October 19, 2016

When is a Fallacy NOT a Fallacy?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Simply put, a logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. People have to use logical thinking every day and seldom think about thinking. Ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and other peoples used geometry, which requires logic. Logic as a discipline became more formalized with people like Aristotle. Some people will say that logical fallacies only apply to debate situations, but such an idea cannot be supported.

While some of us try to avoid errors in reasoning and arguing, we may be accused of using logical fallacies. There are times when something may resemble a fallacy, but is actually valid.
A twist on Aristotle by Luca Giordano, 1653
On the surface, spotting logical fallacies seems rather easy. Sometimes it is. Other times, the lines blur because fallacies share different names, different fallacies resemble each other, people combine them, and more. Those times are like a social media relationship status: it's complicated.

We cannot be clinical all the time, and some fallacies appear in our everyday speech. For example, reification (assigning a characteristic to something that is abstract) happens frequently. No, your car does not hate you, nature is not feeling generous today, and so on. There's no call for correcting someone who is just adding color to a conversation. When bad logic is used in a formal presentation or argument, that's a mite different. Some of us try to avoid fallacies, but they creep in now and again.

There are times when something may appear to be a logical fallacy on the surface, but we need to hold off before getting the bit in our teeth and jumping the fence with calling someone out on it. I'd like to cover a few things that can initially appear to be fallacies, but may very well be valid.

Genetic Fallacy

The genetic fallacy occurs when an argument or evidence is rejected because of it's origin (genesis). I can't count the times when someone has rejected evidence for creation science because it came from a creation science Website and the complainer claimed that the creationists are "biased" or it is "not science". (Ironically, they often furnish material from Wikipedia, Talk.Origins, and other heavily biased anti-creationist sources from non-scientists.) When someone is trying to present a point of view, they are biased. Other times, I've seen people reject material from Fox News with inaccurate accusations of Conservative bias, but cite other news sources that are known for their leftist biases. A bit of a double standard.

That leads into my point on this: sometimes a source can be dubious. It may defy observable science, such as when Dr. Greg Bahnsen said that he saw a tabloid headline claiming, "Woman Gives Birth to Her Own Father". (Yes, some publications get away with printing weird stuff.) There can be times when a source has a proven political or social bias, so one might be careful in citing it and do some fact-checking. When accusations are made against creationary sources, it's often helpful to challenge the critic to show where the science or theology is spurious. When I've made that challenge, the mockers frequently misrepresent the material, do selective citing, or simply refuse to read it.

Here's where I had a bit of fun doing research. Iraqi transportation minister Kadhem Finjan al-Hamami claimed that ancient Sumerians had airports and space travel. That's something I reject out of hand, since there is nothing to support the claim. Another reason I reject it is that supporters of "ancient astronaut" conspiracy theories (that somehow get aired on the History Channel) are not credible. Their "evidence" may sound compelling, but saying something like, "My friend's cousin knows a high-placed military official who spoke under conditions of anonymity and told me that space aliens were moved from Area 51 to a huge underground facility outside Tombstone, Arizona" do not cut it for me. The aliens guy from the History Channel, Giorgio Tsoukalos, may seem like a nice guy and sound convincing, but some of us prefer something substantive. It also doesn't help matters much that he is heavily involved with discredited Chariots of the Gods? author Erich von Daniken's organization "A.A.S. R.A. - Archaeology, Astronautics and SETI Research Association". Chariots is still in print.

When citing or rejecting a source, use your own discretion and experience. Perhaps you need to check your own biases at the door because you're going to find out that you were wrong about something. What can seem to be a genetic fallacy of rejecting a source may very well be based on careful consideration instead of an emotional reaction.

Ad hominem

The ad hominem ("to the man") fallacy seems to be a first resort for many atheists and evolutionists, and I've seen and experienced attacks that had nothing to do with the topic at hand. I would say, "Nice abusive ad hominem there", and get a reply, "No, it's not an ad hominem, it's an insult". It's a lie, too, since the insulting "facts" are fictitious. It also distracts from the discussion, as well as poisoning the well for other readers or listeners.

However, I've learned that an ad hominem is not necessarily fallacious. That would be when it's a conclusion. "I have decided that you, sir, are a lying cyberstalker and a blackguard!" I've heard Chris Rosebrough analyze teachings on Fighting for the Faith and declare certain people to be heretics. That's strong wording, but he backs it up. Similarly, some people may begin a presentation of one kind or another with an ad hominem and then go into the "here's why I say that", but care must be used to avoid poisoning the well and appearing to manipulate others to agree with the presenter.

If you insult a Neanderthal, are you committing an ad hominid fallacy?

Appeal to Motive

This one can be mighty difficult to justify. An appeal to motive fallacy implies that one person knows the heart and mind of another: "You're doing this because..." No, you have no insight into someone's heart and mind. It bothers me when I read or hear brilliant people, including Christian apologists, use this fallacy. A good way to still use what resembles the appeal to motive is to use it like the ad hominem. That is, when something is a conclusion — and clearly stated as such. For example, "He says creationists are 'evil', but has not given a basis for what constitutes 'evil' in his atheistic evolutionary worldview. I have challenged him many times to answer this question, and all I get is personal attacks in return. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to conclude that he cannot give a reasonable answer". I reckon that's a good way to present your belief about someone's motive. 


Before I conclude, just a quick note on the straw man fallacy, which is setting up a belief someone holds, or putting words in his or her mouth, so it can be torn down. (Nice job, destroying something that is not the position your opponent takes.) People may think that a straw man is being set up when someone repeats words back. No. When restating or asking for clarification ("Do I understand that you're saying...?"), the other person has a chance to respond. It is a question, not an assertion.

Again, we are not automatons, and will use occasional fallacies in our common speech. Sometimes they appear when we're trying to make a point, but it happens. If we become aware of common fallacies and learn to identify them, it's a great help. Also, saying "in my opinion" (or something similar) can turn down the heat a bit, since the speaker is not necessarily asserting that something is proved. At any rate, try very hard to avoid using fallacies, or giving someone room to criticize you.

October 15, 2016

Nobel Pieces Prizes

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Alfred Nobel, inventor of dynamite, put in his will that a portion of his estate money be set aside and awarded for five recipients each year who have "benefited mankind". The five prizes are literature, physiology or medicine, chemistry, and peace. (A sixth prize for economics was established in 1968.) Although most of this activity is in Sweden, for some reason, Alfie wanted the peace prize committee to be in Norway.

The Nobel Prizes for peace and science are becoming increasingly leftists and irrelevant. Should they be scrapped?
Derivative from Nobel Prize image, public domain in the United States
The prize for peace has come under criticism because it shows a leftist bias, including the award to B. Hussein Obama, who had done nothing to earn the prize except show up for work at the American presidency. (Years later, there is regret over giving Obama the undeserved award.) In 2016, Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos was given the peace prize. From the October 12, 2016 edition of The Briefing by Dr. Albert Mohler:
. . .and the controversy this year has to do with the fact that Santos was awarded the prize precisely because he had negotiated an historic treaty of peace between his nation and the so-called FARC rebels. They had been fighting a civil war for decades, a civil war that had brought much mayhem and murder and a great deal of death to the nations. But what makes the story really interesting is that the peace prize was awarded publicly just days after the president was repudiated by the citizens of the nation who turned down that peace agreement with the rebels and put the president back at the starting line in terms of the negotiation.
Dr. David Coppedge thinks that the Nobel Prize for science should be scrapped. He gave sixteen reasons for doing so, although I reject his first two. Several of his points merit serious consideration, such as the fact that several more fields of science have been developed over the years, and that worthy people have been shunned by the committee.

One problem I see is that since Big Science has been enslaved by leftist owlhoots, there could be an increase in naturalistic, anti-God awards to secularist ideologues if more categories were added. People must stop uncritically accepting agenda-driven claims made by secular scientists who deny the existence and revelation of God. It can't happen with the small, biased Nobel committee that makes its own rules and answers to no one.

There are tinhorns on the Web that troll and say, "You creationists should disprove evolution and win your Nobel Prizes!" They don't know much about the prize, it's selection process, and categories. I've reminded them that there's no prize for evolution. However, secularists who award the prizes may very well come up with that category. Of course, they'd have to rescind a passel of prizes because so many evolutionary "discoveries" are disproved, re-dated, changed, and even found to be the products of plagiarism and fraud.

Sorry, cousins in Sweden. The Nobel Prizes for science has serious flaws, as does the prize for peace.

October 13, 2016

Evolution and the "Separation of Church and State"

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Actually, the title of this post is slightly inaccurate. It's actually more like "Evolutionary thinking and the so-called 'wall of separation between church and state'". A story I like to tell is that I was in a discussion with someone on this:

Me: The constitution says that the church shall be separated from the state, and the school from the church.

He: Right.

Me: That's the Soviet constitution.

He: Wait...

The secularist war cry in America is often, "Separation of church and state". But that's not in the Constitution!

There's your problem, Hoss. People in this country have been beaten over the the head with the separation thing so often that they actually believe it's in the United States Constitution. It's not. It was in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut. They were worried that they'd lose their freedom of religion, and Jefferson reassured them that they have nothing to fear about the government establishing a particular denomination.

Nowadays, secularist sidewinders will use "separation of church and state" as a rallying cry when the go on the warpath against any perceived from by a dreaded theist, oh, yucky, ptui, ptui! Col. Jeff Williams of NASA read from Psalm 24 and got a slapdown in a comment because he was an employee of a US government agency. Town of Greece, New York opened town meetings with prayer, so an atheist was "offended" and had to run crying to Nanny State. The foolish complaint went all the way to the US Supreme Court, where it was finally laid to rest. Coach Kevin Wallace and public school student football players prayed before a game, so they went screaming to an atheopath organization over the "separation" thing. There are many more instances of atheistic attacks on the freedoms of Christians.

Secularists try to rewrite history and deny the fact that the United States was founded on Christian principles. Secularism has been at a walk, then trot, then canter, and is pretty much at a full gallop. Most Christians (indeed, most Americans) are not interested in forcing our beliefs on others; we're not Mohammedans, after all. You're free to believe or disbelieve whatever you want without governmental interference unless you're plotting treason or harm to others. A good part of the problem with the erosion of Christian freedoms is rooted in evolutionary thinking, based on the biological concept of muck-to-materialist evolution. I have some items for you to see that can help clarify:
 Until we lose our freedoms, we must continue to be faithful to God's Word and proclaim the truth.

September 26, 2016

Putin on the Ritz

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

3дравствуйте товарищ! In a recent episode of The Briefing, Albert Mohler expressed thoughts about how many Republicans are fond of Vladimir Putin (Владимир Путин), president of the Russian Federation. In the spirit of "Me, too!", I wanted to give some of my thoughts, things that Dr. Mohler and others have probably discussed already, but with my distinctly less intellectual approach. So I may as well continue Russian into this.

Some Republicans and Conservatives are enamored with Vladimir Putin. Is that such a good idea?
Vladimir Putin image credit: www.kremlin.ru
People can respect and even admire political, religious, and other opponents without giving up their own principles. Dr. Mohler discussed the "strong man" aspect of Putin, and I can see why this appeals to some people. I'm old enough to remember being fearful about some degree of nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The Soviet KGB (and to some extent, the GRU) were the subjects of books, essays, movies, television, and the like, so we were frequently reminded of their presence and activities with what I believe was a mixture of fear and respect. Comrade Putin was a high-ranking official in the KGB, and now he's boss of a mighty big country that spans eleven time zones. Impressive.

He appears as a no-nonsense kind of guy who is very physically active (and rides bears, if you believe photo editing). Guys who go to those "How to be a Robust He-Man" sites want to emulate President Theodore Roosevelt, so they may be attracted to Putin's style. Russia has a low tolerance of Mohammedan terrorism, and they don't cotton to homosexual propaganda, either, so those aspects are likely to appeal to some American voters. Putin repudiatd atheist ideology and also said that Communism was a blind alley, something else that should appeal to many Americans. If he's being truthful.

We've also had to deal with a long spell of B. Hussein Obama bowing and scraping to foreign and domestic leaders, apologizing for America, making his own rules via "executive orders", yada yada yada. Along comes Donald Trump, who gets on the prod when he's criticized, isn't afraid to speak his mind (his position of the day, which may change at a moment's notice), and that appeals to many voters: make America strong again. Hillary Clinton is running for president, but has criminal charges that should be pursued by legal agencies, health issues, dishonesty, and much more that the leftists and their media cohorts are covering up and excusing. I'll let you do your own research on those issues, there's a heap of it on the Web.

Vladimir may want to saddle up and ride with the Russian mafia. That doesn't sound good. Should we hold his secret police KGB history against him? I'll just say it's worth taking into consideration, especially since he wants to revive it. His "christian vision" that repudiates atheistic ideology should give some people cause for concern, especially those who study biblical prophesy. The Soviet Union persecuted Christians for decades, and the KGB was instrumental in that. After the fall of the USSR, Christian persecution was greatly reduced. However, recent developments, including a new law that restricts evangelism (ostensibly as a tool against Mohammedan terrorism) is affecting Christians. Franklin Graham changed the venue on a Christian persecution summit away from Russia, which would have been a fitting irony since Russia and the USSR were leading persecutors on the globe.

So what are Americans faced with? A seemingly strong but inconsistent Donald Trump, a wicked abortionist leftist Hillary Clinton, a history of Obummer's leftist machinations, not knowing who to trust, some of us wonder if a third-party candidate can win, praying for God's will and mercy. There's that guy on the other side of the world seems like a strong man with values and knows what he wants. Values? Not hardly! My belief is that Vlad may be a nice guy, and he knows what he wants and how to get it, but admiration should be kept to a distance. Republicans — and especially Conservatives — shouldn't try to dance with someone that seems ritzy, but could be a monster. Don't compromise your principles and emulate someone's ruthless tactics, you savvy?

September 17, 2016

Vaccinations, "Big Pharma", and Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

For several months, I've been chomping at the bit to get this article written. There is an addendum below the video.

Is it just my imagination, or has there been a marked increase in anti-vaccination material? (Perhaps they get worked up by anti-vax celebrities and politicians like Donald Trump, Jim Carrey, Jenny McCarthy, Bill Maher, and others.) There are many conspiracy theories linked to vaccinations, and there is a range of intensity, including "governments use vaccines to control the population". This troubles me. No, it actually gets me angry. (There are people who will take any innocuous comment and say that the writer is angry, but in this case, I'm telling you right out of the gate how I feel. I've even "unfriended" people for spreading the stuff.) This will not be a detailed pro-vaccine apologetic, since too many people have their minds made up from emotional appeals and terrible reasoning, but I want to make some statements. Will I influence anyone to change their minds or even slow down and think rationally? That'll be the day. It's worth a shot (shot, get it?) though, so I thought I'd try, even though it will cost me some friends.

Celebrities, lack of logic, hysteria, anecdotal evidence help fuel the anti-vaccination movement. Is "Big Pharma" evil? THINK, people! Do some serious research!
Image credit: Pixabay / dfuhlert
Emotionally-provocative words like "Big Pharma" are added to conspiracy theories to poison the well, and have confused people about whether or not to get vaccinations. It affected me about the flu shot that my doctor recommended, but he persuaded me despite anecdotal "evidence" like the highly-publicized cheerleader's adverse reactions that were later debunked. And yet, I had no hesitation in getting my tetanus booster, because the tetanus infection frightens me, what with being often fatal and all.

Some of the deceptive information involves the claim that vaccines contain additives, like mercury and formaldehyde —

"Whaaaaat? Formaldehyde is used to embalm dead bodies, and you want that injected in you, Cowboy Bob?"

It's true that there are additives in vaccines, but the conspiracists ignore the amounts, chemical compositions and differences, and other places that these "toxins" can be found — you get more of a kind of mercury in a can of tuna than an injection, and more formaldehyde by eating an apple than from a vaccine; your own internal mechanisms makes that stuff!

We can reverse this to show the bad reasoning. How about a nice glass of wine, beer, or shot of rye whiskey? "Don't do that! It contains alcohol! Alcohol is used as a disinfectant, a motorcar fuel additive, solvent, and more. Do you really want that in your body?" This is similar to the faulty reasoning from vaccine opponents, as we have just seen. What I did was withhold pertinent information, especially the fact that there are different kinds of alcohol and different concentrations. The alcohol in your drink is only poison when it's abused.

When people say that "Big Pharma" is withholding cures because they get rich from people staying sick, that really takes the rag off the bush. If you'd study on it for a spell, it's stupid even at surface level. Not only is such an accusation blatantly disparaging of the medical profession as a whole, but implies that the accuser has the ability to know the thoughts and motives of all those people. Add to that the false claim that vaccines cause autism, and the insult level is astonishing. Apparently the ones who say that they went into medical areas because they want to seek cures and help people are all liars, huh? Prove it, Pilgrim.

It's even worse when professing Christians and creationists pass along anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, empty claims, and outright lies. Otherwise intelligent people, even apologists, go in for this. Not only are they disparaging other Christians and creationists in the field, but they are indulging in the same logical fallacies that we call Darwinists out on! Further, they are not using critical thinking (which makes me wonder why I even bother to educate people on logic). Previously, I touched on the appeal to motive fallacy, where people claim to know why medical professionals withhold cures. People who make such claims need to be confronted: how do you know the motives, and where is your supporting evidence?

For that matter, I've seen a combination of the appeal to motive fallacy coupled with the genetic fallacy (reject something because of the source), so my supporting links from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, WebMD, and other sources could be rejected because they come from "Big Pharma" and the US Government, who have all been condemned as evil by those people. Pay attention to the anti-vax crowd and you'll see a whole heap of fallacies.

There has also been an increase in natural this, natural that, natural the other thing. Recently, I've been hearing about refusal to vaccinate because of "natural immunities". (Some Christians have wondered if vaccines are unbiblical. It's fine to wonder, but don't exceed what is written in Scripture, and be careful about who gives you your anti-vaccination information.) I reckon that some of the people who push the strongest for natural remedies and immunities often have a financial interest in selling something "natural". As the saying goes, I'm just saying. In addition, I suggest being careful about your sources, as quite a few anti-vax sites are famous for false information to further their own agenda. Sounds like I'm being fallacious, but I'm saying to use caution. Many diseases have been eliminated or brought under control through vaccination, but none through homeopathy or hysteria.

What could be more natural than eating peanuts? People develop severe allergic reactions to them. How about a bee sting? That's natural, but some people need some chemicals mighty quick or they could die. Did you need surgery or similar procedure? I wonder what kind of anesthesia was used, since the hospital stuff has chemicals. Maybe a few shots of rye helped deaden the pain. But surgery and other life-saving techniques are "unnatural", aren't they? Don't have it. Die naturally and fulfill Darwin's dream of eradicating the weak and unfit in the population. Survival of the fittest and all that. Or you can get sensible.

Yes, some vaccines and medications are expensive. To claim that they are high-priced so the companies can get rich is rooted in ignorance and bias. Those companies employ people with advanced degrees who want to be paid (ever hear of student loans, as well as the desire to make a good living?) They have invested in people, research, testing, submitting for government approval, and more. These take time and expense, and it seems to me that there are people who think it should all be done for free. Maybe some people can donate their time and expertise, but their education probably was not gratis. You also don't hear about medication costs that have gone down over the years, especially after expenses have been recouped by the companies that paid for the research. As for me, I take seven prescriptions, and they have become affordable for the most part.

Is every vaccine safe for everyone on the face of the planet? Don't be ridiculous, I'm not saying that and don't know of anyone who is. There will be bad reactions in some people, just like in every medication. But the exception is not the rule, some people having reactions or bad experiences does not make it logical to condemn all vaccines or the entire medical profession. And for crying out loud, don't be hopping on the anti-vaxxer bandwagon because friends, celebrities and politicians are doing it! Are ya'll going to stop "thinking" with your emotions and listening to false reports, or did I just waste my time again?

Think I sounded less angry than I expected. Perhaps doing some research settled me down; I thought this would take half an hour to write, but it went over three hours. I need a vaccination — I mean, a vacation.

ADDENDUM: Here is some of what I have to deal with. The "reasoning" is just like what I frequently have to endure from professing atheists:

September 11, 2016

Deplorable Things Fifteen Years After the September 11 Attacks

People have remembered significant national and global events many years after they happened. I've heard and read where people remember the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated, the 1941 attacks on Pearl Harbor, and other things many years later.

Remember when we were unified for a few days after September 11, 2001? Remember that day? There are things in the intervening years that have become deplorable.
Memorial of September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, image credit: Pixabay / brandnewday
I was working in the back of the Big Chain Company Store (now semi-defunct) with the shipping and receiving manager, getting merchandise ready for shipping. (I had lived in New York for just over a year.) One guy came back there and began telling us about the plane crashes, and I didn't believe him because he often told jokes that were in poor taste. After he convinced the manager and me, I went to the computer and saw that he was right. When the Internet went down, I became even more alarmed. What's going on? Millions of people were wondering this, but we knew that America was being attacked. The rest of the day was a daze for me. I listened to the radio while making deliveries, and missing many turns because I wasn't focused.

Later, almost every house had an American flag attached to it one way or another, as did vehicles. Churches were filled. People were making themselves crazy watching the news, hoping for answers, new information, possible reports of military retaliation.

Naturally, the news reports went from bad to worse. Fearmongers for ratings saying how terrorists could use atomic weapons and chemical weapons (Saddam Hussein used them against the Kurds in 1988, killing thousands). I was about to cross the Kingston-Rhinecliff bridge for a delivery a few days later, and I saw a plane flying low because it's near the small airport we have. I had to overcome my fear and press on, no, it's not nerve gas or something. Much later, I read and heard people who knew what they were talking about: chemical weapons need precise conditions to work, and both nuclear and chemical weapons require very difficult, timely, special handling.

There are several things that I find deplorable in the intervening fifteen years:
  • After churches were filled, they emptied out again. I believe this is because modern church-ianity does not believe and teach the Word, and cannot give answers to a world in need, even though they are in the Bible.
  • Atheists used the terrorist attacks for their own ends. Some make big money writing books about the evils of "religion", while they and their disciples complain that Christians who do the heavy lifting in building hospitals, building schools, providing relief efforts, and more ask for donations to help support the work. Those sidewinders get rich off gullible, non-thinking atheopaths, attack a vague phantom of "religion", get rich, misrepresent Christianity and the Bible — and those sidewinders know full well that the September 11 attacks were by Mohammedans, and not "religion" as a whole. Much later, Clinton Richard Dawkins admitted, "There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death."
  • Others have been ridiculous, comparing the September 11 attacks with abortion. My readers on various sites know full well that am I strongly pro-life (as shown here, for instance), but I strongly object to absurd AHA comparisons of September 11 with abortion. Yes, abortion must be eliminated, but using illogical arguments and manipulating emotions is not the way to do it. Doing this is a mockery of the suffering of those who died, their families, millions of other people — and the military. There are other situations where the attacks have been used to further an agenda, but the atheist and AHA examples are the most egregious to me.
  • Most of the rest of the world was united in the suffering of Americans for a short time, but have left us behind in intervening years. This is most likely due to leftist politics in this country and ridiculous "leaders" who have alienated former allies.
  • Conspiracy theories. There are people who can't suppress their consciences over little things like the "Alien Autopsy" video, imagine how many thousands would be involved in the murders of so many people. Further, conspiracy theories have been thoroughly debunked, but some pinheads still insist that the attacks were an "inside job".
  • Bad political leadership allows Mohammedan "refugees" into countries without vetting them, while keeping true refugees like Christians behind to continue to be slaughtered. Islam is being excused and coddled, many countries are feeling the effects, and it continues. Blatant stupidity. Frankly, I believe the problem is spiritual; nobody can be so stupid unless we are under God's judgement and he's letting our inner nature run loose without restraint.
  • Here I'll be controversial. People gave — I gave — to those left behind by the terror attacks. They got wealthy! Why are the lives of people in office buildings worth millions of dollars, yet the soldiers who fight to preserve our freedoms only worth a pittance, financially? 
  • We've forgotten. There was a short period of national unity, now it's leftists advancing their agendas and waving their bony middle fingers in the faces of Christians and Conservatives. Patriotism is not cool. Well, except for several country music stars, and a few surprises in the rock industry, most recently, Kiss.
While writing this, I had tears in my eyes fifteen years after the fact. The memories are still there. It's not only adherents of Islam who need salvation in Jesus Christ, but professing atheists, liberal professing Christians, and the average John and Jane who never really thought about their eternal destinies. We need to get back to our foundations as individuals and as a society.

ADDENDUM: Some similar thoughts from a different approach can be found in "Big Science’s Distorted View of 9/11".

September 9, 2016

My Brother the Mother

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

My brother the mother...sounds like a bad television show like My Mother the Car. Unlike one of the worst television shows of all time, a bearded self-identifying "man" giving birth is not fantasy fiction, and is unlikely to last for just a short spell. 

How can a bearded man give birth? When he's a woman pretending to be a man. "Gender fluidity" is science denial as well as rebellion against what God has established.
Images from Clker clipart
A woman gives birth, should be the end of the matter. Taking hormone injections, identifying as a man, selfishly wanting to do the birthing experience, having a female "partner", artificial insemination — this gender fluidity and free-for-all sexual perversion is sinful as well as mental illness, and people like this are the real science deniers. That child is going to be very, very, messed up. For more about this, listen to or read the transcript from Albert Mohler, "My brother the mom? Time preaches the moral revolution".

I identify myself as a cowboy. So what if I couldn't lasso a calf to save my life? I declare it, it's my right, respect my assertion. I have a hat and use the lingo. Anyone willing to take up my cause? That'll be the day! Such a thing doesn't make sense.

The homosexual lobby began pressuring society (and especially Bible-believing Christians) to accept their unnatural lifestyles, and people began caving in to the small minority. They petitioned for the right to "marry", which is a fundamental redefinition of what God has defined as marriage: one man, one woman. But I reckon courts have powers that supersede God. Many felt, "Okay, they have the right to 'marry', that'll be the end of it". Not hardly! Look at the weird news where all kinds of alleged marriages and relationships exist, including the mother who married her daughter, and the mother had married her son earlier.

Are we living in a sane society? Not by a long shot. I believe that what we are seeing is an example of Romans 1:18-32. When people rebel against God, he eventually says, in effect, "Have it your way, I'm removing my restraint". Look closely at Romans 1:28, it says, "God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper". I fully believe that the United States as well as much of Western society is under God's judgement. God's ways are being perverted, and those of us who uphold the truth of the Word are considered the bad guys. Strong foundations are more important than ever.

We need to repent of our individual and societal sins and seek God's mercy.

Subscribe in a reader