Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Crooks: Why Unbelievers Hate Christians Part 2

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Edited October 26,2015

I discussed the origins of "Why Unbelievers Hate Christians" in "Making Money From End of the World Fears", the reading of which is optional but helpful. The essence of this unintended series is that Christians are hated from the get-go because we are followers of Jesus, and because the cross of Christ is offensive itself. Problem is, there are professing Christians who stupidly give the world reasons to ridicule us.

Yes, we have crooks in our midst. Not only are there false teachers giving a feel good message without repentance and without the blood of Christ, but there are con men and women who are using the gospel for money (1 Peter 5:2, Titus 1:11). Jimmy Swaggart was caught with a prostitute (was disciplined by the Assemblies of God, rejected it, and went independent), televangelist Jim Bakker was nailed for fraud and a sex scandal (now he's back, people don't seem to learn), various preachers have been caught in adultery and fraud, the Mark Driscoll plagiarism controversy, and more. Those are people who have done serious wrongs, and when legitimate Christian organizations do fund raisers, atheists falsely accuse them of being scam artists out of hatred, not because of genuine proof of wrongdoing — yet they excuse wealthy Clinton Richard Dawkins of getting wealthier from the profits of bigotry, but never mind about that now.


Unbelievers hate Christians because the cross is offensive. Unfortunately, con artists and crooks like Kong Hee give them valid reasons to laugh at us.


One religious rock star is Kong Hee of City Harvest Church in Singapore. (I hesitate to call him "Christian" because of his extreme heresies, see this episode of Fighting for the Faith for more about that.) His "pastor" wife (wrong, click here, also 2 Tim 2:12-14, 1 Tim. 3:2) wanted to be a music star, and he misappropriated church money for her career. Now Kong Hee has been found guilty and is facing jail time. Some of us hope he learns and repents, but this is another injury to the body of Christ and our testimony to the world. Worse, other false teachers and deluded people still support him! It's one thing to suffer because we're Christians (1 Peter 4:14, Matt. 5:11-12), but quite another to suffer punishment for being a crook but still playing the victim card. No wonder unbelievers laugh. 

Although we're human, actual Christians (not the fakers and apostates) are called to a higher standard. Addendum: Chris Rosebrough has some interesting points on the October 23 edition of Fighting for the Faith that I strongly encourage you to hear.




Saturday, October 10, 2015

The Dirt on Theistic Evolution 2: Mabbul

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

In the original article, "The Dirt on Theistic Evolution", which I recommend reading before continuing with this one, I took theistic evolutionists to task for their inconsistencies on their claims to believe the Bible and their magisterial views of science. The creation account was the primary emphasis in that article.

This time, I'm focusing on the Genesis Flood account.

Theistic evolutionists and others who claim to believe the Bible must make a series of compromises when faced with the clear teachings of Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments.
The Deluge / John Martin, 1834
Old-Earth creationists, theistic evolutionists, Hugh Ross, and other owlhoots who want to compromise on what Scripture plainly says for the sake of "science" need to find some way to ignore the account of the Genesis Flood. They must wedge long ages into the Word of God so it appears to agree with current atheistic interpretations of scientific evidence.

Biblical creationists uphold the authority of Scripture, and tend to be skeptical of old Earth science — especially when such science is full of bad logic and atheistic presuppositions. (For more about the science aspects of long ages, and evidence for a young Earth, there are many articles here.) If you study on it for a spell, you'll realize that biblical creationists are not expecting anyone to reject real science. Those long age interpretations are just that: interpretations. They are not facts, but opinions of what happened in the distant past. The Bible does tell us to believe anything that contradicts actual observed science (except in clear cases of miracles), or to disregard what we see with our own eyes.

Old Earthers claim to believe the Bible, so they should have no problem with miraclous events: an axe head that floated (2 Kings 2:5-7), Jesus and Peter walking on water (Matt. 14:29), Jesus bodily rising from the dead (Luke 24:46-48), Philip casting out demons (Acts 8:6-7), Paul raising Eutychus from the dead (Acts 20:9-12), and more. But they holler "Whoa!" when it comes to believing the first eleven chapters of Genesis, especially Creation and the Flood. But the Flood is not written as myth or allegory, so it cannot be dismissed as such.

People may rightly ask, "How can the Flood cover the highest mountains? There would be no air up there!" (I actually heard this objection.) First of all, air pressure would rise with the water, check your basic science. Second, the high mountains that we see today did not exist then. They were pushed up during and after the Flood, which helps explain the presence of marine fossils on mountains. Creation science Flood geologists have done extensive research on the changes in the Earth's surface due to the Flood, but those are beyond the scope of this article. People will use dubious long-age interpretations of secular historical science (and let's face it, we don't know everything about science), and then claim that Scripture is wrong. Not hardly, pilgrim!

There is a special word for the Flood, mabbul, מַבּוּל, that only appears in reference to that Flood. Most references are in chapters 6-11 of Genesis, and once more in Psalm 29:10. God made his covenant with the Earth to never again destroy the entire world with a mabbul, and he used that word thrice in Genesis 9:11-15. When the Flood is discussed in the New Testament, the Greek word kataklusmos, κατακλυσμός, is used (where the English word "cataclysm" came from). Special words for a special event. If people want to make the Flood into some kind of local event, then they are making God a liar, since there were obviously many local floods over the years.

Riding the trail up yonder into the New Testament, we find that Jesus referred to it as an actual historical event (Luke 17:26-17) and the writer of Hebrews told us that Noah and the Flood were real (Heb. 11:7). Peter followed Jesus' example, referring to the Flood as not only a past judgment, but likened it to the coming final Judgment, and telling us what we see now: mockers will come along (2 Peter 3:3-7). Peter adds that the first Flood was with water, but the final Judgment will be by fire. Will that be a local incident, too, nay-sayers?

For people who claim to believe the Bible, I ask this: Who are you going to believe, the ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies, or the Word of God? God is holding off on that last Judgment to give people time to repent, whether false teachers, those who are deceived, and those who are rebelling against God. But there will come a time when it's all over, and there will be no second chances.


Saturday, September 26, 2015

You're Bad, So I Can Do What I Want!

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

In the beginning was blamestorming. After eating the forbidden fruit, Eve some to Adam, and he blamed both Eve and God for his choice (Gen. 1:12). When confronted, Eve blamed Satan for her choice, and made the excuse that she was deceived (Gen. 3:13). Seems to be human nature to blame others for our own bad decisions, and to seek other ways of justifying our actions. This can be seen throughout history through today.


Unpopular opinion puffin poining out problems in others does not excuse you
"Unpopular Opinion Puffin" has an unpopular opinion.
Atheists will use an argument from outrage, including cherry-picking things in the Bible that they don't like to justify denying God's existence and authority. Likewise, they will use Bible texts that they don't understand to make excuses for rebelling against God, such as "How can a loving God..." Well, how can an honest person not bother to do some homework on the questions? One way I've seen the "logic" of unbelievers seems to work this way: "You're not a good enough Christian to meet my arbitrary standards, therefore, the Bible is not true, there is no God, I can do what I want". Not hardly!

For that matter, there are Christians who will find excuses reject biblical truths that they don't cotton to. Sure, there are honest disagreements on nonessentials, but when it comes to clinging to pet doctrines and beliefs, some Christians will act just like atheists. When shown from Scripture that they may not be exactly right, people can get meaner than a burlap sack full of sidewinders. Blaming God (Job 40:8) can be seen in both believers and unbelievers.

Let's back up a mite. As we know, people will pass blame and make excuses for their own behaviors. This is seen in the pro-homosexual lobby. "You Fundies can't tell us about our sins, because you have adulterers and allow other kinds of sins!" That shallow, emotionally-laden tu quoque argument is easily dismantled. For one thing, Christians who oppose homosexuality are not justifying their own sins and making them a means of identity. "Hi, I'm Bob, I'm an adulterous heterosexual white male, and I want acceptance, reinterpretation of the Bible, and special legislation to suit my lifestyle." Also, the "you do it too" reaction, whether accurate or not, is a way to distract from the main point that homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. The same kinds of poor reasoning are used by abortionists, atheists, liberal religious people, cultists, and more.

Blaming, self-justification by pointing out flaws in others, various excuses — they are excuses to cling to our sins and bad thinking. You want to call me a bad Christian? Go ahead, I admit that I've sinned and have inconsistencies. Flaws in other people? You betcha! You'll find a passel of them in professing Christians, even in our spiritual leaders. Cherry-picking verses out of the Bible so you can pretend it's untrue? It's been tried before, and keeps on failing, do your homework and see. All of those are distractions to avoid the main point that God is the Creator, he makes the rules, and we are responsible for our actions. No excuses will work. Just ask Adam and Eve.

We need to humble ourselves before almighty God (James 4:6, Matt. 18:4, Psalm 51:17), repent (Acts 17:30-31, Matt. 4:17, Luke 24:46-47, Rom. 2:4), and believe for salvation (John 3:16-17, Acts 10:4, Rom. 1:16). Those who believe are assured of salvation (Eph. 2:5-7, John 1:12-13) through the faith (Eph. 2:8-9). No excuses.

 

Sunday, September 20, 2015

The Dirt on Theistic Evolution

By Cowboy Bob Sorensen
A group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. They elected one scientist to go and tell God that he was now irrelevant.

The scientist walked up to God the Son and said, “God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We’re can clone people and do many other things that seem miraculous, so why don’t you just go on and leave us alone?”

God listened patiently and then said, “All right, how about if we have a man-making contest?”

The scientist said, “Okay, we can do that!”

“But,” God added, “we’re going to do this just like I did when I made Adam.”

The scientist said, “You got it”, and bent down and grabbed a handful of dirt.

Jesus (Col. 1:16) looked at him and said, “Not so fast. Go get your own dirt.”
Biblical creationists believe the Bible as written, using the historical-grammatical approach. Theistic evolution and other compromising positions require eisegesis and elevating science philosophies to a magisterial authority position.
morgueFile / Slartibartfast
Aside from the arrogance of man thinking that God is not needed because we've evolved beyond the need for him (or that he does not exist at all, Rom. 1:18-19), some people insist on believing in evolution and then slapping God's name on it to justify their belief in rebellious pseudoscience. Although many theistic evolutionists claim to believe the Bible, they elevate man-made science philosophies to the magisterial level for their authority; those owlhoots dare to tell God what he said and means. Maybe they believe the Bible is a text that God preserved, but do they believe what it says? The rest of us will continue reading the Bible with historical-grammatical exegesis.

Although belief in special creation is not essential to salvation, Genesis is foundational to the gospel message. Theistic evolution is easily refuted in the minds and spirits of those who actually believe the Word of God. In some sermons on Genesis, Dr. John MacArthur pointed a few things and sparked some ideas that I'm going to present to you. Evolution means not only that God is not in authority over creation, but that God's Word is false.

God made man out of the dust of the Earth, וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָֽאָדָם עָפָר מִן־הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים וַֽיְהִי הָֽאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּֽה׃ , Gen. 2:7. Adam was made separately from the animals, and had the personal touch of God breathing into him the breath of life. This was not just physical life, but also spiritual life. Man was a separate, distinct creation, and you cannot get anything resembling evolution or long ages from the text.

Animals were also formed from the ground (Gen. 2:19) and then brought to Adam to give them names, but there was no suitable helper for him. The critters were different, lacking the abilities to reason and have meaningful interaction with him; a cowboy may talk to his horse while riding herd, but that's not exactly fulfilling for him. So God did something different for his special creation, and made woman from his side (Gen. 2:21). Adam did not have to wait for his wife to finish evolving, nor was she a separate species. She came from his side to stand with him, not as an inferior creation. Edit: Adam called her Eve (Gen. 3:20), another indication that she was unique and not just one of many co-evolving humanoids. The Bible clearly refutes evolution for the Christian.

In Genesis 2:8-14, we are given details about they layout of Eden. It wasn't just a tiny plot of land, but rather a big place. Such details are not the stuff of mythology, legend, poetry, or allegory.

Genesis sets forth the foundation that God's plan for marriage is one man and one woman (Mark 10:6-9). Jesus (Mark 10:6), Paul (1 Tim. 2:13, 1 Cor. 15:45), Jude (1:14), and others in the Bible treat Adam as an actual historical person and creation as a real event, not an allegory or poetry. To say that it is nothing less than actual history is to call Jesus and others either liars or stupid.

Like atheists and cultists, theistic evolutionists and other compromisers try to put Bible-believing Christians on the defensive — especially biblical creationists. (Interesting that theistic evolutionists cozy up to atheists and join forces to ridicule us, isn't it? So much for John 13:35, 2 Cor. 6:14-15, Gal. 6:10, and other verses.) Some will claim superior knowledge of Scripture and require that we answer certain questions they think we cannot answer (Steve Risner and Tony Breeden each wrote a series that shredded one compromiser's rant, and Charlie Wolcott addressed old Earth creation and theistic evolution). I reckon we should turn things around and find out if they claim to believe the Bible, do they believe what it says?

Some TEs claim to believe the Bible, but from their conduct, they don't appear to do so. Not only do some of them treat many Christians like garbage, but to get millions of years and evolution out of the Bible, eisegesis is necessary. God takes a dim view when people add to his words, see Prov. 30:16 and Rev. 22:18-19, and also note that in 1 Cor. 4:6, Paul cautioned believers not to go beyond what is written. Although Peter heard the voice of God during the transfiguration of Jesus, he said in 2 Peter 1:19-21 that the Word of God is more certain! Having a dim view of God's Word, adding to it, not following the teachings, causing divisions (Jude 1:17-19, Rom. 16:17), compromising with unbelievers and their philosophies — apostates and false teachers are heading for serious trouble (Jude 1:4).

We were warned not only about false teachers, but that scoffers would try to denigrate the Word of God (2 Peter 3:3-4). The rest of us are to continue in the Word, which is sufficient to equip us for godly living (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Philosophies will come and go, but God's Word stands forever (Isaiah 40:8).

A follow-up to this article is here.

 

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Why Do Some Christians Accept Theistic Evolution?

There are several ways some professing Christians use to compromise on the plain reading of Genesis. One of the most dangerous is Theistic Evolution. Here are some reasons why.

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

They Say Compromise Is Good 

A few months back, I getting dissatisfied with the church I was attending, and wanted to saddle up and find another church in the Kingston, New York area. Not very promising, since there are polar opposites: emotionally-driven gatherings, and the traditional liberal outfits. Those who actually believe the Bible and can give proper exegesis are difficult to find around here.

One church had some standard fare in their statement of faith (including the inerrancy of Scripture, which is very important), and I reckoned that I could get along with that. But not a peep about creation. I sent them an e-mail inquiring about their position on it. The response was disappointing, saying that creation was an unimportant side issue, and anyway, the Framework Hypothesis was just fine for that pastor.

Not hardly! The Framework Hypothesis is a compromise position where Genesis does not mean what it says [1] [2] [3]. His church claims to believe the inerrancy of Scripture, and then he holds a position on Genesis that contradicts their claim.

In another instance, a popular apologist admitted that although Exodus 20:11 is quite clear, he still is not convinced that the days of Genesis are literal days, and was telling callers on his show about the Framework Hypothesis and other compromise views. I called him and said that it, and also the Progressive Creation position of people like Hugh Ross, fly in the face of the authority of Scripture, and uses bad science as well as bad theology [4] [5] [6]. In fact, I offered to send him him my own copy of Refuting Compromise by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati [my review here: 7], and he casually said he'd "take a look at it". Frankly, I think I wasted my time and money, but I still had to try to help correct this Bible-affirming apologist on his theological errors.

Some churches and pastors are embarrassed by creation. I believe they are intimidated by the established view of "science", and one pastor told me that although he is a biblical creationist, he does not want to be "labeled" [8]. What does that lead to, "stealth creation"? Someone is shown the way of salvation, and then told, "Oh, by the way, we believe in a recent six-day creation". Disingenuous at best. Also, where does the "labeling" end? Believing that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea on dry land (Exodus 14:21-22), that God provided manna (Exodus 16:35), Jesus and Peter walked on water (Matt. 14:25-32), Jesus raised the dead (Luke 7:11-17, John 11:38-44), Jesus gave sight to the blind (Mark 8:22-26), Jesus himself was raised from the dead (Luke 24:5-6), Peter healed a lame beggar (Acts 3:1-7), Paul raised the dead (Acts 20:9-12), and more throughout Scripture. Doesn't believing any of these things make someone a "science denier"? Some of us are not afraid of being labeled, because we believe the Word of the living God.

In an episode of Fighting for the Faith, Chris Rosebrough reviewed a sermon by Adam Huschka of Narrate Church [9] called "Help I Feel! False Prophet?", beginning at the 1 hour, six minutes, 24 second mark [click here to listen online or download: 10]. Looking at their "Our Beliefs" in the "About Narrate" section, at first glace, it seems I could go there because they affirm the basics. Careful... (Oddly enough, I could not find the "Help I Feel!" series on the church's site, but the podcast is still available elsewhere.) In the sermon reviewed at the above link, Adam Huschka thought it would be appropriate to run a secular video by Dan Gilbert called "The Surprising Science of Happiness" [11].

Gilbert begins by teaching evolution, and then presents his philosophy of happiness. He presupposed evolution as truth, and showed pictures of Homo habilis and modern human skulls to illustrate the increase in brain size. He did not bother to mention that, even in the evolutionary view, Neanderthal Man had a larger brain than modern humans. Further, failed evolutionary mythology persists in affirming the disproved view that cranial capacity is a measure of intelligence [12]. Huschka does not bat an eye about the false teaching of evolution, is willing to bring it into his church in a Sunday sermon, and uses secular views mixed with bad eisegesis of the Bible. A great deal of compromise going on.

Many who accept the various compromise positions above (and there are several others as well), they include an old earth viewpoint that is based on atheistic interpretations of science. Not all adherents of "deep time" are evolutionists, but have views that are compatible with evolution.

What About Theistic Evolution?

People accept theistic evolution (the view that God used evolution in his creative processes) for various reasons. In fact, I held that position myself for a short time, before I realized that not only is evolution terrible science, but is completely incompatible to what the Word clearly teaches. Some people casually take the "scientific consensus" of evolution and then slap God's name on it as if that blesses their lack of understanding and furthering of heresy.

There are four main reasons I believe that people hold to TE (theistic evolution):
  • They assume it is true, so we must be understanding the Bible incorrectly (as discussed in the section about Adam Huschka)
  • Fear of what other people will think, and being "labeled" (as mentioned above), and also bullying by militant theistic evolutionists
  • They have not studied how evolution is actually harmful to the gospel message [13] [14] [15], and may even be considered biblically lazy
  • Open rebellion to the authority of the Word of God and the plain teachings of the Bible 
This last point is the most important, as there are many who teach TE and put down the Word of God. What they call "science" (evolutionary interpretations of observations) is given a magisterial position above the Word, and it is man telling God what he said and means. 

Your Choice Has Tremendous Importance

I adjure you to check the information in the reference links above. TE is not only a compromise with the Word of God, but also a dangerous apostasy and false teaching. Christians need to be careful (Jude 1:3, 2 Peter 3:3-7, 2 Cor. 10:5, 1 Peter 5:8). False teachings and warnings against them have existed throughout the Bible, and seem to be increasing today. We have to know what the Bible teaches, know what we believe and why we believe it!
   

Friday, August 14, 2015

Lack of Evidence, Lack of Faith

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

A documentary movie called Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus by Timothy Mahoney has been causing quite a stir in Christian and secular circles. It has received praise from many Christian organizations, as well as creation science ministries such as Answers In Genesis and Creation Ministries International. You can buy it, or rent it online from places like Amazon. This is not a review, as I have not seen the movie or read the book — yet. My purpose here is a mite different.

I was listening to Derek Gilbert's interview of Mr. Mahoney on "A View from the Bunker". From about the 2 minutes 40 seconds mark through 11 minutes, he gave background on what motivated him to do investigations and make the film. He went to a dig site in Egypt for Goshen, and it was the area of Rameses (but I don't know which Rameses he meant). He asked an archaeologist if anything had been found about the Israelites having been there, and  the answer was that nothing was found so far.


Timothy Mahoney, maker of "Patterns of Evidence" was prompted to research by a crisis of faith based on lack of evidence. He was taken in by fallacious reasoning. The Christian faith is based on God's Word, and evidence needs to be properly evaluated and subordinate to Scripture.
Passage of the Jews through the Red Sea / Ivan Aivazovsky, 1891

This cause Tim a crisis of faith. What if it was all false? Exodus is essential to Judaism and Christianity. After all, the consensus of many scholars is that the Israelites were never in Egypt. Mahoney then did some research and learned that there have been questions raised about the chronologies and record keeping of ancient Egypt. He decided (my wording here) to follow where the evidence leads. Correctly noting that people interpret evidence according to their presuppositions, he wondered what would happen if researchers were able to leave those behind.

Unfortunately, Mr. Mahoney appears to have been basing his faith on evidence only. He must have known that skeptical archaeologists have often used an argument from ignorance to "refute" the Bible; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you know. "We cannot find archaeological evidence or written records of the Israelite exodus from Egypt about 3,500 years ago. Therefore, it did not happen." Two of the many examples of where scoffers were proved spectacularly wrong include the claim that the Hittites never existed, and that Belshazzar never existed (or if he did, he was certainly no king). They also appeal to the majority, and they appeal to authority by citing consensus, but a consensus is not a guarantee of something being factual; consensus has been wrong, and will be wrong again. It's disappointing that scholars resort to such shoddy reasoning as the argument from ignorance and of relying on consensus, but what's worse is that people believe "scientists" and "scholars" because of who they are.

The good news here is that archaeologists are beginning to come around and reexamine the Egyptian record keeping. Serious flaws have been found, and when given the proper perspective, suddenly the Bible is proven right — again.

Evidence changes, but the Word of God stands forever (Isaiah 40:8)! I disremember when this was, but some "deep time" Christian was saying that the Big Bang was proof that God exists, especially since the Big Bang had been proved by gravitational waves and BICEP2. Except that the Big Bang is loaded with serious flaws and bad reasoning, and the BICEP2 thing was retracted shortly after that jasper made his assertion. Where is his faith now, since his "proof" was faulty?

Please note that I am in no wise criticizing Timothy Mahoney. It's tough to think that your saddle has been uncinched and you're going to fall off your horse. For him, the scoffing got mighty loud in his mind, and he saw repercussions throughout Scripture and he wanted to do something about it. I reckon from what people are saying about Patterns of Evidence that he did an outstanding job.

Genesis is foundational to the gospel message, and the source of all major Christian doctrines. Proponents of amoeba-to-archaeologist evolution use the fallacies listed above, and more, to cling to their faith in evolution to suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18-19). Exodus is also extremely important, but is not quite so viciously attacked as Genesis. If secular scientists could be like some of these archaeologists and see that the evidence does not support evolution, there would be even more people abandoning evolutionism and embracing biblical creation.

The Christian faith is to be based on faith in the Word of God (Psalm 138:2, 2 Peter 1:19). No, I don't support fideism, reason and evidence support the Christian faith and are not contrary to it. What I am advocating is that evidence is used properly. When we elevate science, evidence, and other things to a magisterial position, they become the supreme authority and the Word of God is subordinate. It's supposed to be the other way around.
 

Saturday, August 1, 2015

The Label "Christian" is No Guarantee of Content

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Christian bookstores and distributors are not doing their jobs as a charity, it's a business. I get that. They sell things that will make a profit and pay the bills, just like anyone else. For that matter, many Christian publishers are owned by secular outfits that are trying to make money from the "religious" market. Just because something has a label doesn't mean the label is true. There are "Christian" groups that are in no wise Christian, many false teachers, and even cults pretending to be creationists, such as this one.

It's a tough call for what you run in a shop or online company. Companies can be big, and you know how big companies are, they're in a hurry to get more bang for their buck out of their employees. What books, CDs, videos and such are going to sell? Sell things with sound doctrine? Not hardly! Sheeple want to hear something that makes them feel good, or is new and different (2 Tim. 4:3), instead of continuing in the faith and in sound doctrine (Col. 1:23, 1 John 2:19).

I'm not going to teach eschatology here, but I do believe that we're in the last days. One sign of that is that people are becoming more wicked in general, as prophesied (e.g., Luke 17:26-27, 2 Peter 3:3-7). Worse, there is apostasy among Christians. (Note the struggle to proclaim the authority of Scripture, beginning in Genesis 1, as there are many compromisers in that area.) We should not be surprised when people want to forsake strong doctrine for teachings that make them feel good, and that they want to turn a profit even though they are promoting false doctrines.



Writing posts and articles for Piltdown Superman, plus correspondence, interviews, reading, podcasts, videos, all that gets a mite wearisome. So, I occasionally indulge in some Western stories. I was doing a search for Christian Westerns. I'm not a big fan of Christian fiction because it's written to sell (some fiction is so downright bad, I wonder if they really expected people to buy it), and much of it is trite. Still, I looked anyhow. Found lots of romance Westerns, and I'd rather eat rattlesnake than read those. You can substitute chicken in the recipe, but I'm starting to wander on the wrong trail here.

Anyway. I found myself on a site called "Family Christian". They're selling a book in a series called "The Gunsmith" called Silver War. My brain hollered, "Whoa!" I sent an e-mail to them the same day (July 25, 2015), asking why they are selling "adult" material and copied a description from the Gunsmith Wiki. Them books ain't neither family nor Christian! 



Well, I got a reply from customer service that same day. She said that she would have IT remove the book, and said something about "As you could see this doesn’t show details or any information on the item..." First, the cover plainly says, "Adult Western". Second, that's no excuse for such sloppy checking before putting items in their store. As of today, August 1, 2015, it's still there. Was I lied to? Incompetence? Something else? I don't rightly know. EDIT: I see on November 17, 2018, that it was finally removed.

Christians need to be on guard at all times against not only false teachings, but where they spend their money. If it comes from a Christian distributor or publisher, there's no guarantee that you'll be getting valid Christian material.


Labels