it which is quite far from where we were. We got married in Cagayan De Oro in Midanao and that isn't anywhere near Manila. That is like telling someone in California they need to go New York to get a permit to get married. Luckly we found a place in Cebu to get the permit. Cebu is only a days travel on ferry. We went to Cebu and got the permit and brought it back to Cagayan De Oro. I was getting ready to leave because in January I was suppose to go to a military school. I found out that the permit would only be valid if I stayed in the Philippines for 10 days after obtaining the permit. The problem is that nobody tells you all of this at once. I ended up leaving anyway because I wasn't able to stay there for 10 days more after obtaining the permit. I also found out that it is easier to get someone into America with a fiancee visa then a married visa. There are some legal issues when you are married that can cause more of a problem. A married visa can take up to a year to get the person into this country when a fiancee visa can take 6 months. I ended up getting my wife here on a fiancee visa and she arrived a few weeks after I graduated from Sacramento State. She actually arrived here just in time for my mothers funeral.

If you are interested in meeting women overseas, I suggest checking out the Christian Single's Registry. It worked for me.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Ancient Document Rules and Atheist that Converted to Christianity

To analyze ancient documents, you have to follow some important rules to know if they are accurate.

First, they have to use the “ancient documents rule” which says, "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself." The Atheist do not apply this rule. They are so arrogant that they doubt what the author said trying to discredit them when the Atheist have no idea what the world was like 2000 years ago.

The next thing a critic needs to remember is the “parol evidence rule” which says, “External, oral testimony or tradition will not be received in evidence to add to, subtract from, vary, or contradict an executed written instrument such as a will. This rule insists that the New Testament documents should be allowed to 'interpret itself' and not be twisted to external, extra-biblical data.”

The other rule to follow is “The hearsay rule” which states, “A witness must testify 'of his own knowledge', not on the basis of what has come to him indirectly from others i.e. hearsay. Were the writers on the New Testament documents eyewitnesses of the events that they recorded?”

You also need to follow “The cross-examination principle” which says, “The more a witness is subjected to close and searching cross examination, the more confidence we can place in their testimony. Were the witnesses of Jesus and his life subjected to severe opposition - hostile cross-examiners who would destroy the case of Christianity if the early Christian's testimony been contradicted by the facts?”

When you apply these principles to the New Testament, you will find that the New Testament is accurate and valid.

Plagiarism is a new concept that is only talked about in modern times. It definitely wasn’t an issue when the Bible was written. Matthew wrote first, later Luke wrote his Gospel and then Mark wrote his Gospel. The Atheist already has it wrong because Mark wrote his Gospel last. He used the Matthew and Luke books to write his Gospel, but so what? If someone is writing a reference book today, they might quote or use information from someplace else too, but does that mean the book is inaccurate? Luke was writing on his own understanding of the events. Just because he got some another source doesn't make his document inaccurate. Luke was a close friend of the apostles and that would make his testimony valid.

The Atheist website goes on to attempt to discredit the letters written by Saul. It looks like they forgot to discuss his conversion. They talk about how the letters don’t talk about the Gospels, but they forget to mention if the story of Paul is accurate. Paul was converted to Christianity after he persecuted Christians by a vision he had of Jesus. Apparently that evidence wasn’t important enough for them to mention.

The Atheist have to spend a lot of time going through all of the evidence for the New Testament to attempt to discredit each individual item. If Jesus didn't exist, there wouldn't be any items to attempt to discredit.

Looking around at the Atheists website, they talk a lot about how no prominent Atheist ever converted to Christianity. However, that is not the case. I guess in there mind a prominent Atheist is someone who actually wrote something on Atheism. I think most people that are big time Atheist to the point where they invested their life to disprove Christian probably are lost causes anyway. The person who writes for the Atheist website I am sure would never be converted to Christianity. Someone who is that far into their hatred for Christians probably won’t ever convert. Like I said before, the Atheists are usually someone who had a bad experience with Christianity so they do everything they can to discredit it. They even go so far as to attempt to convince people that the most prominent man that ever lived didn’t even exists. However, there are many people who were Atheist, and who didn’t believe in God at some point in there life that did convert to Christianity. It is probably because they realized that there has to be something more to life then what we have today. There has to be a better place in this world then the killing, terrorism, and hatred that goes on in today’s world. These Atheists below are people who didn’t believe in a God, but didn’t sink so far into the hatred for Christianity that they became a lost cause. They eventually saw the truth and converted.


1) Steve Beren who was a former member of the Socialist Workers Party who became a conservative politician

2) Anders Borg

3) Whittaker Chambers who was a Communist and became a conservative writer

4) Francis Collins who was a Geneticist atheist until 27

5) Andre Frossard

6) Eugene D. Genovese who was a Historian Stalinist

7) We also know that Madalyn Murray O'Hair's son became a Christian. The athiest will say that he wasn't a famous atheist. What is the definition of a famious atheist? An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God. I guess they say that it only matters if the atheist wrote books about being an atheist and then converted. To me, an atheist is someone who was brainwashed into hating religion or God. Madalyn Murray O'Hair's son was completly brainwashed. He converted to Christianity because he realized, at a low point in his life, that there has to be someone smarter then man in this universe. Have you noticed that all of the famous atheist had a deep hatred for Christians? The atheist website will deny this, but every atheist website I have ever been to talks alot about trying to disprove Christianity. Jesus taught that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kindom of heaven. It is also hard for an arrogant atheist who denies that an the extremely complex universe was created my intelligence and not by some random chance to enter the kindom of heaven. The fact is that many people of all walks of life have converted to Christianity because they came to the realization of the truth.

You can see many more at this site:

Some information is taken from:

The fact of the matter is this, Jesus did exist and he is a historical figure and anybody who attempts to say he isn't is ignorant of the facts.

Now the art of holding on to things your reason 'has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. That is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods where they get off, you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion. Consequently one must train the habit of Faith. - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Did Jesus Exists, Old Testament Prophecies Fulfilled in Jesus

>> Monday, October 6, 2008

The Atheists who do not believe that Jesus even lived completely discount the Old Testament Prophecies concerning him. Why would they take into consideration the Old Testament Prophecies concerning a man they don't even believe existed? The fact that Jesus didn't exist must be the greatest hoax in the history of man. Not only because he was lying about who he said he was, but that he didn't even exist. If they believed that he existed, then they would have to consider that he fulfilled these prophecies.

Some important prophecies he fulfilled:

1) He was betrayed by a friend (Psalm 41:9->Matthew 10:4)
2) He was sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12->Matthew 26:15)
3) Forsaken by his disciples (Zechariah 13:7->Mark 14:50)
4) Spit upon (Isaiah 50:6, Micah 5:1->Mathew 26:67)
5) Crucified with thieves (Isaiah 53:12->Matthew 27:38)
6) The conversion of the Gentiles to him (Isaiah 11:10, 42:1 ->Mt 1:17)

If Jesus existed, and these prophecies were written before they happened, then this is something that is very significant to the world. There are around 2500 prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus. The mathematical chance of them being fulfilled are 10 to the 2000 power.
Many of these prophecies were outside his control such as what his name would be called, where he was born etc. Before you can think these Prophecies could be true, you would have to consider that the Bible is accurate. You have to believe that the Old Testament was written before the New Testament, that Jesus existed, and that the text is reliable and hasn't been changed over time.

"All of the many examples of OT "predictions" of Jesus are so silly that one need only look them up to see their irrelevance". This quote is taken from the Atheist website at:

The Atheist completely discount these prophecies by calling them silly. It is more silly to think that this complex universe came into existence by chance and so many religions are based on a man that never existed. Now that is silly.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

The Truth about Catholicism and Transubstantiation

The Vatican

Venus Italy.

I was raised Catholic and it was pretty hard to make the decision to leave.
I believe a Catholic has the information that they need to understand God so they can be saved; however, there is a lot of false information that they add to the Bible that clouds the Truth behind lies.

Transubstantiation is a doctrine of the Catholic Church that I think most Catholics don't even know about. It is the center of the Catholic MASS.

During the MASS, the priest changes the bread and wine LITERALLY into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

They take the verse literally when Jesus says:
John 6:32-58 and especially verses 53-57, “Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life … For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him … so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.’”
The bread and the wine contains the same taste and texture of bread and wine, but somehow it literally changes to the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Why wouldn't the texture and taste change?

I think it takes a deeper look at the scriptures to understand what Jesus was saying. I don't think Jesus was teaching cannibalism. He was trying to explain to the people that they must accept his sacrifice on the cross for their sins.
Luke 22:14-23
When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God."
After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

Jesus was describing what was going to happen the following day and that he is giving his life for them. He is not telling them that he is to be sacrificed over and over again every Sunday in every Catholic Church until the end of the world. The Catholic Church claims to believe in the Bible, but they hold a view point that is unscriptural and a little hard to believe.
Hebrews 7:27 declares, "Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself."

If you are looking to follow truth and to follow Jesus Christ, you need to look to the scriptures for the truth.

Apostolic Succession Catholic

Can the Catholic Church claim that the Pope’s lineage goes all the way to Peter, the Apostle of Jesus. At one point in history there was actually no Pope. There was two Popes who ended up excommunicated each other.

The cardinals elected Urban to be the Pope, but he was unpopular when he attempted some reform. After 6 months, the cardinals declared his Papacy as invalid. They elected Clement VII to replace him. Italy, England, Poland and Hungary remained loyal to Urban while France, Scotland, Naples and the Spanish kingdoms supported Clement. Each Pope excommunicated the other Pope. So whoever was the valid Pope, the half of the world was condemned to hell while the other half was saved.

Friday, April 16, 2010

Catholics and The Veneration (Worship ) of Mary

"Mary is the first saint, and holds high honor today, as she did in the early Church. Over the course of history, devotion to Mary has taken many forms, and even has been confused with worship. Church teaching has consistently placed Mary in the company of the saints, however."

The Catholic Church claims that Mary is just another Saint and the Catholic Church just respects and honors her. If that is the case, then why is it that they give her Godly attributes? They claim she isn't worshipped, but they say that she never died (Like Jesus) and they say that she was sinless (Like Jesus), and they say that she ascended into heaven (Like Jesus). They also claim that she never had sexual relations (Like Jesus) even though she was married (which anybody who is married should realize how hard this is to do). If Mary had all these attributes, then why isn't she worshipped? That would be my question. There are some serious theological issues with some of the view points that are placed onto Mary that needs to be analyzed.

When I was first having questions about the Catholic Faith, I looked all over the Bible trying to find where the Bible says that Mary was sinless, or that Mary ascended into heaven. I couldn't find it.

The Catholic answer to this problem would be:
"Are you aware that you are clinging to a Protestant tradition? There is no verse in Sacred Scripture that says all religious truth must be found explicitly in Scripture."

The Protestants are the people who hold the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, without errors or contradictions. The Catholic Church apparently doesn't hold to this view even though they read the Bible in every MASS. The question is this, where would the Catholic Church get other information outside the Bible that is inspired by God? I would also ask, if Mary was sinless and ascended into heaven, wouldn't that have appeared in the Gospels? Wouldn't that be almost as significant as some of the stuff that Jesus did? Don't you think the Apostles would have mentioned something so significant in the Gospels? So if this information about Mary isn't in the Bible, then where does it come from?

"At the Council of Trent in 1546, the veneration of Mary became official Catholic doctrine. She was declared sinless, and in 1854 Pope Pius IX added that her conception was immaculate as well, preserving her from original sin. The Vatican Council of 1870 ratified Mary's immaculate conception and further stated that the popes were infallible. Current doctrine. In 1950 Pope Pius XII decreed that Mary had been "assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." Vatican II calls Mary the "Mother of the Church" and partially credits her for the new birth. She is considered the "second Eve" in the same manner that Scripture calls Jesus the second Adam."

So the Catholic Church believes that the Popes has the power to add to the Bible any view point they choose. The reason why Protestants hold to the Bible is because we know the Bible is inspired by God because of the evidence. But, there isn't any evidence to support that the Pope is infallible. It is interesting to note that a Pope declares himself to be infallible. You don't think this is a little suspicious that a man declares himself to be infallible. If I started to go around telling my family and friends that I am infallible, they will think I am crazy. People will need to realize that only God is infallible. Even the Apostles were fallible. I mean, Peter and Paul had arguments. So if Peter was the first Pope, as the Catholic Church claims, was he infallible?

"All Have Sinned and Fall Short of the Glory of God"
Romans 3:23

This verse doesn't say except Mary or except the Pope, but everybody.

Mary sings a song in Luke 1:47:
my spirit rejoices in God my Savior...

In this verse, Mary sings a Song and calls God her Savior. If she is sinless, then what does she need a Savior for? The whole point of men needing a Savior is because we are sinners and have sinned against God. If Mary never sinned against God, then she doesn't need a savior.

Luke 2:22 says:
"...and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, 'A PAIR OF TURTLEDOVES OR TWO YOUNG PIGEONS.'"

In this verse when Jesus was born, Mary sacrificed pigeons for her sins. She was following the Jewish tradition recognizing that she was a sinner and needed to sacrifice for her sins.

In Conclusion:

You need to be very careful of adopting mans view points. Religions all over the world adopt view points made by man, but the only religious text that God has given to man to understand him is the Bible. Therefore, you need to study the Bible to learn truth. Truth is found in the Bible and not the other way around.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

The Truth about Mormonism

The Mormon Temple in UTAH.

Another religion I would like to discuss is Mormonism. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. That he is the Savior of the World as described in the Bible. However, there are many religions in the world that claim to believe in the Bible, but then they either add something to it, or they take something away from it.

Mormonism is a big religion in the United States and they are growing all over the world. I am sure that most people, at least in the US, have had a Mormon show up at their door sometime in their life. My question is, is Mormonism true? Are they just another Chrisitan sect, and are they inline with the Bible?

Most of the Mormons I have met are pretty nice people. My Mom's best friend is Mormon and she was one of the nicest people I have ever met. There is one thing that the Bible teaches and that is, just because you are a nice person doesn't mean you will enter the Gates of Heaven. I know that might come as a shock to many people, but Jesus said (John 14:6), "I (Jesus) am the way the truth and the life, and no man goes to the Father except through me." That is a pretty profound statement. It doesn't say anything about being a nice person, or all the good people will go to heaven, but it says that if you follow Jesus, then you will enter the gates of heaven.

Joseph Smith founded the Mormon Church around 1827. He claimed he saw a vision of God who showed him where these gold tablets were in New York. The gold tablets contained the new revelation from God which became the Book of Mormon.

Just from this short biography something already scares me. Joseph Smith is the only person who saw the vision from God. How can you believe a revelation based on one man? I mean, when Jesus rose from the dead, thousands of people saw him. Thousands of people saw Jesus turn bread into fish. Jesus had 12 disciples that were eye witnesses of his miracles. But, only one man witnessed this new revelation from God? This vision Joseph Smith received said that all the religions of the world were incorrect, and these new gold tablets will allow Joseph Smith to establish the true religion. If that was true, then that information would destroy the reliability of the Bible. One thing that Christians claim is that the Bible is reliable. God preserved the Bible, since it is his word, so man would know about God and know how to follow him. After almost 2000 years, God was unable to preserve his word so now, through Joseph Smith, he needed to bring man a brand new revelation that contradicts the first one? (Yes it contradicts the Bible, and I will explain that shortly) All of this seems a little fishy to me, and it should seem fishy to you too.

The Bible says believers were first called Christians after Paul's ministry in Antioch.

Acts 11:26 "And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

However, the Book of Mormon claims people were known by this title as early as 73 B.C.

Alma 46:15 "...yea, all those who were true believes in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come."

The Holy Ghost was bestowed on the Christians at the time of Pentecost.
Luke 24:49 "And, behold, I send the promise of my Father unto you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high."
Acts 2:1-4 "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. ... And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost,..."

Yet the Book of Mormon claims that people received the gift of the Holy Ghost as early as 545 B.C.
Nephi 31:12-13 "...the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me... Wherefore, my beloved brethren,... by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost;..."

These are just a couple of contradictions but there are many. The Bible was put together in a period of 3000 years and doesn't contradict itself. That is one of the amazing things about the Bible. However, if an "inspired" book shows up 2000 years after the Bible was canonized and has many obvious contradictions, I would have to wonder if the book is really inspired by God.

"Mormonism must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a Prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead people, then he should be exposed, his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false..."
("Doctrines of Salvation," vol. 1 pp 188-189.)

Another interesting thing about Mormonism that they do not want to talk about is their racist roots. Just like evolution, Mormonism is also filled with racism. Mormonism was founded in the same century that Darwin came up with his theory of evolution. It is interesting enough that both of them were racist toward black people.
1 Nephi 12:23
"And I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark and loathsome and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations."

2 Nephi 5:21
"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

2 Nephi 30:6
". . . a white and delightsome people."
"that their original "priesthood" (and "prophets") declared that sins such as murder, theft, adultery - or a white person marrying a black person - would be punished on earth by castration or "death on the spot"!"

It is scary to think about all the black people joining the Mormon church today.

Do they know the racist history of the church they are joining or do they just not care?

I have only touched on some of the issues regarding the Mormons, but there are many more. I realize that if you are Mormon reading this, you might be getting pretty defensive right now. I realize it is pretty hard to leave or question a religion that you have been raised to believe, but everybody needs to challenge their own belief system to find the truth. I questioned my faith when I questioned some of the Catholic teachings, and you need to question yours. Truth is what you should be after, not lies.

If you are someone considering joining the Mormon Church, I hope you take some serious time studying the teaching of the Mormon Church first. You might want to ask questions to someone who is an ex-Mormon because you might be enlightened by their answers.

My point with this post is to show you that Joseph Smith and his book isn't the way to salvation, but only through Jesus Christ of the Bible will someone be saved.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Evidence for Evolution and an Old Earth, a Catholic Perspective

I wanted to comment on a website located at

The author of this article is trying to convince Catholics that the theory of evolution is true, and it is supported by Catholic Theology.

I am not Catholic but my father raised my entire family Catholic. My dad is pretty conservative, but I think he gets confused on some of the issues regarding the Bible because of the liberal theology that gets spewed out of the Catholic church. There is one thing that the Catholic church is suppose to agree on with the Protestants and that is the Bible.

I have already talked about all of the major holes in the theory of evolution, but I don't understand why a Catholic, who claims to believe in God and the Bible, wants to spend his time trying to convince other Catholics of the theory of evolution.

This is one of the reasons why I left the Catholic church. The Catholic church has fallen into the trap of becoming just another liberal church that can't stand up for Biblical Truth. Quoting from the article: "I find most creationists who reject evolution wholesale really know nothing of the science that's behind the theory." This goes back to one of my prior posts. So are you telling me that no creation scientist knows anything about evolution? Give me a break! I wouldn't even say that about evolution scientists. I just think that evolutionist have adopted the theory of evolution because they just don't want to believe in a Creator. They have convinced themselves that order can come from chaos, and if you throw random molecules around long enough then maybe it will produce life.

It was pretty disappointing to hear how the Pope's have chosen to support the theory of evolution when they were able to stand their ground against abortion and gay marriage.
Either the Bible is true, or the Bible isn't true. You get to pick one or the other, but not both. The Bible clearly states that the earth was created in 6 days and on the 7th day, God rested. If each day is a million years, then the Jews who celebrate the Sabbath will be resting for a very long time.

Another quote from this site: "Humphreys is a Protestant young-earther who is not taken seriously by anyone in conventional science. Why a Catholic would refer to him I do not know."
Well, the reason why your Catholic brother is quoting from Humphreys is because he has a PHD in Physics. The guy is brilliant in my opinion and just because someone is a Catholic doesn't mean that they can't quote from a Protestant who is correct and supports his position. In my prior posts I mention many scientists that do not believe in the theory of evolution. The difference between them and the theistic evolutionist that this article is supporting is that the theistic evolutionist crumble under pressure. They are just people who compromise the truth to support their own agenda.

If you are Catholic, don't be deceived by articles like this. Catholics should still be standing up for the Bible and supporting the scriptures.

The Bible is what holds the answer, not man. Science is a bunch of people trying to examine the world around them to understand how it operates. But, often times they are wrong. The Bible is God's Word to man, and that is never wrong.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Theistic Evolution, The Gap Theory, The Day Age Theory

I have discussed many holes in the theory of evolution. If you are a Christian, you shouldn’t feel obligated to believe in something that is contrary to the Bible just because you think that science has proved it. Christians should know that Christianity isn’t a majority view point and that the majority isn’t always correct. It is pretty frustating to see so many Christians adopting theistic evolution view points which requires a lot of compromising with the Bible.

Theistic evolution believes that the earth is billions of years old. They might also believe that God created the world and then evolution took over. There are two theories that came from this way of thinking such as the “Day Age Theory” and the “Gap Theory”. Most theistic evolutionist would agree with the Darwinian timeline of events.

The Day Age Theory:

The Day-Age Theory, which suggests that the creation days in Genesis 1 were not literal, 24-hour days, but rather were long ages or eons of time. This theory was adopted because Christians thought that evolution has been proven; therefore, they needed long years to keep the Bible inline with evolution.

Jack Wood Sears, while also a professor at Harding University, wrote: “Science, as I indicated earlier, has seemed to indicate that life has been here much longer than we have generally interpreted the Bible to indicate” (1969, p. 97, emp. added).

From the Bible's point of view, if the writer of Genesis was attempting to say that a day was millions of years, he would have said so. The writer wouldn’t have said that the day was 24 hours if he meant something else. Also, the Sabbath only makes sense when the days are literal 24 hour days. How are the Jews suppose to keep the Sabbath Holy if the day for the Sabbath is a million years?

Whenever the writer really intended to convey the idea of a very long duration of time, they normally would use some such word as olam (meaning “age” or “long time”) or else attached to yom an adjective such as rab (meaning “long”), so that the two words together yom rab, then meant “long time.” But yom by itself can apparently never be proved, in one single case, to require the meaning of a long period of time, and certainly no usage which would suggest a geologic age (1974, p. 223, emp. in orig.).

The Gap Theory:

Another theory, which I thought was a dead theory, is the Gap Theory. I figured that this was a dead theory until I visited a church a few years ago where the preacher preached a sermon on the Gap Theory. I was pretty disappointed.

Genesis 1:1 says:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1:2 says:
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The Gap theory says that there is a huge gab between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. They usually suggest that there are millions/billions of years between these two versus. Some people might even put the fall of Satan between these two periods. This was another significant attempt by theologians to reconcile the time scale of world history found in Genesis with the evolutionist theories that says the world is billions of years old.

This theory is held by many people who use the Bible study aids such as the Scofield Reference Bible, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible, and The Newberry Reference Bible.

Some problems with this theory are:

Exodus 20:11 says, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day heaven.”
Where is the time for this gap in this verse? If there was a gap, then I think one of the inspired writers somewhere in the Bible would have mentioned it.

There are many other big issues with the Gap theory and if you are interested in them, you can visit this site:

My conclusion is this:

If you are a Christian, then stand fast to the teachings of the Bible and don’t compromise it under pressure. The evolutionist won’t respect us if we cave in to their atheistic theories. Science isn’t absolute, but the Bible is. The Bible has always survived over time and will survive until Jesus returns. The theory of evolution is cracking, and someday will collapse. A Christian should always be true to the scriptures for that is where the truth is found, not in atheistic science.

Monday, April 12, 2010

Former Evolutionist Who Converted to Creationism

Many evolutionist try to suggest that creation science isn't real science.

What is the difference between a creation scientist and an evolution scientists? What makes true science? Is it because the creationist have faith, but evolutionist do not? I would argue that it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in creationism. Both sides seek evidence to support their points of view. It will be up to you to analyze the facts.

If a scientist converts to creationism, then some evolutionist would say it is because the scientist hasn't done anything significant. That kind of reasoning is redicoulous.

You can find qualified scientists in all areas of science that "DO NOT" believe in evolution. If you don't believe in evolution, then you would have to believe in God because there is no alternative.

Here are a list of evolutionists who have converted to creationism.

Emeritus Professor

Tyndale John Rendle

Charle Lieberts (Chemist)

Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist)

"I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution."

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (Physicist)

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a NATO 3-star General)

You can get more information from visiting the following websites.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

The Truth about Macro Evolution

Macroevolution refers to the change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two or the change of a species over time into another.

The definition of Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species.

These are the definitions that website would define them as.

Creationist believes in Microevolution and specification.

A created kind has the ability to interbreed at the start, but eventually by the shuffling of genes and the loss of information, some of those in the kind are not able to interbreed and so different species arise. It is still the same kind. Creationists do not believe that one kind would evolve into another kind. What Macroevolution would say is that over millions of years, a cat can change into a dog or a monkey will change into a man. There is no scientific evidence that will demonstrate this. The evolutionists will use the fruit fly in many experiments to convince people of evolution. The evolutionist have documented over 3,000 mutations, but not once demonstrated a fruit fly mutating into another kind of insect. One example of a mutated fruit fly was one that mutated into a four-winged fruit fly and the evolutionist claimed it was a good mutation. However, the evolutionist forgot to mention that the fruit fly was severely impaired when it came to it actually flying.

Richard Dawkins, an influential evolutionist and atheist, was asked to provide one example where new information was added to DNA as observed by science in a debate. He avoided the question, but later submitted a three page argument where he still didn’t answer the question.

The animals that have traits that prevent them from surviving will have a loss of genetic code. The genetic code isn’t increased to change them into another kind as evolutionist would claim.

You will see studying this issue that many evolutions would say microevolution + time +X = macroevolution. So what they are saying is that some cat that adapts to their environment will some day, over million of years, change their DNA structure and become a totally different kind. No scientist can quote any examples seen in nature but all they can say is that it happens over time, and they think creationist live by faith.

Every example that evolutionist would try to show as a transitional form has another and more plausible explanation. There aren’t any credible examples of macro-evolution.

They don’t call it, “Darwin’s missing link” for nothing.

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Atheism and Moral Absolutes

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheist is “not believing in any gods.” No claims or denials are made, but an atheists is just a person who is not a theist.

However, many atheist have a tendency to attack people who do believe in a God (mostly Christians) which to me would seem to make atheist a little more than just a belief in “no God”. If you look at the atheists websites, you will find that they are always centered on what Christians would say about them. At the website, they list common arguments for atheism. At least 9 of the 20 arguments are referencing what Christians would say. They mention no other religion but Christianity. Are they just an organization that is anti-Christian? If you visit the website, you will see them state: “An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now-here on earth for all men together to enjoy.” Richard Dawkins is another atheist that spends his time attacking Christianity. I personally feel sorry for him since this pathetic earth is all he has to live for. I use the word pathetic because this world is filled with suffering and wars caused by man. it isn't in just today's society, but throughout history. Of course, the atheist blame it on religion.

The two arguments that convinces me that there is a God: moral absolutes and creationism. Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. Christians believe that God sets the moral code on how man should live. If someone else sets the moral code such as man, than how would we differentiate between people's different perceptions on what is right and wrong. Nobody can totally agree on what is right and what is wrong. That is why there must be a higher power giving us the moral code to live by. Is abortion right or wrong? Is murder right or wrong? Most everybody will say that murder is wrong, but abortion can be debated until people are blue in the face.

There is a higher power that has declared how man should live. Man is not capable of coming up with a good moral code by himself.