News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Why are evolutionists slow to give up their beliefs in light of compelling creationist science?

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of thier lives."

Tolstoy 1828-1910
As quoted in "Chaos: Making A New Science", James Gleick

Russ,

You jeopardize the legitimacy of your other forums by posting this kind of material. Evolutionary theory provides the most robust explanation to explain the emergence of biological diversity. Note, I did not say the emergence of existence, as evolutionary theory takes no position on the ultimate nature of reality. Thousands of reports have been published that fail to refute the fundamental tenets of evolutionary theory. I defy you to find even 10 reports with data that support intelligent design better than any aspect of evolutionary theory. No rhetoric, rationale interpretations only, please.

With all due respect to you...

I could not disagree more.

If I had more time I'd give you more to go on, but I'll give you a quick and simple model...

[color:"red"]Evolution in the form you're speaking is like saying a computer in a strong alternating magnetic field will, through a series of mutations become a super-computer given time.[/color]

In fact, evolution is far more fantastical than that.

I know this is a hot subject for a lot of people but after studying this myself over a period of time, I'm really surprised that people even believed it at all. That is the really amazing thing about evolution and biodiversity.

As much as I would love to debate this subject (I really love to debate this one), I'm approaching the busiest time of the year preparing for our national convention and I just don't have time.

This is not a "cop-out" so please do not accuse me of that.

I will also submit that in my research, just as in the mercury-amalgam issue, evolution is a political issue and has therefore been the subject of scientific fraud for the benefit of certain special interests.

I would, however, point you to one of the best scientific cases for intelligent design that you'll find:

Unlocking the Mystery of Life:
The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design.

I'll share with you one of the most important facts I've learned about the theory of evolution:

After studying evolution thoroughly, people do not usually believe it because of it's integrity or logic. They end up defaulting to it because they cannot believe anyone could conduct such massive a scientific fraud and because media leads people to perceive that the majority believes it.

On scientific fraud, I would highly recommend:
Racketeering in Medicine: The Supression of Alternatives

Although not directly related to evolution, it demonstrates how a large body of scientists can be coerced into a common belief through manipulation in funding and media. Evolution has also been subject to this manipulation.

All the best to you... and remember that [color:"red"]this is not an excuse[/color], I simply don't have time for another debate. Mid September would be much better for me.

I am familiar with the work of the intelligent design movement. For a deeper historical perspective on the creationist movement, I recommend that you read God's Own Scientists, by Christopher Toumey. In order to have an informed opinion regarding the legitimacy of evolutionary theory to understand the emergence and propagation of biological diversity, non-academics should at least familiarize themselves with the basic concepts. Good places to start are the Evolution Series available from PBS and information on the website for the National Center for Science Education. For a truly enlightening experience, readers with sufficient determination to get through the 19th century prose should read Darwin's _Origin of Species_. While evolutionary theory has come a long way since Darwin, it remains an astounding treatise on the core aspects of natural selection (which constitutes only a portion of evolutionary theory as a whole).

That said, any discussion concerning the relative merits of evolutionary theory versus intelligent design must ultimately come down to verifiable data and reasonable interpretations, and my challenge to you still stands: Find 10 data-based reports that better support an intelligent design perspective rather than that put forth by evolutionary theory.

Honestly, in my studies of evolution, I found the very same issues that exist in the amalgam issue; Lies driven by money and special interests. The study of these special interests, which I have indeed studied for years, is a fascinating one. And let me say with with strongest of convictions: If you haven't discovered and studied the coverups and special interests that drive this so-called science, then you have not even begun to understand the truth behind and the true source of the idea of evolution.

There is an intense special interest that drives the perceived results of studies related to evolution, and since I've been reading about this issue, which would be the mid 80's, I've found time after time where papers written were—under scrutiny—shown to have been extremely off base in their conclusions, to say the least. The conclusions that have been drawn from abstract so-called evidence is almost humorous at times. Now I completely understand way. I see both sides of this wheel.

Having a background in electronics and computer programming, I know what it takes to design complex control systems, and biology contains control systems containing complexity beyond comprehension. There are electrical, chemical and physical designs that work together in amazing complexity and with precise balance that could not have possibly evolved to this state, nor could they have developed symmetry.

It's no different than the amalgam issue, that is, they—being those who promote the use of mercury in dentisty—cannot comprehend that mercury is harmful, or, more often than that, do not want to accept that such a conspiracy could exist that supports these ideas for it's own special interests and that they have been lied to and mistakenly bought into it, and so they have chosen their beliefs based on emotional factors or a lack of humility or the simple inability to comprehend the capability of men to deceive. The identical situation exists within the idea of evolution.

The promotion of evolution is a political issue and the science behind it is the same kind of science that is exposed in the book I recommend: Racketeering In Medicine. I highly recommend it.

Anyone with common sense understands the trouble with using mercury in the mouth. You can find all the so-called evidence out there you want that supports it but if you take the time and pick it apart one study at a time, you find the same thing over and over again, lies, deception, or people wanting so much for something to be true that they virtually reach for conclusions that are far removed from reality.

With no disrespect to any human being that might read this, including you (I respect people), the idea of biological evolution is positively the most ridiculous idea that's ever been presented in the history of man.

To say that the symmetrical, detached, astronomically complex control systems, feedback systems, motor systems, defense systems, and a myriad of other systems are evolving in the way biological evolution says they do is positively amazing—amazing that it has ever been believed at all.

Again, let me reassure you, I've put in my time and I don't disrespect you or anyone else who believes in evolution, I simply cannot wait for the day when their eyes are open and they gain the priceless attribute of humility (which is often missing in them) and they realise just how blind they've been.

As a scientist that specializes in issues concerning evolution, I am open to alternative explanations that better explain data. At present, I've seen no better theory to explain the data I've reviewed in publications and collected myself in my laboratory. I'm open to a paradigm shift, but the fundamentals of evolutionary theory clearly have not yet been falsified.

From a philosophical perspective, intelligent design might be tenable as a belief if you hold that the mechanisms described by evolutionary theory were instantiated as part of this biological reality...but this is untestable and so cannot be addressed by evolutionary theory.

I have no doubt we'll just have to differ on this one.

One of the most important things I've learned in life is that the vast majority of people tend to believe what they want to believe. Additionally, they tend to surround themselves with (what they accept as ) "evidence" that supports what they want to believe—and this—to ease their conscience.

I, having analyzed this issue for many years—and having no care whatsoever to taint the evidence one way or the other—have found much so-called evidence on both sides. However, just like the amalgam issue, those in favor of amalgam have skewed the evidence, played with numbers and outright lied. I have also found this in the evolution arena.

Of course, if you put the pieces together and understand that evolution is no different politically than the amalgam issue—in that powerful political forces stand to gain tremendously by it's promotion—you begin to see the larger picture and it begins to make perfect sense why these numbers are skewed and why the lies are so heavily promoted.

Once we understand that mercury escapes from amalgam, the argument for it's use is completely destroyed in the face of existing logic. Likewise, once you understand that DNA is much like a computer program, the argument for evolution becomes nearly impossible to make. "Evolutionary" changes to DNA will long destroy an organism before improving it, and the likelyhood that they will result in beneficial, symmetrical, or even matched male and female reproductive systems is astronomically low; For all practical purposes, impossible.

The logical thrust of the whole evolution concept is much like saying, "We saw a bunny on both sides of the grand canyon, therefore, it must be able to jump that far." And, the evidence that is fabricated to make it look more likely is like saying, "Hey, a bunny can jump, so, it must be able to jump over the grand canyon." People who study the evolution coverups will see the parallels of this example.

All I can say is that those interested in this subject should keep their eyes widely open for those leaps in logic that seem to say that proteins can do alot by themselves. One of the authors of the primary book promoting Chemical Evolution has finally seen this fundamental flaw in this logic and he has seen the corruption in the so-called science supporting it and abandon his own book—the book he authored—for the sake of intellectual integrity. A learned person will realize with experience how small a percentage of persons would sacrifice their pride for truth.

Again, asking anyone to believe that evolution is possible is like asking them to believe that a computer in an alternating magnetic field will become a super computer in a few million years; It's not gonna' happen and people who don't ignore the big pink elephant in the room can see this.

Science works by accumulating verifiable data, testing hypotheses, and developing theory that best accommodates the data. As a process, it is always open to new data and amendments to the theory, and even wholesale revisions of existing theory. At its best, it is done openly and with a great deal of conversation. The thrust of this thread is to discuss the evidence against the current state of evolutionary theory for explaining the development of the diversity of organic life. You have provided no reports or data that can be better explained by the conjectures of intelligent design, only rhetoric. At present, evolutionary theory is the best option.

What you have failed to learn is the difference between science and politics. As hard as it may be for you to believe, [color:"red"]evolution is promoted for the profit of certain industries and political ideas[/color] and you bought right into it (hook, line, sinker).

The story of evolution is both ironic and amazing:

The ironic thing is that even these industry leaders know evolution is a hoax.

The amazing thing is that anyone in their right mind could believe that a complex machine, along with it's matching reproductive genders, perfect symmetry, and detailed layered construction could have evolved into its current state.

Again, considering DNA is analogous to a computer program—and it is, evolution is like taking a computer and placing it in an alternating magnetic field and expecting to come back in millions of years to find a supercomputer.

Evolution is dead and dead stupid.

I'm not trying to be rude by saying this so please don't take it that way. When people I know have awakened and realized what they've been asked to believe in evolution, they are always ashamed to admit they ever believed it at all.

A word to the wise is sufficient.

I'd like to begin my response with a few definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary.

rhetoric: The art of using language so as to persuade or influence others; the body of rules to be observed by a speaker or writer in order that he may express himself with eloquence

ideology: A systematic scheme of ideas, usu. relating to politics or society, or to the conduct of a class or group, and regarded as justifying actions, esp. one that is held implicitly or adopted as a whole and maintained regardless of the course of events.

You are clearly indulging in ideological rhetoric. Yes, science can be used for political and/or economic reasons and some scientists can be swayed by monetary gain. One horrifying example that I'm sure you know of is the continuing use of food additives that have been shown to cause brain damage in non-human animals. I'm speaking of the use of excitotoxic amino acids and related compounds. In this case, academic scientists documented brain damage, while industry-funded scientists didn't: It is a travesty. But we're supposed to be discussing evolutionary theory, so let's.

DNA is not strictly analogous to a computer program. Papers reporting on self-modifying algorithms are fascinating to read, but the field is still too young to be considered to provide a strong analogy for how evolution works. This is due to the fact that most focus on "natural" selection as the sole force, and there are many more that have been developed since Darwin's time. Furthermore, any extension to modeling a whole organism would have to take epigenetic and developmental contingencies into account.

Let's come back to data. One of the most easily conceptualized examples that most people can understand concern data from the mitochondrial genome and Y-chromosomal DNA (the non-recombining portion). Both of these systems do not recombine or shuffle the genetic information, and so the same sequence of each is passed down from parent to offspring (mother to child in the case of mitochondrial DNA and father to son in the case of the Y-chromosome), unless a mutation occurs, and then that is passed on to the next generation. There are many texts interpreting the data, and the data are freely available if you'd like to examine them for yourself. If you're interested, a graphical representation of the distribution of mitochondrial variation is available at www.mitomap.org under the illustrations link. The tree encompassing mitochondrial variation has been deduced, and the root is in Africa with more recent variation found out of Africa. The most parsimonious explanation is that modern humans arose in Africa and then spread throughout the world. A similar pattern is also seen in the Y data, in other parts of the genome, and the fossil record. Can you think of a better explanation than that humans arose in Africa?

If you simply reply with more heated rhetoric, I fear that this conversation is futile to continue. I remain open to rational arguments and examples of useful alternatives, but it's not helpful to just yell "Conspiracy!"

You won't get what you consider a rational discussion from me on this topic because your idea of rational is limited to your own mindset, which is much younger than mine. You're still living in a world where you believe scientists all-too-often have integrity and lies are the exception, or that information cannot be spun or covered up because we have a "free press".

Unfortunately, your world is an illusion and a comfort to your hopes; Nothing more. You still don't know how the political magicians wave the wand—and rather than explore the possibilities, you prefer to think on your own terms.

Well... Been there, done that, but now I'm wiser than I was when I was in your shoes. My eyes have been opened, and hopefully, yours will be as well, one day.

You can speak about DNA, protien combination and all the other things evolutionists love to sing about to confuse the issue, but the big bottom line is that it really is about economics; That is, two or more people working together deceptively to line their pockets, and as you know, that is defined as a conspiracy.

If you ever check out the facts instead of blindly accepting the spoon-fed "science" you're parroting, you may just see it too. The only catch is that it takes humility. Without humility, you'll never see what's right in front of you.

Finally, for those who read this thread and don't understand the deeper issues with evolution (and they are many), guess what: You don't need to. You only need to think about the simple yet huge brick walls that evolution stumbles against daily yet remains silent about in its own denial.

You need only to think about the mammalian reproductive system—how evolution cannot explain its complexity and separate functioning components, all functionally matched with each other and yet working together yet in different creatures. From fallopian tubes to the intricate methods which eggs are formed and deposited, to the intricate design of the male reproductive system with amazing internal balances and feedback controls, both electrical and chemical.

Think again about symmetry, and how impossible it truly is for evolution to explain the development of two matched eyes, complete with precision lenses, intraocular fluid with pressure-regulating mechanisms, along with rods and cones to collect light all placed in the just the right position to convert light to electrical signals and to carry these signals through an optical nerve to the brain. Think about the development of matched arms, hands, feet and legs, and the intricate control and feedback machanisms that regulate heartbeat and allow the heart to move in just the right way.

Think about the organs of the body and how they are intricately connected to the brain and relay on positive and negative feedback control systems for their operation and regulation.

There simply is no way anyone with common sense could truly accept that these things can come into being—even from a single-cell organism (which in itself would be miraculous) without an intelligent disigner.

Humble yourself and open your eyes.

You are right, Russ. And if people would just start to think and not just believe everything they have been taught, they couldn't help but see that there is no way such a complex creature as man could ever evolve. While waiting for certain features to evolve over bazillions of years, the creature would be dead from not having that certain feature, esp. when we notice how all organs work together and need to work together. And, I have noticed that when things are left to themselves, they tend to go to disarray - not to more complexity. How many defective genes today are helpful to the organism as opposed to how many are detrimental? Most, if not all, damaged (changed) genes are detrimental. Therefore, how could we have the complexity of the animals and man that we have today if the great majority of gene changes are detrimental? I am not saying that there are not changes iwithin species due to dominant and recessive genes, (ie light and dark moths on trees in country and industrial areas) but that one species does not change into another. If one species changed into another, we should have more missing links in the fossil records than anything else! Where are the missing links? Think!

Well said Dallas. I'm so glad to hear someone abounding with common sense applying it to the myth of evolution.


Exactly!

Mathmatically, the destruction that occurs via mutations would have long destroyed a species before they could "beneficially" mutate.

Also, if evolution really happens, we would see transitional forms all over the place. We don't.

Finally, the calculations related to population don't support evolution at all. Simple.

I used to design and build small computer-controlled electronic control systems and therefore have a healthy respect for the complexity that goes into it. I view our bodies and animal bodies and plant life as technology. These are extremely complex machines that are beyond our ability to even comprehend with our current level of technology, yet they all abide by the same sets of rules, whether related to chemistry, electronics, physics, etc.

When we put this all in perspective and understand the basic rules of nature, evolution is—frankly—hilarious.

One day, when the world wakes up, people will be ashamed to admit that they ever believed evolution.

Thanks again for your excellent input and common sense!

Yes, except that computers are computers and the universe is the universe. You may as well compare apples with oranges and expect the two to possess the same features. They don't.

I've said this before, but I don't see why evolution and creationism need even oppose one another. When you say evolution is wrong, you have to pinpoint what you mean by evolution, since the definition is as broad, if not broader, than the defnition of Christianity (you have countless sects, there are even sects of Christians who believe that God is dead: a far cry from what your average Baptist priest is preaching).

I think what should be discussed in this forum is how much do you believe life can evolve on its own and how much requires intelligent intervention? For example, if you don't believe in evolution in any way shape or form how do you explain that humans have evolved into different races? That giraffes grew longer necks over millenia? That many animals have changed over generations to clearly adapt to new environments? If your reply is that they these "changes" were the intervention of a creator, then it sounds to me like you can perfectly accept evolution and creationism together, because there is no denying that giraffes have evolved, that humans have evolved, etc. The only question is how did we evolve and by who or what?

Hard core, text book definitions on most beliefs of evlotion are an entirely different subject. I'm not talking about proving or disproving whether man sprung up from a bog, turning from a single celled organism into homo sapiens over the vast millenia of time. That's not part of my point. I'm talking about small bits of evolving. Are you actually denying that these things take place? Are you denying the biological evidence that some animals have evolved to adapt to their environment?

I think most creationists vehemently oppose evolution because they fear it interferes with their beliefs. I don't see why it has to. In fact, it makes perfect sense to me that evolution would be a part of an intelligent design (certainly a lot more sense than a bunch of winged people who conveniently look just like men except they don't come from a realm where opposable thumbs or even two arms and legs are necessary and where their deity magically pointed a finger (and why does he have a finger?) and -- voila -- we just ... appeared! That part sounds like the unimaginative musings of a mythology maker to me.)

Before replying, remember: I haven't said anything against creationism. I am not writing a treatise against creation. I'm specifically and only asking why the two are not compatible.

Egan Said...



This belief is a product of the modern anti-Christian media.

When defaming someone, they always associate them as being fearful because it appeals to the ego of the target audience.

The fact is, some Christians are fearful because they hold to "religion" for some sense of security, BUT, the vast majority of Christians are bright enough to see the incredible illogic in evolution.

I also don't defend Christianity because of some fear or desire to protect my defense mechanism. The fact is, if evolution was logical and was a viable explaination for life, I would defend it as logical. I would in fact be, an evolutionist.

However, evolution is so incredibly illogical and impossible that those who believe it are either so emotionally based that they are attempting to protect themselves from a fear of God or responsibility, OR they just have not thought through the process of evolution completely yet, OR they just cannot believe that such a massive deception could exist. Either way, they are the ones who are being short-sighted; blinded by their own fear or emotionalism or illogic.

I'm being honest here. If evolution where a logical explaination, I would not hesitate to admit so.



The point here is that both work in an environment with similar physical laws. Apples are apples in this context.



Depending on what you mean by evolution, they don't necessarily need to oppose each other.

The problem is not whether these belief systems are compatible. The problem is that evolution is just not possible. (Even if we're speaking about strict Darwinian evolution.)



Christianity is defined as the belief that Christ is the incarnate Son of God.



Your making an assumption which is exactly what I mean by "short-sighted". The process that created the races did not involve an evolutionary process.

You have to realize that there is a lot of difference between one race and another. It's not a simple skin-color change. There are many other attributes as well, and in this complex difference between races, you have to ask where the "transitional forms" are as well.

Think about it.



Another assumption, probably based on falsified evidence. Where did you get this idea?



Another assumption.

You fall into the category of evolution-believers that assume that those in the scientific community are all completely honest, as is the media. This is very naive (no offense).



Your putting a whole lot of faith in people you don't know.

I've seen the so-called evidence that is supposed to solidify these ideas and if you would look hard and long enough, you too may see that they have been falsified. Just like the amalgam issue, there are two camps, and the one camp (evolutionists) always quote from the same two-dozen sources. Those who study this subject out will discover the, like income tax, like the "corporate United States", like the gold confiscation of the 30's, like so many of the wars, and like so many things the common person takes as truth, they are so deceived about so many things that they simply cannot believe it.

"Thje bigger the lie, the more people will believe it."



Adaptation and evolution are two different subjects completely. The evolution-mongers attempt to confuse the issue in order to make evolution look more feasible to the uninformed.

Fact is, adaptation is a process that is evidence for creationism. It is a complex process that is built into the machines we're talking about and represents a higher level of complexity.

There is more to adaptation than meets the eye.

I would also point out that there is a whole lot more than small changes that need to take place in order for a Giraffe to have a longer neck, a whole not more.

Think about it.

Hey, Russ <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

One correction here...



I neither believe nor disbelieve in evolution just as I neither believe nor disbelieve in Christianity (though I certainly steer more towards the former than the latter; I am not an evolutionist nor do I claim it to be factual, only possible). Nearly every discussion I partake of on this forum is for the purpose of playing "Devil's Advocate". I see Christianity, Evolution, and a multitude of other beliefs as mere possibilities, and I find it's generally a conglomeration of them all which makes the most sense.

On a slightly broader and different note, I've taken a look at most world religions and I've got to be honest, I find Buddhism the only remotely convicing "faith", mainly because, paradoxically, it's not a faith so much as a philosophy. There is no concern for a creator god according to Buddhist practices, it's sole aim is to help one deal with life: here and now (not in some potential after life that, frankly, may or may not exist). Startlingly, it is infinitely more humane than Christianity, to me, and for the following reasons.

- Christianity (and monotheism as a whole) dwells on a negative rather than a positive. All the "Thou Shalt Nots" should more appropriately point us towards what we SHOULD be doing. And any humane and sincere "God" would realize this, whereas the mythologists who pondered it up clearly hadn't at the time. Instead, they likely desired to tack up a list of unrealistic rules, defining humans as sinners where there is nothing sinful about human nature (the good aspects AND the bad aspects both).

- Historically speaking, Christianity miraculously has the uncoincidental ability to become a tool for blood thirsty psychopaths while, no less amazingly, Buddhism has always been an outlet for compassion and caring individuals ONLY. Why would a "God" even want his "religion" associated with genocide, murder, rape, torture, etc.? Especially so damn much of it! If I were "God", I'd tell everyone to stop being Christian and start being Buddhist simply so my "believers" aren't associated with the most violet religion the world over. All the "Good" Christians of the world pale in comparison to the vile deeds done in their faith's name.

-Through rigorous mental and phsical yogic practices, Buddhists are capable of miraculous feats, from severing all sensation of pain to heating their bodies in frigid, potentially lethal cold conditions, to otherwise coping with fears and ordeals the likes of which Christianity, frankly, has no outlet or remedy for besides "prayer" and hope.

You have some very valid points, Russ, but I ask you to consider that I'm not arguing in favor of Evolution per se, rather, I'm simply asking for "Why not?" explanations, some of which you've answered, thank you. When I defend something, it's not because I necessarily believe in it, I just like to see all angles of a debate opened up. Most forums dominated by Christians tend towards narrow mindendess and it is for this reason that I typically steer my argument towards evolution than not. Point me towards an evolutionist discussion board and I'll start throwing creationist ideas in their face

Cheers!

HI Egan,

Thanks for the honest information. I see and understand your process of seeking information. Here are some responses that may help explain my position and provide some useful information.


I'm taking the following quote from a post I made on another part of this forum complex. It helps explain the "Thou shalt not's".
---
This may help you understand why there are so many "thou shalt not's.

There are two types of law:

(1) Negativistic and,
(2) Positivistic.

Negativistic law limits the evil among us in that it says things like: "Thou shalt not...". —It limits what evil can be done but permits all else. It says, "you cannot do these things" but all else is OK.

Positivistic law, on the other hand, limits and controls virtually everything we do. It's the kind of law man makes apart from God and is so overwhelming that it severly limits our freedom.

Under negativistic Biblical law, we can work in a trade, support our families, pay for necessities, and defend our property. We can barter, trade, work, and rest freely. None of this is against the law.

Under manmade positivistic law (socialism, actually):

—Before we can work, we have to attain a license to practice a trade.

—We then have to give part of what we earn (money, which actually represents our labor) to the government or we'll go to jail.

—We cannot freely trade without first recording, reporting and then paying taxes on what is traded.

—We cannot fix up our home without first getting a license or permit, then hiring only those who are licensed by the state to do certain kinds of work.

—We cannot freely travel for we must be licensed and insured, pay tolls, register our car, obey speed limits, etc.

—We cannot even paint our place of business or in some cases, our house without first attaining permission from the "authorities". To do so would be "breaking the law".

—We cannot pay a friend for some work they did to fix up our yard without creating a record of the event (1099) and reporting it to the "authorities".

—In fact, there is little I can do "legally" without first getting permission from the "authorities" or paying a tax or attaining a license (permission) or creating a record (1040).

This is the toil of positivistic law.

Biblical law, on it's face, may seem limiting at first, but then, what is limiting about not coveting another's property? Does this not actually protect someone elses property and rights?

What is limiting about not commiting adultry? Does this not actually protect someone elses rights?

When you take the time to understand Biblical principles, you begin to understand that Biblical law contains, in fact, the law of liberty; The law of freedom in that it does not restrict those who are good, as does positivistic law. Biblical law only restricts evil and allows any kind of good that you desire, so long as it does not hinder another's rights or destroy their property.

Biblical law—the law of liberty—is so short, it can be held in your hand and read in a small amount of time. Positivistic law restricts and controls virtually everything you do and would (in the United States, for example) fill an entire foodball statium to over three-feet in depth and cannot be read by any single human in a lifetime.

The United States once fluorished in the blessings of negativistic Biblical law. It now flounders under the weight and burden of manmade positivistic law.

"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish."

—Psalms 1:1-6


If the goal of seeking information is to find truth, then, when searching for truth in "religion", one axiom to live by is, "Don't judge a religion by the actions of those who claim it".

Christianity is probably the most slandered mainstream belief system in the world. Ironically, it appears to me that many—if not the majority—of people claiming to be Christians today are not truly Christians, if you define the belief system according to the book that records and defines it; the Bible.

The Bible defines a Christian as someone who believes that Christ is who He said He was.

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:"
—1John 4:2

Now, this cuts right to the heart of the matter because if you really are a believer in Christ, you will make sure your life is in line with all that Christ said. If you believe He is the Son of God, you will be sure to listen and obey, and you will trust that to obey is for your own good.

Now, there are many who say they believe, but their life does not reflect this belief. In order to know the difference, we have to look carefully and closely.

Let's look at catholic doctrine. They say that they believe in Christ as "God with us", but their doctrine opposes it in countless ways (I'll save you from the list).

(1) Anyone who believes that Christ is who He said He was will read the Bible because that is the single most abundant source of information about Him.

(2) Anyone who reads the Bible and attends catholic church will begin to see the countless contradictions between the Bible and catholic doctrine. This person will eventually be driven to find a church that more accurately follows the teachings of Christ.

(3) Once a person is mature in the teachings of Christ, they may be inclined to return to the catholic church for the purpose of trying to help others realize the truth that they have found (after all, if you find something great, one of the first human instincts is to share it). They will not be terribly successful in this because if people attending catholic church wanted to know more about Christ, they would be reading the Bible in the first place. Nevertheless, it is a commendable effort.

For the above reasons, there are true Christians in the catholic church, but they are most often immature (because they're just beginning to get to know scripture), or they are quite mature and are trying to make a positive change, but eventually end up returning to a more accurate church.

I say all this to say that much of the bad reputation that is attributed to Christianity is (or should be) directed toward catholic doctrine and the historic activities of the catholic church. Because people assume that catholics are Christians, the blame for catholic activities is often shifted to Christians without knowledge of how completely different the two are.

Because real Christianity centers around a belief in Christ as the Son of God, and because so many who go to church claim to believe in Christ but don't read the Bible, and/or don't seek to know more about who Christ is and what Christ says, they are simply deceiving themselves and they lend to the slandering of Christianity.

Now, I mentioned that Christianity gets to the heart of the matter, and it does.

There is, in fact, much voilence in the Bible, in particular, in the Old Testament, but I have found that the people who don't understand the reasoning for this voilence will generalize and end up misunderstanding God in general.

The fact of life is that people are voilent.

Throughout history, people have killed, murdered, raped, burned and otherwise committed horrible acts of violence. People often get confused because God says in scripture that He hates violence, yet, He demands it at the hand of Israel often in the Old Testament in the form of conquoring foreign nations and killing the inhabitants thereof. This confuses those who don't understand human nature and/or Biblical concepts.

In the account of Abraham and Sodom, Abraham pleaded for the richeous in the city, that God would not destroy it if there were any richeous in it.

"And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes. And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes: Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it. And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake. And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there. And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake. And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake."
—Genesis 18:23-32

Lot, being the only richeous one, was saved from the destruction of the city.

It's important to understand the violence that was in the city which God destroyed. Understanding human nature is paramout as well.

We all (at least most of us) like to think of ourselves as special and good and right and just. We think our opinions are well thought-out and that we are pretty smart. Furthermore, we like to think that we deserve something or that we have earned something.

Now, if we didn't create ourselves, how is it that we believe that we own ourselves. If we didn't create time, how is it that we believe that we own our lives. If we don't live perfect lives in the eyes of the law (I speak of Biblical law in this case)—and none of us have, how is is that we can believe that we deserve something.

As a people-watcher, I have seen the ugliness of people. I have seen how selfish people are and how they are unwilling to sacrifice even their own comfort for the need of another. But this is only the tip of the iceberg.

I have also realized the depth of the connections between these selfish attributes. People who lie are prone to stealing. People who steal are prone to kill. Not that they definitely will, but they have already allowed themselves to become more selfish than they were before.

There is an old saying that depicts this truth:

"If a man would lie to you, he will steal from you. If a man would steal from you, he would kill you"

It is rare that a person who has already decided to become (more) selfish, makes a decision to change. This usually only comes with fear, and so fear is a useful thing, but usually, when the fear is gone, so is the change of heart, except for a very few.

But as for these who God determine to be captured or destroyed in the Old Testament, these were people full of violence, which God hates, and who had no hope of changing, and had God allowed them to continue, violence—burning their children in the fire, raping women, killing as offerings to idols which are only pieces of wood or stone—would only have flourished.

These are hard things to see—the true nature of man—and many spend considerable energy avoiding these types of thoughts (going into denial), nevertheless, they are true. If this evil nature were not restrained by God, if would destroy the entire world, and He intends on removing this restraint for a short time to prove this to mankind.

"And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."
—Matthew 24:22

The fact is, He wants us to see ourselves for what we really are...

"But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup."
—1 Corinthians 11:28

...then to admint that we have a problem...

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
—1 John 1:9

...and finally, to change...

"As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent."
—Revelation 3:19

If you had a child and you explained to the Child that He had done something bad or harmful or hurtful and he/she only denied it, you would have no reason to expect a change. God has modeled these emotions in us in order to help us understand the purposes and processes of this life, namely, to reconcile us to Himself, and that, for His own pleasure.

Therefore, one of the most important things to realize in understanding God and His purposes is understanding that the nature of mankind is evil. Like any good Father, He intends on punishing us for the purpose of helping us grow up to be healthy and happy. Those who continually oppose Him and balk at His laws (which are for our own good) and refuse to change will eventually be destroyed because there is no hope for them. God Himself cannot change them:

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb [censored] speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet. These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."
—2 Peter 2:1-22

The fact the people use the Bible to devise their own perverse ideas or commit violence is only a testimony to these things, namely, human nature.

The bottom line, people must read the book themselves if they care enough to know about Christ. Don't judge God by the activities or words of men. The Bible if the most slandered book in history. Nearly everything I see on television about the Bible is slanderous; Yes, nearly everything.


God does not ask us to work so hard.

The pleasures of the body are to be enjoyed in their proper (healthy and beneficial for all) context and the pain of the body will generally not occur unless brought about by evil mankind or our own disobedience, and only then for our own good. Even if the pain of the body is brought about by mankind, God does not allow it to be greater than we can bear:

"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."
—1 Corinthians 10:13

(Note that temptation includes pain in the context of pain that tempts you to sin, which would include all. It takes a little contextual reading to see this.)

I've read the Bible about 8 times and have conducted my own studies and I've learned that the only way to really understand what it says is to study it. It's easy to know the simple stuff, but for skeptics like me who need to ask "why" in response to every question I encounter, it takes time, and so I have invested the time.

If asked, I tell people that my Christian "walk" consists of learning how selfish I am and how forgiving God is. When I realze this, confess it, and change it, it provides me a freedom and power and fulfillment that is not a match for words (I won't even try). It must be experienced.

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."
—2 Titus 1:7

(In this passage, "sound mind" is better translated "self control".)

It's a relationship with a Person (God) that is forgiving, patient, loving, a technological genius, a passionate advocate for truth, and always looking out for my well-being. It's a relationship that changes you; makes you better, and is sometimes difficult (through no fault of His) as many worthy relationships are. It's a relationship that is very real.

In my search, the things that convinced me as to the truth behind the Bible is prophecy and gematria. To anyone with a skeptical intellectual mind who wants to "test" the scripture to see if it is true or not, I would recommend studying prophecy and gematria.

The final thing I will share is the purpose for all this. It pivots around a logic that is so simple that we can see its progression in our own society, and without all the evil mixed in (which one day won't be), it will be achived:

"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."
—Revelation 4:11

I disagree. Humans are violent when raised in violent surroundings. When varied ancient tribes sacrificed and ate their victims for ritualistic purposes, they were not "evil" or "bad" people. You or I would have likely done the same without ever questioning our own scruples if born in such a setting. There have been both extremely violent and extremely passive and peaceful tribes throughout the North Americas (and elsewhere in the world), pointing us towards the fact that humans are not violent by nature, but taught to accept it.


Precisely so, and I'm not arguing against that fact. Be that as it may, however, there is something about the Christian faith, whether it's the mythology and storyline behind it, or its history, something about Christianity has always had a tendancy to lure violent people more so than a multitude of other religions. Again, I point you towards Buddhism. Name me one violent Buddhist leader or even a single war waged in the name of Buddhism. Now after you've accomplished naming me even one (which that alone is nigh impossible) I'll point you towards, literally, a thousand fold Christian despots and cutthroats.

It isn't about "humans are cruel by nature". The simple fact is there is something about the Christian relgion which acts as a magnet for violence and butchery; there is something about the Buddhist religion which acts as a magnet for compassion and understanding. This is a matter of irrifutible fact, not opinion.

You're a well versed man, Russ. I give you a lot of credit for the energy you put into not only your posts but your research. However, I think you could stand to gain from studying and absorbing, really absorbing, something besides the Bible. Spend even an hour investigating into the life of Siddhartha Guatama and the 4 Noble Truths, reading it with a bird's eye view, separated just for a moment from your current belief system, and you might find yourself completely blown away with what you read.


There is no way I can buy into this statement. That's like saying caffeine leads to cigarattes, cigarettes lead to marijuana, marijuana leads to cocaine. While it may in some people, that doesn't mean that all possess either the propensity for such actions or so much as the desire to do so, let alone the will within them to ever do it. Because, frankly, if I saw some adolescent punk run out the doors to a behemothic monopoly giant like, say, the Gap, stealing some of their clothes, I'd be applauding him, yet I don't have a violent bone in my body. But that's because I'm a revolutionary who is only too happy to see crooked and corrupt monopoly giants fall.


I think if you read even a smattering about Buddhism (not that I'm trying to convert you since, a) I am not a practicing Buddhist and b) Buddhism does not have the violent reputation for forced conversion that monotheistic religions do), you would realize the mistake in your above statement. Your quote above implies that acts such as meditation, lucid dreaming, tantric and yogic practices are unnatural and wrong. If you know anything about these practices, you'd probably realize that this couldn't be further from the truth. It's like saying humans are unnatural because we build dams or because we wear clothes when animals don't do these things. The aforementioned practices can and do improve our lives. I'd be careful about treading into what, for you, appears to be uncharted territory, until you've spent some time to gain an understanding about them. You also might find that engrossing yourself in such subjects would coincide quite nicely with your current faith, rather than contradict it.

This is where the rubber meets the road. This is also an example of what I call "glumping", which means reaching an overly generalized conclusion because of a prior assumption or combination of concepts that should remain separate.

As I've learned in life, most things are more complicated than they first appear. For this reason...

"Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:"
—Isaiah 28:9-10

It takes the knowledge of one concept to build upon another. Amazingly, this can lead to a profound understanding of our life and purpose. Amazingly still, many (actually most) never desire to acquire the first Biblical precept. These occupy their entire lives and die as children.

You said...



A more accurate way to express this idea is to say, "most humans are voilent when..."[/i]

For example, I was raised in a voilent home, but I did not become violent. I was raised in an verbally abusive home, but I did not become verbally abusive.

Some people say that people are a product of their environment. I would say that most people are a product of their environment.

Interestingly, the Bible says:

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
—Matthew 7:13-14

Even more interestingly:

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
—Romans 8:1

And:

"For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."
—Romans 7:22-25

(Read "mind" as "spirit". Read "members" and "flesh" as "body".)

When you put the pieces of the wisdom of the Bible together, you begin to see the big picture. You begin to learn about the construction of mankind and the explaination for the problems that we have.

If you consider this, you have three parts:

(1) Soul
(2) Body
(3) Spirit

A quick note about the Spirit:

The Bible says:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
—Genesis 1:27

It continues:

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
—Genesis 2:7

This phrase "breath of life" is fascinating. In Strong's (Bible dictionary), it's defined as:

H5397
nesh-aw-maw'
From H5395; a puff, that is, wind, angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect or (concretely) an animal: - blast, (that) breath (-eth), inspiration, soul, spirit.

(bold emphesis mine)

Properly translated, I believe this refers to the intellect, which is a function of the human spirit—the implementation of the human "will" and "intellect" and "faith" (faith is not what most people think it is). The soul, on the other hand, refers to the emotional center of a person.

My point in all this is—

Most humans are creatures of habit. Most follow the soul or the body. In other words, they make decisions based not on the intellect (spirit), but rather on emotions (soul) or physical urges (body). These are the ones who pass through the wide gate.

The real point of the Bible is that people who are guided by the Spirit—the intellects—these are the people who have the capacity to understand Biblical concepts. And these who understand these concepts who do not reject them because of their rebellion (essentially submission to the flesh or soul) will accept them because of their capacity for logic. These who accept them will accept that Christ is who He said He was because of the ample Biblical evidence demonstrating this.

I say all this to demonstrate that to say men are products of their environment is an oversimplification of the truth. The fact is, most men (by men I mean mankind) are products of their environment, but a few indeed, are not.

These who are those who learn; Those who build precept upon precept and put the pieces of the giant puzzle (actually a filter of sorts) together are those who have the capacity to "repent", that is, to change their mind from following their soul or body that was undiscerningly submissive to illogical and useless things to concepts and precepts that are the hallmarks of all intellectually progressing civilization, namely, law. Not the law of men necessarily, rather the law of God; The Ten Commendments at their core.

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."
—2 Timothy 1:7

The word "mind" is from this Greek:

G4995
so-fron-is-mos'
From G4994; discipline, that is, self control: - sound mind.

Discipline being the ability to oppose—with will based on faith through inspiration (perhaps manifested as intuition) or intellect (via evidence)—the body and soul.

Thanks for enduring this long explaination, but it takes time to build this precept upon precept.



Again, "most" would have likely done the same, but not all, at least not for their entire lives.

It's interesting that law can be conveyed by more than just physical evidence. Sometimes, it's inspired or communicated by other means that are often tagged as intuition or inspirational.

There are people who will grasp concepts of right or wrong without ever being physically taught them. This is hard for some people to accept, but for those who have experienced it, it makes complete sense. In some cases, it becomes a staple of life.

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)"
—Romans 2:14-15

It's hard to explain how this works because knowing the difference between your own thoughts and the "inner voice" takes practice. But when you get to know that voice, it can change your life.

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:"
—John 10:27

"And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left."
—Isaiah 30:21

Some don't hear the voice itself. Some get "feelings" or "impressions". I believe these are artifacts of the voice to those who cannot hear it, just as hunger may be an artifact of subliminal messages in marketing displays.



I would also point out that evil is not necessarily manifested in violence. In fact, it often manifests in more creative and intellectual ways.

I would also say that I don't see the conclusion you have drawn as logical based on the evidence ("pointing us towards the fact that humans are not violent by nature"). Again, there is more to the story as explained previously.

I would also point out that there is a unified, focused attack that is taking place on Christianity in the world today. This attack is being made via mainstream media, textbooks, college curriculum, and through other means. This attack is being conducted by people who decidedly hate Christianity. The reason that they hate it is a study unto itself. Nevertheless, these are the powerbrokers of the world who have the emmense power—not conceiveable by most common people—to change world opinion in a coordinated fashion. These are skilled information brokers, liars and men who have no moral restraint. These are the ones who will bring about many of the disasters spoken about in the Bible. In fact, it is impossible to properly understand Bible prophecy without understanding modern-day conspiracies (another large subject).

My point in telling you all this is that this is the reason so many who have not studied Christianity have such a bad opinion of it; namely, Christianity is being slandered by the powerbrokers who hate it and those not studied are believing the lies rather than searching out the truth for themselves.

Nearly every mainstream program I've ever seen or every mainstream article I've ever read about Christianity contains subtle, skillfully constructed lies that lead the reader or watcher to conclude some bad or evil thing about Christianity. You have to remember, they are very skilled liars restrained by no morality.

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."
—2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

(this is coming as I can see the artifacts even now)

"And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season."
—Revelation 20:3

"And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea."
—Revelation 20:8

These deceptions involves many of the leaders of the most powerful nations of the world. It is in place, even now.

My point in telling you all this is to draw attention to the idea that you have undoubtedly heard numerous lies and slanders against Christianity, but the bad attributes of other belief systems have been ignored or even glorified. This has dramatically colored your view of these things to a point where you're likely never to take the time to learn what the Bible really says. Again, this is a powerful and persuasive deception.

In all this excessive dialog (which is another tactic that mainstream dogma eventually manifests in that keeps people away from the Bible itself), we're missing the real issue. The real question we should be attacking is: Is Christ who He said He was? If so, a discussion of which belief system renders more peaceable persons is mute.

The fact is, the Bible is viciously slandered and yet, it's hard to get those drawn in by the slander to decide which of the peaceable laws and principles of the Bible they object to:

"And God spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his [censored], nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not. And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was. And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold. An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee. And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon."
—Exodus 20:1-26

I firmly believe the U.S. became the most powerful nation in the world because the laws and principles taught in the Bible give people the power to feely produce and receive rewards for their labor, and that evil was properly punished. The people of the U.S. once lived by these principles.

The decline of the U.S. is easily attributable to the removal of these principles from law, from which they propagate into every area of life. Those same powerbrokers are those who changed these laws.



I'm always happy to look at interesting things, no matter how they fly in the face of my belief system. The problem is that whenever I've done this in the past, I keep running into the same empty and contradictive philosophies simply rehashed in new and "exciting" ways.

I've read some parts and other pieces from all major religions. I've actually spent years studying a few. Unfortunately, I keep finding a new set of beautiful decorations around the same dying tree.

I truly don't mean this to be negative. It's simply that there is no other belief system I've found that really makes sense on an intellectual level; none. The most common belief systems are really 70% to 90% the same, but the final 10% to 30% make all the difference in the world.

I don't deny that many "good" men have lived and died by the world's standards, but the real question is, again, who is Christ? That is the answer that has the potential to change someone to the very core, and it has and it does.



There's a while lot of glumping going on here. Let me give you an example.

Meditation is practiced by many religions. However, in my studies, I've found that most "religions" promote the philosophy of "opening up". I believe this idea, in the way it is promoted is dangerous because is enables you to be coerced more easily from logic. Again, this is a study in and of itself, but those who understand the difference between open and closed meditation know exactly what I'm talking about.

It's also important to understand that the best way to deceive somone is not to say something blatently contradictory to their existing belief system, rather, it's to allow them to get into your car and drive them in the direction of truth, or actually, whatever they already believe, and then quickly pass it by while their attention is somewhere else, and this is exactly what is happening in the Churches today. I call it a "flyby".

Back to the statement you made...

Again, the statement's glumping nature and a lack of time prevents me from disecting all of the items you listed above, but please know that I'm not so shallow as to believe that all practices that non-Christians practice are harmful. There is a lot more to it than that.

As for me, based on my experience and research, no matter where you start, no matter where you try to go, and no matter what you want to experience in life, I have already learned that the final end of every logical discussion about life is:

"Who is Christ".

One thing I know-- I found in my life that Jesus Christ is very Real-- and He really did raise from the dead over 2000 years ago.

I used to not believe in Him when I was a teenager, but when I turned 16, I became very ill. (part of my mercury problem)

I sought Him sincerely while being bedridden and reading the Bible, and praying, "God if you exist, please help me find you".,etc.

I was sincere-- I didnt challenge God to prove Himself, I felt a need for Him, and He went out of His way to meet me.

After that, things in the Bible opened up to me -- I could read things and the Holy Spirit would enlighten me on what they meant-- What He wanted to show me would sink in better than if any other teacher tried to teach me.

Even though I have not always been obedient throughout the rest of my life since then-- and have sadly grieved God many times, -- God always manages to pull me back to the fold-- and I learn even greater lessons from my mistakes, never to make the same mistake.

My mistakes have also taught me humility where once I would brag that I was too good a person. God showed me true goodness is not from our own human nature. True goodness comes from Him-- and we can choose to be vessels to express Him or not.

Anyway, Since first meeting Jesus back when I was 16 -- I have felt Jesus's presence near me many times when going through trials. I have even heard Him speak to my heart as well. Words can not express how He does this and how beautiful His tone is-- Anytime He speaks, He also creates something inside of you that makes you change for the better.


I'm a firm believer that the worst hardened murder/criminal is loved by Him and can be changed by Him-- No human was ever a waste, no matter what they did in life. Jesus can restore anyone.


God bless
Boldylocks

Boldylocks,
That was beautiful what you wrote. My spirit bears witness with yours.

God Bless,

Veg

Why are evolutionists slow to give up their beliefs in light of compelling creationist science?

Maybe because it's all they've got, they have no other option, they have to provide some explanation afterall... human secularism being what it is... whereas a believing Christiian has the option of not believing, because he/she has Jesus/God.

I got saved in 1995 and science can not expain it either. Prior to that experience though even I questioned our origin.

I am so glad i don't have to run around in that crazy circle anymore. what a waste of time.

It's exciting to think there is a better life after this one. And I do believe it. I also feel quite strongly that our trialls and tribulations in this life, no matter what we suffer, including mercury poison, are part of that ongoing intelligent design which help make us full and worthy members of the kingdom of God... in my case, perhaps I had too much respect for dentists prior to this.. or I was thinking maybe there are things going on that I needed to know and this trauma led me here, and other places and I am thus informed of things like codex etc...now that would make sense in my life and the way the Lord has led me... and that is my soul's evolution.

Why can't science explain ghosts that's a question I have been asking for the longest time. I mean they have so much evidence, even today, photos, vidoes, so many people experiencing things...it's a daily occurence, things really happen.. and mostly the best science can do is hide it's head in the sand. they don't want to know it's pretty obvious. Their minds and science don't seem to function very well outside certain well known boundaries, and THAT is actually a thing we should be quite thankful for..

God Is, Jesus lives. Have faith, we'll get there.

(and darwin's grandchildren will still be dissecting pollywogs trying to figure it out)

ps - I am not afraid to admit my ignorance, it is how I ended up with mercury poisoning afterall... but then again it is also how I got saved... perhaps that also is the difference between a Christian and a human secularist... pethaps it is also the difference between someone who gets over mercury poisoning and the great number of dentists and dr's who never reach the age of 65.

I recently left my computer on by accident for a few billion years. I was working with Microsoft Word when I forgot to shut the computer down, so it was left open and running. When I came back and realized the computer was still on, the most amazing thing had happened.

It seems that cosmic radiation—which causes about 1 memory error per month in a typical home computer—had caused a portion of the in-memory code that makes Word work to be copied to another location memory block that did not contain any useful information.

Then, as the memory errors continued to occur, they wrote about 100,000 new machine code commands—bit-by-bit—and added a new feature to Word that didn't exist before. This feature appeared on the menu system and allows you to actually count the number of words in the entire document that is currently open.

In order to do this, the new code that was induced by cosmic radiation called into the existing code block that wasn't moved at just the right points to display a new window that displays how many words this current document has.

Of course, in order to provide this new feature, the new code had to know exactly where to call into the existing code in dozens or perhaps hundreds of places in order to accomplish such seemingly mundane things as displaying a new window, placing OK, and Cancel buttons in the just right position on the window, and performing the continuous addition needed as it carefully parsed each word and kept track of the accumulating result.

Of course, to know the difference between one word and another, it had to know what constituted a word ending, like a space or long-dash. It also has to know where the in-memory representation of the code existed which required that it know exactly where the existing Word code stored the vector to this in-memory image.

Furthermore, the new code knew how to make a window disappear and happened to attach this code to the OK and Cancel buttons. It also knew exactly how to call into the Windows internal system—called the Window's API—to facilitate the moving of the window that displayed the word count in the case that the user dragged the mouse on the title bar.

This amazing new code called into the Windows API through a mechanism that programmers call a "message pump" which process "mouse move" messages and reports them back to Windows through a series of documented API calls.

Amazingly, when the code that was written by this cosmic radiation displays the word count, the new code knew exactly where to jump to allow Word to continue working without a single General Protection Fault.

This entire series of coincidences happened in just a few billion years.

Now isn't that just amazing?


Oh, no. I'm sorry. I just realized that the word count feature already existed in Microsoft Word and was developed by a team of highly-trained programmers with extensive experience in C, COM, the Windows API, and also had special knowledge of the inner workings of the Word object hierarchy and each of the objects associated Common Object Model interfaces. And all this in just a few weeks.

How weird is that?