Thirty proofs that god exists

Before Ark asks, no I don’t follow these people.

Assuming for a split second that the god of the believer is an omni god,

2. The Teleological Argument (Design). The obvious design (complexity) of the world “proves” the existence of a “Designer.” Science has estimated that the odds that intelligent life exists on the Earth as the result of non-directed processes to be around: One in 102,000,000,000 [Cited in Gary Habermas and Mike Licona, The Case for the Resurrection, 2004, p. 179]

cannot hold because design involves elimination. The believer has claimed god spoke the world into existence. To believe in design would entail a contradiction ab initio.

This second proof is contradicted by our lived experiences

3. The Moral Argument. The existence of a universal morality among humans “proves” the existence of a universal “Lawgiver.” If the evolutionary worldview were true, we would be advanced animals acting on chemical impulses. Absolute moral standards would not exist. But they do exist!

This is special pleading

4. The cosmological argument. The principle of cause and effect “proves” the existence of an “uncaused Cause.”

This is just absurd

6. The Great Pyramid

This was covered on Nate’s blog a while back

9. The Shroud of Turin

It appears god, a loving all powerful god predicted the WTC bombing but did nothing to avert it.

10. America 9/11 terrorist attack predicted. The link between the 9/11 attack in America, and the attack on ancient Israel (Isaiah 9:10), is uncanny.

Nan, I don’t know how you will feel about this proof.

16. Donald Trump’s election and 7s. God’s hand was clearly present in Trump’s election. For example, he was 70 years, 7 months and 7 days old on his first full day as president of the United States, and he defeated Hillary Clinton by 77 electoral votes…etc.

John Z should tell us if any of the end time prophecies have been fulfilled

22. End-time prophecies fulfilled. Bible prophecy is a fantastic proof for God’s existence

For these and other jokes, go here

What Does It Mean to Have Free Will?

Freedom is a mystery ~ Arthur Schopenhauer

Is the title of a post by Joseph Laporte.

Since the post by Joseph is quite long, I will only attempt to respond to the first section. the second section where he tries to reconcile Scotus and Aquinas, I will leave to theologians, but I encourage you to read it if you have time. But before I do that, I would want to define freedom of will as other philosophers have done.

While not defining freewill, Sam Harris in his book, Freewill, writes

Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control. We do not have the freedom we think we have.

and for the moment we will leave it at that.

In a prize winning essay on Freewill, Schopenhauer defines freedom as

simply the absence of everything that impedes or obstructs

He goes further to note there are three distinct notions of freedom, viz;

  1. physical freedom- which is the absence of material obstacles of any kind. In this physical meaning, animals or humans are free when no physical, material obstacle impedes their actions
  2. intellectual freedom
  3. moral freedom- is simply whether we act out of necessity

Schopenhauer in his exposition on freedom, argues further that

a free will would be one that was determined by nothing at all.

Leaving Schopenhauer momentarily, I turn to Chapman Cohen, who says of the freewill believer, that they hold

intentional action is the unconditioned expression of absolutely free beings, and is what it is because of the selective action of an undetermined will.

You will allow two more instances to refer to Schopenhauer and D’Holdbach before we look at the post by Joseph. D’Holdbach writes

Man’s life is a line that nature commands him to describe upon the surface of the earth, without his ever being able to swerve from it, even for an instant. He is born without his own consent; his organization does in nowise depend upon himself; his ideas come to him involuntarily; his habits are in the power of those who cause him to contract them; he is unceasingly modified by causes, whether visible or concealed, over which he has no control, which necessarily regulate his mode of existence, give the hue to his way of thinking, and determine his manner of acting. He is good or bad, happy or miserable, wise or foolish, reasonable or irrational, without his will being for any thing in these various states.”

while Schopenhauer in almost the same line of thinking, writes

[A]s little as a ball on a billiard table can move before receiving an impact, so little can a man get up from his chair before being drawn or driven by a motive. But then his getting up is as necessary and inevitable as the rolling of a ball after the impact. And to expect that anyone will do something to which absolutely no interest impels them is the same as to expect that a piece of wood shall move toward me without being pulled by a string.

I have gone to great length in defining what other philosophers who have written about freewill have written to help give the issue some clarity. We can now look at the work by Joseph.

He, while referring to tradition by St. Augustine, says to act freely is to act without constraints. He says, per Augustine,

the mark of freedom is to be able to bring about an effect as an “uncaused cause.”

The question we must ask at this point is whether such is possible? Do you know of a scenario in your life or of your neighbour’s life when an act of will was without cause? That there was no desire, no motive? You acted without cause or does ignorance of proximate cause translate to no cause?

The same originalist position, Joseph tells us, is shared by Dons Scotus, who argued

we are “total cause” of what we freely will.

To this statement of Dons Scotus, I, following Schopenhauer must ask, can we will what we will?

The other school of thought is represented by Thomas Aquinas who Joseph tells us argued that you choose to act but god causes you to make that choice. The school that has developed for an interpretation of this line of thought has become known us

“freedom-for-excellence” — freedom understood as acting virtuously for true human happiness.

I find it quite illogical, as Joseph writes about Aquinas, that

 God causes me to choose whatever I choose to do, but I still do what I do freely.

In which universe would one call this freedom? Introducing god to the equation does not make it any easier. How does one know their choice is the action of a god? To be truly free, as the volitionist would have us believe, we would have to be the causa sui of our actions.

How does acting virtuously for true human happiness amount to having free will as Joseph would want us believe when he writes

Here behavioral scientists could appeal to freedom-for-excellence as an example of one genuine kind of freedom that seems compatible with my being caused to act as I do

Keep in mind freedom for excellence is where god does the choosing and you do the acting. In this causal chain, whatever the outcome, one must be a contortionist to see this as a case of freedom.

I am not sure, when Joseph writes that

Freedom-for-excellence is a genuine kind of freedom; it is a kind of freedom worth having

if he is still talking about freewill or, he, like compatibilists Marvin and Dennett, is arguing for a freedom worth having. Freedom worth having brings us no closer to an understanding of freewill. It tells us nothing of what freewill is.

I don’t see how Joseph, can still maintain he is talking about freewill when he believes

 [P]inckaers says we act freely when we act virtuously to achieve excellence, even though we are forced to conform to moral laws. These laws enhance freedom, rather than spoiling it, because by conforming our behavior to them we are able to achieve excellence, in the same way that by conforming our behavior to grammar rules we are able to achieve linguistic excellence.

For, by accepting the effect of laws on our actions or as would say, manifestations of the will, he is moving over to the determinists’ position. In this case, therefore, there is a contradiction in his position that he should address. If we are, as he argued earlier, originalists, then the action of laws are irrelevant. On the other hand, if there are laws or even a god influence in our actions, the argument for uncaused cause is no longer be sustainable.

It is quite evident in Joseph’s and the church fathers’ insistence on freewill comes from this theological problem, that

 if God is the cause of my actions, and if I choose to do evil, then it appears that God is the cause of my evil actions. How, then, could anyone be allowed to suffer punishment, much less eternal punishment? We’re just victims of circumstances and events outside our control.

As I said at the beginning, I see no need in trying to respond to his attempts at reconciling Dons Scotus and Aquinas for both positions do little to advance the cause of free will. I contend further that Joseph has not only failed to tell us what freewill is, but has also failed to demonstrate that it is possible. He has instead tried to reconcile the theological problem stated above which it is my contention he cannot get away from without altering the meaning of words, that is, talking gibberish.

If you have read this post up to this point, know you could not have acted otherwise than you did.

on relationship between the sexes

In the movie take the lead, Antonio Banderas tells the students that through dance, they will learn to respect and trust each other. He tells them, ballroom dance requires trust and respect. Now, people, you have often heard it said the African is in rhythm, they didn’t mean me, for I can’t dance to save my neighbour’s life.

In stories I have read about my ancestors, young people went around naked. Adults had loin clothes. I can understand people in colder climes requiring full body cover. This could apply to those in the desert too.

If you are still wondering where I am going with this, worry no more. This discussion and the #MeToo movement has got me thinking about how we are socialized on matters sexual relationships and nudity. Why do we have a lot of predation at work places and here include those of clergy from different faiths abusing young ones?

What is the way forward? In the post on nudity, Rautakky and Bob argue the issue with changing rooms is cultural relic that ought to go.

My second question is, has it historically been this way? That is, have we always been prudish about nudity and changing rooms? And how do we improve relationships between the sexes so we don’t have a scenario like that of Nassar ?

In the face of death

These two questions intrigued me. What would be your course of action in each and why?

In the Face of Death: Cannibalism at Sea

Scenario 1: The Mignonette Case

In May 1884, the British yacht Mignonette set sail for Sydney, Australia with four crew on board. On July 5, disaster

struck, the yacht was lost, and the crew were forced to take to a small lifeboat. For eighteen days, they drifted around the ocean more than 1000 miles from land. By this point, things were desperate: they had been without food for seven days and water for five. All crew members were in a bad way, but worst off was 17 year old cabin boy, Richard Parker. He was barely conscious, if indeed he was conscious at all.

At this point, the captain of the ship, Tom Dudley, suggested they ought to draw lots to select one of them to be killed, thereby giving the others a chance of survival. The thought was they could use the body of the dead person as a source of food and liquid. This idea was in the first instance rejected by one of the crew members, Edmund Brooks, but Dudley didn’t let the issue drop, and later the same day discussed the matter with Edwin Stephens, the fourth member of the crew. He pointed out that it was overwhelmingly likely that Richard Parker, the cabin boy, was going to die whatever happened, but if they killed him – which was the best way of ensuring his blood would be in a fit state to drink – there was a chance that he and Stephens would see their wives and families again.

The following day, with no prospect of rescue, Dudley, with the assent of Stephens, killed the boy. The three remaining crew members then fed on his body, enabling them to survive long enough to be rescued on July 29th. Dudley later described the scene as follows: “I can assure you I shall never forget the sight of my two unfortunate companions over that ghastly meal we all was like mad wolfs who should get the most and for men fathers of children to commit such a deed we could not have our right reason.”

The facts in this case are well-established. Richard Parker was killed by Tom Dudley, with the consent of Edwin Stephens, because they genuinely believed there was no immediate prospect of rescue, that Parker would likely die regardless of what happened, and that all of them would die if he was not sacrificed.

The question is were they morally justified in killing him?

Second scenario

In the Face of Death: I Killed All the Children

Scenario 2: The Warsaw Ghetto Doctor

In the late summer of 1942, 22 year old Adina Blady Szwajger was working as a doctor at Warsaw’s Children’s Hospital. It was no ordinary summer, though. Some 18 mnonths earlier, the Nazi occupiers of Poland had shut the gates on Warsaw’s Jewish population creating what is now known as the Warsaw ghetto. As a result, Szwajger had for at least a year worked in conditions of almost unimaginable suffering as the hospital filled with children dying of starvation and tuberculosis. In her memoir, she talks of “famished skeletons” lapping up the slops of a spilled soup pot from the floor; and of the attempt to live a “principled life” in circumstances of the utmost moral depravity.

But in August 1942, it became impossible to go on. The Germans had begun to round up the Jewish population, loading them into cattle trucks and shipping them off to the death camps, where their fate was to meet a grisly end. By this point, the hospital was no longer functioning as a hospital – there were “no children’s wards, just the sick, the wounded and the dying everywhere.”

The moment which came to define Szwajger’s life arrived when the Nazis turned up at the hospital, and began the brutal process of shutting it down. A nurse begged Szwajger to end her elderly mother’s life: “Doctor…I can’t do it. I beg you, please. I don’t want them to shoot her in bed, and she can’t walk.” Dr. Szwajger administered morphine, first attending to “families of staff.” Then she went to the ward which housed the smallest infants, and one by one gave each child a lethal dose. “Just as, during those two years of real work in the hospital, I had bent down over the little beds, so now I poured this last medicine into those tiny mouths…And downstairs, there was screaming because the…Germans were already there, taking the sick from the wards to the cattle trucks.” She told the older children “that this medicine was going to make their pain disappear…So they lay down and after a few minutes – I don’t know how many – but the next time I went into that room, they were asleep.”

Adina Szwajger took the lives of her young patients as the final act of what she saw as her duty of care, in order to spare them ignominious and certain death at the hands of the Nazis. But, of course, the infants and children did not and could not have consented. The issue, then, is whether she did the right thing. Was she morally justified in taking the lives of her patients in order to save them from their fate at the hands of the Nazis?

the decline of a nation

This post is in response to Kerby Anderson’s post by the same title.

I would like to say at this point, that this post, unlike my regular posts, is halfway between a blog post and a scholarly article. Towards being scholarly, I would like at this very early stage to refer anyone interested in pursuing the matter further to look at the following works.

  1. Acemoglu D and Robinson J.A, Why Nations fail: the origins of power, prosperity and poverty (2012) Crown Publishers. Newyork
  2. Gibbon E, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1970)
  3. Gellner E, Nations and nationalism
  4. Ogot B, Kenyans, who are we
  5. Ohmae K and Guehenno J.M, The end of nation states

With that behind us, we can now look at the claims of Anderson. But before we do that, we need to agree on a few definitions.

In his work, Kenyans, who are we? Bethwell Ogot argues the state is a political term while the nation is a sociological concept. He goes further and notes that the model of the nation state developed in Europe in the C18 and C19. He identifies five theories of nations and nationalim

a. nationalism as a primordial phenomena based on rational or objectively valid criteria on the basis of which the world can be divided up into different national communities

b. nationalism as a subjective consciousness of the members of the community

c. nationalism as a functional requirement of the modern state

d. nationalism as a specific form of politics that groups use under certain historical circumstances in opposition to state; and finally

e. the Marxist interpretation of nationalim.

To these definitions and theories, I include civilization which defines as

an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry and government has been reached

Anderson writing about the US, argues the prognosis about the future of the state being bleak is correct but the causes he writes

The decline of this nation (just as the decline of every other nation) is due to spiritual factors

his central argument being

The political, economic, and social problems we encounter are the symptoms of the spiritual deterioration of a nation.

While he argues this thesis is supported by history, I am unconvinced this is the case. If we take for example the case of the Roman Empire, the fall did not come about as a spiritual matter. The Romans did not stop praying to their gods or offering sacrifices, but we see internal strife, over taxation and let’s just call it, bad leaders that exposed the empire to external attacks from the Arabs, Mongols and finally the rise of the Ottoman Turks that saw the fall of Constantinople.

He is right when he writes we simply don’t learn from history. When a just a few people continue to amass wealth while the rest of the mass wallow in poverty, there is bound to reach a critical point where the state, as a political entity, can no longer hold and revolution happens. This may not necessarily lead to the fragmentation of the nation but rather, a reordering of the nation state. For example the French Republic.

I am a little confused when he writes

History has shown that the average age of the great civilizations is around two hundred years.

is he treating the nation as a civilization? Can we logically talk about an American Civilization? Does it make sense to talk about American civilization in isolation of the milieu to which it belongs? Would the collapse of the US of A also mean the collapse of the civilization in which it is a part?

Anderson, without giving examples, argues civilizations go through ten stages in the life cycle, which funny enough, he says begin with bondage and end with bondage. Since details are scanty on the great African civilizations, I am not sure this argument can be fully demonstrated to be the case.

From here on, Anderson has left the purview of history and has become a preacher. We will indulge him either way. He writes

Christians can point to unusual times when revival has redirected the inexorable decline of a civilization. In the Old Testament, Jonah saw revival postpone God’s judgment of Nineveh. In the sixteenth century, Martin Luther and John Calvin saw a Protestant Reformation transform Europe.

Two things need to be said here; it is common knowledge for the patrons of this great site that I am without the idea of god, god’ is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. With this in mind, I will ask further the theist, having said the bible stories cannot be treated of literally, what I am to make of the story of Jonah. Was in a fish? Is this story of Jonah an eyewitness account or divine inspiration? Can god inspire the scribes to write what didn’t happen? As for Martin Luther, we know from his thesis, among other things, he was tired of the corruption of the clergy among other things but that he was anti-Semitic as the come and Calvin killed Severus among other his great deeds. Whether this counts as revival, I know not.

When our interlocutor writes

But apart from God’s intervention, nations will decline and eventually pass off the scene. Much of the Old Testament records the history of the nation of Israel. It passed through these same stages and so will every country in the world.

I think he is being economical with the truth. When men were very religious, they killed witches, the children crusade of 1212. For this and other stories of great religious periods and what they did, read Norman Cohn’s The Pursuit of the Millenium. 

When he writes

 Only God’s Word endures forever. We should not put our trust in the things of this world for they are destined for destruction. Instead, we should put our faith in God and His word.

I am tempted to ask which god? The Vedas are older than the bible and as of this post, they are still in existence. The Muslim makes the same claim of his book and even goes further to insist the bible has been corrupted over the ages that it is no longer possible to separate the work of god or man. I will charitably ask Anderson to become a Muslim. He may find himself in Muslim hell.

While it is true that the place of the family in the nation or nation-state cannot be gainsaid, it would, in my view be a stretch to claim not praying is one of the reasons why nations collapse. If, as we defined above, the nation is a sociological construction, the fall of that nation cannot be in any good sense be claimed to have been brought about by secularism. History is short of examples, in fact, I think history has no examples of a period when the general population was atheistic. If there is information to the contrary, I am open to consider it.

I don’t know about you, but I have no idea where this

 Soon they revolted to gain access to material wealth and also freedom for sex outside marriage. Women also began to minimize having sex relations to conceive children, and the emphasis became sex for pleasure. Marriage laws were changed to make divorce easy.

happened in the distant past. In my country, divorce is not easy. To Anderson, if I am reading him correctly, women should not have sex if they intend to have pleasure. The woman is a breeder and that is all. Seeking wealth and economic independence is a forbidden. Engaging in any of these is bound to lead to the death of civilization. Women, now you know.

Since I am a patient man, I would like anyone to give evidence or links that I can look at where

Many children were unwanted, aborted, abandoned, molested, and undisciplined. The more undisciplined children became, the more social pressure there was not to have children. The breakdown of the home produced anarchy.

this was common place in the past and led to a collapse of a civilization. Or of a nation.

And while you are it, evidence for this too

Finally, unbelief in God became more complete, parental authority diminished, and ethical and moral principles disappeared, affecting the economy and government. Thus, by internal weakness and fragmentation the societies came apart. There was no way to save them except by a dictator who arose from within or by barbarians who invaded from without.

Anderson identifies ideas as being critical in the fall of nations. He says

But another potent but less perceptible force is the power of ideas.

what ideas are these, you may ask?

Today we live in a world where biblical absolutes are ignored, and unless we return to these biblical truths, our nation will continue to decline.


As you may have noticed, Anderson began his post by giving reasons why nations fail or collapse. The bible was codified in the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the current era. In that time, the Sumerian empire had declined, Rome was in decline, whatever was left of the Greek empire must have been patches, the great Persian empire, Egyptian civilizations and many know that I don’t know were either ended or in last days of decline and no bible was involved. Beyond that, though, when he talks of bible absolutes, is he talking about not boiling a goat in its milk, killing your child for disobedience, burning witches or cheating your father in-law of his livestock? I am confused. Besides, when Europe was under the church, we had crusades, inquisitions and pogroms.

How did we arrive at the point where biblical absolutes are ignored? You must be wondering too. Wonder no more, he tells us

The first person is Charles Darwin (1809-1882). In 1859 he published The Origin of Species and later published The Descent of Man. His writings blurred the distinction between humans and animals since he taught that we are merely part of an evolutionary progression from lower forms of life. Darwinism, as it came to be called, not only affected the field of biology, but became the foundation for the fields of anthropology, sociology, and psychology.

the next person in this line of offenders

The second person is Karl Marx (1818-1883). He and Friedrich Engels published the Communist Manifesto around 1850, and Marx devoted his life to writing about the demise of capitalism and coming of communism. He understood the importance of ideas.

also making an appearance is

The third person is Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918)

also starring

The fourth person is Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)

and finally

A fifth person is John Dewey (1859-1952).

And what did these men do?

Ideas have consequences, and false ideas can bring down a nation. The theories of these five men are having devastating consequences in our nation and world. Unless we return to biblical absolutes, our nation will continue its decline.

I am very disappointed with this list. Before Darwin, there was Democritus a naturalist, Messlier who wrote against the gods, Spinoza who wrote on freedom of thought, Thomas Paine whose polemic, The Age Reason, must have contributed to the scholarship on the old testament, Marcion the heresiarch, Celsus among others whose works have been key to advancing free-thought and rights of wo/men.

Anderson’s final cause is spiritual. He argues that it is spiritual decline that made Rome susceptible to external attack. If this is the case, we would say it’s Christianizing of Rome where the blame should lay. As long as Rome was polytheistic, each person praying to their family gods and recognizing the state gods on feast days, things seem to have been well.

In conclusion, I am not sure whether Anderson set out to write on fall of nations or on decline of Christianity. In his world of thought, no other religion matters or is even mentioned. Anyone who is not a christian, per Anderson’s thesis, seems to be contributing to the decline of the nation. It matters little whether this person is fighting for a just world. That doesn’t count. To avert the decline, you must all be Christians. You cannot for a second think evolution may be true, that we are animals, just a different specie of animal. To be a humanist is criminal. To entertain for a moment that Moses, if he existed, could not have written the first five or is it four books of the Old Testament is to tempt fate. To think of a different economic system, is to demand that the gates of hell be kept open throughout awaiting your arrival and finally to argue, as Freud did, that we need to know ourselves is a sure way of hastening the decline and final collapse of the nation.

It is my last contention that Anderson is not happy with secularism nor with education. It does seem, if he had the say so, any education that doesn’t end in Christian indoctrination would be abolished. Which Christian cult will be in charge is a question for another day.



If Adam and Eve who were perfect, personally created and taught by God himself (according to the Bible) failed the Devil’s tests, where is the fairness in God expecting us to defeat the Devil especially when we are imperfect and never seen God?

I would go beyond this question and say that even Adam and Eve shouldn’t have been punished for their small transgression.

The chapter of genesis that talks about the fall of man says thus

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?

The good book says this of the tree

For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

from where I am justified in concluding that A&E were dumb as a dodo. They did not know shit. In fact, I would go as far as argue that the serpent knew more shit than the two combined which brings us to some very interesting questions

  1. why was the serpent created sly? did she just become sly?
  2. is knowledge bad? or was it just particular knowledge the gods were not interested in men having?

But back to the question, how are we, who if the story were story, several generations removed from Adam, who were not in the garden where, if god was present, his presence and goodness and whatever else one feels in the presence of a god could be felt, there was enough room and time for the serpent to be crafty, it is akin to asking a Nigerian who has is so far removed from the state to obey its directives.

This brings us to a final question, when the author of genesis writes that god saw that whatever she had created was good, what does this mean?

7 Deadly Worldviews That Threaten Christianity

Every man is a damn fool for at least five minutes every day; wisdom consists in not exceeding the limit.
― Elbert Hubbard

Dear friends, I know you  have been wondering what these worldviews are, wonder no more, because Don McCullen has the answers.

If you are Gnostic, which, wait for it is

he rejection of God’s Word as not sufficient for us to know our true purpose or for life to have its ultimate meaning

it is important to remember though, that Gnosticism is

a prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit.

The second worldview is rather confusing. Don calls it legalism but in all of it he is blaming Eve. He writes

This too comes from the Garden. While Gnosticism comes from the Devil, you can blame Eve for laying the ground work for legalism

You would think Don would have no problems with Dualism since it allows him to have a soul separate from body, but no. He tells us

 Overall Dualism views good and evil as part of the same framework, and not as separate concepts.

We need not say anything on his 4th worldview. Darwinism is well covered by The Sensuous Curmudgeon.

If you are a pragmatist, your worldview is a threat to Christianity. You wanna know why?

Pragmatism is “the first-born child of child of Darwinism.” It conflates situational ethics with situational shrewdness.

And how does pragmatism do this?

It allows people to change from what is truth and absolute to a truth they feel is right for themselves.

If ever you have the idea to combine two systems to come up with a better one or a different one, you are a threat to Christianity. Don tells us

However, Christians should never embrace syncretism as a way to get along. Syncretism is basically your “Co-exist” motto (with all of the religious symbols). Truth of the matter is that syncretism is at the heart of the matter, the very essence of intolerance while claiming to be otherwise.

And finally, all you secular humanists, we knew you wouldn’t be spared. So what does he say SH is,

A belief system that rejects virtually every single principle of God’s Word.

He tells us

 Secular humanism truly does bring the worst out of human beings, but yet they claim to be good

and why should this worry us? Well secular humanism will lead to collapse of society and when that happens, wait for it,

Right now, that big threat that will take over a society once Secular Humanism does it damage is Islam.

I don’t know about you, but I find this

That being large and centralized government. It has to be for them, but the problem with big government, it loves to impose itself on the infidels that oppose it, especially Christians.

quite confusing. In the US of A, the evangelicals are trying to take over government. I mean, Pence and his supporters believe he is there because that is what god wants. Methinks Don should choose a struggle.

But there is a solution to all these worldviews. Don suggests

If your able to take out a subscription to, please do it so that you can watch these seven programs. The audio podcasts are free but it is very important to watch and listen to both versions for they complement each other. It is not impossible go with one form without the other however.

And if you are a christian

Now more than ever, we need to move forward with our faith and be bold about it.

How will we you do this?

we really need to understand the Christian faith and show our neighbor that Christianity just does not work for certain people nor should it. It is a way of life, a way that promotes life and gives life not only in this world but the world to come.

Well, as for me and myself, we tell Don, get a life.