A message from Shawn VenomFangXmirror 2010-01-17 | I will be making a video explaining the full terms of the compromise that I have reached with Shawn.I know that many of you wanted me to take Shawn to court. I know that others thought that I was persecuting Shawn. In the end I had to take a decision as to what I considered was the right thing to do.Let me explain a few points which I will expand upon (to a degree) in the video I intend to make;1. I was aware that Jordanowen42 had been in contact with Shawn's father for many months. I was privy to some of the exchanges between them and occasionally assisted Jordan in formulated his responses. I am aware that there are a number of people who suggest that Jordan has invented the whole exchange as explained in his video;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_nd_f...This is a nonsense.2. More recently I have been in contact with Shawn's father myself. Initially by e-mail and subsequently by skype conversation. On a number of occasions thunderf00t has been party to those conversations. On one occasion both thunderf00t and myself were involved in a group conversation with Shawn, his father and his mother.3. I gave Shawn my skype address and invited him to contact me at any time. He did so last night. As a result I again had a conversation with him; that conversation included thunderf00t and FactVsReligion. As a consequence of previous conversations and last night's conversation Shawn agreed to make this video. Whilst we advised him as to its contents, it was not scripted and was made entirely by him.4. I have made it clear to Shawn that if he does not seek the treatment that he, and his family, consider he requires, then I will take legal action against him, and I have many years in which to do so. He is fully aware of this. Provided he remains off the internet (both youtube and his website) and gets the therapy he needs I will not take action against him.5. In reaching my decision I have had regard to what is best for Shawn and also (and perhaps more importantly) what his family, and in particular his father, considers best.6. His family are very kind and considerate people. I do not want them to suffer any more than they have already. Of all the matters that I took into consideration this was perhaps the most significant.7. Shawn is aware that this is his absolute last chance. Please allow him to take advantage of it. I am not gloating at the fact that he has left youtube. I hope that others will not do so either.8. Please allow him and his family to resolve this matter without harrassment. Both Shawn and his family know that if he does not do so then he faces legal consequences.9. This may be the first genuine, and thereby the most significant, step that Shawn has made to getting the help he needs.10. To the sycophants that rally around him, please think for a moment. You are not helping Shawn or his family if you pester him. Leave him alone. (And please stop dropping my docs.)Finally, to Shawn; I wish you the very best. Thank you for making this video. Call me on skype whenever you want.
The Reality of the Venomfangx Issue VenomFangXmirror 2010-01-11 | Shawns dad, Hilton. Gives his statement and comments about his son's mess. Think before you comment on this video, DO NOT DROP DOCS! You have been warned. Original video made by jordan owen 42.
I am the next VenomfangX !!!! VenomFangXmirror 2010-01-09 | Video made by: TOMMYfromtheBRONXThis video is mirrored with permission.
dprjones THREATENS VenomFangX VenomFangXmirror 2010-01-07 | Youtube user dprjones, a notorious Christian-hater has stooped to a new low, threatening me for trying to protect my family by issuing DMCA's against his videos which violate youtube terms of service (Section 6.C) and inciting hatred from the militant atheists on youtube.His newest video, located here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sCO-6... threatens me to remove my youtube channel within 10 days or he will report me to youtube and create a lawsuit over his "why people hate you VenomFangX" series. While it does perk my curiosity to see how such a case would fair in a court (a vulgar atheist with a history of hatred trying to defend why his personal vendetta should be allowed to be expressed on youtube by stealing my videos and editing them to make others hate me) against a Christian who does nothing but tell people God loves them and how to go to Heaven. This is religious persecution of the highest order.If you want to help, kindly e-mail me at support@venomfangxsite.comKindly keep me in your prayers, Satan is working overtime these days.
Do you perceive the man behind the curtain? VenomFangXmirror 2009-09-15 | Those Who Doubt the NWO Conspiracy.http://www.ae911truth.orgENDGAME- ALEX JONES - Blueprint for Global Enslavementhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...G. Edward Griffin on the Federal Reserve Systemhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWKlz2...Swine Flu Vaccine - Truth, Lies & Alternativeshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCAIW5...Aaron Russo talks about the Rockefeller Conspiracyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSii-x...my thoughts on the new world order. swine flu 9/11 our impending circumstances. do you see the man behind the curtain? I do
What About an Ectopic Pregnancy flv VenomFangXmirror 2009-08-22 | What About an Ectopic Pregnancy?www.ProLifePhysicians.orgThe abortion exception for the life of the mother is the exception that most commonly seduces the sincere pro-lifer. The scenario in which this exception is most frequently packaged is an ectopic pregnancy, which is when the embryo attaches somewhere inside the mothers body in a place other than the inner lining of the uterus. It is argued that in an ectopic pregnancy, an abortion must be performed in order to save the mothers life.What is rarely realized is that there are several cases in the medical literature where abdominal ectopic pregnancies have survived! There are no cases of ectopic pregnancies in a fallopian tube surviving, but several large studies have confirmed that time and patience will allow for spontaneous regression of the tubal ectopic pregnancy the vast majority of the time. So chemical or surgical removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not always necessary to save the mothers life after all.However, if through careful follow-up it is determined that the ectopic pregnancy does not spontaneously resolve and the mothers symptoms worsen, surgery may become necessary to save the mothers life. The procedure to remove the ectopic pregnancy may not kill the unborn child at all, because the unborn child has likely already deceased by the time surgery becomes necessary. But even if not, the procedure is necessary to save the mothers life, and the death of the unborn baby is unavoidable and unintentional.A chemical abortion with a medicine called methotrexate is often recommended by physicians to patients with early tubal ectopic pregnancies, when the baby may still be alive, to decrease the chances of a surgical alternative being necessary later, but we have found this to be an unnecessary risk to human life. We offer the following true case to demonstrate this point.One patient was diagnosed with a tubal ectopic pregnancy by her obstetrician, and he informed her that they were fortunate to have made the diagnosis early and that she should have a methotrexate abortion. The patient was pro-life, and did not want to take the medicine, but the physician insisted. The baby was not going to survive, he argued, and a chemical abortion now could prevent the need for a surgical procedure later. The chemical abortion would lessen her chances of a rupture of her fallopian tube and subsequent life-threatening hemorrhage. The chemical abortion was also better at preserving future fertility than surgical removal of the ectopic pregnancy later. Feeling like she had no other reasonable alternative, she took the methotrexate.However, there was a complication. Two weeks later, she still had vaginal bleeding and pelvic discomfort. A repeat ultrasound confirmed the physicians worst fears: his patient was pregnant with twins one in the fallopian tube, and one in the uterus! He missed the uterine pregnancy in his ultrasound examination, and that baby was dying from his prescription.Holding off surgery and watchful waiting in this case might have resulted in spontaneous resolution of the tubal pregnancy or would have required surgical removal of the tubal pregnancy when the embryo was likely to be dead, but in both cases the uterine pregnancy would probably have survived. Unfortunately, the chemical abortion killed both babies, much to the dismay of this young pro-life woman.It is only ethical to remove the tubal pregnancy if spontaneous resolution does not occur after watchful waiting and if the physician is 100% certain that there are no twins. At this point, the embryo in the fallopian tube is likely to be dead and, even if not, the death is unavoidable and unintentional, and the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother.In conclusion, there are no occasions in which the intentional killing of the pre-born child is justified. Scientific fact and divine law are clear: life begins at conception, and there are no exceptions to the prohibition of intentionally killing an innocent human being. We must stand true to these foundational principles through every emotional appeal and in every tragic scenario if we are to have any principles at all for which to stand.Saving lives t Saving medicineThe Association of Pro-Life Physicians5063 Dresden Court t Zanesville, Ohio 43701www.ProLifePhysicians.org
Question on Ectopic Pregnancies (CONSULT YOUR DOCTOR) VenomFangXmirror 2009-08-10 | AN ECTOPIC PREGNANCY IS SERIOUS: CONSULT YOUR DOCTOR.Answering The Question for DprJones http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD4jWC...http://www.essortment.com/all/ectopic...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24888923/... an ectopic pregnancy the beginning of life starts outside of the uterus. Because most ectopic pregnancies develop inside the fallopian tubes, most people refer to them as tubal pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies cannot develop normally, only the uterus contains the space and nutrient rich tissues that are required to nurture a fetus. One other location an ectopic pregnancy can occur is in the ovary itself. Because the ovaries and fallopian tubes are so narrow, a developing pregnancy can cause a rupture. A ruptured tube can produce severe bleeding and can be life threatening. An ectopic pregnancy can occur anywhere in the pelvic area.It is estimated that 1 in every 200 pregnancies results in an ectopic pregnancy. Once you have experienced an ectopic pregnancy, if you conceive again you have a 10-15% greater risk of having another. Approximately 30% of women who have had an ectopic pregnancy will have difficulty getting pregnant again. There is no clear reason for ectopic pregnancies. If you develop one, there is a great chance that you have some sort of scarring within your uterus or fallopian tubes. This may have been caused by infection, a previous ectopic pregnancy, the use of an IUD or as a result of your mother taking (DES) Diethylstilbestrol during your own fetal development. If you became pregnant while using an IUD or if you had surgery on your fallopian tubes in the past, such as a tubal ligation, you may be at a higher risk for an ectopic pregnancy.Jan 25, '06, 8:41 amPosts: 689Religion: Cradle CatholicRe: Abortion And Ectopic PregnancyOriginally Posted by CherDashHi,I was on a message board, and the subject of abortion came up. Someone posted that the Church is against abortion in all cases, and specifically mentioned even in the event of an ectopic pregnancy. I believe they are misinformed. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, there's no chance for the baby, and the mother's life is endangered. Since the Church believes in the sanctity of human life, I don't believe the Church is OK with a woman dying when her life can be saved and there is no way the baby can survive. Also, I was wondering about anencephaly and abortion. The mom's life is not in danger usually in this situation, but the baby is either stillborn or dies shortly after birth. What is the Church's stance on this? Also, is there any other scenario where the Church would not object to abortion? I would appreciate any input. Thank you.I just had an ectopic pregnancy that thankfully resolved itself without my needing surgery. These are the options my supposedly pro-life doctor gave me (keep in mind that I was not in immediate danger of bleeding out, unlike many women who present with ectopic pregnancy) :1) Wait it out-- since I wasn't in immediate danger, I had the option of resting and waiting to see if the miscarriage would progress naturally on its own, and my body would then heal itself. I had strict instructions to come to the ER immediately, should I have any symptoms of dangerous levels of internal bleeding.2) Go ahead and do surgery to remove the tube (or part of it), to avoid putting your life in possible danger, sort of like a preemptive strike3) Take the methotrexateOf these three, in my case, the only moral choice was waiting it out. The second choice would only be morally acceptable if I was in immediate and certain danger of bleeding out without surgery (I wasn't, praised be to Jesus). The third choice is never acceptable, for reasons already stated by other posters.I had regular blood tests to make sure my blood count never dipped, and to test my pregnancy hormone levels to make sure I was really having a miscarriage (the doc wanted to be certain the baby hadn't implanted on an organ outside my uterus and continued to grow, for instance).So, contrary to what a lot of people may think, it is possible to avoid an abortion even the case of ectopic pregnancy. Intentional abortion is NEVER acceptable, a direct attack on the baby is NEVER acceptable. Also, I think I am correct in stating that by the time the surgery becomes necessary to save the mother, the tube itself has already ruptured (therefore causing the excessive bleeding), and this most always itself causes the death of the baby. If someone knows better, please correct me!
Thunderf00t is WRONG VenomFangXmirror 2009-07-27 | Shawn K. says, Dear friends out there on youtube, this is VenomFangX. No, I am not "returned", but I felt a quick appearance was necessary. Thunderf00t had a recent casual conversation / formal debate with Way of the Master's Ray Comfort.The discussion began well enough, both were polite, albeit slightly uncomfortable. Since the discussion wasn't a formal debate or a casual discussion, it failed at being either and quickly became a contest of who could keep their composure and appear more clever.Thankfully, Ray Comfort noticed that Thunderf00t was simply regurgitating arguments he had been musing over for weeks and not actually doing any thinking, so Comfort made Thunderf00t confess to the 3 areas where all atheists are at their weakest; origins, morality and ethics, and the value of life.Thunderf00t displayed all the weaknesses in the naturalistic philosophy. It robs people of a basic appreciation and value of human life over that of animals, and ultimately all life is seen as nothing more than complex machinery with our consciousness being little else than a spark of electricity. When morality and ethics are brought up, it is impossible for Thunderf00t to articulate a coherent answer, after all, speaking of right and wrong according to an electrical current is pretty silly, don't you think, Thunderf00t?My favorite comment so far:InTheSpirit12 (57 minutes ago)Its funny how thunderfoot starts out saying he wants to help his fellow man and help the next generation. Then ends by saying he would save a dog rather than a person while saying there are a 6 billion more where that came from? He has no value or love for his fellow man, sad :-( I hope God grants him repentance someday.James 1:8A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.Romans 1:22Professing themselves to be wise, they became ducks
Fossil Fiasco Still Looking for the Missing Link VenomFangXmirror 2009-07-05 | Another answer for Aronra's missing link of Evolution challange video.Missing Links are still missing.
Ida Done Better Still VenomFangXmirror 2009-07-05 | The fossil was apparently discovered in 1983 by private collectors who split and eventually sold two parts of the skeleton on separate plates: The lesser part was restored and, in the process, partly fabricated to make it look more complete.This part was purchased for a private museum in Wyoming, and then described by Jens L. Franzen, part of Hurums team, who recognized the fabrication. The more complete part has just come to light, and it now belongs to the Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo.If Idas skeleton was going to court, it would face serious chain of custody challenges. How many different people had their hands on Ida? How many opportunities were there for people to tamper with this evidence? How much of the skeleton is missing? How does anyone know for sure that all of the bones are even part of the same fossil? So far, those questions dont seem to have occurred to very many reporters.It isnt hard to imagine motives that could lead a person to distort this kind of evidence. Sky News reports that a private dealer acquired Ida in 2006 and offered her to Professor Jorn Hurum, of Norways National History Museum, for $1 million dollars.
DNA = Do Not Abort VenomFangXmirror 2009-06-10 | Are There Rare Cases When an Abortion Is Justified? What if someone brought up these arguments to justify the killing of an infant: "The baby was conceived through rape" - "The infant is deformed and mentally handicapped" - "The mother's health is suffering as a result of her baby." Would anyone who endorses abortion in the womb openly justify the killing of an infant using these excuses? No, they would not. This proves that these objections are insincere and that the heart of the matter is whether the fetus is a living human. If it could be proven that the human fetus is just as alive and just as human as the infant, then these objections would not justify aborting a fetus any more than an infant. We must respond to all tragic circumstances of pregnancy from the unshakeable foundation of two indisputable premises: human life begins at conception, and it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. The unborn child's right to life and liberty is given by his or her Creator, not by his or her parents or by the state. The right to life is inalienable: that is, not to be trespassed upon by another. In tragic circumstances such as rape or incest, we want to care for both the mother and her unborn baby. We want to relieve the suffering of the mother and her unborn baby. It is never right to intentionally kill an innocent person, even if it does relieve another's emotional or physical suffering. It's not up to a vote, and our obligation to submit unto divine judgments does not sway with our circumstances. We should not kill an unborn baby to alleviate the suffering of the mother any more than we should kill her infant to alleviate her suffering. Neither should we commit an abortion of a malformed fetus in order to prevent his or her suffering later in life. Being handicapped is not a capital crime. The intentional destruction of health is not compassionate and it is not healthcare, it is assault. We must not be swayed from our pro-life ethic by emotional appeals that admittedly swell our eyes with tears. Truth and compassion prevent us from this fatal compromise. We find it extremely unfortunate that many pro-lifers have regarded the health of the mother to be a consideration in whether or not she should have the right to terminate the life of her pre-born baby. Politicians who herald the title "pro-life" on the campaign trail frequently tout this health exception, as well as exceptions for rape and incest, as pragmatic compromises that will not offend political moderates and not alienate the pro-life community. We do not consider this compromise consistent with pro-life Hippocratic principles at all. To intentionally kill or condone the intentional killing of one innocent human being precludes one from being considered "pro-life" at all. A murderer of one person is not any less a murderer if he allows thousands to live, nor if he saves thousands from dying! When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother's life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother's illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary. It is only ethical to remove the tubal pregnancy if spontaneous resolution does not occur after watchful waiting and if the physician is 100% certain that there are no twins. At this point, the embryo in the fallopian tube is likely to be dead and, even if not, the death is unavoidable and unintentional, and the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother. In conclusion, there are no occasions in which the intentional killing of the pre-born child is justified. Scientific fact and divine law are clear: life begins at conception, and there are no exceptions to the prohibition of intentionally killing an innocent human being. We must stand true to these foundational principles through every emotional appeal and in every tragic scenario if we are to have any principles at all for which to stand.
Will God Be Just To The UnKnowing? VenomFangXmirror 2009-06-03 | An Atheist Youtuber by the name GodwantsBlood Asks: and I respond.
The Lame Link Lemur Not Evolution VenomFangXmirror 2009-05-25 | Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution.The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years - but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York.The discovery of the 95%-complete 'lemur monkey' - dubbed Ida - is described by experts as the "eighth wonder of the world".They say its impact on the world of palaeontology will be "somewhat like an asteroid falling down to Earth"
VenomFangX The Good Fight Continues VenomFangXmirror 2009-05-22 | VenomFangX (Shawn) steps aside but the fight continues, and in full control of his channel to GEERUP another fellow Christian apologist.VenomFangX (Shawn) steps aside but the fight continues, and in full control of his channel to GEERUP another fellow Christian apologist.Category: Nonprofits & ActivismTags: VenomFangX and the good fight of faith trust brotherhood believers Bible Jesus Christ Savior soul channel GEERUP Christian apologist.
How Muhammad Got His Revelation VenomFangXmirror 2009-05-20 | Here is an old VenomfangX video that was lost in the sands of time. Thanks to HogTieChamp for finding this video.
VenomFangX Farewell and God bless VenomFangXmirror 2009-05-12 | This is the end of my youtube ministry. We reached hundreds of thousands of people, and I thank you all who supported me.Unfortunately, those who hate God were very active in their attempts to silence me, and they crossed the line when they threatened my family. I believe God does not want innocents to get harmed, especially my loved ones.So, I am shutting down.
Week #5 VenomFangXmirror 2009-05-02 | Liar Shawn street preaching his bull feces again. What a waste of bandwidth.
Proving the Existence of the Eternal God VenomFangXmirror 2009-04-30 | Another vintage VenomFangX video.
Proof for Christianity Challenging Skeptics VenomFangXmirror 2009-04-30 | Another vintage VenomFangX video.
VFX HD camera showoff VenomFangXmirror 2009-04-29 | VFX's first video with his new HD consumer single cmos camcorder. Canon Vixia HF100
Answering GoGreen 18 VenomFangXmirror 2009-04-29 | GoGreen is an atheist on youtube who has challenged the authenticity and authority of The Bible. While this is of course typical of any self-respecting atheist (after all, they can not function as an atheist without discrediting books that claim to be from God), the arguments that GoGreen uses are so historically inaccurate and dishonest even to an unlearned person, her motives and bias must be called into question. Does she not know that her arguments are invalid? Then she is ignorant. Does she know her arguments are invalid, but uses them anyways? Then she is a deceiver. Had she spent 5 minutes researching any number of her arguments, she would have discovered that they had been dealt with centuries ago, in an honest, satisfactory, and scholarly manner. First, she clearly has no idea why Christians and Jews throughout the centuries have trusted the Old Testament. Purity of OT Text- http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ottextcri... Secondly, she clearly has no idea why followers of Jesus Christ throughout the centuries have trusted the New Testament. Purity of NT Text- http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcri... GoGreen claims the early church was disorganized and at the wims of mortal and infallible men. The early church was highly organized, counter to her opinion of history (which is only that, her opinion), as the Apostle Paul repeatedly refers to official church structures. Such historical figures as Irenaeus and Polycarp were church fathers in an organized church. The gnostics were a rabble of disorganized heretics that were rejected for logical reasons, that GoGreen has failed to appreciate or research. Counter to GoGreen's claims, IRENAEUS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FOUR GOSPELS. Papias mentions Matthew and Mark in his book, in the early second century, the four biblical gospels are the earliest gospels, the only ones written in the first century. There were no other gospels which were seriously considered, because there were no others. This girl loves to give the appearance of knowledge, when it's apparent she knows very little, if any at all, concerning Church History. It gets worse. Thomas was NOT written during the time of Christ. It was based off a late second century harmony of the four gospels known as the Diatessaron. Here is a video on it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0lW6X... And some websites too Plus, check this link: http://www.tektonics.org/qt/thomasgos... The claim that people are now "finding out" Mary was a disciple of Christ from the Nag Hammadi documents is embarassing on her part. We knew that from the bible. On Christ having a twin brother, she's referring to Didymus Thomas meaning "the twin". We know that from the biblical texts as well, but it doesn't imply it is Christ's brother. She is obviously mistaken. Also, check these links on the authorship and date on the gospels: Matthew- http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mat... Mark- http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mar... Luke- http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/luk... John- http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/joh... Her claims are consistently false, and while she has a large population of people watching her videos, that doesn't make her an expert on the issue. In fact, it makes her far more dangerous, as behind her fair appearance is a mouth that articulates lies, that can damn your soul to an eternity of suffering. Do not be deceived. She treats the Word of God like a pass time, a side interest that can be spoken lightly about, and flippantly ignored at the whim of her fragile feelings to better suit her closed minded worldview. It is unfortunate that someone as unlearned as GoGreen has felt a need set herself up as some kind of oracle of knowledge concerning a text she has no knowledge of, and as profound and inspired as the Word of God. Worse still, she has began spouting poorly researched and obviously false information concerning The Bible, endangering a large amount of people who are obviously taken with her. While outwardly she may seem like a genuinely likable and nice young lady, inwardly she is a deceiver, and deceived herself.
MAY VenomFangXmirror 2009-04-27 | Why am I accepting Donations?I am no longer working at a full or part time job, and instead have decided to preach the gospel full time. This means I am depending on my supporters for my income, and using the time I otherwise would have spent behind a cash register, preaching the gospel instead.Why should you support me?A preacher once said, if you don't want to fire the gun, you can at least supply bullets. I am out there preaching the gospel, and I need people to financially support me during my endeavors. Since I am not working a job, you are my only source of income. If I am not able to sustain a steady income from preaching through receiving donations, I will have to get a part time or full time job, and have less time to preach.Where do the donations go?Donations go towards my ministry, savings, and charity. My monthly costs exceed 500$ a month, between paying for use of the car, gas, cellphone, food, DVDs to burn and give out to people, equipment, etc. This means I need to earn minimum 900$ a month in order to get out there everyday without having to worry about engaging in a part-time job, and still being able to put away some cash for my work. I go out preaching multiple times a week for hours on end, which can add up to about 20 hours a week just preaching to people. Further, I spend at least 2 to 3 hours a day on youtube answering over 100 messages every single day. So, this is really what I do with most of my time.How can I donate, and how much should I donate?You may donate by going to http://www.VenomFangXsite.com and clicking on the DONATE button, using your paypal account. Recommended minimum donation is 3 to 5$. However, if you are able and willing to donate more, I would appreciate it. I work hard and make little money, and every dollar counts.Is it Biblical for a preacher to receive money?The Bible says this on the issue " 1 Corinthians 9:7-14Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? ... Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel."Originally I asked for 500$ a month, when I first began street preaching. However, since I had never done this before, I did not realize how much money this endeavor would cost me. Going out for 5 hours includes paying for gas for the car, food, and the DVDs and DVD covers I hand out to everyone I meet. This gets rather expensive. Further, my dad has requested I give him 400$ a month for use of the car, to cover insurance and the cost of the vehicle. It may sound like much, but my dad pays for my Christian University Schooling, the house I live in, and other such expenses, so 400$ is getting off quite lightly compared to what I cost him. The use of the car and other expenses allows me to go out street preaching, so I need transportation. However, there are enough people donating generously to allow me to do this, so I thank you all again for those who are supporting me. God bless you and stay tuned for more videos!
VenomFangX Street Preaching Week #3 VenomFangXmirror 2009-04-21 | VFX Wrote:Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for Gods wrath remains on him. (John 3:36)Now, what is Satan's goal? We see Satan's goal in the Garden of Eden was to destroy Adam and Eve by making them sin, so God would have to punish them.Now, if what Jesus said above is true, all Satan has to do is make you reject Jesus Christ as the Son of God as your Savior. Then, you will go to Hell, and Satan wins.So, if Satan makes a copy of The Bible, but excludes the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He died for your sins, then you will die in your sins and go to Hell, just as Satan wants.That is the quran; it contains many of the beautiful things found in The Bible, but it denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who died for your sins to save you.Mohammed was foretold, in these passages; 'This is the antichrist, he who denies that Jesus is the Christ. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.' (1 John 2:22-23) 'you have heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come' (1 John 2:18) Mohammed and all the Muslims reject the Son of God, so they are all anti-christs according to the New Testament scripturesThat is why Islam is evil. Everything good about the quran can be found in The Bible, but there is no salvation in the quran. It denies the one and only way, thus, it is from Satan.
Tony48219 Anthony Powell RIP VenomFangX Response VenomFangXmirror 2009-04-15 | Tony48219 / Anthony Powell RIP VenomFangX Response Certain atheists (not all) on youtube and even a few atheist websites have said that I endorse murdering because of this event. While I understand atheists will use anything to discredit Christianity, this is going too far. Is the murder of a young lady and the suicide of a young man not tragic enough? Why do you feel the need to use this as an excuse to further your own agendas and slander me, who wasn't involved? Why add insult to injury? I understand you may believe you are an animal, but please, now is not the time to act like one.
VenomFangX Street Preaching Week #2 VenomFangXmirror 2009-04-08 | The snake in action part 2. Filmed in Canada.
VenomFangX Street Preaching Week 1 VenomFangXmirror 2009-04-06 | Watch the snake in action. this video was shot at York University, Keele Campus 4700 Keele Street Toronto, Ontario
Seeking Meaningful Employment as an Evangelist VenomFangXmirror 2009-04-02 | Shawn shows his true colors. Watch VFX scam his followers for steady money. So that he does not have to be accountable and live a free life.
The Jewish Messiah: Prophecy and the Jewish Feasts by VFX VenomFangXmirror 2009-03-09 | VFX video All Ratings and Comments encourged! Video Responces will be approved when I get around to it.
