Nobody is above another on the sin scale…especially me.

28 02 2009

Many times, because I point out error in others, people assume that I believe that I don’t sin, or that my sins are somehow “better” than another.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I’m a heinous sinner of the highest rank.

With that said, I came across this quote by Jonathan Edwards on Phil Gon’s blog; it’s a good reminder for all of us.

“Resolved, to act, in all respects, both speaking and doing, as if nobody had been so vile as I, and as if I had committed the same sins, or had the same infirmities or failings as others; and that I will let the knowledge of their failings promote nothing but shame in myself, and prove only an occasion of my confessing my own sins and misery to God.”


So you can’t come up with your own ideas in the pulpit…what’s the next best thing?

16 02 2009

This is waaaaayy toooo funnnnnyyy.

One of these two Pastors has so little creativity that he had to steal the other’s vacation bible school story for his sermon!

One Pastor is Craig Groeschel

and the other is our old friend Tadd Grandstaff.

This is pathetic and funny at the same time.

What makes it so sad is that they aren’t having a hard time coming up with Spurgeon-style, or Calvin-style expositional sermons that have some meat…no, they are just trying to come up with the latest man-centered self-help sermon to serve up to their congregation and they had to steal to do it!

If you want to read the whole article, go HERE

If you just want to cut to the chase and here the audio file in all it’s glory…click HERE.

Ok…so we can’t trust what’s actually SAID in it but we will preach from it?

14 02 2009

From the Grand Forks Herald:

FAITH MATTERS: Church to mark Evolution Weekend, Bible school choir to sing in GF church, ‘Youth Alive’ director to speak in church, etc.

Church to mark Evolution Weekend

As part of a nationwide Evolution Weekend that continues today and Sunday in First Presbyterian Church, 5555 S. Washington St., the Rev. Gretchen Graf will preach about the compatibility of science and the Bible at worship services at 9 and 11 a.m. Sunday.

“Presbyterians and many other Christians have long supported the discoveries of science as signs of the mystery and majesty of creation, (ah…correct me if I’m wrong but what mystery is there in “God created everything in 6 days?) not in contradiction to religion, (Ok…millions of years vs 6 literal 24 hr days…how is that not  a contradiction?) ” Graf said. “As our knowledge of science has grown, our faith grows with it. We don’t have to hold ourselves to a literal reading of the Scripture, which denies modern discoveries. (Where does scripture deny modern discoveries? You are just speaking about “modern ideas” not discoveries We can celebrate what contemporary scholarship teaches us alongside the faith tradition.”

Everyone is welcome.

Info: (701) 775-5545 or online at

And so it goes…yeah…don’t believe a word IN the bible but go ahead and preach from it every week…can you say hypocrite?

And you claim to be Christian? Another unregenerate church gets what’s coming to them.

7 02 2009

Oh yeah…this is rich.

This “Pastor” gets his church kicked out of their meeting place because they were too obscene! Where did they get kicked out of? Another churches building you ask?


They were ousted from a SECULAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL!

You read that right…they were even to obscene for the world.

Here is a quote from the article:

The Rev. Dave Nelson just wanted to talk about sex. And porn. And homosexuality. But he won’t be doing it at Nash Elementary School.
The Great Lakes Church, a new church which has rented space at Nash for four weeks, lost its permit late last week
after sending a colorful flier that proclaimed, “Thank God for Sex.”
The flip side listed Nash as the location for the service, and a series of topics scheduled over the next five weeks,

– Great Sex (Bedroom: From Battleground to Playground)
– Sexy and Single (Why God Doesn’t Care About Your Virginity)
– Sex Secrets (Porn, Homosexuality and Stuff Like That)

The Kenosha Unified School District called the flier obscene, disruptive and a violation of Policy 1330, which covers renting Unified space to private organizations. Nelson said he was stunned at the outcome…”

You can read the entirity of the article over at Slice.

Let’s be consistent; killing a child is killing a child…why get upset about it?

7 02 2009

Evidently a Murder Mill in Tampa FL botched up one of their murders and accidentially let the lump of tissue baby be delivered before they killed it correctly and now there is a big brouhaha over the whole thing.

What am I missing? How exactly do you botch up the murder of an innocent baby up? You killed it right? Ok…mission accomplished, on to the next murder.

If you are going to go on killing human beings and not getting all upset over it, why in the world would you get upset because you didn’t kill it exactly the way you had planned to?

Dead is dead right?

Read on….my comments in red bold

Lawsuit: Florida Clinic Botched Abortion, Threw Out Live Baby

TAMPA, Florida  –  Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.

Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.

Only Renelique didn’t arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.

What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: (Again, why? you have no problem with the murder of one of these little ones…why be shocked now? If you’re going to be a murderer, at least be a consistent one) One of the clinic’s owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant’s umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

BLOG: Click here to read Dr. Manny’s take on this.

Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.

“I don’t care what your politics are, what your morals are, this should not be happening in our community,” said Tom Pennekamp, a Miami attorney representing Williams in her lawsuit against Renelique and the clinic owners. (Actually, all of the murders of these infants shouldn’t be happening right? But let’s not quibble over details)

The state Board of Medicine is to hear Renelique’s case in Tampa on Friday and determine whether to strip his license. The state attorney’s homicide division is investigating, though no charges have been filed. Terry Chavez, a spokeswoman with the Miami-Dade County State Attorney’s Office, said this week that prosecutors were nearing a decision.

Renelique’s attorney, Joseph Harrison, called the allegations at best “misguided and incomplete” in an e-mail to The Associated Press. He didn’t provide details.

The case has riled the anti-abortion community, which contends the clinic’s actions constitute murder. (And their actions on all of the other murders didn’t constitute murder? What if they’d have killed this one correctly; according to plan…would it have been murder then?)

“The baby was just treated as a piece of garbage,” said Tom Brejcha, president of The Thomas More Society, a law firm that is also representing Williams. “People all over the country are just aghast.” (oh yeah…how shocking…we meant to suck it’s brains out with a vacuum but instead threw it out…shocking)

Even those who support abortion rights are concerned about the allegations. (And once again I ask WHY? You got what you wanted…another dead person)

“It really disturbed me,” said Joanne Sterner, president of the Broward County chapter of the National Organization for Women, after reviewing the administrative complaint against Renelique. “I know that there are clinics out there like this. And I hope that we can keep (women) from going to these types of clinics.” (As opposed to what kind? The kind that murder children more correctly?)

According to state records, Renelique received his medical training at the State University of Haiti. In 1991, he completed a four-year residency in obstetrics and gynecology at Interfaith Medical Center in New York.

New York records show that Renelique has made at least five medical malpractice payments in the past decade, the circumstances of which were not detailed in the filings.

Several attempts to reach Renelique were unsuccessful. Some of his office numbers were disconnected, no home number could be found and he did not return messages left with his attorney.

Williams struggled with the decision to have an abortion, Pennekamp said. She declined an interview request made through him.

She concluded she didn’t have the resources or maturity to raise a child, he said, and went to the Miramar Women’s Center on July 17, 2006. Sonograms indicated she was 23 weeks pregnant, according to the Department of Health. She met Renelique at a second clinic two days later. (but she sure had the resources to murder one didn’t she?)

Renelique gave Williams laminaria, a drug that dilates the cervix, and prescribed three other medications, according to the administrative complaint filed by the Health Department. She was told to go to yet another clinic, A Gyn Diagnostic Center in Hialeah, where the procedure would be performed the next day, on July 20, 2006.

Williams arrived in the morning and was given more medication.

The Department of Health account continues as follows: Just before noon she began to feel ill. The clinic contacted Renelique. Two hours later, he still hadn’t shown up. Williams went into labor and delivered the baby.

“She came face to face with a human being,” Pennekamp said. “And that changed everything.” (wow…what a shock…it’s a human being!)

The complaint says one of the clinic owners, Belkis Gonzalez came in and cut the umbilical cord with scissors, then placed the baby in a plastic bag, and the bag in a trash can.

Williams’ lawsuit offers a cruder account: She says Gonzalez knocked the baby off the recliner chair where she had given birth, onto the floor. The baby’s umbilical cord was not clamped, allowing her to bleed out. Gonzalez scooped the baby, placenta and afterbirth into a red plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

No working telephone number could be found for Gonzalez, and an attorney who has represented the clinic in the past did not return a message.

At 23 weeks, an otherwise healthy fetus would have a slim but legitimate chance of survival. Quadruplets born at 23 weeks last year at The Nebraska Medical Center survived.

An autopsy determined Williams’ baby – she named her Shanice – had filled her lungs with air, meaning she had been born alive, according to the Department of Health. The cause of death was listed as extreme prematurity.

The Department of Health believes Renelique committed malpractice by failing to ensure that licensed personnel would be present when Williams was there, among other missteps.

The department wants the Board of Medicine, a separate agency, to permanently revoke Renelique’s license, among other penalties. His license is currently restricted, permitting him to only perform abortions when another licensed physician is present and can review his medical records.

Should prosecutors file murder charges, they’d have to prove the baby was born alive, said Robert Batey, a professor of criminal law at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport. The defense might contend that the child would have died anyway, but most courts would not allow that argument, he said.

“Hastening the death of an individual who is terminally ill is still considered causing the death of that individual,” Batey said. “And I think a court would rule similarly in this type of case.

Just in case you have never seen what’s being spoken of; here are some photos…take a close look and tell me it’s just tissue:





“Kent Brandenburg’s Myopic King James Onlyism” OR “I laughed so hard Mtn Dew came out my nose!”

5 02 2009

The lengths KJV onlyists will go to defend their indefensible view of the bible is laughable most of the time, it’s myopic 100% of the time, but sometimes it’s just downright FUNNY.

Read this entry from James White’s blog written by Alan Kurschner.

If you don’t know; James White is an apologist, he’s a University Teacher of Greek and Hebrew for 20+ years, and he’s the author of numerous books…one of which is called “The King James Only Controversy” and is the reason that he MUST be attacked by KJV’ers. They simply CANNOT have a rational argument against their irrational position be heard.

So with that…I give you: Kent Brandenburg Myopic King James Onlyist Extraordinaire.

Kent Brandenburg has written some presumptuous comments on the White-Ehrman debate. He has made unsubstantiated claims about Dr. White’s apologetics and the debate specifically. (Brandenburg is a King James Only advocate to give you some background of his presuppositions.)

Brandenburg writes,

“James White hasn’t done much to defend the Bible against the skeptic [Ehrman]. He’s mainly attempted to give more uncertainty to people without a doubt in Scripture.”

He says that White has not defended the Bible against the skeptic Ehrman, but how does he know this since he admits himself that he has not listened to any of the rebuttals or cross-examination: “I listened to the introduction and Ehrman’s opening statement. I’m interested in listening to all of it as I make the time.

Then he says that James White gives more doubt to the reliability of Scripture to believers. One is truly left speechless at Brandenburg’s assertion. But let me be brutally honest of where this is coming from: Brandenburg’s deep commitment to his King James Onlyism requires him to reject discourse on the historical and textual evidence of the manuscript tradition. Brandenburg’s bold claim that White induces uncertainty in God’s people is an expression of King James Onlyism. I challenge Kent Brandenburg to call into the Dividing Line show Thursday and explain to us all how Dr. White engenders “uncertainty in believers.” Here is the time and phone number: Thursday 4:00 MST 1-877-753-3341 (Toll Free)

Related to this point is an interesting observation that myself and others (such as Wallace) have noticed about the most fundamental criticism that KJVO advocates make against modern textual criticism. They incessantly denounce that modern critics use “rational principles” in the utilization of determining better readings from inferior readings. And yet this is clearly a double standard given that the most fundamental principle that govern KJVO thinking is a rational principle. That is, in the mind of KJVO advocates is the deep-seated rational conviction: “This is the way that God must have preserved his Word.” Notice that this is not a Biblical, historical, or textual argument-it is a rational argument. Somehow they believe that they are privy to God’s mind and can see this rational reason. So what KJVO advocates criticize the most is what they are essentially guilty of themselves. And to be sure, there is nothing wrong with rational thinking-I would hope that we do not approach God’s Word with irrational thinking. The question should be: is this or that rational principle applicable and warranted in this or that context?

Moving on, he writes this laconic statement,

“White reads Metzger to get his position”

Does Brandenburg honestly believe that White thinks that if Metzger says it, that’s gospel-Metzger has spoken. So if Metzger makes a good argument about the “tenacity” of the original readings, White cannot utilize his argumentation? It does not matter who said it, if it is true, it is true. If Brandenburg disagrees with this then he should engage the principle–not the person.

Next, Brandenburg invokes Joel McDurmon’s critique of White’s approach to the debate. I find this sloppy and irresponsible of Brandenburg to review a review of a debate he has not yet heard.

Brandenburg writes,

“Whenever I listen to White talk on this subject, and I haven’t listened to the debate all the way through yet, he sounds like an evidentialist to me too. I say that if he is a presuppositionalist, he should debate like it. I believe I know why he doesn’t on this subject at least. He isn’t a presuppositionalist on this issue. He didn’t prepare for a presuppositional presentation on his side of the debate, so he didn’t present one.”

First, Brandenburg fails to cite any examples. Second, he is not being accurate. White’s purpose was in fact presuppositional. White comments on the debate that his purpose was to:

“Expose the presuppositional nature of Ehrman’s insistence that we must possess the originals for inspiration to be true. This would include making sure it is clear that when Ehrman says “We don’t know what the NT said” he means “We do not have photographic reproductions of the originals.” I desired to make sure the listener would see that the NT manuscript tradition is more than sufficient to provide the original readings, even in the toughest of variants.”

Also, for KJVO advocates their view of preservation is that God preserved his Word in a 1611 Anglican translation. White explains that another purpose of the debate was to explain the correct understanding of God’s providential mechanism of preservation,

“Present a strong case for the providential preservation of the text through the explosion of early manuscripts and the lack of editorial “control” in contrast with the Islamic theory of preservation. Given that the majority of attacks upon the NT today come from those alleging some kind of controlled editing of the text, this element is vital.”

You can read more of Dr. White’s purposes for the debate here:

Continuing, Brandenburg writes,

“What White does, according to McDurmon, and I’ve yet to hear it (but will), is argue the exact same way that Ehrman does. Ironic, huh?”

First, what is ironic is that Kent Brandenburg would agree wholeheartedly with the agnostic, skeptic Bart Ehrman who both agree together that there cannot be any inspired, preserved text if there exists variants in a text. For Bart that text was not preserved; and for Kent that text was preserved in a 17th century Anglican translation (aka KJV 1611). Second, White and Ehrman have the same textual facts in front of them (as does Brandenburg) but they explicitly argue differently to reach their respective conclusions. How Brandenburg or McDurmon think they argue the “exact same way” is simply absurd.

Brandenburg continues,

“McDurmon comes across as very objective”

How can Brandenburg say that McDurmon is objective if he has not compared his statements with the debate audio — that is not being very objective!

“White goes to his speculation about the text to say that there’s enough evidence in the manuscripts to support Christian beliefs and enough confidence in Scripture.”

Not speculation, but facts. Is there a Christian doctrine that White affirms that cannot be found in the manuscript tradition?

Brandenburg writes,

“White says that the best thing that comes out of this debate is that Ehrman is exposed as the skeptic that he is. Well, did anyone really doubt the skepticism of Ehrman?”

Yes, Mr. Brandenburg, many people do doubt that Ehrman is a skeptic (except in your myopic fundamentalist orbit). I encounter folks all the time who do not perceive Ehrman as you do. Many benighted unbelievers think he represents reasonable scholarship. Apparently, Brandenburg does not get out too often and have discourse with those outside his fundamentalist circle. Ehrman has had a great impact on individuals who are not aware of his skepticism and spin. Second, “exposing Ehrman as a skeptic” was one aspect of the whole purpose for the debate.

In this last statement, Brandenburg’s arrogance shines the brightest,

“I’m thinking that the best material that I’ll get out of this debate will be the content in opposition to White. I already knew that Ehrman was a fraud, having read two of his books. Now we’ll see about White.”

Notice that Brandenburg has not even listened to the debate and he is already saying that the best material that he will get out of the debate is the apostate Ehrman’s radical skepticism. Here, he is claiming that the facts and argumentation that White has adduced in the debate to support the reliability of the New Testament is useless. What could possibly motivate someone to say such a thing?

I found Kent Brandenburg’s article desperately biased and indicative of KJVO’s vacuous presuppositions. Throughout his article (about four or five times) he kept saying, “I have not yet heard the debate” just after he would make bold claims about the debate itself. Brandenburg has proven himself to be discredited, biased, and inaccurate in the arena of Biblical discourse.

You’re a “Fly on the Wall” listening as Dr. Greg Bahnsen lectures on Presuppositional Apologetics…

2 02 2009

I think that this is going to be very much worth your while to watch this video. Yes, it’s long. No, there are no dancing clowns to keep you entertained…but none the less, I believe that it’s probably the most valuable bit of video on Christian Apologetics you’ll see anytime soon. A  big thank you to Debunking Atheism for this video.

Pop the popcorn, dim the lights…here we go: