A friend sent me a list of questions from the end of a chapter from a book called Already Gone by Ken Ham. I answered them for her, and I figured I might as well post them here. Of course many books have been written on each of these questions, but here’s my quick answers.
1. Why am I here?
To glorify God.
2. Who is God?
The Creator. One God in 3 persons. The Father is God. Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God.
3. Who is Jesus and why is He the only path to salvation?
Jesus is God in the flesh. We have broken God’s law, and God isn’t obligated to forgive us. He made only one way for us to be forgiven–through the blood of Christ.
4. Why the Bible and not other holy books?
It’s impossible for the Bible not to be true. The God of the Bible is the only explanation for the existence of truth. If the Bible were false, there would be no such thing as true and false.
5. Why should the Bible be the authority in my life when making decisions and moral choices?
It is God’s message to us, and God’s law is the only basis for saying anything is good or evil–moral absolutes.
6. Why set boundaries on sexuality and marriage?
Because God set the boundaries in His law. If I want to know what kind of oil to put in my car, I look in the owner’s manual to see what the car’s manufacturer says. As the Creator of humans, He knows the optimal conditions for our operation.
7. If we are the descendants of one man and one woman where did all the different races come from?
Microevolution. Certain characteristics lend themselves to survival in a certain place, and those characteristics are passed on to the next generation. Microevolution is a loss of genetic information whereas macroevolution is a gain of genetic information, which is impossible. Poodles had a forced evolution by breeders from wolves, but they’re still dogs. They could never breed a flying dog.
8. How does one determine the value of a human life?
The only possible way to answer this would be Scripture. We are worth the price Jesus paid for us on the cross.
9. Dinosaurs and the Bible – how does that work?
There is a lot of interesting things about this. I believe it is a dinosaur mentioned in Job 40:15-19. Alexander the great talked about encountering dragons and there are carvings of dinosaurs in temples in Cambodia.
10. What is wrong with the world (suffering and death) when God supposedly made everything perfect?
Sin. I contribute to what is wrong with the world when I sin. One time this kid asked me why God allowed his bike to be stolen, and then he admitted that he stole the bike he was riding.
11. How can “what is wrong with the world” be made right?
There will be sin in the world until Jesus returns. We can contribute to the improvement of the world by taking dominion– having many godly children, evangelism, doing a good job at work, making money–good deeds in general.
12. Does science disprove or confirm history in the Bible.
In order to do science, you must presuppose that the laws of nature will be the same in the future as they’ve been in the past. That principle is called the uniformity of nature. Christianity is the only worldview that explains why we can presuppose uniformity. This is a huge problem for atheism especially. Science is impossible apart from the God of the Bible.
For a specific example of how biblical young-earth predictions have been proven true, they recently sent a satellite to Pluto. If Pluto was billions of years old, it would be a cold, dead rock with many craters. But they found that it has few craters. This indicates that there is recent volcanic activity. Also, it has a nitrogen atmosphere, which would be impossible if it were billions of years old.
13. Why does the age of the earth really matter to me and my life today?
If there was death before the sin of Adam, that would be a problem for Scripture. Jesus also talked about a recent creation in Mark 10, and the six-day creation is mentioned in the 4th commandment.
14. Why is it important that I believe in a literal 6-day, 24-hour creation?
Same as #13.
15. Did we evolve from ape-like creatures?
Evolution is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. What are the incremental steps between a shrew that can’t fly and a bat that can? Half a wing is an impediment. And there are a million examples of things like that from a cellular level to things like animal evolution.
The simplest way to think about it is that DNA code contains information. Information only comes from intelligence. Mutations and natural selection only decrease information. You can’t have humans evolving from another species if it requires an increase of information. It’s impossible.
When your religion is statism and cops are the priests, apparently it can make you see things that aren’t there. Here’s a conversation I had on Twitter.
“Morality is Freedom” says that Tamir Rice approached the police. I have no idea how he came to that conclusion. As far as I can tell it is just a complete perversion of the facts. The cops raced up to him, driving on the grass, and killed the kid in under 3 seconds. I don’t see how anyone can reasonably perceive that a pedestrian has done any significant approaching in 3 seconds to a car that has just raced up to him.
Jesus said, “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). Wouldn’t love dictate that the cop, even at the risk of his own life, at least try to diffuse the situation? Is officer safety really the chief concern? Wasn’t Jesus saying that my own well-being isn’t my chief concern?
Apparently officer safety is the chief concern, to the point that we no longer care what the Bible says about murder. The Bible teaches that humans are created in God’s image and there are very specific limits to when killing isn’t murder.
But Americans don’t care about all that. We’d rather a child be murdered, than an officer have to risk his life. Since that’s the case, wouldn’t police be even safer if they didn’t have to expose themselves at all? Shouldn’t they have just run the kid over? Maybe someone will invent special bumpers that will more effectively kill people on the first attempt at running over, so as not to give them a chance to fire on police even after having been run over by a less-lethal bumper.
In case you missed it all, here’s the video of the incident. The murder takes place beginning at the 8:26 mark.
It’s sad that these Croats love freedom more than most Americans. The government doesn’t have any right to stop people from crossing the border. If Christians adopt pagan and Islamic ideas we might as well give up hope of defeating paganism and Islam.
1. They appeal to lex talionis (the principle that the proper punishment for a crime is an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth.
Lex talionis is theonomic. It’s taken from the Old Testament civil law in Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. And God has defined specifically what fits that description throughout the civil law. If you reject theonomy, by what standard is lex talionis just?
2. These guys said that if someone voluntarily agrees to submit to theonomy (or whatever system of law), then the punishments are then just for that individual. I asked whether someone who voluntarily joined a homeowner’s association that called for the death penalty for painting their house the wrong color, would the death penalty then be just for someone who picked the wrong color? They never answered the question. This shows an inconsistency in their system of thought.
3. They said that the Noahic covenant (Genesis 9) dictates that the only capital crime is murder. I asked what the Noahic covenant dictates as to the punishment for kindapping, rape, theft, etc.? They never were able to respond except that at the end they claimed lex talionis is valid and would provide the proper punishment for these things.
Their arguments are more complex than most people’s silence and inability to respond to theonomy, but their system is still arbitrary. If you reject theonomy, there’s no longer a basis to judge any law, and you can no longer say theonomic laws are unjust.
Without this video, these cops would never have faced any serious questions about the murder they committed. But this commenter, Sheva Meucci may be on to something. He thinks they may have been trying to plant a gun on the guy. Here’s the video, and his commentary below.
1:11 When officer 1 was shot, the victims right arm was visible holding the fence at an angle that suggests a nearly impossible angle for him to left-hand-shoot the officer behind and to his left. (seriously, try it out)
Just after shooting his partner, officer 2 seems to mumble something. Perhaps it was “I didn’t mean to get you”
1:30 is the KEY
At exactly 1:30 officer 1 has just said “Where’s the gun” (fearing there never was one) pulls a secondary weapon out of his belt in the front after touching and deciding not to plant his primary weapon, then wipes it across the victim’s back and puts it on the ground (for those watching). He then picks it back up resting his weight on it barrel pointing toward the ground. The camera loses track but picks back up as the cop, with planted weapon in hand goes for his primary weapon and has to drop the planted gun to free his hand. He loosens his primary wepon but does not take it. (because the guy is obviously no threat) Then the other offficer (2) shoots the guy once.
Officer 1 then pulls out his primary weapon and shoots the victim in the back three times. He then pleads to the crowd over his murder saying “I got shot” and adjusts the position of the planted gun for the onlookers. At 2:51 he decides to call attention to the gun again by picking it up and tossing it 1 additional foot away from the dying man.
At 3:15 someone in the crowd says “He’s got another gun or what?” trying to determine why they are suffocating the dying man. At 3:16-17 officer 2 says to officer 1 “I dunno if he has a gun”
Immediately thereafter at 3:20 Officer 1 grabs his secondary weapon/plant off the ground and sticks it back in his belt as, apparently, there is some confusion about whether or not he needs a plant.
At 3:37-41 the obviously weird motions of officer 1’s body are a puposeful attempt to secretly shake loose the gun he has in his belt. (Sort of an impromptu magic trick) And it then lands on officer 2’s leg.
At 3:52 officer 1 lifts the victims left arm for cuffs and brushes his hand against the planted gun to attempt to get prints on it, even using the hand to “throw the weapon” to the side.
3:59 officer 1 has now grabbed the planted gun and moved it into a position where people on the other side of he street can see it and then asks “Does he have another one?” (desperately hoping they don’t need the plant)
4:07 Officer 2 reveals he’s not aware of the plant at this point by replying “Doesn’t really matter” intimating that they are covered for all misconduct now that they’ve found a gun and the guy is no threat even if he had another.
After displaying the second plant to everyone, officer 2 sends officer 1 away and at 4:20 yells, “That’s his fucking gun”
At 1:30 it is obvious where that weapon comes from unless it was a hover-gun.
The murderer says “Where’s the gun” reaches right for it and then pulls it out without telling his partner?
Crystal… Freaking… Clear…
Officer 2 was a violent monster using deadly force without any real danger to his life who shot his own partner, then quitely shoots the victim again with no reason to do so other than to subdue and hide his first mistake but eventually he felt he could get away with it because a gun was found.
Officer 1 may have thought the victim actually shot him, but was filled with rage at what he percieved was his attempted murder, and in his pained and blind rage became the true murderer. Then in his fear, he tried to hide his rage/fear-filled actions through planting a gun.
Officer 2 caused the whole thing and the pain and rage of officer 1 almost excuses (what he thought was) his retaliatory murder. Officer 2’s actions were just cold and evil.
I love how these abolitionists speak to the cops and call them to repentance.
I don’t think preaching is a violation of a disorderly conduct law unless the law specifies a decibel level, and the cops test the sound level with a decibel meter at a certain distance. None of that took place in this instance. Also, how can this interfere with students leaving school and getting on buses? It’s not like the kids were in class.
It boils down to the fact that these cops sinned. I bet a good percentage of them claim to be Christians and attend church. They should be placed under church discipline for this.
Abortionists rest easy at night knowing there are no good cops.
As a secessionist, I don’t say the pledge of allegiance. This country is not indivisible and there is hardly justice for all when 55 million babies have been murdered.
This is a video of the unjust arrest of Tatsuo Akamine in February 2015 in Torrance California. Seeing the arrest is shocking. What is even more shocking is the warped commentary on this video from Tony Miano, which you can read in full here. Tony is a retired LA Sheriff’s deputy and a street preacher. Brevity is not the soul of wit in Tony’s world, so here are the highlights of his article along with my own comments.
Tony says,
“The moment Tatsuo refused to show his identification to the officer, he was subject to arrest. The officer was not required to ask Tatsuo more than once for his identification. The officer was under no obligation whatsoever to negotiate with Tatsuo.”
Apparently that’s the garbage that police are taught, and it appears that Tony never thought to ask whether it’s biblical or not. If an officer walks up to someone, he can make up something about disturbing the peace (which Tony later acknowledges is well-known as a catch-all accusation) and then the cop’s victim is “lawfully” (U.S. law–not God’s law) subject to all kinds of arbitrary orders and searches.
I have a question: What does Tatsuo’s name and address have to do with whether he was disturbing the peace?
As far as Tony is concerned, there is no room for disobeying a man-god wearing a badge. You must submit, regardless of whether the accusations have any basis in reality.
After this, the officer says that Tatsuo isn’t under arrest, but he wants to search him for weapons.
Tony says,
“The moment Tatsuo refused to comply with the officer’s lawful orders to turn around and place his hands over his head…he was subject to arrest. The officer, at that moment, could use whatever amount of force he deemed both reasonable and necessary to overcome Tatsuo’s resistance.”
“The way Tatsuo locked up his body and clenched his hands together, which are behaviors that are obvious to even the untrained eye watching the video, were aggressive acts, which could lead a reasonable officer to believe a physical altercation was imminent.”
To Tony, it’s obvious that Tatsuo resisting a cop having him put his hands over his head is an aggressive act. This is because Tony thinks the cop is a man-god who must be obeyed. Disobeying a man-god is justification for a “reasonable” officer to believe this is a prelude to fisticuffs. What tender egos they must have! The truth is Tatsuo wasn’t aggressive in any way whatsoever, and a child could see it.
Tony says,
“Even though Tatsuo was resisting, the officer shows commendable restraint by trying to deescalate the situation through conversation–explaining his “plan” to Tatsuo.”
Well, by golly, let’s pin a medal on the man-god’s chest. It doesn’t matter whether that cop is there for a valid reason, or whether his accusation is completely preposterous. He has sauntered on to the scene and has given his orders and the mere humans must humbly obey. He showed tremendous restraint in not blowing everyone away, right then and there.
Tony says,
“Tatsuo then refuses to spread his legs and resists, multiple times, the officer’s efforts to move his legs so he could safely conduct a search of Tatsuo’s person, incident to a lawful arrest.”
First of all, at 4:10 in the video, after the cop tries to move Tatsuo’s legs, he says that Tatsuo isn’t under arrest, but being detained. Second, Tony will later acknowledge, and explain that Tatsuo wasn’t disturbing the peace. So where is the lawful arrest? Tony must be saying that it’s lawful to be arrested solely for disobeying a cop. That is un-American, and much more importantly unbiblical.
Where in the Bible are civil magistrates given the right to search people to see if they have weapons? They’re so special that they can only talk to people who have no weapons? They certainly are a timid bunch.
Tony says,
“Then, Tatsuo and his friends begin to make a scene by shouting. Any officer–any reasonable officer–would experience myriad of emotions as a result of recognizing he or she was in real and present danger…I cannot get into the officer’s head to ascertain to what degree he was in fear for his safety.”
At this point, it crossed my mind that Tony was making all of this up as a joke. This is the most preposterous thing I’ve read in some time. Tony thinks that reasonable officers experience a myriad of emotions when they hear shouting. Really? If shouting can upset someone, I’d think they must be an emotionally tender person.
But, what exactly is it that Tony calls shouting that he thinks might cause the officer to suffer fear and a virtual panoply of emotion? Are they cussing the cop out? Are they referring to him as various cuts of pork? Are they threatening him? No. They raise their voices to say, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake”, “Hallelujah!”, “Thank you Lord Jesus”. Tony actually says that such words could strike fear in the heart of a reasonable officer. I’m sure his life flashed before his eyes!
No wonder Tony isn’t a pentecostal where they shout such things in church. He would probably wilt in fear.
Maybe if these cops are so sensitive, emotional and fearful they could find a more suitable line of work. But, I imagine it would be hard for them to give up the rush of a good power trip that comes from knowing that you have the ability to lock up everyone who doesn’t hang on your every word.
Tony says,
“Tatsuo then foolishly asks his friend with the camera to follow him, now putting his friend in potential danger and maybe even making him subject to arrest.”
“For reasons of officer safety, the officer’s order to Tatsuo’s friend not to follow him was reasonable and appropriate, considering the circumstances. The officer even told Tatsuo’s friend, “You’re violating my officer safety!” But foolishly, the person behind the camera argues with the officer.”
Just when you think Tony couldn’t get any more ridiculous, he starts calling Tatsuo and his friends fools. These people aren’t crackheads, gang bangers or bikers, (as if that would be justification for the tyrannical behavior of this cop). They’re Christians. But this cop is afraid to have a Christian with a video camera walking behind him. It is a violation of his officer safety. He is a god walking among us and his safety takes precedence over any American’s right to walk through a parking lot, right?
Not only that, but Tony thinks Tatsuo is a fool for asking his friend to follow. According to Tony, only through the mind of a fool could a thought of someone freely walking across a strip mall parking lot cross. And Tatsuo isn’t the only one behaving foolishly. The cameraman also foolishly dares to question the orders of this man-god. I’m surprised the cop didn’t obliterate the petulant cameraman where he stood for daring to question a government official of the almighty state of California. One day that foolish man will run out of mercy and receive his full cup of wrath.
Tony says,
“While I do not believe Tatsuo was in violation of California Penal Code section 415 (disturbing the peace), I also do not believe Tatsuo was persecuted for his faith. I believe he simply suffered the consequences for his unlawful behavior. And, sadly, that same behavior brought a reproach upon Christ and His gospel.”
This is an amazing paragraph. Tony doesn’t believe that Tatsuo broke a law, but believes that he suffered the consequences for his unlawful behavior. Tatsuo’s only unlawful behavior, according to Tony, was disobeying the arbitrary, unjust orders of a government employee. Hello? I wish every Christian went out and disobeyed at least one arbitrary, unjust order every day. The world would be a better place.
Tony then goes on to explain how the officer was mistaken about pretty much everything he said about sound amplification, loud preaching and disturbing the peace.
At this point, Tony, like an unending number of American Christians, twists Romans 13 into a pretzel to teach that Christians must blindly obey the arbitrary orders of a cop. Tatsuo took pains to obey the law as written, but this isn’t enough. Tony accuses him of sin for disobeying a cop’s arbitrary and unjust orders!
I’ve been faced with this situation in the past, and I handled it differently than Tatsuo. I think that there is little justice in the American justice system and to put one’s life into the hands of a wicked judge is something I want to avoid. However, I certainly don’t think that what Tatsuo did was a sin. We are to stand for righteousness, and resist tyranny. If that’s the way Tatsuo wants to do it, then God bless him.
I have searched and searched for what has come of Tatsuo and this case. I can’t find anything on it, and he keeps a very low profile; he has no website, Facebook or Twitter that I can find. I hope that this is an indication that the charges were dropped. Another possibility is that Tatsuo was never actually arrested.
I can see cops thinking that they’re gods and their orders must be obeyed. I can see government passing laws that give such favors to their collection agents. What I can’t see is a Christian like Tony actually defending this wicked system, or saying that Tatsuo is sinning when he resists.
As we bemoan the pitiful condition of our country and our eroding liberties, we have Christian men like Tony to thank. Christians are supposed to be salt and light–to preserve society–maintain godliness and truth. Truth leads to freedom (John 8:32). When Christians warp Romans 13 to defend tyrants, they’ve abandoned the truth, and they might as well just beg for more tyranny.
Whose law you obey reveals who your god is. If you dutifully obey the laws of the state, even when the laws of the state and the law of God contradict each other, then the state is your god.
Tony is wrong, and his article is reprehensible. We need to fear God–not men.
I’m no longer a Premillennialist (the most common end-times view of American Christians). It is a pessimistic view, teaching that ultimately Christians are going to be defeated in history. However, Jesus will return and make things right and secure the victory. But, as time goes on, it would teach that Christians are going to lose more and more battles. I think proper premillennialism would say that we should continue fighting the battles valiantly. But if you think you’re most likely to lose a battle, it would certainly be tempting to not fight. John MacArthur has even said that trying to improve society is like polishing brass on a sinking ship.
Below is a quick conversation on a Youtube video. You can see that Awakened Won is dead certain that the end is near, and he’s very pessimistic, to the point of dismissing the previous commenter’s suggestion out of hand.
How is he so certain that the birth pangs have begun? By watching and reading the news, and focusing on America’s viewpoint. That isn’t the way to properly interpret the Bible.
I think scrimmy6969’s suggestion is cool. At least he’s making a concrete suggestion, and something is way better than Awakened One’s nothing.
I have known Christians who share Awakened One’s outlook, and one of the things they say is, “We should just preach the gospel.” Generally, the people who do that aren’t actually preaching the gospel, but you can also ask them if all they do is preach the gospel. Do they have a church softball team or pot luck dinner? The gospel is God’s power unto salvation and it leads us to try to correct injustices we see, as much as just to proclaim a message. I think it would be hard to proclaim the message of the gospel without it actually leading to taking action as well.
Here’s the video on which the conversation took place. My thinking on Alex Jones is that he does quite a bit of speculating, and he’s right some of the time and he’s wrong some of the time. I really like the impassioned speech he gave towards the end of the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PmCRaa5hJU
Whether postmillennialism is true or not is something I’m still studying, but I’m sold on the idea that I’m here to build a godly legacy for my children, grandchildren and generations to come. Part of my job is to build an inheritance for them to be influential members of the community. If Christ wants to come back and interrupt that, it’s up to Him.
I had a great, encouraging conversation with a few friends. I didn’t even bring up the subject, but another guy asked whether I would take part in a secessionist movement. Obviously, I’m all for it, and I said so. Everyone else said so too, with one guy saying he’d have to wait and see what the principles of the new nation would be.
I also agree with that. I wouldn’t be in favor of blindly seceding even if the secessionists were a bunch of communists. But I think the assumption behind the question was that it would be a move in a positive direction, and the gist of the question was: would you be willing to stand against old Uncle Sam?
I pointed out that at the very least it would cost us Social Security, public school, etc. And those are really no big deal– things that I’d love to be rid of–but I’m not dependent on those things like other people. But there are other ways that even middle and upper class people can be bought off without being on the government dole.
The guy who said he’d have to see what the principles of the new country would be before answering the question said something like, “In Mexico, the cops can come arrest you for no reason and hold you indefinitely. In America, things certainly aren’t perfect, but if I want a big steak, I have the ability to get one right now.”
That guy isn’t on any type of government assistance, but he’s been bought off with a comfortable lifestyle. Before the housing bubble popped, I heard stories of people who would refinance their house every year and take a $30,000 out. Obviously, that’s an example of foolishness and false wealth, and I’m sure people like that were the first to be foreclosed on in 2008. Those people were bought off by a mirage of wealth created by government meddling.
How else is the US government creating a mirage of wealth for us? The Federal Reserve has kept interest rates artificially low for seven years or so.
The currency we use is not backed by anything, they can print as much of it as they like.
There are many people and companies that have made a killing off of government programs.
There are many people and companies that have made a killing off of supplying the military for endless wars.
New York City created taxi medallions that were once worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. They are essentially government permits to operate a taxi, but new technologies have made them nearly worthless (at least last I heard).
I’m sure there are many other ways and other government programs that people use to earn their living or that government uses to create the illusion of wealth. Essentially, who knows what is real and what is fake when the whole system is manipulated by the government?
What it boils down to is that we can buy a big, juicy steak any time we like, and life is pretty comfortable. Why rock the boat when you have a nice retirement coming up in a few years, and a big screen TV? Well, I don’t want to just rock the boat; I want to sink it. 55 million babies have been murdered, and if that was the only justification for secession, it would be enough.
The standard for the righteousness isn’t Mexico, or any other country. The standard is God’s Word.
I spent most of this article answering the objections of my friend, but overall it was an encouraging conversation where I discovered that many people see things the way I do, and are willing to do something about it. If you think talking is going to fix this country’s problems, you better be talking about secession.
Working for the Secession of Fremont County from the Union
