Saturday, April 16, 2016

What If I'm Right?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

No, this isn't a form of Pascal's Wager. I just got to speculating one day.

Eschatology is not my strong point. I'll hear arguments from Amillennialists and Preterists (not the hyperpreterist heretics, though) that make some good points. However, I believe that the Premillennialist pre-tribulation rapture position is the strongest. Unfortunately, there are professing Christian sanctimonious tinhorns in various camps who take the "Premillennialism is a heresy that must be refuted" view. Not interested. Some even use the appeal to motive fallacy of "Pretribs just want to escape, so they want to sit around doing nothing while they wait for Jesus to come and take them away". I don't cotton to the opposite happening, either. That's no way for Christians to act! Have rational discussions, if you please.


Last Judgement endtimes prophesies society
"The Last Judgement" by Viktor Vasnetsov, 1904
Seems like through the ages, people have been saying that civilization is going downhill, that children were more respectful, less honesty, more violence in the world, that kind of thing. Then the observation is dismissed. But I believe it's true. The world is a far more dangerous place, and it's spiraling downward. Although atheists will misrepresent and even lie outright by saying that there is no persecution of Christians, it is happening — and increasing. One small example is the way Facebook treats Christians while coddling atheists, Mohammedans, homosexuals, leftists, and so on.

Scripture tells us this would happen (Luke 6:22, Matt. 24:9, John 16:33, 1 Thess. 1:6, Heb. 10:33, 1 Peter 4:12-19, 2 Tim. 3:12). We're not hated by the world because of who we are (except obnoxious people who bring it on themselves), but because the world hates God in us. All through the Bible, believers are instructed to good to all, including our enemies (Luke 6-27-31, Gal. 6:10, Prov. 25:22, Lev. 19:34). Unbelievers do not have such instruction, and tacitly or overtly agree with Anton Lavey's Satanic command, "Let no wrong go unredressed". 

I reckon I need to say that biblical creationists are despised by not only atheists (because evolutionism is a foundation for their worldview), but also by theistic evolutionists, old Earth advocates, and other false teachers. One thing they have in common is disdain for the authority of the Word of God, so they join up in attacking us. 

Although they hate us, atheists and other unbelievers will be in a world of hurt when the Rapture hits after the coming apostasy. We are salt and light in the world, and when we're gone, so will the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit, who is within us. It will be as in the days of Noah, "...and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen. 6:5, also see Matt. 24:27-39, 2 Peter 3:3-7). Things are bad now, getting worse, and they'll become terrible. Sounds like part of the Great Tribulation to me.

In those days, there will be converts to Jesus, witnessing, persecution, angels, trumpets, opening seals, bowls of wrath, and martyrdom (Rev. 6:9-11). This will not stop the devolution of the world, then comes the final Judgement. That's going to be a busy time! The Rapture, Tribulation, the resurrection of all to be judged, where some are judged for their good works and some are judged to damnation.

I'd like to think that things I've written will give testimony to Christ after I'm gone, but let's face it, those will probably be destroyed. Registered domains will expire, and I can imagine a "politically correct" movement deleting whatever can be found on the Web that proclaims repentance and Jesus, the only way to salvation.

What if I die before the Rapture? I know for a fact that there are atheopaths who will rejoice greatly (including one who wants Hell to be real so I'll go there — amazing how someone who rejects God thinks he's an expert on the Bible, then misuses it). I've seen misotheists celebrating the deaths of Christians. Aside from that, my position is secured. Jesus was crucified for my sins and bodily rose on the third day (1 Cor 15:3-11). So I'm going to be with him.

What if you die, or are on Earth after we're gone? Without Jesus, your eternal future is dismal (Rev. Rev. 21:8, Rev. 21:27). All have sinned (Rom. 3:23) and deserve death, but God offers us the gift of life (Rom. 6:23). We can all be children of God (John 1:12-13) by grace, thorough faith (Eph. 2:8-9). Denying God's existence is irrational, as is trying to earn our way into Heaven by our works or religious ceremonies. None of us know when our last hour is happening. Being a Christian is hard work, and there are persecutions (as I've stated), so I'm not giving a silly "Accept Jesus and be happy all the time" thing. No, we need to repent of our sins and receive Jesus Christ by faith.

You may laugh and mock at this whole picture, as many do. But what if I'm right?

Friday, March 4, 2016

Why was I the One?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is a bit of wondering and pondering. 

Back on Thanksgiving Day (November 26, 2015), my wife and I went out for a visit. When we returned home in the afternoon, we noticed that a smoke alarm was sounding from one of the buildings in the apartment complex. We didn't pay it no nevermind, figuring that someone cooked something a mite too long or spilled gravy on a stove on this heavy cooking day.


Image credit: Freeimages.com / Roy White
An hour or two later, it was getting dark and I realized that the alarm was still sounding, so I took a walk over to that building. People were moving in but ignoring the alarm, and I did not see any signs of fire, smoke, or other distress. Some time back, I read about a woman who had been murdered in the street and it took twenty minutes for her to die because people drew their blinds and didn't want to get involved. I had resolved not to be like that, and this was such a time. What if there really was a problem? Maybe someone had a medical problem and couldn't shut off the alarm, and was hoping for help. Maybe nothing. But I wouldn't be able to live with myself if there was something tragic and I did nothing — like the other people were busy doing.

I had my cell phone, so I called the police and told them the story, emphasizing that there was no sign of fire. They told me to call 9-1-1. Well, okay. So I did that, and again emphasized that there was no sign of fire.

Minutes later, we had a passel of fire trucks and emergency vehicles, including the big truck with the ladders. Hey, I said there was no sign of fire! Oh, well. Whatever the protocol is, I don't know (and the official-type guy I e-mailed never replied). As far as I know, there was nothing to it, seemed to be a faulty alarm that went off while people were away. I was a bit nervous that I'd somehow get in trouble, but I did act in good faith and maybe the "Good Samaritan" laws would apply, so I comforted myself with that.

But why was I the one? Other people were there. I don't believe that I'm special or better than anyone else, and I don't even think it's because I'm a Christian; anyone with a conscience could have checked things out or made the call. Sooner, too.

So, I'm just left wondering about the whole thing and not congratulating myself.

Friday, February 12, 2016

Question Evolution Day and Evolutionists Suppressing Evidence

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

To celebrate the fifth annual Question Evolution Day, I thought it would be helpful to revisit a logical fallacy that is often used by the Darwinistas. It should be well understood that science thrives on challenge so that a hypothesis or theory can be revised when unsupported by evidence — or discarded entirely. Unfortunately, evolutionary owlhoots often try to lock away contrary evidence, especially when it points to the Creator. Can't have that, it interferes with naturalistic presuppositions.

Image credit: Pixabay / tpsdave
Among the logical fallacies that anti-creationists employ is the fallacy of exclusion. (For an earlier article with a funny video I did on this subject, click here.) This fallacy has variations and different names, including cherry picking, suppressed evidence, card stacking, incomplete evidence, and more. Many people believe in scum-to-scientist evolution because they are simply not given all the evidence. Making a conjecture sound plausible is common in the evolutionary community (especially its press), and people get mighty surprised when creationists give them information that was withheld.

People tend to "fill in the blanks" when they do not have enough information and they have their own biases. There's a commercial in the US that shows a man talking on the telephone at 3 AM, and his wife assumes her husband is cheating on her. She filled in the blanks from limited evidence and assumptions. Believing evolutionary stories can seem reasonable, but you don't have all the evidence. This brings to mind Proverbs 18:17.

Here is a bit of humor to emphasize the point. Know any other creationist writers that have used the Three Stooges? Here's a bit of background trivia. The act began in the late 1920s, using Shemp as one of the Stooges. He left the act, and Curly took over in 1934. Curly got sick and never recovered, so Shemp came back into the act. I'll leave the rest of the history out of this, because the bit I'm focusing on is the 1949 short, Malice in the Palace, which fell into public domain. (Sony made a colorized version, which is under copyright.) We have an excellent example of people filling in the blanks. They see Larry holding a meat cleaver and carrying a dog and a cat at different times, hear chopping noises and animal yelps, and make unpleasant conclusions that seem entirely reasonable. After some further slapstick silliness, the rest of the evidence presents itself and the people abandon those conclusions.

Think you know the whole story about evolution evidence? Not hardly! That's where biblical creationists come in and give information that is withheld. Now, here's the funny Three Stooges bit, edited down from the original 15-1/2 minutes to 5-1/2 minutes. Watch them flinch during the chopping sounds. Then there's an excellent music video by ApologetiX afterward.






  

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Question Evolution Day and my CMI Article



by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It's kind of fun to give a bit of background information, and I believe that people like some of the personal stuff.

Whenever something is submitted for publication, it needs to meet guidelines, and is subject to editing. (Probably the only "pure" way to get your content exactly the way you wrote it is to put it on your own Weblog.) I have thousands of posts and articles on my own Weblogs, but have had only a few published by organizations. Aside from letters to newspaper editors, I think my first publication was in the May 1991 Bible-Science Newsletter (PDF scan available here), which is now Creation Moments. Surprisingly, that one was published "as is".

Other items I wrote for people that were edited, and even had some collaboration, such as at 101 Arguments. My submissions to Michigan Bicyclist Magazine in the late 1990s had a mix, some were edited, one was mostly "as is". Another printed publication was so heavily edited that I barely recognized it! Another printed publicationThere was an article that I submitted to Creation Ministries International a spell back, and it didn't fit their needs. Reading it later, I realized it was a good thing they passed on it. This time, they accepted my article. Yes, there was some editing, including improvements and some added content. I'm pleased with the final outcome. If you want to see that, click on "The Importance of Question Evolution Day — A grassroots movement that anyone can support".

So, there you have it. When you submit for publication, you need to meet guidelines, have content that they like, and you can expect editing. As for me, perhaps I'll be able to submit material for publication and actually get paid for it. But I'll still submit unpaid material for causes that I believe in.

 

Friday, January 1, 2016

Gender Reassignment Science Deniers

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Most people in the Western world have needed medical treatment several times in their lives, whether an ongoing condition, routine annual physical, or getting cactus spines removed when your horse bucked you off at the worst possible moment. You are given a form to fill out, and that form asks for your sex. Take a look-see at this PDF of a standard (and many times required) claim form. Right up there in box three, there are two check boxes, one for "male", and one for "female". There are no options for how you feel that day, what you claimed to be yesterday, what bathroom you feel like using, or anything like that.


The transgender-affirming crowd is not only defying common sense, but denying science. Further, they are contributing to mental illness.
Image modified from Clker clipart; people like color, you know.
People can rail against the way God made them all they want. They can take hormone supplements, undergo "gender reassignment surgery" (bodily mutilation), play with the politically correct crowd of how you feel that day, dress like the opposite gender — but you won't change the facts. You were born with certain chromosomes and DNA. To say, "Now that you got chopped up, changed your wardrobe, took chemicals, now you're a woman" is to be a science denier! Also, it's a case of suspending rational thinking. The politically correct crowd will no longer consider sexual deviation as a mental illness. Instead, they want to give coddling and "treatment", which only makes things worse and often includes sex-change regret. The politically correct thought police will probably cause me problems for speaking the truth.

New York City, that bastion of rational, conservative thought, will fine employers up to $250,000 if they deliberately use the wrong personal pronoun when referring to a trannie. That is downright insane! Aside from enabling mental illness and rampant politically correct leftism, this is bad for business. Imagine Bernie-becomes-Bonnie getting called "him", reporting the boss, the company gets fined — and goes out of business because it can't afford such a huge and ludicrous penalty.




We are in the early hours of 2016. Would you have thought such things would happen in 1996? In 2006? Or even 2015? I believe that political and cultural trends that defy our Creator and his Word are signs of the end times. Scriptures warned us that things would get mighty bad, and we're seeing it happen. About one third of the Bible is prophesy, and many prophesies have been dramatically fulfilled. No reason to think that Jesus' return is not that far away, old son. 

 

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Some Things I Just Can't Say

Changes in my writing over the years. There are some things I just can't say for various reasons.
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen


Giving in to the urging of others, in late June of 2007 I began a Weblog that I called "Stormbringer's Thunder" — and wrote some pretty crummy stuff as well as some good things. Somewhere in there was "Cowboy Bob's Western Values", probably around 2010, but I deleted that. After I rededicated my life to Jesus, I made "A Soldier for Jesus". That name no longer exists, but I went with "Biblical Creation and Evangelism" later, and moved many of the articles to the new Weblog. Weak title, I know. Finally, the strongest and most consistent one, "Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman" (there is no truth in goo-to-you evolution). Over the years, I've written literally thousands of posts and articles (I use both words, posts for usually shorter things where I recommend the work of smarter people, and articles for things I've written). There was a point that I went through and deleted many articles and posts (hundreds, I think), mainly from "Stormbringer's Thunder".

What if I told you that I've struggled with depression for years, and decided that medication was not helping? I stopped taking antidepressants and seeing therapists several years ago. 

When I started out, I used some bravado that was inspired by Rush Limbaugh. You know, "With half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair". Not those words, but with a fair amount of attitude. I wrote "in character" (some of the older posts have Italian slang in them). While some people have a good sense of humor, others will get all het up when someone uses bravado, and use it as a means of attacking people instead of dealing with the content. 

Nowadays, I can't say something like: It may come as a shock to you, but the mother of my kids is actually smarter than I am. With our combined DNA, if they used their minds to further creation science, anti-creationists would be seriously disadvantaged. Nope, can't say that, even though it's true.

As an aside, my readers know that I like plays on words. Fortunately, I've been able to keep away from coarse joking, tempting as it is. In fact, I've been around people who will find an excuse to turn just about anything into a crude joke, so it's become a habit to try to avoid giving people such excuses. Sorry, can't give you an example.

People seem to have a problem with someone expressing things with confidence, whether about themselves or having certainty about what is being expressed. And yet, it's acceptable to leftists and atheists when people they agree with will express something confidently or even with arrogance and condescension. Double standards.

As I've grown in my spiritual walk, I've cut way back on other things I've said, and use more care in expression. It gets difficult sometimes, because I like humor (especially plays on words and fallacies of ambiguity). Don't get me wrong, I'm open to correction when someone will offer a "You should have phrased that differently, how about..." suggestion. I'll never get things done perfectly, there's always a fault-finder available to criticize little things. Hopefully, we all grow and learn.

Saturday, November 7, 2015

Lying or Disagreement?

Proclaiming the gospel gains us mockers. Even more so when showing that evolutionism is false and science supports biblical creation.

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Included in the Terms of Service for being a biblical creationist and going against the evolutionary consensus includes acquiring stalkers, hate mail, ridicule, libel, and more (which really stinks when those things are coming from professing Christians, but we expect that kind of activity from atheists). But hey, the Terms of Service are clear about unbelievers (John 8:44, 1 Cor. 2:14, Eph. 2:3, Psalm 53:1, Rom. 1:18-22, Eph. 2:12, 2 Tim. 2:26, 1 John 5:19).

There's a principle called the "noetic effect of sin" or "noetic effect of the fall", where sin touches all aspects of someone's life, including their thought processes. Keep an eye out, there are people who can be brilliant for the most part, but when they talk about God, their reasoning is the equivalent of kicking a fresh cow pie on a hot day.

In their drive to rail against creationists or certain Christians, you can see people who are so consumed with hate that they cannot (or often, will not) distinguish between a disagreement on the interpretations of scientific evidence and an attempt to deceive. (Calling someone a "liar" without evidence, just to be contentious and manipulative makes the accuser into the liar. People who claim to love science seem to forget that little thing called evidence.) Einstein and Bohr had spirited physics discussions, but I don't recollect seeing any record of one calling the other a "liar". True science thrives on challenges to the consensus, and existing theories are strengthened or discarded (except evolution, which is a metaphysical worldview used to justify rebellion against God). Ignaz Semmelweis said that women were dying from infections after childbirth because the attendants were not washing their hands between patients. He was proven right, but the consensus view prevailed. He and others were vindicated much later, especially through the work of Joseph Lister. Science needs mavericks, not conformists.

Mockery and ridicule exist in science, but they increase when someone dares to say that the Bible has the answers. Germ-to-gunslinger evolution is false, and there is a Creator who makes the rules. It's our responsibility to get into his Word and find out what he has to say.