Fundamental Baptist Christian

I remembered how often I used to listen to anti-Catholic conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones or Vigilant Christian Mario. It would be a good thing to write about overanalyzing and overdoing it. If you've watched Vigilant Christian Mario - you may notice the guy is very good at overanalyzing things. He's no better than Jesus-is-Savior (which he criticizes and a site that has misled many immature Christians),  or Texe Marrs' paranoia ministries ares also very good at overdoing and overanalyzing things. The first task of the Christian is preach the Gospel while rebuking sin in the process. Unfortunately, "Vigilant" Christian Mario is too focused on overanalyzing videos and upcoming movies. Others are too focused with linking who and who to the Illuminati - even if said entertainment company or music band isn't part of the Illuminati. Take note that anybody can be promoting blasphemy and unbiblical teaching without having been part of said organization. Al...

It should be worth a facepalm or facedesk to think how some anti-Catholic ministries themselves don't bother to argue logically against Roman Catholicism. One of the most common fallacies is the use of the guilt by association fallacy. It means that you argue something is wrong because somebody does it - instead of arguing something is wrong because it goes against the Word of God. I could remember these following fallacies are so commonly used by anti-Catholic cults against their rival cult Roman Catholicism to dismiss the following biblical truths: Seventh Day Adventists argue that going to Sunday isn't biblical because Roman Catholics go to church on Sundays. Anti-Trinitarian cults have some of its apologists dictate that the Trinity is unbiblical because Roman Catholicism teaches it. Unfortunately, the are based on logical fallacies instead of the Bible. Sadly, the book "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop is so full of logical fallacies that it's n...

It's really disturbing (and funny at times) at how atheists claim to be freethinkers and rational people while upholding a very irrational worldview. For instance, many of the people who they consider to be atheists aren't atheists. Not everyone who believes in Darwinism is an atheism just as Charles Darwin and many of disciplines weren't atheists. They weren't Christians but they aren't atheists either.  Here's James Bishop's Theology and Apologetics chart to the viewpoint of the atheist concerning the Universe. I've heard of atheists say that Christians believe in magic. It's crazy how they marvel at everything that obviously has a design but they deny that nature clearly has a design. If they only try to examine the evidence of science there has to be a designer. They claim that the Bible is a fairy tale and nobody can observe Genesis while they believe in something that can't even be observed or they play the "but it takes millions...

The Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy giving this warning about intellectual dishonesty: 1 Timothy 6:20  O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: This is the problem in the world of apologetics today. It's very easy to get mislead by a lot of science falsely so-called. This is all about pseudo-knowledge and dangerous it is to people. Here are a few of the many phrases that can be misused and abused by pseudo-intellectuals tend to use or love to use to spread their lies: I'm sure... (insert half-truth/s) Studies show that... (insert half-truth/s) There is overwhelming evidence/no evidence... (insert half-truth/s) Study history... (insert half-truth/s) It wasn't until (insert time period) that the doctrine of (insert doctrine) was developed Everybody knows that... (insert half-truth/s) Which in turn, one can see how these pseudo-intellectuals tend to be contradictory ...

It's already a common fallacy used by the anti-Trinitarian cults to say something like, "Show me a verse in the Bible that God is a Trinity." or "The word Trinity is not in the Bible." This is the fallacy of false dichotomy where you restrict the opponent to just a few alternatives or none when there are more alternatives. This is the problem that the Iglesia Ni Cristo shows whenever they demand that their opponents should show them a verse that says God is a Trinity word for word. This is where they fall down. Do they realize that word usage evolves overtime? The King James Version Bible has the word Godhead which is synonymous for Trinity? Acts 17:29, Roman 1:20 and Colossians 2:9 all mention the word "Godhead" in the KJV translation. What they may be ignoring is that even the modern versions (which I reject to be unreliable due to missing verses) still uphold the Trinity one way or another. Another verse that's widely missing or heavily ...

It's very easy to say, "But that's just Old Testament." to dismiss stuff that aren't convenient for anyone. Cults can say that this and that are irrelevant because they are found in the Old Testament. What they are ignoring is that you can't understand the New Testament without the Old Testament or that the Old Testament contains the moral laws and the ceremonial laws. Here are a few stuff that people tend to dismiss because it's found in the Old Testament: Death penalty for crimes against life. Spanking your children as a form of discipline. Forbidding the use of images for worship. However, they're guilty of double standard whenever they appeal to the Old Testament. Here are a few examples of doing so: Some self-proclaimed last messengers appeal to the Old Testament to justify their sexually licentious lifestyle. Some of the worst offenders are Joseph Smith and Felix Manalo to justify their adulteries. Joseph Smith is said to have 64 mi...

The picture above this paragraph shows you what a strawman argument is. It's a common cowardly tactic used to play dirty, to make yourself look like you've supposedly won when in fact nothing has been refuted. It's a very common tactic to actually misrepresent the opponent (this is also known as poisoning the well) and claim you've actually refuted somebody's arguments when you haven't, This is the use of false accusations in order to win an easy victory. Most people today just don't want to listen to the truth so they'll do anything to discredit the messenger even if it means making a strawman. What examples of strawmen are there used against the Christian apologist? It may be accompanied by Ad Hominem arguments (attacking the person instead of the argument) and poisoning the well with false accusations to properly set up their man of straw. Some apologists of false religion actually love to use this argument that they've actually "refuted...

In the world of Christian apologetics, it's very easy to just absorb everything when you're a newbie. The Internet may not be the best place for research. It's good to have apologetics site like Way of the Master but to do real research one must go out there and dig into the details. One huge problem today is the prevalence of chronological errors. What's a chronological error? It's when time and date do not agree with the claim. A good example of a chronological fallacy is to claim that the Jesuits came before Islam. The Jesuit Order could have not invented Islam because of the time difference. Islam was born in the early 7th century and the Jesuit Order came around in September 27, 1540. While it's possible that the Jesuits and Islam are now collaborating in the last days but the times and dates prove that the Jesuits couldn't have invented Islam. They could have collaborated with Islam but they couldn't have invented it. How can the Jesuits who came...

It's important to know the logical fallacies involved in promoting the sin of political correctness. It's a weapon designed to silence people whose arguments CANNOT be refuted. So what are some of the fallacies used in political correctness? Here are eight commonly used weapons to promote the stupidity of being politically correct: 1.) Ad Hominem  In the quest to silence Christians, it's a very common tactic to say that if a person is a Christian then you shouldn't listen to that person. More of then than not, Christians are labeled to be wrong simply because they are Christians. This would mean discrediting any facts and figures Christians may share with the public. 2.) Appeal to tradition It's very common to appeal to tradition to justify sinful practices. Let's just say it becomes politically incorrect to tell Muslims that they're not saved because they have sprang out from several generations of Islam. This may also say that as long as it's d...

There are several statements you can abuse in the world of research.  You can go ahead and say, "Studies show..." or "There are tons of studies..." to justify one's erroneous research.  Now it is time to talk about Roman Catholics saying, "According to the Bible."  This is very dangerous and I pray that if you are a Roman Catholic reading this blog that God will open your eyes before it is too late. Remember Satan said to Jesus in Matthew 4:6 saying, "It is written."  Does not that sound familiar with many Roman Catholics tend to say, "According to the Bible." to justify a lot of their heresies which they say opposing them is "mortal sin".  Do they realize that every sin is sin and all sin is destined to send you to Hell anyway?  Do they even realize that while Mary is important in her role as the mother of Jesus but it was in His humanity but never His divinity? Here is a good example of how "according to the Bib...

One of the greatest problems of Christians today is that they fail to use the Bible as the standard of right and wrong.  I remembered the time I used to be involved and not to mention, even dabble in conspiracy theories that I even started wrongly labeling people as members of the occult without even knowing the situation.  The problem of is when one uses the guilt by association argument where one considers an action wrong because another person also does it. It is true that Christians are told to rebuke evil and to have nothing to do with the fruits of darkness (Ephesians 5:11).  But the problem is that when people start using argument based on guilt by association, it is really going to create a lot of major problems.  Remember that pagans also have invented non-religious stuff we use today like the Gregorian calendar (invented by Pope Gregory XIII), the Pythagorean theorem and the Hippocratic oath to name a few.  To dismiss something all because of its s...

It is very easy to nitpick on the sins of the Roman Catholic priests but you may be ignoring some pastors deserve to be criticized as well. Likewise, it is very easy to nitpick on Catholic Faith Defenders without realizing that there are born again Christian apologists regardless of denomination (and many of them belong to the Independent Fundamental Baptist movement) who are really in a poor state of apologetic ministries. It is time to really start listing some common problems of a poor state of born again Christian apologetics that stoops them down to the level of their opponents: Ad Hominem. If Catholic faith defenders are so fond of attacking the person instead of the argument, some born again Christian apologists are also so found of doing that. It is very possible to start attacking Catholic faith defenders based on who they are instead of what they argue whether it is sensible or not. Conspiracy theory approach. Another problem why so many born again Christians are makin...

I am always amazed that how it is when me or some other Christian apologist such as Bro. Gerry Soliman always attacked with accusations of intellectual dishonesty.  The issue is whether or not I have never committed the acts below because we are all sinners, but the problem is when a person has been calling the kettle black.  I'll admit I have done some intellectual dishonesty myself and I pray by the grace of God I avoid such illogical stupidity. 1.) The tendency to only read (websites, books, periodicals), listen (audio materials) or watch anything (videos) he or she just agrees with.   We all have this tendency do we?  It just made me think how some Roman Catholic faith defenders tend to only cite Roman Catholic sources most of the time.  Now I admit that there's my tendency to do so but sometimes, I bother to read through Roman Catholic sources to get information like Alfonsus Ligouri's own prayer to prove Roman Catholics indeed worship Mary to cut throu...

While my brother-in-Christ Gerry Soliman had written an article on the sad state of Roman Catholic apologetics  I would also want to present my case against "Easy Christianity".  While I can embrace a non-Calvinist as a brother or sister in Christ if they show signs of being truly saved, on the other hand I would also present my case on non-Calvinists who I cannot consider as brothers and sisters in Christ because they really don't show signs of being truly saved.  If you are truly saved, you are not perfect but you have power over sin by God's grace (Titus 2:11-14).  True converts and false converts will always differentiate themselves. I will talk about how these people argue and they don't sound any more logical than Catholic faith defenders or Arminian preachers.  I always thought about how they go against the cry of Reformed theology (which was NOT invented by the Refomers) on the Biblical truth we uphold, "Salvation is by faith alone but never by a fa...

I really can't help but feel sorry for atheistic reasoning because they are blinded by their own arrogance.  I know it does get on my nerves but there's no use arguing with them because they drag people down to their level and beat them with their experience.  Looking at how they look at Christians, they consider them as too retarded even for the simplest task of boiling water or if Christians are for it, they must go against it  Doesn't that sound like guilt by association, genetic fallacy and Ad Hominem arguments? Guilt by association means you immediately assume an action is wrong based on the actions of another.  Atheists think that anything Christians do is wrong.  If it's a Christian they'll say that such people are retarded and liars (even if they believe that sin is just a fantasy word).  They choose to reject anything written by a Christian simply because it was written by a Christian.  It made me think if Christians do scientific studies...

Why I have dropped conspiracy theories altogether is because it's usually nothing but gossips. Gossipers only want to make themselves look good and they speak of the fault and failings of others or reveal potentially embarrassing or shameful details. Most of the time, it's done for the sake of being good even if it means to exaggerate the truth. Just notice how gossip compared to the real truth becomes more and more popular. The same goes with how conspiracy theorists are with their TV programs... they are very quick to raise gossip often mixed with sensationalism just to gain an audience. Worse, some of them even quote from the Bible which is strongly against gossip. Verses like Proverbs 11:12-13, 18:7-8, 20:19, 21:23, and 1 Timothy 4:12-13 are usually avoided while bragging Proverbs 28:1 ignoring Proverbs 27:12... a lion may be bold it does not make itself immediately known before it attacks its prey. I have noticed how most conspiracy theorists don't really care about ...

Richard Dawkins wrote this disturbing statement: The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no...

I have noticed that Roman Catholic apologists are mostly very unprofessional and two, debating with them is a waste of time.  When I listened to an Independent Baptist vs. Roman Catholic debate, neither side really made sense.  Both of them were attacking each other with illogical arguments.  This of course should at least help Independent Baptist apologists to avoid making the same mistakes since I have observed them sadly wasting their time debating with Roman Catholic apologists: Here are some logical fallacies I have observed that Roman Catholic apologists make a lot and I'm not only tackling on the Catholic Faith Defenders: Ad Hominem.   More often than not, I have observed that Roman Catholic apologists attack the person instead of the argument.  Like in the past, I remembered how a Catholic faith defender said, "Well you are not a priest or a doctor of the church to talk about the Scripture." Appeal to Force.   While not all Roman Catholic ...

Before you accuse me of being a secret Jesuit, I would like to inform you that my quest to discredit "The Two Babylons" is because of its faulty writing and argumentation.  I personally have the book but the book itself is filled with logical errors, myths and fables.  I would like to point out reasons why the book "The Two Babylons" is not reliable.   I. Reasons Why The Book is Not Reliable For Study The book itself is full of guilt by association arguments instead of using the Bible as a parameter for rebuking Catholicism's unbiblical practices More often than not, Hislop's arguments in the book are based on guilt by association.  For a Presbyterian pastor, he sure fails to use the Bible as the parameter for right and wrong.  It becomes really faulty when all you do is base on what pagans do.  For example, Taoists and Buddhists both involve in the idolatry of the worship of the Queen of Heaven while they are involved in charity w...

I know I'm really on fire against parents lying about Santa Claus to their kids. However let us be aware of a few things that we need to be aware on how not to argue against Santa Claus as a non-existent sham and a dangerous impostor of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is going to be a very important thing to understand that every argument and defense must be logical. Now let's think about the SANTA and SATAN letters. I know that Aleistar Crowley a master satanist used anagrams but then again, anagrams are NOT created by the Church of Satan or Satanists. Sanat Kumara is a new age god but even without Sanat and just Kumara, and no matter what name the idol takes even if the idol uses the name Christus (after Christ), it is still an idol. Now let's think of how the anagram actually works. Why is the anagram argument weak? Now let's take a look at words with same letters but have different meanings. For example: Dog is God spelled backwards... and yet the two...