Kathy Petersen’s Blog

Catholics Don’t Worship Mary?

Posted in Bible, Christianity by Kathy on December 24, 2012

Let me start off by saying that I don’t know too much about Catholic theology as it differs from other Christian denominations. Growing up, there were no Catholics where I lived (or at least, I never knew any until at least my teenage years, and there still is no Catholic Church within 20 miles of my childhood home); Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians a-plenty, along with smaller segments of many various other denominations, but no Catholics. In school (private, Christian school), we mostly stuck to things that all Christians had in common, though in our history lessons of Western civilization, of course we had to get into religious wars and Catholic dominance of Western Europe, etc., so I had a good overview of Catholicism generally. Since growing up, I’ve learned more about Catholicism, even engaging in a couple of online forums (fora?) for a short while, but never delving very deeply into it; and most of what I learned was from an anti- or at least non-Catholic position (or from pop culture, like the christening scene in The Godfather, and the Christmas Day Mass in While You Were Sleeping).

However, now I have several Catholic friends on facebook, and am currently living in an area that is predominantly Catholic, so I don’t want to unnecessarily offend Catholics, even if I do think they’re wrong; and at one point I previously said something to a Catholic about “praying to saints”, and she said that they don’t “pray to saints” as if praying to God, but rather asking them to intercede, just as you might call up a friend and ask them to pray for you about something; therefore, in order to meet Catholics where they are, I can’t go based on what I have read from non-Catholic sources about what Catholics believe, because they tend to reject such language. Yes, the non-Catholics are right in that Catholics pray to dead people, but Catholics reject the unbiblical insinuations of it, and put a Biblical (or quasi-Biblical) twist to it, so that they can hold what seem to be two contrary opinions at once. [I say “quasi-Biblical”, because I do agree that it is Biblical to ask people to pray for you, but that it is unbiblical (perhaps even demonic or approaching witchcraft) to communicate with the dead, and that there is nothing in the Bible that indicates that living Christians should ask dead Christians to intercede for them.]

So, Catholics claim they don’t “pray to dead people” in a bad/unbiblical sense, and they also claim they “don’t worship Mary” (another common charge leveled against Catholics by non-Catholics). No matter how many non-Catholic resources I could quote confirming Mary worship, Catholics wouldn’t accept them as truly understanding Catholicism, and they would brush off any such statements as being inaccurate, so I decided to go to the source. Just about every movie that depicts Catholics or Catholicism at all includes one person with a rosary necklace and/or praying the rosary, but I never knew exactly what it was; at some point I learned that the necklace is used as a reminder of the form of the prayer, with every bead being a different thing to say or think about, so that once you go all the way around the necklace, touching each bead and saying the right prayer attached to each bead, you were done. But here is the rosary from a Catholic source.

It starts off good enough with the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, but then comes three Hail Marys. So God gets one prayer, while Mary gets three. Okay…. The first part of “Hail Mary” is taken from the Bible in which the angel Gabriel visits Mary and tells her that she will become pregnant and give birth to Jesus, but then it devolves into asking a dead person to intercede on behalf of the living — again, perfectly acceptable to Catholics, but nowhere said or implied in the Bible. Continuing the rosary is again something that no Christians so far as I know would have a problem with, “Glory be to the Father”, followed by the first “mystery” (there are 4 different types of mysteries, with 5 mysteries in each type — more on that later), then “Our Father”, then while contemplating the “mystery”, the person is to say 10 Hail Marys followed by another “Glory be to the Father”, then repeat the cycle with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th mysteries, saying each mystery followed by “Our Father”, 10 Hail Marys and “Glory be to the Father”. Does anybody else see the problem of the ratio of praying to and hailing and honoring Mary vs. praying to and honoring God?

Now a brief sidetrack into the discussion of the “mysteries”. Most of the things in the “mysteries” are taken directly from the Bible, and are basically just a recitation or repetition of stories in the Bible, although with some occasional non-Biblical/extra-Biblical things thrown in — but for the most part, are things that no Christian would disagree with until… the last two of the “Glorious Mysteries”, “The Assumption” and “The Coronation”. Having read that, I just have to say, “WOW!!” Whoo, boy!

The Fourth Glorious Mystery: THE ASSUMPTION

  1. After the apostles have dispersed, the Blessed Mother goes to live with John, the beloved disciple.
  2. Mary lives many years on earth after the death of Christ.
  3. She is a source of comfort, consolation and strength to the apostles.
  4. As she had nourished the infant Jesus, so she nourishes spiritually the infant Church.
  5. Mary dies, not of bodily infirmity, but is wholly overcome in a rapture of divine love.
  6. Her body as well as her soul is taken up into heaven.
  7. After her burial the apostles go to the tomb and find only fragrant lilies.
  8. Jesus does not permit the sinless body of His Mother to decay in the grave.
  9. Corruption of the body is an effect of original sin from which Mary is totally exempted.
  10. The bodies of all mankind, at the last judgment, will be brought back and united again to the soul.

Spiritual Fruit: To Jesus through Mary

The Fifth Glorious Mystery: THE CORONATION

  1. As Mary enters heaven, the entire court of heaven greets with joy this masterpiece of God’s creation.
  2. Mary is crowned by her divine Son as Queen of heaven and earth.
  3. More than we can ever know the Hearts of Jesus and Mary overflow with joy at this reunion.
  4. Only in heaven will we know the great majesty of that coronation, and the joy it gave to the angels and saints.
  5. Even the angels, who by nature are greater than humans, hail Mary as their Queen.
  6. Mary shares so fully in the glory of Christ because she shared so fully in His suffering.
  7. Only in heaven will we see how central is the role of Mary in the divine plan of redemption.
  8. The angels and saints longed for the coming of her whose heel crushes the head of the serpent.
  9. Mary pleads our cause as a most powerful Queen and a most merciful and loving Mother.
  10. A great sign appeared in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

Spiritual Fruit: Grace of Final Perseverance

Really? First, there is nothing in the Bible of this; it’s just Catholic additions. Secondly, if Mary were sinless (4th mystery, #8 & 9), why does she need a Savior and Redeemer? — Luke 1:47. Thirdly, the “spiritual fruit” that is supposed to come from this 4th mystery is “To Jesus through Mary”?? In a recent discussion with a Catholic friend of mine on facebook, I told her that one of the problems I had with Catholicism is that it puts the priests as a mediator between God and man, while the Bible says that there is One such Mediator, Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5). She basically said that priests weren’t mediators in that sense, and affirmed that Jesus was the only Mediator. I still insist that Catholic priests are mediators in a way that the Bible forbids, and now after reading this, I must add in that Mary is another such mediator. If we have to go through anybody but Jesus to get to God, whether that is priests or as this says, “through Mary to Jesus”, then that is putting an unbiblical mediator between God and man. Now Catholics may say that it’s not putting a mediator between God and man, but it is. Fourthly, aside from the blatantly unbiblical nature of all this (except #10, which is a quote from the Bible and may or may not refer to Mary at all), #7 — “only in heaven will we see how central is the role of Mary in the divine plan of redemption”?? Oh, dear! And #8 is not just “extra-biblical” (meaning, outside of the Bible, like the existence of the Mayans and Incas) but absolutely **UN**Biblical. The Bible says that it is the heel of the Son, the offspring of the woman, that crushes the head of the serpent, *not* the woman’s heel!! — Gen. 3:15.

Okay, enough of the “mysteries”. Back to the rosary, which is technically finished, but after the end of the rosary, this is supposed to be said:

HAIL, HOLY QUEEN, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary!

So now MARY is “our hope”??? We cry to Mary, and “send up our sighs, mourning and weeping”? Why not just straight to God? Why this other mediator between God and man? And MARY is our advocate? How unbiblical can it get!?

Finally, I also take issue with them saying that we are “poor banished children of Eve”. While technically true in that Eve is the mother of all living, it is through Adam that we have our federal headship, and we sinned in Adam, not in Eve. That is just one more twisting of the Bible by misplacing the emphasis that the Bible gives, putting it on something that is not emphasized.

Barack Obama’s “Christianity”

Posted in Christianity, politics by Kathy on March 8, 2012

I just read this post from Freedom’s Journal, and have mixed feelings about it. While appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”, evangelist Franklin Graham was asked whether he believed Barack Obama was a Christian; he responded, “I cannot answer that question for anybody.” Then he was called a liar and forced to apologize for that. This author calls him weak for his apology, saying, “Anyone with any insight can see Obama is not a Christian”, going on to reference many things, including his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

I think a different response would be better, and I propose two possibilities, that could be used separately or together, instead of refusing to answer or giving a mealy-mouthed response.

1) Ask the questioner why he’s asking the question. It’s possible that the questioner prefaces the question by referencing others who have called Obama not a Christian, but even then, it’s a valid question for Graham or others to ask: why is my opinion on this matter important? what the Bible says about it is more important. If I say yes or if I say no, will you believe me to be correct? or will you attack me if I say no and praise me if I say yes? Are you asking me only to make me look bad, or cause controversy if I don’t say yes? In short, put the attacker on the defensive, and show his bias and true colors.

2) Answer the question with a question: “Do *you* think he is, and why?” If the questioner cannot answer smoothly and quickly, with good evidence of Christian fruit and Christ-like behavior from Obama, then he has impaled himself on his own question, while the intended victim goes free. And if the questioner responds with things like, “He’s taking care of the poor, with things like expanded food stamps” (or whatever social programs he might come up with), Graham or whoever could respond that the true Christian response is to do these things yourself, not to take money from one group of citizens to give to the other. And to point out that there are many other things (like, the rest of the Bible that talks about moral issues that are conveniently forgotten by liberals) that are also hallmarks of being Christian, and these are not hallmarks of Barack Obama. Then maybe quote “by their fruit ye shall know them”, and say that I am not being a judge of the heart, because only God can do that, but Jesus said we *are* to judge/discern/know people based on their actions, so if Barack Obama wishes not to be questioned as to his Christianity, then he should be bearing more Christian fruit.

Another possible response by the questioner-turned-questioned, is that he might say something like, “I’m not a Christian, while you are, therefore I’m not qualified to judge”, or “I’m wanting to know your opinion, not mine”, or “you’re a leader, looked up to by fellow Christians, so people will follow you”, etc. While that wouldn’t be as satisfying as successfully being able to impale the impaler, being questioned probably will throw off the questioner, and cause some confusion; and Graham (or whoever the person is) can still point out the Biblical hallmarks of Christianity, and say, “I do not — cannot — judge his heart, but based on the fruit he evidences in his life, he is at best very weak, and at worst a false professor. Jesus said that there would be people who claimed to follow Him, and even believe to follow Him, but they would be disappointed to find out at the end of their lives, that Jesus would say, ‘I never knew you.’ I hope Barack Obama — and for that matter, I hope that I myself — will not find ourselves in that position; indeed the Bible tells each of us to ‘examine yourselves, to see whether you be in the faith or not.’ While Barack Obama’s positions on abortion and the sanctity of human life, as well as the God-given definition of marriage, trouble me, I am more concerned about myself, and examining myself to see whether I be in the faith, rather than examining others, to see if they are.”

Heretical Presbyterian “minister”

Posted in Christianity, politics, Uncategorized by Kathy on August 6, 2011

I’m no great fan of Rick Perry. If he runs for President, I won’t vote for him in the primary (mostly because he way overstepped his bounds as TX governor, mandating that 11 & 12-year-old schoolgirls receive the Gardasil vaccine), but this post isn’t about him, except that his call for prayer has instigated this post: Five Scriptures You Won’t Hear at Rick Perry’s Prayer Event. Click over to read the verses and what he says about them, then come back here to read my opinion.

Before Jim Rigby even starts on the five verses, he sneers at those who ” take the Christian and Jewish scriptures seriously”, saying that doing so makes for an “unhealthy religion.” Really? A Christian minister says that taking the Bible “seriously” sets you up for being in an unhealthy religion. By what criteria does he judge this?! Does he mean that we should take the Bible flippantly, or carelessly, or ignore those parts we disagree with? Is that what his version of Christianity teaches?

1) “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray in public places to be seen by others… But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your heavenly parent, who is unseen.” (Matt. 6:5-6) [I don’t know what version or perversion of the Bible he uses, but the fact that he says “parent” instead of “Father” says a lot! I digress…] As the verse itself states, it is a warning against being hypocrites more than against public prayer. If the person praying in public prays only prays in public, he is being a hypocrite (literally, a “play actor”); if he is praying just to be seen, he is being a hypocrite. There is no injunction against praying in front of others — in fact, public and/or corporate prayer is mentioned with great frequency as a hallmark of the New Testament church and early Christians. This is probably the one that I least disagree with him on; he says this verse teaches, “Don’t make a show of prayer,” which is true enough; but it’s more in the idea of a false show of prayer, rather than an absolute injunction against praying in front of others at all.

2) “God doesn’t withhold rain because we’ve done something wrong,” he says, pointing to, “God causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45) as his proof text. However, he neglects (once again) the context, and also doesn’t point out the little thing like Elijah praying that God would not let it rain on the nation of Israel, under the rule of wicked Ahab, and it didn’t rain for 3 years, but when Elijah prayed for rain, God sent rain. I would ask Mr. Rigby if he believes that God can and does answer prayer. If no, why does he call himself a Christian?; if yes, why not pray — as Jesus commanded — for those things that you need? The true meaning of this verse is pointing out that God is good even to those who don’t deserve it, and He is merciful even to the wicked, unjust, and unrighteous, and that we should likewise be good. It teaches that when it rains, the rain is from God; it does not teach that God never withholds rain from the wicked.

3) “God doesn’t have favorites” — this is the one that makes me call him a heretic. First, the verse: “Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism.” (Acts 10:34) Now what Rigby says it means: “When the Bible says that God is not a ‘respecter of persons’ it means that God doesn’t have a favorite country or religion.” This couldn’t be further from the truth! God may not have “a favorite country” (although I would argue that God has favored the United States, as our Constitution and early foundation was on His principles), but to say that God doesn’t have “a favorite religion”!! The context (that pesky context again, that Rigby never considers!) is that Peter has just preached to the first person who was not Jewish by birth or by conversion. Up to this point, the gospel of Jesus Christ had been preached to Jews only, and it seems that the Jewish Christians still believed that Christianity was to be limited to Jews only. In a vision, God tells Peter to eat “unclean” animals, to show him that the division between clean and unclean animals was done away with in Christ, just as the division between Jew and Gentile was done away with in Christ. In preaching to Cornelius, and his subsequent conversion and being blessed with the gift of speaking in foreign languages, Peter realizes that God has elect among more than just Jews. If God doesn’t have “a favorite religion” — and Rigby sneers at the possibility that Christianity might be considered God’s “favorite religion”, thus implying here and elsewhere throughout his article, that all religions are equal before God — why did He send His Son to die on the cross and say that there was salvation only through Jesus Christ? If Christianity is the same as any other religion before God, why did Paul and the other early apostles and Christians risk their lives and many die a martyr’s death, if it didn’t really matter whether the Gentiles worshipped the God of the Bible or their heathen idols?

4) “Worship by those who neglect the poor is offensive to God” — “I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me… Away with the noise of your songs!  I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!” (Amos 5:21-24) It is true that God hates pretence and hypocrites; but Rigby trumpets so-called “social justice” and decries what he believes to be mistreatment of the poor as being offensive to God. True mistreatment of the poor is indeed offensive to God, as are laws that give favor to the rich because they are rich, while punishing the poor simply for being poor; however, the things he enumerates are not “mistreatment” or “neglect” as God sees it. He decries the fact that Texas has the largest gap between rich and poor, and that they have the largest number of uninsured citizens, among other things. What is his solution for that? He doesn’t say explicitly, but it seems that he thinks that it is the job of the state to “even things out” and to provide health insurance to those who don’t have it. There were plenty of very rich and very poor people in Bible times, and those who could not afford doctors. However, the Bible does not mandate nationwide, statewide, or other governmental handouts; rather, it tells individuals to be privately charitable. Going back to the Sermon on the Mount, which Rigby joyfully quoted from for points 1 & 2, Jesus told His followers — not to march on the Capitol and demand that the government take from the rich and give to the poor — but to give of their own money, and not only of their own money (rather than other people’s money), but so privately that, in a figure of speech, the left hand would not know what the right hand is doing!

5) Using the parable of the Good Samaritan (which he wrongly says was directed towards a “rich, young zealot,” [probably meaning “the rich young ruler” who was told to sell all and give to the poor; something modern “social justice” types conveniently ignore] when in fact it was directed at a self-righteous lawyer — i.e., one well-versed in the Law of Moses, not a modern litigator — who was identified neither as rich nor young), he somehow twists it into a slam on the American Family Association. He says, “the heart of Christian ethics is being a good neighbor,” which I don’t totally agree with, but don’t strongly disagree with it either. First, we are to love God, and secondly, we are to love our neighbors. The story of the Good Samaritan was told because the lawyer wanted to justify himself by limiting those who were his “neighbors”, and Jesus was showing that everyone is our neighbor; but how do we love God? According to the Bible, by keeping His commandments. Among those commandments is to obey Jesus Christ and bow to Him, but that would mean that Christianity would be God’s “favorite religion”, which Mr. Rigby sneers at. So-called Christians have to do so many mental contortions and back-flips that it’s no wonder they sound schizophrenic, picking out only those passages of the Bible they like, while conveniently ignoring others.

But back to the AFA – Rigby says that because one liberal organization considers the AFA a “hate group”, that this proves that the AFA doesn’t have “Christian ethics”, since they so obviously “hate” their neighbors. The AFA is a strong defender of Christian morals as outlined in the Bible, so since when does standing for truth = hating your neighbors? Um, yeah. How does the Bible define loving your neighbors? Wouldn’t that be a better place to start, than taking as truth the opinion of some liberal think-tank?

Some good links

Posted in Christianity, creation by Kathy on July 17, 2010

Why theistic evolution is be wrong and should be avoided by any who call themselves Christians

First, because when Christians belittle the historical account of Genesis and prefer a hypothesis begun with the presumption that there is no god, so that everything we see must have come about by nothing, they cut “the anchor line” that tethers them to Christ. Yes, some Christians may believe in theistic evolution and remain otherwise true Christians; but far too often, Christians relent on the clear teaching of Genesis and accept millions and billions of years (with a little bit of God thrown in to make it more acceptable to the Christian palate), and then get their legs cut out from under them by the nonsense that inevitably comes from holding that position, and ultimately turn against the faith altgoether. To quote from Richard Dawkins (copied from this article which quotes his book The God Delusion):

‘Oh, but of course, the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic? So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? As I said, barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant.’ (emphasis in original; p. 253)

One of the most common questions or come-backs from theistic evolutionists (or those leaning toward that position), is along the lines of, “I can’t understand how God could create the universe in such a way as to appear to be millions/billions of years old — that would be deceptive!” [As if God writing in His Word that He created the universe and all it contains in six days, when in actuality it took millions or billions of years, would somehow be less deceptive?!] What these people often don’t understand (as far as I can tell), is that people did not come up with the ideas of long ages based on the evidence; rather, they came up with that idea based on the assumption that there is no god, and if there is no god, we must explain everything by purely naturalistic principles; and if there is no god, then there can be no special creation, so everything must have just somehow appeared, but it would take even too great a leap of faith for them to say it happened quickly or instantaneously, but if you give “enough time,” then even the improbable becomes possible. Sort of like in “Dumb and Dumber” when Mary tells Lloyd that the odds of them ending up together are “a million to one,” and he gets this goofy grin and says, “So you’re telling me there’s a chance….!”

Here is a parable that perfectly sums up the theistic evolutionist’s position, and the problems that happen when one ignores the history of one who was there, and instead substitutes assumptions that cannot be proven but which skew the results, and go against the written account.

What evidence?

Posted in Christianity, creation by Kathy on March 16, 2010

Someone on an old post said something about there not being any verses in the Bible that specifically say the earth/universe is young — “young” meaning on the order of 10,000 years or less — much less than the Big Bang or the chance arising of life from nonliving materials would allow. [Leaving aside the history of Genesis with a pretty strict chronology that allows one to add up dates of each man being X years old when he fathered a particular son, working your way back to Adam who was created on day 6 of the existence of the universe, I guess.] There isn’t a verse which says, “And in the 4th year of the reign of David, king of Israel, the earth turned 2035 years old,” or anything like it. But I contend it’s not necessary, given the history — much like one could say, “In the year 1776, the American colonies declared their independence from Britain,” without reiterating 230 years later that the country is 230 years old. Past history suffices. He also said that “not all thinking Christians/Jews from time immemorial have subscribed to the young earth-young universe model.”

So I asked him, but have not yet received an answer (he may just be ignoring me, although he may ultimately answer), “What Biblical evidence do you have that the universe is old? Which Christian or Jew prior to, say, the 1800s believed that the earth/universe was old?”

Yes, I know there are verses that talk about the earth being old, but it depends on perspective. Compared to humans which live about 70 years, 1000 years would definitely qualify as “old.” But, I’m just curious if there are any verses which teach that the universe is hundreds of thousands or even millions or billions of years old. I’m not talking about fitting things in sideways, or twisting passages — like the “gap theory” which says there’s a gap of several millions of years between Gen. 1:1 & Gen. 1:2 — I’m talking about verses which teach it, not those that might possibly could maybe somehow be construed to allow for millions of years.

Also, if anybody knows any Bible-believing Christian or Jew prior to the 1800s (the century when long-age philosophy first became popular in modern times) who believed in an old universe/earth, please tell me his name or link somewhere to it.

Just curious. And here is a list of articles that are available that demonstrate my position.

The Tebow Ad

Posted in abortion, Christianity by Kathy on February 6, 2010

Just a quick post because it was on my mind.

I’ve read some of the controversy surrounding the “Focus on the Family” ad featuring Tim Tebow and his mom who made the decision not to have an abortion when she was pregnant with him. Some of what I’ve read has been positive, some has been negative.

What I don’t like a lot about the “negative” comments is from the supposedly “pro-choice” people who seem to be vastly upset about the choice Mrs. Tebow made. Even some of their own have said that this attitude makes them look merely pro-abortion, rather than the “pro-choice” position they claim to have. Not all of the negative comments have been like that; and there was even at least one positive article about the ad (and Tim Tebow in particular) from someone who called herself pro-choice.

But here’s what really bothers me — the ad is fine and I have no problems with it, but since I’m pro-life, you would probably expect that. What bothers me about ads during sporting events is that so many of them feature women as just eye candy, and the more scantily clad, the better. I don’t particularly like most sports, but really don’t like watching the games because of all the half-naked women and suggestive situations in so many of the commercials. Practically soft porn, in many instances.

I wish that NOW and all the rest of the feminists and others who have gotten themselves worked up into a fury about Mrs. Tebow’s choice would direct a bit of that energy into decrying the raunchy advertisements that denigrate women and in so doing belittle men. In both instances, these make people to be somewhat less than whole people — making women to be just bodies rather than women with feelings, and men to be little better than animals guided solely by sexual passions.

Theistic Evolution

Posted in Christianity, creation by Kathy on September 24, 2009

Many Christians, overwhelmed by the so-called “scientific evidence” put forth by evolutionists, have kowtowed to them, and, unwilling to make a complete break with the Bible, have accepted both God and a godless evolution, mingling them into the incoherent “theistic evolution.” Basically, God created everything (which is the “core” of what Genesis really says [according to them]) but he did so using evolutionary means, just like the secular, atheistic scientists say.

This article blasts that position, showing it to be not just Scripturally untenable (despite the protestations of the theistic evolutionists I encountered after writing this post), but also to be intellectually untenable as well. It includes quotes from various atheists about theistic evolution, including,

Our best allies for defending evolution are members of the mainstream clergy groups.

This is because, as atheist Frank Zindler said,

The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of … evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed.

As this mother found out (first comment), once people accept evolution as a fact, with a bit of theology thrown in (God started the Big Bang and worked to “create” the universe including this planet and everything on it via materialistic processes and over the course of billions and billions of years), then it is but a small step to discard the idea that God had anything to do with it, because of the logical inconsistency of holding onto billions of years with one hand, and holding onto the Biblical creation account (which clearly shows just a few days of creation, and that only a few thousand years ago) with the other hand. Having accepted “the fact” of long-age evolution, the only thing left to challenge is the “theistic” part of it.

Atheists know this; too bad more Christians don’t. Even Dr. Dobson, of Focus on the Family, whom I generally agree with, is a long-age theistic evolutionist. Sad to say.

SHMILY — 30 days of prayer for your husband

Posted in Christianity by Kathy on June 3, 2009

A Facebook group has been started based on Stormie O’Martian’s book The Power of a Praying Wife. I’ve read this book before, but have let slide the things written in it. So, this is good to have a group effort, an accountability “team” as it were, to keep me focused and on track. Because of the way Facebook operates, she can’t send out mass emails to as many people as have joined, so she’s doing the daily posts on her blog. If you read this early enough in June you will easily be able to “catch up”; or if you want to take it one day at a time so you can have a full 30 days, you can just have today be your first day. Sometimes we underestimate the power of prayer; I trust that this will show us some of the great benefits in store for us as we follow God’s Word.

Oh, and “SHMILY”?? — “See How Much I Love You” 🙂

A powerful story of forgiveness

Posted in Christianity, marriage by Kathy on May 31, 2009

Click here to read the story of betrayal and forgiveness, of breaking matrimonial vows and restoration.

Tagged with: , ,

Focus on Marriage Teleconference — available on DVD!!

Posted in Christianity, marriage by Kathy on March 18, 2009

Click here for the info — at just $59.95 for a DVD you can watch over and over, it is worth it.

It’s only available for a limited time.