July 17, 2016

The Deadly Religion of Atheism

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

One of the most common mantras of the religion of atheism is the lie that religion is the cause of most wars. Not hardly! If we exclude atheism from a list of religions, we find that their claim is completely false. Instead of using a false over-generalization of "religion", they could be more accurate by demonizing governments as the cause of wars. The fact is, atheism is a vicious, murderous worldview.


Professing atheists falsely blame "religion" for wars and other evils, but they conveniently neglect the most violent and brutal religion of all: atheism.


If you study on it, you'll see that professing atheists proclaim "reason", and then proceed to flagrantly abuse the process (such as the illegitimate complaint used against the Ark Encounter that the money used there could feed starving children). In fact, the claim to be "rational" and "freethinkers" because they reject God strongly implies that Christians and other "religious" people are not rational or able to think freely. This is clearly untrue, as many of the greatest minds, past and present, were Christians and biblical creationists.

These "freethinkers" cannot be freethinkers according to their own naturalistic philosophies. If their evolutionary view was correct, we're all slaves to the chemical impulses in our chemistry. From that, there is no right and wrong, and they have no business complaining about murder, rape, sexual abuses, fraud — or about the beliefs of "religious" people, since we all dance to the music of our own chemistry.

People who hate God pretend that he does not exist (Rom. 1:18-22), and have hated God's people, all the way back to Cain and Abel (Gen. 4:8, Heb. 11:4, Heb. 12:24), and they will continue to hate us (Matt. 5:11-12, John 15:18-21, 2 Tim. 3:12). In comparatively modern times, the so-called "Enlightenment" gave us the French Revolution, where thousands of Christians and others were brutally murdered in the name of "reason". Murders of Christians in communist Russia were inspired by those French atrocities. Today, France is mostly secularist, and about to fall to the Mohammedans.

Atheism depends on evolution to give it a mythology of origins that purports to be scientific. Although Adolph Hitler was not an atheist, he just acted like one in his mass-murders of Jews, Christians, and others. Hitler was highly motivated by Darwin, and wanted to give evolution a helping hand. Atheists like Joseph Stalin were also motivated by evolution, and their atrocities numbered in the millions.

No, atheism has nothing to do with bringing in a new era of reason that is free from the shackles of "religion". Instead, it is a dangerous worldview that has given rise to tyrants. The average village atheist denies this and conveniently ignores murders done by atheistic evolutionists — after all, he is moral in his own mind and does not plan to kill anyone. But personal experience and opinion is not a substitute for reality.
The years since 2001 have seen a succession of other suicide bombings which have affected how we see the future, and how people think about right and wrong. The media makes us vividly aware of the heart-breaking details in vivid colour. We weep and pray for those affected, but most concerning is the way we continue to hear that “religion is the cause of all the wars of history and of these most recent tragedies”. The Paris attacks of November 2015, where more than 130 people were killed in a coordinated assault at six locations in central Paris, are no exception. After these tragedies, the media seems strangely sloppy in the way they portray religion.
They seem quite happy to lump one religion which calls for “the death of infidels” alongside another which radically says we are to “love even our enemies”. However most serious of all, is their tendency to omit the most destructive of all religions—atheism.
To read the rest, click on "Why leave the atheists out? — The violence and bloodshed of the religion of atheism".

June 3, 2016

Atheists Have Their Miracles Too

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Professing atheists tend to look in disdain at Christians for believing in God, the Bible, and (of course) miracles. They argue from their naturalistic presuppositions that the Bible is false, God does not exist, and miracles are impossible, then they proceed to make the assertion that they are the rational ones because they reject the aforementioned. But such a definition of rational is arbitrary and fallacious, presuming that those who believe in miracles are irrational.

The word miracle seems to be a catch-all word that means, "Something good that happened that I can't explain", such as finding my possibles bag by a fence on the back forty. More accurately, miracles ascribe happy events to God. Yes, maybe he did perform a miraculous healing, something the doctors cannot explain, because God does perform them. Too often, however, people don't know what they're talking about. Take a gander at the first few paragraphs of "Does God Do Miracles Today?" by Dr. John MacArthur. For that matter, give the whole thing a read or a listen, it's enlightening.

After that clarification, I'm going to promptly go back to a more informal use of the word. Atheists have their own secular miracles, impossible things they choose to believe in, but deny God. They also lack evidence in the naturalistic realm, but they still believe in them anyway, possibly saying like the Queen to Alice, "Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast". Actually, atheists are more likely to believe in occult phenomena than Christians.

Professing atheists claim to be the rational ones, denigrating Christians for believing in miracles. Yet atheists have their own secular, irrational miracles.

Atheism is irrational and incoherent, and cannot deal with the preconditions of human experience as found in the Bible. Since they suppress the truth in unrighteousness, they believe in some impossible miracles. Strange how they accuse Christians of believing in "magic" when we don't even bring up the subject, but they have their own impossible views that are mighty close to magical.
Atheists often promote themselves as intelligent, logical, scientific, rational, etc. They even had a proposal to call themselves ‘brights’! The aggressive ‘new Atheists’, such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and company, like to portray those of us who believe in a supernatural Creator as irrational, unscientific, unintelligent, ignorant, or even ‘needing help’ (Dawkins). The entertainment industry often reinforces these perceptions by portraying ‘religious’ people (Christians particularly, and especially church leaders) as buffoons or hillbillies (almost never as a university professor, for example).

Reality runs against these perceptions. Isaac Newton, the greatest scientific mind of all time, was a Christian believer, as were other founders of modern science. Surveys have consistently shown that people with a strong adherence to the Bible’s authority are the least likely to be superstitious, in contrast to the average de facto Atheist. Indeed, one Atheist expressed his chagrin that “some of the most intelligent and well-informed people” he knew were Christians.

There is much more to say. Atheists believe that everything came about by purely material processes—the universe, life, mind, and morality. However, do they have a rational, logical basis for this belief?
I'd be much obliged if you'd read the rest of the article by clicking on "Five Atheist miracles (or materialists believe in magic)".

May 24, 2016

Skepticism in Action

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Regular readers of my Weblogs know full well that I believe in healthy skepticism, as it helps us obtain adequate information instead of accepting unsubstantiated claims. Were those ads really rejected for inclusion in a Super Bowl broadcast? Maybe, maybe not. But it's not exactly a serious claim that can change your life, is it? 

Fact-checking comes to the forefront when something is on the fantastic side. I've come to expect atheists and evolutionists to believe and pass along negativity when it comes to Christians and creationists, but it really burns my prairie schooner when Christians embarrass themselves (and other Christians) by neglecting to do a bit of fact-checking before passing along wild stories. Some even pass along material from parody sites without checking the sources. This child believes in asking questions and getting details.

The end of the world is a good example.


People need to use healthy skepticism and fact-checking before passing along sensational (and sometimes defamatory) stories. Let's not "think" with our emotions.
Image credit: NASA Goddard
Ready to head for the hills? "RUSSIA WARNS: Asteroid Impact in Atlantic Ocean". Really, Russia is giving the warning? I'd like to know where American scientists as well as those in other parts of the world stand on this. Tom Lupshu apparently is the author of this piece. "Russian Military Operatives who have family in the United States have warned of an upcoming event of a large Asteroid that is being tracked by their missle defense systems." Really, Tom? I reckon many of us would like to know which military operatives, and how you know about it.

"This Near Earth Object is arriving along with the Meteor Debris field expected to impact FEMA Region Three." You're not telling us where FEMA Region Three is, which would be nice. Let me help: this region is on the Eastern coast of the United States. It wasn't hard to look up.

"Russia Warns that this Large Asteroid will Impact in the Atlantic Ocean. This will be a Global Incident. This event will change life on this planet as we know it. Good Luck to you and your Family." Which is it, global or just a few states? It's followed by a strange video and a link telling us, "Emigrate while you still can", which is selling stuff.

Remember, this threat is imminent, so a global disaster could happen at any time, say the unnamed sources. When was the article written? It doesn't say. A bit of investigation shows that comments are at least two years old, and the video was conveniently date stamped by YouTube as December 22, 2013. The world ended, and I missed it. Bummer.

Wait, there's more!

"Asteroid Warning: Govt Preps Underground Bases". The subheading is, "NASA warned in 2010 of an asteroid on a trajectory to hit off of Puerto Rico, causing a massive tsunami". So, we've been warned. Who warned NASA? In the mishmash of data about asteroids, near-misses, we don't really know when it's a-comin', but it's a-comin' soon, according to this January 12, 2015 article. Then they linked to that weird video from the previous post.

The site also had a source in Rev. Efrain Rodriguez. "Rodriquez is not an astronomer who studies celestial bodies such as black holes, moons, planets, stars, asteroids, comets, nebulae and galaxies but he is a prophet who preaches the word of God and has a message from God. Yes, you read it correctly. Rev. Rodriquez said that he has a message from God that will make you sit up in your seat and maybe even fall on your knees." Well, there you go! Wait,who? And he has a personal revelation from God? Not hardly! Too many Christians fall for this "God spoke to me and gave me a message" nonsense that is unbiblical, but to use this kind of false prophesy stuff to bolster "science" about an asteroid impact is beyond the pale.

Now, I detest the genetic fallacy (rejecting information out of hand because someone doesn't like where information originates, which is a favorite tactic of atheists), but it can be valid when a source is suspicious. The two linked above were from sites that claim to have inside knowledge about conspiracies, survival in disasters (often with links to buy stuff), and "nobody else is telling you the truth". Does the source's origin automatically mean it's wrong? No, but material should have further investigation from more reliable sources.


“We rarely think people have good sense
unless they agree with us.”
― François de La Rochefoucauld

Closer to home, I've seen people united in both hate and admiration. Some will accept the words of another as truth, but the "truth" may need checking. Atheists have lied about me, and their supporters have gleefully believed the negative reports (including a false Christian hiding behind a fake name because he claims creationists are out to kill him!) The opposite is true. Rev. Guy I. Admire said something that fits someone's paradigm, so it gets passed along. In fact, I've heard some really great comments in lectures and such, but since I could not verify them, I did not use them in posts and articles. Unfortunately, I've slipped up, and the embarrassing experiences have helped me be more careful. 

Just recently, I made a comment on a post that was destroying the bad reasoning of a pro-abortionist who pretended to be pro-life. The pro-abortionist was not named in the post. Later, I received a message from someone who claimed to be the "victim" of that post, he was horribly misrepresented by the Christian who runs that Page, and so on. All I had to go on was what I read, and my belief that the Page owner (who probably was the Admin who wrote the post) would be a fair dealer. Screenshots? Nothing from the one complaining to me, and no screenshot on the post. It would be a bit of exciting, sensationalistic news to spread this, "Hey, this guy wronged someone" news, but since nothing could be substantiated either way, I didn't take it further. But I did remove my comment on that post, since I was uncomfortable with the doubt.

From a different angle, I was telling a co-worker about a criminal Internet stalker who constantly calls me a liar (being unwilling to accept the difference between dishonesty and disagreement about scientific evidence). She looked surprised and said, "You don't lie!" What if I used her as a sort of character reference? People would be correct in being skeptical, and wanting to know how well she knows me (not that well).

On a television interview show, the guest made a remark that Intelligent Design is simply a way to sneak religion into schools. The host accepted that lie and opposed ID as well, but he didn't bother to do any investigation about what the ID movement actually teaches. 
 
One common thread in these things that I've noticed is that people "think" with their emotions, and get excited about passing along information that catches their fancies. I'm simply calling for a bit of caution and verification. There are times when we can overdo it. If you want to watch a video collection of ads that were rejected for the Super Bowl, fine, watch it and have fun if you're into that. No need to be contacting the producers and demanding the rejection paperwork as far as I can see. It's the more serious stuff that needs more care.

May 17, 2016

Atheism, Morality, and the Rise of the "Nones"

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Despite claims of professing atheists that their worldview is dramatically increasing in followers, they only account for 3.1 percent of the population in the United States in 2014, with 4.0 percent claiming to be agnostic. There is an increase in the "nones", people who claim no particular affiliation. (Globally, Christianity is on the rise, especially in countries where Christians are actively persecuted.) Some atheists consider the "nones" to be a victory for atheism. Not so fast, Freddie.

There are people who are unaffiliated with a particular religious organization, but that does not mean that they have renounced their faith and embraced the irrational religion of atheism. It does mean, however, that people are not joining up with churches, or are even leaving them because they don't like what their church teaches. In my case, I was raised in the liberal United Methodist Church, but that outfit chose to ride the Owlhoot Trail long ago, and has been going steadily downhill. Even my father who was a pastor there would not like the changes that are happening there now. (My beliefs are closest to Southern Baptist.) Some people have a difficult time finding a body of believers that is not emotionally-driven or apostate in other ways, so that doesn't mean the statistics support a pretended increase in atheism. For that matter, it seems that there are people who realize that "cultural Christianity" (being in a non-Hindu, non-Mohammedan, or non-whatever country makes one a Christian by default) is inaccurate, so they choose "no affiliation" on surveys, you savvy?

People who ride for the atheist brand claim to have a higher ability to reason than Christians, which is ridiculous from the outset. Aside from observations of the behavior of militant Internet atheists, a study shows that atheists use less brain function than Christians, and another shows that they're more likely to indulge in irrational, superstitious behavior. When reading and hearing news reports, it seems that professing atheists are in favor of things that Bible-believing Christians oppose: persecution of Christians, abortion, homosexuality, transsexual behavior — indeed, atheism is rooted in selfishness, just like LaVey's version of Satanism. Not only do atheists have a faulty moral compass, their reasoning skills are sorely lacking. I reckon this supports Psalm 119:130, Proverbs 1:7, Jude 1:17-18, Psalm 53:1, 2 Peter 3:3-7, and other verses. One part of the problem is that they hate God and rely on materialism, denying the spiritual aspect of our being.


Surveys show an increase in the "no affiliation" crowd, which pleases atheists, and a study claims that morality stays the same even though religion is declining. The survey has faulty interpretations, and the study is deceptive.

I frequently encounter professing atheists to claim to have a high moral ground than Christians because of the money some preachers make. They are guilty of hasty generalizations on this, as well as double standards. 

Flock-fleecers posing as Christian ministers get stinking rich. Reports on income and net worth vary depending on which site you visit, showing people like Kenneth Copeland owning a huge mansion, private jet, personal airport, and making tens of millions of dollars. Is it more than a coincidence that the "pastors" who were under federal investigation were almost exclusively of the "charismatic" appeal-to-emotion gang? Yet so many times, we see comments from angry atheists as if those were typical Christian pastors, which is an example of over-generalization. Most pastors have serious financial challenges themselves, old son. Anti-creationists like to bash Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis and say how his organization "makes" millions of dollars. Some even say the money goes into Ham's pocket (such as this bigot). Is Ham making millions himself? No, those people are uninformed or lying. Ken Ham gets somewhere around $147,000 USD a year to run the outfit. Yes, heads of companies make money, but Ham makes nowhere near the amount of, say, the executives of Unitedhealth Group. When I point out that Clinton Richard Dawkins is worth $135 million USD, and it's expensive to join his "circle", there is no response or the subject is changed. Double standards and lack of actual reasoning are common among misotheists.

Earlier, I linked to a couple of studies that are not helpful to atheists. Are they flawed? I suspicion they could be, since many studies are. A recent study said that religion is declining, but morality is not. How is that possible? Because the sidewinders who made the study loaded the terminology so that they defined morality according to their own purposes. Traditional values, especially those of biblical Christians, had no part of the survey. "Religion" is not declining, since the religion of secularism is increasing.

No, people need to stop pretending there is no God and trying to replace him with evolution and secularism (Romans 1:18-23). The only salvation, the only hope, is found in repentance and faith in our Creator, not in the philosophies of man.
There was a time when Europe was considered culturally Christian and missionaries were sent to the corners of the world from European churches. In those days, morality was largely governed by Christian principles and the church was the center of moral life. But those days are gone. Every year the number of self-professing Christians in European nations drops and more churches close their doors. Indeed, last year the former Archbishop of Canterbury warned that the Church of England is only “one generation away from extinction.” Secularism and Islam have seemingly replaced Christianity and, unless the expected trends change, will continue to do so in the years to come.
I strongly urge that you read the rest of the article, found at "Study Asks, 'Does Morality Decline Without Religion?'"

April 10, 2016

Manipulating Opinions in the Name of Science

Leftists celebrate and Conservatives warn against the increase in politically correct activism, especially when it infringes on personal freedoms. We read how "surveys show", but how accurate are they, really? Questions are often loaded, and the questions that are asked (as well as the people selected to participate in surveys) are frequently neglected during reporting. We should know that there are sidewinders who will selectively cite and manipulate data, but it seems that many people simply take "reporting" as unbiased and factual. Not hardly!


Researchers are using manipulative tactics to influence public opinion. This is not the way for ethical scientists to behave.
Generated at Add Letters
There are surveys and research results for many purposes, including "evidence" for evolution that conveniently leaves out pertinent data, and more. Ask your friends how many people they think are of the homosexual persuasion. Some think it's about half of the population, when the actual figure in the United States is closer to five percent or less! The inflated number perception is mainly due to activism and media presentation.

Scientists are supposed to do science stuff. Unfortunately, there are people in science professions who use their work as means of not only activism, but to manipulate public opinion. They also capitalize on the way many people think: with their emotions, and without logic.
Politically correct persuasion is at your doorstep, masquerading as a scientific survey.

Last year, Science Magazine was shamed into retracting a paper written by a LGBT activist. The activist, Michael Lacour, a doctoral candidate at UCLA, leveraged the name recognition of Donald Green, a Columbia University political scientist, as co-author. When he heard about “irregularities” in Lacour’s survey data, Green later admitted he had not adequately supervised Lacour’s work (Nature). The retraction not only put egg on the face of the AAAS (publisher of Science), but also on all the politically-correct reporters who had celebrated Lacour’s “findings.”

Lacour had hired some of his gay friends to canvass houses in a conservative area, seeing if they could persuade them to change their views about gay marriage (12/17/14). As we pointed out at the time, it wasn’t a bad paper simply because of bad record-keeping, but because the whole design of the survey was overtly biased. Lacour was on a campaign to change public attitudes about gay marriage. A neutral scientific paper should have studied the effect of surveys on both views—i.e., seeing if supporters of gay marriage could be persuaded to change their views in favor of traditional marriage. Additionally, survey takers were all hired from Lacour’s gay activist group. A scientific survey should have sought to employ helpers from both positions, or better yet, used survey takers without a strong position. Everything else about the “experiment” was flawed, too, including the lack of adequate control, the lack of objectivity. It was an exercise in advocacy, pure and simple. Science was caught with its pants down, and repented—temporarily. Nature said that the incident created “a stigma that has haunted political science”; it was a “painful episode” one would think would shame researchers from doing it again.

Now, however, the Lacour defenders are back with a vengeance, touting new “survey” methods that allegedly prove that people can be “persuaded” to moderate their positions on LGBT “rights.” Once again, the survey takers are tainted with advocacy; success is being measured by the ability to change people’s attitudes toward leftist positions, not equally toward either position on this highly controversial subject facing society. You see it right in Nature’s coverage: “Door-to-door canvassing reduces transphobia.” No conservative or supporter of traditional gender roles would use that word. Supporters of traditional sex roles are not “phobic” toward LGBT people; in many cases, they love them as individuals and support their rights just as they would for any citizen. They have strongly-held convictions, however, about sex and gender, particularly when it comes to whether men should be allowed to use women’s bathrooms if they declare themselves to feel feminine (whether sincerely or not); must the privacy of girls be sacrificed to the whims of political correctness?
To read the rest and be forewarned, click on "Scientific Brainwashing Is Back".



April 1, 2016

Why Become an Atheist?

There are several reasons people claim to be atheists, some are almost laughable, all are bad. Don't be a fool and reject God's offer of salvation.

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

The Bible says you're a fool if you claim that God does not exist (Psalm 53:1 ESV). (And none of that nonsensical redefinition of atheist to "someone who lacks belief", that's not the established definition, old son. I lack belief in a universe without God.) God isn't just being insulting, but let's face it, you may be brilliant in comparison to other people, but in comparison to God, you're nothing. More than that, the word translated "fool", נָבָל, is not just lacking intelligence, but someone of low character that mocks God. 

Hold on there, Pilgrim! Don't get the bit in your teeth and think it's all right to go wild by calling every atheist you meet a fool. See the first part of the verse? Although it applies to those who deny God's existence, there are Christian fools as well! That's right. Christians profess to know God, but some think that they can get away with sin and defy him; they are saying in their hearts that there is no God. Better repent of that attitude right quick.

Back to the atheist issue. Elsewhere, I offered some opinions on why people become atheists. Some of it is "bandwagon" atheism, trying to be trendy and shock parents. Many will give the impression (or even say outright) that they spent time examining issues and searching for evidence, then intellectually decided that God does not exist. That's downright silly, because there is abundant evidence for God's existence. Further, the Bible has an explanation for the condition of the world — atheism does not have the necessary preconditions of human experience, and has a problem with morality. Some atheists are pretty doggone arrogant and seek to not only ridicule the Bible and mock Christians, but to destroy our faith so we can be as much sons of Hell as they are.

Here's one that really takes the rag off the bush. This tinhorn does not understand the history of the Big Bang, pulls that falsehood that the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution (Carl Sagan said, "We're all star stuff", and someone else said, "A star died so you might live", or words to that effect), uses ad hominem attacks, and so on. The best part is at the end, where he indicates that people become atheists out of spite. Right, if a Christian says something he doesn't want to hear, or he just doesn't like the Christian, then he could become an atheist and it's all your fault, you big meanie! Where I come from, people are responsible for their own choices. If a professing Christian is unkind (whether for real or because someone has a burr under his saddle and wants to find an excuse to be "offended"), choosing atheism as a punishment for God, the Christian, all Christians — wow, that's dumb. He's a fool, looking to justify his rebellion against God.


Click for larger.
What it all comes down to is that people do know that God exists (Romans 1:18-22), but suppress the truth. They need to repent while there's still time. Jesus died on the cross for our sins, to give us salvation, to reconcile us to God, and he defeated death by bodily rising from the dead on the third day. Oh, you think we are the fools because we reject atheistic "reasoning"? As the Petra song says, "I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man than a fool in the eyes of God".

March 19, 2016

Cain's Wife, Biblical Incest, and Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Since the Bible is not being taught very well in too many churches, one of the questions that stymies some people is, "Where did Cain get his wife in Genesis 4:16:17? After all, we only know about Cain and Abel". It's a fair question. However, atheopaths will often use this in a weird, self-refuting way that ends with, "therefore, evolution". They claim that there is no God and the Bible is false, but they selectively cite passages as if they were true to allow God to exist so they can hate him, such as in this image.

The chronology of some of the early Hebrew writings is less linear than our 21st century minds prefer. In Genesis 5:3-4, it said that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. As to when they had them, we're not told. Ultimately, its indicates that the sons and daughters married each other. After all, God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28). Incest was expected back then.


The question of where Cain got his wife is a fair one, but atheists and evolutionists use misquote, mis-cite, and misrepresent it in a "gotcha" game. Of course, there is an answer, and it's not pleasant for them.

Centuries ago when I was in my early twenties, I saw a woman and thought, "Well, hel-lo! Ain't she a babe!" Then I was told that she was my first cousin that I hadn't seen in several years. So much for that idea! If you study on it, you'll realize that incest is not only unlawful, but morally repugnant today. We can't reasonably impose our views on the ancient people who were commanded to reproduce and marry their own kin, can we? Especially since God did not say that it was forbidden for about 2,500 years after creation (Lev. 18:6-18).

From a biblical perspective, everything was created very good (Gen 1:31). There was no genomic devolution yet. That would begin shortly afterward, when man sinned (Rom. 5:12). For that matter, when God said in Genesis 2:17, "In the day you eat of this fruit, you shall surely die". People have said, "Aha! God's a liar (because it's convenient for him to exist right now so I can hate him), because they didn't die! I win the Gotcha Game!" Do your homework, Hoss. The most accurate translation is, "dying you shall die", which means the process of dying had begun, not only for Adam and Eve, but all humanity.

Our genetic clocks are winding down. By the way, ever hear of mitochondrial Eve? Instead of supporting evolution, the science of genetics is supporting the Bible by indicating that humanity can be traced back to one woman. Remember, the Bible tells us that Eve became the mother of all humanity. These facts about genetics really get evolutionists on the prod!

So, incest was encouraged until it became a genetic issue, and at that time, God was likely to be putting a moral repugnance of incest in the hearts of people. Of course, there are people who rebel against God's moral and written laws, and against God himself. all have sinned (Rom. 3:23), and deserve death (Rom. 6:23), but God made reconciliation and salvation possible through Jesus Christ (John 3:16-17, John 1:12).

For further reading on the incest issue by people who are far better than me, see the links above, plus:

Subscribe in a reader