To the Cross

This early Christmas morning we are going to think of people who saw baby Jesus for who he really was: Isaiah: The Shepherds and Jesus' mother Mary. Isaiah prophecied the coming of Jesus more than 700 yrs before his arrival - doesn't that blow you mind? In Isaiah 7 (not read this evening): Isaiah filled with God's Holy Spirit sees with his mind's eye a virgin who is impregnated with child giving birth to a son: Immanuel : GOD WITH US! Somehow within a tiny baby Isaiah sees and declares that the great God who flung billions of stars into space, the majestic God who created universe the planets, the earth, the skies the seas, the incredable God who created the animals and the plants .. the God who created you: - Isaiah saw this majestic all powerful great big God somehow becomingsmall (God incarnate! God made flesh! ) 700 yrs later John records this Gospel – this good news event like this: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. THro

Brigham Young is consideredas a major prophet and leader of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. His racist words and views are self condemming. Young said, "You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind …. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race - that they should be the ‘servant of servants’ This too appears to be the teaching of Joseph Smith the organisation's founder. My conclusion is that not only were they false prophets but appear to be quite evil!

To check out truth about evolution click here

"Darwinism asserts that only materials exist, but materials don't have morality. How much does hate weigh? Is there anatom for love? What's thechemical composition of the murder molecule? These questions are meaningless because physical particles are not responsible for morality. If materials are solely responsible for morality then Hitler had nor real moral responsibillity for what he did - he just had bad molecules." ( ' I Don't have Enough Faith to be an Atheist' - Geisler and Turek)

"Sixteen year old Johnny came down from his bedroom and stumbled in the kitchen to get a bowl of his favourite cerial - Alpha Bits. When he got to the yable ,he was surprised to see that the ceral box was knocked over, and the Alpha - Bits letters spelled "TAKE OUT THE GARBAGE - MOM" on the placemat. Recalling a recent high school biology lesson, Johnny didn't attribute the message to his mum. Afterall he had just been taught that life itself is just a product of mindless natural laws. Why couldn't this message be a product of natural laws as well? Maybe the cat knocked the box over or an earthquake shook the house.... The incredible specified complexity of life becomes obvious when one considers the message found in the DNA of a one celled amoeba .... the message found in just the cell nucleus of a tiny amoeba is more than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica combined, and the entire amoeba has as much information in its DNA as 1,000 complete sets of

"(1) The scientific evidence overwhelmingly confirms that the universe exploded into being out of nothing. Either someone created something out of nothing (the Christian view) or no one created something out of nothing (the atheist view) Which view is more reasonable? The Christian view. Which view requires more faith? The atheist view. (2) The simplest life form contains the information – equivalent of 1,000 encyclopaedias. Christians believe only an intelligent being can create a life form containing 1,000 encyclopaedias. Atheists believe non-intelligent natural forces can do it. Christians have evidence to support their conclusion. Since atheists don’t have any such evidence, their belief requires a lot more faith. (3) Hundreds of years before hand, ancient writings foretold the coming of a man who would actually be God. This man-God, it was foretold, would be born in a particular city from a particular bloodline, suffer in a particular way, die at a particular time, and rise

Edgar Andrews in his book "Who made God?" describes how scientists agree that the DNA of living things is imprinted with informaiton in a manner reminiscent of an advanced modern language. As I understand Andrews without this organsised language written in a comprehensible way, life itself cannot exist. In his book Andrews says that in the same way that that if a monkey started to type random letters on a computer key board - it would never in a million years produce the works of Shakespeare, this advanced language could never be written by accident - it needed a designer: "I was brought up to believe the duck theorum - 'if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it is probably ... a duck'. That is why I have problems with people who (1) admit that nature gives every evidence of being intelligently designed; (2) introduces an alternative materialistic explanation for the appearance of design; and then (3) without further discussion conclud

" 'How long is a piece of string?' is a nonsense question not because there is no such thing as a piece of string, nor because a given piece of string has an indeterminate length. It is a nonsense question because it fails to define which piece of string is being talked about. 'WHo made God ' is unanswerable for the same basic reason - the word 'God' is left undefined. What if we define 'God' as 'the uncreated creator of all things'? Then the nonsense of the question becomes immediately obvious - 'Who created the uncreated one?' Edgar Andrews 'Who made God?'