Sunday, July 30, 2006

Invasions

Invasion :
  • "invasion is a military action consisting of troops entering a foreign land"
  • "the dramatic increase in the number of individuals in a non-native population, accompanied by an expansion of range"
  • "spread to tumor cells into surrounding tissue."
  • "movement (migration) of cells into or through a barrier; penetration."
  • "the introduction of a pathogen into the host"
  • "entering a Country with a Hostile Army, Violate a CountryÂ’s borders or Neutrality"
These are typical definitions of an invasion. Interestingly, the 2nd instance is the one I want to address here.

As crazy or paranoid as what I'm going to say may sound it is nevertheless the simple, researchable truth:
Many free democratic nations of the world, including Canada and the USA, are experiencing a literal invasion.
War is traditionally defined as two opposing armies battling over geographical territories. This is no longer the only definition. Terrorism has changed that. War may now be waged without armies. Without tanks,fighterr-bombers, troops or multitudes of heavy equipment. Invasions can now be accomplished in a similar fashion.

For them, it is a question of Islamic rule of the "necessary" conversion of the world to Allah. Of course many or most will vehemently deny this - Google the meaning of "al taqiyya" - (they cannot be trusted to tell the truth). Some Muslims may be sincere and ignorant of what's really going on.

Their method of conquest is not by massive military forces confronting at national borders.

Their method of invasion is the same, in principle, as their method of warfare. A few persons at a time, coming in discreetly, using up national resources, reproducing abundantly and eventually taking over by sheer force of numbers + intimidation.

The city of Marseilles in France is now 60% mulsim. The city of Brussels in Belgium now has 300,000 Muslims. Look up the stats yourself.

The recent riots in France were instigated and carried out almost entirely by the ArabMuslim population to incite fear and submission to their will in France. Funny that the media does not tell us this!? More idiocy in the name of political correctness in not "discriminating" against anyone because of their religion. Many French are now in fear of them.

They are already demanding special status in our schools and in the Charter of Rights.

Europe is already largely invaded and is already planned to be called "Eurabia". Google it)

The invasion of Europe by Islam has been successful thus far. Much more successfull than the invasions of the middle ages. It is largely an accomplished feat already with some exceptions and areas remaining. In denying Christianity and it's values and worth, Europes' leaders have been letting the serpent of the new Islamic conquistadors in their front door and are now watching Europe, as it has been known for centuries, disappear into darkness.

In short Islam is attempting to conquer the world by simple immigration and reproduction. Simple. And we, thus far, are letting them do so!! Mostly invisible, largely undetectable for those who still believe the only danger is suicide bombers!. (one hundred Muslims turn into one thousand in just one decade) http://www.historyofjihad.org/reconquista.html

Worse; Political correctness in the free nations and the gullible idiocy and naivety of it's leadership and often it's citizens has made these invasions not only possible but easy - over time. Just a question of time if things are allowed to continue as now.

Historically Islam has mainly attempted world conquest by military might mixed with terrorism. This is no longer the strategy. The new strategy is much more simple, cost-effective and efficient. Kamikaze soldiers killing a few at a time - along with themselves, immigration and high reproduction. They tend to take control of things, one neighborhood at a time - forcing those who refuse to convert, to leave by persistent intimidation and threats.

The Arabic word Jihad is derived from the root word Jahada (struggle). Jihad has come to mean an offensive war to be waged by Muslims against all non-Muslims to convert them to Islam on the pain of death. Jihad is enjoined on all Muslims by the Quran.

It genders very little resistance from the foreign nations it targets. Indeed Islam relies on the fundamental values of tolerance and mercy adhered to by their targets to allow them to succeed.

If Canada and the US and Britain continue to accept Islamic immigrants North America, as we have known and loved, is doomed to fall to Islamic dominance with all it's consequence of human rights and yes, most certainly freedom. Violence against women and children, intolerance of ANY other religion and severity of rule and ridiculously severe sanctions and punishments for minor crimes are what one may expect. Just ask any christian who has had to survive in any Muslim nation. They don't survive at all! They either escape or die! Saudi Arabia practices this.

Conversion to any other religion is punishable by death even amongst themselves in many regions. Cutting off of hands and feet and heads is all part of the Quran's rules against "infidels" i.e. any non Muslim!

No, I don't hate Muslims nor Arabs. And, I also deplore racism and violence. But neither am I blind to what is obvious. One can see the realities just by looking more closely at the worlds present situations. This is now just as easy to see as for the many who saw the reality of the plans of the Nazis before WWII.

Time for freedom lovers, christians and anyone smart enough to see that all this is true to start yelling and complaining to your government and informing others a lot more loudly. The invasions must cease or free nations will cease to exist as we know them.

Again, write your deputy, MP's and government leaders and start demanding they stop this kind of immigration (invasion) before we lose all that we have lived and stood for since the beginning of our free, judeo/christian value-based, democratic nations.

Thursday, July 27, 2006

The Sale of America

Canada (indeed all North Am) is being sold to the lowest bidders. In becoming a quick & easy part of the "global community" by letting any criminal, terrorist or pretended refugee in we are losing our own! It is well known that Canada is a haven for criminals and terrorists. They come in easily, few questions asked, by claiming to be refugees etc.

Islamics and others have been invading this land for years - one by one. This is their method when they know they cannot win a real invasion. Take over slowly by reproducing abundantly in the land and putting more and more pressure on it's people to yield to their wants. Once they are in a majority position it becomes much more openly violent. Convert to Allah or else...

You think I'm exaggerating or paranoid? Wrong. Thems the facts. It can been seen all over the world now.

Just look at Europe, France...

Our anti-judeo/christian media does not put this on TV. They hide it. One is tempted to think that this is what they want. Not quite. What they really want is the death of Christianity in favor of secular humanism, the one world government (more and more obvious) and the scientific elite's view of what moral values we should and should not hold.

What you see on TV and various controlled media is generally anti-christian. Just look at the Lenanon situation. You see mostly Lebanese civilians wounded, dead or dying and you hear how Israel kills so many innocents. You never hear how Hezbollah is know for it's tactics in hiding amongst the civilian population so that when attacked they can show all the innocent blood shed Israel has caused to the whole world in order to gender sympathy for their cause!!

They are notoriously brutal to their own people and have no qualms at all about sacrificing them for the TV cameras and press! One never hears this on CBC, ABC, NBC...the whole friggin' alphabet of public news stations. And this is supposed to be the free world of the free press. Bull shit. You see manipulated footage and hear Islamic and humanist propaganda every day on the news.

This land has been on the moral, social selling block for decades. Decency and moral correctness (as opposed to political correctness) have been fleeing the country for many years.
The fake "rights" claim by small aggressive lobbying groups like the whole "gay" movement have been buying the country through pretended claims to rights for years. It has in fact little to do with rights.

In being media deceived into believing that moral and social idiocy = tolerance, we have been selling our national, moral souls to the lowest bidders.

Not only to radical Islamic terrorists, that we've been very naively and foolishly letting in for a song and a dance, but also to many other "doctrines of devils", if you will.

"Rights" is always the claim. Our morally blind leaders do not know the difference between "rights" and "right". It's a cruel joke, and we will pay dearly for it over the next century or two if we continue per the status quo. It is impossible to redefine marriage. They think they have done so. But one cannot change the Law of Nature. Nature always wins. It is stupidity of the worst kind to try and do so.

Nations who think they are smarter than nature and try to change fundamental laws have always been those on the brink of moral collapse - which in turn leads to national weakness and the inability to distinguish right from wrong --- eventually --- moral, social and economic collapse. This we can readily see in our media and judicial systems. "He gave them fools for judges" said Job.

Next on the agenda will be what? Bestiality, pedophilic "rights", the de-tabooing of incest and such. The "right" to marry your dog? "Considering themselves to be wise, they became fools".

With the morally brainless twits that have run this land (with the possible exception of Harper who seems to be conscious of real, enduring values) it is entirely possible if not probable.

I for one am totally fed up with the marketing of evil in the guise of tolerance and "rights".
They have, in fact, preyed upon America's sense of judeo/christian values to destroy those values. Cunning.

All this can be traced to the secular humanist movement; (Which in turn can be traced much father back in various naturalistic and/or atheistic philosophies)

Man is god - that is their credo.

"Remove religious taboos in the name of freedom.", they say. But freedom, real freedom is the power to subdue ones emotions and submit one's will to do what is right. Not to do whatever one pleases. Freedom is self-control, not self indulgence.

This notion of true freedom, in our present society, is waxing and waning away through the influence of the gods of humanism. Along with the notions of personal responsibility that come with it. One must not confound humanism with humanitarianism. The two are vastly different.

It's time the moral majority, got off it's "laissez-aller", don't scream till it hurts you personally, butt and started screaming to this government!

But how? That's the imposing question. It's actually easier than it seems.

Personally - by lobbying, writing letters to your MP or to the PM in person is a good start. Writing to your local news papers and speaking up is also good. Most of them are too cowardly and under the control of humanist interests oligarchs to print letters opposing the politically correct but it's worth it anyway.

You can look up your local MP on the web. Here's the PM's e-mail : pm@pm.gc.ca
Write him. The more we are who write and air our views the more attention we get.

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Lebanon evacuations - again

Here's an e-mail forward I received on this subject that shares my exact views (I removed the authors name):
Hi Everyone;


I just had to write this to get it off my chest. You may or may not agree with my sentiments however they are my opinions.

I was watching CBC news coverage this morning of the events concerning the returns of Lebanese-canadians. You'll note I did not capitalize the word Canadians when referring to these people as it was evident by their comments that they consider themselves to be Lebanese first and Canadians second. The more I watched the madder I got and I ended up turning off the television.

A host of the returnees to Canada were complaining about the Canadian Governments and it's slow response. Some of the returnees commented that Canada should be ashamed of itself for it's slow response in getting them out. One person complained about taking 11 hours to get to Cyrpress and also complained about the sandwiches that they were given. I was stunned at the ingratitude of the people being interviewed. Considering the logistics involved in getting thousands of people out of Lebanon I think the Canadian Government and other governments did well.

I got to thinking about the situation and came to the conclusion that Canada now seems to be a land of opportunists, not opportunity. The only two people in my family who got a free trip to Europe were my dad and my uncle Charlie who were shipped overseas to serve in World War 11. No-one asked most of these people to go to Lebanon so a free trip back with minor inconveniences is a good deal. Better than being dead I suppose.

Here is the deal. I will arrange to pay for a trip back to war torn Lebanon for any Lebanese- Canadian ingrate who agrees to the following. If you feel ashamed of Canada and it's response you should renounce your Canadian Citizenship, pay back the government of Canada (us tax payers) for the free services you received when you came here such as medical, dental, education, job start programs, housing, ESL classes, business venture grants etc. and for those going back to live in Lebanon give up your CPP benefits ( a great many Canadians are ignorant about the programs our tax dollar is paying for). As I stated earlier Canada seems to be the land of opportunists. I wonder what the percentage would be of these ingrates serving in our Armed Forces?

Now, you might view me as a radical and a bigot. That is your opinion. The above is mine. I am one of many CANADIANS who are just fed up with the ingratitude of some and the milking of our government by others. It's about time that people stood up and said enough is enough. Political correctness is a way to stifle people from speaking how they feel and in some cases speaking what is the truth. Affirmative action is nothing more than reverse discrimination. As I stated earlier I am fed up with the hyphenation of Canadian citizenship. You are either a Canadian or you are not one.

I intend on sending this letter to my M.P. and anyone else I can think of. If you agree with me please pass this on, if not, then press delete.

A Canadian from Winnipeg MB
------------------------------------------
So this post is my way of passing it on!

Lebanese (or any other "opportunist" refugees) "canadians" that have this abominable, ungrateful attitude are more than welcome to hike it out of Canada (at their own expense please & thank you) for good and take their religion of hatred and war, wife & child beating, lies and al taquiyya with them. (Yes I've read the qu'ran and it's most obvious).

Maybe we should lobby the government to stop letting these kinds of unthankful, profiteering lollards in this country in the 1st place.

I guess that about sums it up.

Monday, July 24, 2006

Lebanon Evacuations

Various nations have been evacuating their citizens from Lebanon over the past week.

War does that.

Personally, I have a problem with this. All we see on Canadian TV reports is mostly Islamic Lebanese "canadians" bitching over the lack of quality evacuation conditions.

Why does any government have to evacuate it's citizens from a foreign country anyway? Who pays for the evacuation? The tax payer of course.

I fail to see any grounds for a right to complain from these ungrateful refugees from Lebanon, now Canadian citizens, now living in Lebabnon of their own choice.

These people come into Canada, or other countries, to flee warfare. They stay long enough to become legal citizens. Then they move back when more peaceful times arrive. Then when the inevitable warfare starts up again due to terrorist activities common to their home land, they bitch and whine like insulted brats because the government doesn't move as quickly as they wish to get them out again!?

Disgusting attitudes. How about we just send them back and let them stay there? - at least until they have the decency to appreciate that any aid is given at all. This is the problem - not the aid - the attitude!

They went willingly, they paid for their passage. So why is it that when things go wrong they cannot pay their own way back and be thankful they were even allowed in a war-free land in the 1st place?! They went, they knew the risk - it's their problem. Why should the normal tax payer have to pay enormous sums of hard-earned money to move these profiteering "citizens" back? They went on their own, let them fend for themselves, or be thankful and grateful there is any help at all.

We can be pretty sure countries like China, Russia, Cuba and many others, would have done nothing at all for their citizens in such a situation. They would have told these people, "You left and went there on your own, you come back on your own". Or they would have simply said and done nothing at all.

It is the good grace of some countries to lay out great expense to help their own.

I see no possible excuse for people acting like spoiled rotten brats whenever the government doesn't get them out of the trouble they have moved into in long war-torn lands.

I appreciate even less the fact that these ungrateful quislings are given free stay in hotels on their return, and that a Prime Minister (or President) should move out to greet them.

The government would never do any such thing for those that live here and stay here!! These must pay for the others. And no special aid is ever available to home-dwelling citizens who simply cannot afford to travel the world.

Yet look at the incredible offerings these refugees get, things that most native born Canadians never get! Like the way they receive more money from our idiot government than our own retired senior citizens get from the wanning CPP! The list of refugee benefits is long and ought to be an embarassment to our mindless wimp politicians who are always trying to squirm their way out of giving anything to true citizens but are always giving away rights and cash to low-life complainers!

Let these complainers either pay their own way or stop whining like ungrateful nigglers. And let them become true citizens or no citizens at all!

Monday, July 17, 2006

The lighter side of Evolution

Evolution explained in laymen's terms:

*********
All matter came from one place the size of a pinhead, it then exploded and created the known universe. Suns and planets formed. A chemical soup on the surface of one planet formed a precise arrangement of molecules needed for life. Tired of floating around as a simple life form, it had a vision of being the founding cell of all life. Too big a task for a little cell? No! This was no normal cell. It was a cell with a purpose. It would be responsible for every tree, bird, worm, plant, frog and bacteria. It was determined. So it focused on doing what no other group of organic molecules had done before—reproduce. After a million year long struggle (even though it's life-span was only 62 seconds) it succeeded. Now there were two.
*******
Fish evolved feet to walk on land because they wanted to go where no fish had gone before.
*******
Elephants evolved trunks to carry their luggage.
*******
Spiders evolved webs because it was hard work chasing flies.
*******
Flying fish evolved feet to make it easier to sit in the trees.
*******
Bees evolved tiny wings capable of flight because it was easier than using tiny ropes to climb flowers stalks.

Then they discovered, after much mathematical and physical experimentation, the strength of honeycomb structures and built hives.

Then they evolved into a colony because they were lonely and so they all moved in together into the new hives.
*******
Slugs evolved mucus secreting cells to reduce the sandpaper effect caused by crawling over rocks on their belly.
*******
Trees evolved leafs because they too felt naked after the Fall of Adam & Eve.
*******
Fished evolved fins because the propeller systems they tested were inefficient.
*******
Flowers evolved because seeds believed in flower power.
*******
Ants evolved antennae because their mouths were poorly formed for speech but they really needed to communicate.
*******
Peacocks evolved bright colorful feathers because they had low self-esteem and wanted to feel attractive.
*******
Birds evolved wings cause it was much easier flying than climbing trees to make nests. Many died trying to figure out the aerodynamics of flight before they came up with a good body/bone design.

Eagles and falcons evolved acute eyesight because they crashed into mountains and trees without it; also because they couldn't see little mice way down there.
*******
Scientists have discovered that dinosaurs produced massive amounts of methane gas in the intestine, which over time, entered the atmosphere to reduce sunlight and caused an ice age. It is postulated a single dinosaur toot contained 50 cubic liters of methane gas. If cavemen could have harnessed this resource they could have had central heating in their caves. Thus dino farts caused the extenction of dinosaurs. Was it sucide?
*******
Giraffes evolved long necks to breath above the methane fumes.
*******
The first human stood upright to get a better view of where he was going. He then discovered that walking upright was easier on the hands.
******
Frogs evolved into princes because they were sick of living in swamps and eating bugs.
******
Bombadier beetles evolved exploding gas mechanisms in their butts because they wanted to have a blast while finding some defensive function for farting.
******
The super brainy wasp - Hymenoepimecis, Ichneumonidae - developed chemical injection systems for Orb weaving spiders (see symbiotic post below) that cause the spiders to weave a nice comfortable cocoon for the wasp. Why? Because they were simply tired of having to do everything themselves.
*******
One day the zoo-keeper noticed that the orang-utan was reading two books - the Bible and Darwin's The Origin of Species. In surprise he asked the ape, "Why are you reading both those books"?
"Well," said the orang-utang, "I just wanted to know if I was my brother's keeper or my keeper's brother."
*******

ho ho ho!

Birds from Dinosaurs?

Why not princes from frogs while we're at it? Oh, I forgot, that IS evolution in a nut shell.

Man, the prince, evolved very slowly from the lowly amphibian. That solves it. No need for magic wands or a kiss from a beautiful princess! How convenient. The result is the same, just add time - lots and lots of indifferent, ever moving time.


Baloney eh! A faery tale for grown-ups is what one scientist called Darwinism. Birds from dinos? Eagles from T-Rex? Walt Disney here we come!

Dr. Alan Feduccia speaks on the problems with the evolution of birds from theropods as being incompatible with the evidence:
"Although the digital mismatch between birds and dinosaurs is anatomically the most serious problem, other versions of frame-shift hypotheses will be needed to explain such problems as the transformation of teeth and tooth replacement, the transformation of a dinosaurian septate, hepatic-piston breathing system to a bird flow-through lung, the complete abandonment of a balanced seesaw body plan to the avian model, and the reelongation of already foreshortened forelimbs, to mention a few. Perhaps the greatest form of special pleading will be necessary to explain how flight could have originated from the ground up; our present knowledge indicates that there are two requisites for flight origin: small size and high places. Also, it must be explained why these superficially birdlike theropods only occur in the fossil record 30 to 80 million years after the appearance of the earliest known bird, which is already well developed, and why Triassic theropods are devoid of birdlike features.
Question: Where did birds get the knowledge of flight from? Did some of them just keep on tryin' and dyin' in the attempt until they figured they had to develop lighter bodies with hollow bones, feathered members that fit with Bernoulli's principle? "O look guys, I can flap these things attached to my body and when I do I get off the ground, now if only I could figure out how to orient myself in the 3D space up there without crashing and killin' myself." Darwinistic scenarios are ever and always too simple - read childish - to be viable.

One is, once again, hopelessly lost at any attempt to explain this through macro-evolutionary means (random mutations + selection) Imaginations over what you can only presume and assume may have happened will not do as they do not constitute "real science". But then, speculation, assumption and presumption are key words to evo theory and have been since the beginning as Darwin admitted.

Alan Feduccia again:
"Despite the popularity of the dinosaurian origin of birds, many ornithologists and physiologists, in particular, have had tremendous difficulty with the theory (8, 10, 11) because of a huge and growing body of contrary evidence and the fact that a ground-up origin of avian flight is considered a near biophysical impossibility (12). Aside from criticism concerning the cursorial origin of avian flight, there are problems related to the geologic, temporal occurrence of putative dinosaurian ancestors, which occur some 30 to 80 million years after the appearance of the earliest known bird Archaeopteryx, and these forms become more and more superficially birdlike as one approaches the latest Cretaceous. There is also the fact that virtually all of the anatomical features used to ally birds and dinosaurs have been disputed."
Let's look, once again, at the fallacies of evolutionary thinking.

The whole theory is based upon a suite of logical fallacies to start with, and that ALONE should be sufficient for having it thrown out.
Here's what it sounds like:

"like this, therefore from this" ;
"before this ,therefore because of this" ;
"like this therefore related to this"

These statements all contain a logical fallacy. It's usually called assuming or affirming the consequent and also incurs an undistributed middle fallacy not to mention a blatant post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy - look 'em up con and make the comparisons, it's as plain as vanilla icecream.

Isaac Asimov once said,
"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
And surely many theories were dreamt up just that way! Should we thus believe that all theories, according to this quaint little phrase, are therefore the pure truth?? A simple Yes or No please. Obviously no sane person would say that all theories are true. Some are, some aren't. Macro-evo theory ain't!

"like this therefore from this" = affirming the consequent & post hoc
"before this therefore from this" = post hoc ergo procter hoc

Any theory that relies on these logical fallacies as arguments is worthless from the start.
Evo theory uses several all in one pass and all in the very foundations.

"primates have similar anatomy to humans therefore humans must have descended from primates"
Assuming (or affirming) the consequent - the conclusion is gratuitous and many other conclusions could be offered with equal weight. Such a statement assumes the validity of the theory in it's premises. Not nice at all.
The conclusion is assumed by taking it for granted that the theory in question is indeed true: "if primates and humans have similar anatomy and genetic traits then the latter must come from the former"
That is an exact definition of affirming the consequent - if A therefore B. B therefore A.
an undistributed middle: two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common property

How much clearer can one get?! The standard neo-Darwinian theory, in it's definitions or premises, commits several logical fallacies. This would never pass a court of law (with a smart judge). It gets by very easily in modern "science falsely so called" (1 tim. 6:20), especially biology. Sad.



Remarriage - The unpardonable sin? (1)

In evangelical circles, this sin is never actually called "getting remarried after a divorce". But that's the way it is in reality amongst too many protestant churches..

Any sin is easily forgiven in churches these days - except getting remarried. It is among the only things (are there others?) that one can do to be permanently banned from the pulpit and having no further possibility - ever - of getting "credentials" among many evangelical denominations.

Thankfully not all evangelical groups practice this abomination of final shunning and rejection against their brethren who have suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous divorce.

All christians who are interested in this matter should read Michael Braun's book "Second class Christians" on the subject. Here

The words of Jesus on this are so mis-interpreted and even more mis-applied that the church is almost universally guilty of torturing and persecuting divorced/remarried people who love the Lord with all their hearts.

The infidelity clause Jesus used shows where both divorce and remarriage are permitted. Paul also gave more conditions concerning those married to unbelievers.

To say that because there is no specific bible verse that mentions violence, there is therefore no legitimate reason for a divorce in those cases is ludicrous and cruel to say the least. I have noticed that most of those who inflict all the pain and accusations of adultery on those who have remarried have never themselves been through any such situation.

It's saying that women (or men) who are subjected to habitual violence in their marriages must suffer all their lives for it. No hope of starting over, no hope of redemption, no hope of real acceptance in the church and no hope of ever being loved or loving again - i.e. no hope at all!! Unless of course God intervenes and changes the guilty person's will. Which of course, God never does! Good old free will. One of the great beauties of the universe and the reason why evil is possible.

Let me say something here: if you believe that the person who had the guts to go through a life-time commitment to someone, in all sincerity expecting that marriage to last "till death do us part", is in adultery if they find themselves betrayed, abandoned and repudiated by the one they loved, then you need a good lesson on betrayal and it's violent consequences on the human spirit. Not to mention some re-reading the WHOLE scriptural story on the subject!!

Now here is what I have witnessed in a ton of churches that claim they love the Lord and are supposedly following the more excellent way :

A christian gets married in desire to respect the laws of God and show their desire for life-long companionship with another.
The marriage goes haywire with one of the couple betraying and deserting the other, or the woman has to leave for the sake of her own physical well-being with a violent spouse. Violence and infidelity always go hand in hand.
The person goes, unwillingly, through the torture and shame of divorce
The person is from then on treated as like a 2nd class christian, if as a christian at all, by 3/4 of the church they went to.
They are then warned against re-marriage as a sin.
They are told that if they get remarried they will be living in adultery and therefore will not be accepted for any kind of leadership or teaching position in the church if accepted at all!
They decide to get remarried.
They are henceforth shunned, humiliated and treated like dirt by both pastor and members and so they end up leaving and believing that christians and the scriptures are heartless, harsh and tormenting intolerant things.

They are right about the "chrisitans" in question. They are wrong about God and His Word - it's the teaching that is wrong.
..... Ok on with the typical story ...
Next thing you know some guy comes walking in the church doors and gets "saved".
He's slept with 32 different women.
Never had an ounce of decency to commit to any.
Lived with some of them for a year or two.
Beat a couple of them half to death.
The church receives him with wide open arms and because of his demonstration of growth and fervor he is invited to become a minister after a stint in bible school. No problems cause he wasn't married !!!??!
What hypocrisy and stupidity is this?
How much pain and anger must this cause in the heart of God !?

God sees through this hypocritical and ungodly behavior.

The christian that got married in all good faith is blatantly rejected for deciding that God was good enough and big enough to forgive the past and let them start a new life. But the swine-hearted pig that slept around for years with no faithfulness ever to anyone is heartily received with acclamations for his "amazing conversion and call to ministry" - no problem - he never got married to any of them!! "Nothing legal" = free leeway into all this sacred for this one!

Let's take this kind of thinking to it's logical conclusions: marriage is a dangerous thing, it's failure is punishable by shunning. Yes, let's all just remain in common law since if it ever goes wrong there be still be a possibility of real forgiveness and starting over with a new love - because no legal papers have been signed!

That's exactly the message the youth of our nations are receiving toaday. Don't get married 'cause divorce sucks and remarriage = shunning, rejection and banning from public ministry in the church! I know many young people who fear marriage because of this!

Those righteous ones who don't want to disobey God and fornicate before marriage are liable to severe punishment for their obediance if the other partner goes conjugually AWOL. The unrighteous one who just fornicates because he hasn't the back bone to commit can be admitted to ministry any day after repentance.

Strange "justice" is this indeed!

Do the cruel comforters of Job really believe that God is as cruel and exacting in the Law to the last drop of blood as they are? Do you believe that this is the way God treats those who have unwillingly and forcibly been betrayed, dragged through the courts, humiliated, suckered for huge alimony, had their children taken from them and wept long, sleepless nights over the disaster? And will still weep for years to come at the very memory of it all!!

Is it not obvious that He who is the father of orphans and the helper of widows, the strong tower to the helpless and feeder of the hungry does not shun, condemn and reject his own children who have been so obnoxiously treated!

Do you truly believe that God does not see the outlandish hypocrisy of giving such treatment to those who have been so badly wounded, all while receiving the habitual fornicator or worse with wide open arms and no problem for ministry and proper christian behavior!???

I, for one, am ashamed of the hypocritical actions and attitudes of the church in this area.

I've seen it myself and heard of so many others it's ridiculous. Any heathen can see the hypocrisy and illogic of it. The Church should correct itself on this and the sooner the better. It also needs repentance and restitution for all the unrighteous dammages it has caused victims of divorce who remarry.

Remarriage - The unpardonable sin? (2)

Most churches act as though the unforgivable sin "getting remarried after a divorce".

Former homosexuality with multiple partners or bestiality in the most debased actions is no problem for the church! Come on in, get saved, get delivered, go to bible school. We'll give you a nice pulpit to preach to nice people - But boy you better not have been legally committed to anyone before!! Better not even think of getting re-married if you've been subjected to the horrors of divorce !!!

How anyone can believe that the punishment, for having been sincerely & legally committed in marriage and then gone through the barbed wire of divorce, is a life of stark loneliness - alone and without any more right to ever love or be loved again is far beyond me.

If that is the God you see in the bible then you're not seeing rightly at all - not no way, not no how.

There will be chastisements coming to the church for this ungodly behavior towards the victims of betrayal, violence and divorce.

Does all this mean that we should just permit divorce and remarriage anyway anytime ? Of course not - it's our duty to try to save a marriage if possible - but there are cases where it is literally impossible because God won't interfere with another humans will !!

It must be a case by case scenario where both the Word, the circumstances and simple good old common sense are applied.

Thank God for people like Braun who dared go against the evil traditional vein and speak out against the unpardonable sin being called remarriage!

Some of the most spirit filled, gifted and godly people I ever met in any church were remarried people who went through the hell of betrayal and divorce.

There are also times when divorce actually becomes the duty of a christian!

You cannot live with someone who sleeps all around and call that a christian testimony - it is anything but - and is usually called stupidity due to bad religion.

It is the right and the duty of a believer to divorce a marriage partner who has become habitually unfaithful - after proper efforts have been made to redeem the marriage of course - and who refuses to change.

When adultery has been committed by one partner the "one flesh" union has been severely broken into more than one flesh - the betrayed partner needs to pray over the situation and apply forgiveness but that doesn't mean they have to continue to let themselves be betrayed over and over!! That's just plain idiocy.

Sexual, conjugal betrayal is one of the deepest psychological, emotional pains humans can experience.

It is in itself an act of violence against the betrayed partner.

Why should the betrayed partner have to suffer the ball and chain punishment of remaining alone and lonely until that other unfaithful or brutal slimey rat dies!?!

There is more than one way to die. I've seen people literally change personalities in some couples. A death of the union is almost always the outcome when the said changed spouse "dies" to their former self, and then goes on to other partners in adultery.

People change. Some life events can change a person to the point of their becoming unrecognizable to their former self. That's a fact and is common when a beloved child dies in the marriage. In fact something like 75% of couples who live through a infant death end up in divorce. Only those who have lived it can understand it. So blindly applying some isolated bible verse to them without any love or understanding is sin!

75% of all couples - christian or not - that have watched their beloved child die, go through such titanic inner trauma that they can literally change personalities. One ends up living with someone they do not know - a perfect stranger. Divorce is the inevitable outcome whenever that changed person decides they don't love you anymore.

Change is not always for the better in couples. Yes redemption exists, not only for one gone astray but for the one left behind to suffer the sting of betrayal and rejection - both from the guilty spouse AND from the church!

I ask, did Jesus apply the Law as to stone the adulteress? It was the Law! The written Word of which He was the incarnation! It was the only scriptural action and option He had. Well ?? (BTW, where was the man in that case?!)

So I plead with all readers. Do not stone divorcees and re-marrieds! Do not tell them they cannot love again.
The way these things have been blindly applied in the past is in clear contradiction to the whole concept of both forgiveness and justice.

A person that has been forced into divorce for no fault of their own and against their will, or a person who has found divorce the only solution to living with an unfaiful and abusive spouse has nothing to be ashamed of !!! It was not their doing, anymore than when a child dies of cancer it is the fault of the parents. Is it justice to punish those then with ball and chain to a partner who will go sleep and live with whoever they wish?

Another pastor friend of mine - with a Phd in theology - saw his wife die of cancer. He later got remarried to a divorced christian woman. Wrong you say? Ha!

That woman married a man who she found out soon after was a homosexual!! The man - a bible college student - clearly deceived her! Would you even call that a legitimate marriage? I would not. And I highly doubt God does.

Think about that. There are hundreds of circumstances that we cannot understand nor judge - case by case is the true rule - otherwise we continue to do what we have always done as the church - PUNISH the suffering !

Rejection of remarried christians - from ministry or other - is wrong. It doesn't ring true of the God who said that "mercy triumphs over judgment."

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Where does God come from?

A question often asked and generally not very well answered. The question itself though is faulty and that's why it's not easy to answer.

Asking where God came from is, as someone once noted, "like reading Jules Verne novels and then asking where Jules is to be found in his books".

Simple huh.

He isn't "there" per se. His books are not him.

Besides, since, by definition, God created the whole time/space universe, He cannot "come from" "anywhere" since the "where" of space-limited human reference point did not exist until He made it!

That's what transcendence is all about. That's what self-existence is all about.
God does not "come" from or "go" to anywhere since He is also, by definition, omnipresent. He just is.

An omnipresent being can neither go nor come, as we understand those movements, since he must be everywhere at once. Something like what Jonathan Livingston Seagull learned - "absolute speed is being there".

Monday, July 10, 2006

Molecular motors - ATP synthase

Image : http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/atpmushroom.gif
Movie : http://www.bioc.aecom.yu.edu/labs/girvlab/Bioenergetics/ATPsynthase.mov

A critically important macromolecule—arguably “second in importance only to DNA”—is ATP. ATP is an abbreviation for adenosine triphosphate, a complex molecule that contains the nucleoside adenosine and a tail consisting of three phosphates. As far as known, all organisms from the simplest bacteria to humans use ATP as their primary energy currency. In each of the approximately one hundred trillion human cells is about one billion ATP molecules.
Without ATP, life as we understand it could not exist. All the books in the largest library in the world may not be able to contain the information needed to understand and construct the estimated 100,000 complex macromolecule machines used in humans. All the books in the largest library in the world may not be able to contain the information needed to understand and construct the estimated 100,000 complex macromolecule machines used in humans. Anything less than an entire ATP molecule will not function and a manufacturing plant which is less then complete cannot produce a functioning ATP.
Dr. Jerry Bergman

New X-ray crystallographic studies have revealed the working of adenosine triphosphate synthase, the basis of energy transport in all living organisms.

ATP captures the chemical energy released by the combustion of nutrients and transfers it to reactions that require energy, e.g. the building up of cell components, muscle contraction, transmission of nerve messages and many other functions. ATP synthase molecules located within mitochondria stick out on the mitochondria, attached to their inner surfaces in mushroom-like clusters. When food is broken down or metabolized for energy, the last stages of the process occur within the mitochondria.

The ATP synthase molecule, has two parts. Recently, scientists in Japan discovered that one part, the "mushroom stem," apparently rotates within the "mushroom cap." Last year, a Nobel prize was awarded to the researcher (Paul Boyer, Ph.D., UCLA) who suggested that forming ATP was somehow tied to this rotation, and the prize was shared with another researcher (John Walker, Ph.D., Medical Research Council Laboratory, Cambridge, England) whose team laid out one of two possible structures for the "cap," which is believed to be short-lived.

In new research, researchers at Johns Hopkins University determined the other structure, believed to be the most common form, in living organisms. The ATP synthase "mushroom cap," they found, contains three identical areas, arranged like a coil, where ATP is made. Each area is occupied with a different stage in ATP production.

As the "stem" rotates, it creates a powerful internal shifting in each of the three coiled sections within the cap. This shifting provides the energy to cause chemical changes. At one site, the "ingredients" for ATP come together. At another site, they assemble as ATP, and at the third site, the rotation readies the fully formed ATP to pop off the synthase molecule, for use throughout the cell.

A team led by L. Mario Amzel, Ph.D., and Peter Pedersen, Ph.D. used X-ray crystallography to reveal the molecular structure of adenosine triphosphate synthase. Inside, the molecule whirls around several times a second while it triggers production of ATP.

"It's one of the most complex molecules ever revealed, almost six times larger than the blood molecule hemoglobin," says Pedersen. It's also, the researchers agree, one of the tiniest and most powerful motors ever identified.

The researchers captured the image of the ATP synthase cap while all of its sites were in some stage of making ATP, which is essential for the constant recycling of its precursors. Without this recycling, Pedersen says, "people would have to produce more than half their body weight in ATP every day to meet their energy needs."
http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/atpmechanism.htm

So, according to neo-Darwinism, this thing just happened by an unknown series of random mutations + selection?

Watch the movie - it could easily fit into a mechanical engineering class. Genius beyond genius is what is witnessed for any unprejudiced mind!

Could this machine have been evolved from random mutations over time? Suppose this one single example actually did come from such a random process by a billionth of a billionth of a chance. This does not help at all. Recent experiments in yeast have yielded the discovery 247 such nano machines in yeast alone.

Believing in one such event occurring by chance is one thing; believing that millions of such events occurred randomly all over the planet is a whole other story. It is in fact a stastical nightmare, with impossibly huge odds against it.

There are more than likely millions of such machines, working together for a clear purpose in concurrent processes. DNA is a recent discovery in historical time and we know very little about it and the world as of yet. We are just starting to discover just how incredibly complex biological nature actually is compared to Darwin's time when the single cell was thought to be just a simple glob of protoplasm. One thing is sure - the more we learn the more complex and organized it proves to be.

Anything that requires concurrency in processing to function cannot be the results of randomness. True randomness does not produce functional concurrency.

To suppose that concurrent processing as seen in bio-nano machines developped from random mutations is folly. It ain't gonna happen. Why not? Because all the 100's if not 1000's, if not millions of mutations necessary to arrive at concurrency in functional biological processes require the same, parallel concurrency in the mutations. Mutations do not occur concurrently with any degree of mutual, functional correspondance or dependance.

It's like imagining an organic computer coming into existence by itself with all the necessary functional parts growing in cooperation - yet without any guiding blueprint as to what the goal is, what the form or function should be, how the end product will look and work or anything of the kind.

Darwinism always assumes titanic concurrent leaps and bounds while ignoring the technical difficulties involved in parallel processing. Organic machines that cooperate with each other in a common goal simply cannot happen without intelligence.

Religion & Health

I've been involved in numerous debates with atheists who claim that religious people are mentally ill and that religion is bad for your health.

Here's an article pointing to many medical studies that say the exact opposite:

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/religionhealth.html

Here is a small excerpt:

Oman, D., and Reed, D. 1998. Religion and mortality among the community-dwelling elderly. American Journal of Public Health 88: 1469-1475.

In a 5-yer prospective cohort study of 1,931 older residents of Marin County, California, persons who attended religious services were 36% less likely to die during the follow up period. When the variables (including age, sex, marital status, number of chronic diseases, lower body disability, balance problems, exercise, smoking status, alcohol use, weight, two measures of social functioning and social support, and depression) were controlled, persons who attended religious services were still 24% less likely to die during the 5-yer follow up. During the 5-year follow up, there were 454 deaths. Subjects were divided into 2 categories: "attenders" (weekly or occasional attenders) and "non-attenders" (never attend).

Idler, E.L., & Kasl, S.V. 1997. Religion among disabled and nondisabled persons II: attendance at religious services as a predictor of the course of disability. Journal of Gerontology 52: S306-S316.

A longitudinal study of 2,812 older adults in New Haven, CT, found that frequent religious attenders in 1982 were significantly less likely than infrequent attenders to be physically disabled 12 years later, a finding that persisted after controlling for health practices, social ties, and indicators of well-being.

Koenig HG, et al. 1997. Attendance at religious services, interleukin-6, and other biological parameters of immune function in older adults. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine 27: 233-250.

Findings suggest that persons who attend church frequently have stronger immune systems than less frequent attenders, and may help explain why both better mental and better physical health are characteristic of frequent church attenders. Reported that frequent religious attendance in 1986, 1989, and 1992 predicted lower plasma interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels in a sample of 1,718 older adults followed over six years. IL-6 levels are elevated in patients with AIDS, osteoporosis, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, and other serious medical conditions, and is an indicator of immune system function.
As it is written:

Pro 3:7 Don't be wise in your own eyes. Fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
It will be health to your body, and nourishment to your bones.

Pro 4:20 My son, be attentive to my words; incline your ear to my sayings.
Let them not escape from your sight; keep them within your heart.
For they are life to those who find them, and healing to all their flesh

Relativism in religion?

Here's a letter to the editor, sent in response to comments made on religion in the face of the Islamic terrorist attacks in the USA on 911. I found it simple and to the point.

"Dear Sir,

Your article entitled, "God Truly Must Wonder About a World Of Murderous Religion
" that appeared on 03/24/2002, opened with the statement: The late Sydney J. Harris, the columnist and philosopher, wrote, "There can be no 'right religion' _ only right people.''

If, as you imply, it is narrow to claim that there is a "right religion," then what are we to make of this idea of "right people." Clearly, this means people who behave rightly, that is, behave morally. Your own article, by condemning violence and the taking of human life, contains the implicit assumption of a right morality. But such is entirely inconsistent with the relativist paradigm that you otherwise promote. If their are "right people" who obey a "right morality," and if violence is truly wrong, and if certain "Holy Books" are praiseworthy for their "high principles," then it is necessary that an objective morality exists. Such a morality must come from a trans-human source, else it is only a matter of one man's opinion against another. As prescriptive statements can come only from minds, it follows that the trans-human source of this morality, is God.

If God is so "narrow" as to set forth a right morality, then it is legitimate to suppose that He might set forth a right religion, that is, specific requirements that must be met by those who would seek Him. An author is known by his style. Observe the physical universe: Within the universe, things are either true or false. Physics, chemistry and mathematics do not work "just any old way." There is a right way, a right answer, a true answer for each question. These things are independent of any culture, opinion or time period. Every truth carries with it, the negation of an infinite number of other answers. For every right answer, there are an infinite number of answers that are, necessarily, wrong. It is logical to assume that God's morality works in a similarly exclusive manner. Suppose that all of mankind were guilty of violating God's perfect morality. In that event, His justice would require that we all feel His punishment, and if He were to make even one way for us to avoid said punishment, that would be purely an act of compassion on His part. We could hardly complain that He was being too narrow.

Stephen W. Jackson"

Homophobia

Homophobia: A word invented by gay activists to make sexually normal persons, who strongly disagree with the practice of homosexuality, feel intimidated, wrong or abnormal.

That's my personal definition. Not that fear of (phobia) homosexuals cannot exist - it does - but mere dislike of them and/or at least their sexual practices is something that is in fact, normal.

Golden showers, fisting, mutliple weekend partners and crap pushing practices are all their invention and they should be ashamed. AIDS is believed to be traceable to someone who practiced both beastiality (with a primate) and homosexuality - thus transmitting it to humans.

The new book, "The Marketing of Evil" by David Kupelian - see amazon reviews -
"reveals how much of what Americans once almost universally abhorred has been packaged, perfumed, gift-wrapped and sold to them as though it had great value. Highly skilled marketers, playing on our deeply felt national values of fairness, generosity and tolerance, have persuaded us to embrace as enlightened and noble that which all previous generations since America's founding regarded as grossly self-destructive - in a word, evil." ...
Likewise, most of us mistakenly believe the "abortion rights" and "gay rights" movements were spontaneous, grassroots uprisings of neglected or persecuted minorities wanting to breathe free. Few people realize America was actually "sold" on abortion thanks to an audacious public relations campaign that relied on fantastic lies and fabrications. Or that the 'gay rights' movement—which transformed America's former view of homosexuals as self-destructive human beings into their current status as victims and cultural heroes—faithfully followed an in-depth, phased plan laid out by professional Harvard-trained marketers."
I wish I had written this, as I and so many 1000's of others, have suspected such all along.

It is not normal that within the space of only 50 years the whole of Western and European culture has not only accepted but embraced self-destructive practices like this. More are coming - assisted suicide, euthanasia, mortification (as practiced in Holland)...

Those of us who still remember growing up at a time when these things were universally regarded as morally wrong, destructive and unacceptable behavior, can sit back and look at these sweeping moral changes with astonishment.

It's the old boil the frog slowly story - in living color. If we were to move back in time to say, the 40's or 50's and then suddenly leap forward in time to our present day, the shock of moral change would, I suspect, make us literally sick.

Fifty years ago no one would have believed that 50 years down the road TV shows, magazines, movies etc., would be graphically depicting and subtly promoting homosexualityity as something fine and acceptable.

Sudden change to today's new moral "values" would never have worked - any politician writing up a bill to legalize and promote homosexuality back then would have been kicked out as a dangerous pervert.

Boil the frog slowly please. That's the recipe the marketeers of evil, yes evil, have followed.
Shame on America! Shame on Canada, the new gay haven!

I often find myself in discussions with people who claim to believe that homosexuality for gays is just natural and not their fault and therefore must be accepted. They call me a homophobe, an out-dated moralist etc. So then I ask them, "Do you want you children to become homos? Do you want to see your son come home with his new boyfriend?"

Silence. Then, "No, of course not"

"If you and your wife were to die in a car accident today, would you be happy to know you children have been given in adoption to homosexual men or women?" Same response. So deep inside they all know it isn't normal.

So how is it that this could become legal? I happen to know a lot of people through my being a preacher and a musician. Yet I know of no one who would agree to having their children either becoming "gay" or being adopted by "gays". Not one couple, not one single person.

Think about this: If all the world were to become "gay" tomorrow, the human race would be extinct in less than a century.

If homosexuality were normal they would be able to reproduce.

There is not a competent, sane, normal medical doctor in the country who believes homosexuality to be normal human behavior. They may say it's nevertheless ok or a "right" etc. but none will say it is normal. It isn't.

Nature strongly proclaims, in it's own language, the words of Christ, "In the beginning, He made them male and female." It was not Adam and Steve but - Adam & Eve!!

There would never have been a Cain & Abel - or anyone else - ever - otherwise would there?

So where do we get off allowing our sick governments to accept, legalize and even promote this practice - all the way down to elementary school!!?? Disgusting!

Yes indeed, in Canada you can find huge posters in schools with two idiot NHL hockey players kissing. At the bottom of the poster is written, "If this shocks you, YOU have a problem"

Sorry but in that case yes, I HAVE A PROBLEM! - it does shock and anger me greatly. The morally inane drones that invented this poster and it's siblings, promoted it or taped it to the walls of our public schools ought to be horse whipped and banished!

What is going on?! I'll tell you, it's called recruiting, it's called proselytism, it's "evangelism".
Yes they are trying to woo in and seduce you, your kids, your wife, your husband, your parents...

That's the way they grow in numbers. Not by reproduction eh! Not by "natural selection" or the infamous and completely fabricated "gay gene" at work. Conversions are what they're after.

Teach your family the truth. Do not hate them or persecute them, but they do need help and should be told as much. So how do we react to them. With disinterested but intelligent love and by speaking the truth.

Of course here in good old Canada, telling them the truth may now get you a very large fine and/or jail term. Of course they can say what they want about you, your religion etc. Our wonderful gay government has seen to that in spite of +/- 75% Canadians being against it.

Not only have they bought the government and made their "life style" legal and respected, but they have also managed to ensure you cannot criticize them publicly. How convenient.

The amazing thing is that sodomy is still in the criminal code! Go figure huh. Not for long I guess. Once these moronic "luminaries" figure out that there is a blatant contradiction there they will be swift and stealth to remove that "old fashioned" law out of the crime section.

"Gays" need help. Emotional, psychological and spiritual. And yes, they can be healed and restored to normal. Jesus is the answer but health professionals can help a lot.

There is no such thing as a happy "gay" person. Calling homosexuality "gay" (as per the real meaning of that word), is like calling a diseased cow a fine race horse.

No offense intended, but it's time this promotion of sexual anamoly were put to a halt.

Saturday, July 08, 2006

Symbiotic Life and Darwinism

From a thread I originally posted at www.faithcommunitynetwork.net in the Science & Origins section. This is a summary of the 1st post. Go read the whole debate if you wish to see the discussion and the answers given by Darwinists.

Manipulative wasp - Hymenoepimecis, Ichneumonidae

An intersting challenge for evolutionists to say the least.

William Eberhard describes an interesting relationship between a female wasp parasite, Hymenoepimecis sp., (Ichneumonidae) and its spider host, Plesiometa argyra (Araneidae). These species illustrate an interesting instance where an insect parasitoid is able to alter the behaviour of its spider host to the finest degree.
The orb spider is stung while on its web and is temporarily paralysed while the wasp lays her egg on it. The spider then recovers and goes about its life with the newly hatched wasp larva feeding on it by sucking its haemolymph.

For about 7 to 14 days, the spider continues building its usual orb webs for prey capture. However, in the evening of the night when it is to be killed by its wasp parasite, the spider weaves a different web, designed specifically to suit the purposes of the wasp. The wasp larva then moults, kills and consumes the spider and pupates, suspending itself safely from its custom-built cocoon web.

The cocoon web is consistently made to the same pattern. Deviations from that pattern would be disastrous for the wasp larva. The cocoon web is a simplified web and the sticky spirals and multi-stranded cable and radial lines of the orb web are omitted. This simplified cocoon web suspends the wasp pupa, safely protecting it. Vulnerability to heavy rains, for example, was observed in a related wasp species.

The spider's change in behaviour is thought to be induced chemically rather than by physical interference. The effect of the stimulus is both rapid and long-lasting. Observations were made where the wasp was removed earlier in the evening of the spider's final night and the spider did not spin the cocoon web. Then, the wasp was left on the spider and the spider was observed to proceed with the construction of the cocoon web. When the spider was allowed to survive the experiment, it continued to make the cocoon web the following night and some spiders reverted to making more normal webs on subsequent nights.
- Eberhard, W. G. 2000. Spider manipulation by a wasp larva. Nature Vol. 406. : 255 - 256. slightly edited for brevity.

You can guess what's coming. Yes, the problems the evolutionist faces when trying to account for such a magnificent display of intimate biological knowledge and information between 2 entirely different species are formidable.

Information. Precise and concise. In vast amounts. Unaccounted for. The great enemy of neo-Darwinism!

This is of course the only way this wasp reproduces.

Now I'm certain that others more eloquent than myself could get the gist of the problematic here into better wording than I, but here goes...

Lets take a simple look at this subject from a purely logical stance. We don't need vast biological knowledge and understanding to see the implications involved in this instance of insect behavior (entomology).

The wasp "knows" an impossible lot about it's host's bio-makeup. The very existence of this "knowledge" needs to be accounted for. Wasps are not known to be among the most highly intelligent species on the planet. But this wasp knows just what and how to use this particular spider to insure it's own survival. How it can be paralysed, how and what can be used as food, how it's normal behavior is to spin web structures and how to bio-chemically modify that building behavior to it's own purposes.

Surely the evos amongst us must scurry in their minds to think up some kind of evo scenario to explain how such intimate knowledge and manipulation could have been acheived by this wasp with regards to it's host. I know I would be.

How, in evo terms, can the wasp know what chemical to produce in it's sting (we'll leave the pretended evolution of stingers and toxins out for the sake of simplicty), to paralyse the spider but not kill it?

How does the new wasp know what kind of chemical or whatever, it must inject into the host's system to alter it's web-spinning behavior precisely? And how did said wasp ever "develop" this modified web strategy - implying knowledge of the spider's current web structure and exactly how to chemically get the spider to build a web to it's own unique specifications? And this, without any inter-species communication system? How did the wasp know exactly when to do this, still saving its hosts' life for food?

The questions necessairly generate more questions and so on... The scene can only become more complicated as you go along.

Darwinists typically answer by saying the wasp doesn't "know" then they go on about selection. Of course the wasp doesn't know. Exactly the point and this makes the questions all the more difficult to answer. Multiple parallel, concurrent mutations all moving in a specific direction, unguided, purely random? It is not even logical. Ans, worse, the statistical probabilties involved are combinatorially explosive and hopeless for Darwinian theory.

You must account for the very presence of the information available to the wasp. Where did it get that from? It cannot come from itself - wasps are not known to go to ord weaving spider biology class to study the nervous systems of their prey.

You must account for it's ability to produce just the exact chemical compounds as will paralyse the spider, not kill it. And also for it's development of an
efficient injection system. Again, this requires a knowledge of the spiders biological makeup, it's nervous system.

The hardest thing the darwinist must do is to account for the wasp's uncanny ability to make the spider, apparently without it's own awareness, spin a precisely designed, different kind of web that serves as a cocoon for it's predator.

How can darwinists explain all this without an intelligent designer, without any guidance from blind nature, using only random mutations over time and unguided, purposeless selection.

Creatures like this, displaying symbiotic realtions are found in vast numbers in nature.

They shall speak with new tongues (1)

There are those within today's church, who say "speaking in tongues" is an obsolete gift and that it passed away with the first complete biblical canon.

So, is the bible's teaching on speaking in other tongues still for the church today?
Indeed, is NT teaching on anything still for today?

Basic refs. Acts 2; 10:54, 46; 19:2 ; 1 Cor. 12-14;

My intention is to show that, indeed, any gift of the Spirit given to the early church and taught extensively by the apostles is valid today - just as anything else in the NT is still valid.

First, however let me state something that should be radical and troubling for those who believe the nonsense about there being no more prophets and no more prophecies:

"In the last days, says God, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and DAUGHTERS will PROPHESY, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, I will POUR OUT MY SPIRIT in those days, and they will PROPHESY."
NIV - emphasis mine.

Question : Are the last days over?

First I will simply state the basics.
Second, I will get to the point of whether or not tongues is still a viable and active gift of the Spirit today.

I will not try to prove that tongues is biblical as, to any true bible believing Xtian, this would be absurd since it is clearly a large part of the NT doctrine and practice.

1. Basic doctrine of tongues.
- it is a gift of the Holy Spirit : Acts 2:4;1 cor. 12:10
- it is another language, unknown to the speaker and usually to others : 1 cor. 14:2
- speaking in tongues was given as a gift for edification and as a sign : 1 cor. 12,14
- Paul says he spoke with tongues more than all others in the Corinthian church : 1 cor 14:18
- Paul says that he wishes they would all speak with tongues 1 cor. 14:5
- it serves as a prayer/praise language : 17 "For you truly give thanks well"
- it may be spoken or sung : 1 cor. 4,15; "I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also."
- it is spoken unto God 1 cor. 14:2
- it is spoken also to the speaker himself 1 cor. 14:28
- it is praying with the spirit and not the intellect : 14 "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful."
- there are specific rules to be applied as to it's use in public meetings

The main point is whether tongues is still an active gift today or not.

Personally, I have yet to see any uncontrived, unforced interpretation of any scripture verse whatsoever that specifically states that tongues, or any other gift of the Spirit, ceased with the apostles.

There simply is no such verse.

The main text the anti-tongues people use to proclaim the great evil or obsolescence of speaking in tongues is the text in 1 cor. 13

ASV : "8 Love never fails: but whether [there be] prophecies, they shall be done away; whether [there be] tongues, they shall cease; whether [there be] knowledge, it shall be done away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away."

ALT : "Love never fails. But if [there be] prophecies, they will become useless; if tongues, they will cease by themselves; if knowledge, it will become useless. Now we know by part and we prophesy by part. But when the perfect [or, complete] comes, then the [thing] by part [fig., which is partial] will become useless."

2. To show this teaching to be wrong.

A typical example of no tongues today rhetoric follows :
"The miraculous gifts were established for what purpose? Was it not to confirm the validity of God's Word? Once it was obvious throughout the world that His word was the truth, there was no need for the confirmation. ...
The "partial" that he mentions to the Corinthians is the need of these gifts to accompany and thereby confirm God's Word until the written form of God's Word was in place. That is "the perfect" and is, of course, here today. Complete, perfect and unchanging in every detail..."

There may be other variations on the theme but that is the general flow of it.

Tongues and all the gifts mentioned in 1 cor. 12, (we may as well suppose that the gifts of Christ and the gifts of the Father are obsolete as well -Eph. 4; Rom. 12), are now supposedly obsolete.

The assumption is always that the text cited from 1 cor 13 means that "the perfect" refers to the completion of the biblical canon after the death of the first apostles.

2.a : However the text itself does not state this at all. No mention of the completed Word is given or even implied. Unless the text is forced. Thereby making this a gratuitous affirmation and nothing more.

2.b : The concept of the gifts existing merely as signs to the truth of Christ is in itself a half truth. They are never mentioned as being signs only, though they are certainly that. Their existence was, and is still, intended as a means to edify, console, exhort and meet human needs.

Why would Paul say that they ought not to use tongues in a meeting without an interpreter if tongues were only for a sign? Is it not obvious that speaking in tongues in private is a sign to no one?! But tongues are clearly intended to edify the speaker.

2.c : To state that the truth of Christ ever was, or is today, "obvious throughout the world that His word was the truth," and therefore that "there was no need for the confirmation" is a statement of presumption that is truly ludicrous.

When was the truth of Christ ever accepted thoughout the world ? It never has been and never will, till He comes, be accepted as the truth throughout the world.

In fact the truth of Christ is as far from accepted or believed as it ever was!
Who would dare deny this?!

The need for demonstrations of the power of God in the truth of Christ is desperate in the world today. The world mocks, scorns, ignores and hates the church and the bible today.

The world does not believe the authenticity of the bible at all - not by any means! The authority of the biblical canon is far more denied and questioned, even within the church itself!!, than it ever was before!!

So how does anyone, in view of these facts, find it reasonable to say anything like, "we don't need miracles anymore! No signs, healings, tongues, prophecy, discernment of spirits, and all the other charisma they are finished"?

2.d : Face value exam of the text itself :

- the text mentions prophecy, tongues and knowledge as ceasing, becoming useless - so one must include knowledge in the list of things obsolete today? - it is not stated that this is the "word of knowledge" just good old gnosis

- there is no mention in this passage of healings, discernment of spirits, word of wisdom, miracles, faith etc - are these gifts then still active ? Or are we to "assume" they are not? If so, on what basis? It is pure speculation based on mere assumptions and is therefore denying both the Word and the Spirit.

- prophecy, according to Paul, is for "edification, exhortation and comfort". So do we now need no exhortation, edification from anyone or anything but the written word? If so then why not get rid of preaching, teaching, pastoring etc. as well seeing that we need nothing more to help us? And let's not forget the mention of knowledge here please!

- the only "time" word mentioned is in reference to "when the perfect is come" - upon what authority does one assume this is a ref. to the completion of the biblical canon? The text itself does not define "the perfect" as anything of the kind.

So, what is "the perfect" and when has or will it come to put an end to gifts and the, by implication, need for them?

Paul gives us a very clear idea in the rest of the chapter by saying, "For now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then I shall know fully even as also I was fully known"

The "then" clearly refers to the "when" of the previous section if you just look at the context. And that "then" is identified as a time when seeing will be "face to face" and knowing will be "fully even as also I was fully known"

The is a vivid ref. to when we would all be "face to face" with our Lord and can only mean either death or the second coming. It cannot mean "face to face" with the completed NT !

This, all by itself, casts a very serious doubt on the whole anti-tongues teaching, or should I say heresy!?

The Greek word translated "perfect" in 1 Corinthians 13:10 is "teleion", which is neuter singular, but the Greek language always refers to the Scriptures in the feminine plural.

Also, why would an "edification to one's own spirit" gift be removed? Because the complete canon now exists? Then why does Paul give so many detailed instructions in that very canon anti-tongues advocates say removes the need for tongues !?!?

I also find it very difficult to believe that when John wrote "Amen" at the end of of Revelation, the entire church automatically ceased speaking in tongues.

"No tongues today" has no foundation in scripture and no basis in reason.

Even the witness of history also tells us that tongues never disappeared from the church, nor did any of the other gifts. And, of course neither did the devil's imitations of it disappear ! Counterfeit implies true coin!

Why would the apostle, under direct inspiration, spend so much effort on tongues in public meetings, while telling - in the most clear language - that he wished they all spoke with tongues, when in fact he, according to anti-tongues doctrine, knew very well that it would be removed within only a few short years?! Makes no sense at all.

On a "logic alone" basis this whole anti-tongues thing out to be cast out of the church for good. But herein we witness much more than just logic - all of this scripture on tongues IS itself a part that finished canon of inspired truth! Why not not accept it's clear instructions ?

2.e : Paul adds, "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays" - a possible implication, a very hot potato, is that if you do not pray in tongues you are not praying with your spirit but with your mind! That is another question!

"26 What then shall we say, brethren? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church."

"14:39 Wherefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues."

And moreover, why would God command us to "not to forbid speaking with tongues" here if He intended for the churches to stop speaking in tongues? This alone, all by itself, provides serious reasons to doubt any teacher who claims tongues is over! I can never understand why there is so much opposition to this one thing! But those who oppose this, inevitably also oppose prophecy and every other gift as well!

They are wrong.

12:28 "And God has set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues."

Why would God remove something He SET in the church ?

Anti-tongues people need to change their mind and abandon the hardness of heart in unbelief and resistance against the Spirit of the Lord.

They shall speak with new tongues (2)

Fisrt Mark 16.

In this passage Christ tells the disciples what they are to do and what signs would accompany the believers after His departure :

And he said unto them, Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 16 He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieves shall be condemned. 17 And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
I ask, upon what authority does anyone remove the tongues from the text?
If one removes tongues one must necessarily also remove the rest.

(ALT) they will take up serpents, and if they drink anything poisonous, it shall not harm them; they will lay hands on infirm [or, sickly] [people] and they will be well."

(BBE) They will take up snakes, and if there is poison in their drink, it will do them no evil; they will put their hands on those who are ill, and they will get well. "

1. If we are to remove tongues we must also remove casting out demons, lifting up snakes to bear them away (greek: airo - Thayer), laying on of hands etc. One has no choice since they are all there together.

What Xtian today will say that there are no more devils or that we are no longer to cast them out?

Paul was bitten by a serpent without harm. How many stories are there about missionaries being poisoned without harm? Healings? There are literally 10's of 1000's of testimonies from all over the world in all history giving witness to a divine healing.

This means that to remove this one "sign" you must remove all and in effect make the whole text useless and "make void the doctrine of God through traditions"!

2. Martin Luther spoke in tongues, as did a long list of other history changing preachers!
If tongues is "of the devil" then the whole protestant movement (lutheran, baptiste, you-name-it) was founded by a man with a devil !?! Or, decieved by the devil !? And this man changed the whole course of history for the better !?!

Does one really need to go through all the names and examples ?

Creative Mutations?

In the evo vs creation debate, one is often told that random mutations + selection are responsible for the creation of all life forms on earth. Genetic mutations are supposed to bring about novel features and entirely new morphologies. Simple life forms are claimed to be the root of all complex life forms. We are confidently told as fact, that macro-evolution is literally the "molecule to man" formula that Darwin imagined.

Of course this is all pure nonsense. As Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel laureate for the discovery of DNA realized, there is not enough time in earth's history for 'macro-evolution' to have brought about the existence of so many millions of life forms, complex and highly specified, as we see them today. This is why, being a stubborn atheist, he wrote the book Life Itself. In this 1981 book, Crick spends the first half of the book explaining why life could not originate on our planet —and then he proceeds to suggest that it came from outer space on rockets! Commonly called panspermia, this theory takes the sublime and brings it to the ridiculous.

The point is that Crick himself could not believe in Darwinism as commonly presented! He needed to find some other source of life. Some other source that could explain the abundance of complex life forms on earth --- without God. Of course. Anything but admitting to a Supreme being Creator!!

Dr. Royal Truman (Ph.D., specializing in organic chemistry) notes:
Suppose our body is lacking the CFTR gene (or it is not yet functional), which produces a trans-membrane protein which regulates chloride ion transport across the cell membrane. Or suppose that it is missing the RB gene on the 13th chromosome, whose job it is to identify abnormal tumor growth, especially in a child's rapidly growing retina, and kill such tumors. If one tiny piece of the puzzle is missing all the other thousands of functional genes become worthless, since the organism cannot survive.

How sensitive is our human copy machine to error? The CFTP gene has 250,000 base pairs. Over 200 mutations have been described which lead to cystic fibrosis (CF). The most common mutation, -F508 at position 508 on the peptide chain involves the deletion of three nucleotides. Three out of 250,000 nucleotides are not copied correctly and the gene cannot function! It is simply not correct to pretend that nature offers endless degrees of freedom to monkey around with the highly interdependent and very sensitive machinery of cell duplication. Furthermore, as discussed above, time is the greatest enemy for evolutionary theory, since most mutations are recessive and for the time being non-lethal. These accumulate from generation to generation and increase the genetic burden.
Mutations + selection simply doesn't cut it. Selection is always the "magic wand" of Darwinism. Whatever the facts of mutations are, it is conveniently posited that selection can creatively overcome them. As tough selection were natures' mind, working towards a known goal called "fitness". Nature has no such mind. It is, in itself, blind and thoughtless, without purpose and without foresight.

Darwinism can't work as a viable explanation of life on earth. It is well known that most mutations are either neutral (no benefit, no detriment) or harmful to the organism. In fact, most mutations are "bugs" or errors in the genetic code, not enhancements. Given this fact and considering that it is literally impossible to formulate a logical, feasible mutational pathway from molecule to man, it is indeed astounding that anyone could have ever believed Darwinismsm in the 1st place.

Of course, Darwin knew little of these details in his time so we mustn't be too harsh on him. He himself knew that his "speculations" were not real science.

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
Charles Darwin, In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology.

Truman's paper on the problem of Information for evolutionists is an excellent basis, all by itself, for refuting Darwinism. http://trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp

Thursday, July 06, 2006

Some Facts about the Bible

Here's some information I've gathered from various web sites and books on the validity of the Biblical accounts and historicity.

  • Nelson Glueck - "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."
  • William F. Albright - "There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament traditions."
  • F.F. Bruce - "Where Luke has been suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been vindicated by some inscriptional evidence, it may be legitimate to say archaeology has confirmed the New Testament record."
  • # Merrill Unger - "Old Testament archaeology has rediscovered whole nations, resurrected important peoples, and in a most astonishing manner filled in historical gaps, adding immeasurably to the knowledge of biblical backgrounds."
  • Miller Burrows - "Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. It has shown in a number of instances that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artificial schemes of historical development ... The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural."

1. For many critics the account of the birth of Jesus was held as ridiculous. They argued that there was no census, that Quirinius was not Governor of Syria at that time and that everyone did not have to return to his ancestral home for a census. Archaeology has proven the critics wrong (again) -

* The Romans had a regular enrollment of taxpayers and held censuses every 14 years. The procedure was begun under Augustus.

* Quirinius was Governor of Syria about 7 B.C.

* A papyrus found in Egypt gives directions for the conduct of a census. Families were to return to their own governments to complete family registration of the enrollment and that the tilled lands might retain those belonging to them.

2. Critics said Acts was unreliable because Luke wrote that Lystra and Derbe were in Lycaonia and Iconium was not (Acts 14:6). However, in 1910, Sir William Ramsay found a monument that showed Iconium was a Phrygran city. Later discoveries confirmed that.

3. In his letter to the Romans, Paul mentions the city treasurer, Erastus (Romans 16:23). The letter was written in Corinth. Excavations of Corinth in 1929 found this inscripion on a pavement: "Erastus, curator of public buildings, laid this pavement at his own expense." The pavement dates from the 1st century A.D.

4. Many critics have blasted the usage of certain words by Luke.

* Luke called rulers in Philippi "praetors." Scholars argued that two "duumuirs" would have ruled the town. However, archaeology shows that the title of "praetor" was employed by the magistrates of a Roman colony. Luke was right.

* Luke called civil authorities in Thessalonica "politarchs." Critics said there was no such person. However, 19 inscriptions have been unearthed which use the title. Luke was right.

* Luke called Gallio "proconsul." The Delphi inscription was unearthed which reads: "As Lucius Junius Gallio, my friend and the proconsul of Achaia."

Sir William Ramsay wrote of Luke: "Luke is a historian of the first rank ... this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

Note that no single translation constitutes the only version one may consider to be inspired.
JB Phillips would tell you that it is not the word by exact word that is inspired but the meaning. The only perfect versions are the originals themselves.

We do not have them - and for good reason - given man's propensity to idolatry and the worship of 'things' it goes without saying that institutions like the RC church would venerate the originals and make idols out of them. So it's no wonder many sacred items of the past have been "lost".

However we have every reason to accept what we do have as legitimate as I will show briefly.

With the great abundance of MSS available for both OT and NT texts, and the minimal problems involved with inconsistancies between them, there really is no problem at all.

We can safely say with Sir F. Kenyon (former Director of the British Museum), "The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, or early translations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world." ...
"The interval between the dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."

And F. J. A. Hort of Cambridge University, one of the greatest textual critics of the New Testament, in his book Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek said that, leaving aside the comparatively trivial variations between the manuscripts:
the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole...and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text.

And if you really want to be honest and impartial you must also take into account the following :

Numbers of surviving manuscripts of ancient writers

The plays of Aeschylus are preserved in perhaps 50 manuscripts, of which none is complete. Sophocles is represented by about 100 manuscripts, of which only 7 have any appreciable independent value. The Greek Anthology has survived in one solitary copy. The same is the case with a considerable part of Tacitus' Annals. Of the poems of Catullus there are only 3 independent manuscripts. Some of the classical authors, such as Euripides, Cicero, Ovid, and especially Virgil, are better served with the numbers rising into the hundreds.

The numbers of manuscripts of other writers are: for Caesar's Gallic War 10, Aristotle 49, Plato 7, Herodotus 8, Aristophanes 10. Apart from a few papyrus scraps only 8 manuscripts of Thucydides, considered by many to be one of the most accurate of ancient historians, have survived.

Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy only 35 survive, represented in about 20 manuscripts. Homer's Iliad is the best represented of all ancient writings, apart from the New Testament, with something like 700 manuscripts. However, there are many more significant variations in the Iliad manuscripts than there are in those of the New Testament.

Does one feel that the above named MSS must be totally refuted or considered unreliable? Of course not. So why is it ALWAYS the bible that gets the most flack?
The answers to that question are pretty obvious - on the purely human side - it's claims are much more significant than any other book.

On the purely psychological and spiritual side - hatred or at least dislike of the idea of the Judeo/Xian God being the one true God. Indeed, the consequences are devastating for the atheist and for the uncoverted rebel.

No other book in all of history has received so much vehement persecution, hatred, multiplied 1000's of attempts to destroy it both physically and evidentially. No other MSS is history is so well supported by so many experts in the fields of archaeology and history.

No other book in history is so loved and so hated. Why?

And, In addition to Greek, we have something like 8,000 manuscripts in Latin, and an additional 8,000 or so manuscripts in other languages such as Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic, Coptic, Gothic, Slavic, Sahidic and Georgian. As these translations began to be made before the close of the second century, they provide an excellent source for assessing the text of the New Testament writings from a very early date. On this latter point Charles H. Welsh, in his book "True from the Beginning", quotes from the third edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica:
This argument is so strong, that, if we deny the authenticity of the New Testament we may with a thousand times greater propriety reject all the other writings in the world.

Time gap from date of author to date of earliest surviving manuscript

Tacitus 700 years
Livy 400 years
Caesar 900 years
Catullus 1,600 years
Aristotle 1,400 years
Plato 1,200 years
Aristophanes 1,200 years
Thucydides* 1,200 years
Euripides 1,500 years
Sophocles 1,400 years
Herodotus 1,300 years


*For several papyri of Thucydides, the gap is 500-600 years.

The first complete copy of the Odyssey we have is from 2,200 years after it was written! Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscript of their works, which are of any use to us, are so much later than the originals.

The differences between the NT MSS are almost all so minor as to change nothing of the supposed original meaning. Some add a verse here and remove one there. So what!

So what does this indicate? All persistent whining and hammering against the bible is not founded on factual evidence, reason, logic or anything of the kind! It is founded upon hatred or at least strong prejudice as is easily evidenced in this forum every single hour!

I say to all wannabe bible destroyers who keep hammering at the Bible that in doing so they will only break themselves on the anvil. The bible has survived 2000 years of hammering, denial, attack, murderous persecutions and attempts to prove it wrong and it will continue to not only survive but conquer...ad infinitum.

"For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter{literally, iota} or one tiny pen stroke{or, serif} shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished."

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."

The Bible is still the world's best selling book.