Archive for the ‘Faith’ Category

Bible believers, followers of Christ, bane of tyrants, have laid down their own lives spreading the gospel of love and freedom

August 30, 2014

This is my reply to a vicious slur against Christ and against the Bible found here and all to common even among liberty-minded writers sometimes. Keep in mind that even self-described atheist Rothbard recognized that many religiously inclined believers were often better defenders of freedom than fellow atheists. Ron Paul is a good example.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/danger-religious-fundamentalists-just-muslisms.html

This article is worse than a cruel slur. The biggest victims of the abuses of the Roman persecutions, the Inquisitions, Roman Catholic armies. Papal decrees, Muslim fatwas, and holy wars have been  BIBLE-BELIEVING CHRISTIANS who have been the ones who paid with their own blood not only in their efforts to share eternal life and love and freedom found in Christ from guilt, sin, death and hell.

And you forgot to mention that the Popes put the BIBLE as the number one BANNED BOOK. Libraries should be pushing the BIBLE as history’s number one book banned by religious tyrants. John Knox is one who was a priest who first found out there was such a book when he saw it in their banned list.

From St. Patrick’s “crusade” against Irish and British slavery (“Is it our fault we are born Irish?”), to David Livingston’s and William WIlberforce’s campaigns against slavery, through the Christian abolitionists’ attacks on slavery, Christians have taken the beatings for people like the ones who taught the writer of this historical ignorance.

I too was deceived by the lies they taught me in the anti-Christian “secular” godless government indoctrination centers K-12 and then Ivy League professors who promoted the ideology of the biggest regimes on the earth of history that said the same things and tried to “cure” their societies and bring freedom FROM religion. 

Beware because when the voracious anti-Christian propagandists take control, the ones in clear and present danger will be the ones closest to their power and ideology. Stalin first had all his Politburo friends murdered, then he went after the fellow socialist Mensheviks and other socialists, and then of course the Christians. 

Like Christ said, what is whispered in secret will be shouted from the rooftops, and nothing and no one can stop the truth, shared with the love of Jesus Christ. 

Look at this great breach of logic. And they say this is “reason”, “enlightenment”??!

How can anybody say it’s all the same?

Jesus Christ laid down his OWN life for unbelievers to spread the message of the God of love, Muhammad laid down the life of unbelievers to spread his message of Allah.

The earliest Christians laid down THEIR OWN lives to spread the gospel of the God of love, while the early followers of Islam laid down the lives of resistors in North Africa and Arabia and Turkey and southern Europe to spread their message. 

Impostors and tyrants and rulers use any excuse they can use to justify power: atheism, the Pharisees with the laws of Moses, the money changers in the Temple, the evil kings of Israel, the wicked priests Ezekiel exposed in Ezekiel 8 that worshipped the sun in secret and kept idols to devils within.

With Christians came opposition to such tyrants. The Amish and the Puritans simply refused to cooperate with the Anglican mandates. The threat to appoint Anglican bishops over the colonies, known for “drawing-and-quartering” punishments, added fuel to the fire of the American Revolutionary War. Oh yeah, and the greatest scientists of history, including the greatest one, Isaac Newton, a young-Earth creationist. 90 percent of the founding members of the first society founded for the study of science, the Royal Society, were Puritans. 

Around the world, Christians shamed the world into ending child sacrifices, cannibalism, gladiator spectacles, slavery, and all manner of evils. They began the institutions of universities, orphanages, charities, clinics then hospitals, reflected to this day in names like Red Cross. 

Even Charles Darwin, of  “The Origin of Species and… the Preservation of Favoured Races”, once wrote a scathing rebuke to critics of missionaries, defending them and their influence. He told how world travelers like himself on the high seas, when they came to the shore of a South Pacific island, breathed a great sigh of relief when they saw the cross atop a steeple, knowing that the missionaries were here and instead of becoming somebody’s dinner they would be dining in peace with new friends. 

And today’s strongest and loudest anti-slavery crusaders are Christians, and it is Christians who are setting fire to spread the strongest message of freedom today, the anarcho-capitalist message, because THAT is what the Bible teaches, starting from Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself, and Thou Shalt Not Steal, and Neither Do I Condemn Thee.

And the biggest call against tyranny of all is coming, and Bible-believers have been leading the charge for almost 2,000 years. The Mark of the Beast looks more than ever to be the embedded chip, that will be required by a new tyranny and one-world government. They might not even declare themselves as a government, but it will be required to buy or sell, and “really bad” penalties will apply to the freedom-minded. Many resisters will not be Christians. 

But there is a reason the present world rulers hate Christianity. They will be one strong element in those who stand firm in their faith, like in North Korea right now (see helpinghandskorea.com) and in Muslim nations.

Some of them who are prepared will feed and clothe you when you realize what’s happening. But that’s okay.

I once believed the lies myself. Welcome to the love of the truth. “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free”. 

 

Cosmos, SETI, and Drake’s unscientific equation

July 21, 2014

In reaction to ajaytao2010’s post and comments at:

http://ajaytao2010.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/cosmos-carl-sagan/

I remember one of his Cosmos episodes had Sagan saying he thought the Hindu version of a Creation story was closest to the correct one. I think he was the one also who saw the alien meme serving to help replace religion in people’s minds. He apparently made the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life his own such replacement.

Funny that SETI lifts up Drake’s equation to say it’s worth it, but go to Michael Crichton’s essay “Aliens Cause Global Warming” for a scathing rebuke to scientists for ever treating Drake’s equation as meaningful at all. He pointed out that *every single one* of the components of the formula was completely and totally arbitrary with absolutely no way to know any of it.

Have you noticed how aliens play the role of (pagan-type) gods in science fiction stories and from what I saw in one or two “UFO”-themed magazines, them too?

Is there religious persecution in the US?

July 20, 2014

Some people are still laughing in the United States at the idea that there is persecution against Christians in this country, because the Establishment Government Lapdog Media they go to for their news blacklists it. From news reports from recent years:

(1) Pro-lifers put in prison and with a record for speaking in public.

(2) A creationist in prison on tax charges because the judge censored the grounds for the defense, and because a state-loving envious Pensacola Bible College official denounced him (We pay Caesar, why not him?).

(3) Laws against street preaching.

(4) Lawsuit during Clinton years to rob a church of funds donated as tithe by a couple that declared bankruptcy.

(5) Constant IRS demands to audit Christian organizations, even when there is no statutory authority. For which reason the Billy Graham organization refused.

(6) Recognizing the attack against religious conviction in exemptions for “religious organizations” while refusing to exempt individuals.

Obamacare is only one case, where the dictates from H.H.S. “compromised” by exempting “religious organizations” but only ones with a majority of employees who are also members. Although done for propaganda and tactical reasons, it is a de facto recognition of a “legitimate” religious right by the government. But individuals are still disallowed. The Bill of Rights is a list of negative individual rights, not collectives-only rights.

–It’s equivalent to an establishment of the “exempted” religious organizations, in which a burden falls on individuals that does not hit artificial state-recognized groups.

(7) After Waco, nobody can even quote Paul to say “Ye have not yet resisted unto blood”. It was not a mainstream “sect”, but it was a brazen and violent aggressive attack on religious freedom.

(8) After the raids on a peaceful community in west Texas during which children were cut off from their families and phones confiscated, and all the children yanked away from their parents with all that trauma, on the basis of what we know was probably a bogus complaint, and the social workers were not able to get even one complaint of abuse from the children about their parents even after they confiscated phones and cut off all communications between the children and mothers, even after weeks of haranguing at them!

And the amazing thing that should shock us all is that nobody charged those abusive Texas authorities with criminal child abuse!

So we haven’t reached persecution in the scale of mass executions of Christians and probably other freedom-minded folks,  which may or may not be televised or censored.

But we are definitely already at the stage where “First they came for the Polygamist cult..” as quoted in the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_…

 

And to talk like it’s some preposterous idea in the illusory America, let’s add another from history:

(9) The Mormons were hounded out of state after state, with laws passed by legislatures specifically aimed at their unorthodox practices that harmed no one outside of themselves; their founder was arrested and then shot in cold blood by a mob whipped into a frenzy in Iowa; and after they settled in the remote areas now known as Utah, the government sent the Army to threaten them into changing their doctrines.

(10) Suppression of the best defense evidence in the trial of well-known Christians, such as Jim Bakker

(11) In the raid on the Northeast Kingdom Community Church in Vermont, the judge issued a scathing rebuke against the state and the government operatives found no evidence at all in the children of the accusations of child abuse after a raid in which they stole away the children:

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/07/11/us/sect-parents-in-heated-town-meeting.html

One comment from a parental victim: “What? Our children are ‘culturally deprived’ because they don’t watch Mickey Mouse?’ Come on, guys!

See, when the apologists for government indoctrination centers talk about home-schooled kids missing out on being properly “socialized”, they really mean socialized into the way THEY want them to be.

And they always say it’s “for the children”.

 

The Pope condemns inequality again, still does not offer to equalize himself

May 10, 2014

You can’t cure an infection by injecting flesh-eating bacteria, and you can’t solve inequality by legislating righteousness.

Jesus cared for the poor by feeding them, healing them, teaching them righteousness and diligence, by inspiring works of charity around the world, by the story of the Good Samaritan that resonates throughout the millenia and the world.

He didn’t care for the poor by getting the Romans to establish giveaways for the poor.

The Good Samaritan used HIS OWN money to help the victim in the road. He did NOT go and rob somebody else to use THEIR money to help the victim in the road.

Thou shalt not steal. (Oh, but they’re only rich if they stole it? Inequality is theft?) Good thinking, not. Government takes want it wants by force, by definition. And demagoguery by this first Jesuit Pope in history, same as the rest, is only exposed by the hypocrisy of it all:

http://trutherator.wordpress.com/2014/05/03/pope-condemns-inequality-praises-his-own-heirarchy/

Note that this Pope never ever condemns the thefts that his predecessors have committed over these hundreds of years. So many major riches gotten by the Inquisitors, condemning victims who committed the heinous crime of actually reading the Bible, and grabbing their riches, just like today’s confiscation laws used by law enforcers across the USA.

The silence of this Pope, this one more than any of them, for example, on using some of the untold BILLIONS in assets of the VATICAN to help the poor.

The only “violence” Jesus did was precisely when he saw the MONEY CHANGERS in the temple ROBBING the POOR by way of FRAUD.

IS THE POPE DEMANDING THAT THE MONEY CHANGERS OF THE CENTRAL BANKS OF THE WORLD STOP THEIR GRAND THEFT NATION LOOTING???!!!

This Pope’s administration did a dressing-down on that German bishop that was flaunting the rich man’s life. I wonder what he thinks as he walks through the halls of the Vatican, ponders all the Michelangelo art in their cathedrals in Rome, or considers the vast array of million-dollar art in their possession around the world, or when he looks at the Vatican income statement and the line items with their billions of investments around the world.

The Roman Catholic Church is one of the richest capitalist institutions in the entire world. It at least benefits from it, just like every other socialist institution in history.

No, he’s demanding more of it. Because when the rulers of this world (this Pope is one of them now) help the poor, they themselves do it with the loot of their theft. And the result has proven, over and over, that this does not work to help the poor, it just impoverishes everyone but the rulers.

Taxation is theft. That was the meaning of the plaque on Ron Paul’s desk, “Don’t steal, the government hates competition”.

 

“BONES” and Booth and Why

May 3, 2014

No awards. She’s the atheist and Hollywood idea of their version of an “Uncle Tom” because she’s too nice to the Catholic, even though she frequently insults his faith (for the screenwriter of course) and he always protests without any logic.

He’s still a typical Hollywood “good-guy” Christian (Catholic of course, they don’t do any other kind except the bad guys) who has no problem with her blasphemy, or preachers turning into trannies, and other stuff.

But the most likely reason they haven’t gotten awards is, (1) there’s too much heroic science stuff going on, at a time when they’re supposed to feed us stuff like “Idiotocracy”, (2) too much serious substance. Oh yeah, she wants to carry a gun.

It’s not because she’s totally irrational in matters like God and spiritual things and the design of the completely symbolic digitized language of DNA and its epigenetics. (it’s an epidemic among the smart guys that get grants).

They are a bunch of smarties, and half of Hollywood gets antsy and itchy with anything smarter than they are. I’ll bet you they feel insulted a lot in her condescending remarks. Hit dog howls. (Not that I like smarter-than-thou fictional characters, especially when they are.)

What can you expect from a crowd that congratulates itself for Seinfeld, deep-sixes Nowhere Man after only one season? This is a world where a guy gets a Nobel Peace Prize for nothing except getting elected president, and where Climategate didn’t even get them to bat an eyelash.

It’s not so intellectually enthralling that it gets kicked off the air (like the first Fugitive series), but it’s so good they can’t give it an award. Can you figure out how that works? (Hint: Madison Avenue)

 

Answers to quotes by famous atheists and agnostics

January 26, 2014

“We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.” -Gene Roddenberry

My reply ==> We must question the irrational logic of someone admitting to being a faulty human, who then fails to wonder why an omniscient and omnipotent God would create him, as if it made no sense to him. Of course it makes no sense to him, as he does not want to consider the answers to this question that he would know exist if he were to only have an open mind.

We must question the intellectual honesty of someone who wants to blame a Creator for his own decision to be faulty in his logic.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” -Edward Gibbon

My reply ==> An amazingly historically ignorant comment coming from such a historian, who must know that all of the major areas of study of modern science were men much wiser than he, and who believed in the Creator God as a fact of reality not always concomitant with what the ignorant know as “religion”. Let us see who is wiser among: Gibbons, Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Michael Faraday, Johann Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle…

So does Gibbon determine truth by a majority vote of the smarter-than-thou elite, selected by degree of hubris? Sounds kind of “useful” for such an arrogant class.

Speaking of the wise, take it from the wisest man who ever lived, outside of Jesus Christ:
Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise
Isaiah 5:21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” -Epicurus

This from one of those brilliant idol-worshipping scholars of ancient Greece? No wonder they believed in pagan gods that were no better than men, said women were lower than men but higher than slaves. They were so smart. Just like today’s version of the same intellectual smugness:

Acts 17:16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.
18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoics, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.
19 And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?
20 For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.
21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)

“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” Albert Einstein

That sounds like the common protestation that “I’m not so bad”, or the very wrong commonly cited myth that “All people are basically good”. Look at toddlers in a day care. Some bigger ones walk around biting the others (I know two toddlers personally that were bitten, hard, unprovoked, while they were toddlers in day care). Some are born aggressive, others not so much. Jacob and Esau fought in the womb; Jacob emerged grabbing at Esau’s feet.

The best universal guide for ethical behavior does not need so much of any of what Einstein said. It’s a universal rule that has been expressed in many different ways everywhere even outside of Judeo-Christian philosophies, and that is expressed in the libertarian refrain, known as the non-aggression principle:

See the best definition at http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression:

…an ethical stance which asserts that “aggression” is inherently illegitimate. “Aggression” is defined as the “initiation” of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance.

This much can be expected and indeed required of everyone. As a college student, my first disillusion with Marxism was a realization that came to me one day while musing on the issue of how to change the world for better, and wrestling with the self-contradictions of a dictatorship and the proletariat and the idea that a state would just fade away.

The idea that burst into my head was this: If you cannot trust a man, or group of men, to govern themselves, how can you trust them to govern other people? Of course some people you cannot trust with either situation, to either govern themselves or to govern others, and this is one of the biggest questions people have. Such questions have their answers, for those who seek them or accept them.

There is a much stronger ethic required of Christians, however. One of the Ten Commandments orders us to “Love thy neighbor as thyself”. No, you don’t have to “love yourself first”, that is the opposite of the principle, because “no man yet ever hated his own flesh”.

Jesus made it stronger still in the Golden Rule, paraphrased as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

The non-aggression principle, for example, says you have no right to steal from the poor. The Christian ethic says, take care of the poor that come across your path. That also means you don’t steal from others to do it, because the only legitimate source you have for helping others is what’s your own. In other words, Help the poor with your own money, not somebody else’s money.

Okay? If you don’t want anyone to steal from you, then don’t steal from others. Taking without the owner’s permission is stealing. To “steal”: “to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch”. from http://dictionary.reference.com/.

Andrew Napolitano clarified that last point. If you don’t have the right to steal from your neighbor, you cannot designate any representative to steal from your neighbor either.

NOW THE SECOND ISSUE FROM THE EINSTEIN QUOTE:
THE WAY OF MAN IS ALREADY THE “POOR WAY”

“….Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” -Albert Einstein

The elephant in the logical room that Einstein missed is the fact that all men everywhere are already “restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death”. Is Einstein saying that he needs neither government nor self-defense to prevent attacks or theft by his neighbors? In the places where people are most conscious of posthumous rewards and punishments, of course, we already know that those selfsame places are where you have less need to lock your doors.

Did Einstein’s actions match his words? No he did not. Because he was visiting in the United States when Hitler came to power in Germany, and Hitler did not go back. Instead, he opted to live in a society where the regime did not embrace such a philosophy. For when the atheist has power, he does not believe in having to answer for his actions here or there, so self-delusion drives them to force everyone else into their box.

 

//

Aliens, Michael Crichton, and Faster Than Light

July 25, 2013
American author and speaker Michael Crichton s...

American author and speaker Michael Crichton speaking at Harvard. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

An reaction to comments by a UFO researcher:

 

THE LEAP TO ALIENS

 

The leap from “I am matter and ..matter is made from energy” and what should be the self-evident fact of “consciousness …separate from my physical matter self”, to a galaxy replete with alien sentient beings has a great logic void gap. Nothing connects the dots, there’s no testable theory there about how you get from point A to point B. Personal experience, as subjective as it often is, has its evidentiary worth, but it’s not enough for that.

 

The flying machine you say you saw (I do believe it) “could be ..human made”. But you offer no reason to say it could not be a human technology.

 

Now some human inventions in my opinion have been divinely inspired by God himself, such as the Guttenberg press, which accelerated the pace of knowledge sharing, and the Internet, with its potential, to which God no doubt blinded some of the NWO dictatorship operatives, in the fulfillment of Daniel 12:4, that “knowledge shall be increased” in the “time of the end”.

 

I have no formed opinion on crop circles and don’t know enough about then that isn’t from sources I can trust on the matter. Some ufology sources have useful information, but some of those have misinformation on other matters, so I won’t discuss them for that reason.

 

There is of course the elephant in the room when we discuss “higher intelligence” and extraterrestrial life, and “alien ancestry”, and that is God himself, the Creator of the universe, and the host of angels that serve him and the smaller number of demons (aka “fallen angels”) that fight him.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

MICHAEL CRICHTON

 

As to Michael Crichton, he is much less a cretin than some of the examples of the ufologists and Drake equations fans I’ve come across. A friend introduced me to a UFO magazine once, and you could have changed the cover on it to say New Age Superstition and it would be hard to tell the difference.

 

SETI, favorite charity of Carl Sagan, was founded by Mr. Drake, he of the Drake Equation. Crichton totally unmasked the formula as pure blind faith.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

FASTER THAN LIGHT

 

That this is something to consider is valid. Einstein is not God, and special relativity is not Holy Writ. His cousin (and wife) had to even help him with the math of it, no doubt. Quantum physics even introduces a mechanism for a truly “free will” to enter into physics equations if they’ll deign to let a divine foot in the door. We shall see whether that works. Don’t hold your breath.

 

Quantum entanglement experiments have shown that there is something interacting with what we can measure that communicates at an apparently (to us) “infinite” speed, meaning instantly.

 

I was in college at the end of the 1960s, and was fascinated by some of the areas of scientific study that scientists seemed panicked about researching for fear of ridicule I suppose, or maybe feeling ridiculous. They shunned studies of telepathy-related phenomena. This led me to wonder about other things, including prophecy, which led me to the Bible as an unbeliever, and eventually with other considerations to a Bible believer, based on facts, science, history, prophetic fulfillment, and other things that pointed to that direction.

 

I may look at some of your links but my time is divided and limited so no promises, but the above will show you what I have found not only through personal experience but through careful study, and the testimony of science and history.

 

 

Answers to the same old tired anti-theist arguments against the Bible

June 4, 2013
Dawkins: Debates Make us Look Bad

Dawkins: Debates Make us Look Bad (Photo credit: Templestream)

[Editor's note: My replies to a comment on another blog post was much too long to handle piecemeal with quotes or to leave as a comment, so I have copied the visitor's comment to here and placed my replies  in-line within brackets.

It is something I would usually post on my sister blog http://www.truebook.wordpress.com where I address Biblical, doctrinal and related issues such as atheism, but since the original discussion grew from a previous posting in this blog, it therefore goes here...

NOTE: Quotes from Commenter "Cluttered Mind" are in normal text and left-margin aligned, while my comments are indented and bracketed and in red bolded font]

(Mr. “Cluttered Mind” says:)

It is interesting that out of the entire library of information on evolution you picked out the Punctuated Equilibrium hypothesis–which is not supported by the majority of evolutionary biologist–in an attempt to prove your point. If you wish to claim that evolution is not supported by science (which it is no matter where your beliefs lay, they don’t change the facts) then we only need to look as far as a few examples.

ME: [Punctuated Equilibrium
has always been the answer that darwinians use. in forums where I've been. to retort the fact that the "fossil records" testify against darwinism. It is the only hard physical evidence of the history of life on earth, the only hard forensics evidence, and the evidence Stephen Gould offers for it is that the only thing paleontologists find in the fossils is STASIS. There is no darwinism in the record. There is only evidence of change within what paleontologists call "forms", and what many Creationists call "kinds".

Yeah, Dawkins rejects it, so what is
Dawkins left with? The only physical evidence there os
contradicts his claim (and Cluttered's claimed "majority"
vote biologists' claim) gradual change from kind to kind,
there are no bones showing change from "form" to form

Below next Mr. Confused does what I've warned about before
and passed right over my comment that farmers have been
doing the same degrees of changes with their animals for
6,000 years! No Creationist in the world makes claims that
animal kinds like finches never vary in the wild in beak
length. This is like arguing that high-jumpers can reach the
moon just because one of them jumps higher than the other
one.]

The Lizards of Pod Mrcaru. A species of lizard named Podarcis sicula, which enjoys an insect based diet, occupies an islet in the Mediterranean called Pod Kopiste. In 1971 a group of experimenters transported five pairs of these lizards to the neighboring islet Pod Mrcaru where none of these lizards were found. In 2008 another group of scientist visited the islet of Pod Mrcaru. The scientist found a flourishing population of lizards which DNA analysis confirmed to be Podarcis sicula. Not only did these lizards flourish, but they showed a variety of changes in their biological figures. Due to the lack of insects on Pod Mrcaru, these groups of Podarcis sicula were forced to live off a vegetarian diet. This new diet caused their bodies to adjust in different ways. Their heads increased in size: longer, wider, and taller. This change accompanies a vegetarian diet due to the increase in strength needed to grind plant cells which are stiffened with cellulose. Another intriguing change in the Pod Mrcaru Podarcis sicula is the development of a valve called a Caecal valve. In many carnivores this valve is connected to the Caecum; a gut that houses bacteria, acting like a fermentation chamber allowing the vegetarian food to be more easily digested. These changes were only represented around nineteen generations.

[And there is a "theistic
evolutionist" who once claimed in another forum that he had
bred fruit flies to acquire a test for blood. He said he gave
it up when they started wanting his
blood. So what? Mountain lions eat wild grass as some 5
percent of their diet. Animals of all kinds were originally
vegetarian in the Garden anyway.


Adaptability was part of the original Creation. Creation
scientists pointed this out long before Darwin was a gleam in
his father's eye.


In fact, "natural selection" was a term
invented by a Creationist for they way created kinds adapt
to their natural environment
.]

I have a feeling that this will not be a good enough example for you, as your beliefs seem to be set in stone.

[If my beliefs were "set in
stone", I would not have become a darwinist atheist in the
first place after years in government-controlled high school
and college, or might have been stuck in la-la land of
Darwinism thereafter. Einstein said ""The important thing is not to stop questioning" and I didn't]

….If you would like another interesting example (I hope that you are at least open minded enough to research this and learn a little bit about it) search for Lenski’s E-Coli evolutionary experiment. That is an experiment that involves forty-five thousand generations of evolution in the lab (where you stated it never happened before). If you wish to look for any type of blind faith to ridicule, you only need to look as far as your own bible. There is not one shred of evidence for any supernatural myth proclaimed in the bible…

[I once believed this
generality myself, but there is absolutely not one shred of
evidence to disprove anything in the Bible, Darwinian and
pagan origins myths included, but Bible-deniers have been
embarrassed time after time by discoveries, especially by
archaeology, with evidence for much of what was attacked
specifically. There is a long list of counter-evidence to the
should superstitious myths of Darwinians and anti-theists that
fooled so many of us so long, where their theories say
"somehow.." but should read "And then a miracle happens",
like: #1.spontaneous bio-generation (life from non-life),
#2.the statistically impossible confluence of physical
constants that constitute the "anthropic principle",
#3."inflation", #4.quasar-galaxy red shift "anomalies",
#5.upside-down geology strata, #6.polonium halos, #7.the
fossil record. Just to name a few of the many more.]

…If you wish to deny evolution then I sure hope you do not go to the doctors to receive vaccines. Evolution is a proven theory, you can close your eyes and cover your ears all you want, it does not make you correct.

[Are you willing to match your
own research with your words? Creation scientists have been
yelling at the anti-theist scientists for decades that
organisms are designed to modify themselves, down to
the genome. It's finally begun to sink in, but don't expect
the overlords of entrenched Establishment Academia to admit
who got there first, but recent discoveries in epigenetics has
given the bio-geneticists fits, one of them anguished because
now they have to rewrite everything. (Besides, it's still
E-Coli. No proto-jellyfish, no proto-coral, no-proto anything
but E-Coli.)

Okay, so uncover your eyes now. I repeated the research on
this:

#1. Bacterial 'Evolution' Is Actually Design in Action. (Read
the whole thing for better understanding of the actual
experiment where the real science is):
http://www.icr.org/article/7083/

In 2010, biochemist Michael Behe
reviewed 12 new phenotypes, which are outward expressions
of genetic coding, that Lenski's E. coli
displayed from 1994 to 2008.2 Behe categorized
the known genetics producing each new bacterial phenotype
as either losing, shuffling, or gaining what he called
"functional coded elements," which include genes and gene
promoters. All the known changes in the bacteria were
either a loss or reorganization of pre-existing functional
coded elements. None of the new phenotypes came from a
gain of functional coded elements, and yet this is what
molecules-to-man evolution requires.

....

Therefore, not only did the Cit+
bacteria not evolve in the molecules-to-man direction, but
they showed what could only be ingenious DNA rearrangement
mechanisms. What mainstream headlines portrayed as
evidence for evolution is actually the opposite.3

So, all they did was breed E coli like a
dog breeder wins competitions. Yada yada. It's like using the
human immune system as evidence that rats evolve into humans.
The human body creates thousands, maybe millions, of white
cells with different genetic expressions to look for cellular
invaders to attack. When an infection occurs, it does this a
whole lot more, an automatic genetic experiment to try to find
the key that will unlock the door to kill the invaders.

#2. "No fruit fly evolution even after 600 generations":
http://www.icr.org/article/5779/....]

I want to now address some of your other claims in your original post:

“We are told that when we share our faith and speak out loud we are hating others.”

Yes, when your religion preaches hate any morally decent person would speak out against it….

[...Opinions about morality are
just that.... Telling me I hate somebody because I warn him
about behavior I see as harmful is love, not hate. But I
wasn't even talking specifically there about LBGT. You said
this without knowing square one of what I think. Stereotypes
and using the word "hate" are covers for Pavloved unthinking
reactions...]

Spewing that LBGT individuals don’t deserve rights (or as the Westboro Baptist church members like to proclaim—and one can argue that they are more faithful then you to their holy book—that they should be slaughtered).

[You using the Westboro group
against ME is an example of an unthinking hateful reaction. And
you don't know anything about interpreting the holy book, You
like to say there's a bunch of different interpretation in one
day, and then claim to tell me what it means another day!]

…I guarantee if a Muslim individual stood up above a crowd of others he/she would be would be treated with abhorrence. Just because you think that your religion is the one that is true does not abstain you from criticism.

[Just because you think my
religion is wrong you are not immune either, but it's an
irrelevant point to what we're talking about. The blog started
as information about who is doing the bullying in the United
States of America today.

There are about a dozen Muslims who would also disagree with
your guarantee as relates to me. At one place I worked with a
very "fundamentalist" Muslim and we agreed that we had
more in common than most of the people around us. We shared
our faith with each other in great politeness, and it was a
much more respectful discussion than either of us has usually
gotten from atheists, we both agreed.

That young boy was quoted as saying he felt bullied just
because somebody prayed. I felt bullied in government school
when a teacher taught that the my faith was wrong]

“We are told that a five-year old kindergarten student is expelled for SILENTLY bowing his head in prayer over every meal in one place (where they had to be forced to apologize to the parents by legal action).”

Can you provide a source? I can’t seem to find any evidence of this happening anywhere.

[It was a long time ago and I
haven't found it but there are lots of similar incidents.

The incident I
referred to was in St. Louis, and reported on radio by one
who works with such attacks on religious freedom across
the country. It's easy to find ongoing examples of the
same thing in a search, though:

12 Students Suspended for Praying at School:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/12-students-suspended-for-praying-at-school-26130/
Of course it is still a far ways to go compared to the
brutal treatment of Christians and others at the hand of
atheists and radical Islamic regimes in the 20th century
and 21st.

But there are ominous precursors...

Nevertheless, in cases of suppression of religion
in schools, universities, and the public square so-called,
there are so many cases that even the ACLU has a big and
growing list where they have defended Christians:
http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

Where Christians rightfully should object
to the ACLU perspective is when they take the religious establishment
clause and use it to support an official anti-religious
establishment
.


Duh. There is a Reader's Digest story from 1954 that I
remember reading that I now cannot find anywhere without
paying them a charge for a reprint, --if-- it's even
available. The article is real, and referred to a then-recent
experiment with prayer and plants growing. But I can't find it
on the Internet.

Anti-theists once said that there was no Assyrian Empire, it
was just a Biblical myth. No evidence for it anywhere. (Until
they found it).

Today's new generation of reporters do not think a five-year
old getting suspension for praying silently in one school is
much of a story.

Two months ago, many people thought Christian and conservative
groups were "paranoid" for claiming that the government was
treating them unequally under the law.

The mainstream "trusted name in news" trotted out a parade of
voices that said there was no "evidence" of this.]

“We are told that the money we pay in taxes or that our employers or where we buy from have to pay in taxes to support teachings that tell our children that their religion is wrong.”

I highly doubt teachers are going from class to class in schools hunting for children with religious parents (to call a child a Christian child is wrong, not child abuse, but wrong; let the child decide for themselves what they wish to believe) only to preach to them that their religion is wrong. If they are doing this then they should face consequences for it. The separation of church and state clearly states why religious institutions should not live within government programs.

“We are told that our Bible is racist, misogynist, genocidal, and that our fellow believers in the past were too.”

Only true ignorance can explain why an individual would believe it is not these things.

[You are steeped in true
ignorance.

The fact is, racism, mistreatment of women, genocide are
prohibited in the Bible. The "stranger" from other lands was
to be treated with great respect.

For example, you cannot use the example of Abraham apparently
offering Isaac up, for example, to say the Bible promotes
child sacrifice. The story itself, and especially in context,
shows that God is VERY MUCH AGAINST child sacrifice.

Mr. Confused then lists a bunch of verses that he probably
found an a militantly anti-theist web site. Of course, just
like Muslim-haters pulling certain verses out of the Koran and
feeding them to people that know little about it, to tilt the
apparent "evidence". Too many Christians blindly follow this
tilt, and "Christian Zionists" are th worst.

I haven't read the Koran in its entirety so cannot say that
the Koran more supports this or that. Many Muslims contradict
the Western propaganda that it supports total war against the
whole world at all times. What I concern myself with is their
action.]

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

[If you ignore context, especially the
context of the whole Bible, distorts understanding.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew
nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither
male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Verse 21, for example, provides context for verse 22 in Ephesians
5, and for 1 Timothy 2 as well:

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one
to another in the fear of God.

22
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands,
as unto the Lord.

Women in the Bible have led the nation of Israel,

Judges
4:4
And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife
of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
–She also led them in battle.

In a visit by Paul who wrote the letter to Timothy, he was
confronted also by four daughters who prophesied and joined
their father in warning him against going to Jerusalem:

Acts 21:9 And the same man had four
daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.

Paul elsewhere praises godly women leaders in the churches.


Do you hate your body? You are to love your wife as you do
your own body.
Epthesians 5:28 So
ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that
loveth his wife loveth himself.

Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

So we see that in the Bible…

#1.women have led the Israelites,

#2.kings at times sent for counsel to a prophetess,

#3. in the latter days daughters shall prophesy,

#4.men are to love their wives like Jesus loves the church and gave his life for
it, that

#5.four daughters that prophesied were there warning Paul against a trip,

#6. Women were the ones who first discovered that Christ had risen, a little girl was the first to announce that Peter had been released from prison, a misogynist scripture in those days would never have given them such credit.

#7…AND, to the same young man Timothy, Paul himself praised
his mother and his grandmother for teaching him so well in the
faith:

2 Timothy 1:5 I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also” (2 Timothy 1:5).

And after Bible days…

#8.Christians had respect to women, in contrast to patriarchal Roman culture in which men almost literally owned their wives and families, and to the Greek culture that held that women had a worth in the middle between men and slaves.

#9.St. Patrick’s followers established monasteries where often a woman was the leader, because he was all Jesus and all scripture all the time, and loved the Irish as himself. This was in contrast to the Roman hierarchical clergy that locked out women of the most important spiritual leadership roles.

#10.It should be remembered in fairness that it was a Queen Elizabeth in the protestant England who led the country during the time that the Spanish Armada met its disastrous defeat, and even the King of Spain had to say that God himself had fought against them that day…]

“This is what the Lord Almighty says… ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

[One of my favorite verses for the point about context. To read the Bible leading up to this verse, it shows how backwards you can get a meaning or the
significance of a verse when you take it out of context, like Peter said about Paul's writing, "to their own destruction".

The Amalekites had attacked Israel on at least two previous
occasions, something mentioned even in the same chapter if you
had actually read the chapter to find out.

The Hebrews were commanded to leave all the women and children
alive whenever they took a town or an area of the country at
that time. That's something left out of those atheist web
sites that condemn Christianity (based on what morality, it's
hard to tell, since their philosophy says there is no
morality-law-giver).

On at least two occasions in the Bible before the time of
Elijah, the Amalekites had attacked the Israelites, even after
the Israelites had left their women and children alive,
as commanded when told to take over these lands. However, they
were so wicked that the women raised those children to again
attack them.

They may have even been planning another war against Israel
when Samuel got this message. It would be consistent with
other times Israel fought. Later on, the Syrian king is
frustrated because the king in Jerusalem got prophetic warning
whenever he was planning on attacking.

BUT since Saul did NOT obey and wipe them all out, and some
escaped, most likely the queen and the king's son, because the
Amalekites show up later yet again and almost succeed in
wiping out the entire number of Jews throughout the Persian
Empire, at the hand of the wicked Haman, who is identified as an
"Agagite". An Agagite,  descendant of the wicked King
Agag of the Amalekites.]

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)

[Yes, these were the witches of those days like the ones that still today in many lands, who knew the tricks and recipes to cook up poisons, take power over other people by stealth and enchantments, and foor a price do great harm to somebody. In Israel it also always went together with pagan rites, child sacrifice, secret intrigues, and of course there is always plenty of fraud. 

It is seen as working in lands where people generally believe in it. In the 21st century, it stays mostly hidden from the innocent because it still carries some social stigma. The stigma is rapidly diminishing, though, to the hurt of our society.

For example, Hitler was a big follower of such occult practices, and his SS was top to bottom a priesthood of witchcraft.

Generally it does not work on believing Christians, to the consternation of practitioners and the demons they invoke, as one former Satanist has said. In the lands where people generally don't believe the devil exists, he is
more than happy to oblige by staying in the shadows.

My daughters saw this in action in Honduras more than once. A
girl who pointed at a pencil and moved it like John Travolta's
character in Phenomenon, and after she split with a boyfriend,
on a dare, had him begging for a redo.

...And another tech colleague from Cameroon whose family is
split between sorcerers and Christians, and who hates
Halloween for its celebration of real things.]

“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)

[There you go taking verses from a list without checking, that remove context
to contradict the intended meaning. This was a specific prophecy against
the enemies of God that was fulfilled the night of the Handwriting on the Wall in Daniel:

Psalm 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

This is also another example of the Biblical law:  You reap what you sow]

“So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)

[Yeah, do you want one very old man to go out there and take on the entire bunch of thugs? Not for nothing that the anti-theists leave out what happened
next. He stayed alive so these thugs could get their due punishment as a lesson for the rest of this wicked tribe.

That was the tribe of Benjamin, and they had forsaken
the laws of God and fallen into violence and wickedness, like
the present violent USA.

So the old man went home and sent messages to all the other
tribes about what those wicked men had done. All the tribes
had a meeting and they demanded that the Benjamites punish the
thugs. Benjamin's tribal elders refused to punish them. Now,
with the entire tribe exposed as equally guilty, they fought
the Benjamites and of course in the end it was capital
punishment for them.

What would you have done?

I knew one brother who came home mutilated once because a gang
of five approached his female partner (in witnessing) to rape
her. He got the verse in a quick prayer, "He teacheth my hands
to war", and fought them off so she could get away.

What would you have done?]

“In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:27)

[Romans 1:27 is a warning you of the
consequences of your own actions is
love,
not hate. Hate is when you slander the messenger because you
hate the message. I tell you socialism makes poor people even
more poor, you can't tell me I hate you if you're a socialist.
If a person hears a warning given in the spirit of love, if
it's in the spirit of love or concern, or a sincere warning,
and reacts with anger, or hate. or accusations of hate like an
adolescent to his well-meaning parents, this shows a spirit of
guilt, meaning the reaction shows a knowledge of being in the
wrong.

Every Christian voice of any significance at all in the United States has denounced the Westboro gang. 

Some church-ites do live up to the self-righteous stereotypes. But that's an attitude I've seen very common among atheists as well, who get snotty-nosed and uppity about how much smarter they are than dumb brute Christians. And then although they have no independent external basis for any morality themselves, get so self-righteous indignant about sins of Christians, while saying that the truly massively brutal regimes of official atheists don't count.

Like Christopher Hitchens blaming the mass murders in the officially atheist regimes of Lenin and Stalin and Mao, and blaming Christianity! Can you believe that!

 Westboro cannot get more than two or three dozen people to follow them, and most of them seem to be  from the same family. They are literally shunned by Christians.

Atheists don't like mentions of Stalin and Mao's mass murders but they love to bring up the Westboro gang. That shows they do not believe in treating others
with the same respect they demand, or that they see the world with warped lenses. I once suffered the same sight impairment.

John 15:22   If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.]

‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2)

[This is the one story that best shows that God HATES child sacrifice. 

Christians are the babies' best defense against the brutal, atrocious barbaric practices in
today's aborticide centers.

The operative word in Gen. 22:2 is "offer", as in "offer him
there", NOT "sacrifice him there".

In literally HUNDREDS of verses God promises the harshest
judgment against this pagan practice of sacrificing children
"to the fire", denouncing worship of Molech, a pagan god of the day for whom
they built idols with fires inside for babies.

Proving that atheists often do have moral sensibilities, many
atheists are horrified over today's baby-killing fields.]

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

[This is already answered
above. In context, Paul also wrote that husbands and wives
should submit themselves to each other. In the verse just
before it, 21, he wrote that everyone in the church should
submit one to another.

"One flesh" doesn't mean one arm beating up the other arm, it
means taking care of it.

In the context of the culture of the times, too, it seems that
in some churches there were some women from the Pharisaical
traditions, and from the very misogynistic Greeks, and
even Romans, and others, that they went wild with the freedom
they had in Christ, like the mother-in-law in Corinth that
seduced her own son-in-law and he went bragging about it.
That's where you get Paul's harshest words about women.

Another point. In government and even other schools we learned
a bit about St. Patrick. I talk about his life elsewhere. His
followers in Ireland went on to establish monasteries that
saturated the island in the years following his mission. Most
of those monasteries were famliies living together. And a
great many of them were led by women "shepherdesses", or pastors.

The missionary work I was privileged to work with is also now
led by a woman. Very strange, in officially atheist lands I
can't think of one woman dictator (they're all dictators of
course).]

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

[That very bad verse comes not from the actual Bible but from one of
the worst plagues on Christiandom of the 20th and 21st
centuries, and that is, COUNTERFEIT BIBLES.

Here is the real genuine verse from the Holy Bible,  the Authorized Version”, also known as the King James Bible, although he only authorized it and refused to let it be named it after himself:

1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with
all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the
froward.

After all, Darwinism gave strong
impetus to the Jim Crow laws, forced segregation, and
oppression, and later to eugenics. Pygmy Ota Benga was kept
in a zoo. Congolese rebels are even eating Pygmies, saying
they are “animals”.

That’s the other stupidity that
creeped in from counterfeit “Bibles”, using the words for
“holy race” instead of “holy seed”. If the Israelites and
Jews of David’s day and Jesus’ day were a holy “race”, then
they were a “mongrel” race, because in their veins flowed
the blood of not only Jacob, but blood of Joseph’s Egyptian
daughters, Ruth the Moabitess, Rahab the Jericho prostitute,
Ammonites, Edomites, Hittites, and all kinds of “races”,
brought together by the word of God.
]

To conclude, here are some helpful links to information about evolution. I hope you sincerely take the time to research the topic; it is quite enlightening, much more than a burning bush.

[Of course I not only have
researched it from both sides for decades, there was a time
when I was not so educated in the subject, not as convinced
you might say, that I picked up a book at a clearance sale
thinking it was a Creation science book, but I was
very glad to find out it was a collection of articles and
essays that were compiled as the best effort to "prove
evolution".


I was a little nervous about reading the article by Isaac
Asimov, but his arguments against Creationism were ridiculous.
He struck down arguments from authority for example, that
Creation scientists never ever use in debates. In fact,
Darwinists that do debates seem to always want to argue about
religion, while Creation scientists keep bringing them back to
science.


That book clinched the issue for me forever, though. It
was an experience like, "Is that the best you got?!?!"


In fact the editor, Ashley Montague, said he got the idea
for the book after being totally embarrassed after a debate
with a Creation scientist. He didn't say it that way, but it
was obvious.


So now, a Darwinian that gets a challenge to a debate
with neutral rules, will usually curl up his nose and act
snottier than the snootiest British royal of old and refuse to
"stoop" so low.]

….

[The rest of it is links to anti-Creation web sites.

[
Note that from Darwinists you will never get the whole
story. Creation scientists would actually like to see
more
teaching of the facts that relate to the "general theory of
evolution", including facts they always leave out.]

This one is about misconceptions about evolution, probably the most important link in my reply; it even touches on your punctuated evolution claim.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

[Note that from Darwinists you will never get the whole
story. Creation scientists would actually like to see
more
teaching of the facts that relate to the "general theory of
evolution", including facts they always leave out.]

Of the misconceptions propagated on anti-creation web sites, some are completely ridiculous, some are reasonable, some of their criticisms of some the assertions we already agree with because we already agree with them and they do not contradict Creation even if talkorigins thinks it does. Also, anti-creationists love to find straw man arguments and ad hominems that are easier to take on, instead of truly addressing the scientific origins issues actually raised by Creation science

Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

[The so-called "evidence" for darwinian human origins theories has been refuted ad infinitum by science and Creation scientists, often with excuses for the lack of evidence, and plenty of fairy tales to fill in the gaps, as in the symbolic digital coded nature of the DNA code, the origins of life, the lack of any forensic example or even as much as an artificial breeding on scales higher than "kinds" or "forms", the lack of addressing the objections to the pre-hominid constructions, the ongoing insertion of Hoeckel's frauds into textbooks, Pasteur's experiments proving that life can only come from life, on and on it goes.

Instead they offer some facts always with language that imposes the theory overlaid on those facts, a circular circus that's enough to make you dizzy. Using variation within kinds as "proof" of variation from kind to kind.]

A video from Jerry Coyne on evidence for evolution. Get passed the heathen Richard Dawkins’ introduction.

[Dawkins' militancy is a ball and chain around the neck of anti-creationists, a vestigial shadow of the brutal atheist regimes of the 20th century. He calls creationists insane, and says letting them teach it to their children is "child abuse" (his words). He even wants to restart the conversation about eugenics. Oh, but Darwinism has nothing to do with racism, eh?]

Here is a link where one can find answers to many or most of the talk-origins claims about Creation science:
http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims

In fact, many of the talk-origins web pages have been changed after their refutations appeared on the Creation wiki, They were so obvious.

Here is a list where those who are really interested can find out more actual real-world science, mostly relating to the subject of origins:

http://www.icr.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.creationtoday.org/
http://www.kenthovindblog.com/?page_id=399
http://www.creationtoday.org/
http://www.creationscienceevangelism.com/

You can a bunch of free videos here. They are free downloads, and they are even free to copy to distribute I think, as long as you don’t charge for them; the copyright is meant to protect that:
http://freehovind.com/index

<…….>

One student prays, atheist claims “religious bullying”. Poor thing, let me count the ways…

May 29, 2013
English: Isaac Newton Dansk: Sir Isaac Newton ...

Isaac Newton (1642-1727) (Credit: Wikipedia)

KJV Bible

KJV Bible (Credit: knowhimonline)

Here’s the link:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/28/atheist-graduation-prayer-its-religious-bullying/

Poor guy, right. The anthropic principle, inverted fossil strata, polystrate fossils, the very long list of quotes from darwinian believer scientists that call evolution a “fairy tale for adults”, a “scam”, that it does not meet the traditional requirements of “the scientific method, these are all robbed from the texts, thrown out with God from inside. Students get failing grades on papers for believing the Bible on origins, for believing the Bible on homosexuality, for believing the Bible on history.

Isaac Newton is even bullied and his reasons for doing science are not allowed in a science class. What he thought about science and what it proved are not allowed. What Isaac Newton thought was his most important work is not allowed.

I’ve been subjected to more religious bullying for being a Bible-believing Christian in one day than this kid will ever get in his lifetime for being atheist, take it to the bank. One place was so bad, where they put me and three other contractors in one conference room. One New Yorker and a Russian played one-up-joke tag on me when the topic came up –mind you I never push when somebody’s not interested but I do reply even some flippant questions when asked.

I just pointed out one day how it was officially atheist regimes that had done more mass genocide in one century than all the monotheistic regimes in history combined. And pointed to Hitler‘s reference to a religion that was so dangerous that they had to kill them all. (And he did point to the religion, and he said Christianity was the “bastard stepchild” of Judaism and he would wipe it out too).

The other guy I think was Jewish and must have gotten so offended at those guys that he must have told somebody, because the development manager delivered a strong rebuke and warning. It slowed down but never stopped.

We are told we cannot set up in front of a government-funded school that teaches that our religion is wrong.

We are told that we cannot thank our God for our blessings.

We are told that a five-year old kindergarten student is expelled for SILENTLY bowing his head in prayer over every meal in one place (where they had to be forced to apologize to the parents by legal action).

We are told that the money we pay in taxes or that our employers or where we buy from have to pay in taxes to support teachings that tell our children that their religion is wrong.

We are told that when we share our faith and speak out loud we are hating others.

We are told that our Bible is racist, misogynist, genocidal, and that our fellow believers in the past were too.

We cannot escape the news feeds that tell us every stupid insult against Christians that proselytizers of militant anti-theism like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens can think of, epithets of stupidity, ignorance, and dangerous they say. Therefore, they say, it is a form of child abuse to teach our children what we believe.

We are subjected to the most ridiculous and idiotic “theories” of history than no historian believes and whose purpose it is to tell more lies about Christ and Christianity.

And we are the bullyers? Hello? What’s next? They’ll accuse us of war crimes because Christopher Hitchens said Christianity was to blame for the mass genocides of atheists like Mao Tse Tung and Josef Stalin??

Who are the insane ones here?

Jeremiah 2:27

Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.

 

International corporate juggernauts

May 27, 2013
George Soros, billionaire

George Soros, billionaire (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

A “return back to international corporate juggernauts” does not deserve the revisionist history heaped upon it. People’s real incomes increased leaps and bounds from 1850 to 1900 in the USA, before a faction of “international corporate juggernauts” began to yell about those (other) “international corporate juggernauts” and “we have to stop them!” and they started passing laws to stop those (other) “international corporate juggernauts”.

 

Except, of course, they told us they were “one of us” and they were “helping” us stop those (other) “international corporate juggernauts”. Pay no attention to billionaire George Soros‘ billions, he’s “helping” us by financing “Obama“, please don’t look at the money, pay attention to the rhetoric please.

 

“Right wing” and “left wing” are from the Doublespeak dictionary from this particular subset of a faction of “international corporate juggernauts”.

 

The de-salination machine example is good for the illustration of the principle. The “real-world” counter-example of state-funded technology development is an illustration of stealing your money to give it to somebody, but the greatest advantages of recent centuries have been from private initiatives. The telegraph, the steam engine, the telephone, radio, telescope, movable print, vacuum tubes, microchips, cell phones, plastics, air conditioning, the PC, all these things were developed with private initiatives, not the state. The state wastes valuable resources that could be used for production, diverting them to political priorities, or the whims of the guy who likes using money confiscated from your pocket for his own whims. “Scientific” or not. Haha. Like studying whether monkeys get high on marijuana. Thank you, but no refunds.

 

The libertarian philosophy does not consider state funding as “free market” friendly because it is theft from somebody else. Lower taxes only means the state bosses are stealing less money from you.

 

Forcing you to hire somebody at more than minimum wage is neither “free market” nor “fair”. A free market of labor gives the teenager and the less-intelligent among us a chance to work for a living and contribute to production. The minimum wage tells him to go pound sand. Don’t worry, we’ll steal it from somebody else and we’ll pay you to sit on your fanny. Or we’ll steal it from somebody else who might have paid you more, so we can “subsidize” your pay.

Learn more at mises.org….

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 183 other followers