Similar posts

WorldGoneCrazy #fundie disqus.com

The really big question is this:

What is wrong with this shooting on atheism? If there is no God, then all things are permissible - there certainly will not be any objective moral justice meted out to the terrorist. Atheists generally agree with me here:

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.” A-theist William Provine

“The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.” (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).

“Is there a God? No.
What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is.
What is the purpose of the universe? There is none.
What is the meaning of life? Ditto.
Why am I here? Just dumb luck.
Is there a soul? Are you kidding?
Is there free will? Not a chance!
What is the difference between right/wrong, good/bad? There is no moral difference between them… So much for the meaning of history, and everything else we care about… you will have to be comfortable with a certain amount of nihilism . . . . And just in case there’s always Prozac.” -- Alex P. Rosenberg

First of all, you're way off base in terms of how you're understanding all three of those atheist statements. They don't mean what you think they mean.

This article is one you need to read, because it puts all the William Lane Craig stuff in the dumpster where it belongs:

http://goddoesnt.blogspot.ca/2013/02/god-doesnt-give-us-moral-ontology.html

Here's a sampling:

The entire Twitter engagement about moral ontology (which arose after being asked for evidence that God exists, recall) arose with "do you think objective morality exists?"

I answered this question the same way I answered it in God Doesn't; We Do.
"It depends on how we define the word 'objective.'" I don't mean to play word games here--indeed, I think it's an interesting and hard question. Let me show you what I mean by showing you two ways we can interpret that term:

(1) The theist way: Objective morals are divine ethical laws that stem from a source outside of human minds (the fellow I talked with last night specifically said this, adding the words "transcendent" and "supernatural" in the mix).
(2) The science way: Objective morals are ethical guidelines that have been empirically determined to optimize values in salient metrics that gauge them.
Incidentally, while the term "supernatural" cannot apply to (2) above, the term "transcendent" can, but not in anything but the mundane "societies are bigger than individuals" sense.

So, I'm not being a jerk when I say that the term "objective morals" isn't sufficiently clear for me to answer the question of whether or not they exist.


Those statements mean exactly what they clearly say.

The fact that you do not WANT them to mean what they clearly say and mean is no warrant against their clarity. Those are just your feelings talking. :-)


There is really no shame in admitting you don't understand them :)

Let's look at Dawkins first: What do you think his statement is saying? That atheists should care nothing about killing or harming others wantonly because they don't believe they'll answer to a God?


"There is really no shame in admitting you don't understand them."

There is really no shame in admitting you DO understand them but don't like what they say. :-)


I wouldn't be ashamed of such a thing, but it's patently absurd to suggest that we need a God to be moral people. You know this, and that article I liked pretty much gives William Lane Craig the spanking he's always deserved. Did you read it?

"we need a God to be moral people"

You miss the point completely between ontology (existence) and sociology (behavior). Here is a great short video for you to watch that will distinguish between these two concepts and epistemology (how we come to know objective moral values and duties):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU

You're very fond of saying that to people, but I don't think you have a clue what it means yourself. Epistemology is how we come to know things, and ontology is what IS. So I know full well the difference. How do you think it relates to the discussion at hand, and what makes you say that I missed the point in what I said?


"You're very fond of saying that to people"

You're very fond of saying "You're very fond of saying." :-)

"but I don't think you have a clue what it means yourself."

Projection, after you confused the terms yourself. :-)

"Epistemology is how we come to know things, and ontology is what IS."

So, you admit that you confused sociology with ontology above when you wrote "it's patently absurd to suggest that we need a God to be moral people"?

"So I know full well the difference."

Apparently not. Well, maybe the short video taught you better. That is progress.

"How do you think it relates to the discussion at hand"

The atheist quotes are about ontology, the existence of objective moral values and duties, of objective good or evil. Your strawmen were about sociology and pin one case epistemology. Pretty simple actually.

If seems you have a fight with your fellow atheists. Just take it up with them - publish a paper that contradicts their quotes regarding ontology.


Come now, I've seen it over and over. You say to people "You are confusing moral epistemology with moral ontology" to try to flummox them with your highfalutin language. Well, I am not intimidated by it, I know what it means, and you know as well as I do that you can't possibly know moral ontology when it comes to God because God is not knowable. And by assuming you know God you're not going to win any arguments. Tell me please what I have "confused" here. I know it perfectly.

"So, you admit that you confused sociology with ontology above when you
wrote "it's patently absurd to suggest that we need a God to be moral
people"?"

No, because it IS patently absurd. Did you or did you not read the article I linked? It talks at length about the ridiculousness of making the statement that we need God to make moral statements.

The atheist quotes are no such thing. You are making the Dawkins quote in particular to be about behavior, and it's NOT about behavior. Dawkins is simply making the statement that DNA doesn't have a conscience, it just is. How can he be talking about moral ontology when he's discussing DNA? He isn't suggesting that we go out and kill people because of it. And that's how you're interpreting it, which is wrong. Pretty simple actually.

I'm on board with everything those atheists said, and guess what? We don't need God to know good behavior from bad. What a shame you think you do.


"Tell me please what I have "confused" here."

Already did. Not only told you but proved it to you. The fact that your feeewings were hurt is not warrant against the truth.

"Dawkins is simply making the statement that DNA doesn't have a conscience"

False. No one defends that it does. Morality is always discussed inseparably from humans. No one goes around saying "rocks aren't good or bad." That's silly. Dawkins meant what Dawkins said.

"I'm on board with everything those atheists said"

I know you are. :-)

"We don't need God to know good behavior from bad. What a shame you think you do."

What a shame that you once again confused epistemology (how we know right from wrong) with ontology (the existence of right or wrong). You are the gift that keeps on giving! :-)


No, you have proven nothing. What you did was insist by stamping your little feet that I don't know the difference between moral ontology and moral epistemology, and I proved to you that I did. Furthermore, my original statement still stands strong: We don't require a God to be moral people.
"Dawkins is simply making the statement that DNA doesn't have a conscience"
"No one defends that it does. Morality is always discussed inseparably from humans. No one goes around saying "rocks aren't good or bad." That's silly. Dawkins meant what Dawkins said."

All right, well, in that case, may I ask you if you know what DNA is? Deoxyribonucleic acid?

It seems pretty obvious to me that Dawkins was saying that bad stuff happens in the world. The universe doesn't have a conscience because the universe doesn't have morals. That's all Dawkins was saying. Somehow you find that shocking and horrible. Why? It's true. What did you infer from Dawkins' statement that had him saying there was nothing stopping us from murdering little old ladies? You sure like to post his quote a lot. It would help if you knew what he meant, I think.

"What a shame that you once again confused epistemology (how we know right from wrong) with ontology (the existence of right or wrong)."

I did no such thing. Your arrogance in this matter is your stumbling block. You think you know moral ontology, that you know the existence of right and wrong and that you know God. You don't. That's nothing more than faith. You keep making God a foregone conclusion and argue from that standpoint. What you need to do is take a step back from that position and say "IF God exists..." Because that's the crux of the matter here. We need a level playing ground. And we're never going to have a level playing ground if you keep assuming God before the debate even starts. Moral ontology, which you keep talking about, isn't yours to claim.

Gedaliah Braun #racist halcyoninitiative.wordpress.com

[Part 1]

Morality and Abstract Thinking – How Africans may differ from Westerners from Amren.com

I am an American who taught philosophy in several African universities from 1976 to 1988, and have lived since that time in South Africa. When I first came to Africa, I knew virtually nothing about the continent or its people, but I began learning quickly. I noticed, for example, that Africans rarely kept promises and saw no need to apologize when they broke them. It was as if they were unaware they had done anything that called for an apology.

It took many years for me to understand why Africans behaved this way but I think I can now explain this and other behavior that characterizes Africa. I believe that morality requires abstract thinking—as does planning for the future—and that a relative deficiency in abstract thinking may explain many things that are typically African.

What follow are not scientific findings. There could be alternative explanations for what I have observed, but my conclusions are drawn from more than 30 years of living among Africans.

My first inklings about what may be a deficiency in abstract thinking came from what I began to learn about African languages. In a conversation with students in Nigeria I asked how you would say that a coconut is about halfway up the tree in their local language. “You can’t say that,” they explained. “All you can say is that it is ‘up’.” “How about right at the top?” “Nope; just ‘up’.” In other words, there appeared to be no way to express gradations.

A few years later, in Nairobi, I learned something else about African languages when two women expressed surprise at my English dictionary. “Isn’t English your language?” they asked. “Yes,” I said. “It’s my only language.” “Then why do you need a dictionary?”

They were puzzled that I needed a dictionary, and I was puzzled by their puzzlement. I explained that there are times when you hear a word you’re not sure about and so you look it up. “But if English is your language,” they asked, “how can there be words you don’t know?” “What?” I said. “No one knows all the words of his language.”

I have concluded that a relative deficiency in abstract thinking may explain many things that are typically African.

“But we know all the words of Kikuyu; every Kikuyu does,” they replied. I was even more surprised, but gradually it dawned on me that since their language is entirely oral, it exists only in the minds of Kikuyu speakers. Since there is a limit to what the human brain can retain, the overall size of the language remains more or less constant. A written language, on the other hand, existing as it does partly in the millions of pages of the written word, grows far beyond the capacity of anyone to know it in its entirety. But if the size of a language is limited, it follows that the number of concepts it contains will also be limited and hence that both language and thinking will be impoverished.

African languages were, of necessity, sufficient in their pre-colonial context. They are impoverished only by contrast to Western languages and in an Africa trying to emulate the West. While numerous dictionaries have been compiled between Euro­pean and African languages, there are few dictionaries within a single African language, precisely because native speakers have no need for them. I did find a Zulu-Zulu dictionary, but it was a small-format paperback of 252 pages.

My queries into Zulu began when I rang the African Language Department at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg and spoke to a white guy. Did “precision” exist in the Zulu language prior to European contact? “Oh,” he said, “that’s a very Eurocentric question!” and simply wouldn’t answer. I rang again, spoke to another white guy, and got a virtually identical response.

So I called the University of South Africa, a large correspondence university in Pretoria, and spoke to a young black guy. As has so often been my experience in Africa, we hit it off from the start. He understood my interest in Zulu and found my questions of great interest. He explained that the Zulu word for “precision” means “to make like a straight line.” Was this part of indigenous Zulu? No; this was added by the compilers of the dictionary.

But, he assured me, it was otherwise for “promise.” I was skeptical. How about “obligation?” We both had the same dictionary (English-Zulu, Zulu-English Dictionary, published by Witwatersrand University Press in 1958), and looked it up. The Zulu entry means “as if to bind one’s feet.” He said that was not indigenous but was added by the compilers. But if Zulu didn’t have the concept of obligation, how could it have the concept of a promise, since a promise is simply the oral undertaking of an obligation? I was interested in this, I said, because Africans often failed to keep promises and never apologized—as if this didn’t warrant an apology.

A light bulb seemed to go on in his mind. Yes, he said; in fact, the Zulu word for promise—isithembiso—is not the correct word. When a black person “promises” he means “maybe I will and maybe I won’t.” But, I said, this makes nonsense of promising, the very purpose of which is to bind one to a course of action. When one is not sure he can do something he may say, “I will try but I can’t promise.” He said he’d heard whites say that and had never understood it till now. As a young Romanian friend so aptly summed it up, when a black person “promises” he means “I’ll try.”

The failure to keep promises is therefore not a language problem. It is hard to believe that after living with whites for so long they would not learn the correct meaning, and it is too much of a coincidence that the same phenomenon is found in Nigeria, Kenya and Papua New Guinea, where I have also lived. It is much more likely that Africans generally lack the very concept and hence cannot give the word its correct meaning. This would seem to indicate some difference in intellectual capacity.

Note the Zulu entry for obligation: “as if to bind one’s feet.” An obligation binds you, but it does so morally, not physically. It is an abstract concept, which is why there is no word for it in Zulu. So what did the authors of the dictionary do? They took this abstract concept and made it concrete. Feet, rope, and tying are all tangible and observable, and therefore things all blacks will understand, whereas many will not understand what an obligation is. The fact that they had to define it in this way is, by itself, compelling evidence for my conclusion that Zulu thought has few abstract concepts and indirect evidence for the view that Africans may be deficient in abstract thinking.

Abstract thinking

Abstract entities do not exist in space or time; they are typically intangible and can’t be perceived by the senses. They are often things that do not exist. “What would happen if everyone threw rubbish everywhere?” refers to something we hope will not happen, but we can still think about it.

Everything we observe with our senses occurs in time and everything we see exists in space; yet we can perceive neither time nor space with our senses, but only with the mind. Precision is also abstract; while we can see and touch things made with precision, precision itself can only be perceived by the mind.

How do we acquire abstract concepts? Is it enough to make things with precision in order to have the concept of precision? Africans make excellent carvings, made with precision, so why isn’t the concept in their language? To have this concept we must not only do things with precision but must be aware of this phenomenon and then give it a name.

How, for example, do we acquire such concepts as belief and doubt? We all have beliefs; even animals do. When a dog wags its tail on hearing his master’s footsteps, it believes he is coming. But it has no concept of belief because it has no awareness that it has this belief and so no awareness of belief per se. In short, it has no self-consciousness, and thus is not aware of its own mental states.

It has long seemed to me that blacks tend to lack self-awareness. If such awareness is necessary for developing abstract concepts it is not surprising that African languages have so few abstract terms. A lack of self-awareness—or introspection—has advantages. In my experience neurotic behavior, characterized by excessive and unhealthy self-consciousness, is uncommon among blacks. I am also confident that sexual dysfunction, which is characterized by excessive self-consciousness, is less common among blacks than whites.

Time is another abstract concept with which Africans seem to have difficulties. I began to wonder about this in 1998. Several Africans drove up in a car and parked right in front of mine, blocking it. “Hey,” I said, “you can’t park here.” “Oh, are you about to leave?” they asked in a perfectly polite and friendly way. “No,” I said, “but I might later. Park over there”—and they did.

While the possibility that I might want to leave later was obvious to me, their thinking seemed to encompass only the here and now: “If you’re leaving right now we understand, but otherwise, what’s the problem?” I had other such encounters and the key question always seemed to be, “Are you leaving now?” The future, after all, does not exist. It will exist, but doesn’t exist now. People who have difficulty thinking of things that do not exist will ipso facto have difficulty thinking about the future.

It appears that the Zulu word for “future”—isikhati—is the same as the word for time, as well as for space. Realistically, this means that these concepts probably do not exist in Zulu thought. It also appears that there is no word for the past—meaning, the time preceding the present. The past did exist, but no longer exists. Hence, people who may have problems thinking of things that do not exist will have trouble thinking of the past as well as the future.

This has an obvious bearing on such sentiments as gratitude and loyalty, which I have long noticed are uncommon among Africans. We feel gratitude for things that happened in the past, but for those with little sense of the past such feelings are less likely to arise.

Why did it take me more than 20 years to notice all of this? I think it is because our assumptions about time are so deeply rooted that we are not even aware of making them and hence the possibility that others may not share them simply does not occur to us. And so we don’t see it, even when the evidence is staring us in the face.

Alex Domnikov #sexist #psycho pickupguide.com

(Submitter’s note: “Patterns” are a type of PUA woo loosely based on discredited psychological theories, refering to techniques that supposedly allow one to straight-up hypnotise women into bed.)

The Door pattern

This one is the "bad boy" of all patterns. Anyone who has studied SS and NLP and has come into contact with the Door pattern, has found it to be evil and cruel, playing on the fears and deep insecurities of women. To give you an idea of how bad this pattern actually is - even Ross Jeffries himself has denounced this pattern and says that he does NOT encourage anyone to use it.

So... as always with stuff like that... "for educational purpose only":)

The Door pattern originated by Alex Domnikov. Mindlist:

"Whereas most patterns are about getting a woman into bed, The Door is aimed at controlling her after you've started sleeping with her. Other patterns that you've used on her have anchored immense pleasure to you. The Door creates an anchor for the loss of that pleasure.

You've already had intercourse with the girl. The ideal setting for the power of the door, which is a power and control pattern, is right after you've had intercourse and you're in bed with the girl, and at this time hopefully you've set up the fact that you're also the man of her dreams and fulfil her emotional needs. You're fooling around in bed, you've already had a great time, and you go, "sweetheart, what's that over there?" and you point towards the door. And she'll say, "well you know, that's a door, silly." And you say, "yeah, you know.. I'm a real positive person, but.. I mean, can you imagine.. I mean, you don't know what can happen from day to day, when you think about it in your mind. I mean, what would happen if I walked out that door and the door closed and as the door closed, it slammed shut, and no matter what you did, you could not open the door and you knew that you would never be able to look into my eyes again and you'd never be able to hear my voice again and you'd never be able to feel my touch again." Ok, right here is where she starts going, "I don't like this door business at all." And at this time you just reassure her.. "ok, alright sweetheart, you're right. You really shouldn't think about the door and you really don't have to think about the door." So you go back to playing around with her some more. Have some more fun with her, bring her to another orgasm or whatever and say, "you know, a terrible thing happened the other day. My friend was hit by a truck. I mean, it was awful, by the time they got him to hospital he was dead. I can't believe it, you know? It's almost as if, it would be a horrible thing you know when you think about.." (point towards the door) "..that no matter even if you were to get that door opened and you were to search, that you could never find me again.." Then she starts freaking out. You calibrate more on that part of, "you will never be able to see me again, you'll never be able to hear my voice again."

"You'll never be able.. all that fun we had together, all those great times we had together, walking along the beach, hand in hand in the moonlight, we would never be able to do those things again and even if you were to open that door, you would search and you could never find." And she's at the point where she's saying, "no no I hate this door. Let's stop this door now, are you trying to upset me?" And you say, "oh, I'm sorry sweetheart, I'm just saying these are just things that are popping into my mind, ok?" So play around some more. Get her good and nice and hot again, fool around, have a good time with her, joke, and then then get back into the door and say, "you know, God, still you know, about life's tragedies.. I mean, I just keep on thinking how.." At this point you can already see that this is starting to make her feel uncomfortable. You want to create that sense in her that you can walk out and she'll feel terrible for the rest of here life. You want to anchor that response. I'll get up and she'll say, "well what are you doing?" And I'll say, "I'm going to the bathroom." I go up to the bedroom door and slam it. That right there will freak her out. Then I'll open the door and say, "oh, I'm sorry. You know, I'm sorry, I'm just playing with this door again. You know, you really shouldn't think about this door now and you really don't want to think about this door now."

Having anchored that sense of loss and pain to the door, you can trigger it whenever needed. Whatever negative behavior may come up that you want to stop, the first time you just get up and slam the door. Whether you walk out the door depends on the level of bullshit. On later occasions you can just indicate tbe door in some manner. The example Alex gives: If he's talking on the phone and getting any crap from her, and he knows the relation of where the door is to her desk, he says, "sweetheart, could you please turn right and take a look at what's over there.." and that was the end of the bullshit."

pool #fundie atheistforums.org

[Look, pool. You're trying to say that theists don't exist just because what they worship isn't well defined. But they do exists, just as football exists, even though football players play an imperfect game. Catch my drift?]


And now i'm just sitting here sobbing like a 2 year old because nobody has ever been that understanding with me,even my dad - i'd probably save you if i had to choose between you and 5 random people.

*That's exactly what i'm saying.
How can someone believe in something with no physical or theoretical evidence(But probability can say that the existence is probable because:aliens(long story))but when it is also something that is ill defined?Then it's a whole another thing..

*It's like believing in fldsmdfrism which is a ism that says that fldsmdfr exists and fldsmdfrists doesn't even know what fldsmdfr is.Therefore i can discredit fldsmdfrism and therefore fldsmdfrists cannot exist because the reason why they existed in the first place is itself flawed!

*I can't seem to connect god with football because football has a physical evidence also it has a consistent definition.("Any of various forms of team game involving kicking (and in some cases also handling) a ball, in particular (in the UK) soccer or (in the US) American football.")

*So if god doesn't exist theism shouldn't exist either because the most basic element that was used to build theism is "God".So theists do not also exists.But theists that "think" they know the definition of God exists,but they aren't truly theists because they only "think" they know it there can never be "theists".Don't you agree?
If you do,then why should atheism exist?Which is a ism that rejects the claim of theism(which cannot make a claim because what they are claiming to exist doesn't have any theoretical evidence nor does it have any physical evidence and then they say they don't even have a consistent definition of it!What the fuck theists??)

cdevidal #fundie godlikeproductions.com

EvolutionVsGod.com has a free 38 minute film in which various evolutionists such as a PhD/associate college professor of Anthropology at UCLA, a PhD/professor of biological sciences and anthropology at USC, a PhD/professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at UCLA and PhD/associate professor of biology at Universiy of Minnesota Morris/famous blogger PZ Myers appear to be stumped by some challenging questions. It's an interesting movie and I recommend you check it out.

In observing responses to the movie, I saw lots of evolutionists mocking but I didn't see one person who answered the questions that apparently stumped the evolutionists. Accusations began to fly: The claim is that in his previous films, the evangelist had edited responses to questions to make the interviewees look bad. Thus the claim is that the stumped evolutionists in this film had simply been edited unfairly.

To which I replied, "OK, I'm sure we'll see a statement from PZ Myers soon explaining how he was misrepresented*, but what about you? Can you answer the questions?" The response often was, "What were the questions?"

Me: "I hadn't written them down so I didn't recall them. But you can see them again if you watch the movie."

Them: "No, I'm not watching that (blankety-blank)." (Which sounds dishonest, but I'll let that pass for now.)


* PZ Myers did claim he was misrepresented: [link to freethoughtblogs.com] But without substantiation. If he gave fuller answers during the interview, I'd like to see them, but he did not: [link to www.google.com (secure)]


So I promised to write down the questions from the film. And by the way, I don't pass any judgment on the quality of these questions. Maybe they're fallacious, and you can help demonstrate that. But before you answer, some simple rules to keep everyone honest.

RULES
* You must give a direct answer to every question or you've failed. Yes, some questions appear to be repeats but please answer them all as they are all slightly different.

* If you give an answer such as "It's not possible to know that" (or something similar) to any question you fail to demonstrate the validity of your worldview. Try harder before posting.

* You agree to the principles in this flowchart or you've failed: [link to www.jacoballee.com]

* You may not commit any logical fallacies or you've failed. Here is a list of some well-known fallacies. [link to www.informationisbeautiful.net] There may be others that I am not currently aware of.


If you don't agree with these rules, don't answer. If Darwinian macro evolution does occur in nature, these questions can be answered without resorting to cheating or underhanded rhetoric to uphold it. Right? I'm sure you'll agree these are fair rules.

Items beginning with an asterisk '*' are questions, and items beginning with an equal sign '=' are important statements which do not require an answer, but which inform the next question, so they must be read and understood.

OK, go!


= "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." ~Richard Dawkins

= "Live Science" says of Darwinian evolution: "It can turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans and amphibious mammals into whales."

* Do you believe in evolution?

* Do you think it's a belief?

* When did you start to believe?

* Are you a strong believer in evolution?

= A scientific method is based on "the collection of data through observation and experimentation..." ~Science Daily

* Could you give me some observable evidence that evolution is true? Something I don't have to receive by faith. Remember, events that occured 65 million years ago can't be observed. If you say "fossil record," please be specific: Give one example.

= "We are condemned to live only for a few decades and that’s too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on." ~Richard Dawkins

= "We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages..." ~Charles Darwin

* You've got the the canine 'kind' with the coyote and the domestic dog, and there's the feline 'kind' which is the cats, the tiger and the kitten and you've got humankind. So, Darwin said there would be a change of 'kinds' over many years so could you give me one example of observable evidence of a change of 'kinds'? I don't want something I have to accept by faith. I want it to be observable. I don't want to have to have faith in the experts, I want to observe it myself. Can you give one example of observable evidence of a change of 'kind'?

* Did we have lungs or gills when we came out of the sea?

* The scientific method must be observable and repeatable, so could you give me one piece of observable evidence for Darwinian evolution, not adaptation or speciation, but a change of kinds? If you say "stickleback fish", you must specify what other 'kind' have they become. These have remained as fish. Remember, Lenski's bacteria are still bacteria. The Galapagos finches are still finches. Their change in beak is adaptation, not Darwinian evolution. There's no different animal involved. I want something which shows me Darwin's belief in the change of kinds is scientific. Can you give me anything that I can see, observe, and test, which is the scientific method, for Darwinian evolution which is a change of kinds, so that I don't have to exercise faith?

* If you cannot offer any observable evidence for Darwinian (macro, change in 'kind') evolution, how do you know it's true?

* No professor or biology major in the film was able to give observable evidence of a change in 'kind'. Therefore, Darwinian evolution (a change in 'kind') is un-observable. You need millions of years. If Darwinian evolution is not observable, is it scientific?

* You're trusting that the biology majors and professors know what they're talking about and they can't even give evidence of a change of kinds. Do you realize that's called 'blind faith'? Remember, "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." ~Richard Dawkins

* Do you believe in intelligent design?

* How would you make a rose? A rose has a seed so you've got to start from nothing. Could you make a rose from nothing?

* No professor or biology major in the film was able to claim they were able to make a rose from nothing. For the purposes of this thread, I am going to assume you cannot, either. So if you say there is no intelligent design, where does that leave you on the scale of intelligence if you can't even make a rose?

= "The coccyx vertebrae is an extremely important source of attachment for tendons, ligaments and muscles..." ~Laser Spine Institute

= For years, the appendix "...was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults... Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions." ~Scientific American

= My note: This link discusses erector pili/most body hair and male nipples. [link to www.livescience.com] As a married man I have found a use for male nipples. If you know what I mean. (Ahem.) And I can certainly see that the organ would likely be present on a baby in the womb before its sex is selected with hormones, as the genetalia are identical before selection. Erector pili/most body hair I'm not so certain about. It's hardly earth-shattering evidence but I would like to read more. The first thought that comes to mind is that they're useful for sweat and a slight amount of warmth.

* So could you give me an example of vestigial organs? (I believe it is implied he is asking about human organs.)

* Skeptic websites often examples of famous atheists in an attempt to win converts. But more often than not, the famous personalities cited are not atheists. Aside from Earnest Hemingway (listed in the video), Can you think of any famous atheists which you can validate have never made a statement attesting to their belief in a deity? (At 18:32 in the video, quotes from Abraham Lincoln, Carl Sagan, Mark Twain, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Charles Dawrwin show clearly they are/were not atheists. For the sake of brevity I will not list them here.)

= No professor or biology major in the film was able to give an example of a famous atheist. Ray said, "It is important to know that even though some of these men claim to believe in God, that doesn't mean they are believers in the one true Creator revealed in the Scriptures, or that they're genuine Christians. However, when atheists use theists or agnostics to promote their godless agenda, they're being dishonest. Then again, coming from those who claim that morality is relative to each person, convenient dishonesty should not be a surprise."

* Do you believe in moral absolutes?

* Is rape always wrong?

= PZ Myers essentially answered yes, so the evangelist stated therefore there are moral absolutes.

* So who makes the rules?

* PZ Myers stated that we make the rules. I am going to assume you will say the same. If you did not, no need to answer this question, just ponder it: So if Hitler made the rules and he had the majority, he makes the rules?

= "Evolution is a very harsh and cruel process." ~PZ Myers

* Did Hitler put into practice survival of the fittest? Such as the lion eating the antelope.

* Your pet dog (or insert other beloved pet) and your rotten neighbor are drowning. You can only save one of them. Which would you save?

* The biology majors all chose to save the dog. I am going to assume you will say the same. If you did not, no need to answer this question, just ponder it: So you think dogs are more valuable than human beings?

= "Any fetus is less human than an adult pig." ~Richard Dawkins

* If you believe in evolution it's just a matter of survival of the fittest. Your neighbor's a primate and you've got a canine, and you like the canine more than you like the primate. If the grouchy neighbor drowns, he drowns. Survival of the fittest. Would that be correct?

* Are you an atheist who thinks God doesn't exist?

* An atheist in the movie stated that after we die we cease to exist. Ray Comfort said, "If you were a car and your motor were turned off that would be right, that's inanimate. But you're a living, biological human being with the life of God in you. .. Is there no life in you?" Atheist: "Yes there's life in me." "That's your soul." If you agree with the atheist, how do you know?

* Are you a good person? If there's a heaven, will you make it there?

* How many lies have you told in your whole life?

* What would you call me if I told lots of lies? You'd call me a liar, wouldn't you?

* So what does that make you if you've told lies?

* Have you ever stolen anything in your whole life even if it's small?

* That's called theft. So what are you?

* Have you ever used God's name in vain?

= That's called blasphemy, and it's very serious to use God's name as a cuss word. One atheist said he doesn't believe in God so it's not blaspheming. Ray responded, "Well, if I don't believe in certain laws and still violate them, ignorance of the law is no excuse. So we're still guilty even though we deny a law exists or even don't know about it."

* Jesus said that if you look upon a woman with lust in your heart you've committed adultery. Have you ever looked at another person with lust, such as with pornography?

= If you answered yes to those questions (and I don't know anyone who honestly can't answer anything but yes, myself included), to quote the evangelist, "then by your own admission you're a lying, theiving, blasphemous adulterer-at-heart, and that's only four of the Ten Commandments. Just not believing in hell won't make it go away. A judge must see that justice is done if he's a good judge, and it's the same with God. If we die in our sins God will give us justice. The Bible says that no theif, no liar, no fornicator, no blasphemer, no adulterer will inherit the kingdom of God. So if you died in your sins but God gave you justice, because He's holy and perfect morally, you'd end up in hell, and I'd hate that to happen to you."

* Would you sell one of your eyes for one million dollars? Both for 100 million dollars?

= Most would say "no." Your eyes are precious to you. How much more precious is your life?

= "Now let me tell you something you know intuitively. You know that creation is proof of the Creator, God has given you that inner light. So when you look at the genius of God's creative hand, you know God exists because of creation, and the reason you choose evolution is because it gets rid of moral accountability. Evolution lets you believe that lust and theiving are just primal instincts; You're just an animal. The Bible demands moral accountability and says those things are wrong and that's why it's not acceptable to you. That's why you're not seeking after truth. Am I wrong?" ~Ray Comfort (The biology major sighed, paused, and said, "I think you're wrong.")

= "You are a unique human being, made in the image of God with a sense of justice and truth and righteousness. God gave you a conscience. It's inherent. It's shaped by society but it's inherent. You know right from wrong. You've violated His law and I don't want you to end up in hell."

= To a struggling college student: "James, if you put your finger on it, and see if we can, your struggle at the moment is because of your love for sin, because of the pleasure that sin gives you and you don't want to give it up. You're like a man with a money belt filled with gold who's just fallen into the ocean. I'm saying, if you don't get rid of that belt which weighs 80 pounds it's going to take you under. Doesn't matter how much pleasure it gives you, it's not worth losing your life for."

= To a college professor: "You're not a beast. You're a human being created by God in His image with dignity and worth and purpose."

* Do you know what God did for guilty sinners so we wouldn't have to go to hell?

= "God became a human being 2,000 years ago, Jesus of Nazareth, and He suffered and died on a cross, taking the punishment for the sin of the world. You and I violated God's law and Jesus paid our fine. That means God can legally dismiss our case because of the suffering, death and resurrection of the Savior. God can say, 'You're out of here' because someone paid your fine." ~Ray Comfort

= "And then what God can now do is clothe us in the righteousness of Christ, so on Judgment Day you're safe from God's wrath and His justice, because of the death and resurrection of the Savior. If you repent and trust in Him, God will give you a righteous standing in His eyes. He'll wash away your sins in an instant, and He'll grant you everlasting life. His last words on the cross were, 'It is finished.' In other words the debt has been paid. He came to take our punishment upon Himself. So because our fine was paid by another, God can legally dismiss your case." ~Ray Comfort

* Does that make sense? (He was not asking if they believed it, just if the statements made a logical connection.)

* When are you going to die?

= "God knows the exact moment of your death. It could be today, it could be tomorrow. I'm not using scare tactics, this is just straight reality. 150,000 people die every 24 hours, and they were no doubt all making plans for next week, so please think about this." ~Ray Comfort

= "I'm not talking about a religion that says you have to strive to get to heaven, I'm telling you that the Bible says heaven is a free gift of God. You cannot earn everlasting life, doesn't matter how religious you are, how good you are. 'God commended His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.' And then he rose from the dead and defeated death." ~Ray Comfort

= "This is how the Bible puts it: 'For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.' So eternal life is a free gift of God, and it comes because of God's mercy not because of anything we do." ~Ray Comfort

* Does that make sense?

= "I've been reading the Bible at home for over 40 years. There's no mistakes in it. Any mistakes that we think are in it are our mistakes, and you can trust God's Word. Think of how you trust professors and science books that tell you you're a primate? You trust and believe that so how much more should you trust a God who cannot lie?" ~Ray Comfort

* Are you going to think about this?

= "Soften your heart. Don't have so much blind faith in what science tells you and it's left you without any knowledge of what was in the beginning anyway. You haven't got a clue where you come from, you don't know what you're doing here on earth and you don't know what happens after you die."

* Could you be wrong about God's existence?

= An atheist responded, "Yes, but could you be wrong about God's existence?" "No." "Well then I think you're rather closed-minded." "Well if I said to you, could you be wrong about your wife's existence you'd say, "No, I know her. Don't be ridiculous. I know her and love her. And I know the Lord and I love the Lord, and He transformed my life 41 years ago, instantly, overnight, forgave my sins and gave me new desires when I had no desires or thoughts of God for the whole 22 years before I was a Christian."

= "The problem with those who are unable to see evolution, I think, is they don't have imaginations." ~Gail E. Kennedy, PhD, Associate college professor of Anthropology at UCLA

= "Human beings are still fish." ~PZ Myers

* Are you a talking primate?

* Are you a cousin of bananas?

= "I'm accepting that they did their science correctly." ~Biology major

= "I'm going to trust what those experts did, those experts came up with." ~Physics major

= "Darwinian evolution rests on faith. And once again, according to Richard Dawkins, 'Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.' Darwinian evolution requires great faith. The knowledge of God, however, is clearly seen by all mankind. 'For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.' (Romans 1:20-22)" ~Ray Comfort

Note to newcomers Despite the name, this is not a Christian website. It is simply a good forum for discussion because one does not need an account to post. (You can remain anonymous.)

vexic929 #fundie vexic929.deviantart.com

Disclaimer: These are all my own, personal thoughts. I do believe that they were given to me by God but I acknowledge that I may be wrong in some areas and will gracefully accept that IF IT IS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION IN A RESPECTFUL WAY. I do not claim to be a prophet or a preacher or some fancy, famous, decorated scholar—I’m just a 21-year-old Christian with a passing interest in sociology, psychology, and apologetics. I do not think I am holier-than-thou and I do not think any sin is greater than another. All sin is equal; I do not think I am better than you. I don’t know how else I can put that so, please, you have already begun seeing my side; if you find it offensive there is a back button, most likely in the top left corner of your screen—please use it because I will not be changing my opinion no matter how many curse words and insults you throw at me. I acknowledge that I stink at arguing my points so, if you find anything unclear, please feel free to ask for clarification as long as you do so respectfully.

WHY HOMOSEXUALITY BOTH IS AND IS NOT A SIN

“Attraction is not a sin!”
You’re absolutely right. Attraction, in and of itself, is not a sin. Wait—what? Yep, you’re right. Why? Because we, as humans, have the ability to be attracted to either gender to some degree. Think about it; you have friends, right? People you talk to, people you get along with—you find them attractive in some way; perhaps not physically but mentally/emotionally/etcetera, if you didn’t, you wouldn’t be friends. Chances are you have at least one friend—or someone you just get along with—from both genders. We are designed to be attracted to people; we are very social creatures but if we weren’t attracted, we probably wouldn’t give them the time of day (just think of that resident annoyance in your life). Attraction is not just physical—but, of course, you know this I’m sure. Now, we’ve established attraction is not a sin. It is what you do about that attraction that determines whether or not it is a sin.

“What you do? What does that mean?”
Let’s look at that a little further, shall we? “It is what you do about that attraction that determines whether or not it is a sin.” This means that it does not become a sin until you decide to act on it. The moment you decide to pursue that relationship that becomes a sin. Why? Because typically that relationship is pursued with the intent of becoming physical at some point. In cases of heterosexuality, it only becomes a sin if the intent to become physical comes before marriage (yes, this includes during the engagement but that is a whole other animal we are not going to get into today). In the case of homosexuality, it does not matter whether or not this intent is before or after marriage, it is still a sin.

“That’s not fair! Why is it still a sin even if I’m doing it ‘right’?!”
This is a question that comes up a lot and Christians need to be able to answer if they’re going to argue it. I could say “because the Bible says so” and give a list of verses; I could say “because God says so” and leave it at that, but do these explain why? No, not really. So, why? Because it is outside of God’s intent. God has a plan for each of us, most of whom he has included and set apart a specific person for the intent of us to be in a strong, loving, Godly relationship with. Anything outside of that plan is sinful because it is not of God, no matter how good it seems.

“Well, why should I care about God’s intent?”
You may or may not be a Christian, I don’t know, that’s between you and God. There is one thing I do know for sure; anything God has planned for us is 100 times better than we could ever even imagine. Being a Christian is not about blindly agreeing with everything God says and following like good little sheep. We can say “alright, God, I don’t get this, I don’t like this,” as long as we add after, “but I’m going to trust You because I know that what You have for me is better.” That’s what faith is, that’s what being a Christian is. So before you yell and scream at us Christians for being stupid, blindly following, being bigoted, being intolerant; remember that not all of us totally agree with everything God says. I, personally, would be perfectly fine with homosexual relationships if I were not a Christian and didn’t know that God has something better planned for everyone. I just want everyone to live their life to the fullest extent in the happiest way possible; that’s why I want people to find God and turn from their sinful ways—whatever they may be—and follow the better path God has in store for them, because I know it will be so amazing. So, no, I don’t see a reason for it to be a sin; but, yes, it is a sin, and there’s nothing I can do about that but say, “I’m going to trust You, God, because I know You have something so much better and it’s just going to be totally awesome.”

But it's also true that you cannot control attraction, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because the people were participating in homosexual activities. Note that the verse you quoted states "men who practice homosexuality". Lust is wrong no matter who you are lusting after so that is irrelevant. I don't think you understood what I said, I know that homosexual activities are wrong and fantasizing about performing said activities is also wrong just as it would be wrong to kill someone or fantasize about killing someone. There are two definitions of homosexuality--simply being attracted to the same gender which you cannot do anything about and participating in homosexual activities which you can do something about. One is entirely subconscious and the other is a conscious action. You cannot stop yourself from being attracted to someone, it is not possible. I'm really not sure how I can make this any clearer but if you're still confused, please let me know.

Yeah, the thing that hacks me off the most is the radical "you must agree or you're a terrible person" mentality they seem to have nowadays. It's so frustrating because it goes exactly against the freedom of beliefs/religion and speech we have in America--even more so because we're basically letting them act that way. It's pretty dang ridiculous, if you ask me. People are so touchy and easily offended.

In conclusion
Homosexuality—the act of being attracted to someone of the same gender—is not, in and of itself, a sin. Homosexuality—the act of having relations with someone of the same gender—is a sin.

[ ai! ^.^ I have no idea how I found this, but I've read it and the first comments page; frankly, I couldn't help posting my opinions on this. :3 Please don't take it offensively - I just want to make sure it's out there.

Firstly, I totally agree with your first point - homosexuality isn't a sin. However, I serious disagree of your second point.

I understand that you believe practicing Homosexuality is a sin because God said so, but
WHY does he say so?

I cannot actually think of any decent anti-homosexuality reasons myself. In any case, I am a firm believer in freedom of sexuality, within reason. If you're female and fall in love with another female, then what's wrong with that? Is the world going to end? Probably not. Are you going to drop dead? It's unlikely. Will a random person develop, say, cancer simply because you're dating someone of the same sex? I highly doubt it. Besides, the planet's population is rising rapidly and whilst we have no serious problem right now, we will when it doubles. With deforestation, loss of farmland to housing estates and desertification, among other things, then frankly we will run out of resources at some point. Soon. If, say, 5% of the population is gay/lesbian, then that's 5% less kids every year. That's a few years left on the timer. More time to solve the dilemma. Oh, and it means that more of the poor kids in foster homes can have a family. I know how that feels, I was there once.
Besides, if the government was to make homosexuality illegal, then that is a direct breach of the Human Rights.

UN Human Rights;
Article 2 -- Freedom From Discrimination
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex or sexuality, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Putting someone in prison because they love and want to be with someone of the sex? That's just sick. And we're supposed to do this becuase of what it says in a book? There are many opinions from Christians that certain aspects of the bible are outdated. Aren't women supposed to be evil or something? Nowadays, if ANYONE said that in a commonwealth country they'd be called sexist.

Anyway - 'God is omnipotent' to quote practically every Christians I've ever brought this subject up with (I grew up in a religious family/area/school, so there's quite a few). Therefore, if he has an intent for us, then maybe it's for us to be gay?
I am actually an atheist, so the 'God's intent' thing, for me, isn't a valid reason. A good number of my friends are lesbian/gay and are currently dating a person of the same sex. What harm has it done to me? None. What harm is it doing you? None.

(Looking back at this, it looks like a full-out attack. Lol. Sorry about that. >.<)
]

You make some very interesting points and bring up some good questions but I believe I touched on most of them either in the comments or in the actual article (it's not really an article I guess but you know what I mean) but I will respond to a few of them.

Why does He say so? The truth is I don't know, no one does--if they claim to they're probably lying. I just know that He does and that's enough for me and should be enough for any Christian.

Putting someone in prison for homosexuality is ridiculous, the government should not interfere in religious matters and vice-versa. As far as the Bible being outdated, anyone who has told you that is not a Christian even if they claim to be. You cannot be a Christian and not believe the Bible is the Truth, it doesn't work that way. There is no passage that says women are evil or anything like that, I suggest reading the book for yourself even if you have no intention of becoming a Christian. It's quite interesting to see the parallels from the Old and New Testaments and the perfect preservation and lack of contradictions without taking anything out of context, even from a purely historical and analytical standpoint.

His intent would not be for anyone to be gay considering He says homosexual relations are a sin although he may use someone identifying as gay as a challenge or a way for them to have a better witness to other people.

I don't expect anyone who is not a Christian to agree with or follow my beliefs but that doesn't mean that I won't call someone out on something I know is wrong because I don't want them to make a mistake. It's purely about caring about people. I am currently dealing with my younger sister's recent coming out as pansexual and she knows I am on her side even though she also knows I believe she is doing the wrong thing. We have had many discussions on the issue but I still love her and would not wish anything bad on her.

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Kurt Cobain was murdered by the Illuminati, just as JFK

Kurt Cobain was a person who was 'awake'. Once they realized this, they immediately took him out. There is no way an icon who is 'awake' will lead the masses.

In Bloom:

He knows not what it means
Knows not what it means
when I say
He’s the one
Who likes all our pretty songs
And he likes to sing along
And he likes to shoot his gun
But he knows not what it means
Knows not what it means
when I say yeeeaaahhh

_____________________________________

Lithium (Babalon>Baby L' Ion - L'ion)

"I'm so happy 'cause today
I've found my friends
They're in my head"
(Talks about the illusory social set up of Masonry)


"I'm so ugly, but that's okay, 'cause so are you ...
We broke our mirrors"
(Talks about waking up, breaking the mirrors)


Sunday morning is everyday for all I care ...
And I'm not scared
(Sunday morning represents the opening of the cube. The day after Saturday, aka, Saturnday - the cube of Saturn)

"I like it - I'm not gonna crack"
(I like it in the material world, I don't wanna crack open the cube)
"I miss you - I'm not gonna crack"
(I miss you - I don't wanna crack open the cube and wake up)

"I love you - I'm not gonna crack"
(Love - emotional fullfillment, only possible with Saturn's electromagnetic impact on the earth)

I killed you - I'm not gonna crack"
(I killed you - Hatred, fear, dissatisfaction, as long as these are present, one cannot set themselves free from the cube)


"Light my candles, in a daze
Cause I've found god"
(He had found god, means he had opened the cube of Saturn)


Just like that, the name of the band "Nirvana", is also an important message for the youth. Keep in mind that Kurt Cobain always knew he was gonna be murdered;

"And I swear that I don't have a gun
No, I don't have a gun
No, I don't have a gun"

KEEP IN MIND:

Memori-a, memori-a, memoria, memoria

He simply, sacrificed himself. But before he did that, he said;

"Come as you are, as you were, as I want you to be"

This is the most important line of all. Come as you are - implies the mental state of Nirvana, as your constructed ego - is not what you are, it's what you were made into, through the lord of the rings, aka, YHWH, aka, Saturn.

If you want detailed information on this, search for "Truth behind Music Industry" in Hidden Wiki, click the Nirvana line in the N directory. You will also learn how Kurt was made into marrying that whore, how he was being injected heroin at his sleep.

Anyways, you probably know why JFK was against the banking system, as he already knew what was going on, the CERN project and all. Surely you're aware of the fact that the Saturn cult will not allow such things, when masses are involved.

Best wishes.

Ted Deveer #conspiracy returnofkings.com

Is The US Government Planning A Fake Alien Invasion?

I’m Ted, I read old books, and my interest in Stanley Kubrick has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with my interest in conspiracy theories, not at all, no way. And I like my privacy.

As utterly insane as it sounds, it seems possible that the US Government is preparing to try to convince the world that there is an alien invasion about to happen, in the largest “false flag” since 9/11.

You’re probably bursting out laughing now and asking yourself, “Why would Roosh allow such a crackpot to write an article?” and I’d like to preemptively respond by (a) asking you to give me the benefit of the doubt for the course of these 1,000 words, (b) noting that this is just a hypothesis that we will see proven or disproven over the next months, and (c) making clear: I don’t believe in UFOs or alien lifeforms but I do believe that the media puts on large-scale coordinated shows in conjunction with the government.

Here are five reasons why I think the show—which I’ll call the “Aliens (Bio)attack!” Show—is likely to happen over the next months.

1. The US government is suddenly talking about UFOs

First, in December, the NY Times had an expose which argued that (a) the Department of Defense has videos taken by Air Force pilots of what it believes are UFOs (the video is included in the article at that link); (b) the DoD has some of the materials collected from these UFOs secretly that they are studying; (c) the DoD has a secret department dedicated to tracking UFOs; and (d) many high-level people within the DoD, who have access to classified intelligence that we don’t have access to, believe in UFOs.

This leads me to one of only two conclusions: either aliens exist or the US Government wants us to think that aliens exist. I’m going to make an assumption—that may or may not be true but it’s just a belief I have—that either aliens don’t exist or if they do they’re not in contact with the US government.

I’m a bit too scientific, not to mention too skeptical of what the government tells us, to believe in extraterrestrial intelligence. If you believe the US government is in contact with aliens, then click away—the rest of this article isn’t for you. This leaves me with only one conclusion: for some reason, the DoD wants us to think aliens exist. Why would they want to do that?

2. The media is excited to spread UFO theories

Second, this article is part of a deluge from the mass media of alien articles over the last months. And we know that the US federal government has deep ties to the press. Just days before the NY Times expose, Newsweek published “Alien Life: Europa Plate Tectonics could be Feeding Life on Icy Jupiter Moon” (Dec 5th 2017) and “Do Aliens Exist?” (Dec 8th 2017), presciently predicting the trend of the month. Google Trends shows how it’s suddenly being spoken about online non-stop out of the blue.

Incredibly, the CIA’s official Twitter account is now tweeting with instructions on how to take photos of UFOs. In October, NASA claimed that a cylindrical asteroid-like object that they can’t identify is flying 100,000 mph in our solar system, but it is from another solar system, the first time ever an object is in our solar system that originated in a different one. It has apparently been named Oumuamua, which doubly-presciently means “messenger” in Hawaiian.

All the articles before the expose and the official CIA tweets about it make it harder to argue that it’s just a cool topic for the media to talk about since the expose; it must be deeper than that.

3. Aliens make for a great external threat that can get citizens to rally behind the government

Third, it makes sense for the government to do this, from their eyes. It’s a way to unite the entire country (or world) against a common enemy, while also an excuse for a power grab. And an easy way to steal more money—oh, we need vaccines against alien viruses, my friend’s company happens to make them and it will cost $10 billion—but we need it!

Plus, if the deep state is in a war against the President, as seems to be the case, then the deep state probably needs to activate some pretty extreme contingency backup plans it had been planning for a long time. Break glass in case of emergency.

4. Alien-obsessed Blink 182 singer is deeply connected to the CIA/NSA apparatus

Fourth, there’s a weird connection with Tom DeLonge, the singer of Blink 182. He just created a UFO-seeking company whose board and advisors are all the first rate CIA/NSA operatives. And he goes on Joe Rogan’s podcast and has a bizarre interview in which he seems to know nothing about UFOs or his new company.

The best synthesis of DeLonge’s weird behavior—creating this UFO company, somehow getting all these top CIA/NSA operatives as his advisors, yet knowing nothing about any of it—is that he’s a front man, trying to use his huge following to bring more widespread acceptance to his “belief” in aliens.

5. The “aliens attack” plan was long ago revealed through code name Project Blue Beam

Fifth, there have been conspiracy theories in which people have been whispering about this for decades. Just Google “Project Blue Beam” or “Serge Monast” and many articles, from decades ago, will discuss these multi-decade plans. A good starting point is a speech Monast gave summarizing Project Blue Beam 20 years ago, shortly before his mysterious death.

Another good starting point is RationalWiki’s page about it, which—although it argues this is a fake conspiracy theory and doesn’t exist—is an excellent summary of the idea. Plus reading and considering both sides of any debate with an open mind is essential to intellectual honesty.

How will it play out? I have no idea. But I’m willing to put forth a testable hypothesis: over 2018, we’re going to see more and more media about aliens, including more top scientists (“Stephen Hawking”—name in quotes on purpose) and Hollywood celebrities believing in UFOs and that they’re coming. This is testable using Google Trends to track what’s being discussed online. All this chatter led by the Mainstream Media will build up to some sort of attack, likely a bioattack, that may or may not happen in 2018.

Lets see how this plays out, but regardless of whether it happens or not… we live in interesting times.

Stephanie Relfe #conspiracy metatech.org

We and many other people who have had experiences with aliens, or who have done enough research, already know that there are real aliens on earth. The only reason you may not know this is because currently the aliens are afraid of us and don’t come out in the open. In fact, there are dozens of different species.

Here are just a few articles that we have which show this (in addition to the experiences of Michael in The Mars Records and Pat in The Mars Force. (These books are free to download).

1. Sgt Clifford Stone states that the U.S. Army Has Helped Catalog 57 Species of Aliens, in this video:

. The L.A. Times in 1934 reported that a man found a city of reptilians underneath Los Angeles.

3. President Medvedev of Russia confirmed that aliens are real.

The Russians are ahead of us on this one. For example, here is a secret Russian book listing many different kinds of aliens. Please download it now.

There is another movie which may also be partly documentary, and that is The Arrival. This is an excellent movie, staring Charlie Sheen.

Unfortunately, it came out at the same time as Independence Day, which captured all the media attention. Therefore, The Arrival did not receive the attention it deserves.

The Arrival is about aliens who can shapeshift (possibly with the aid of technology) and appear as humans. Charlie Sheen discovers that they are on earth to “terraform” Earth and prepare it for the arrival of the rest of their race.

Interestingly, currently you can buy The Arrival on its own on Amazon for $25, but if you buy it with the awful sequel, The Arrival II, you have to pay only about $6. Maybe someone really, really wants you to see the sequel, where Charlie Sheen is killed off in the first few minutes, or wasn’t even in it, or something like that- I can’t remember anything about this terrible movie. Does someone want us to forget about the message in The Arrival? We believe so.

WOMAN SEES ALIENS WITH GRASSHOPPER LEGS

A client of mine who is an intelligent, professional lady whom I know reasonably well told me how she knew that aliens were real because one day, when she was an adult, she woke up suddenly and standing beside her bed was an alien. She was definitely awake, and not dreaming.

When she described the alien to me, I told her that it sounded like the aliens in “The Arrival”, because she said the legs were back-to-front, like grasshoppers. She had never seen the movie. She then watched the movie and told me that the alien looked exactly like the aliens in that movie.

Later on, I just happened to come across, on the internet, some black and white photos from the past, from a time when there was no photoshop. I showed them to this lady and she said that the alien’s legs were just like those in the pics. Here is the pic I showed her:

image

The story goes that pictured above is Ella Harper, a Tennessee native better known across the country as the Camel Girl. She supposedly suffered from congenital genu recurvatum, which is a disorder that weakens the ligaments in the knees and causes them to bend backward, gradually or all the damned way. (Could she have been a hybrid? Or a real alien?).

Like many people with physical deformities in the 1800s, Ella was a star circus attraction for many years. She actually made a good living this way, at one point taking home $200 a week, or the equivalent of $5,000 a week in today’s money, and was able to retire from the sideshow business in 1886.

Here is another, similar photo.

image

People have said that the above just has to be an optical illusion. But, they don’t explain how that was possible. Again, what if this is a photo of an alien or hybrid?

Regardless, of whether the above pics are of aliens or people, I am certain that the aliens in The Arrival exist, because of what my client told me.

ALIENS WORKING TO KILL US OFF

The aliens in The Arrival are working to change the earth so that it is good for them, and not good for us, so that they can colonize it. It is possible that they, along with evil humans, are behind projects that kill humans and damage their brain such as AIDS, pesticides, Roundup, fluoride, microwaved food, the genetic alteration of wheat to make it toxic to humans, and many other projects.

Vaccines are not pushed on us only because they contain mercury, formaldehyde and cancer viruses so that the drug companies can make $300,000+ off of people when they get cancer. It’s also because they harm people’s metaphysical abilities and prevent people from seeing entities and UFOs.

Apparently, we are tougher than we know, because people still keep living and reproducing, so it looks as though they had to increase the severity of their programs.

More evidence that aliens want to wipe us out was given by the American Hero, Phil Schneider, who was murdered for the 20-30 public talks he gave. In this video he says that the aliens plan to kill of 4/8-7/8 of all people by 2029. Go to 28.00 (although the whole thing is well worth listening to):

Once you know that aliens are real, and they want to kill nearly all of us, seemingly impossibly crazy events now make sense, such as:

•Development of GMOS (Genetically Modified Organisms) and major distribution into the global food supply, even though they have been found to create sterile grandchildren, huge tumors and massive organ damage. This stops reproduction and also kills people off before they get too old, by which time they are more likely to have gained knowledge of the truth about the alien takeover.

•Addition of nano-molecules into our food supply, for no apparent reason, which will cause even more deaths. Nanomolecules kill by themselves, because they are poisonous to the body. In addition, if they are activated via cell phone radiation, they can wipe out whole cities.

•Damage to the Fukushima, Japan, nuclear reactors, that was never corrected. My husband Michael was a radar technician for the U.S. Navy. He knows stories of nuclear disasters that were remedied quickly and permanently by pouring borated concrete on them. This was never done at Fukushima. Now, we have at least 3,000 miles of dead ocean in the Pacific, which has not even been reported by the mainstream media. And others are reporting that Fukushima is a threat to the entire planet.

•Chemtrails

•Morgellons’ disease

Knowing that aliens have also taken over parts of the government, it’s easier to understand why they want our guns. There is one scene in They Live where Roddy Piper makes a comment that from memory is something like, “So, you bleed just like us!”.

No doubt many people will think this article is just too weird and outrageous. I would encourage those people to read two of the most important political reports you will ever read, by the famous “White House Insider”, who gave much accurate information to The Ulsterman Report.

This story talks about the man who tells the U.S. President what to do.

This story shows that Obama is not human.

The good news is that the aliens are scared of humans. If they weren’t, they would not be in hiding. They would be out in the open and visit during daytime, via the front door. That means, even if we don’t realize it yet, we do have the power to defeat them. But we must each do our part physically, spiritually and prayerfully to do what we can to change this, if we are to stop their plan before it’s too late. One thing that you can do is to read Michael’s article, “How to Prevent Alien & Military Abduction“. If the military would follow this suggestion, that would also be a very good thing.

Another thing that you can do is to get all of the poisons and other negative stresses out of your life that have been put there by evil beings who want to poison you at the same time they gain massive profits and power. That is one reason why I spent two years writing the 55 easy-to-read chapters in the book You’re not fat, You’re toxic.

I don’t know if aliens are behind the obesity epidemic or not, but I suspect they are, because obesity is not a disease, it’s a business plan.

One reviewer on Amazon called Youre Not Fat, Youre Toxic, “The Nutrition Bible”. Read it, tell others about it, and ask your library to order a copy (we are told that there is a waiting list at the Las Vegas library for this book), before millions more are poisoned to death, or their genetic lines are made extinct. Strengthen your body and health while you get slim and beautiful.

Stephanie & Michael Relfe #conspiracy metatech.org

YOU HAVE BEEN PROGRAMMED TO LIKE & TRUST ALIENS

The aliens have been with us for hundreds of years, in hiding. The aliens understand humans well, and especially know about marketing and propaganda. Marketing is all about associating good FEELINGS with a product or idea. This is called ‘anchoring’.

What better way to get a person to like aliens than have them see fun TV shows as a child? It has been shown that a person’s brainwaves are in a hypnotic trance within just one minute of watching television. How many people have been hypnotized to expect Mr. Scott of Star Trek to “beam me up Scotty” when in danger?

You learned from The Mars Records that it is simple for the aliens or military to open a portal into anyone’s bedroom, abduct them and then give them some scopolamine and hypnosis. The person will then do whatever they are told.

The excellent book Secret, Don’t Tell; The Encyclopedia of Hypntosism shows with records from court proceedings that anyone can be made to do anything with hypnosis and drugs, including rob a bank, prostitution and murder. Influencing a scriptwriter or an author is child’s play.

E.T. THE MOVIE

The Satanists in Hollywood have done much to help the aliens prepare for this harvest, at least since the release of “E.T.” in 1982. If you analyze this movie, you will see that while at first it appeared cute, in reality it had some very evil messages.

First of all, you have an alien who is similar in appearance to the grays, the same ones who regularly take people without their permission and operate on them. How would people feel if humans took them at night, without their permission, and operated on them, and removed body parts, without even paying them for it? This is evil beyond imagination.

E.T. also taught children to hide the truth from their parents, and that parents are not to be trusted. The whole movie was filmed from low down, from a child’s point of view – making adults look like tall, scary people, instead of the only people in the world who really care about that child.

ALIEN PROPAGANDA ON TV

Alien propaganda will have the best marketing, and will be in the most popular shows, such as:

TELETUBBIES

DORA THE EXPLORER

Maybe I’m stretching a point there – but note the giant eyes, almost non-existent nose and monkey friend who is about the right size for a gray alien.

MY LITTLE PONY

These almond shaped creatures do not look like anything like ponies. But they make some very colorful aliens.

BARNY THE REPTILIAN

[...]

ALIENS IN SCIENCE MUSEUMS

When I was growing up, animals were my passion, so I was aware of everything animal around us. Naturally, as a warm blooded mammal, my main interest was in mammals, but also in birds, with some interest in reptiles. It would make sense that most children are like this.

Therefore, I was shocked when around 2006 we started visiting a lot of Science Museums. In the children’s section, museum after museum would have out 80% reptiles, and only 20% mammals and birds, or less, when it should be the other way around.

Dinosaurs were everywhere.They seldom ever even mention the dozens of different species of extinct mammals, many of which were larger than today’s mammals. Most of these went extinct suddenly 12,000 years ago. (Ref: Not by Fire, but by Ice)

Many people do not know that besides the woolly mammoth, there were at least 19 other species of prehistoric elephant, and many other species of giant rhinoceros, giant bears, giant camels, giant cats, giant sloths, giant kangaroos, giant wombats and many other strange mammals quite different from today’s mammals. Yet hardly a word of these at the museums. Do they perhaps not want us to realize that human giants existed then also, and right up until quite recent times?

Even when they had a live animal display, it was all snakes, turtles and lizards. Where were the guinea pigs, mice, rabbits, chickens and other warmblooded animals that are cheap to look after and show to children? It was this wild skewing towards all things reptilian that made us begin to see an orchestrated attempt around the world to get children to love reptilians and aliens.

[...]

MOVIE “KNOWING” PROGRAMS PEOPLE TO HAND OVER THEIR CHILDREN TO ALIENS

“Knowing” was a creepy movie. It came out at the same time as the even creepier “Melancholia”. Both had a similar message – something is coming from outer space that will kill everyone on earth, whether a sunburst or a large planetary object.

If you want to control people through a message, the most important part of the movie to place the message is at the end of the movie. Knowing had an extra evil message thrown in right at the end – It showed a man who loved his child handing over his child to the aliens, who looked rather like fallen angels or Nordic aliens. He didn’t even question if that was a good idea or not.

You should not hand your child over to a strange human, and the same thing goes for strange aliens, no matter what promises (lies) they make.

EVIDENCE THAT ALIENS ARE REAL

Proving to people that aliens are real, before they make public disclosure, is difficult for many reasons including:

Aliens hide.

Aliens use mind control to stop people remembering when they get abducted (all that is needed is some scopolamine, plus hypnosis).

Hundreds of UFO researchers have been murdered. This has removed many of the best researchers, and is a major discouragement to further research.

Our school system is designed to make us think that ‘we know everything’ and not to think for ourselves or find new knowledge.

The government covers up evidence regularly. Most of the really good information is well hidden, but even when people have asked for them through the Freedom of Information Act, most of them come back looking like the image below. The Black Vault posted a lot of these on the internet. If there is nothing to hide, why do they have to black out everything?

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

They are keeping MILLIONS OF LABOR SLAVES in an UNDERGROUND COLONY in NEVADA!

The reptilians use them to build what ever the reptilians need!

The humans who live there do not even know they are reptilians! and they are not abused ether otherwise they would revolt against the keepers of that underground colony!

The reptilians get the people to do labor for them by treating them well enough, otherwise it would all be a loss cause!

The underground colony is north of area 51! which most of you know is also in Nevada! coincidence? of course not!

[...]

A lot of people in places like Toronto where I live! have been replaced by reptilians and other shapeshifting aliens like them that take on those people's forms!

That is how the underground colony numbers in the millions!

Once a person knows of the existence of alien shapeshifters like reptilians, those people can never be kidnapped and taken away by the reptilians! they only do it to people who do not know of their existence! so that is lucky for me I know hahaha!

I have heard they have done this to cities bigger that Toronto leaving only 20-10% of it's human inhabitants left, and some cities have been replaced 100%!

Those are cities that are isolated from Europe and the North East United States, which have not had practically any of it's inhabitants replaced by reptilians! unlike Toronto being in a different country making it a technically isolated city from the main population bubble! enabling that horrible thing to happen to Toronto!

About 9 out of 10 people have been replaced by reptilians and other shapeshifting aliens here!

I am not the only one who knows this!!!!

TameVine #fundie bibleforums.org

One of my sons came to me when he was about 4 years old and said, " If dinosaurs lived before man, how did man know dinosaurs lived".

Now you dont think a 4 year old could think so abstractly and it stunned me a bit.

If your childs question was simular to this, you can say.. truthfully, That dinosaurs did not exist before mankind. We know this because death did not enter in until after the fall. So, if death didnt happen until after Adam sinned, then the dinosaurs would never have died out. They had to die after the fall and after the existence of mankind.

Alia_Harkonnen #fundie reddit.com

Fuck You

I can’t connect to anyone. I don’t know what to say to people even if I want to say something. I wish for most people to just disappear on the spot. We live in different realms. They say their stuff and I can’t even argue because I still can’t fully wrap my head around that they believe it. That all these people live in the world that allows them to think and talk that way. And feeling so right while doing it. So sane and balanced, well intended. So sure in their own importance and abilities even when they act modest and insecure, it shines through. In how they give advice, in how they assume the value of their intent, in how they think people should hear their opinions and conclusions because they have something to offer. In the fact that they dare to even search for meaning in things. In their self love, or pursuit for self love. In their selfies. In their jokes. I hate them. I hate them because they don’t even have the capacity to understand why I hate them. I can try to explain how disgusting they are but it won’t resonate when all those parts are what they are most proud off. So the problem is me, except I know i see things clearly. I know why I hate what I hate, and I stand by my hatred. I like my hatred. I have almost no real personality, I have no real tools to cope much with life, but I am glad I still feel disgust and hatred. If I didn’t, I would be someone truly horrible.

“Hate eats you up inside.” No, it doesn’t. It builds me up. At least it gives me momentary focus. Who cares whom I hate anyway. I’m generous with it. I don’t even interact with people though, how much do you need to be liked to be bothered by misogyny or misanthropy of someone like me?

Does it really need to be explained that there are levels from which we can observe things. On some level I hate you all. On some level you just annoy me. On some level I really don’t care. There are people I don’t hate, who say things I don’t find to be dumb. But I still can’t connect. I can’t have conversations, I can’t have or meet up to expectations. I hate the people I like as well then, on some level, cause they make me feel the worst. And I’m not even really close to anyone, that’s my act of altruism from a very profound level where I’m practically a hero. Every time I choose to stay away, I am a hero. Every time I tell you to go fuck yourself, I am a hero. Cause I let you go and I know exactly what you think about me, and it’s so easy for you to reach your conclusions and let it go. I am doing an act of kindness. When I tell you to go choke on a dick, I am giving you an easy out. And I like it. I like to say these things to people I don’t like. But it’s nothing. What makes you worthy of such dislike is how easily you then take this hatred trivially, but it’s not trivial. It’s not personal, for that you would have to be a person. It’s depressing, it’s disgusting, it’s completely overwhelming how sick you make me feel.

I’m not speaking from a moral high ground although my hatred is moral. I’m not speaking as a person, I’s much bigger than that. I don’t speak from self love, cause I could never begin to even think about taking that idiotic concept seriously, let alone see it as something to work on. How do you say such stupid words and don’t stop and get filled with disgust. Or at least find it funny. Something, anything but what you’re doing and thinking now.

No, I don’t love myself. If I hate myself, that’s also on some level. On some level I have very bad anxiety, I can’t speak, I can’t think and I can’t take it. I hate this situation. But it doesn’t matter. Contradictions are only an issue to idiots. There’s no hypocrisy. I don’t have to be anyone at all to hate you. Nothing needs to be deserved.

My hatred won’t harm you, it helps you. You will interpret in such way where it will fit right in with your beliefs and I am the example of what you don’t want to be like at all. And that’s how it will always be, you’ll talk on and on loving your voice, and I’ll say my shit and no one will hear anyone, cause if by any chance we do hear then we can just hate. If you could see how i see you, you would hate me too.

I know why I talk here. I just come here trying to find my thoughts and put them together so they leave my head. I don’t do it to exist or to tell others who I am. I don’t have solutions. That’s all it is, stupid random thoughts. But I have no doubt that my hatred is my morality. It is not wrong, and it is not bad, not for me or for anyone else.

Love is different, love is for individuals.

But I know I can’t connect with anyone. There is no solution, and the problem isn’t complex. It’s lack of ability. It’s so frustrating. You can’t imagine the frustration of it. When you want something so much but it doesn’t exist in others, and it doesn’t exist in you. You spent years working on some solution personified, or epiphany, and you spend years knowing there is none, but you still want to say to someone they are right, or that you agree, or that something they said reflected what you were thinking and it meant something to you. It is not something you experience often, and even though it won’t change anything, you think you can get something through that recognition, that something can be added onto you. But when you try to say it, it’s already dead. You can’t do anything with it, you can’t make it important without coping and turning things into your own little myths and legends. And then it’s disgusting. Before you know it it’s over.

But that’s not your life. You’re not alone, you all share the whole world where almost everything in it has the same meaning and you all relate. You’re so safe. Sometimes you find some things you can’t relate and you feel lonely until you eventually find someone you can relate even that to. You feel lonely so easily but you’re never really lonely. We are really lonely. We can’t relate anything, not even with each other. Our minds are empty. We don’t connect. We live in completely different worlds but while you’re all together in yours we are nowhere. It’s not a world, it’s just some empty place with nothing in it and we watch you. Your world is shit. Jealousy only goes so deep, it’s a distraction. Your world is a nightmare to watch but you are relatively content in it, and you’re not lonely in it. You ruin everything I could care about. I don’t want to be like you, and i don’t want to be where you are. And I don’t want to be where I am. But these two things are completely different and comparison is dumb.

I can’t do anything. I’m also just stuck. I can only hate everything to keep sane. When I say i wish everything was different, I don’t mean self improve, i don’t mean being like someone else, I don’t mean utopia, I mean everything.

Cluster F Bomb Award

For ridiculous amounts of pointless swearing

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Did you fucktards who are saying aliens don't exist and that all aliens are demons ever consider the idea that angels, fallen angels, aliens, Jesus and Satan are aliens. Jesus and the angels are the good aliens and Satan, fallen angels and demons are the bad aliens. After all it only fucking makes sense. I mean if angels, fallen angels, and demons and Jesus Christ and Satan aren't aliens then what the fucking fuck are they. Besides in the bible it describes Satan as being a serpent or a dragon like a Reptillian.The Annunaki aka Nephillim who come from Nibiru aka Planet X will be the falen angels who pretend to be good and our saviors against Satan and the Reptillians and greys when in fact they are working with them to enslave us. The Antichrist is likely a Nephillim aka Annunaki from Nibiru. Jesus Christ and the angels are likely the Pleiadians who are our real allies against Satan, the reptillians, greys, as well as the Nephillim. the msot ridiculous bullshit I've heard from the christian fucktards is the ones who try to say that aliens don't exist and space travel is impossible and that the government is trying to make people believe in aliens and space travel. that is the most ridiculous load of bullshit ever. If aliens and space travel were really a government lie then why does the government and mainstream media deny the existence of aliens and interstellar space travel and why do they ridicule people who believe in aliens and space travel. Sounds like they knwo about aliens and are hiding the existence of them from us. Not only that but they are actually working for the Reptillians, Greys, and Nephillim to enslave us and try and prevent us from travelling into space. Then of course let's not forget all the pictures obviously showing structures, monuments, pyramids, mines, cities, and other types of civilization and life on the moon, Mars, Venus, Titan and the other gas planet moons which NASA claims are all optical illusions but only a complete braindead retard would believe they're only optical illusion like Never A Straight Answer says. The government wants us to believe that we're the only life in the universe and that aliens don't exist and space travel is impossible so they can keep us imprisoned on this planet forever. Like I said let's see you religious fucktards answer the question if angels, fallen angels, demons, Jesus Christ, Antichrist and Satan aren't aliens then what the fucking fuck are they?

onlytheghosts #wingnut deviantart.com

(submitter note: bit of a pain to get this because the guy has blocked me on dA, likely over a debate we were having years back, but still)
Hate Speech is a toxic propaganda term
Anything that restricts free speech, freedom of thought, freedom of opinion is wrong. When people are REQUIRED to avoid saying certain things, it can lead to disaster. When it becomes a habit, it often leads to tragedy and horrible misunderstandings. That’s why I refer to it as being like living in a communist dictatorship. It’s a big part of the reason for the fall of the Soviet Union; people could not speak their minds, they could not say the truth, so the situation got worse and worse without any of the leadership at the top able to know just how bad things had become. Eventually the split between what was real and what was said became so great that nobody could believe anything. It was all lies, word avoidance, dodging the real issues, pretending real problems weren’t there, because of political correctness.

The leaders of the Politiburo had no knowledge of how bad the economy was, about food shortages, about the problems of the people… because NOBODY was allowed to speak freely. So, the Soviet policies continued to lead to further disasters, the whole time with the leadership out of touch and nobody allowed to say “Hey, things are really bad, we need to fix such and such” because nobody could say what the real problems were.

Instead of worrying about the violent intent of individuals, “hate speech” advocates always wanted to ban utterances, gestures, conduct, or writing that they didn’t like. A George Orwell 1984 concept. As far as I know, the term has never been narrowly defined only against encouraging genocide or violence since there were already laws for that sort of thing, and threatening others is already a clearly understood term. There was no need for such a new term as “hate speech”. It was promoted on college campuses, leading to a rash of new speech codes and other imaginative methods to control what people say and think, with no relation at all to the “genocide” or “threats”, because those terms were already existing. It’s just a way to introduce speech codes and control people, the entire goal from the start. The advocates of "hate speech" have used the term and concept as a way of silencing other people, and have always used the term to get around the 1st Amendment protection for Free Speech in the USA. It's been used in a similar manner in other Western nations. It’s been used in a similar manner in other Western nations in order to erode the common Western concept of freedom of speech, freedom of thought, that had become a strong pillar of Western democracy and culture for centuries. This pillar is under attack.

In many Western nations, the concept of defining what people say as “hate speech” is used to attack traditional cultures , attack Christian beliefs, oddly avoiding apply the same rules to Muslims and Jews, or anyone else. Anglo-Celtic culture is attacked in Australia by the “Racial Vilification” laws and similar. In the state of New South Wales, many slang terms are now illegal. Traditional Anglo-Celtic Australian culture is attacked, censored, and the views of the majority of the population on numerous issues aren’t permitted.

In the United Kingdom, people have been fined heavily and their lives ruined because the police have punished them for actions which do not legally constitute a crime such as tweeting a rude word online or posting the lyrics of a song in a blog. The police have tried to “check your thinking” as they say. They have got away with this many times to intimidate the common public despite no laws being broken by the individuals the police are harassing. Telling the truth in the Western nations is becoming rapidly defined as “hate speech” for more and more subjects.


The Nazis pushed speech codes and political correctness of their version too. Do you think the Nazis could have ruled Germany so tightly if they had freedom of speech? North Korea does it. Do you think North Korea can ever solve it’s problems when nobody is allowed to say “Hey we got problems here in our food supply!” Cuba does it. When the excuse of “It offends people” is used repeatedly, it becomes toxic. It kills free communication of ideas.

When you do that, it’s dangerous, confusing, and leads to more trouble. Instead of solving real problems, the politically correct lie about them and pretend the problems aren’t there. The Social Justice crowd then spend huge amounts of spite on creating fictional victimhoods and other fantasy “problems” with which to attack people about. They use these to bully people, censor, shutdown opposition, and push policies that are increasingly divergent from the real world issues that truly need to be dealt with. They create more problems then try to blame everyone else for these, while refusing to accept any personal responsibility for their part in actions that led to the creation of looming disasters.

You can see this in personal experience. Perhaps like me, you have been on car trips with people who haven’t a clue who decided where the hell everyone is going, everyone assuming that it was a group decision while in truth it was a total misunderstanding. I’ve sat in company meetings with executives trying to work out what the problem is, while NOBODY has a clue because NOBODY told them the true issues, just beat around the bush, so the entire meeting is everyone trying to GUESS. This is why I hate speech codes and political correctness so damn much. Nobody can communicate properly. A lot of the time those who get “easily offended” are just acting that way as cry-bullies to shut other people up.

They use their claims of “hate speech” like a sledgehammer to shut people down, to scream at them to not say anything which disagrees with political correctness.

It’s wrong. Period.

You can’t go half this, and half that, on Free Speech

It’s all – or nothing

If you have only degrees of it, it isn’t free speech

Time to tell the cry-bullies to shut the Hell up. Like the majority of people, I’m tired of the nonsense used by the politically correct, the lies from the social justice crowd, the screaming of “I’m a victim” from people who are fantasizing new issues to have a temper tantrum about.

Do you think the corona virus pandemic would have got this bad if doctors in Wuhan were allowed to say “We have a very dangerous new virus!” back in early December?

Mark Jones #fundie markjones1388.esy.es

In Acts chapter 17 we read of a people called the Bereans. In this passage (verses 10-15) that they appear in (very little of the Bereans is mentioned in the Bible), it shows them take the words of the apostle Paul and examine them in relation to the Old Testament scriptures (quite possibly the Septuagint, certainly the Tanakh if not the Septuagint).

In verse 11 we read the following quote:
“Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” Acts 17:11 (NIV)

The Bereans were the people who lived in the ancient city of Berea (also known as Beroea), the city is now called Veria and is situated in Macedonia in Northern Greece.

Many people will listen to something they are taught and will take that as truth. However the example the Bereans set in this verse is that we should check the validity of what we are told and examine those things and check that they are in line with what the Bible tells us. There would’ve been no doubt people in that time who reacted when they read this and expressed outrage, saying something along the lines of, “how can these people dare to doubt the words of the apostle Paul”. It may sound like a harsh response, but it’s often what we see happen today, in fact many atheistic arguments are based on similar logic, “who are you to disagree with the words of Stephen Hawking (etc)?”. That kind of logic in of itself proves that it is of man and not of God. The principle outlined here in Acts 17 with the the Bereans is an important one and it is something we can glean something from.
So in this post I’m going to outline a few ways we can test something said in the Bible or even an interpretation of a verse someone references or just simply the outlining of a belief that someone has, and test it in such a way that does justice by God’s word and doesn’t mire it in our eyes.

So without further ado, let’s get into it:

Go To God’s Word First:
You’ll have no doubt heard someone ask the question, why are there are so many contradictions in the Bible? This argument is actually rooted in a seed of deception that goes back to first century AD, in 2 Corinthians 4:4 we are told that the god of this age (who is Satan) has blinded the eyes of the unbelievers so that they will not see the light of the gospel. The word we see in the original Greek language where we see the word unbelievers is the word apistos. The word apistos means unfaithful, faithless, incredible, unbelieving or incredulous. So this statement in 2 Corinthians 4:4 almost seems to have a Ronseal principle to it (does exactly what it says on the tin), however I think it goes a little deeper than that. In John 3:16 we see the word pisteuo and it means to be persuaded of something or to completely trust in something. I think Paul is hinting at the reverse of this very principle outlined in John 3:16, so 2 Corinthians 4:4 isn’t just referring to those who haven’t committed their lives to Christ, but also to those who doubt the ways and the truth of God. This could be part of the reason why Paul tells the Church in Corinth a little later in the letter to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5).

But back to the “contradictions”. Any so-called contradictions that we run into in scripture are either born out of man-made teaching or simply out of a lack of understanding of scripture as a whole. What we need to do is cross-check with what the scriptures say and the Bereans had that principle nailed, they cross-checked a statement or a principle we now find in the New Testament with what was written in the Old Testament.
NB – Check out my post called “The 2 Timothy 3:16 Principle” for more on the subject.

Now this means a couple of things, first we actually need to read the Old Testament. Some people don’t like reading the Old Testament because they find it confusing, or they believe it paints a different picture of God than of the one we see in the New Testament. In response to that let me say this, the human mind is an incredible thing, but our heart is even more powerful than our minds. In fact the prophet Jeremiah tells us that the heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure (note this in reference to human works) and he asks the question who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9) However we read in Ezekiel 36:26 a promise from God where we are told that He will give us a new heart, removing our heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh (not to be confused with the flesh Paul often speaks of). So if our hearts are polluted then it is entirely possible for our hearts to convince our minds of something that is contrary to what is the truth. This is part of the principle behind the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke when He told us to deny ourselves daily and to take up our cross and follow Him (Luke 9:23). Where we see the word deny in this verse in Luke it is the Greek word arnesastho which is very closely linked to a word we’ve discussed before on this blog, arneomai. As we’ve talked about in the past the word arneomai means to deny, disown or contradict, so in this verse in Luke it’s saying that we have to literally give up ownership of ourselves and take up our cross and follow Jesus. So we need to read the Old Testament.
The other thing we need to do is to see if it fits with the overall picture that scripture gives us (so reading the entire Bible). For example, does what we see in Psalm 1:2 where we are told that our delight is in the law of the Lord and on that law (the word of God) we should meditate on it day and night line up with other verses in scripture. We are told in Joshua 1:8 to meditate on the law of the Lord day and night, it’s the exact same principle. And just to show that this is not a ruse or anything like that, let me ask you what you’re reaction would be if I told you that there was over 400 years between the writing of these two verses. You see Joshua chapter 1 would’ve been written in about 1406 BC and Psalm 1 would’ve been about 979 BC, now if those two dates are exact (I have no reason to say they’re not), then that puts these two verses 427 years apart. But I’ll get into timelines a little later on.

What we need to do when a preacher preaches a sermon or a Bible study leader explains a passage or a verse is to go away and read the scriptures and check if it all lines up.

We Need To Read Into A Bit Of History:

Now, I know that history isn’t everybody’s cup of tea however when it comes to understanding the words of the Bible it can be quite key.

However please let me briefly explain why history is important when it comes to testing the validity of God’s word. You see what it simply boils down to is the fact that when it comes to the historical claims of the Bible (creation, Jesus, the ark, the exodus, etc), none of us who are reading this post were alive when those events occurred. So the question then is how can we know they’re true historical accounts? Is there evidence for such events in the Bible? Well to answer the first question, there is an amazing wealth of evidence for the events that the Bible outlines, we have found the ruins of the city of Jericho we also have massive evidence supporting the global flood recorded in Genesis 6-9 (you can see more on that here) and there’s a more than all of that, but I’ll leave you to do your own research (I’ll give some recommended sites to start with for doing that). And the answer to the second question, is yes, there’s lots of evidence supporting the Biblical accounts.

So let me encourage you to look into things such as Biblical chronology, and Biblical history. Some of the stuff you’ll find along the way is fascinating. For example I’m currently reading a book called “The Discovery of Genesis” by C.H. Kang and Ethel R. Nelson, the book looks at examples of how the Chinese language links in with the accounts of the book of Genesis. It is a truly fascinating book, in it we see examples such as the word for boat relating to the flood, when we break down the symbols that make up the word boat we can see that the word boat points to a vessel for eight people. So reading into some of this is not only fascinating but can help us to grow stronger in the faith.

...

History is important to the events of the Bible, because if the events of the Bible did not happen then the Bible is not infallible, and because of the claim of 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is God breathed, then if even 1% of the Bible is false then the entire Bible is compromised.

However let me say that although history is important to understanding the validity of the Bible, by all means this does not mean you have to be an expert in the subject. One of the best things to know as a Christian when it comes to any question that arises in regards to the Bible is where to go to find answers to those said questions.

...

Little Bit:

Did you know that one of the most common objections that critics of the Christian faith make, is that the Bible apparently tells us that the world is flat? An example of where this comes from is found in Revelation 7:1 which makes reference to the “four corners of the earth”, however the Bible states in Isaiah 40:22 that the earth is a circle, remember though the obvious understanding (before some misinterprets the word circle) that a sphere is a 3D circle and the earth is spherical in nature.
Science tells us a lot about the truth of Biblical history, for example did you know that the mitochondrial (from the mother) and y chromosome (father) both trace back to a single ancestral sequence approximately 6,000 years ago (more on that here), this is something that you may not get taught in a science classroom today. Science is very important to know about in regards to defending our faith today, as it is highly likely to be one of the first areas you will be challenged on about your faith, bearing in mind the myth that is running around rampantly that says “science has disproved God”.

Again like in all of the other subjects, you don’t have to be an expert in the field, again I’m most certainly not although I do enjoy reading into science, but it is helpful to know a little bit on the subject and more importantly to know where to go to find answers to the questions you’ll get asked.

Now the Bible does make some scientific claims, such as we all come from two people, Adam and Eve. The thing we have to look into is whether or not science supports the claims made in the Bible, I touch on the Adam and Eve question a little bit a couple of paragraphs before this one. But looking into science is pretty important in this day and age to understanding the validity behind the Bible, but again you don’t have to be an expert on science but having a basic understanding of it and knowing where to go to find some great answers is definitely valuable.
One other thing I think is worth mentioning is that understanding the difference between historical and operational science, the reason why I say this is because very often at the minute the lines between the two get blurred particularly when you’re talking to evolutionists. We often see the claim that creation is pseudo-science and evolution is science, however both evolution and creation are historical science, they are versions of history that haven’t been observed through operational science that we either accept or don’t accept and then use operational science to look for evidence that supports the historical science that we accept. But in a basic way of saying it is historical science is conclusions that we form from things that we see from the past (historical records, archaeology, etc), whereas operational science is the testable repeatable and observational methods that we can use today, such as carbon dating for example (check out this article for more). So knowing enough about the difference between historical and operational science is of a great benefit in helping us tell the difference between the two, but again you don’t have to be an expert on the subject, but know where you can get the information from that you need to answer the questions.

In Closing:

So that’s all I wanted to say in this post eally. When it comes to testing what the Bible has to say to us, we need to start with the Bible and cross-check it with what it has to say in other parts of it. Look into a bit of history, look at what evidence we find that supports the accounts in scripture.
Read a bit into the original languages look at what the original words were in their original languages, find out what they mean and how they correspond to your understanding of what you’re reading. And finally look a bit into science, go and look into whether or not science supports the Bible or not. But don’t worry about being an expert in these things, you don’t have to be one, again I’m not one.

I hope you’ve found this post both interesting and helpful. I would love to hear your thoughts, as I mentioned I’m going to post some links below that may help with looking into some of these things, so if there’s any extra ones you can think of just drop them in the comments or send me them over through my Facebook page and I’ll update the list, I may even create a sub-page here on the site of useful links, let me know if that is something that you would want.

I’ll be posting again soon as I have a lot of posts in the draft que currently being edited.
But until next time I’ll leave you with the links below.

All the best,
Mark

Dexter Dawson #fundie youtube.com

(This is a comment on a video titled "Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter - Jesus Christ vs The Atheists. I did not bother to read it all, why not you read it?)

Theists and atheists alike are so retarded!
Honestly, all people belonging to both groups are so arrogant, they actually believe they hold the truth of the universe and reality in their hands, they honestly believe they grasped the most important knowledge of all.
Why are there theist and atheist people?
Are they so unbelievably arrogant, that they somehow know anything, anything at all?
First of all, the universe itself may be just a hologram, you have no proof that reality exists, furthermore you have no proof that reality is "real".Think about it.Just think about it for a minute, any creature capable of thinking, of reasoning, of understanding its surroundings, automatically assumes that reality is real, that we can understand all of our environment based just on our senses and concepts, but we don't even have all the tools or the right tools for this.There are animals who can see better than humans, seeing more colors and so on and so forth.
Basically it all comes down to this, what if reality is not real?What if reality is ever changing?Who says that reality is real?What does it mean for reality to be real and why is it important?Who has definite proof that even though reality is real, that is also constant?For all you know, reality constantly changes its own physical laws.
Gravity still can't be explained, actually there are some good arguments that gravity may be not real and it doesn't work the way we assume.If something like gravity may not be real, than what does it say about our lives, about our reality?
Do you have proof that you're real?No you have none.You may think that you have, but is nothing more than an imprinted bias to instantly accept that somehow you are real.Prove to me that you're real.You can talk to me, but for all I know I may be hallucinating, you can touch me, but that can be easily a hallucination too, an optical illusion, people often imagine all sorts of things.You may punch me in the face, but I may be just as easily punch myself in the face while I assume there's someone in front of me doing it(you), while that someone(you) may be just a side-effect of multiple personality disorder(now known as Dissociative Identity Disorder).
See?You can't prove to me that you're real, just like I can't prove it to you that I am real.What reason and proof do you all have to believe that you're real?None, you just instantly buy it, you never even question it?What if I am not real?What reason and proof you have to believe reality exists, that your personal version of reality is real?None, you just immediately accept the reality you see, feel and experience through your senses as being genuine, but you have no proof of that and that's why you never ask yourself?Does the universe exists?Let's assume it does.If it does exist, does the universe still exist as of this moment?What if the universe disappeared and got replaced with a Fake Universe?What about that?And what would that imply?That we are also just as fake as our Fake Universe?How do you know space exist?Have you been outside the planet Earth?If not what is your proof, cause people indoctrinated the idea in your head your whole life, from your family to your school teacher to literally everyone in your life.For all you know, the entire universe may be just a hologramic projection made by some people on earth to make fun of every gullible soul here?Maybe the universe is just planet Earth, you have no definite proof otherwise.And even if you went to space, how do you know it's real?What basis did you have to claim that is genuine?What?Your senses?You mean those senses that are so easily fooled by any optical illusion?Those senses shared by all humans who have and had hallucinations and claimed they meet Satan and other fictional creatures.Are you real?What if you're fake?Maybe you don't exist, or maybe you were replaced with someone who looks exactly like you, thinks exactly like you and acts exactly like you, someone who has the exact same number of atoms and molecules building their body?Do you have any proof that didn't happen?What if it did?Would you be a fake?Would you still be real?What if you were a fake from the moment you were born and only now you've been replaced by the real you?Would you be real then, or a fake?And what does it mean to be real or fake?Can someone be real and fake at the same time?What if you're someone's dream?What if someone else's existence is your dream?Are there real or fake or both or none of those options?
Can you prove that you have a brain inside your head?You can't prove it to yourself, because you have to take your brain out of your head and show it to yourself, can you do that?For all you know you may have shit in your brain and just believe that you have a brain?I can see your brain if I cut you up, if I drill into your head, but you can never do it.So?No human ever can prove to themselves that they possess a brain, they just falsely believe it based on a stupid and fallacious assumption, if everyone has a brain, I must have one too, right?And it's not only stupid and fallacious, but also biased, how can I not be real?I must be, right?
Theists(people who believe in gods and worship them) are just like atheists(people who don't believe in any god), both stupid, retarded, foolishly arrogant and full of hubris, so much pride, every single one of their thoughts and concepts are so fallacious in nature and so easily countered.
Believing in a god or gods is stupid, not believe in any gods is just as stupid.Atheists these days are nothing more than condescending assholes who pretend they hold the ultimate understanding of our world and universe, they are so arrogant in their beliefs they are christian.That's right, atheists are just like christians, nothing more than a bunch of retarded people always claiming to know the truth, always arguing and debating who's right.Richard Dawkings is one of the stupidest people I have ever met, this guy spews so much bullshit, I am surprised he doesn't go on televisions and attempt to convert gullible people to his beliefs.Oh, he actually does like in this video right here.Just like the other guy.His arguments are so childish and unfounded, he doesn't even realize how lackluster they are.You have no proof that a god exists, nor do you have a proof that no god exists?You're just a shitty human just like any other human being that ever lived, is living and is going to live on this planet, you don't know shit, you just like to believe that you know, a common arrogance of all human beings.
Let's assume a god exists, does that automatically mean that he created the universe?No.See how easily I just proved all the debating on this subject and all those who debate it are stupid and retarded.I just erased all meaning in debating anything related to this subject.What if God exists and he just chills around doing nothing but godlike things(we may not know what godlike things are, we are humans after all) and the universe just is, or not?
Nobody knows anything, all the "knowledge" we "discovered", all the information we acquired over the years, all the things we learned are all meaningless, worthless and with no basis in any reality whatsoever.You can't even prove there assumed existance successfully.You can't prove anything, not even your existance or your thoughts for that matter.Are your thoughts real?How do you know they are, are you holding them inside the palm of your hand?Are your thoughts yours to begin with?Maybe they're someone else's?Nobody knows anything, we just assume we know, we just assume we can learn new stuff about our surroundings because we're all arrogant enough to instantly assume reality is a thing and not a concept, or a mere collective hallucination of mankind.
The only 3 ideas that make some sort of sense, the only 3 ideas that are closest to what may actually be, but not what we believe it is, are these:
- agnosticism, acknowledging that you're a worthless human being who has no certain way of ever knowing the answer to this dilemma or any dilemma for that matter
- solipsism, the idea that all reality even the concept of you is just a thought in your mind, or a mind and basically that mind is the only thing being something and all else is nothing
- nihilism, the idea that nothing has a meaning or a purpose and it's all just an accident, or a meaningless course of events

There it is, the only 3 ideas that all people who want to dub themselves as rational must adopt, these concepts aren't exactly real, genuine or true either, we have no way of knowing this or ever knowing this.
But, at the very least these concepts are the closest thing to what may actually be and not what we believe or what we want to believe or what we tell ourselves to believe.
Any other one that is not one of these is stupid, unfounded, can't ever be proven and only believed by stupid people.
Being a theist means being a retard,
Being an atheist means being a retard,
Both are self-righteous believing-in-their-own-bullshit fools
Oh my, my atheists, how foolish you accuse christians of being, but you're exactly if not far more foolish than them.
And I pick on the atheists because this is the new trend of the world, nobody takes christians serious besides themselves.
All atheists are retards.
Why are you all deluding yourselves into believing any bullshit or not believing bullshit?
Is this what you all are, atheists?Nothing more, than a bunch of people who don't believe in the bullshit of another bunch of people?
How can I take any of you seriously?Heck, how can you take yourselves, seriously?
Don't you all realize just how much of a retard every single one of you really is?
Do you really believe that if you're an atheist or a christian that you are smart, intelligent or clever in some way?Don't make me laugh, you're all nothing but posers.
Frauds, that's what all of you are.Nothing but a bunch of nameless sheep who follow the most stupidest and retarded ideas made by humanity ever.You're no smart people, you're no intelligent or wise people, you're nothing more mentally challenged people who waste their lives with what to believe or not believe in.
You are all bottom feeders, nothing more, nothing less.
Idiots, morons, people with shit-for-brains, retards, uneducated by yourselves to actually think for once in your life.
Annoying troglodytes, actually believing themselves to be someone, to have a an understanding of their surroundings, enough to make their own opinions, which are both illogical and irrational.
You are just like in Plato's allegory of the cave, you see the shadows on the wall and come up with the stupidest and most random things to claim and believe and then you go into this crusade for your entire life to prove to others, but mostly to yourselves that you are right, that you do understand "reality", whatever the fuck that is and all just because of your instincts to look for attention and approval, to look for acknowledgement from other retards just like you, to look for their acceptance of you, of the retard known as yourself.
Get your mind out of the gutter, you are not special, you are no unique snowflakes, you are just meat, made out of meat and thinking like meat.
As if being an atheist is closer to the "truth" than any religion.
Retards!
I am just a worthless human being not actually knowing anything or believing my own version of reality is genuine in any way, shape or form.
But I am not arrogant enough and I am reasonable enough to understand that I know nothing and that I don't have a certain way of ever knowing anything, for all I know anything is fake or constantly changing, thus what's real now, will not be real the next moment.
I am just a human being born among these arrogant fools who believe themselves to be gods, since they, apparently, know everything and anything, but they don't actually know shit, no one does.

Grow up.?

HP Mageson666 #fundie ancient-forums.com

In Buddhism the only being that makes any sense is Mara. He is the god of desire and fulfilments of material existence. Buddha just states have no desire's so that the energy of the elements that forms you will dissipate so when you die the psychic aspects of the elements will fizzle out on the astral and you will cease to exist as its desire that holds them together and gives them meaning. As Buddhism preaches you have no soul, no Atman. Thus you don't actually exist as a soul consciousness. What you perceive as yourself is illusion. Your just a recycling of five elements nothing else. When you realize this deeply its suppose to cause a psychic wave that releases the power of the elements causing the dissolution of existence upon your death. This is the meaning of enlightenment in Buddhism.

Nirvana in Buddhism means literally extinction. Buddhism states EXISTANCE is suffering and that EXISTANCE has an END. That end is EXTINCTION. So if you obtain Nirvana you literally cease to exist. Lights out forever. Mara is the god of existence and life. Buddha is the god of death and annihilation. Buddhism exists to bring death, destruction, demoralization and annihilation on all life. Buddha is actually an evil character that preaches hatred for all life and the purposes of life. Buddha preached an evil doctrine that is identical to the evil doctrine the fictional Nazarene preaches on the mount. This has been noted by scholars. There is nothing spiritual about Buddhism, its annihilationist nihilism.

This is why having Buddha statues is heretical in Buddhism the form of Buddha that of Gautama is actually Mara. Because its an existing being thus the realm of Mara. MA...water....RA...fire, the two elements that generate all existence forever. The actual Buddha is literally nothing, total extinction. Theravada Buddhism is stated to be the original sect and doctrine of Buddhism. What is obvious is there is a lot of talk about Buddhism and its becoming the new trendy, trend. But no actual mention of what Buddhism is as the core of its system and meaning. Just buzz words. The Buddhist Theocrats are also purposely pushing the trendy buzz words and feel goodism. Without telling anyone what Buddhism actually is. Read on to understand why.

Its simple Buddhism states existence is suffering and suffering has an end which sums up its four noble "truths." Which sums up the whole system. Suffering is existence....what is the opposite of existence? Extinction, what does Nirvana mean in Pali: EXTINCTION. Buddhism states there is no soul nor eternal I or self. The person is a collection of only five aggravates or elemental forces of a consciousness that simply reform into each new incarnation according to what karma has ripened a restacking of the same deck. These forces are held together by a karmic glue and desire is what causes karma to continue on and solidify the aggravates together keeping one in the wheel of suffering which is existence.

The Buddhist meditation system is basically void mediation and nothing else. Its a form of introspection that allows one to trace the roots of desire and dismantle them within the psyche. So that eventually when they die. The five aggravates will dissipate and they will cease to exist and become totally extinct. This is obtainment of Nirvana which means EXTINCTION. Buddhism states the biggest illusion and desire that causes one to stay in the cycle of existence thus life. Is the belief one has a soul an eternal I that goes on. Enlightenment in Buddhism is totally accepting the ridiculous belief that there is no self and one does not exist. Ones existence as a self is maya. This belief acceptance is believed to be the switch hit that dissolves the karmic bonds totally and allows for them to reach total Extinction, Nirvana upon death.

Buddhism is a materialistic, annihilationist death cult. That preaches a strange sentimental, radical egalitarianism which is why the current Liberal West finds it so appealing. The ideology preached in the Buddhist Dhammapada is identical to the Sermon On The Mount of Christianity. Which is an enemy program. Which points to who is behind Buddhism. Who benefits from removing spiritual knowledge and replacing it with a paleo, Communistic system. Now the Buddhist system furthered laid down the following. The science of mantra and astrology was banned. And the practices of Yoga [Kundalini Yoga is Yoga] where also banned from being taught. The original eight fold path which survived in Tantra which is the esoteric knowledge of the Veda. Was replaced by the Jainist eight fold path. Which leads to nowhere spiritual. The Tantra texts uniformly agree Mantra is the number one most important tool for enlightenment which Buddhism by order removes.

Its obvious what went on here. They removed the actual spiritual knowledge needed for enlightenment which is defined in the East and West as the ascension of the serpent [Kundalini Yoga] a large part of the Magnum Opus is based on astrology which in Vedic means the science of light. And replaced it with meaningless materialistic nonsense which leaves a person trapped in the cycle of suffering and does not free them from anything. They stay in a spiritual dormant state and hope for extinction of their being from all existence. As Nirvana. With the technical or symbolic language of Buddhism its stolen from the original Vedic tradition and corrupted into the opposite meaning. They changed the wine but kept the bottle. Its well established Siddhartha never existed. He is a stolen and rewrote Sun God.

Old Man Montgomery #fundie oldmanmontgomery.wordpress.com

[=Authors Note: For the sake of trimming, some of the Bible verses in the original page have been removed=]

From the website of ‘johnshore.com’

These were published and dated December 16, 2010. I have only recently become aware of this ‘movement’ via Facebook. (One never knows what one will find there.) These are referred to as the “Sixteen Tenets of ‘unfundamentalist Christians’ , known also or previously known as ‘ThruWay Christians’. Being the old-fashioned, hard-nosed Bible thumper that I am, I disagree with some facets of this and the conclusions of the entirety.

Of course I have reasons and those reasons are published below. Just for convenience, I numbered the statements, replacing what appeared in my copy as a paragraph ‘dot’.

Just for the record, as the article was dated December 16, 2010, it is entirely possible Mr. Shore has completely changed his mind and recanted this whole document. On the other hand, I just checked Mr. Shore’s last blog entry and he’s still pitching the “UnFund” theme.

Caution: If the reader is not a Christian believer, much of this discussion will seem pointless. Feel free to read on, but if you’re confused, don’t worry, it happens to lots of folks.

Here beings the tenets:

1. Jesus Christ was God incarnate. He performed miracles; as a means of providing for the irrevocable reconciliation of humankind to God he sacrificed himself on the cross; he rose from the dead; he left behind for the benefit of all people the totality of himself in the form of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

So far, I’m in agreement. Jesus is God incarnate; the ‘Son’ who is God Himself. Jesus was executed and killed (no alternatives) on a Roman cross under Roman law. Jesus’ death was the final sacrifice needed to atone for the sin of all people who appeal to Him for forgiveness. Jesus rose from the dead on the third day showing Himself to be God and giving a promise to all of an Eternal life in Heaven with Him. He sent the Third Person of the Godhead, the ‘Holy Spirit’ to believers after His ascension.

2. Christ and Christianity are meant to be understood, appreciated, and experienced as galvanizing inspirations for living a life of love, compassion, fairness, peace, and humility. Period.

Now we’re disagreeing. The primary purpose and function of Christianity is to repair the breach between God and mankind due to mankind’s rebellion and disobedience. Being forgiven by Jesus and redeemed by His sacrifice, mankind can have a direct and proper relationship with God. The qualities of love, compassion, fairness, peace and humility are by-products of that proper relationship, not the primary aim.

Am I splitting hairs here? Not as much as one might think; the matter becomes clearer as we proceed.

3. The Bible is a collection of a great many separate documents written by different people in different languages over thousands of years. Properly understanding both the letter and spirit of the Bible necessarily entails taking into account the historical and cultural contexts that so greatly inform so much of its text. The size, density, history and complexity of the Bible render unfeasible the idea that not one of its words reflects more man’s will than God’s. The spirit of God is inerrant; people—even those impassioned by the conviction that God is speaking directly to or through them—are not.

The one starts out well and descends into heresy. The Bible was written over a period of approximately 1500 years. The Books of Moses, the Torah – sometimes Pentateuch, was written in the period between the Exodus from Egypt, around 1400 B. C. to the time of the Babylonian Captivity, around 600 to 530 B. C. (give or take a decade or so.) The book of Revelation, written by John the Apostle was written around 90 A. D. The rest was written somewhere in between, with the possible exception of Job. Job was one of the earliest sections written and may predate Moses. The Bible was assuredly written by at least forty different authors. (For instance, the books of Judges, Kings and Chronicles were written over periods of time and one author could not have written them all; they require accounts from events several hundred years apart. The Torah was more than likely written by a number of scribes with Moses or a later, Babylonian scholar as ‘editor’ and having final input. Genesis is obviously based on oral traditions of the Israelite nation.) The books reflect social conventions and cultural coloring of the times involved.

However, it is the message of Almighty God to humanity. No matter how much a human can foul up, the integrity of the message is based on God’s ability to ensure His message is properly passed on. No human can foul up or outright lie good enough to defeat God’s purpose. So as much as mankind wrote the words on paper (papyrus or whatever), the ‘Word’ (Greek ‘logos’, meaning idea, identity or concept) is that of God. As such, it is inerrant in message.

The idea of the Bible being ‘written by man and therefore possibly distorted’ is an old heresy. It was argued about in the earliest councils trying to settle on the ‘Bible’ and is the basis for several cults who claim to be Christian, but rely on teachings of extra Biblical origin. The heresy also finds much favor among those who wish to discredit any one particular facet of Christian doctrine. Under any version, the idea the Bible isn’t correct means either God really doesn’t care about the message or God is incapable of protecting His own plan. Christians cannot in good faith (no pun intended) accept either alternative.

4. Anyone seeking to mix church and state has failed to understand the nature and proper role of either. Belief that all people are created equal and are deserving of equal protection under the law is foundational to all modern democratic nations. To incorporate the inherently exclusionary imperatives of a particular religion into the determinedly inclusive system of democracy would be to undermine the very spirit of democracy by pushing it toward a theocracy.

This is a pretty silly statement and is highly ignorant of history. The ‘foundational’ belief of people being created equal and deserving equal protection under law is uniquely derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is not found in Islam, Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism or any of the other ‘religions’ of the world. It is Christianity that fostered Democracy, not Democracy that fostered Christianity.

Additionally, it was Christian believers and supporters who founded the United States as a nation with no state religion. The United States was not founded as a ‘Christian nation’, but was indeed begun as a ‘nation of Christians’. To pretend otherwise is to ignore history and to invite serious question as to the point of the discussion. One must also note that all movements to ‘remove’ the influence of Christianity from the United States and civil laws result in the promotion of either Secular Humanism or Islam.

There are no moral vacuums.

5. It’s not possible to read Paul’s New Testament writings and remain unmoved by his open heart, intellectual prowess, and staggering bravery. And yet Paul (who, after all, spent years zealously persecuting and having executed untold numbers of Christians) must remain to us a mortal man. More than reasonable, it is incumbent upon those who claim to seek the deepest knowledge of Christ to subject the words of Paul to the same kinds of objective analysis we would the words of any man daring to describe the qualities, purposes, and desires of God.

This is a gentle, lofty and seemingly reasonable attempt to undermine the message presented by God through Paul the Apostle. What this statement does is deny the Divine inspiration and authorship of the Bible as a whole. It returns to the fore in a moment with more of the ‘villify Paul’ agenda.

6. With regards to the written identity of God, the pronoun “he” is a necessity of the English language, not an actual anatomical designation. God is neither male nor female; God contains all of both.

Again, agreement. In Hebrew, just as in English, the male pronoun unless specifically intended refers to both male and female. Jesus says (John 4:23 and 24)“But a time is coming – and now is here – when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers. God is spirit, and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” Also one notes in Genesis (chapter one, verses 26 and 27)
“Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.

So, both male and female were (still are, more or less, being distorted from the original model by mankind’s disobedience) created in God’s image; which manifestly means not a physical image, but a mental and spiritual image.

7. The Biblical scholarship supporting the idea that Paul never wrote a word proscribing natural homosexuality is at least as credible and persuasive as the scholarship (if not typical Bible translations) claiming that he did. Any person who uses the words of Paul in the New Testament to “prove” that homosexuality is a sin against God has either never themselves researched the matter, or has simply chosen to believe one set of equal proofs over another. Though laziness is easily enough understood, we remain mystified as to why anyone who purports to follow Jesus would choose to condemn an entire population over choosing to obey Jesus’ self-proclaimed Greatest Commandment to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself.

Here’s the follow up to point 5. Once Paul is ‘questionable’, the condemnation of homosexuality can be dismissed as a personal quirk, or possibly an outright error on the part of Christianity (on the whole).

Here’s the premise of the tenet: Paul either really didn’t mean what he wrote about the practice of homosexuality despite what is clearly written in the original Greek manuscripts and all subsequent translations of the Bible, or Paul was mistaken and therefore not inspired by God. What an amazing statement.

Either God inspired and authored the Bible or not. If one chooses to deny God’s inspiration in part, then the whole becomes suspect. If God was lax in allowing Paul to write and publish errors, then what of the rest of the Bible is trustworthy? Conversely, if God did in fact inspire and author the Bible, then Paul’s writing is equally trustworthy.

Leviticus 18
This entire section (several chapters) deals with sexual sins and prohibitions. In part (I have inserted whole paragraphs to present an in context view):
19 You must not approach a woman in her menstrual impurity to have sexual intercourse with her. 20 You must not have sexual intercourse with the wife of your fellow citizen to become unclean with her. 21 You must not give any of your children as an offering to Molech, so that you do not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord! 22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act. 23 You must not have sexual intercourse with any animal to become defiled with it, and a woman must not stand before an animal to have sexual intercourse with it; it is a perversion.
Leviticus 20
9 “‘If anyone curses his father and mother he must be put to death. He has cursed his
father and mother; his blood guilt is on himself. 10 If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. 11 If a man has sexual intercourse with his father’s wife, he has exposed his father’s nakedness. Both of them must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 12 If a man has sexual intercourse with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. They have committed perversion; their blood guilt is on themselves. 13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 14 If a man has sexual intercourse with both a woman and her mother, it is lewdness. Both he and they must be burned to death, so there is no lewdness in your midst. 15 If a man has sexual intercourse with any animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal to have sexual intercourse with it, you must kill the woman, and the animal must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

These two passages are from the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. One can argue these are part of the Jewish or Mosaic Law and are therefore obsolete; in that case, general adultery, incest and bestiality are also permitted along with homosexual conduct. Or is that the point?

First Timothy 1 (written by that suspect Paul fellow)

8 But we know that the law is good if someone uses it legitimately, 9 realizing that law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers – in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching. 11 This accords with the glorious gospel of the blessed God that was entrusted to me.

There is a note on the phrase ‘practicing homosexuals’ in verse 10 from the NET Bible: “…this term… ??se?????t?? states, “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9…of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. µa?a???…1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27.” L&N 88.280 states, “a male partner in homosexual intercourse – ‘homosexual.’…It is possible that ??se?????t?? in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with µa?a???, the passive male partner” (cf. 1 Cor 6:9). Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification “practicing” was supplied in the translation…”

First Corinthians 6 (also written by that questionable Paul)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

This last passage strikes me an illuminating. Homosexuals are included in a list of sin categories which include heterosexual sexual sinners, idolaters, adulterers (distinct from ‘sexually immoral heterosexuals), thieves, greedy, drunkards, verbally abusive and swindlers. The phrase ‘verbally abusive’ is rather interesting. The NIV translates it as ‘slanderers’; I think ‘gossips’ might easily fit into the meaning. At any rate, people who say nasty things about others are lumped in with murderers, thieves and the sexually immoral (of any type).

The last verse in the paragraph implies a change of life in those reading the letter. “Some of you … lived… But you were washed… sanctified… justified…” So they were not just forgiven and allowed to continue; they changed their values and life-styles. The same implication applies to the sexually impure; they don’t do that sort of thing anymore; they avoid that sort of thing; they are ashamed of and denounce their own past behavior.

Therefore, the Old Testament writings prohibited homosexual conduct as does the writings of Paul, therefore the New Testament. The words used really do mean homosexual conduct and not just the generic ‘sexual misconduct’.

I’m really curious about the ‘equal scholarship’ which demonstrates what the Bible says isn’t what it means. I’d like to examine the line of thought and arguments.

The statement “…Jesus’ self-proclaimed Greatest Commandment to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself” is incorrect and sloppy scholarship.

Matthew 22:
35 And one of them, an expert in religious law, asked him a question to test him: 36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 Jesus 44 said to him, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

This tenet goes past ‘unfundamentalism’ and is squarely non-Christian.

8. It is much more reasonable—and certainly more compassionate—to hold that throughout history God chose to introduce himself in different ways into different cultural streams than it is to believe that there is only one correct way to understand and worship God, and that the punishment for anyone who chooses any but that way is to spend all of eternity having the living flesh seared off of his or her bones.

More reasonable? By who’s standard? As a Christian, the only viewpoint that counts is God’s viewpoint. That ‘viewpoint’ is expressed in the Bible, which is – as noted prior – God’s message to humanity.

More compassionate? To whom? Not to mention under what definition of ‘compassion’? I find no compassion in patting someone in error on the head and say comforting words while allowing them to remain in error at the risk of Eternal Death.

So let’s go along with the idea of God introducing Himself into different cultural streams in different ways. Why would introduce Himself in a totally different manner if He’s the same, Eternal God? For instance, in the sub-continent which is now India, why would God decide not to be the Eternal God of Creation of the Jewish people, but instead be represented by a pantheon of conflicting gods which change over time? Why would Almighty God manifest Himself as the volcano god, demanding virgin sacrifices? Would God happily change Himself into the Great Green Arkleseizure of Viltvodle VI?

Is He still God? Is He bored and just experimenting? Can He not remember who He is, from epoch to epoch?

The idea appeals to the ‘open-minded’ who have no ideas about who God is, or what He should be or do. The concept flies in the face of the ultimate creator of the Universe and all things that exist, who is Eternal and changeless, who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. In other words, God.

Again, not just ‘unfundamentalist’, but not very good thinking and doctrinally non Christian.

9. “No one comes to the Father except through me” does not mean that in the afterlife only Christians can get into heaven. It means that Jesus/God decides who does and doesn’t make it in.

From this one is forced to believe Jesus will not judge between those who accept Him and those who don’t, but instead will judge by ad hoc rules of ‘good behavior’. I say ‘ad hoc’ because no such rules are outlined in the Bible.

All that stuff about believing in the Son and relying on Him in tenet 1 are out the window, then? It is good deeds that really make the difference?

This heresy is remarkably old as well. It predates Christianity, in fact.

Jesus mentioned this concept in Matthew Seven, starting with verse 15:
15 “Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruit. Grapes are not gathered from thorns or figs from thistles, are they? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will recognize them by their fruit.
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven – only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!’
24 “Everyone who hears these words of mine and does them is like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, but it did not collapse because it had been founded on rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, and it collapsed; it was utterly destroyed!”
So then, what about “… the one who does the will of my Father in heaven…”? John 15, starting with verse nine makes it clear:
9 “Just as the Father has loved me, I have also loved you; remain in my love. 10 If you obey my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commandments and remain in his love. 11 I have told you these things so that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be complete.”

Nowhere in the Bible, nowhere in the quotations of Jesus, nowhere in the letters of the various apostles and elders in Jerusalem is any such doctrine mentioned or taught. In one setting (John 10:14-18), Jesus says,
14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me – 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father – and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me – because I lay down my life, so that I may take it back again. 18 No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”

Verse 16 is often used to ‘prove’ the heresy of various versions of God and or Jesus running about in human history, showing up in various forms and guises. One fellow seriously suggested it could indicate the existence of extra-terrestrial life. Actually, the statement simply indicates non-Jewish people were included. That’s all.

I personally don’t have any problem with extra-terrestrial life, or any of them being in Heaven. But it will be on the basis of an individual relationship with Jesus Christ.

I am also firmly convinced all the inhabitants of planet Earth will have adequate notice of the person and Deity of Jesus Christ. God is not the sort of being who looks for tiny excuses and ‘foot-faults’ to disqualify anyone from Heaven.

10. The question of whether or not hell is real is properly subsumed by the truth that a moment spent worrying if you’ll be with God in the afterlife is an opportunity missed to be with God in this life.

I agree. There is no point of wondering, let alone worrying, if Hell is real. Jesus talks about it too much to be in doubt. It isn’t pleasant, but it’s there. One is obliged to take note and do something to avoid residence.

11. God’s will and intention is to forgive and teach us, not to judge and punish us.

That is true, but only to a qualified extent. Jesus came to Earth as a mortal man to tell us what to do to avoid Eternal punishment and die in our place to pay the price for our sin. Obviously, God the Father was in on this plan as was the Holy Spirit.

God really does not want anyone to spend Eternity in Hell. However, since all mankind is in the default position of being in rebellion against God, mankind is by default condemned to Eternal Hell.

The words of Jesus in John, chapter three:
16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. 18 The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. 19 Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed. 21 But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God.
God is loving and concerned. God is simultaneously honest and just. God is God and that means – in a long list of other things – He will always conduct Himself as God and be true to His own nature.

There are also a number of references warning that when Jesus returns – ‘The Second Coming’ – He will in fact judge all people according to their alliances.

12. The only person who should be actively endeavoring to convert non-Christians into Christians is God. Jesus does not need our help drawing people towards him. He does need, or could certainly use, our help in making sure that people know that they are, just as they are, loved.

This statement directly contradicts the command of Jesus.

Matthew 28:16-20
16 So the eleven disciples went to Galilee to the mountain Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age

Acts 1
6 So when they had gathered together, they began to ask him, “Lord, is this the time when you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He told them, “You are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth.” 9 After he had said this, while they were watching, he was lifted up and a cloud hid him from their sight.

First Peter 3
15 But set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts and always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess. (“Hope” here meaning the expectation of Eternal life with God.)

So in this statement again, the concept is not ‘un-fundamentalist’ but ‘un-Christian’.

13. Getting a divorce is painful, and if at all possible should certainly be avoided. But ultimately the act in and of itself is not immoral.

This statement flatly contradicts Jesus’ teaching on the subject.

Matthew 5
31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a legal document.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19
3 Then some Pharisees came to him in order to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hard hearts, but from the beginning it was not this way. 9 Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the case of a husband with a wife, it is better not to marry!”11 He said to them, “Not everyone can accept this statement, except those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some eunuchs who were that way from birth, and some who were made eunuchs by others, and some who became eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this should accept it.”

So yes, Jesus said divorce is an immoral act, save for the cause of adultery. Even then, the divorced man or woman is limited in options.

14. God does not want any woman “submitting” to anyone.

Another direct contradiction of Biblical teaching.

Ephesians 5
22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, 23 because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church – he himself being the savior of the body. 24 But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her 26 to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, 27 so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Colossians 3
18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.

Oh, wait! That’s that questionable Paul again! Since Paul is so very questionable, we can ignore much of his writings – especially the parts about moral conduct, sexual misconduct and general carryings-on.

First Peter 3
1 In the same way, wives, be subject to your own husbands. Then, even if some are disobedient to the word, they will be won over without a word by the way you live, 2 when they see your pure and reverent conduct… like Sarah who obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. You become her children when you do what is good and have no fear in doing so. 7 Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as the weaker partners and show them honor as fellow heirs of the grace of life. In this way nothing will hinder your prayers.

That’s the summation of Peter the Apostle. He agrees with Paul the suspect.

15. There were no dinosaurs on Noah’s ark; Jesus didn’t have a pet stegosaurus. An all-powerful God and the theory of evolution are not incompatible.

Whooop! Whooop! Whooop! Strawman Alert!
So, just where do we find claims of dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark? Which gospel contains the story of Jesus and His pet stegosaurus? What kind of hairball ploy is this?

Okay, “An all-powerful God and the theory of evolution are not incompatible.” That part is reasonable enough. However, this isn’t a matter of doctrinal distinction; it’s a matter of textual examination.

Dinosaurs on the Ark? Sheesh.

16. The single most telling indicator of a person’s moral character has nothing to do with how they define or worship God, and everything to do with how they treat others.

So, a relationship with God isn’t important; what is important is ‘good deeds’.

Actually, this is a deceptive argument; somewhat strawman in nature. I’ll agree one’s ‘moral character’ is not always dependent on how one defines or worships God. However, one’s moral character has nothing to do with one’s Eternal estate, being in a proper relationship with God and spending Eternity with God in Heaven.

One can be a rotten skunk and be bound for Heaven, or a very decent, clean, honest and honorable person going to Hell.

I know for a fact that my moral character was – for that matter ‘is’ – not always as good and shining as it ought to be. After becoming a Christian, I have sinned grievously, often and cheerfully. But my eternal destination is already secure and in Jesus’ care. As far as God is concerned in Judgment, I am as pure as Jesus.

Which is not to say I’m content in my life that way, or at peace with God. I found I was a jittery, angry, depressed, unsettled maniac; at least some combination of two or three of those. I can hide it well, but it’s there and I am very aware of it.

What happens is this: God works on me to make me into who – the type of person – He wants me to be, fit for Heaven in Eternity.

To conclude:

“Un-fundamentalists” accept the Deity, Sacrifice, Resurrection and Redemptive nature and power of Jesus Christ. However, they also believe God has appeared in other forms and guises, seemingly revealing other versions of Himself. So Jesus really isn’t uniquely God at all.

“Un-fundamentalists” deny the Divinely Inspired nature of the Bible, strip Paul’s writing of authority and accept homosexual misconduct – and by inference, heterosexual misconduct – as both normal and moral.

“Un-fundamentalists” claim the goal of Christianity is to live a good life; ‘good’ being defined by not offending anyone, getting along with all and ignoring Biblical principles if adherence would cause a row.

“Un-fundamentalists” believe Christians should not vote in accordance with Biblical principles. Nor should laws follow the long held traditions of either Judaism or Christianity.

“Un-fundamentalists” do not assume responsibility for evangelism; in fact, evangelism is discouraged.

“Un-fundamentalists” believe God never criticizes or judges human conduct. They believe there is no Hell. After all, God isn’t going to punish anyone for anything anyway.

All things considered, “Un-fundamentalist Christian” is not a properly descriptive phrase. Citing the serious theological and doctrinal differences between this cult and mainstream Christianity, I would suggest perhaps “Nearly Christian” would be a better description. Since the first tenet does recognize Jesus as God, perhaps “Barely Christian” would do.

Now, I know some bright soul is going to jump on me with the Biblical injunction of “Judge not, lest ye be judged”. The statement comes in Matthew 7, starting with the beginning of the chapter. The whole paragraph reads as follows:

1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. 3 Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? 5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. 6 Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.

This whole speech is addressed at being judgmental of other people in regard to their fitness or standing before God. I am not ‘judging’ any person, but a set of beliefs and how they measure up to Christianity, I am not violating any injunction. Indeed, I am following a warning given by John the Revelator in First John 4:

1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now is already in the world.

So I am testing this ‘spirit’, this claim of revelation of God. I find interesting that tenet 1 claims to recognize Jesus as the Son of God in the Flesh, and then denies Jesus’ Deity in most of the subsequent tenets.

Eric hyde's Blog #conspiracy ehyde.wordpress.com

I write very little in the area of Christian vs. atheist apologetics anymore, and for good reason.

It was in atheist chat-rooms and blogs that I first cut my teeth in theology many years ago. Since those days I have not heard anything new from atheists.

It seems that many atheists today (some like to use the title ‘New Atheists’ to distinguish them from the more profound philosophical atheists of yesteryear) have very little to add to the discussion. To be fair, the same goes with most Christian apologists.

However, I thought it would be fun to comment on the ten arguments I hear the most. My hope is that it will help expose some of the more obvious problems with them and maybe help both sides—atheists and Christians alike—to move on to more interesting debate material.

One additional note: another reason I do not enter into the atheist-Christian debate world much anymore is because of the sheer discourtesy that both sides tend to show the other. I will not delete any comments, no matter how uncivil or juvenile they become, because, for me, it is an important part of the article. The responses (if there are any) will demonstrate the current state of atheist vs. Christian banter. Also, I will not respond to rude posts. This is advanced warning so please don’t think me rude as well if I ignore them.

Okay, here we go:

1. There is no evidence for God’s existence.

There are a couple of problems with this line. Starting with the idea of ‘evidence,’ what exactly does one mean by evidence? What is sufficient evidence for one person is often not sufficient evidence for another. A court of law provides innumerable examples of how two parties can possess the same collection of data, the same power of logic and reasoning, yet argue for completely different interpretations of the data. The old saying is true: the facts do not determine the argument, the argument determines the facts.

When confronted with the charge that there is no evidence for God the Christian often does not know where to start with a rebuttal. It’s as G.K. Chesterton once said, asking a Christian to prove God’s existence is like asking someone to prove the existence of civilization. What is one to do but point and say, “look, there’s a chair, and there’s a building,” etc. How can one prove civilization by merely selecting a piece here and a piece there as sufficient proofs rather than having an experience of civilization as a whole?

Nearly everything the Christian lays eyes on is evidence of God’s existence because he sees the ‘handiwork’ of God all around him in creation. But this is hardly sufficient evidence in the court of atheist opinion, a court which presupposes that only what can be apprehended by the senses rightly qualifies as evidence (in other words, the atheist demands not evidence of God’s handiwork, but rather material evidence of God Himself). For the Christian who believes in a transcendent God, he can offer no such evidence; to produce material evidence of God is, ironically, to disprove a transcendent God and cast out faith. If one desires God to appear in the flesh, well… He already did. But even if one lived at the time and could touch Christ in the flesh, this would still not “prove” God’s existence in the scientific sense (science has no such categories).

The second part of the line is equally short-sighted. What does one mean by ‘existence’? If one means, ‘that which has come into existence,’ then surely God does not exist because God never came into existence. He always was; He is eternal. This was a famous assessment of the matter by Soren Kierkegaard (dealing with Hegel’s dialectic of existence). The argument is a bit involved, so for times sakes I’ll just have to state it and leave it there.

2. If God created the universe, who created God?

This is one of the more peculiar arguments I’ve ever come across. Those who use this charge as some sort of intellectual checkmate have simply failed to grasp what Christians understand as ‘eternal.’ It is an argument usually levied once a theist posits that God is required for the existence of the universe (a necessary Being upon which all other things exist by way of contingency). Some atheists then shift the weight over to the theist saying, “Well then who created God?” (which demonstrates a failure to understand God as the source and ground of being rather than God as simply one more being among other beings in existence, follow this link for more.) What is a Christian to do but smile at such a question? God is the antecedent of all things in creation and is eternal. If God had a Creator then His Creator would be God. God is God precisely because He does not have a creator.

3. God is not all-powerful if there is something He cannot do. God cannot lie, therefore God is not all-powerful.

Bang! Owned.

Not so fast. This argument would be fantastic—devastating maybe—if God was more of the ancient Greek god persuasion, where the gods themselves were subject to fate and limited to their specific roles in the cosmos. The Orthodox doctrine of God is much different. Christians (at least Orthodox Christians) view God’s ontology as subject to His perfect free-will. Why is He good? Because He wills to be good. Why does He not lie? Because He wills to be honest. Why does God exist as Trinity? Because He wills it. He could just as easily will to not exist. And yes, He could just as easily will to lie. The fact that He doesn’t is no commentary on whether He could.

(Note: Due to the immense amount of discussion that this point has raised, one clarifying statement is worth noting. An argument based on strict logical word games can render the idea ‘all-powerful,’ or ‘omnipotent’ self-defeating. When one considers the juvenile question, “Can God create a rock so big that He can’t lift it?” this point becomes clear. But in reality, such an argument winds up further solidifying what Christianity means by an all-powerful God. For the Christian it simply means that all power and authority are God’s. Following the logical word game above forces the believer to make a redundant proclamation in order to remain consistent: “God cannot overpower Himself.” But this fact is anything but confounding, it merely stresses the point that there is no power greater than God, so much so that one is forced to pit God against Himself in order to find His equal.)

4. Believing in God is the same as believing in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

What I love about this well-worn atheist ‘argument’ is that it actually serves to demonstrate how vastly different a belief in God is to these myths and imaginations. When one honestly assesses the Judeo-Christian doctrine of God he will find multiple thousands of years of human testimony and religious development; he will find martyrs enduring the most horrific trauma in defense of the faith; he will find accounts in religious texts with historical and geographical corroboration; etc (these fact are of course not ‘proofs,’ but rather ‘evidences’ that elicit strong consideration). Pit this against tales of the Tooth Fairy, Santa, and Spaghetti Monsters and one finds the exact opposite: no testimony or religious refinement, no martyrs, no historical and geographical corroboration, etc. Instead, one finds myths created intentionally for children, for point making, or for whatever. It’s strawman argumentation at its worst.

5. Christianity arose from an ancient and ignorant people who didn’t have science.

Indeed, those ancient, ignorant people who believed in the virgin birth of Christ must have believed it because they did not possess the knowledge of how babies were born. Goodness. The virgin birth of Christ was profound and of paramount concern to the ancients precisely because they understood that conception was impossible without intercourse. Ancient man considered the virgin birth miraculous, i.e., impossible without divine action (and at the time most people scorned the idea), and the same could be said with every miraculous story in Scripture.

Indeed ancient people did not have the Hubble telescope, but they were able to see the night sky in full array, something almost no modern person can claim (thanks to modern lighting which distorts our ability to see the full night sky). On average, ancient people lived much closer to nature and to the realities of life and death than many of us moderners.

In terms of a living relationship with these things the ancients were far more advanced than we are today, and this relationship is essentially the nature of religious inquiry. If people lack religious speculation today, maybe it is because they spend more time with their iphones and Macs then with nature. Maybe.

But the claim that Christianity was viable in the ancient world because it was endorsed by wide spread ignorance is a profoundly ignorant idea. Christianity arose in one of the most highly advanced civilizations in human history. The Roman Empire was not known for its stupidity. It was the epicenter of innovation and philosophical giants. I would wager that if a common person of today found himself in a philosophical debate with a common person of first century Alexandria, the moderner would be utterly humiliated in the exchange.

6. Christian’s only believe in Christianity because they were born in a Christian culture. If they’d been born in India they would have been Hindu instead.

This argument is appealing because it pretends to wholly dismiss people’s reasoning capabilities based on their environmental influences in childhood. The idea is that people in general are so intellectually near-sighted that they can’t see past their own upbringing, which, it would follow, would be an equally condemning commentary on atheism (if one was consistent with the charge), but the idea is fairly easy to counter.

Take the history of the Jewish people for example. Let us say that to ‘be’ Jewish, in the religious sense, is much more than a matter of cultural adherence. To be a Jewish believer is to have Judaism permeate one’s thinking and believing and interaction with the world. But is this the state of affairs with the majority of the Jewish people, whether in America, Europe, Israel, or wherever? One would have to be seriously out of touch to believe so. The same phenomenon is found within so-called Christian communities, that is: many sport a Christian title, but are wholly derelict in personal faith. “Believing” in Christianity is a far more serious endeavor then merely wearing a church name tag. Indeed, being born in a Jewish or Christian centric home today is more often a precursor that the child will grow up to abandon the faith of his or her family, or at least be associated with the faith by affiliation only.

7. The gospel doesn’t make sense: God was mad at mankind because of sin so he decided to torture and kill his own Son so that he could appease his own pathological anger. God is the weirdo, not me.

This is actually a really good argument against certain Protestant sects (I’ve used it myself on numerous occasions), but it has no traction with the Orthodox Christian faith. The Orthodox have no concept of a God who needed appeasement in order to love His creation. The Father sacrificed His own Son in order to destroy death with His life; not to assuage His wrath, but to heal; not to protect mankind from His fury, but to unite mankind to His love. If the reader is interested to hear more on this topic follow this link for a fuller discussion.

8. History is full of mother-child messiah cults, trinity godheads, and the like. Thus the Christian story is a myth like the rest.

This argument seems insurmountable on the surface, but is really a slow-pitch across the plate (if you don’t mind a baseball analogy). There is no arguing the fact that history is full of similar stories found in the Bible, and I won’t take the time to recount them here. But this fact should not be surprising in the least, indeed if history had no similar stories it would be reason for concern. Anything beautiful always has replicas. A counterfeit coin does not prove the non-existence of the authentic coin, it proves the exact opposite. A thousand U2 cover bands is not evidence that U2 is a myth.

Ah, but that doesn’t address the fact that some of these stories were told before the Biblical accounts. True. But imagine if the only story of a messianic virgin birth, death, and resurrection were contained in the New Testament. That, to me, would be odd. It would be odd because if all people everywhere had God as their Creator, yet the central event of human history—the game changing event of all the ages—the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ had never occurred to them, in at least some hazy form, they would have been completely cut off from the prime mysteries of human existence. It seems only natural that if the advent of Christ was real it would permeate through the consciousness of mankind on some level regardless of their place in history. One should expect to find mankind replicating these stories, found in their own visions and dreams, again and again throughout history. And indeed, that is what we find.

9. The God of the Bible is evil. A God who allows so much suffering and death can be nothing but evil.

This criticism is voice in many different ways. For me, this is one of the most legitimate arguments against the existence of a good God. The fact that there is suffering and death is the strongest argument against the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God. If suffering and death exist it seems to suggest one of two things: (1) either God is love, but He is not all-powerful and cannot stop suffering and death, or (2) God is all-powerful, but He does not care for us.

I devoted a separate article addressing this problem, but let me deal here with the problem inherent in the criticism itself. The argument takes as its presupposition that good and evil are real; that there is an ultimate standard of good and evil that supersedes mere fanciful ‘ideas’ about what is good and evil at a given time in our ethical evolution, as it were. If there is not a real existence—an ontological reality—of good and evil, then the charge that God is evil because of this or that is really to say nothing more than, “I personally don’t like what I see in the world and therefore a good God cannot exist.” I like what C.S. Lewis said on a similar matter: “There is no sense in talking of ‘becoming better’ if better means simply ‘what we are becoming’—it is like congratulating yourself on reaching your destination and defining destination as ‘the place you have reached.’”

What is tricky for the atheist in these sorts of debates is to steer clear of words loaded with religious overtones. It’s weird for someone who does not believe in ultimate good and evil to condemn God as evil because He did not achieve their personal vision of good. So, the initial criticism is sound, but it is subversive to the atheist’s staging ground. If one is going to accept good and evil as realities, he is not in a position to fully reject God. Instead, he is more in a position to wrestle with the idea that God is good. This struggle is applauded in the Orthodox Church. After all, the very word God used for his people in the Old Testament—“Israel”—means to struggle with God.

10. Evolution has answered the question of where we came from. There is no need for ignorant ancient myths anymore.

This might be the most popular attempted smack-downs of religion in general today. It is found in many variations but the concept is fairly consistent and goes something like this: Science has brought us to a point where we no longer need mythology to understand the world, and any questions which remain will eventually be answered through future scientific breakthroughs. The main battle-ground where this criticism is seen today is in evolution vs. creationism debates.

Let me say upfront that there is perhaps no other subject that bores me more than evolution vs. creationism debates. I would rather watch paint dry. And when I’m not falling asleep through such debates I’m frustrated because usually both sides of the debate use large amounts of dishonesty in order to gain points rather than to gain the truth. The evolutionist has no commentary whatsoever on the existence of God, and the creationist usually suffers from profound confusion in their understanding of the first few chapters of Genesis.

So, without entering into the most pathetic debate of the ages, bereft of all intellectual profundity, I’ll only comment on the underlining idea that science has put Christianity out of the answer business. Science is fantastic if you want to know what gauge wire is compatible with a 20 amp electric charge, how agriculture works, what causes disease and how to cure it, and a million other things. But where the physical sciences are completely lacking is in those issues most important to human beings—the truly existential issues: what does it mean to be human, why are we here, what is valuable, what does it mean to love, to hate, what am I to do with guilt, grief, sorrow, what does it mean to succeed, is there any meaning and what does ‘meaning’ mean, and, of course, is there a God? etc, ad infinitum.

As far as where we come from, evolution has barely scratched the purely scientific surface of the matter. Even if the whole project of evolution as an account of our history was without serious objection, it would still not answer the problem of the origin of life, since the option of natural selection as an explanation is not available when considering how dead or inorganic matter becomes organic. Even more complicated is the matter of where matter came from. The ‘Big Bang’ is not an answer to origins but rather a description of the event by which everything came into being; i.e., it’s the description of a smoking gun, not the shooter.

That’s it… my top 10 list. Thanks for reading. Cheers.

Whisper #sexist trp.red

“No means no!”

You’ve heard this before. And you know it ain’t so. Because if you have been doing this a while, you have often heard “no”, and eventually gotten to “yes, please”, and even “harder, daddy”.

So what does “no means no” actually mean?

Well, if you’re the sort of man who gets to “harder, daddy”, you know that women usually say things that aren’t literally true. This is not just about lying… women use language differently.

And the phrase “no means no” is a particularly clever piece of female-language technology. It’s a Rorschach test. You know, that business with the inkblots, where some headshrink whips out a card and some people say it’s a bat and other people say it’s a moth.

It’s neither… it’s a card. None of us use language literally. Keep that in mind as you try to understand women.

So, when men hear “no means no”, they interpret it differently, and that separates them into two categories…. this is exactly what women intend. This kind of language is also known as a “dog whistle” in certain other contexts.

Some men hear “Anytime a woman says no, you should stop forever”. These are men who take “no means no” literally, because they are unable to decode the way women use language.
Other men hear “No means no when I say later that it did. But if you get to ‘yes’, I will never bring this up.” These are the men who can decode woman-speak.
Each of these types of men gets the message that women want them to hear.

They don’t want clueless men who don’t know of the existence of a “soft no” to be ignoring “no”… because then they might ignore a “hard no”, which makes for stalkeriffic behaviour.
But they WANT men who are dialed in to persist in the face of a “soft no”, while stopping in the somewhat more rare occasion of a “hard no”.
So, just like the “soft no” itself, the phrase “no means no” is used to measure a man’s social savvy, and thereby separate the wheat from the chaff.

So, how do different types of man respond to “no means no”?

Your standard Bernie-Sanders-voting bugman takes it literally, agrees enthusiastically, and often goes for years without seeing a naked women in the flesh. These are the guys women want taking this phrase literally.
Your standard PUA type ignores it inside his head, but agrees out loud so as not to be detected. These are the guys women want to ignore this phrase.
Your standard red pill novice realizes it isn’t literally true, gets mad, and calls out the “lie”. These are the guys women are most afraid of… he’s too savvy to miss the lie, but not smooth enough to play along. They are afraid this means big stalker potential.
A fully realized red pill men doesn’t merely ignore it while making the correct noises…. He constructs a dog whistle of his own, using his word choice and behaviour to let women that this isn’t his first rodeo and everything will be alright.
If any of this is news to you, then I’ve just turned you into the third type of guy, and your mission is to turn yourself into the fourth.

Here’s some things to keep in mind:

There are hard and soft “no”s.
Women want you to be able to tell the difference.
But if you can’t, they want to treat them all as hard, because having a hard no treated as a soft one is what they fear most.
They will almost never admit to any of this in literal language, because if any man who can’t tell hears it explained to him, the game stops working and bad things might happen.
Learn to spot the difference.
Getting it right is your responsibility, not hers.
Never try to discuss this openly with women. Just learn to indicate with your actions that you know.
You can sometimes pretend to treat a soft no as a hard one, if you need to overcome ASD, do a freezeout for LMR, or just to play her like a fish on a line. Don’t act butthurt. Big grin.

Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

It’s a popular evolutionary idea that dinosaurs are still among us—but not in the way you think. Evolutionists certainly don’t think a T. rex or a Stegosaurus is going to wander into your backyard, but they do think the colorful creatures perched on the bird feeder by your porch represent dinosaurs that are still among us.

“The Age of the Dinosaurs is Now”
A new exhibit, “Dinosaurs Among Us,” at the American Museum of Natural History showcases the idea that dinosaurs are still among us in the form of birds. Their website says,

The evolution of life on Earth is full of amazing episodes. But one story that really captures the imagination is the transition from the familiar, charismatic dinosaurs that dominated the planet for around 170 million years into a new, small, airborne form: birds.
The video below, posted on YouTube by the American Museum of Natural History, features the text “the age of dinosaurs is now.”


And in another of their videos we are told, “The dinosaurs didn’t go extinct 65 million years ago. We still have them around today. You can see them in your backyard; you can see them everywhere.”


To back up this claim that dinosaurs and birds are basically one and the same, the museum provides supposed behavioral and anatomical evidence. But rather than supporting their imagined link between dinos and birds, the so-called evidence they provide really highlights their interpretation of the evidence. They start with the assumption that dinosaurs evolved into birds, and then they view some observable facts through that lens while ignoring the massive differences between the two groups. As with anything in the creation/evolution controversy, the issue isn’t about the evidence, but rather the interpretation of the evidence.

Shared Behavior = Shared Ancestry?
To back up their claim that birds are just dinosaurs, they point to similar behaviors, such as nesting and caring for young—something birds and crocodiles do and something some dinosaurs appear to have done. They say, “Shared behaviors like these are evidence of common ancestry.” They also point to similarities in bird and dinosaur eggs as another “link in the chain of evidence connecting them.” But as we’ve pointed out many times, this is an interpretation of the evidence that simply assumes evolution to be true. They assume we see similarities because of shared ancestry. But there’s certainly another option: such similarities are reflections of a shared Creator. This Creator made all life to live in the same world, eat the same food, drink the same water, and breathe the same air; so we shouldn’t be surprised to see similarities across the animal world. Similarities in no way “prove” evolution. The claim that they do is merely an interpretation of the evidence.

“Big, Bad, . . . and Feathered”
Of course no discussion of dino-birds would be complete without trotting out the feathered dinosaurs. And this exhibit is full of them. Every dinosaur featured in the photos boasts a fluffy, bird-like coat or at least a small clump of feathers. Feathers have become a standard feature on modern depictions of theropod dinosaurs and even occasionally on other dinosaurs; but the evidence is contentious. (And it’s not just creationists who aren’t convinced! Many evolutionists, such as Alan Feduccia, a leading bird evolution expert, deny feathered dinosaurs).

The website mentions that a cousin of T. rex “sported a shaggy coat of the filaments called ‘proto-feathers.’” But considering that these fossilized filaments do not exhibit any of the features of feather anatomy (such as hooks, barbs, or barbules), they could easily—and much more likely—be collagen fibers, a sort of connective tissue commonly found in skin as well as many other places. The supposed “feathers” on “feathered” dinosaurs aren’t feathers at all. They are filaments that, because of evolutionary presuppositions about the history of life, have been labeled as “proto-feathers” on the path to becoming true feathers.

Smart Dinosaurs with Super Lungs
Another part of the “Dinosaurs Among Us” exhibit claims that “kinship . . . goes much deeper” than just eggs and feathers. Computed tomography (CT) scans of birds, crocodiles, and dinosaurs reveal some internal similarities. Indeed, a video on the website goes so far as to claim that certain dinosaurs “all have a brain that is identical to the earliest birds.” One page on their website goes into more detail about what they mean by “identical.”

Birds have large brains for their body size; much of this additional size is in the cerebrum, “the part of the brain responsible for learning,” as well as the optic lobe, which is responsible for sight. Reptiles of the equivalent size do not have this increased brain size.

THIS TEACHES US NOTHING ABOUT THEIR HAVING DESCENDED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR.
CT scans of fossilized dinosaur skulls show that “one group of theropods displays the trend toward inflation of the ‘thinking’ brain we see in living birds.” So by “identical” they mean that in some theropods there’s a trend toward having an enlarged cerebrum as birds do. This teaches us nothing about their having descended from a common ancestor. It just shows that, as they say, “Theropod dinosaurs were probably capable of advanced learned behavior.” (Read more about dinosaurs and birdbrains in “Were Birdbrains on the Dinosaur Pre-flight Checklist for Evolution?”)

They move on to show the “unbroken . . . link between birds and dinosaurs” in the “super lungs” of birds, dinosaurs, and birds’ “living relatives”—crocodiles and alligators. They claim that the supposed last common ancestor of birds and crocodiles “also had birdlike lungs.” But crocodile and alligator lungs are nothing like bird lungs!

Bird lungs are completely unique in the animal kingdom. Instead of sequentially breathing in and out to fill and empty lungs like we do, they have a unidirectional airflow that constantly supplies fully oxygenated air to the bird’s hard-working flight muscles and the rest of its body. Air sacs, scattered throughout a bird’s body, briefly store fully oxygenated air and then continue to supply this fresh air to the bird even while the bird exhales carbon dioxide. This remarkably complex and highly efficient design is without equal, even among some reptiles that share some of its features.

Crocodiles also have a unidirectional airflow, but that’s where the similarities stop. Crocodiles have a diaphragm, as we do, to pull air into their bodies. Birds don’t have or need this muscle. Crocodile lungs look like a bag with chambers; bird lungs look utterly different as they branch throughout the body. And this is just a very brief overview. You can learn more in Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell’s illustrated article “Lizard Breath Fails to Support Kinship with Birds.”

To claim that reptile lungs are bird-like is to ignore vast anatomical and functional differences and to concentrate on a few very minor similarities. Each design serves the animals quite well, but no observational evidence has shown any way that these systems could evolve from a common ancestor.

The Similarities Just Don’t Stop!
The above similarities between birds and dinosaurs have been rather underwhelming. But they claim there are more! Actually, they say, “Once you start seeing the resemblances between non-bird dinosaurs and living birds, you won’t be able to stop!” This claim is only true if you are an evolutionist looking for any similarity to connect the dots between the two groups.

The website highlights another section of the exhibit, “Dinosaur Bones, Beaks, and Claws.” Their list includes the discovery of what might be hollow bones in some dinosaurs, toothless beaks in some dinosaurs, and claws. Birds have hollow bones which, containing air sacs, are integral to their respiratory system and, as a bonus, are quite lightweight, allowing them to fly. Dinosaurs might have hollow bones, but our bones are not solid structures either. The “hollow” spaces in our bones are filled with marrow, as dinosaur bones likely were too, though marrow isn’t commonly fossilized. Birds, however, have pneumatic bones. These bones are filled with air and are an essential part of their unique respiratory system—a system dinosaurs did not share.

Another similarity that they note is the surprising presence of a wishbone, or furcula, in theropods. The furcula is formed from the fusion of the collarbones (clavicles). Many evolutionists consider this the “smoking gun” for the dino-to-bird evolution story because the furcula has only been found on birds and theropod dinosaurs.

In birds, the furcula shows great diversity in size and shape, depending on the bird’s method of flight (or lack thereof). The flight muscles are anchored to this bone. In some birds it acts as a spring, allowing the powerful flight muscles to flex without snapping the bone. There is evidence that birds also use this bone to augment air movement during breathing.

Clearly scientists could not know that theropod dinosaurs used their furculae for flight or avian respiration. Since all we have is fossil evidence, it is difficult to definitively determine the purpose of the theropod furcula, but some scientists have suggested it increased forelimb mobility. Evolutionist Alan Feduccia has noted that even though some theropods have furculae, their distinctly un-birdlike shoulder anatomy makes it “unlikely that any of these structures could have articulated or functioned in a manner similar to the bird furcula or the hypertrophied furcula of the first bird, Archaeopteryx.”1 Others, assuming an evolutionary relationship between birds and dinosaurs, suggest dinosaurs used them to aid breathing as they suspect birds do. Interestingly, one paper notes that “only the early ornithurines possess a furcula typical of extant avian clades.”2 In everyday language this means that only “early ornithurines”—birds in a biblical view—have wishbones typical of living birds. Of course, this is not surprising.

JUST BECAUSE BIRDS AND THEROPODS BOTH POSSESS FURCULAE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER.
Just because birds and theropods both possess furculae does not mean that they are related to one another. God simply used a similar design in two distinct groups of animals. Anatomical differences indicate that their furculae would have differed in not only structure but also function. Instead of searching for similarities between theropods and birds, scientists should study dinosaur furculae to determine what God designed this bone to do, because, whatever its function, it was perfectly designed to do what it was created for.

They go on to claim, “The similarities are especially striking when it comes to legs, feet, and claws.” But bird and dinosaur legs really aren’t that similar. Bipedal dinosaurs did walk on their toes, like birds do, so we expect some similarity in the structure of the foot and ankle. But the femur (thigh bone) and knee of a bird are inside its body and are essential to its breathing structure. The femur of the dinosaur (which is anatomically almost identical to a human, though this is not pointed out), as well as its knees, are outside the body and appear to have nothing to do with breathing.

It should be noted that dinosaurs are very different from other reptiles, particularly in the placement of their legs. Rather than spreading out to the sides, as they do in other reptiles, they were directly under the body. The obvious anatomical differences between dinosaurs and other reptiles should hint that there would be other differences in bone structure, organ placement, and other areas. This doesn’t mean that dinosaurs are more closely related to birds any more than saying that bats, very different from other mammals but with some similarities to birds, prove that bats evolved from birds— something no evolutionist would argue.

Similarity in anatomy does not mean shared ancestry.

God’s Word, Our Starting Point
The idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs comes directly from a naturalistic evolutionary interpretation of the fossils and of living birds. The idea does not come from the facts themselves but from an interpretation of the facts that assumes evolution to be true. Exhibits such as “Dinosaurs Among Us” are nothing more than propaganda pieces for this popular evolutionary idea. Sadly, many kids will tour through this exhibit without realizing that this is merely an interpretation and not observational science.

Though some Christians try to mesh evolution with a Creator, this idea completely contradicts God’s Word, which says that kinds will always reproduce according to their kinds (Genesis 1:21, 25) and that birds were created on Day Five and land animals—which would include dinosaurs—were created on Day Six (Genesis 1:20–25). Instead of interpreting the world through the faulty lens of man’s ideas about the past, we need to turn to God’s perfect Word, given to us by the eyewitness Creator who never lies (Titus 1:2), to give us the true history of life and the universe.

John Anthony #mammon #sexist #crackpot #psycho ultimateseductionsystem.com

Occam’s Razor
The simple science of RAPID SEDUCTION

Get It Now

Do you feel overwhelmed by all the pick-up content out there?
Are you fed up with endless contradicting concepts?
Are you tired of fake “gurus” who keep failing you?

If you answered Yes to any of these questions, then I can tell you this:
I’ve been there.

My name is John Anthony.

And I’m here to help you handle your dating life ONCE AND FOR ALL.

Since 2011, I made it my mission get good at... no.. Be the BEST at this.

My dream was to hit the 100 lays. I thought it was impossible.
Fast forward to 2017, I am at 722 lays as I am writing this.

Obssessed?

Maybe.

Do you have to take it that far?

Up to you.
Point is, I know my shit when it comes to getting laid.
And trust me, I'm very far from being a natural.

And no this is not one of those sleazy marketing tactics to make you relate.

I was actually very nerdy.
Virgin until college.

However I do believe that my very high IQ and over-analytical mind is what helped me figure out a lot of what I am about to teach you.

Back in 2012 I got to coach bootcamp along with the "top" instructors from an infamous company you might know about (starts with R and ends with D...).

Here is what I discovered

Some of the instructors are actually knowledgable but fail to apply that knowledge.
Some of them have an incomplete or non-optimized strategy.
And some of them flat out LIE about their results.

These instructors were promising results they couldn’t get themselves!

As you can guess the student would NEVER progress or at least veryyy sloooooowly.

Actually most of those students would average 5 to 10 lifetime lays although they have been studying that shit for years.

How convenient is that for those instructors to keep selling you their new magic pill product every month huh?

If you relate to what I am saying...
I want to help you break that cycle.

See, my goal is not to make of you a repeat customer.

This is not my full time job.

My goal is to make of you a legit PIMP and make this community great again.

I spent years picking the brains of all the top guys I personally know who literally PULL EVERY NIGHT.

Most of them prefer to remain anonymous and are not interested in teaching their secrets...

With my critical and analytical mind, I kept optimizing what works and ditching what doesn't.

That left me with...
A MINIMAL YET EFFICIENT SYSTEM THAT WORKS CONSISTENTLY.
That's how Occam's Razor is born.
"Occam's Razor is a line of reasoning that says the simplest answer is often correct. "

THE PROGRAM CONSISTS OF 4 PARTS

Know What To Do: The Masterclass

The theory section covers literally EVERYTHING you need to know about game. It cuts out all the fluff and bullshit.

OPENING

A proven method that even the most socially retarded and anxiety-crippled kid can apply to approach beautiful women (without being intimidated or "try hard")

A simple yet POWERFUL secret that the top guys have been applying successfully for years, that will allow you to adapt your opener to any woman in any situation (without the rigidity of routines and without relying on "your state")

Peek into my brain to get how I literally captivate the girl within the 3 first seconds. (It's a balance between being non-try hard but still keeping a strong sexual tension)

Never creep girls out or get a hash rejection ever again. (with my method your game doesn't even look like game. )


ATTRACTION

How to properly "Vibe" : This will not only teach you to never run out of things to say, about also say things with purpose that moves the interaction forward.

Imagine deploying minimal effort and yet be the most engaging, witty guy she meets that night. Every word you say is bringing her a step closer to your bed.

How to subtly test for compliance ( her willingness to do things for you), using cutting-edge psychology and persuasion tactics. (these are powerful so use them ethically and carefully)

OBJECTIONS AND OBSTACLES

Learn how to deal with any objections she has in her mind (see even if she is into you, she needs to feel safe, comfortable and more importantly not slut-shamed)

Effortlessly deal with any external obstacles (like cockblocks or other men) using my proven method that saves hours of frustration and will allow you to pull effortlessly)

They call me the "WOLF OF WALLSTREET" of Pick-Up, that is because I will teach you to deal with any objections imaginable to going home with you (and trust me, after a decade of going out, they are always the same)

CLOSING

Get access to my field tested ultra-optimized PULL SCRIPTS to literally become a pull-machine (it took me years to find the perfect things to say so I am literally cutting YEARS off your learning curve and failed experiment)

Learn how to pull during the second half of the night but also the first part of the night (whoever told you the first part doesn't count is an IDIOT. This is how I pull multiple times a night and I will show you the secret trick so you can do it TOO)

I will show you how to get into the girl's brain and make her addicted to you like CRACK COCAINE.

Blast through LMR (last minute resistance) by knowing exactly what to do, how to do it and when to do it (Girls will literally fall in love with you and beg to have sex with you after you do those small things no one talks about...)


ROTATIONS AND HIRED GUNS

How to game hired guns (women hired for their beauty) without appearing like a peasant or just another desperate client. (What if you could make a hot stripper, bartender or model your girlfriend or personal sex slave?)

Get access to my personal sequences and templates that I use to keep track and manage my rotations of girls. (You will never have to chase for sex ever again)

How to keep the hottest girls you fucked in your rotation and get them addicted to you. I will literally brain dump the result of years of trials and errors of text sequences and optimal strategies for you to build a harem of hot girls.

After watching this, Game will have no mystery to you.

You will have a CRYSTAL CLEAR understanding of EVERY little aspect of what good game is and should be.

NO FLUFF.

NO WOO-WOO STUFF.

NO CONTRADICTIONS.

Only the most efficient and optimized strategy conceived in the whole industry history.

[…]


A VALUE PACKED PROGRAM

<table>

60+ THEORY Videos $1,997
71+ INFIELD Videos $2,99
PERSONALIZED WORKSHEETS $997
6 WEEEKS INFIELD CHALLENGES $697
MY PERSONAL PULL SCRIPTS PRICELESS
TEXTING FLOWCHARTS $497
GAME SEQUENCES $497
MY TINDER PROFILE THAT BRINGS ME 30+ MATCHES A DAY $197
LIVE PRIVATE EVENT RECORDING $1,997
Un-Announced Super-Bonus... PRICELESS
GET WOMEN TO APPROACH YOU EBOOK + 3 OTHER BONUS EBOOKS $1,997
Exclusive Interviews With The TOP People In The Game $1,997
TOTAL VALUE $13,161

[The page rambles on and on and on. There are also Standard, Premium and Platinum editions. The site design is incredibly ugly, by the way, and one of the images fails to display…]

[Bonus: Pop-up displayed when entering the site]
FREE VIDEO
The Simple System I Used To Hack The Female Brain And Sleep With 1,014 Women
Enter your e-mail address [interactive field]
Watch free video → [botton; would require entering e-mail adress] | No thanks, I don’t like getting laid [button, closes pop-up]
⚠ WARNING: Due to it’s controversial nature, this video has been banned from Youtube.

Valerie Sinason and Dr Fleur Fisher #conspiracy theguardian.com

At 9.02am Richard Felstead answered the phone; by 9.03am he was breathless with crying. It was the coroner's assistant in Battersea with the news that his sister, Carole, had died two weeks earlier. "I'm sorry it's taken so long to notify you," she said. "Carole's next of kin told us there was no family. But a letter was found – from you."

Two minutes later, the phone rang again. A different caller, with a strange voice, said, "I know you're not one of the ones that harmed Carole."

"Who are you?" said Richard.

"I'm Carole's next of kin."

"What's your name?"

"That's not important."

"How did Carole die?"

"She had a very difficult childhood."

"What? No she didn't."

"The cremation's tomorrow. People have taken time off work. It's very important it goes ahead."

Richard reacted furiously. The phone went dead.

The brothers gathered at their parents' Stockport home: Richard, David, Anthony and Kevin, whose principal memory of the morning of 14 July 2005 is his mother, "Finished. On the floor. Drained. Shattered. Gone." They began talking. Who was the mysterious caller who claimed to be Carole's "next of kin"? Why did she talk of a "difficult childhood" when Carole was happy and popular? She had a successful nursing career down in London. How could she die at just 41? Why had it taken two weeks to be informed? How could there be a funeral tomorrow?

Joseph, their father, stood up. "I'll put a stop to it."

"You can't stop a funeral, Dad!" said Kevin.

Joseph phoned the coroner's assistant. She brusquely informed him that, now the family had been discovered, the funeral would be halted. She mentioned a "life assessment", written by Carole. "It's very upsetting," she said. It was six pages, typed. It said: "My parents were abusive in every way imaginable - sexually, physically and emotionally. At three years of age, my mother smothered my sister. She sat me on top of her body and set the house on fire."

Joseph was astonished. "Had she been ill?" he said. "Had she been sectioned?"

The coroner's assistant replied: "Yes."

Over the coming weeks there came more questions. They were told the nameless "next of kin" had emptied Carole's flat and driven off in her car. Officials kept mentioning a "psychiatrist friend" who accompanied Carole to medical appointments. Joseph was speaking to a police inspector when something occurred to him. "This psychiatrist and this next of kin," he said. "Are they the same person?"

"That's right," said the inspector. "Dr Fleur Fisher."

The Felsteads' search for answers to the many mysteries surrounding Carole's decline is now in its sixth year. Endless letters and FOI requests, alongside hours of legal research and long nights on the internet, have resulted in the collection of hundreds of documents and the generation of yet more questions: angry ones about individuals they believe to have been malign presences in her life; strange ones about startling and little-known corners of human psychology; sad ones about the life and death of the kind and sparky woman they still miss every day.

When I tell them I'd like to write about Carole, they pass me the telephone number, discovered in Carole's phone records, of the woman whose role in the tale is, they're convinced, both sinister and central: that of the "next of kin", Dr Fleur Fisher.

"I'm not sure I want to talk about this," Fisher tells me. "You'll have to let me think about it. That family – they're bloody terrifying."

"You're frightened of them?"

"They're frightening people. And the things they've been saying," she says, adding confusingly: "I'm not a therapist!" She rings off, warning me darkly: "Tread carefully."

The house in which Carole grew up has mauve and dark-red rooms that are shadow-struck and decorated with golden candlestick holders, old family portraits and statues of dogs, birds and deer. Today Joseph sits glowering in the lounge, his patriarch's hands gripping his armchair. Kevin – a softer presence – informs me that Richard's at work, and Anthony's too distraught to speak. Their mother, Joan, passed away last year. David's here, though, friendly yet possessed of an anxious, wiry tension. Over the coming hours, he'll answer questions with flumes of facts and furious analysis, fossicking in boxes for the relevant document to illustrate his point.

For these men, Carole's life is as much a mystery as her death. She had been a friendly, bolshy and academically successful teenager, who loved watching M*A*S*H and wearing the tartan shorts beloved of her favourite band, the Bay City Rollers. She was popular at school and had a noted instinct for caring, going out of her way to play with Michael, the neighbour with Down's syndrome, and paying regular visits to a lonely old man down the road known as Mr Partridge. At 15 she got a weekend job in a home for the disabled. At 21 she qualified as a nurse at Stockport College and rented a nearby flat, making frequent visits back home to borrow milk and money, and sunbathe in the garden. And then, in the mid-1980s, there began a silent drift away from the family.

(...)

In 1986 they discovered Carole had moved to Macclesfield. She'd still send Christmas cards and ring occasionally, assuring them her career was going well. But by 1992 she had moved to London and changed her name from Carol Felstead to Carole Myers. They had to accept that Carole, for some reason, had chosen to stay away.

After her death they discovered Carole had become mentally ill. Her medical records revealed self-harm, alcohol abuse and stretches in psychiatric wards. She'd frequently been suicidal.

They felt shattered about the claims she'd made in her life assessment – and confused. She said she'd been abused by Joseph and his wife, who were the high priest and priestess of a satanic cult, and that during her teens she'd had six children – some fathered by Joseph – that she'd been forced to kill. She also said she had an implant in her eye that would explode if she spoke of the satanists, and that a friend she'd confided in was murdered in front of her.

Carole's charges were easily proven to be false. The sister, whose murder she'd apparently witnessed, actually died of heart problems two years before Carole was born. The house fire, too, predated Carole's birth. And yet, to the Felsteads' disbelief, it seemed the mental-health professionals rarely challenged these impossible horrors. Worse, they'd concluded that Carole's psychological problems came as a result of this fictitious abuse.

But the family is pointing the finger straight back at the clinicians. They believe the blame for Carole's psychological downfall lies with credulous, satanist-obsessed therapists who went along with her claims that she'd been sexually menaced. After all, they point out, it's happened before – most famously in Orkney in 1991, when nine children were forcibly removed from their homes following interviews by social workers led by an individual who was subsequently accused of being "fixated on finding satanic abuse".

I ask the Felsteads when the first mention of mental-health problems appear in Carole's medical records. In August 1985, it turns out, she received therapy for insomnia and nightmares related to "family abuse". Soon afterwards a 1986 letter mentions further "psycho-sexual counselling" by someone whose name sends a cold stun of recognition through me. It's her: the next of kin; the woman who baffled me by abruptly – perhaps defensively – announcing: "I'm not a therapist!" It's Dr Fisher.

Arriving back in London I'm in no doubt that Carole's abuse claims were untrue. But is it really possible, as the Felsteads insist, for a person to have memories "implanted" by a therapist? Professor Elizabeth Loftus, of the University of California, certainly believes so. In one famous study she sought to examine the process by which a therapist can generate a memory of an event simply by suggesting it. Loftus told 24 adults to write detailed descriptions of four childhood events supplied earlier on by a family member. Unbeknown to them, one of those events never actually happened.

(...)

The concept of repressed memories itself is, according to psychologist Chris French of the University of London, highly questionable. "There's a divide on this in psychology," he says. "But these 'recovery' methods are also used in the context of alien abduction accounts. If you're going to accept recovered memories of abuse, you should also accept the alien claims."

While chatting with French, I mention a psychotherapist who saw Carole called Valerie Sinason. Unexpectedly he lets out a guttural, melancholy groan.

"Oh Gooooodddd," he says.

If the Felsteads are right, Carole is likely to have had some form of recovered-memory therapy in the mid-80s – roughly the time her behaviour began to sour. But the only person I know who might be able to answer this question of whether she did is Dr Fisher. Since our last chat, she's vanished. She's changed her mobile number and has ignored several emails.

Instead I arrange an interview with Valerie Sinason who, according to the records, saw Carole for psychotherapy biweekly for eight months in 1992. I want to know if she'll fit the description Professor Loftus gave of the therapists she's come across in legal cases who have involved false memory – that of a highly credulous believer in satanic abuse who has a tendency to believe ritual damage in patients.

Sinason insists she doesn't use recovered-memory techniques. "I'm an analytic therapist," she says. "The idea of that is someone showing, through their behaviour, that all sorts of things might have happened to them." Signs that a patient has suffered satanically include flinching at green or purple objects, the colours of the high priest and priestess's robes. "And if someone shudders when they enter a room, you know it's not ordinary incest."

Another warning, she says, is the patient saying: "I don't know." "What they really mean is: 'I can't bear to say.'" A patient who "overpraises" their family is also suspicious. "The more insecure you are, the more you praise. 'Oh my family was wonderful! I can't remember any of it!'"

In the medical records, Sinason noted that Carole was her first chronic sadistic-abuse patient. Today, when I ask about her first patient, Sinason describes the arrival of two medical professionals – a nurse and a psychologist – one of whom was limping.

"I just had that nasty feeling," she says. "It's her, and she's been hurt by them."

Soon, we get to the actual satanism. Sinason talks of a popular ritual in which a child is stitched inside the belly of a dying animal before being 'reborn to satan'. During other celebrations, "people eat faeces, menstrual blood, semen, urine. There's cannibalism." Some groups have doctors performing abortions. "They give the foetus to the mother and she's made to kill the baby."

"And the cannibalism – that's foetuses?" I clarify.

"Foetuses and bits of bodies. The foetuses are raw. And handed round like communion. On one major festival, the babies are barbecued. I can still remember one survivor saying how easy it is to pull apart the ribs on a baby. But adults are tougher to eat."

She describes large gatherings in woodlands and castles, with huge cloths being laid out. "That's normally when there's a sacrifice," she notes, "and because the rapes are happening all over the place. There's a small amount of cannon fodder in terms of runaways, drug addicts, prostitutes and tramps that are used. There's sex with animals. Horses, dogs, goats. Being hanged upside down. In the woods, on a tree."

(...)

Dr Fisher lives in Plymouth, and is a former head of ethics at the British Medical Association. She speaks with the all the authority that such a position suggests. Sometimes confident, sometimes wary, sometimes maudlin and resigned, she actually has good reason to fear the Felsteads. After discovering she'd taken Carole's possessions, they reported her to the GMC and the police. Neither found sufficient evidence to act against her.

Fisher admits she had no legal claim to be Carole's "next of kin", but denies the Felsteads' accusations that she stole her property. She emptied the flat, she says, because the property managers were demanding it. As she cleared up, she found the letter from Richard. "Honourably, I gave it to the police," she says. "Otherwise the family would never have known. Never, never, never!" The clearout happened on 7 July 2005, a date, of course, that became known as 7/7. The terrorist explosions crippled the public transport network, which is why she needed to take Carole's car to get home. It was soon returned to London.

I ask why she phoned Richard on the day the Felsteads were informed of the death. She did so, she says, because the coroner mentioned how crushed he'd sounded. "Concern for somebody else's distress sometimes overcomes you," she says. "I was foolish. Unwise."

Ironically, it was her discovery of Richard's letter that led to the funeral's cancellation. Was she upset when she heard it had been halted? "You can't even imagine," she says. "I just screamed and screamed."

Finally, we get to the question of whether Carole's memories of satanic abuse were recovered. Initially Fisher refuses to speak about Carole. "I have a duty of confidentiality, even after a patient has died. I was never her psychiatrist or psychotherapist or anything like that." She raises her voice. "I'm not a psychotherapist, for God's sake!"

"According to her medical notes, she saw you for counselling," I say.

"No."

"I have the letter here, dated 27 November 1986, that says: 'She required to see Dr Fisher for psychosexual counselling.'" There's a silence. "Psychosexual is the wrong term," she says.

"What's the correct term?"

"Uh, I really don't know. People come and tell you things that have happened to them."

"Things like abuse?"

Was she ever worried that Carole had lapsed into fantasy? "Never," she says.

By 1997, I tell her, Carole was claiming a government minister had raped her with a claw hammer in Conservative Central Office. "That's not something I knew about," she says. "It may have been fantasy. I couldn't say. In general she was a common-sense woman."

"Are you aware of any evidence that any of Carole's claims actually happened?"

"I never looked for any evidence."

"Then what made you believe her?"

"She's not the only patient I've had who told the same kinds of stories."

"About ritual abuse?"

"It turned out to be that, yes. The people didn't remember at first. They weren't aware. They were memories they'd had a long time and they just came out."

Finally, I seek advice from Dr Trevor Turner, a consultant psychiatrist at St Bartholomew's Hospital in London. A former vice president of the Royal College of Psychiatry, Turner is an expert in schizophrenia. I wanted to speak with Turner because I've heard that delusions and paranoias like the ones Carole suffered are a common facet of the condition.

Turner confirms this, adding: "Another thing that's a part of the schizophrenic illness syndrome is the idea that your body has been interfered with," he tells me. Carole's slow withdrawal from the family, it turns out, is also typical. "If you're thinking things are being done to you, you blame those around you," he says. "Families of people who have got schizophrenia are commonly accused of things by the patient."

Assuming that Carole was suffering from schizophrenia, I wonder what effect it might have had on her, having therapists validate her darkest delusions. What would it be like for a paranoid psychotic to have it confirmed that, yes, there really are satanists out there, trying to get you? "Absolutely terrifying," he says. "It's highly likely it would make it worse."

Amos Moses #fundie christiannews.net

Amos Moses:
God has appointed Himself the judge of who in HIS creation is and is not ...... and HE has told the WORLD what that is ..... and it is WRITTEN DOWN ...... and it is SCRIPTURE ..... and you have no excuse ...........

Throatwobbler Mangrove:
And you have one interpretation of scripture, and everyone else has an interpretation that is slightly different. No one knows which one is exactly right. Once again, this comes down to you believing your opinion is superior to everyone else’s.

Amos Moses:
no, no, no ..... there is GODS interpretation ..... and we have NONE ..... anything outside of that is ERROR ....... and all you have is ERROR ................. as you do not even have scripture ........ you have given up your ability and right to judge who is and who is not ......

Throatwobbler Mangrove:
Do you not know what interpretation means?

Amos Moses:
do you know it does not matter what YOUR INTERPRETATION is ........ FYI ..... the only "interpretation" that has any weight is GODS ..... and when we allow the scriptures to speak FOR ITSELF ...... then that is Gods interpretation ..... that is exegesis ..... what you advocate is isegesis .... we do not bring our theology to the text and then try to justify it ..... we obtain it FROM THE TEXT ......... because the text is what we have ... NOT what we add ...... and we are FORBIDDEN from adding to the text ..............

Throatwobbler Mangrove:
Um...no, that's not what it means.
You know what the KJV is? It’s a translation, yes, but that also makes it an INTERPRETATION.
We have no choice when we read it, or read ANYTHING, but to interpret it. It just means use our brain to understand it.

Amos Moses:
right ... so when your kids decide they get to decide what you meant when you told them certain things ..... you are good with that .... because what YOU meant is garbage and what THEY "interpret" is right ............ do you even consider what you are saying and its application ..... FYI ..... God is not inclusive ..... He is EXCLUSIVE .....

Throatwobbler Mangrove:
"You just can't look at the moon too long."
You can read that sentence and interpret it two different ways. You can take it to mean that you should not look at the moon too long, or that you are being urged to look at the moon as long as you want to. Neither interpretation is wrong. What is the meaning meant? Only the person who posed the question knows.
And that's how it is with the Bible. Different Christians have different understandings on certain subject based on the words of the Bible. You may be correct that only one meaning is the correct one, but how can you possibly be arrogant enough to claim to know which one it is?

Amos Moses:
nope ..... wrong ... when you told your kids what you told them .... you did not mean what you said so that they could decide later what you meant ..... you meant what you said when you said it ..... and they do not get to decide later that you meant something different ...... unless you are an idiot ................

Throatwobbler Mangrove (this comment now deleted):
But this isn't about what you meant. The whole thing you are missing is HOW YOUR MESSAGE gets interpreted. It might get MISinterpreted along the way. You might be very clear on what you mean, and I'm sure you are. But language isn't always as precise as we want it to be and things get misunderstood. This isn't about changing the meaning. It's about getting the message clearly across. And you fail on that one every time.

Amos Moses:
nope .... The whole thing you are missing is .... I DO NOT CARE ....... my message is the SCRIPTURE ..... and the "interpretation" is what God said it is ..... and what He said is written down ..... and we do not get to add to it nor do we get to subtract from it ..... we do not get to use weasel words to get around it ..... we do not get to soften it so others can accept it ...... and it is not up to the SOPHISTRY of "our interpretation" .... and while you and i may have some difficulty in understanding it ..... GOD DOES NOT have any such difficulty ..... and our "interpretation" is not an excuse for saying it says something different than what He said ........
and when you tell your kids they have to home in the house by a certain time in the evening .... that does not mean "by interpretation" that at 5 minutes after that time ..... they are free to leave and go about their business in the middle of the night ........ again .... unless you are an idiot ........
scripture is not an invitation and it is not a plea and it is not open to what we want to believe it says ..... it is an ULTIMATUM .....

Throatwobbler Mangrove:
You exhaust the patience of even the most patient person, but I'll say this one more time. You do NOT understand what "interpret" means. It does mean to add, subtract or change. It does NOT. What it means is, and I'm using direct definitions from the dictionary now:
- to give or provide the meaning of; explain; explicate; elucidate:
- to interpret the hidden meaning of a parable.
- to construe or understand in a particular way:
- to interpret a reply as favorable.
- to bring out the meaning of (a dramatic work, music, etc.) by performance or execution.
- to perform or render (a song, role in a play, etc.) according to one's own understanding or sensitivity:
- to translate orally.
Notice NOTHING in all the many possible definitions involves changing anything. It is strictly about understanding, and nothing more.
As for God, you're saying God's perfect and nothing needs to be clarified. Maybe not from God's perspective, but it's US who are required to understand it correctly and sometimes words alone are not enough to do that and there can be some confusion or things getting lost in translation. That's nobody's fault, and it's not something anyone can do anything about, but nobody can say in situations like this that they are 100% right or wrong because it is not possible to know.

Amos Moses:
nope ... YOU do not understand what it means TO SCRIPTURE ..... and YOUR INTERPRETATION ....... means NOTHING ....

Throatwobbler Mangrove:
At this point it appears you are not even INTERESTED in having a coherent argument.
This has nothing to do with scripture. No one is arguing scripture.
This has to do with how we come to UNDERSTAND something and how it is spoken to us, and how it is possible to come to several different conclusions.
Once again, consider this example.
"You can't look at the sun too long."
That means two things. It means you should not look at the sun too long. It also means it's not possible to look at the sun long enough. They have opposite meanings, but the words do not change and can be INTERPRETED either way. So a person isn't wrong to believe it means that you shouldn't look at the sun too long, and the other person isn't wrong to believe there's no limit to how long you can look at the sun. There is confusion inherent in the original statement which has not been clarified.
That's EXACTLY how it is with SOME scripture.
And if you don't understand that, there's no hope for you to continue discussing it.

1Tim115 #fundie christianforums.com

Dinosaur bones are the result of Noah's flood

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jakesmith1995: "Can somebody please explain dinosaur bones to me? Please?"

REPLY: Here are a few facts we need to bring to bear in answering your question, Jakesmith1995:

1. The meaning of 'dinosaur', which I think is derived from the Greek or Roman for 'terrible lizard'

2. Using that definition, it could be argued that some dinosaurs exist today e.g. the iguana or the komodo dragon

3. How do you get dinosaur bones? Only if a dinosaur, or parts of a dinosaur, have been buried instantaneously, or near instantaneously

4. How come huge dinosaurs like Tyrannosaurus Rex, over 60 feet tall, have been buried? How come, in addition, we find massive 'dinosaur graveyards' - fossils of hundred of dinosaurs buried and crushed, all close together, and availabe for us to see today as fossils? There is really only one answer. A massive Flood-type event. Noah's Flood fits the evidence perfectly

5. All radiometric dating other than carbon dating is pseudo-science, based on up to 14 unprovable assumptions, and full of the most massive contradictions. Carbon-dating is only reasonably reliable up to around 5,000 years ago. There is no basis for dating dinosaur bones at any older than 5,000 years

6. On top of all that, DNA has been found in dinosaur bones. I hardly think DNA could have survived 145 million years.

CONCLUSION

Dinosaur bones are the result of Noah's flood.

Dinosaur footprints appear in zones of sedimentary rock which suggest that they were running fast trying to escape the rising floodwaters of Noah's Flood. They were running in a medium approximating to setting concrete, hence their preservation for us to view today.

If this does not answer your question, please post again

The This is some long shit' edition of FSTDT.

Sande Van der Straten #ufo #magick bibliotecapleyades.net

These are the notes that I took at the meeting held February 8th, 1992 at Maleny, Queensland.

This is my version of my notes of the meeting with Robert Morning Sky a full blooded Apache/Hopi Indian. Who was raised by his two grandparents after his father was killed and his mother left the reservation.

From the age of 1-5 years, he had no contact with the white man at all. He was taught by his grandfathers and with a group of other young people by a group of people they called the Star Warriors - aliens he code-names Blues.

These people taught him to run 6 miles with a full mouth of water and not choke or spill a drop, then they would return and have to spit the water out at the feet of the Warriors. They had to stand with their backs to their elders who would shoot an arrow and they, the students, would have to turn and catch it mid-flight. He said they didn’t realize - the students - that they weren’t supposed to be able to do these things.

The policy of the Star Warrior is that knowledge is not given, it is earned. The way to learn is to be led to discovery.

There is an old Hopi prophecy (today’s red man is white tomorrows white man is green). The first alien contact started about 1947 - 1948 and they had either already, or were going to spend 50 years with the elders of the Hopi Indian reservation.

A description of the Star Warriors is of clear, translucent skin, large almond shaped eyes and small of stature. The main issue of their teaching was PURSUE YOUR PASSION, follow your own way, do your own thing, don’t be pressured into being anything but what and who you are.

A medicine man is not necessarily a healer, they are people who do their own thing with a passion, i.e. one that will make you practice your practice your own medicine, two, feel better - medicine people make both things one and the same. A warrior is a living example of passion.

What is passion, it is an inner feeling, a love activity. It is that which makes time flow quickly, that one will move heaven and earth to do, that one will make time for. Passion is the unity of union of love between man and woman, which has more power and energy than anything one earth and if harnessed can be unbeatable.

Harmony occurs when ones own heart beat moves in time with another, i.e. the drum music of the dance, the heartbeat of chosen one, the heartbeat of a nation, the heartbeat of the universe and the earth. Think about your passion, if it makes you feel good, and shivery, it is your passion. It is your passion that makes all things possible.

The Hopi tradition is that it is man’s job to make all things possible for the womenfolk. They must attract, but the women must chose.

The reason for long hair is enhancement of beauty and the "Indian love handle" - he mentioned that the caveman used to pull their women around by their hair, he says it was wrong, the Indian women catch their men by their hair!

Men must see the world through the eyes of women.

Passion
The fire, the individuality, the you. It is internal, we are told to be what you are supposed to be, don’t be anything else. We have a life force and energy that if harnessed could cause more damage than an atomic explosion. But we need to practice harmony and frequency. We find our own frequency and can raise it to match another and harmonize, match it don’t contend with it or anything else, or you will be destroyed. The first sensation we receive, is our mother’s heartbeat. We all need to be one harmonious heartbeat.

Body
Your job is to master your own body, if you don’t master your body, nothing will work for you.


Spiritual
Anything else is spiritual, the trees, air, water etc. To attain oneself, you have to move outwards, not grow inwards or else you will become like the black stars and implode.

Shape shifting - is possible by becoming that shape - my feeling is that in making self believe so much that a super imposed image forms in your mind and the mind of those around you - by increasing your own frequency you can become anything i.e. a microwave than excite water, so that it changes and becomes hot.

When our energy rise, so does our body temperature. We have the ability to raise our own and other peoples frequencies.
In 1943 the government conducted a series of experiments called the Philadelphia Experiment, to teleport articles.

It partly succeeded and partly went wrong. On January 8/9th, there was a terrific light storm that was not so much a storm as an immense light show. (During this storm I, Sande, was sitting of the front porch, connected to the storm, Robert, my guide, very clearly spoke to me and told me not to feed the storm). Robert Morningsky video-taped the storm and on part of the film, the form of a ship appeared.

December 19/20 Nexus magazine reported that a ship from the Philadelphia Experiment materialized into one of the bays in Australian Waters and then disappeared. picture (Courier Mail, 31/12/91).

If you are not in tune with your passion you cannot create your own reality. Your passion is your responsibility. Who cares what others feel and think.

Your answers and salvation are within.

1930-1940 World War II
Madman Hitler tried to create the perfect man, and conducted bio-genetic experiments
Work on flying saucers research, development what is known as Foo Fighters - (14.2.1944)
The US developed an atomic weapon and tested it in Northern New Mexico
Others tried to develop Time Travel. Out in the universe, alien nations viewed us and were dismayed. Can you imagine the SS Eldridge going through into another dimension. Whilst testing a new protection device called radar uncontrollable bursts of energy, several flying saucers were forcibly landed. The area of landing was the Arizona area. The Amerindians respected the aliens found.

1948
Several discs crashed, so a military force called blue force was formed, to remove all evidence of UFOs. A live alien was captured and he was called EBE, Extraterrestrial Biological Entity.

It was found that he was not able to eliminate waste through the normal way, it was eliminate through the pores of his skin. He took sick, and a famous botanist Jaro Mendoza was called in, but in 1952, EBE died. A project called Sigma was instigated to call EBEs brothers to come and find him but to no avail.

The satellite dishes were placed on Indian lands, and the workers, believing that the Indian race was non consequential, so gave them quite a bit of information, believing that they would not understand it.


1947
In the locker of one of the landed UFOs were found human parts.


1953
December, contact was made with Aliens. Astronomers found a bunch of space ships going around the earth. Contact was made outside one of the Indian reservations.

1954
Eisenhower met with the greys and was offered certain secrets in return for the use of people for research and experimentation. They informed the president that they were a dying race and needed help to get their bodies stronger and healthier. An agency MJ-12 was brought into effect, to monitor this program of experiments and implantations.

Negotiations were completed and treaty was signed in California. In Florida another body of Aliens arrived, called by Robert Morningsky, as the Blues.

They offered other advice, not to deal with the greys, it would only lead to disaster, but to follow your own path. They would teach with peace and harmony if men would disarm and listen. The military said no deal! So they left, but a few decided to remain and stayed in Northern Mexico and Arizona and made a treaty with the Hopi Indians.

These Aliens are known by the Hopi as Star Warriors.

The greys left an ambassador called Krill and adopted an equilateral triangle as their insignia. The military force name as the Blue Force became the Delta Force and was formed to study the greys. Two bases were built and called several names, the Earth base - Hanger 18, Dreamland or Area 51.

The greys went underground under the reservations in the four corner area of Mexico, Utah, Arizona and California. It was for the purpose of monitoring the Blues. The Blues had to flee the reservation and go into hiding, a few of the Elders went with them.

The Hopi legend is that there were two races, the children of the feather who came from the skies, and the children of the reptile who came from under the earth. The children of the reptile chased the Hopi Indians out of the earth, these evil under-grounders were also called two hearts.

The government has signed a treaty with the children of the serpent. The Hopi have signed a treaty with the children of the feather.

The greys want a perfect body, for a long time, there have been cattle mutilations. Always missing, were the organs of elimination. The grey’s bodies are always cold, and they feed on our energies, our fears, our out of control energies.

When you are fearful and out of control, the greys use and feed on that energy. What we need to do is know that it is o.k. to feel fear, but to flow with it, then control it by redirecting it into a positive event.

(NB - Do we not have an underground installation at Pine Gap that is run by the Americans? - Sande).

Control your passion - life force - you decide what you want, get an attitude! Don’t be afraid to say no! The government wants your money for their pet projects and the greys want your life-force, your energy.

Ask yourself these things.
1. Do the government make laws for themselves or for people.
2. Do they allow us to do our own thing.
3. Are we under their control on government subsidies etc...
The greys decided to stay on earth and needed acceptance, so they hired an advertising agency to come up with some good ideas - hence - My favorite Martian, ALF, Star Trek, Star wars, Alien Nation and ET.

The new program the Mutant Ninja Turtles and the Dinosaurs?? Look and be aware of the symbol of the triangle - TriStar Pictures??? Don’t rely on the government for your support, help yourself where you can. See the movie JFK.


1959
The Jason Society decided to do something about global warming:
1. Blow a hole in the ozone layer, to let the heat out.
2. Develop underground for the elite societies.
3. Develop other planets into colonies. The last two were adopted, but the first has since be done.
Several things have been happening to engender fear and to give more control to the government:
1. Release of dangerous Psychotics and early release of killers and menaces to society.
2. Wars and upheavals.
3. Drug induced societies and drug dependent societies.
4. Mainland China.


Kachina Hopi - great spirit fire

Any living thing that is stressed is food for the children of the lizard.

Robert saw for the first time pictures of crop circles, and recognized them as Hopi symbols. He professed that if he could see them in their correct order, he would be able to ’read them’.

He feels that Mother earth is calling out Help me!


Question time
Q: - Why would governments hide the fact that aliens exist?
A: - If we knew, we would quit doing what the government want us to do.

Q: - Do the greys know they are aliens?
A: - The Greys have interbred - the more they interbreed, the more chance there is that they will lose their memories of who they really are, they become half human and half alien and can be quite mixed up emotionally. They must be 5th and 6th generation greys by now, and who don’t know they are greys. (Where do you think we get all our information from - disgruntled greys!!)

Q: - How can we tell the children of the greys.
A: - They make you feel creepy and have reptilian looking eyes and features. Greys have large eyes and have difficulty focusing. They are arrogant. They will be a strong body odor they tend to drain one of energy. They need to wear sunglasses - CIA????

The Blues
Short, big eyes, wouldn’t describe too much, because they are preparing for something big. You will feel them, and you will know them!! It is possible that a 6th generation grey could end up marrying a 6th generation blue.

Our misuse of our energy can aid a grey to shape shift and thus not be recognized.
(At the meeting, I was with another person, and while the intermission was on, we were quietly talking, when the person appeared from nowhere, and introduced himself to me, using my name. [my name had not been mentioned, neither did I know this man. I did not have a name tag on].

It was an extremely hot day, and when I shook his hand, it was freezing cold and dry. He shook hands with my partner also. We watched him move back through the hall and disappear into a small of people. We watched the front door, and he did not exit through there. But when we looked for him later, he was nowhere to be found.

I have no idea what it all meant, I only know that it was a strange experience. Neither my partner nor I could remember the man’s name, although he has said it twice. No one else had contact with the man, or remembered seeing anyone. My partner was a very logical person, not given to fanciful visions etc.)
On December 21, 1991, a fragmented video tape would trigger a series of events that would permit these papers to come to life.

On the video tape were bits and pieces of information that confirmed what some American Indians have known for some time... that Alien Life Forms exist and walk amongst us.

Due to the release of information on that tape, it is now possible to reveal further information that could not be spoken of before this time.

An ages old code of silence could slowly and cautiously be unveiled. In the late forties and early fifties, a movement began on the pueblo Indian Reservations of the Southwest. It was the intent of the Elders involved to raise an isolated group of young Warriors in the "Old Ways". The teachings began but would soon receive an unexpected presence... the "Star Warrior". (Please read the chronology included).

Hand in hand with the "medicine warrior" ways, the "Star Warrior" ways would become the foundation of education of the young warriors. Hand in hand with the Elders, the Star Brother taught the Secrets of the Universe. Raised in the way of the Kachina, the children knew that the Spirit of things always looks different.

The appearance of the Star Brother was not frightening, he only looked a little unlike us... and... he played with us as a child would.

Knowledge must be earned. Wisdom must be learned... the "Way of the Warrior" would confirm that which was discovered and would give suggestion for direction, but Passion for knowledge MUST be exhibited... and so, the code was born - "confirm but do NOT originate.

Suggest and direct but leave discovery to the seeker of knowledge". These full-blooded Indian boys and girls spent their lives learning through discovery... and one by one they went out into the "outside" world. The author of these papers was one of those youngsters. The material in these papers does not violate the code, it only confirms information which has been uncovered by others.

It is hoped, however, that these papers may give researchers an idea or suggestion for a different perspective which may help to uncover further information on the "Grand Overview".

The information in these papers should not be accepted in and of themselves. You must seek our confirmation for yourself. The credibility of these papers does not depend on its author, but rather on what you discover from your study and investigation of the material presented.

CONFIRM EVERYTHING FOR YOURSELF! THIS IS THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN BE SATISFIED WITH THE TRUTHS PRESENTED.

The material is presented in bold, forthright form. If you seek elaboration.

"Keys" are available upon request.



SECRETS OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN - HOPI LEGEND OF CREATION

The Hopi Indian Legend of Creation tells of three different beginnings.
One story says that we have arisen from an underground paradise through an opening called Sipapu.
The second story tells of the descendancy from our birthplace near a Blue Star.
And the third story relates of a migration from a faraway place across a great body of water.
All three are true.

What matters is not which came first, but that they are all true. (Focus not on the leaf, rather look at the whole tree).

This spot is thought by some to be Sipapu, entrance to the Hopi Underworld.
It is a sacred place of pilgrimage for the Hopi,
at the bottom of the Canyon of the Little Colorado above its junction with the Colorado River.

The story of Sipapu reveals that we emerged in a somewhat undeveloped physical state, much like the prehistoric man.

Our bodies were still forming and pliable, but our features were a bit brutish. Man, called Koyemsi or Mudhead had two small round lumps for ears, two protruding knobs for eyes and one large lump for a mouth. The head was smooth and round as a ball.

As man developed, his physical body and features became more refined until he looks as he does now.

THIS IS THE HOPI VERSION OF EVOLUTION - (Key 1)
- This story of creation says that the underground paradise was wondrous with beautiful clear skies and plentiful food sources.

It was because of the existence of those called Two Hearts, the bad ones, that refuge was sought in the upper world by the Hopi, the peaceful ones. The underworld was not destroyed but was only sealed up to prevent the Two Hearts from rising upon to the surface world.

(Suggested research Hollow Earth Theorists may want to look at this legend more closely. At least one government agency is said to continue monitoring the Hopi Indian, to see when and if a return into the ground begins).


THE SECOND STORY OF CREATION - (Key 2)
- Tells of the descent of the Hopi from the Blue Star of a constellation called the Seven Sisters. One version tells of our travel to earth on the back of Enki, the eagle. Grandfather, the Great Spirit allowed the first man to select his home from the many stars of the universe.

Enki told first man of his home earth, and brought him to visit. First man’s exploration of the earth convinced him that this was where he wanted his children to be born and to grow. First Man returned to the heavens to tell Grandfather of his decision. Grandfather was pleased and granted to first man the right to call earth his home.

First man soon returned to the green place or Sakwap with his family shortly afterwards.

(Many of the hero stories throughout time and through many different cultures refer to a valiant group of seven. Warriors descended from the stars often use the sign of the Seven Sisters on their shields and medallions).


THE STORY OF THE MIGRATION - (Key 3)
- From a great land across the big waters speaks of the departure from a paradise far away. This story parallels many other creation legends, but differs only in that no disaster or chaos seems to have caused the journey.

The purpose of the journey was to begin a new home and a new life. Some interpretations have the Hopi leaving their home in order to spread the Teachings of the Old Ones.


SORCERER VS MEDICINE MAN - (Key 4)
- In the Southwest, as in all areas of North America, there exist men and women who practice the use of power to achieve their goals. Sometimes called the medicine man or woman, sorcerer or shaman, these individuals have often been the subjects of books and even movies. Their practice is often referred to as magic.

Nothing is further from the truth. Magic is the un natural use of the Powers of Nature. They who turn to the practice of disharmony are more properly called witches, warlocks and sorcerers. (It is this disharmony that eventually undoes these practitioners and seals their doom). Medicine men and women work with the force of Nature.

(Move against the river, it weakens and ultimately destroys - move with the river, and the power of the river enters your soul and reveals its knowledge).

One series of popular books (Carlos Castaneda Series) refers to Don Juan. One of the Sorcerers of the Southwestern Desert. His apprentice was known as Carlos. Through the series of books, Carlos is guided by Don Juan and Don Genaro on a path to Sorcery.

The methods used by Don Juan are well known to the Medicine Men and Women of the Southwest and most of what is described in the first two books is a valid teaching technique of teaching by Distraction. However, due to the blinders Carlos refuses to move from his eyes, the two books seem to be rather confusing. This is not because of Don Juan.

Don Juan’s attempts to make him see in another way, are totally rejected by Carlos and the result is a mixed up re-telling of events. Do not accept the final book’s premise that Carlos has achieved the status of Sorcerer or knowing one - that is not the outcome. Those who refuse to remove the blinders and expand their awareness, will forever be trapped in a prison-world of their own making, and will never see the dangers around them.

(They who do not wish to see CANNOT; Those who do not wish to hear CANNOT; Those who do not wish to feel CANNOT. Suggestion - re-read the Don Juan comments carefully).


MEDICINE MAN/WOMAN (Key 5)
- At this point it would be well to mention that Medicine men/Woman are not necessarily healers. In fact, your medicine is your passion. Your medicine always makes you feel high while dancing, then dancing is your medicine. If you feel high while cooking, then cooking is your medicine. Your medicine will always help to cure that which ails you.

Your medicine will always give you the power to rise up and continue. (This medicine is of the spirit) Your medicine is also that which you do. Your conduct in the Land of Living Things, what you do is your signature in life and it is your medicine. how your treat others and how you react to the world is your medicine.

You medicine can help the ailments of others or it could, in fact poison them. What you do effects other at all times. (If your medicine is harmful to others, you, as a medicine man or medicine woman have failed in your task.) What you DO in the land of the living things is your medicine. (This medicine is of the body).

(It is the true medicine man/woman that makes the medicine of the spirit one with the medicine of the body.)

TRUTH AND WISDOM - (key 6)
- Truth and wisdom must always be sought out. Neither shall come easily. If at first, the teacher ignores you... Ask again!

All masters of Wisdom will succumb to the Passionate student. To demand a right to knowledge is to say you provide this for me. To ask for knowledge is to show respect for wisdom and to pursue knowledge is to show passion for truth. (In life, there are no RIGHTS, only privileges). Unlike power, truth seeks to come out. It does not hide, it is hidden by those wishing it to remain concealed. Truth and power are tools to be used. Not ends in themselves.

(Power can cover or uncover truth;...truth can only uncover power; Power can lead to truth...Truth always leads to power. Wisdom is knowing how to use both).

PASSION - (Key 7)
- In order to pursue your Passion, first you must recognize your passion. The following guidelines should help you to identify your passion:
1. Your PASSION always makes you feel on fire.
2. Your PASSION always makes time disappear (five hours always seems like five minutes.
3. Your PASSION occupies most of your waking thoughts.
4. Your PASSION forces you into action, you cannot sit.
5. Your PASSION is something you will always find time for.

AWARENESS - (Key 8)
- There are three parts to Awareness:
1. The Inner Spirit or the PASSION
2. The Outer Being or the BODY
3. The Outer Spirit or the SPIRITUAL
(Master the inner self first, the physical self secondly, then and only then, can the spiritual be conquered).

How can we master the more complex out of body experience if we cannot stop overeating? How can we stop overeating if we do not have Passion or discipline to accomplish it?

All spiritual teachings require mastery of the spirit. Development, or growth, is always outward, not inward. Mastery of the Inner Spirit or passion is first; Mastery of the body or Physical is next; Mastery of the Spiritual is the final step. Those who turn the order around will find their development moving inward and falling in on itself.

(Passion is the secret to all things. Master this and all things shall be revealed to you).

STAR WARRIORS - (Key 9)
- To follow the path of the STAR WARRIOR, you must first eliminate two concepts from your mind and spirit - Can’t and Impossible -. How long would you stay married to a spouse who constantly told you that you could not do something? You can’t go there; You can’t do that; You can’t say that! - Not very long.

So why then permit yourself to deny yourself? Remember, if you believe yourself inferior, you are! If you say to yourself, I cannot - you are right. If you say to yourself, I can - you are also right. To become who you wish to become, first establish who that person is and how they would act. Then, practice and rehearse everything that person would think and do.

(To become a deer, one must act, think, live and be as the deer - only then can the passion of the deer be yours).

In other words, create yourself. Write a script for your own movie. The hero is your. In the script, write all those things you wish for yourself, all those things you would like to do or feel. Then rehearse your script. Practice becoming the hero or heroine of your movie. Rehearse over and over again until you know the behavior instinctively. Slowly, you will begin to know how the hero acts and thinks. Slowly, you will become the hero of your movie and your life.

The only way to become a runner is to begin running - The only way to become a lover is to begin loving - The only way to become passionate is to practice passion - Practice being that which you wish to be...and soon you shall become it.

THE 10 COMMANDMENTS OF THE STAR WARRIORS - (Key 10)
1. I am a child of the Dancing Star born of chaos.
I AM BORN OF THE STARS. THE STARS WERE BORN OF CHAOS. THERE SHALL ALWAYS BE CHAOS, BUT I SHALL ALWAYS BE WARRIOR.

Only in challenge shall we find our greatest strengths and our weaknesses. Only in challenge shall our passions be made strong. The goal of life is outward development. NOT inner peace. Peace that brings no challenge means stagnation. Confidence in self wrought through challenge is TRUE peace.

2. I am fire.
I AM FIRE. I AM PASSION. ALL THAT I DO, I DO WITH PASSION. - Fire is passion. Passion is that inner force that distinguishes us from all others. Passion is that which makes the Bear become the Bear... never will you see the Bear trying to fly as the Eagle, for it is his passion to be the bear. Passion is the gift that allows us to be what we wish. To do anything without passion, is to go through the motions.

To be Passionless is to lose the fight of life. Those who have no fire are easy to conquer and manipulate. The study of Physics and other sciences tells us that all things are comprised of atoms which in turn are comprised of electrons, protons and neutrons...all are particles of energy or electricity. This energy cannot be destroyed, only changed. From these very same particles came the release of a basis of our existence, within our own bodies.

Herein, science has revealed the existence of a force unlike any on this planet, the force which directs each one of us in our path. This is our passion, this is our gift.

3. I see the fire in all things.
I SEE THE FIRE IN ALL THINGS - All things possess fire. All this have spirit. The only difference between man and animal is that they wear different skins. The only difference between man and all things is the skin, or outer covering. In the Hopi world, the spirit of a think is called kachina. It is the kachina that is the fire or passion. Those who can see and hear can learn from those kachinas around us. If you can communicate with another human being, you can communicate with the trees, the wind and all things of the earth.

4. I am but a visitor in the land of living things.
I AM BUT A VISITOR IN THE LAND OF LIVING THINGS - The skin we wear is but a temporary robe. That part of us which is most important is the inner spirit, or the passion. Yet, we must never forget that we are guests in this land and we must conduct ourselves as such. We respect all that is here.

That which we may receive in this place must be left here.. things cannot be taken with us, but all of our riches that we have accumulated in memories and knowledge shall go with us forever.

5. I walk the path of silence.
I WALK THE PATH OF SILENCE - In the Song of the morning sky, there is a line that says live as though you cannot speak. It means that what you do is more important than what you say. If you cannot speak, you must communicate your love and friendship through your actions. You must demonstrate that which you feel.

Let your actions be your measure. Only in silence can you learn. He who talks does not hear - only in silence can you defeat your enemy, he who makes no noise is invisible.

6. I am not seen or heard. I am only felt.
I AM NOT SEE OR HEARD, I AM ONLY FELT - The warrior must make himself felt. If he lives his life and the world has not felt him, he has failed. If he lives his life and grandfather has not felt him, he has failed. His passion must be experienced by others, not witnessed. He who uses his fire warms the world, he who shouts of his fire fills the world with noise.

7. I take only that which I can return.
I TAKE ONLY THAT WHICH I CAN RETURN. THE BALANCE OF NATURE AND HARMONY OF THE UNIVERSE MUST BE MAINTAINED - If the warrior takes a tree for use as a

ALL IS ONE IS ALL #fundie #crackpot #conspiracy #homophobia godlikeproductions.com

How MANY are GAY here and Hurting? COVID 19 is for you too.

COVID 19 is a Divine plan.. I have covered that.

All these cosmic energies... the spirit of God are flooding the planet.. yes the gamma rays too..

Beloveds, you are seeing how God the Trinity works... you are feeling its actions on this world.

During this time of coming to the Stand Still.. you get dear beloveds GAYS also the opportunity to grow and HEAL. To set examples... to help others...the pain on this world is great.....stand still and take the journey.

There are some of you here on this forum that are taking your discomfort with being Gay out on others.. and it looks NASTY...How does it feel when some of you do that.. take it out on others? NOT GOOD and I FEEL IT when you do it. This is the time to know who you are.. and why you have nasty behaviors around you discomfort with who you are that affront others.

The Creating Trinity has no issues with GAY on worlds such as this. NONE. It has no issues with Gays sharing life together.

I live in a retirement community and there are several KNOW gay couples here.

One of them I knew from the other community I lived in and I learned of some of their pain there. One of them passed this world not long after I moved to this new community.... and I know he left in PEACE and I know he was in Peace in those previous days at my other community...

You know. in this community of 55+ folks.. I have no seen any open discrimination anyway again the gay couples here. The ones I have met are lovely people in fact.

Love makes the world go round you know.. it makes the entire creation go round.

During this time of people being isolated and stood a bit more still out of their busy lives that leave so little time for insight... is your time to mature and grow and KNOW YOURSELVES.

Gay is not the only issues to confront.. there are so many.. but do to some very bad teaching teachings of some religious institutions... Gays have a big problem... with others hating them.... with their hateful God.. you know this one...Vengence is mine says the Lord... is a hateful statement thought to be from this sky jerk below who is a FIGMENT of imagination on this world and does not exist.

image

Becoming LIKE THE FATHER.. KNOWING ALL THINGS... means at some point in your lives eternal.. you will also KNOW about GAY. Its guaranteed.. because some of this just shows up in nature on all worlds.. there are some gay animals too you know.


So lets start a conversation.. OK.. IT COVID 19 time to find your divinity.. which is not your meat suit actually...

Did you know that in my global organization serving Christ Jesus ... we have gay members.. and they are at peace......

Did you know that some gays are advanced old souls here to help with this world? Sometimes you have to incarnate in a role in order to help others. To be LIKE them?

There are prostitute star seeds here on the planet too... they incarnate to work with those communities.. and while we think of prostitutes being women mostly.. there are lots of men engaging in that.

If one has no prostitute experience.. they often cannot reasonate into these communities... there is distrust of those who are NOT....

Are some of you Gays here.. incarnate on purpose to serve one of the great needs on this confused world at this time? To help with the HATE... God does not hate beloveds.. Creation happens in love.. always.

The issue on this world with gays and prosititues and many heterosecual relationships is abusive power control sex. Love where it is real.. is never

wrong.

Some of you gay men had bad mother experiences or similar and detest women...

Some of you gay women had bad daddy experiences.. and you hate men.

Just but ONE consideration in the saga of what it means to be gay .... Those of you in this situation HURT.. it is of greatest importance on this world to have spiritual healthy parents to bring in and rase families.

How many of you gay or not on this forum grew up in terribly disfunctional families?

Do all of you are in terrible discomfort often with your OWN selves for any reason... have a chance to heal who you be NOW... the greatest chance every of this world.. the Millennial Reign of Christ Jesus began on Feb 5 a year ago...

Can you feel it now.. thru COVID 19?

I don't condone sucking dick though!

The creation doesn't condone it either.. it must be unlearned.. and sucking dick happens in heterosexuals too and anal sex by said dicks is the leading cause in these days on infertility in WOMEN...who cannot get pregnant because they reject SPERM. Sperm is foreign tissue and it does not belong in the rectum NOR THE MOUTH.

It is not the same as the foreign tissue of meat you eat once in your stomach.... It is a single strand DNA creation... as is the woman's egg too...

Some women get a condition called endometriosis... if one of their eggs doesn't get into a fallopian tube and drops into the pelvis.. I know that one.. I had endometriosis at one time and I eventually had my ovaries removed because of it.

The way things work.. men doesn't get an experience with ova in the wrong place in their bodies...

But due to the nature of sperm. it can be put in all sorts of places where it does not belong.

This is the biggy reason against anal sex... and people know NOT what they do.... Which is why truth must be brought to them.

In the case of gay men relationships.. they know not what they do..... They don't KNOW the above. They don't know the immune system is and how it works and what sperm is. If they knew they were killing their beloved ones.. when they are in partnership.. they could stop of it.

Sex is not love... its meant for procreation of the species... which should be awfully obvious on this world.. I mean plants do it too. Animals do it...

as to your DNA some of you in biology classes may know of Meiosis and Mitosis... Meiosis splits the two DNA strands... into separate single DNA strands which become "whole" again when ova and sperm meet up with each other. Mitosis replicates the double strands.. not splitting them.

B.H.Streeter #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

atheists astoud me. They have violated every law of logic i can think of in an attempt to undermine and destroy the basic concept of God. But the most amainzing this that they would even deny the basic deftion of God that has been around since before the middle ages; that God is necessary and eteranl.
]
Most of them don't even know what necessary means but there they plugging away, "God can't be necessary, whatever that is." Most of them think it means "there can't be a world unless "a god" created it. So they don't even understand the basic concept of necessry/contingency you try to expalni it to them and just argue with it as though "you are not trying to expalin anything I know everything I know God can't exist cause I don't like him."

they voilaet the law of non contradiction

violate the law of excluded middle

Occam's razor which they don't understand (totally stupid to think this Presit came up with an argument againt God and they dont' even know what Occams razor says, they think it means "take the simplest idea.")

It's a complete destruction of civilization. Atheism has killed knowelde and destroyed the basis of learnign and litteracy.

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Reptilians only replaces possessed humans!

A lot of people have been replaced by reptilians who have taken the humans away and had reptilians take on those people's forms and replaced them completely!

The good thing is that this never happens to non possessed people because reptilians of course never deliberately reveal their existence to conscious people!

Once a possessed person knows of reptilians the reptilians actually cannot ever replace that person because then that person would tell all the other humans at the place/places their taken to that the people who have taken them away are shapeshifting aliens!

Yes believe it or not possessed people would still do that because being human the demon inside them has to imitate them on basic levels which includes acting normally in reaction to knowing about shapeshifting aliens and hating them also, otherwise other people would be suspicious of those possessed people!

So chances are if you are not possessed non of your family is ether and you have nothing to worry about!

Possessed people cannot be replaced if they are good friends with non possessed people because the reptilians know those people would notice very different things about those people who have been replaced by reptilian look alikes!

A number of possessed people act good on the outside to hide they're possessed, but inside they are still evil even though most of them never do evil! a lot of them are still big jerks and not good people on the outside, the demons never imitate their hosts 100%, like 90% or so sometimes.

The people who have been taken away do not know the people who have taken them away are evil shapeshifting aliens, so once a possessed human knows that, they are immune to being taken away and replaces because with the demon inside them having to imitate that human on basic levels to hide that they're possessed that person will tell everyone the truth!

That sums it up better.

Since 2012 a lot of possessed people who live in bigger cities where non possessed people live have been replaced by reptilians!

It has only happened to possessed people that live in places where non possessed people live.

This has not really happened in populations where EVERYONE is possessed like China for example, because no non possessed people live in that country!

It's a very recent phenomenon!!

The smaller cities and towns have not had as high of a percentage of possessed people replaced by reptilians in populations that have non possessed people, it is really the bigger and especially major cities that have been the target.

Cities like Paris, London, New York have been targets.

Paris has had like most of it's population replaced with reptilians because Paris has a small amount of non possessed people living there, but lots of non possessed tourists, so they are able to replace many more people than in London and New York who have quite a lot more non possessed people living there making it harder to replace as high a % of possessed people because they live with quite a lot more non possessed people so more possessed people actually know non possessed people personally, and therefore cannot be replaced as much.

Andrew Anglin #racist dailystormer.name

Poll: 16% of Americans Want to Go Live in Another Country

I think it is safe to assume that 100% of these people are white, because immigrants surely don’t want to leave. And black people sure as hell don’t – they’re barely aware that other countries even exist. In fact, I don’t think you could really say that they are “aware” of that fact, because it becomes too abstract to imagine somewhere they’ve never seen as being real.

So if 16% of the total and only white people answered yes, then that means… do the math.

Probably about a third of whites said “yes, I would like to move to another country.”

Blaming this on Donald Trump is insane. Typical HuffPo gibberish.

Nothing has changed since he has been President, other than that things have gotten much more Jewish because Jews have lost their minds and flexed their muscles.

I cannot imagine that a single liberal can name a single way in which their own personal life has been negatively affected by the Trump Presidency, at all. Let alone in such a large way that they feel they need to flee the country.

It certainly has negatively affected the lives of conservative white people – because again, Jews have lost their minds, they’re clamping down on everything.

Maybe the women said they want to leave because of Trump, because they felt they were morally obligated to say that. I don’t know. Nor do I care about what women think.

But a lot of the men answering they want out is simply because the US has become a shithole country.

I haven’t lived in the US really at all in my adult life, and I miss my people but I’m not sitting around longing to go back.
No Freedoms

People hate living in America because there aren’t any freedoms.

We’re actually living under an extreme form of brutal Jewish tyranny.

For as much as the ostensible American vision is about “freedom,” there is hardly a country on earth that has less freedom than America.

The only “freedoms” that exist that don’t exist in alleged “dictatorships” are “freedoms” to be deviant and depraved – stuff that should be illegal.

In America, you have the freedom to:

Do man on man anal masturbation
March around naked
Be a Moslem
Produce, distribute, consume pornography
Inject your son with estrogen
Inject yourself with fentanyl
Smoke marijuana
Own guns (restrictions apply)

In America, you do not have the freedom to:

Live in a homogeneous community
Send your kids to a homogeneous school
Pray at school
Refuse vaccinations
Drive around without being threatened and harassed by police
Post your views on the internet
Go to a brothel
Go camping on public land
Not have health insurance
Demonstrate in public without fear of being physically attacked and then charged with crimes
Have sex without fear of being charged with fake rape and sent to prison
Safely get married without fear of being divorce-raped
Do anything at all without some license
Hire employees based on merit or other employer preference
Buy bump stocks
Not bake an anal cake

In China, you have the freedom to:

Drive around without being threatened and harassed by police
Drive through any neighborhood without fear of being shot by black people
Walk around at night without fear of being attacked by black people
Post your views on the internet (everything except anti-government)
Keep your bar open as long as you want
Beat your wife (within reason, restrictions apply)
Start your own small business without being taxed to death
Go to a brothel
Live in safe, homogenous communities
Work and make a good living
Get married without fear that the government will give all of your money and your children to your wife in the event of a divorce
Smoke cigarettes in coffee shops and bars
Do things without being asked for a license
Hire whoever you want
Bake cakes for whoever you want

In China, you do not have the freedom to:

Criticize the government
Own a handgun without a license
Do man on man anal masturbation
Produce, distribute, consume pornography
Be a Moslem

So I mean, I don’t know – it’s not exactly a math equation, but it would be a hard argument to make that you actually have MORE freedom in the USA than you do in China. Certainly, on a day-to-day basis, you feel a lot more free in China than you do in America.

Though this is not exactly specific, in America, you have a constant feeling that there is pressure pushing down on you from all directions, and you do not have that in China. At least not as a foreigner. Chinese people do feel a lot of pressure from their parents.

Overall, the argument that there is a higher level of freedom in America than in China or whichever other country is demonized as a non-freedom country by America is stupid, and I think a lot of people feel very oppressed in America.
The Browning

I haven’t lived in America in a very long time, but I talk to people, and everyone says that all these places I grew up in are now overrun with various “New Americans.”

We know that diversity creates a feeling of alienation, and I imagine people want to escape that.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the number one reason that ex-pats give for having left the West is immigration. Granted, that is usually Europeans rather than Americans, because there aren’t very many American ex-pats, relatively. But clearly, the same principle applies.

So I would not be at all surprised if a lot of men answering this poll were responding to immigration. Even if they aren’t consciously aware of it, or willing to admit it, this is the thing that is changing America. Donald Trump – regrettably – is not changing America.

That’s how we all feel. But much worse.

It is deep, soul-crippling alienation.

So it really isn’t a surprise that people want to get out of this mess. Especially when all of these social-engineering programs have successfully broken down family ties.

America was the best country that ever existed, and these kikes have wrecked it completely.

It hurts me to think about what they took from us.

Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

Did Dinosaurs Evolve into Birds?
IN A BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW, BIRDS WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN AROUND BEFORE DINOSAURS EVER WALKED THE EARTH—A WHOLE DAY BEFORE!
According to evolutionary thinking, modern birds are descendants of dinosaurs. But the biblical worldview stands in sharp contrast to this. According to God’s Word, birds were created fully formed and functioning to reproduce after their own kind on Day Five of Creation Week. Dinosaurs, which are land animals, would not have been created until Day Six. So in a biblical worldview, birds would have actually been around before dinosaurs ever walked the Earth—a whole day before!

Is there any compelling evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds? Not at all! Dinosaurs were reptiles and share traits common among reptiles—not birds. They were likely cold-blooded, had lungs like other reptiles, and were covered in scales. Birds, on the other hand, are warm-blooded, have unique lungs, hollow bones, and are covered in feathers. They are completely and utterly different. Adding to the problems with evolutionary ideas about bird evolution is the fact that modern birds like parrots, loons, and owls are found in the fossil record in some of the very same layers as dinosaurs. How could modern birds have evolved from dinosaurs when modern, fully formed birds are found alongside dinosaurs in the very same layers?1

Did dinosaurs have feathers? In a biblical worldview, we do not expect to find feathered dinosaurs. Currently the evidence does not support the idea that dinosaurs were covered in feathers. Now while we may not know for sure what dinosaurs looked like, what we do know is that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. They—like dinosaurs—were specially created by God in the beginning to reproduce according to their kind.

Ringo #fundie cafe.planetwisdom.com

Never in my statements did I say dinosaurs never existed. They existed and some might say they still do. I know a man named Paul Nation. He's done some missions in the Congo region. He was working with some very isolated pygmy tribes there. They were doing a bit of paleantology as well. Some of the natives there got a hold of one of his dinosaur books and began describing the temperments of some of the dinosaurs' pictures. For instance, they said that Triceratops are very aggressive towards elephants and usually chase them off. They commented that one of the longnecked dinosaurs(don't remember which) stay in the river all the time and are very shy and hard to spot. And when you combine this with the fact that the congo has only been 20% explored, you have a tangible theory.

Gedaliah Braun #racist halcyoninitiative.wordpress.com

[Part 2]

Mathematics and maintenance

I quote from an article in the South African press about the problems blacks have with mathematics:

“[Xhosa] is a language where polygon and plane have the same definition … where concepts like triangle, quadrilateral, pentagon, hexagon are defined by only one word.” (“Finding New Languages for Maths and Science,” Star [Johannesburg], July 24, 2002, p. 8.)

More accurately, these concepts simply do not exist in Xhosa, which, along with Zulu, is one of the two most widely spoken languages in South Africa. In America, blacks are said to have a “tendency to approximate space, numbers and time instead of aiming for complete accuracy.” (Star, June 8, 1988, p.10.) In other words, they are also poor at math. Notice the identical triumvirate—space, numbers, and time. Is it just a coincidence that these three highly abstract concepts are the ones with which blacks — everywhere — seem to have such difficulties?

The entry in the Zulu dictionary for “number,” by the way — ningi — means “numerous,” which is not at all the same as the concept of number. It is clear, therefore, that there is no concept of number in Zulu.

White rule in South Africa ended in 1994. It was about ten years later that power outages began, which eventually reached crisis proportions. The principle reason for this is simply lack of maintenance on the generating equipment. Maintenance is future-oriented, and the Zulu entry in the dictionary for it is ondla, which means: “1. Nourish, rear; bring up; 2. Keep an eye on; watch (your crop).” In short, there is no such thing as maintenance in Zulu thought, and it would be hard to argue that this is wholly unrelated to the fact that when people throughout Africa say “nothing works,” it is only an exaggeration.

The New York Times reports that New York City is considering a plan (since implemented) aimed at getting blacks to “do well on standardized tests and to show up for class,” by paying them to do these things and that could “earn [them] as much as $500 a year.” Students would get money for regular school attendance, every book they read, doing well on tests, and sometimes just for taking them. Parents would be paid for “keeping a full-time job … having health insurance … and attending parent-teacher conferences.” (Jennifer Medina, “Schools Plan to Pay Cash for Marks,” New York Times, June 19, 2007.)

The clear implication is that blacks are not very motivated. Motivation involves thinking about the future and hence about things that do not exist. Given black deficiencies in this regard, it is not surprising that they would be lacking in motivation, and having to prod them in this way is further evidence for such a deficiency.

The Zulu entry for “motivate” is banga, under which we find “1. Make, cause, produce something unpleasant; … to cause trouble . … 2. Contend over a claim; … fight over inheritance; … 3. Make for, aim at, journey towards … .” Yet when I ask Africans what banga means, they have no idea. In fact, no Zulu word could refer to motivation for the simple reason that there is no such concept in Zulu; and if there is no such concept there cannot be a word for it. This helps explain the need to pay blacks to behave as if they were motivated.

The same New York Times article quotes Darwin Davis of the Urban League as “caution[ing] that the … money being offered [for attending class] was relatively paltry … and wondering … how many tests students would need to pass to buy the latest video game.”

Instead of being shamed by the very need for such a plan, this black activist complains that the payments aren’t enough! If he really is unaware how his remarks will strike most readers, he is morally obtuse, but his views may reflect a common understanding among blacks of what morality is: not something internalized but something others enforce from the outside. Hence his complaint that paying children to do things they should be motivated to do on their own is that they are not being paid enough.

In this context, I recall some remarkable discoveries by the late American linguist, William Stewart, who spent many years in Senegal studying local languages. Whereas Western cultures internalize norms—“Don’t do that!” for a child, eventually becomes “I mustn’t do that” for an adult—African cultures do not. They rely entirely on external controls on behavior from tribal elders and other sources of authority. When Africans were detribalized, these external constraints disappeared, and since there never were internal constraints, the results were crime, drugs, promiscuity, etc. Where there have been other forms of control—as in white-ruled South Africa, colonial Africa, or the segregated American South—this behavior was kept within tolerable limits. But when even these controls disappear there is often unbridled violence.

Stewart apparently never asked why African cultures did not internalize norms, that is, why they never developed moral consciousness, but it is unlikely that this was just a historical accident. More likely, it was the result of deficiencies in abstract thinking ability.

One explanation for this lack of abstract thinking, including the diminished understanding of time, is that Africans evolved in a climate where they could live day to day without having to think ahead. They never developed this ability because they had no need for it. Whites, on the other hand, evolved under circumstances in which they had to consider what would happen if they didn’t build stout houses and store enough fuel and food for the winter. For them it was sink or swim.

Surprising confirmation of Stewart’s ideas can be found in the May/June 2006 issue of the Boston Review, a typically liberal publication. In “Do the Right Thing: Cognitive Science’s Search for a Common Morality,” Rebecca Saxe distinguishes between “conventional” and “moral” rules. Conventional rules are supported by authorities but can be changed; moral rules, on the other hand, are not based on conventional authority and are not subject to change. “Even three-year-old children … distinguish between moral and conventional transgressions,” she writes. The only exception, according to James Blair of the National Institutes of Health, are psychopaths, who exhibit “persistent aggressive behavior.” For them, all rules are based only on external authority, in whose absence “anything is permissible.” The conclusion drawn from this is that “healthy individuals in all cultures respect the distinction between conventional … and moral [rules].”

However, in the same article, another anthropologist argues that “the special status of moral rules cannot be part of human nature, but is … just … an artifact of Western values.” Anita Jacobson-Widding, writing of her experiences among the Manyika of Zimbabwe, says:

“I tried to find a word that would correspond to the English concept of ‘morality.’ I explained what I meant by asking my informants to describe the norms for good behavior toward other people. The answer was unanimous. The word for this was tsika. But when I asked my bilingual informants to translate tsika into English, they said that it was ‘good manners’ …”

She concluded that because good manners are clearly conventional rather than moral rules, the Manyika simply did not have a concept of morality. But how would one explain this absence? Miss Jacobson-Widding’s explanation is the typical nonsense that could come only from a so-called intellectual: “the concept of morality does not exist.” The far more likely explanation is that the concept of morality, while otherwise universal, is enfeebled in cultures that have a deficiency in abstract thinking.

According to now-discredited folk wisdom, blacks are “children in adult bodies,” but there may be some foundation to this view. The average African adult has the raw IQ score of the average 11-year-old white child. This is about the age at which white children begin to internalize morality and no longer need such strong external enforcers.

Icebear #fundie godlikeproductions.com

A proof or disproof is a kind of a transaction. There is no such thing as absolutely proving or disproving something; there is only such a thing as proving or disproving something to SOMEBODY'S satisfaction. If the party of the second part is too thick or too ideologically committed to some other way of viewing reality, then the best proof in the world will fall flat and fail.

In the case of evolution, what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines reasoning and yet the adherents go on with it as if nothing had happened and, in fact, demand that the doctrine be taught in public schools at public expense and that no other theory of origins even ever be mentioned in public schools, and attempt to enforce all of that via political power plays and lawsuits.

At that point, it is clear enough that no disproof or combination of disproofs would ever suffice, that the doctrine is in fact unfalsifiable and that Carl popper's criteria for a pseudoscience is in fact met.

The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.

The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)

The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)

The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.

The question of irreducible complexity.

The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.

The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.

The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).

The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.

The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...

The question of genetic entropy.

The obvious evidence of design in nature.

The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.

Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

I ask you: What could be stupider than that?

Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.

Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal.

There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.

GloryBound #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

Righteous indignation? I once called what has been so self righteously criticized herein as my gmethodology,h as righteous anger, but in introspection, I have been informed that it is more like righteous indignation.

I have been called many names by the atheists, and lately, by many of those who call themselves my brothers and sisters, one in particular which even chose to use foul language when I finally convinced him to use the PM, rather than the public forum when he had a bone to pick with me. One who had previously informed me that he was told in scripture to rebuke me in public, while all along, ignoring the fact that that passage refers to what is to be done in a Church, not in an atheists forum like this.

You think my posts are harsh?

You think my words are unloving?

Many of you think Hell Fire is non existent too, that Satan doesnft exist.

You also think that a loving God wouldnft put anyone in Hell.
Some, even have the nerve to call themselves Christians, who think this sewage.

Brotherc. Sisterc. Sinnerfs tooc. YOU HAVENfT HEARD, OR READ ANYTHING YET!

I define the term gto thinkh as follows; to subject to the processes of logical thought * to think things out.* There is simply no logic associated with thinking, or rather, coming to the conclusion, that there is no Creator.

As to my words being gunloving,h God is Love, and though the atheist and agnostic may think, or think they think they know love, they are professing an ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION, A BLATANT LIE GENERATED BY THEIRS, WHO IS THE FATHER OF ALL LIARS, for God is love, and without God, there is no love. They may posses care and concern, even lust, but where there is no God, there is no love, and you can argue the point if you wish, but the fact that you choose to argue it, proves your inability to understand, for those who are not of the Spirit CANNOT understand that which is of the Spirit.

As for the brothers and sisters who choose to side with those who are not of the Spirit on this and other matters such as the apostates damnation, and the fact that is impossible to renew him/her to repentance, and state that God can do anything, I can simply say, g I know He can, but just how likely do you think it is that He is going to go against His own word? Will he allow these fools of all fools, to crucify His Son a second time?

9nania #fundie indigoflower.net

In the previous examination, we looked at Genesis 1, which seems to describe the terraforming of the Earth by the Elohiym. Genesis 1 also indicates the Elohiym were a group of benevolent beings that were either Human or Humanoid, that were responsible for creating the conditions on Earth that would sustain life, and were also the ones who either created all life on the planet, or brought forth all the life; in other words, brought the life here.

In this examination, we are going to look at Genesis 2, which introduces the YHWH, who established ancient Mesopotamia and used cells from humans to create what seems to be a hybrid of both Gods and Humans used to breed with humans. We’ll be using the definitions of the Hebrew words from Blue Letter Bible.org, Bible Study Tools.com, and Bible Hub.com. The links are below if you want to follow along.

The King James Translation of Genesis Chapter 2 verse 1 says, “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.” But the direct translation says, “The sky of the earth was complete and all war.” So we know the word for sky, number 8064, means “atmosphere.” So it can be translated, “The atmosphere of the earth was complete, and all…” number 3605, which means “the whole” or “all throughout”, and this word, number 6635 means “war” or “warfare”. So another translation of Genesis 2 verse 1 can say, “The atmosphere of the earth was completed then all throughout there was war.” In other words, sometime after humans were put here, wars began.

Then verse 2 in the King James Translation says, “And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.” So we know the word for “God”, number 430, means “Elohiym” and it is plural, so the word “his” should be “they”. Also notice the first word, “And” is not actually in the original text. So verses 2 and 3 can also read, “But on the seventh day the Elohiym ended their work which they had made; and they rested on the seventh day from all their work which they had made. So the Elohiym blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it they had rested from all their work which the Elohiym created and made.” So this is saying, after the Elohiym made earth a paradise, there was war everywhere, but the 7th day is the blessed day, in other words, the 7000th year is the blessed millenium. This is important, its code, and we will see why later. But for now, we’ll continue with verse 4.

Notice verse 4 introduces a new name for God. All throughout Genesis 1, the word for God was number 430, which means “Elohiym”, and in Genesis 2 it remains “Elohiym” until verse 4. Then the name for God changes. The King James translation says, “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” So notice the word “God” number 430, which means “Elohiym” is still present, but this word “LORD” in all capital letters is now introduced. In the Old Testament, the word translated as “LORD” in all capital letters, is usually, but not always, word number 3068, which is “Yehovah”. We discussed in a previous video that the original hebrew word was “YHWH” without the consonants, and is sometimes pronounced “Yahweh” or “Jehovah”. Hosea 13 tells us YHWH acts as the Beasts of Daniel, and Revelation 13 tells us YHWH is the Beast with 7 Heads and 10 Horns. We also looked at Exodus 6:3 which says the Lord did not appear to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by the name YHWH, but appeared to them by the name “God Almighty” or “El Shaddai”. This is a very important statement, because we know the word “YHWH” is used in all three of those stories in the bible. The current translations of the Bible tell us “YHWH” was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For example, if you look at Genesis 12 verses 1 and 2, it says the LORD told Abraham to leave his country and his father’s house and the LORD would make him a great nation. Well we know the word translated as “LORD” in Genesis 12 is “YHWH”, so there are only two possibilities here: Either Genesis 12:1 is correct, and YHWH was the God of Abraham, or Exodus 6:3 is correct and the God of Abraham was El Shaddai. Both verses cannot be true. So because Hosea 13 and Revelation 13 explain for us that YHWH is the Beast, it seems that Genesis 12:1 has to be false and Exodus 6:3 is giving us a clue that the texts have been altered. That is confirmed in Jeremiah 8:8. The King James Translation says, “How do you say, ‘We are wise and the law of the LORD is with us?’ Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.” But when we look at this word translated as “vain”, number 8267, we can see it is translated the majority of the time as “false” or “falsehood”. So Jeremiah 8:8 is telling us the pen of the scribes is in falsehood, and that seems to confirm what Exodus 6:3 is telling us; that Abraham didn’t know God by the name YHWH, yet the name YHWH was inserted into the story of Abraham. Jeremiah indicates that is because the pen of the scribes is in falsehood, in other words, the texts were altered. That doesn’t mean everything in the texts were altered, but it does mean at least some of it was. So we should use common sense when we read the material, for example, when we read in Exodus 30:16 that YHWH required money in order to make atonement for the souls of the Israelites, we can be sure that was not the Elohiym who terraformed the earth making it habitable for life, because they chose not to dominate the earth (which they had the full opportunity to do) but instead, they let humans have dominion on the earth. So this Lord in Exodus 30:16 sounds more like the Beast, who we are told acted as all four of Daniel’s Empires; the lion, the leopard, and the bear, which represent the Babylonian Empire, the Persian Empire, the Greek Empire, and the Roman Empire. That may be telling us that the texts were altered during that time period.

So as we go through Genesis 2 we’ll keep that in mind. The King James version indicates in verse 4 that YHWH created the whole earth, but we know that contradicts what Genesis 1 already told us; that the Elohiym created the earth. The Bible itself tells us YHWH is the Beast, and the word itself, number 3068, stems from the word 1961, which means “fall out”, and that word is compared to word 1933, which also means “to fall”, and that word is compared to word 0183, which means “to covet” or “be greedy”.

So verses 4 and 5 in the King James translation say, “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew, for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.” And the first word, number 428, means “these” but it also means “those”, so it can also be translated, “Those were the generations when the heavens and the earth were created.” And we already know the word translated as “heavens” means “atmosphere”. So the first part of verse 4 says, “Those were the generations when the atmosphere of the earth was created.” Then it says, “The day that YHWH Elohiym made…”, or word number 6213, which also means “acquired”. So it says, “The day that YHWH acquired the earth and the atmosphere, every plant of the field…” or, word number 7704, which means “cultivated field” and the definition of the word “cultivated” is “Raised or grown on a farm or under other controlled conditions.” So its saying, “the plants cultivated…” Then this word 2962 means “not yet”. So it says, “The plants were not yet cultivated, or grown under controlled conditions in the earth…” or number 776, which also means land. So, “The plants were not yet grown under controlled conditions in the land and the herbs were not yet grown. Then this word translated as “for”, number 3588, means “because”, this word number 369 means “not”, the word translated as “man”, number 120, is adam, which means “mankind” or “human being” what we would call in modern language “humans”, and the word 5647 means “to serve as subjects” or “to make oneself a servant”. So verses 4 and 5 can be translated, “Those were the generations when the atmosphere of the earth was created. And in the day that YHWH God acquired the earth and the atmosphere, the plants were not yet in cultivated fields in the land and herbs were not yet grown under controlled conditions because YHWH God had not caused it to rain on the land, and humans were not made servants to till the ground. Then there went up a mist from the land and watered the surface of the ground.” So that makes sense because the Elohiym did not put Humans on earth to be servants. In Genesis 1 it told us the Elohiym made the earth habitable, and put the plants and trees here for food and gave humans dominion over everything, but it did not say they forced humans to farm the food. It said the plants and fruit trees had their seed in themselves. Now its saying, in the day when YHWH acquired the earth, plants were not being cultivated. So the humans were not growing their food under controlled conditions when YHWH acquired the earth. Then it says YHWH caused a mist to come up from the ground, and that sounds like some form of irrigation.

- See more at: http://indigoflower.net/genesis-2-yhwh-mesopotamia-the-hybrids/#sthash.YUgBZY6x.dpuf

waiting1 #fundie rr-bb.com

[Fundies have been arguing about whether or not Leviathan and Behemoth were dinosaurs and whether Leviathan could really breath fire.]
Often times legends from times past are about things that really existed. Now I can't say for 100% surety that there existed fire breathing animals, but maybe the one described had the same thing or something even more potent as the bombardier beetle like Kliska pointed out. So on that part of it I cannot say what it means, but when you think about that it sure makes you wonder why they armor for knights that covered them completely , and possibly to protect them from fire, or just a scalding from some chemical process. Let's not mock the tail thing they probably swayed them back and forth and reminded them of a cedar for both the size and the swaying. I am not pointing it out to start an argument, but to actually read those verses with a little studying behind them. I am afraid of wasps and hornets, this thing would give me a massive heart check, if not complete heart failure!
Nothing is too hard for our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

dat alien #conspiracy alienhub.com

Truth about Galactic Federation

First of all,I don't care of what coqunsenences I will endure.I'm sick of them and seeing lies about them on the Internet is very frustating at least.

So,I decided to write of what I know.

I know that many think of them as myth,but from a dream someone from them told me that they are galactic organisation.I woke from that dream and I didn't hear the rest.From what I heard on the Internet,GF is big organisation which is connected with Andromeda and Arcturians and I pretty sure that I know one Arcturian and many different aliens from one way or another.It's not GF of Light since I didn't ever heard or seen Ashtar.And yes,I'm pretty sure that I have seen Andromeda council in one of my memories.

KINDS OF ALIENS

From Ara-human like,without lips,big eyes

From Monoceros-human like,without lips,big eyes

From Vega-human like,with red lips(females),big eyes

From Arcturus-little blue alien with big eyes

Mantid and insect type

Grey,tall,small black eyes(but not like the Greys)

green reptilian with yellow eyes

black reptilian with dark eyes

Nordic type

white horse like with green eyes

eagle like,tall

All of them I have seen in astral dreams,astraly and in my abductions(both astral and non astral),but they all favour their astral look to show and only one alien I have seen that looked like in real life(Nordic type),but she had wrinkles that shows that they are all probably old.Not sure if Andromedans are still with them,but it wouldn't be surprise.

THEIR UNIFORMS

I have seen only human like to wear unform.They are light reflective,sturdy feel and can be light grey,dark grey and black colour.

THEIR SPACESHIPS

Many types:saucer,hat shaped,big triangle mothership,bullet like,saucer with top that is block shaped and with small windows.

From distance,they can be mistaken for very bright star,usually yellow circle that behaves weirdly or red circle.Also,their ships have orange beam of light.Some of the spaceships(hat shaped one for example) can be partially invisible(you can see their shape),not sure if they can be 100% invisible.

HOW THEY TREAT ME OR MY EXPERIENCE WITH THEM

In one word,very badly.It's bs that they respect free will.No,they don't.They have never asked for informed consent.They always force me to do things that I won't do.I always tell them that I won't do it,but they ignore it and they try to manipulate(with words or with energy).They put me in state of total control when I was physically on the board.If manipulation doesn't work,they poison me with some kind of dark energy or do me harm astrally.In recent times,they got even worse and are disguising as somebody else in astral,but I know that it's them.They can lie.I was raped and sexually abused by some human like alien many times astrally and no he didn't get punishment,they are also trying to connect me with him.The Arcturian type tried mentaly force me to connect me with the same alien that raped me.Of course,that's the most of them,but some are quite normal and I only know two aliens that are not like that(but they can't do a thing what others are doing to me).Also,most of them are expert actors and they all have hidden intentions,so don't believe them.They also sometimes use their eyes to read something in my eyes,but I don't know details why.

RELIGION

I only know 2 religions,the One cult and Followers of the Sun.I can't say much of what they believe.

THEIR POLITICS

They are very secretive and showed no interest in humans as persons.They listen to politicians from some kind of council and committee,but they all have bosses and they always listen to boss's commands,even if they are bad.I'm pretty sure some of the bosses are in alliance with dark skined,small eared,tall creatures that love to torture(that's all that I know about them).Wouldn't be surprised if other politicians are secretally with dark creatures.Some of GF aliens are vegetarians.They don't go to wars with other aliens(as much as I know it) and they don't care what other aliens are doing with humans and animals.So,I think that they are not peace keeping ones that some Internet "sources" say.

That's all I can remember.You can ask me more and if I know,I will respond.

WP123 #racist niggermania.net

Alright, alright, alright, I know what you’re going to say putting stupid and aggressive along with nigger is a bit redundant, I know, but I wanted to emphasize this aspect of this coontact. Why the heck did I take a rideshare with a jigaboo? Well, basically I needed to get from one city to another and I could only get the ticket the same day. Long story. A flight would have been prohibitively expensive, like $300 – 400, all the cheap seats on the train were sold out, only the most expensive tickets were still available priced at over $200. A rideshare however only costs $15 between these two cities, so I got a rideshare, no surprise the driver was a nigger. Well, I had to go and I had to go right then.

The nigger spoke in a different language, same as the city and region we were driving to. He put on a Christian nigger preacher along the way. It was loud, and I couldn’t quite make out what he was saying but the way he was saying it was all too recognizable. It sounded like blah-blah-blah-PLOW!!! Boom-boom-boom-BAM!!! I.e. similar to the way a voodoo nigger, or shaman would “preach,” then when he was done with that he broke out into song being accompanied by a bunch of sheboon background singers.

Anyway, we did have a pre-arranged drop off point, but then when the nignog started talking to me with his poor English skills, he said he could drop me off at any point. So, I said okay could you drop me off at the Central Station (i.e. the train station). “I don’t know where dat is.” So, I explained it to him and I told him that, I could guide him along the way. I literally spent so much time trying to explain to him how to get there, e.g. “just drive on the street south of X street, in a parallel direction, etc…” He didn’t understand anything. Then I showed him the map and tried to explain how he could stop before our pre-arranged drop off point to get there. Damn it!!! Was he ever dumb, I mean how else can you explain this to somebody?

He said I could direct him where to go when we approached the destination. Then I got the idea that I would just say the name in the other language. So, I said “Central Station” in the other language. Then the jigaboo is like “Central Station, I know where Central Station is” I tried to show him the map on my smartphone again and he says “poot dat away I know where Central Station izzz..” “I thought you said it was close to Y subway (it was) das why I didn’t know…”. I got a bad feeling this (probably Congolese) nigger was going to muck things up.

I had to be at the train station by a certain time. Anyway, he started to go in the completely wrong direction, and I’m like “hey look at the map you’re going in the wrong direction, to which he replied “no mahn we be there in like 5 minutes.” Long story short he brings us close to the original drop off point except it was a couple of blocks down from it and it was the wrong place. I said to him this is not the “Central Station” he’s like “Yes dis is Central Station,” I said, “No this is the Central Bus Station, not the Central Station which is a train station as I explained!”

That’s when this nigger just started chimping out. He was shoving my phone with the map away and basically just being a nigger. Anyway, I had an injury and didn’t want to argue or anything at that point (what would be the use? He’s a nigger, he wouldn’t understand most of what I said) I just paid him and got the Hell out of there. I also called the hosting service and complained. How dumb do you have to be to go in the wrong direction, and think that the map was wrong and ignore all of my previous directions, etc. I mean seriously how dumb? I spent like half of an hour trying to explain it to him, and showed him the map. And then chimping out at the end instead of apologizing and trying to be civil. The lesson is, as always, unless you absolutely have to:

DON’T DO BUSINESS WITH NIGGERS!

Morrakiu #fundie youtube.com

We gassed the fags last night, Third Reich
Zero hour, nine A.M.
And I'm gonna be fried
As a kike by then

I miss the Fuhrer so much, I miss my Reich
Live only for the race
In such a timeless fight

And I think it's gonna be a long long line
Cause 6 gorillions gonna take some time
I'm not the good goy they think I am at home
Oh no no no
I'm an oven man
Oven man
Burning up the Jews out here alone
And I think it's gonna be a long long line
Cause 6 gorillions gonna take some time
I'm not the good goy they think I am at home
Oh no no no
I'm an oven man
Oven man
Burning up the Jews out here alone

Israel's not the best place to send your yids
The blood runs hot as hell
Need an iron dome to save them
If you did

And all these ashes, where's the shovel man?
That's not my job, not my degree
An oven man
Oven man

And I think it's gonna be a long long line
Cause 6 gorillions gonna take some time
I'm not the good goy they think I am at home
Oh no no no
I'm an oven man
Oven man
Burning up the Jews out here alone

And I think it's gonna be a long long line
Cause 6 gorillions gonna take some time
I'm not the good goy they think I am at home
Oh no no no
I'm an oven man
Oven man
Burning up the Jews out here alone

And I think it's gonna be a long long line
And I think it's gonna be a long long line
And I think it's gonna be a long long line
And I think it's gonna be a long long line

Jerry McConnell #fundie canadafreepress.com

How About Starting Now to Reclaim America from the Muslims?

After the sickening news of yesterday when a Muslim American soldier’s clothing brazenly opened fire into a crowd of other American soldiers and citizens, killing at least 13 and wounding nearly 30 very innocent non-Muslim American citizens I’m ready for some GOOD CHANGE.

This has got to stop. We have to start cleaning house of this vermin that call themselves “peaceful Muslims.” We know now that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PEACEFUL MUSLIM. Even this Army Officer was probably thought to have been a “peaceful Muslim” proved to us that they don’t exist. They are filled with hate and violence toward all of what they, in their minds, call decent peace loving people, ‘infidels.’ If we are infidels, they are ‘hatefidels’ and we should take aim on them for a change.

Let’s start a new trend here in what was once relatively peaceful America. We should begin purging our federal government of ALL known Muslims and any others who associate themselves with any thing remotely Islamic. They are not fit to be our neighbors or even be in the same country with us. Their initial intent is to make us bow to THEIR will in OUR country.

I say, “To hell with them” and I mean that literally. They aren’t fit to be around good honest, God-loving people, and I mean the God that is good and loving Himself; not the one that tells his followers to go and KILL others so they can come to him in his heaven. Good! Go to him and I doubt you’ll see any heaven where he resides; more like the fires of Hell are in his so-called heaven. There they will pay for their sins of killing innocent people just because those innocents didn’t conform to their unholy and dastardly way of life.

^KrazyMatty^ #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

The fact that a reptilian race of beings has interfered with human society since the beginning of modern history (modern meaning past 6,000 years), and probably far beyond that, is also extremely evidenced (every major culture on Earth speaks of them, from the Sarpa who, according to Hindu history, founded Earth-human civilisation, to the Uktena of the Cherokee, to the Sheti of the Hopi, to the Riu and Long of Japan annd China, etc.)

The Iguana-People (Itzamna) of the Mayans, the Dragons (Long) of China and Japan (Riu), the Naga and Sarpa of India, the Anunnaki (a Reptilian race, but not the Draco) and Dragon-Gods (Draco Reptilians) of Sumeria and Babylon, the Chitahuri and Imanugela of Africa, the Serpent-People of the Zuni, Hopi, Anasazi and Blood Indians (among many others), the Uktena and Tlanuhwa of the Cherokee, the Dragons of Europe, etc.

The original royal families of Europe claimed descendence from Dragons. Ambrosius (Merlin) was actually Natanleod, a British king who was said to shapeshift into a dragon. Charlemagne was called "Le Chameleon", because of his combined Hebrew and ´Dragon´ descent, and his reputed ability to shapeshift into a ´demon´ or ´dracula´ (dragon-devil). The later Emperors of Rome used dragon-symbolism and were said to shapeshift into ´Dracul´ (dragon-demons), especially the Byzantine Emperors.

The early European peoples said that humans were made when a humanoid race (sometimes referred to as ´Elves´ or ´Alfheim´) was combined with the race of Dragons (Dracula in Latin), and this hybridisation of a humanoid race with dragons to create the Adam is a recurring theme in worldwide mythology. In India, the Naga were depicted symbolically as having the heads or upper bodies of humans and the bodies of serpents. The sages of the time often referred to this as meaning ´Above is the human, Below is the dragon (Sarpa)´, and a ´mingling of seeds´. This symbolically seems to refer to a reptilian DNA base with human DNA implanted. This is exactly what the human genome looks like, with reptilian DNA ´below´ and human DNA ´above´.

And of course the Reptilians are not the only alien race to have interacted with this planet.

In Egypt they speak extensively of the ´Gods´ who brought them knowledge from the stars, and of the Lion-People who came with them (The Kilroti). They speak of them as emanating from Sirius, the Dog-Star, which in Egypt was called Isis, named for their symbolic Mother Goddess.

In Africa, the Zulu shamans bear extensive esoteric knowledge of a race of reptilians who they say control the Earth--called the Chitahuri.

In Sumeria ten thousand tablets have been found and translated which refer to an alien race which created a race of humans to work as slaves in their mines in Africa (the exact same story appears in Africa, and there are goldmines in Africa estimated by the Anglo-American company to be over 60,000 years old).

In China and Japan underground bases where the Dragon Kings live are referred to, as well as the lineage of humans from a race of ´Dragons´. (there are also many other reptilian races referred to, such as the Kappa).

In Australia the aborigines speak of a reptilian race which lives underneath the Earth and secretly governs over men. The Aboriginal chiefs have spoken of going into the Earth where these beings resided. There they claim there is extensive technology. The Aborigines say that they are descended from a race of dragon-humans that once lived on an enormous continent that spanned the entire Pacific ocean, and that most of it sank beneath the waves in ancient times, but that Australia is a remnant of it, and this is why there are so many reptilian animals there.

In China, Japan, India, Europe, South America, North America, Australia, etc. the exact same description of a 7-level reptilian hierarchy recurs.

The highest Dragons are always said to be winged, and often this is divided into two castes, one being the Bird-Dragons and one being the Winged-Dragons (this is the case in Asia).

Beneath them are Dragons with horns but no wings.

Beneath them are the Dragons with no horns, but which are considered ´true dragons´.

Beneath them are the Dragon Children or ´Watersnakes´, a race of beings often described as lizard-like humanoids, but often symbolically depicted as watersnakes, giant serpents, etc.

The hierarchy in all 7 levels is usually as follows:

1) White, Winged Dragons (sometimes with feathers, and often with icy blue eyes) (usually with horns)
2) Winged Dragons (large, but featherless and non-white) (with horns)
3) Winged Dragons (usually with horns)
4) Horned Dragons
5) True Dragons
6) Warrior Dragons (expendable caste of warriors. usually described as largest caste population-wise, as Dragons are said to be a very belligerent race).
7) Lizard-Dragons (the Untouchables. Weak, small, skinny lizard-like Dragons)

---

THE DRACO CASTE SYSTEM

In actuality, the Draco Caste System is as follows:

1) White, Winged Draco (Royalty)
2) Statesmen and Politicians
3) Religious Caste (Priests, Ritual Performers, etc.)
4) Warriors (pictured above)
5) Teachers
6) Workers
7) Drones (Lizard-like Reptilians under total mind-control who perform routine work such as abductions)

The Draco

The Illuminati, which includes 13 major Royal-descended families from Europe, were created by the Draco Reptilians.

The Royal family are not ´reptiles´, persay, but they do have more Reptilian DNA than most Earth-humans.

All humans on Earth have Draco and humanoid (Lyrian) DNA, but with a smaller percentage of Draco Reptilian than human. However, the Illuminati, created by the Draco, have a 50/50 split between human and Reptilian DNA, giving them the ability to shapeshift between the two forms as a result of many factors, including the incompatibility of human and Reptilian DNA. Mammals and Reptiles are not native to Earth. They originated on separate planets.

Only a small percentage of the Illuminati are shapeshifters, such as Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Philip (Duke of Edinburgh), Baron Guy de Rothschild, George H.W. Bush, David Rockefeller, etc. The rest are mostly people with a somewhat higher percentage of Reptilian DNA than usual which have been recruited by the Illuminati as a result of bloodline, lack of morals, what have you--everything the mafia would look for. Mafias in general are a Draco type of cultural creation, and most of the major ones are controlled by the Illuminati. Most intelligence agencies are as well, including the CIA, KGB ("FSB"), Mossad, etc.

In reality, there is not much truth to the idea of independent government in Europe or America anymore. These governments were always mafia/Illuminati controlled, but now it is far more centralised than before. Once, we had Hapsburg Illuminati infighting with Rothschild Illuminati. Now there is far more cooperation among the Illuminati because they know that the NWO is growing near.

The European Union is not as wonderful a thing as some uninformed people think it is. The United Nations is actually a very maniacal organisation geared at creating global government with totalitarian control. In working toward this ´dream´ of theirs, they have, among other things, distributed the AIDS virus to Africans as a means of depopulating the Black race, conquered over 90% of United States land through illegal action, murdered a team of their own scientists who were headed for a conference in Geneva regarding the AIDS virus/genocide affair, and had Kurt Waldheim, former Nazi SS soldier, as its Secretary General.

---

In terms of the Draco, they are a Reptilian race originating in the Draco star system. They were the first colonists of the planet Earth. Earth was originally a totally marine environment, with shallow marshes and seas being the closest thing to land. The Draco then decided to make it part of their strategy to use this solar system as an entry point into the rest of the galaxy--a strategic place for a military base.

Therefore, they terra-formed Earth, creating a very large continent in what is now the Pacific, commonly known as Lemuria. This Reptilian civilisation developed quite a bit until the Atlans, a human group, invaded the Earth and created their own continent, which is now known as Atlantis. There is a lot of history to this, but eventually the two groups came to a treaty (after the destruction of both of their continents), and modern Earth-humans were created as a hybrid species between them, with the DNA of other alien groups and certain animals as well.

At the moment, the Draco have quite a grip on about 90% of this planet, even controlling most aspects of Earth-human civilisation through complete domination of all major intelligence agencies, governments and mafias.

[...]

You will notice that an Amazonian shaman who is aware of Oneness and aware of his/her connection with the Earth would probably never go along with the New World Order, whereas a blonde-haired mall-going American is extremely likely to accept such a thing, both because of genetics and cultural upbringing.


It is possible because the Reptilians do exist, and are the most populous alien race inhabiting this planet at the moment. In their eyes, they own the Earth, as they were the first high-tech civilisation to colonise it circa 1 million years ago.

This is why reptiles and dinosaurs show up in the earlier paleontological record. Birds are a warm-blooded species that adapted to the mammalian energies of the Atlantean humanoids (Lyraens), who came later (circa 400,000 years ago).

Mainstream science´s view of paleontology is incorrect. Dinosaur footprints have been found with human footprints nearby, or even inside of them. Clearly the two species coincided.

Dinosaurs actually evolved on the Draco homeworld, and are the cattle and wild animals of the Draco, along with most reptiles (some were also brought by the Abbennakki). Mammals also originate off-world--mostly from the constellation Lyrae before civilisation there was destroyed during the Draco invasion, after which the Lyraens were forced to escape to the Pleiades, Arcturus, Aldebaran, Earth, etc.

Yes, the Reptilians have set in motion the Illuminati mafias as a means of manipulating this planet. An accurate source of information on the matter would be Stewart Swerdlow www.stewartswerdlow.com

Though I do not necessarily agree with everything that he says, for the most part he is an excellent source of information. I can confirm much of this from personal experience.

Princess Diana as a New World Religious Figure

Princess Diana was ritually sacrificed. Her programming was starting to break down, as was expected and planned.

She stopped hiding what she knew about the Reptilians, and yes, contacted Credo Mutwa as well as her psychic healer, "Christine Fitzgerald", who has since been threatened for revealing this information.

After her ritual sacrifice, she has become a religious icon of the New Age. This is all leading up to her future status as a saint of the New World Religion. This is really an excuse to bring back worship of the Goddess Diana.

Similarly, Ronald Reagan was ritually sacrificed, and his funeral service signified the death of America as we know it, heralding in the New World Order.

America will soon crumble economically and politically. The United Nations wil be called into "Restore Order". The United States will then be divided into two districts, Eastern and Western. The Eastern district will be Atlanta. The Western District will be Denver.

This is all planned to occur some time within the next 15 or so years--perhaps sooner. All depends upon what the Illuminati see as the appropriate times to initiate such events.

David Wozney #fundie ocii.com

(Fundie believes dinosaur fossils are a hoax)

The possibility exists that living dinosaurs never existed. "Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth” (Mark 9:23).

The dinosaur industry should be investigated and questions need to be asked. I am unaware of any evidence or reason for absolutely believing dinosaurs ever were alive on earth. The possibility exists that the concept of prehistoric living dinosaurs has been a fabrication of nineteenth and twentieth century people possibly pursuing an evolutionary and anti-Bible and anti-Christian agenda.

The past existence of living dinosaurs has not yet been proven. Questioning what is being told instead is a better choice rather than blindly believing the dinosaur story. Issues should be carefully considered for the sake of good science. "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called” (1 Timothy 6:20).

The choice between believing the word of man, the evolutionists, or the word of God, the Bible, is a matter of faith.

S. M. Campbell #fundie fpchurch.org.uk

Dinosaurs were an interesting group of animals. We cannot tell exactly what they looked like because all that remains of them today is their skeletons, many of which are incomplete. There is much guess work in the attempt to form a picture of what a dinosaur looked like. The scientists have to piece together the skeleton, filling in the gaps for the missing bones, and then try to work out what the fleshy parts of the animal looked like. Often scientists disagree about some of the details. For instance: what kind of skin had they, and what colour was it?

Evolutionists would have us believe that dinosaurs evolved from a type of reptile about 235 million years ago. They say that these creatures dominated the earth for long ages and then mysteriously became extinct about 60 million years before our first ancestors supposedly began evolving. On the other hand, creationists believe that dinosaurs, like all the other animals and man, were created during the six days of creation about 6000 years ago.

Both evolutionists and creationists do agree that at some stage in history, the environment became unsuitable for dinosaurs, causing them to become extinct. While the circumstances surrounding the extinction of dinosaurs is a mystery to evolutionists, creationists understand that following the Genesis flood there would have been huge environmental changes.

This would have affected the habitat of the dinosaurs. Combined with changes in lifestyle, as man began to populate the world again, this resulted in many types of plants and animals becoming extinct. Dinosaurs could not adapt to all the changes they were experiencing and so gradually died out. We see similar threats to other species today. Often at zoos or wildlife parks you can see campaigns to save some of these creatures. Does the possibility of endangered animals such as tigers becoming extinct indicate that they are evolving? No, of course not! Extinction is not proof of evolution.

It is generally accepted that the majority of dinosaurs were not large animals but that their average size was about the same as a sheep. Some were even smaller – about the size of a mouse. There were also very large ones like the tyrannosaurus rex and the brachiosaurus. The word dinosaur is quite a modern term. It was first used in 1841 by a British scientist, Sir Richard Owen, and is Greek for “terrible lizard”. Before 1841 the larger dinosaur-like creatures would have had local names or possibly they would have been called monsters or dragons.

Does the Bible have anything to say about dinosaurs? Obviously the word dinosaur does not appear in the Authorised Version as it was translated before the word became part of our vocabulary. Yet, in the Bible, creatures are described which may fall into the dinosaur category. There are several references to dragons; what exactly these were we cannot say, but obviously they were some sort of animal. For example, we read: “The young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet” (Psalm 91:13), and, “The dragons of the wilderness” (Malachi 1:3).

There are also references to dragons that lived in water. You can look up the references yourself: Psalm 74:13, Isaiah 27:1 and Ezekiel 29:3. Job also refers to a great sea-creature called leviathan, which he describes as breathing fire (Job 41). Also, in chapter 40, God describes a great animal He created, which was unbelievably large and strong; it is called behemoth. Some commentators think this behemoth could be an elephant or a hippopotamus, but it could possibly have been a large dinosaur like brachiosaurus. In Isaiah there is a reference to a “fiery flying serpent”; this could possibly have been a type of flying dinosaur like a pterodactyl (Isaiah 30:6).

There is evidence to support the view that dinosaurs and man lived on earth together. There are accounts of mankind and dinosaurs clashing. In many cultures there are legends of heroic battles between man and monsters or dragons. No doubt many of these accounts have become distorted and exaggerated with the passage of time but they do point to the existence of various types of fierce reptiles. The most recent medieval account of such a battle is from Bologna in Italy in 1572.

A peasant called Baptista killed a creature which, from its description, could have been a small dinosaur called tanystropheus. Even today there are giant lizards which are a threat to other sizeable animals, including man. The Komodo lizard, living on the Indonesian island of Komodo, is considered by many to be a type of prehistoric lizard. Yes, it is a lizard, but it is no more prehistoric than you or me! They can grow up to three metres in length and have powerful jaws and sharp teeth. They are strong and fast, in spite of their short legs. Some people have described them as land-crocodiles.

There is further evidence which might give weight to the legends passed down through our history. A sixteenth-century European scientific book contains descriptions of several living animals from that period which would now probably be classified as dinosaurs. Ancient paintings of various dinosaur-like creatures have been found in caves in Utah and Arizona and also in France. Pottery paintings, mosaics and sculptures from many ancient cultures – such as Greek, Egyptian, Sumatran and Roman – are proof that these amazing creatures were seen by mankind.

Dinosaurs are a part of our natural history. We should not be put off trying to explore the facts about them just because they have been hijacked by the evolutionists as supposed proof of an evolutionary timeline. They are part of God’s creation just as we are. Man was created on the same day as the dinosaurs that lived on land. But man was created in the image of God with an immortal soul, to be a creature that would glorify his Creator in a special way. “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen” (1 Timothy 1:17).

ServantofJesus #fundie deviantart.com

Lies, Greed, Idolatry and the Deification of Santa
by ServantofJesus, Dec 18, 2017, 5:37:05 PM
Journals / Personal
For most people - especially those who know [or should know] better - "Santa Claus" ("Sanctus Nicolaus"; to which the modern figure of Santa Claus is derived from the Dutch figure of Sinterklaas, whose name is a dialectal pronunciation of Saint Nicholas; also - interestingly - "Santa" [or santo] in Spanish meaning "holy") is just a fictional character that was popularised particularly by Coca Cola who is extremely loosely based on the historical person of Saint Nicholas, and many see him as just an excuse to try to make sure the kids behave during this time of year. And for all intents and purposes, in the strictest sense that is very true.

Also, before I continue, the name "Father Christmas" is also interesting [and not just in its origins] when one thinks of it from a 'clergyman' point of view, other than it being meant as a personification of Christmas. Interestingly enough, after Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity, Nicholas was elected Bishop of Myra. I'm probably stretching the connotations of this, but having him being called "Father Christmas" could also infer to as what Roman Catholic, Orthodoxy and Anglican traditions would use when they call high religious leaders as "Father" (of which Jesus warned us not to call anyone on Earth "Father" [in this context, not the biological one] in Matthew 23:8-9).
Anyway, when you actually look in to what "Santa" is all about, when you actually pay attention to the words of the songs such as "Santa Claus is Coming Tonight", and "Here Comes Santa Claus", you get a person that goes far beyond what Saint Nicholas was ever originally represented about the idea of gift-giving around this time of year.

I suppose you could call this "Santology" - the study of Santa Claus. This is by no means an in-depth study or anything like that, as it goes in to FAR more detail on this site here (though I must note that this site takes this whole thing to the utmost extreme, though I do agree with many of the points on there myself): Santa Claus: The Great Imposter

First of all, I will go into the practical and realist side of things, with what really matters when it comes down to it: lying to children.

Very much like what GospelCenteredMom.com has to say about it, there's a big difference between children having [for example] an imaginary person that they talk to; pretending they're a super hero; or just imagining they're on the moon - and actually believing that the Santa to which all the songs they've been singing about (which I'll come to later), is real.

I will assume - particularly the non-Christians that will come on here and read this - for those who are less discerning of such matters, that you think the idea of Santa is nothing but harmless fun, but a study was done last year that a Belief in Santa could affect parent-child relationships, warns study, to which part of it says this:

The darker reality, the authors suggest, is that lying to children, even about something fun and frivolous, could undermine their trust in their parents and leave them open to “abject disappointment” when they eventually discover that magic is not real.
Kathy McKay, a clinical psychologist at the University of New England, Australia and co-author, said: “The Santa myth is such an involved lie, such a long-lasting one, between parents and children, that if a relationship is vulnerable, this may be the final straw. If parents can lie so convincingly and over such a long time, what else can they lie about?”

For the next part, I shall be borrowing from TheTwoCities.com which has this to say about it, that to think that parents are willingly and actively lying to their children throughout the Christmas season should cause us to be concerned about their integrity and trustworthiness when it comes to more serious subjects such as teaching kids truths about God - obviously applying to Christians of course; non-Christians don't have a true backbone for their reasons to not lie to their children if it suits their needs. That is, without 'borrowing' from the Christian worldview.

And not only that, but it also teaches the children that lying is OK (as long as it's fun, of course).

Another question aught to be brought up on this issue: Why should Santa get all the glory for all the time, money and effort that friends and family have spent in getting everything for their children? To me, this completely shows an utter lack of respect that should be given to those that have made it special – and actually made it possible.

3 other points I'll borrow from that site
He promotes a false, works righteousness, theology

One thing everyone knows about Santa is that he’s always watching. In order to get what you want, Santa has to see you being good. This is anti-gospel! Even if we make a point of clearly explaining the good news to our children, the yearly exercise of behaving in order to receive gifts strengthens our natural bent toward works righteousness. It contradicts the grace-alone through faith-alone message we are striving to instill in our children.
He encourages self-centeredness [my point on the title of Greed]

The other thing everyone knows about Santa is that he’s always asking, “What do you want for Christmas?” We go along with this by helping our kids sift through catalogues, encouraging them to make lists, and taking them on special outings so they can tell Santa what they want. During the holidays we unashamedly encourage our kids to dwell on things rather than Christ. This cultivates an egocentric understanding of Christmas and twists the holiday so it is now all about them and what they want, rather than Christ and what he did.

He tells our kids that they are good

And, of course, our kids ALWAYS get what they want for Christmas, thus instilling in them the understanding that they are (or at least were in December) good. Should we stuff their stocking with coal? No, of course not. But it seems a shame that on the very holiday we celebrate God’s plan to redeem us from sin, we tell our kids they’re not really sinful.

So what this basically boils down to is Idolatry. Santa has been put on a pedistal, and has diverted our attention away from Jesus - the greatest Gift in the history of Creation. Of course you can try to have the two together, but which of these 2 is the most attractive? Which one would the child really want to focus on? A baby in a manger [in the context of this time of year], or a jolly man who you can see in a "Grotto" and ask him for whatever you want.

The next logical point would be on the Deification of Santa:

Have a read at some of these lyrics:

Here comes Santa Claus!. . .
Bells are ringin', children singin',
All is merry and bright.
So hang your stockings and say your prayers,
'Cause Santa Claus comes tonight
Jump in bed, cover up your head,
'Cause Santa Claus comes tonight
So let's give thanks to the Lord above
'Cause Santa Claus comes tonight
He's making a list and checking it twice
Gonna find out who's naughty and nice
Santa Claus is comin' to town
He sees you when you're sleepin'
He knows when you're a wake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake
Does that not sound like god-like qualities to you? That Santa should be one whom you should pray to, because the child thinks he'll be coming and giving you presents? And not only that, but he actually SEES you when you're awake or asleep, or when you've been good or bad! Only God can truly know this.

Sure these may just be lyrics in a song, but do not children learn these lyrics as soon as they're even able to understand what it all means? Is not this the whole part of what Santa makes him Santa? The “theology” of Santa? But let's not forget it's not only in songs, but is indoctrinated into you with films about him, all to get you to believe that he can do the things everyone is telling you he can do.

On a side note, doesn't anyone else think that the idea of a fat man watching your kids all year around is just a little... creepy?

I may as well copy 2 more of her reasons for rejecting Santa, because she can say it better than I can
He reveals that we don’t think Christ is enough

When we add Santa to Christmas, it reveals that we don’t think God, the creator of all things, humbling himself, becoming flesh, living a perfect life among us, dying for our sins, defeating death, and reconciling us with himself, is enough. We add Santa to make Christmas more fun, and more whimsical. In reality, the incarnation is not lacking, it does not need more.

He promotes the idea of mindless faith

All Santa stories include an element of faith. Scripturally speaking, saving faith, involves two aspects. As R W Glenn put it, we have to believe that, and believe in. The former refers to the affirmation of facts. For example, biblical faith requires one to believe that facts like, Jesus was born of a virgin, in Bethlehem, around 2,000 years ago, are true. In the case of Santa, his “facts” are so absurd that one must attach mental blinders in order to believe them. Although the fear of producing Santa-believing grown-ups is not a credible concern, turning out adults with wrong ideas about faith, is. Encouraging our kids to believe falsehoods plants the idea that faith involves checking your brain at the door and feeds the notion that faith can’t be supported by facts and good reasoning. Yes, the Bible states that our faith is in things not seen, but that does not mean it is in things that are not real.
My last point is just how much of a Westernised, first-world person this character is. There are countless millions of people who don't even have access to safe water to drink, or enough food to survive on. Where is Santa in those countries? Thankfully he's no-where to be seen.

Christian Ryan #fundie animaladventures1314.blogspot.com

Rerun Article: Did Dinosaurs REALLY Evolve Into Birds?
I hope everyone had a terrific Harvest Day! As you might recall, last year I took part in the Nanowrimo (National Novel Writing Month) challenge, which requires me to write a 50,000-word novel during the month of November. I am doing this challenge again this year, so I will be posting quite a few rerun articles this month. Don't worry though, I'll pick articles from a little ways back.

Anyway, Thanksgiving will soon be upon us? Do you have any Thanksgiving traditions? If so, leave them in a comment below.

Days till:
It is: 16 days till The Good Dinosaur's theatrical release
It is: 17 days till Thanksgiving
It is: 45 days till Christmas

In the Spotlight:
Again, nothing of note to share this week.

Topic of the Week by Christian Ryan

Did dinosaurs really evolve into birds? What does the fossil record actually reveal?
Every Thanksgiving, people all over the United States cook and serve the American turkey. Despite not being part of the first Thanksgiving, the turkey is a symbol for this holiday. But for many Americans, they aren't merely eating a bird – they're actually eating a dinosaur! Evolutionists believe that all birds, including the turkey, descended from small, feathered theropod dinosaurs; to be more accurate, they actually believe that birds are dinosaurs. Such a claim, if true, would be a major problem for creationists. How should a creationist respond to such this idea? What's the truth behind this belief?

Is this delicious Thanksgiving entree the descendant of dinosaurs?
The idea that reptiles evolved into birds isn't new. Not long after renowned naturalist Charles Darwin published his book in 1859 called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life . . . it's easy to see why most people just call it The Origin of Species. In 1860, a feather was discovered fossilized in Germany and the species of which the feather belonged to was called Archaeopteryx. In 1863, Sir Richard Owen (the inventor of the name “dinosaur” and a creationist) described an entire skeleton of the creature; the fossils revealed a relatively small creature, with feathered and clawed wings, teeth and a long bony tail. In 1869, biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, often considered “Darwin's Bulldog” declared the animal as the missing link between reptiles – specifically dinosaurs – and birds. Ever since, most evolutionary scientists cling to the idea that theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds.

The similarities between dinosaurs like Compsognathus and birds led Huxley to believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds.
Before we go any farther, we must understand both perspectives of the origin of birds: the creation perspective and the evolutionary perspective. Let's look at them both now. Most evolutionists believe that sometime between the early to late Jurassic Period, about 201-145 million years ago, the scales of small theropod dinosaurs began evolving into fur-like proto-feathers for warmth. After millions of years of evolution, these proto-feathers evolved to be firmer and longer; dinosaurs began using their longer feathers for display purposes, perhaps to attract mates. Evolutionists are unsure as to how the power of flight came about. Some evolutionists believe these feathered dinosaurs were tree-climbers and began using their feathered limbs to glide through the trees; others believe they developed the power of flight from the ground up, using their proto-wings to increase their leaps into the air, perhaps after prey. Either way, these dinosaurs eventually were able to get airborne and were now technically birds.

An early conception of "proto-birds" from 1916.
What does the Bible say about the evolution of birds? Well, it says God created all the flying creatures on the Fifth day of the Creation week, 6,000 years ago, the day before He created dinosaurs.
“And God created...every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good...And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.” Genesis 1:21-23.
This is a major contradiction to the evolution story, which states that dinosaurs came about before birds. Meanwhile the Bible states that land animals – dinosaurs included – came after birds! And instead of evolving through the processes of natural selection and mutation like evolution teaches, birds appeared on earth fully-formed and ready for action.

Evolutionists commonly point to Archaeopteryx as being a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.
Many evolutionists (specifically atheists) believe that there is too much evidence for evolution for creation to be true. I find it rather interesting how many evolutionists refuse to even consider creation an option; in fact, many will go as far as to say that creationists don't know science. I was browsing the internet and came across an article entitled Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy by Brian Switek. “Oh, really?” I thought upon seeing this article; I was rather unimpressed by this evolutionist's attempt to denounce creationists. Curious, I read the article, expecting to find much criticism aimed at creationists. Much of the article was devoted to how our view of dinosaurs has changed over the years, but perhaps a quarter into the material, he talked about creationists and the “overwhelming evidence” that dinosaurs evolved into birds, in addition to his other criticisms about dinosaurs living with humans and dinosaurs living 6,000 years ago etc. He also spent a great deal of time talking about Answers in Genesis CEO Ken Ham and the Creation Museum. Here's an excerpt below:
“...dinosaurs with feathers are not welcome at Ham's amusement park [speaking of the Creation Museum]. Even though paleontologists have uncovered numerous dinosaurs with everything from bristles and fuzz to full-flight feathers—which document the evolution of plumage from fluff to aerodynamic structures that allowed dinosaurs to take to the air—creationists deny the clear fossil record.”
He had much more to say of course, some of which I'll get to in a minute. I must say that while reading the article, I was troubled how many misconceptions Switek has about creationism. What really ticks me off is when evolutionists try to make a case for themselves without actually doing the research. I find Switek's ignorance of what we creationists believe appalling. If only he continued to research and find answers to why creationists don't believe dinosaurs evolved into birds, then perhaps he would not have been so bold in his statements. Like any other fossils in the fossil record, even though the observable evidence – dinosaur and bird fossils – can point to or suggest a certain conclusion, they do not speak for themselves and are left to the interpretation of the individual based upon observable evidence. Evolutionists like to claim that creationists start from a presupposition and use that to base their opinions on, while they base their opinions on scientific facts. Now, it is true that we have presumptions, but so do evolutionists! They fail to realize is that they do the exact same thing. In this article, I plan to talk about the evidence for and against the dino-to-bird hypothesis and see what the evidence best suggests.

So what is the “evidence” for this belief in dinosaurs evolving into birds? Switek claims there is a “mountain of evidence that birds are living dinosaurs” and that we creationists deny the clear fossil record. Let's at the so-called evidence now and see whether we're the ones rejecting the clear fossil record. Before we go on though, let me explain that evolutionists do not believe all dinosaurs evolved into birds; they believe the ancestors of birds are maniraptorans, small theropod (meat-eating) dinosaurs. Some of these dinosaurs include Deinonychus, Troodon and the famous Velociraptor.

Dromaeosaurs, such as this Velociraptor, are commonly seen as relatives of modern birds.

Bird-hipped and Lizard-hipped Dinosaurs
Evolutionists are quick to mention that maniraptorans are very similar to modern birds anatomically. This is true. In fact there are over 100 skeletal features that dinosaurs share with birds; some dinosaurs such as Velociraptor even had a wishbone. But what is often not mentioned are the often quite significant differences between the two. Within the order Dinosauria there are two subcategories in which dinosaurs are divided, saurischians (lizard-hipped dinosaurs) and ornithiscians (bird-hipped dinosaurs). The dinosaurs in these two categories are divided based upon their hip shape. The difference between the two hip shapes is the pubis bone; the pubis bone in birds and bird-hipped dinosaurs points toward the rear instead of to the front as in lizard-hipped dinosaurs, modern reptiles and mammals.

Saurischian or lizard-like hip structure.

Ornithischian or bird-like hip structure.

Problem with dino-to-bird evolution? All the dinosaurs that evolutionists believe are related to birds (e.g. Velociraptor, Troodon, Sinornithosaurus) are lizard-hipped! Dinosaurs that are bird-hipped include Stegosaurus, Triceratops and Parasaurolophus. These dinosaurs bear very few bird-like features and are not believed to have evolved into birds. Yet the few times this is ever mentioned in secular literature, documentaries and etc. this problem is never presented any emphasis. And why would they?

The lumbering 4-ton Stegosaurus is a bird-hipped dinosaur, meaning it must have evolved into birds! Right? Of course not!

Three-Fingered Hands

The hand bones of Dienonychus (left) and Archaeopteryx (right) are quite similar.
Evolutionists absolutely love to talk about how both theropods and birds have three-fingered hand bones. Evidence of a dino-bird relationship? Hardly. As birds supposedly evolved from theropods, you'd expect that the digits represented in the hand bones would be the same in both dinosaurs and birds. However, dinosaurs have the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd digits (the first being the thumb); birds have the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th digits in their hand. What happened?

Avian vs. Reptilian Lungs

The dinosaur Sinosauropteryx was so well preserved, that the reptilian-like lungs have also been fossilized.
If theropods are the ancestors of birds, you should find avian-like lungs in theropods. Of course, as most dinosaur remains are fossil bones, we can't know too much about their lungs and respiratory system. However, paleontologists have discovered the fossilized remains of a Sinosauropteryx, a small bird-like theropod from China, related to Compsognathus. This Sinosauropteryx specimen retains the outline of the visceral cavity, and it is very well preserved. Much to the dismay of evolutionists, they reveal that the lung is very much like that of a crocodile.

In Switek's article, he mentions how the Creation Museum didn't display feathered dinosaurs, nor does Answers in Genesis portray dinosaurs with feathers in books and DVD's. And he's right. But what if there's actually a scientifically good reason for this? Of course, failing to do his research to see why creationists don't portray feathered dinosaurs, he just scoffs and claims that “they take pride in promoting out-of-date, monstrous dinosaurs that more easily fit their contention that these animals were created separately from all other forms of life.” I'm very sorry Switek, but maybe you are the one who's trying to go against the fossil evidence. Like just about every other evolutionist out there, he claims that creationists just believe in non-feathered dinosaurs because we believe they didn't evolve into birds and then points to so-called “feathered” dinosaurs; no further explanation is given. He would have only had to read a few articles on the Answers in Genesis website to find their true opinion, which I will get to in a minute.

Is there actually evidence to support the belief that dinosaurs, like this Troodon, had feathers?
There are two types of “feathered dinosaurs” you'll hear about: dinosaurs with bird-like flight feathers and dinosaurs with proto-feathers. First let's look at the dinosaurs with “proto-feathers”. In 1996, evolutionists thought they found the amazing proof for their theory upon the discovery of Sinosauropteryx. This small carnivorous dinosaur is associated with the outline of what many believe to be fur-like proto-feathers. But upon looking at the “proto-feathers” closely, you can see that they really aren't that feather-like. They are much more similar to hair in appearence. In fact, it seems to some creationists that seems that these features are actually connective tissue fibers (collagen); this is found in the deeper dermal layers of the skin. These features have been found not only on other dinosaurs, but also ichthyosaurs, dolphin-like marine reptiles! Yet no one suggests these creatures were feathered. Another thing about the "fluffy-looking" structures that creation scientists have noticed is that many of these structures appear almost fur-like. Perhaps some of these dinosaurs were covered in something similar to pcynofibers, fur-like structures found on pterosaurs that are very similar to mammalian hair.

Dinosaurs like Sinosauropteryx might have been covered in a type of "fur".
In this article, Switek mentions this fossil discovery:
“Put feathers on a Velociraptor—we know it had feathers thanks to quill knobs preserved along its arm bones—and you get something disturbingly birdlike, revealing the dinosaur's kinship to the ancestors of Archaeopteryx and other early birds.”
In 2007, scientists published the find of a fossil arm bone of a Velociraptor. Along the forearm are six bumps that they claimed were very similar to those found on the bones of some modern birds. In modern birds the bumps are the quill knobs where feathers were once supposedly rooted. Is this proof of a feathered dinosaur? Perhaps, but sources that talk about this find give no details as to why the quill knobs don't extend further along this bone or if there were other fossils were also examined or how complete the find was. Who's to say this is even the arm bone of a Velociraptor? There are many uncertainties with this fossil. Keep in mind that I'm not doubting the validity of the scientists who studied the fossil, but we should also remember that we should be cautious about such claims based on scant evidence and the claims made by scientists with evolutionary presuppositions.

No feathers seem to have been present on Velociraptor, but pcynofiber-like fuzz is still a possibility.
What about “dinosaurs” that actually have fully-functional actual feathers? Archaeopteryx and Microraptor are two such creatures. Both of these animals bear toothy snouts, clawed and feathery wings and bony tails. They also both have a pair of enlarged retractable toe claws like those of raptor dinosaurs, such as Deinonychus and Velociraptor. Surely this is proof that these animals are the missing links between dinosaurs and birds.

Microraptor is a very unique creature with four fully-functional feathered wings.
First of all the feathers on the bodies of Archaeopteryx and Microraptor are actual feathers and not collagen fibers or fur-like structures. They also have the same digits configuration of modern birds (like modern birds they bear the 2nd, 3rd and 4th digits). Undoubtedly, these animals are birds. The fact that they have reptilian features does not make them half reptile/half bird. In fact, there are several actual birds that have reptilian features: ostriches and baby hoatzins also have clawed wings, and no one questions that these animals are birds; the extinct bird Hesperornis possesses teeth in its beak; and the seriema of today even has an enlarged second toe claw, similar to the ones seen in raptors. If you don't need a missing link between dinosaurs and birds (which creationists don't) then there's no need to call Microraptor and Archaeopteryx anything other than 100% birds.

The seriema is a medium-sized bird living today with an enlarged toe claw, similar to the ones found on dromaeosaurs.
If you look in dinosaur books, you've likely seen diagrams similar to the one below:

This is a typical chart showing the evolution of dinosaurs to birds.
This picture suggests that the fossil record wonderfully displays the evolution from dinosaurs to birds; with more dinosaur-like creatures in lower geologic rock layers and more bird-like creatures in higher layers, slowly evolving more complex feathers. Isn't it strange that we creationists reject the plain evidence in the fossil record as Switek states we do?

Unfortunately, this isn't what the fossil record represents at all! Despite this being portrayed in just about every secular dinosaur book, the “clear fossil record” (as Switek puts it) tells a different story. Archaeopteryx, the famed transitional between dinosaurs and birds is believed to have existed 150-148 million years ago, during the Late Jurassic Period. The problem? Most bird-like dinosaurs that are commonly said to be closely related to birds, according to this worldview, lived before Archaeopteryx! Sinosauropteryx, a dinosaur with “proto-feathers” is claimed to have lived 124-122 million years ago! In fact, most dinosaurs with so-called “proto-feathers” are found above rock layers with more bird-like animals! The only dinosaur with "proto-feathers" that evolutionists have that didn't live after Archaeopteryx is Juravenator. But according to evolutionists, Juravenator lived at the same time as Archaeopteryx! In addition to this, we find birds very similar to the ones we see today living with "dino-birds". A Microraptor skeleton described in 2011 was discovered with tree-perching bird fossils (more bird-like than Microraptor) inside of its abdomen! This animal didn't only live with modern-like birds – it ate them! Even Velociraptor, a very bird-like dinosaur, is usually dated to live about 80 million years ago, long after birds has supposedly been flying through the skies for millions of years. These creatures were hardly ancestors to the birds. I for think the fossil record clearly demonstrates that dinosaurs evolved into birds, don't you? (That was sarcastic by the way).

Of course, I am not at all saying we should find all the transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds if this transition really did occur, but we should find a few. Evolution on this scale would take tens of millions of years and millions of generations between dinosaurs and birds. Where are these fossils? Surely some should have popped up if the "clear fossil record" suggests dinosaurs evolved into birds.

And to make matters even worse for evolutionists, extinct birds such as Anchiornis, Xiaotingia, Aurornis and potentially Protoavis are buried in sediment “older” than Archaeopteryx!

So, Switek, you believe the "clear fossil record" portrays dinosaurs evolving into birds? Hm...

Earlier, I mentioned how Switek claimed creationists don't like feathered dinosaurs. What if a feathered dinosaur with actual feathers were discovered? Would this prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds and that the Bible is untrue? Nope! In fact, nothing in the Bible goes against the idea that dinosaurs might have had feathers. Not only that, but I happen to like the look of feathered dinosaurs; I am not against the notion of feathered dinosaurs in the slightest, just the idea that they evolved into birds. Finding a feathered dinosaur would be no different than finding a mammal that lays eggs. which we actually have! The duck-billed platypus and porcupine-like echidna are monotreme mammals that lay eggs instead of giving birth to live young like all other mammals. Yet they aren't half mammals/half reptiles; they're mammals that lay eggs. We creationists aren't against the idea of feathered dinosaurs at all, it's just that so far, the evidence for feathered dinosaurs is missing in action.

Like Microraptor, the platypus bears characteristics of many different creatures, including the ability to lay eggs, a duck-like bill, a beaver-like tail and webbed feet, a mammal's fur, the ability to use a form of sonar and even a venomous spur. Yet it is not some evolutionary missing link, but a mosaic.
In order to prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds, one would need to find evidence of a transition between the two in the fossil record (like reptile scales evolving into feathers) and the fossil record would need to show dinosaurs and birds evolving in the right order. This is not what we find!

Why haven't evolutionists who love to talk badly about creationists bring up the points I made in this article? An even better question is why would they do such a thing? Never in Switek's article does he even mention these problems with the dino-bird theory (or solutions to them)! Like many other evolutionists out there, he decided to pick on the claim made by creationists rather than the evidence that backs up the claim in order to make creationists sound like unprofessional idiots. What he wrote in this article shows just how utterly and willingly ignorant he is of creationism and what we believe to be true (and more importantly why we believe it to be true).

As I hope to have made clear throughout this article, if one looks at the fossil record from an evolutionary perspective, we don't really learn about the origin of birds. It's really sad how little research Switek did on the truth about creationism, Answers in Genesis, dinosaurs, birds and the fossil record as a whole. I doubt hearing the truth would have actually change his mind, but at least he would have been more informed. Until he decides to learn what creationists actually have to say and only talking about evidence from his own side of the argument, he should avoid talking about creationism altogether. (Unlike him, I used information from both sides).

I do however hope that this article has enlightened you, my readers, and helped you understand that the fossil record doesn't support the belief that birds and dinosaurs didn't share the same lineage, but that they do share the same wonderful Creator God.

You can relax, dinosaur lovers! The turkey you'll have for Thanksgiving this year isn't the descendant of this Velociraptor!

Proletarian writers #moonbat #transphobia thecommunists.org

The reactionary nightmare of ‘gender fluidity’

We do not advocate and we cannot allow the bourgeoisie to impose this divisive ideology upon us.

This is a very interesting debate, comrades. I find it both encouraging and discouraging at the same time.

Why are we having this debate? I would like to say that I agree with motion 8. It’s quite clear that this is an issue which is causing genuine confusion – and not only in our party. Our party is the reflection of society, and so if it is confusing us, you can be sure there is a far greater confusion outside our ranks – and that, if you like, is why we’re having this debate. While I am sympathetic with the arguments put forward by those opposed to motion 8, we clearly do need to have a debate. Clearly some people have taken on identity politics (idpol) as a very central part of their political discourse: people in our schools, people in society, in every mainstream paper that you turn to. A mere reference to gender identity and idpol, without expressing an opinion, is enough to make many people incandescent with rage. We have to ask ourselves why that is, because when I grew up some years ago, this wasn’t an issue affecting peoples’ minds. People didn’t talk about it; they didn’t debate it: it wasn’t an issue. Marx and Engels and Lenin and Stalin didn’t devote much attention to the politics of gender fluidity because it did not exist as an issue. This concept – contrary to the opinion of those opposed to this motion – is not “as old as humanity”.
[..]
Sex, gender and gender fluidity
Is sex important? Attempts are being made to confuse us as to what ‘sex’ is. Are ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ synonyms? Well they are synonyms, but a certain group of academics in the seventies in the United States decided that they weren’t synonyms. They were going to use ‘gender’ in their own way; they were going to use ‘gender’ to mean the social construct of behaviour surrounding what was expected of the biological differentiation among human beings (men and women).But biological differentiation between male and female is a real thing. It doesn’t just exist in humanity, it exists in many species throughout the natural world. Sexual reproduction is a natural biological process that has persisted in nature due to the diversity it engenders; it is a phenomenon encountered in the natural world.

And let’s not forget how this debate impinged upon us. We’ve been following this ideological trend, and encountering identity politics among supporters and candidates for membership of our party, and amongst people we’ve been working with for at least four or five years. Because idpol has become a fashion in that period.

And it is a fashion; it is a trend. And it suddenly – from being very marginal to certain academic institutions in the 1970s – became mainstream globally worldwide; it was actively promoted. Not promoted by communists, not by socialists, but picked up on and accepted by many of them, because they are led by, and they blindly followed, bourgeoise society down this dead-end.
[…]
Sex and sexual identity
So the question is sexuality: how does this tie up with the question of sexuality? And we come back to that innocuous post on Twitter, which I thought was obviously hilarious because I thought it was non-controversial.

We wrote: “There is a group of self-proclaimed ‘socialists’ who are not actually any longer fighting against our oppression, they’re fighting against reality!” and posted a link to an article. Why did we say that? They’re a circle of people who broke away from a very small group which you may know, called the RCG. This circle wrote a blog called ‘Red Fightback’, and the bottom line is, their position is that there’s no such thing as gender.

Rather, gender, they claim, is some kind of medical conspiracy where, at birth, the doctors go away and huddle together and they ‘assign a gender role’ to you. So, pregnant mothers: when you have your 20-week ultrasound scan, you’re not having a scan to see whether your baby is a boy or a girl (say ‘Red Fightback’). No; that’s all medical conspiracy! And when the baby is born, they inspect the baby to say it’s a boy or a girl – well that’s all medical conspiracy, too! These things (boys and girls, men and women) aren’t real – don’t you see??

Now, that seemed to us to be so absurd and preposterous that we posted it. And the post seemed popular! It had, like, 100,000 views, with hundreds of comments saying: “You’re a Terf!” I didn’t know what a Terf was at that point but, but I have since found out. It is an acronym for ‘Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist’ – which I’m not, because I’m not a feminist! But essentially, their line is that anyone who would purport to say there really is such a thing as gender (men and women), is some kind of fascist. Who is pushing this ideology that there is no such thing as gender? That there is no such thing as sex? That it’s not real?

There is even a movement termed ‘ableism’ or ‘trans-ableism’. There exist people who say: “I look as if I’ve got two arms and two legs, but actually in reality, I feel like I was born disabled.” There are people who are petitioning for the right to have an arm or a leg cut off; to have an operation which will make their physical form conform to how they feel; “my inner essence”.

It’s the ultimate idealism isn’t it? Idealism in the philosophical sense that that “the material world doesn’t exist”; “it’s whatever I think that is most important”. So actually, by that rationale, ideas are prime and matter will have to conform with my ideas, and the ultimate result is this kind of solipsism where you are alone in the world – the lone conscious force and the ultimate determiner of your own reality without reference to other people or the material reality of the word’s environment around you.

Morally, it means whatever you want subjectively is right and correct. So it can be used to justify doing anything, committing any crime against anyone.

As a philosophy it is totally isolating, and totally gets rid of the idea, as the previous speaker was saying, of having things in common, uniting on a class basis around the real things that oppress us; real material and economic phenomena.

Infinite Architect & ThyWordIsTruth #fundie youtube.com

(=A comment thread in a Universalist educational video=)

Infinite Architect: You are a false teacher preaching annihilationism which is unbiblical. You will be held accountable for everyone you deceive.? [...] Did you even watch it? He is saying hell is just a temporary place where you get "refined" and you will eventually make it to heaven and the devil is going to heaven too. This is total heresy and sends a dangerous message to lost people because it makes them think they will escape eternal Hell and they can sin all they want and not have to worry. This clown thinks he has stumbled across special knowledge but he is just a fool twisting scripture and preaching some strange perverted form of Universalism. You can follow him into Hell if you want, it's your freewill to do so.?

ThyWordIsTruth: AMEN brother. Here we go again, someone trying to correct the Greek and Hebrew and using their own private interpretation. Now to the OWNER OF THIS CHANNEL, your problem is that you've either been deceived by a reprobate bible scholar or you hate what the word of God says. Revelation 14:11 KJV says: " And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name." Apparently you have more knowledge than 54 of some of the worlds greatest scholars who translated the King James Bible and you obviously believe in a "god" who cannot perfectly preserve his word for future generations. You are a fool and if you don't repent and TRULY put your faith in the Lord Jesus of the BIBLE, you will find out that the lake of fire is a place of eternal torment.

truth96130: @ Infinite Architect Just because people believe that judgment is not forever, that does not mean they will think they can sin all they like with no consequences. There are many crimes that do not have a life sentence.Does everyone think (I think I will commit all those crimes because the punishment is not forever)? Nope.?

ThyWordIsTruth: If you are gullible enough to believe this man than you have a big problem. Not only is he wrong but in denying the TRUTH of eternal hell is to deny a fundamental of the Christian faith! Also it is NOT foolish to believe that the KJV is the perfectly preserved word of God for the English speaking people. Have you heard the saying 'a little Greek is a dangerous thing?' Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.?

truth96130: 1. "He is trying to correct the Greek and Hebrew and using their own private interpretation."-- What part of (the Greek word translated as torment, is touchstone) is a private interpretation ? Look it up before you accuse. 2. "He has either been deceived or hates what the word of God says." --Calling people deceived because they know something you did not know.
does not mean they are deceived. Try to study up on the Greek word they translated (torture) before you falsely accuse someone. 3. "Revelation 14:11" --Is the book of revelation filled with metaphors, symbols and figures of speech? Yes. Does torment have smoke? No. Does smoke rise up forever? No. Can there be a forever after forever? No because the first forever will never end. Can people never rest? Only if they have an infinite amount of energy. Do people have an infinite amount of energy? No. Apparently your taking what is not literal and trying to say it is. 4. "Apparently you have more knowledge than 54 of some of the worlds greatest scholars who translated the King James Bible." Question --If the KJV translators were so perfect in their translation, than why did they give Alternate translations to over 1000 bible verses (in the margins) and many of them had different meanings. If they got (the original one right) there is no need to put another one in the margins. 5. "You obviously believe in a "god" who cannot perfectly preserve his word for future generations." --Are you saying that God will not allow any one to make a miscopy in a bible? A) Yes. B) No. 6. "TRULY put your faith in the Lord Jesus of the BIBLE." --What name is the only one by which we must be saved??

truth96130: 1. Any one that interprets the bible differently than you do are all false teachers? When you become God, than you can assume your interpretation is perfect. 2. He is not deceiving people just because he interprets the bible differently than you do. 3. "This is total heresy." --No, what you were taught is heresy. Because it teaches God is the eternal oppressor and the opposite of the savor to the majority of mankind. 4. "He is a clown because he thinks he has special knowledge." --Personal attacks prove nothing. Back it up with scripture if you can. If you can't than you have no argument.?

Hope Remains: The KJV is just as flawed as any other English version. I have nearly 40 years experience working with scripture in the original languages, and taught Hebrew and Greek for many years. God preserved His word in the original languages. That preservation does NOT extend to any translation. The KJV translators were charged with creating a Bible that would support the teachings of the Anglican Church. As a result, they tampered with numerous verses to bring the Bible into line with church doctrine. Further, KJV, like some other versions, contains a verse the translators almost certainly knew was a fraud. 1 John 5:7, as found in KJV, et al, is called the Johannine Comma. It cannot be found in ANY ancient Greek manuscript of the New Testament, nor in any of the early Latin versions. It first appeared in late versions of the Vulgate, added by some anonymous monk copying over the text. It breaks the sense of the passage, and there is not a legitimate Bible scholar in the world who thinks John wrote it. It did not find its way into a Greek version until the 11th century, when someone scribbled it into the margin of a Greek New Testament. When Erasmus created his Greek manuscript, he revised it to agree with late versions of the Vulgate, which was a huge mistake. The translators of KJV chose to ignore all the ancient Greek texts at their disposal, and used primarily Erasmus' so-called Textus Receptus, a seriously flawed version. There is no real substitute for taking the time to learn the original languages and studying scripture as originally written. 2 Timothy 2:15.?

ThyWordIsTruth: You mean the translators of the KJV chose to ignore the manuscripts that don't agree with one another? So to have the perfect word of God we have to learn Greek and Hebrew, what rubbish. Well go on then take your Novum Testamentum Graece and preach it to people on the street.?

Hope Remains: Hmmm... perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension. There are small differences in all Greek manuscripts. No two agree completely. The KJV translators rejected all the older, more authoritative manuscripts, in favor of a flawed manuscript that was only about 100 years old. Now, if you want to put all your faith in a Bible translated (poorly) from that flawed manuscript, go for it. But don't expect God to applaud that decision. You also ignored the fact that KJV contains a verse that is a proven fraud. I guess you don't care about that either.?

ThyWordIsTruth: Well don't expect God to applaud a bible like the NIV that says the Jesus fell from heaven and not Lucifer like the NIV in Isaiah 14:12.?

Hope Remains: I am no fan of NIV. There is no fully accurate vernacular Bible. But in NIV's defense, it does NOT say Jesus fell from heaven in that verse. KJV uses the word Lucifer, which is a lousy translation of the Hebrew word Heylel, which means "Daystar." That name was given by God to the devil when he was first created as a cherub. After he fell, God reclaimed the name for Himself, and the former Heylel became known as Satan.?

truth96130: If you want to get technical, it can be a dangerous thing to know no Greek. You said--"You mean the translators of the KJV chose to ignore the manuscripts that don't agree with one another ?" --Thats wrong, in fact they did use manuscripts that did not all agree with one another. That is why they had alternate translations in the margins of the very first KJV bible. I am still waiting for an answer. Question--Is it possible for there to be a miscopy in a KJV bible? A) Yes. B) No. Rather than just accusing him of being wrong with out backing it up, tell us exactly what he said that
was (wrong) and then explain to us the correct way. If you can not do that, than you have no argument.?

talitha #fundie christianforums.com

[Reply to a post asking Muslims, Christians and Jews to put their differences aside and work to make the world a better place]

Cant we all just get along?

Yes! In Christ! He is our peace!
Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace....

BTW, "making the world a better place" in the way you're thinking is not the main goal of any of these religions....

Anon #racist amren.com

[A 14-year-old black student has been charged with murdering his math teacher.]

No...it did not take much "mind boggling hate" to make this happen because his behavior is not deviant. From our point of view yes...it would take ALOT to make a white person do this.

But this is normal behavior for blacks. They ALL think like this as their standard mode of thinking. The only thing necessary to set him off was opportunity. Given the opportunity, every single black person with almost no exceptions would do a horrific crime like this.....for fun, if for no other reason.

Meditate on that fact for awhile. Think of the implications of it for what black people are. And then, think on this. You assumed black people were just like us, only different in skin color (although you probably think you know better). You literally couldn't process the truth do to the level of race brainwashing you've been exposed to. You need a reason...a rationalization for white a human being would do something like this.

It literally never occurred to you that the killer isn't human. He is NOTHING like you on the inside. He might as well be a pod person (invasion of the body snatchers). They only look human and perhaps, act human when they know you are looking. However, be vulnerable to them in any way and you quickly discover they are not. This was probably the last thought going through Collen Ritzer's mind as her throat was being slit. She knew they were different. Until that exact moment, she probably didn't know how different.

Cam’ron #fundie vice.com

See, the 43-year-old rap icon and Dipset veteran revealed to the long-running hip-hop podcast that he isn't sold on the whole dinosaur thing. He tells hosts Jeff and Eric Rosenthal, seemingly unprompted, "I have fights with people about dinosaurs and their existence all the time.”

Asked to elaborate, he continues: “I’m not believing nor disbelieving. It’s like, there’s no proof. Because they throw these big bones, pause, up in a museum, and then be like, ‘Yo, these are the people that were here before us…’” After getting pushback from the hosts that yes, the bones themselves are quite literally proof that dinosaurs existed, Killa Cam was still unfazed. He explains, "I'm not necessarily going for that one. If we get more proof on it, cool, but I’m not going off museum facts. I been to every museum when I was young, I’m like, ‘Word, so they just found all these bones and glued them together.'"

Interviews this absurd don't happen very often. When asked about whether or not he believes the Earth is flat, Cam'ron responds with a simple "Nah" which further confounds the podcast hosts. The chat is the perfect amount of lively and hilarious but with an ample dose of grating pseudoscience to keep it balanced.

Cam'ron, who later mistakes paleontology for archeology, says, "I wish I could be an archaeologist and be like, ‘I found some shit.’ I’d be at the beach every day like, ‘Yo, look what I discovered,’ and just make some shit up." Even though his grasp of science is way off, it's 100% worth a watch.

Ray Comfort #fundie facebook.com

“Hi Ray Comfort, can you please tell me how you would recommend witnessing to a close relative who is a very convinced atheist, and who is dying of cancer? Many thanks.” Delphine R. Noah

We will pray for him. Maybe he will read this:

It was early in the morning. Very early. Most people in the airport looked as though they could have done with an extra week or so in bed. I was flying back from New York to Los Angeles waiting to board a plane when a tall man asked me, “What rows did they call?” I answered, “First class… the rich folks.” He smiled and said, “Yeah. The ones who should be going on their own Learjet.” I handed him a Million Dollar Bill tract and said, “Here’s the down payment on your Learjet.” When he smiled, I passed him a Department of Annoyance tract, and said, “And here’s my card.” He turned it over and to my horror began to read out loud the gospel message on the back—despite the fact that the text was printed in reverse to give me getaway time. When I quickly added, “It’s a gospel tract,” he mumbled “I’m an atheist.”

While atheism is the ultimate intellectual suicide, I can understand why some people are tempted to believe that there’s no God. The previous night I had listened to a CNN report that scientists had discovered why human beings are more intelligent than animals. I was intrigued with their assumption, and listened to how scientists believed that 20 million years ago we developed larger brains. They predicted that the human brain will continue to grow, giving us larger heads. This will mean that future generations will see more Cesarean births. I admired the newscaster’s ability to remain straight-faced.

A few minutes later, CNN reported that after a giant tsunami in Southeast Asia killed multitudes, authorities could hardly find any animals that died in the flooding. They surmised that the animals had some sort of intelligence that caused them to move to higher ground when the tsunami-causing earthquake struck. It was human beings who stayed on the beach to take pictures of the wave as it approached.

As I stood in line at the airport, the morning newspaper showed a picture of a ten-year-old piece of grilled cheese sandwich which was said to bear the likeness of the Virgin Mary. It was sold on eBay to an “intelligent” human, who paid $28,000 for it.

It is information like this that should help anyone with any intelligence to realize that humanity isn’t as intelligent as we are led to believe. While most Christians are too smart to bite into the error of Virgin Mary toast, they profess a faith that makes no sense. While watching TV in my hotel room the night before, I saw a well-known pastor talk about his book, which has sold a phenomenal 20 million copies. He said that God’s agenda for humanity was to “make our lives better.” That was a summation of his message.

Tell that to those who were burying tens of thousands of human corpses after the tsunami hit. Tell that to the fathers who hold the dead bodies of their beloved children in their arms, or to the relatives of those who died of horrific diseases. It doesn’t take much intelligence to realize that if there is a God who created all things, He must be all-powerful. Nothing is impossible for Him. He therefore could have easily prevented unspeakable agony by simply lifting His finger off the earthquake button. But He didn’t.

Yes, there is plenty of evidence (from cheese sandwiches to tsunamis) for a thinking person to conclude that a God of love who is all-powerful and wants to better the life of humanity doesn’t exist. If He did, He would immediately get a supply of good food to the starving in Africa so that their lives may be better, or at least provide some rain to grow their crops.

During that same day the tsunami hit, 150,000 other people died around the world—about 40,000 of starvation. If He wanted to make our lives better, perhaps He could also halt the parade of killer hurricanes that line up to regularly devastate the U.S., or He could slow down the hundreds of terrifying tornadoes that take precious human lives each year. Maybe He could even whisper to us a cure for the cancers that are killing millions annually, including innocent children.

A quick look at Jeremiah 9:21-24 gives the answer to this intellectual dilemma. How could God be loving and yet allow suffering? The Bible tells us that He is in control, and that He does send judgments to this earth. God is love, but He’s also just and holy and if He gave us what we deserve, the tsunami of His holiness would sweep us all into Hell.

Imagine you have knowledge that a bridge has been washed out by a terrible storm, on a dark and moonless night. You stop all approaching cars and say, “The bridge that spans a thousand-foot chasm has been washed away! Please turn your vehicle around.” The violence of the storm itself is enough to convince any thinking driver that you are speaking the truth, and those who have the sense to believe you do turn around.

Tsunamis, terrible diseases, agonizing cancers, massive earthquakes, devastating tornadoes, killer hurricanes, awful suffering, and death itself are very real and violent storms that should be enough to convince any thinking person that our warning is true.

The message of Christianity isn’t one of God wanting to better this life for humanity. It is one of warning of a terrible fate in store for those who continue on the road of sin. We are told by God’s Word that there are two deaths on the highway to Hell. The first death is when we leave the storms of this life and pass into timeless eternity. The second death is the chasm of eternal damnation. It is the terrifying justice of a holy God.

So with the cheese sandwich insanity, and the confusion about the message of Christianity, I could sympathize with my atheist friend in the airport. When he professed atheism it gave me the opportunity to humbly cite my atheist credentials. I said, “I wrote a book called God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists: Proof the Atheist Doesn’t Exist.” Then I told him that I was a platform speaker at the American Atheists’ national convention in 2001. I offered, “It’s really easy to prove God’s existence.” He replied, “It’s not healthy for me to talk about God.” I said that I could understand that, and added, “But you are a reasonable and open-minded person, so you can listen to me for two minutes.”

He gave me the okay, so I told him how he could know for sure that God existed, that God had given him a conscience and that if he even lusted after a woman, Jesus said that he had committed adultery already with her in his heart. I also mentioned that if a criminal was given a death sentence and he said to the judge, “But I don’t believe in the electric chair,” it didn’t change reality.

He politely listened, and said, “Well, I’d better board the plane.” He reached out his hand, shook mine and said, “My name is Pat.” I told him my name, watched him board, and prayed that he would read the literature that he still held in his hand… and that he would have the intelligence to believe the words of warning.

One other thing. We know that God exists for the same reason we know when we look at a building, that a builder built it. Buildings don’t build themselves. And neither did creation (Nature) make itself. That is a scientific impossibility.

Sudadbetch #homophobia #pratt reddit.com

LGBTQINW+ shouldn’t be accepted by anyone.

In my opinion I think the whole lgbt whatever thing shouldn’t be accepted and people shouldn’t be proud because they’re different, it’s something that can be fixed psychologically because it’s obviously not normal and not right. It’s literally prohibited in every religion and people are trying to make it look good, same gender sex is also a reason for a lot of diseases, keep in mind that it leads to nowhere, no kids, no family, no nothing. Also, whenever I try to discuss this opinion with someone I’d get a response like “homophobia isn’t an opinion” Umm first of all if “homophobia” is a word then “faggot” is a word too. Also, don’t expect or force people to accept you, don’t try to convince people that it’s a normal thing, Oh transgender people are killing theirselves? Suicide hotlines are always available, seeking help is always the right thing, if you keep lying to yourself and to us, don’t blame anyone because it’s your own fault. Think about it, the whole thing was illegal since god knows when and the majority of people were already against it, you can’t just stand up now and try to change everyone’s opinions and thoughts about your mental disability, get help or suffer alone.

Aurelius Moner #fundie returnofkings.com

Let me first state that any philosophy allowing for rights in abstraction from the norms of objective morality, is Liberal—and this includes almost all of what calls itself “Conservatism” in the Anglosphere (and, increasingly, beyond). At the heart of Liberalism, aka Modernism (in the technical terms used by Catholics such as myself), is the incoherent and irrational endowing of error with rights, often consequent to an incorrect valuation and application of the good of tolerance.

The first manifestation of this new philosophy in the West was Protestantism, which as Don Felix Sarda y Salvany said, “begets by nature tolerance of error.” I do not say this to be offensive, but descriptive; it was the first manifestation of the feeling that men are entitled to their own opinions on ultimate questions, and ought to be “free” to act in accord with their conscience on these opinions—and that, therefore, authority must yield more or less to individuals’ rights of conscience.

[Picture of Liberty Bell with "Freedom of Conscious" and "Freedom of Religion," with the caption "Concepts as Flawed and Broken as the Bell that Stands for Them"]

One can see that there is essentially no difference between this and the maxim of Justice Kennedy, which he penned to uphold worthless whores’ rights to murder their children without so much as notifying their husbands, the fathers: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” I spit upon such damned nonsense; this is literally a carte blanche to do whatever the hell you want. The story of Western Civilization from about 1500 A.D. to the present, is the story of how this absurd idea has played out in successive waves of incoherence and irrationality.

The only limit on this “right to define one’s own concept of existence” is the flimsy protestation that “your rights end where mine begin,” or, put otherwise: “don’t inflict your morality on me!” This sounds good to the person who has not analyzed it critically, but in fact it is a complete impossibility. We all live together in society. Any view that one enshrines as the societal ideal is automatically and inevitably going to inflict itself upon everybody in that society, and will frustrate or contradict their own “concept of existence,” to some extent.

Indeed, it is a wildly tyrannical idea, because it is tantamount to saying that everyone who does not consider their concept of existence to be totally private, relative and arbitrary, has no right to implement their views in society. Yes, as we see, even Libertarianism advances this radically hegemonic principle, squelching all opinions and beliefs that reject the relativistic premise. For, even to advocate that one should not inflict his moral views on someone else, is already an attempt to inflict one’s moral views on someone else! And in the absence of an objective norm of morality, there is really nothing stopping the Supreme Court from interpreting the Constitution to mean that your right not to bake cakes for sodomites, ends where a sodomite’s right to demand cakes of you begins. That this is even an issue, is proof of the absurdity of our system.

...

I, for example, believe that there are objective principles of morality, and a moral and rational role for the state; I believe it is absolutely right and just and salutary for society to be run on these principles, and that this means making definite judgments upon certain ideas and behaviors, “inflicting” this system upon everybody. I also believe that I am morally obliged to prefer this system of governance, and to reject a Liberal one.

The Liberal, Libertarian or “Conservative” will recoil in horror; but, they are reacting to the mere candor of my position. The fact, is that their viewpoints also require me to shut up, forsake my dearest religious and moral principles, and submit to a society organized along their preferred principles, which I know to be not only immoral, but also impossible and irrational.

When members of society install a form of specious relativism as their governing principle, they are inflicting their moral view upon me. They limit the scope of my social and moral action; they compel my submission to what they accomplish via their appeal to the mob; they shackle me to the moral drift and societal decline of a state piloted by the demagogued masses. They are denying my moral view that a just, rational and even divine social order should reign over society, and that, far from according “power to the people,”

I should hold the uninformed dissent of infidels and fools in contempt, regarding this latter as the infallible source of civilizational decadence. If they succeed in preventing me from implementing my moral vision and living in the society I would form for myself and others, they have succeeded in inflicting their moral vision upon me. They have nullified my moral and social aspirations. They have compelled me to live in a State where a chimerical relativism bulldozes my sublimer views without scruple.

...

That’s the heart of all this. Since we no longer believe that the only basis of rights is objective uprightness, and since we no longer orient our society towards this (allowing the masses, instead, to simply assert their whimsies as “rights”), and since we have founded a society based on the irrational attempt to accord rights to this tangled abyss of error, we are doomed to pretend that we are not inflicting ourselves on each other, despite the fact that any set of social norms—even the norm of pretending to reject norms—inevitably inflicts itself upon everyone. Unless we repent, this already bitter crisis will keep playing out to the bitter, bitter, bitterest end.

I used to think people would wake up. Yet most still seem oblivious to the manifest inevitability of “inflicting a view,” despite the steadily escalating clash of moral inflictions in the name of forbidding moral inflictions over five centuries. This has now entered a critical stage, because, having moved on from disagreement about less obvious points like the Trinity and Papal Primacy, sane people are now being asked to acquiesce even to palpably absurd ideas: collusion in sodomy = holy matrimony; Bruce Jenner = woman; up = down; square = circle.

The only thing for it, is to stop worrying about inflicting “a” view, and to start worrying about inflicting the right one. Until men with just convictions no longer fear to take up the sword of a righteous authority, and to smite those who demand the right to dissent from justice and just authority, the West will continue to tear itself apart with a specious and manifestly prevaricating, passive-aggressive, intolerant “tolerance.”

Elim Sanctuary #fundie psa91.com

As a human who considers the idea of sex with aliens as abhorrent, I am writing to applaud the Singapore censors for banning the video game that included a sex scene between a female human and a female alien. In fact, I contend that the Singapore authorities have not gone far enough.

Given that sex between 2 humans of the same sex was recently evaluated and deemed criminal (Penal code Section 377A), it's clear that we also need a law criminalising alien-human sexual acts -- which in the unnatural order of things, surely ranks higher (or is that 'lower'?). Not criminalising alien-human sexual acts (which I will henceforth call aliensexual acts) could potentially send Singapore society down a slippery slope to where just because it was legal to have sex with an alien, some might eventually come to find it acceptable for all humans to engage in indecent acts with any other human. Our society must send a strong message now that it will not tolerate such behaviour.

This new law should criminalise ALL aliensexual sex, meaning both heteroaliensexual and homoaliensexual acts. This is important since humankind has never actually encountered any actual extra-terrestrial life and we need to take into consideration that beings from outer space might have more than one sex (even earthworms from Earth do) or some might even have no definable sex (yet still want to have sex for some alien reason). This would certainly confuse matters. Thus a blanket law criminalising ALL human-alien sex would thus be the most pragmatic. Not to mention suitably ‘kiasu’. We can call this law Section 377A-L-I-E-N.

I would urge the MPs and NMPs who spoke so eloquently on the topic of not repealing Section 377A to take up the 377A-L-I-E-N cause. Since it is a cause with obvious parallels to the principles they have already so passionately expressed in Parliament. After all, aliens might actually have straw-like appendages for noses from which they might deliver liquids to their stomachs. Thanks to the fiery speech of one very convincingly human NMP, we know that is something we never, ever want to see... or for that matter to hear about ever again.

Religion has been a very useful partner in ensuring that sexual behaviour other than the norm is deemed abhorrent. It will be harder for us to evoke 2000 year-old Christian values in this fight, since aliensexuality isn’t specifically mentioned in the bible as being a sin, let alone mentioned. But this should not stop us. After all, Jesus himself never once said that sex between 2 men was a sin but churches from Zambia to Korea still consider it a sin of the highest order. And for those (potential) pushy aliensexual activists who might contend that His immaculate conception was by it's nature a form of conception between a terrestrial female and a extra-terrestrial being, that is sacrilege. God is not, I repeat 'NOT', an alien! He is a higher being who does not need a spaceship or a teleportation device to fly from one wild wild west-end of the galaxy to the other like real aliens do.

As for other religions, I am afraid I cannot speak in a qualified manner about them as they are alien to me.

Finally I would like to add that we should not condemn any human or alien who fall in love. 'People Like Them' will surely tend to be creative, talented and of course, adventurous. They would, after all be experiencing something quite literally 'out of this world' on a regular basis. These are qualities we want in our worlds to make them better places and so we should treat these aliensexuals with a mixture of pity and compassion. And while the saying "they are born this way and we are born that way" may take on a whole different meaning once we actually know how aliens are born, it would behove us to put up a straight face, look them in the eye (or all 8 if necessary) and say with conviction that "we are all the same, but you could go to jail if we decide you are too uppity".

Bottom line is we need to make space and outer space for these aliensexuals, while (of course) keeping them branded criminals. That would be a neat 'social contract' which will surely ensure that human-to-human heterosexual sex remains universally (and here we really so mean the whole universe) the only accepted kind of sex until the end of time.

David J Stewart #fundie #psycho #crackpot jesus-is-savior.com

HELL

Dr. W. Herschel Ford, 1969

Luke 16:19-31

We have come to a time when few people believe in a literal Hell. Yet it is still in the Bible, and it is still true because the Word of God is true. Men change their ideas but God's truth is always the same. The great Eternal God tells us that there is an eternal Hell for all those who reject Christ and live without God. Preaching on hell has diminished. We hear many light, fluffy sermons about peace, goodness, brotherhood, and the social gospel, but some congregations never hear hell even mentioned.

When Dr. Ramsay Pollard was pastor of the Broadway Baptist Church in Knoxville, one of his young people brought a boy from an Episcopal home to church one night. When the boy reached home after the service, his father asked him how he liked the sermon. "I liked it pretty good," said the boy, "but the preacher used a bad word right there in the pulpit. He used the word 'hell' over and over again." That boy had never heard the word used except in a bad sense. Yes, preaching about hell has cooled off, but hell is as hot as ever. The Bible that tells us of a wonderful heaven also tells us of an awful hell. God created hell just as sure as he created heaven. One is just as real, just as necessary, just as lasting as the other.

Reasons for Preaching on Hell

1. We must preach on hell because it's in the Bible. Do you want you preacher to preach his own ideas or the Word of God. You will reply, "Let him preach God's Word." Therefore he must preach the whole counsel of God. He must preach about heaven and delight in it. He must preach about hell even though he dislikes to do so. The preacher has not been called to tell what he believes, or what his church thinks, or what someone writes in a magazine. He must preach what God says. We know what God says is true. We know that there is a hell. We know that we must warn men to escape the "wrath to come".

So, let today's preacher preach on hell. But let him preach it in love. A great teacher once said, "Young men, you should preach on hell but let it be with a broken heart and tears in your eyes." We must tell men about the everlasting home of the doomed, but we must [sorrow?] over those who are condemned. And we must tell them of a loving Saviour whose death makes it possible for them to avoid hell.

2. We must preach on hell to awaken Christians. People all around us are going to hell. They are getting closer to the flames everyday. But we are asleep; we dont' realize what peril they are in. It may be someone very near and dear to you. If I can get you to see their lost condition and how hell is waiting for them, maybe you'll start praying and working for their salvation.

General Booth of the Salvation Army was speaking to a graduating class in the Army's training school. These young people had been there several years, learning how to work for God and win souls. The general said, "Young men, if I could have had my way, I would never have had you here for these years of training. But I would have put you in hell for 24 hours. I would have allowed you to feel the pains and pangs of the damned, to hear the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. I would have caused you to see how they suffer forever. Then I would have sent you out into the world to warn men to flee from the wrath to come." General Booth was right. If we really knew what hell was like, nothing could stop us from urging men to come to Christ. So we must preach on hell, hoping that people will get concerned for their friends and loved ones who are going there.

3. We must preach on hell to warn sinners. It's an awful thing to remember that you could be in hell in another minute. No doctor can guarantee you of even one minute of life. David said, "there is but a step between me and death." (I Sam. 20:3) I have looked out into my congregation and seen someone in good health, well and strong, and before another Sunday they had gone to be with the Lord. It could happen to you; it could happen to me. What if you are not ready? What if Christ is not your Saviour? This means that you would be doomed forever.

Some people had no use for the Gospel. They hated preachers and laughed at Bible truth. Now they are in hell. Let's talk to one of them for a minute.

"Did you intend to come to hell?"

"No," he answers, "I meant all along to become a Christian and get ready for death. But I waited too long. Death slipped up on me and the next thing I knew I was in hell."

"Were you a wicked man? Were you a drunkard, or a thief, or a murderer or adulterer?"

"Oh no," he answers, "I lived a pretty good life, but I left out the main thing. I left Christ out of my life."

So today we have to preach on hell to warn men. Look all around you, lost sinner. People are dying every day. Your hour is coming. I want you to realize the seriousness of it and come to Christ. This is the only way you can escape hell.

The Certainty of Hell

Today many learned men deny the existence of hell. We have come to a time when we talk glibly about the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God. We imply that everybody loves everybody else and that all men are saved. We think of God as a great big beneficient Santa Claus, smiling down upon all. But God is not the father of all. He is the Creator of all, but not the Father of all. He becomes our father only when we come to Christ. Jesus said in John 8:44, "Ye are of your father the devil...." He was thinking of lost people. John 1:12 tells us that "as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God....." These are the ones who can claim God as Father. They are saved, and they'll never go to hell. But remember this, you are not a child of God until you come unto Him through faith in His Son, Jesus Christ.

A preacher preached a sermon on hell and a woman asked him if he had any children. He replied that he did. "Do you love them?" she asked. "Oh yes," the preacher answered. "Well," the woman said, "what would you think of a father who could save his children from suffering and refused to do it?" "I would say that he was a tyrant and a monster," the preacher said. "That's what you're making God out to be. God would be a monster if He sent his children to hell instead of delivering them by his power." "But lady," the preacher responded, "you're making one mistake. God doesn't have any children in hell and he never will have. The people in hell are the devil's children. All of God's children are in heaven or on the way there. God has a home for His children and the devil has a home for his."

He was right. God is the Father only of those who believe in Jesus Christ....who have been born again. Too many people are presuming on the goodness of God as an excuse for sin. They say, "Let us live as we please. God is too good to punish us." One day they are going to have a rude awakening.

The Bible, God's inerrant Word, tell us that there is both a heaven and a hell. If we receive one and reject the other, we are reflecting upon the truth of God's Word. But we are not left to depend upon the opinions and speculations of men. We must rest upon the infallible truth of the infallible Bible.

You may deny the fact of hell, but that does not change the fact that it exists. Fire burns, whether you choose to believe that it does or not...poison kills, whether you believe it will or not. The world is round, whether you believe it or not....and hell is a reality whether you believe it or not. And if you reject the offer Christ is making today, you will go to hell, whether you believe you will or not.

Now listen to Jesus. He knew the truth about hell. He said that a certain rich man died and went down to hell, and was in torment. He said that the man cried out, "I am tormented in these flames." He said that the man was anxious for his brothers to repent, so that they would not come to that "place of torment."

If a man breaks the laws of the land, what else is there to do but punish him? He is put in prison or sentenced to death. And if men rebel and sin against God and trample his son under foot, what else is God to do but put them in the prison called Hell? Man must exact his penalty for a broken law and so must God.

Suppose that a train carrying 500 passengers was coming down the track and that you and I were 20 miles ahead of the train. And suppose that we found that a trestle over a mighty river had fallen in. As I think of the train approaching, I say, "I must warn them and save their lives." But you say, "I wouldn 't do that, it might scare the passengers. Some of them would faint. Be nice to them and don't disturb them." And the train rushes on to tragedy and the passengers are killed.

Have I done the right thing? Have I been prompted by love? No. If I loved people, I would warn them. And if I love lost souls, I must hold up my Bible and say, "This is God's Word. It tells us that there is a hell for those who reject Christ. Come to him and be saved from such an awful fate."

So I say to you, not out of my own wisdom but on the strength of God's Word, that there is a hell as surely as there is a heaven. And men who reject Christ go to hell as surely as those who accept him go to heaven.

The Bible's Description of Hell

Look for a minute at the biblical expression which describe hell. It is called a Lake of Fire - a bottomless pit - a horrible tempest - a devouring fire - a place of sorrows - a place of weeping and wailing - a place of torments - everlasting destruction - a place of outer darkness - a place where men have no rest - a place where men are tormented with fire and brimstone - a place where the fire is not quenched.

1. It is a place of separation from God. We couldn't exist here a second if we were cut off from God. But think of being in hell, cut off from Him forever. We can pray here; we can call on His name. But prayers will not help in hell, for men will be forever separated from God.

2. It is a place of unsatisfied desires. When we have desires here, we can usually satisfy them in some measure. If a man desires money, there are many ways to get it. If he wants liquor, he can get it. If he wants to satisfy his fleshly nature, he can do it. But in hell, he will be burning up with these desires, and there will be no way to satisfy them. The rich man in hell wanted water, but there was no way to get it. So man, with all of this cravings, will suffer in hell with unsatisfied desires.

3. It is a place of vilest companionship. The worst people, the meanest, cruelest, filthiest people will be there. Let me tell you something that will add to the horrors of hell for some people. They live clean lives, they are cultured and refined, they are good citizens, they are nice to their family and friends. But they reject Jesus Christ. One day they will be cast into hell, to live the rest of eternity with liars, adulterers, murderers, drunkards, homosexuals, and the vilest of creatures. This will be an awful thing for them and will last forever. They can never die and leave these people, and they can't get up and move away.

4. It is a place of hopelessness. Hope is the mainspring that keeps us going down here. When we are sick, we hope to get well. When we are poor, we hope things will get better. When we are unhappy, we hope soon to find happiness. When we have an unpleasant job, we hope to get a better one. But there is no hope in hell. There you just suffer and live in hopeless despair. Over the doors of an ancient prison were these words: "Abandon hope all ye that enter herein." That is nothing compared to hell. There is not one second of hope there. When you are cast into hell, it is forever.

5. It is a place of suffering. I don't think I need to dwell on that. Every Bible description of hell denotes suffering - intense, everlasting suffering. I know a woman who is now suffering greatly. She knows she is going to die soon, so she says, "It will soon be over." No one can ever say that in hell. There suffering there never ends.

6. It is a place of memory. When men are haunted by a bitter memory here, they can commit suicide. But you can't do that in hell; you must live on; you must remember. Your memory will be like 10,000 mirrors around you, recalling all the sins and follies of your life. You will remember how you sold your eternal soul for the pleasures of this world. You will remember every sermon and every song you ever heard, every invitation to salvation, every wooing of the Holy Spirit. You will remember how your mother prayed for you and your friends and family sought to win you to Christ. You will remember how you held back from any decision for Christ. As you remember all these things, this memory will be hell in itself. Oh, to be shut up in hell with memory always fresh.

You will remember that instead of suffering in hell, you could have been enjoying the happiness and bliss of heaven. You will remember the easy terms upon which you could have been saved. If it had been impossible for you to repent and trust Christ, this would have made the agony easier. But you will remember that you could have had eternal life for the asking, and you turned it down. You will remember how cheaply you sold out to Satan, and how you exchanged the joys of heaven for the sorrows of hell.

On this earth you sometimes blame Christians for your own sins. You say that they are a bunch of hypocrites. Then you turn your back on God and continue in your sin. You blame everybody else for you unsaved condition while you're here, but in hell you'll remember that you're the guilty one. Remember now that the issue is between you and God and no one else. You must account to Him for yourself and not for the hypocrites. It will be no one's fault but your own if you deliberately seal your own doom.

It isn't easy to go to hell. Before you get there you must climb over the church, the Bible, gospel sermons, your conscience, your better judgment, the Holy Spirit, and all the providences of God. Then finally you must climb over Calvary and trample Jesus Christ under foot. In hell, you'll remember that you did all of this.

When Does Hell Begin?

It begins at the end of a Christless life. If you go through life without Christ, your soul enters into conscious suffering when you die. I am not saying that you enter into the full measure of suffering at that time. This must wait until all the records are in. Then at the Great White Throne judgment, all the sinner's works will be judged, and the degree of punishment will be determined. Oh, man without Christ, you don't know how close you are to hell. It may be that before midnight your heart will stop beating and you'll go out to begin an eternity of suffering and anguish.

What do you have to look forward to if Christ is not your Saviour? At best, you have only a few more years in this world with its pleasures, its troubles and sorrows. Then comes a death without hope and nothing beyond but everlasting doom. How different is the outlook of a Christian! Just a little while longer here, then the door opens and he enters into the joy of his Lord and a glorious heaven. Oh, friend, what folly to go on without Christ and miss heaven.

How Can We Escape Hell?

You can never escape it through the good works of the flesh. You may do many things to gain the favor of God. You may join a church, be baptized, give your money, help people, live a good life. But these things will not save you. Salvation is an inner thing, a thing of the heart. The Bible plainly tells us that if we believe on Jesus Christ, the doors of hell will be forever closed to us.

You were condemned to die. But God's son could not be satisfied to see you die and go down to hell. He said, "Father, I'll pay the price for him. I'll suffer the pangs of death in his place. I'll satisfy the demands of the law on him." So he went to the cross and paid in full the measure for all of our sins. Now if we accept that payment, our sins are forgiven, we are saved, we become the children of God and heirs of heaven.

Your sins may have been as black as the pit, or you may have lived a good moral life. It doesn't matter - there is mercy for you with the Lord. He was bruised for your iniquities and wounded for your transgressions. He stands today with open arms saying, “Come unto me and I will give you rest.”

END

Guy Malone #fundie alienresistance.org

[I recommend checking out the rest of the site. It's a goldmine of lulz!]

Additionally, Paradox Brown describes one possible scenario this way,

“Beyond this, there is also the “Beast from the Sea”, with 7 heads and 10 horns, which while having a symbolic meaning, is also the fallen angel Abaddon who is released from the Abyss…
It seems likely that this fallen angel Abaddon will take the form of a human man, and not assume a strange “alien” form like other angels seem to do in Revelation. However, this does not preclude people believing that he is an alien. In fact, as the whole world is said to worship him as “god”, it stands to reason that he may claim to be “god” or “creator” of mankind. A human-looking “alien” who claims he himself created humanity in ages past, seems a lie that the world might believe. In fact many “abductees” already believe this. One type of “alien” seen in abduction False Visions is the Nordic. “Nordic aliens” look like beautiful humans, and some people describe them to seem angelic, and they also claim creation of humanity…

“Many people already have gotten the idea into their heads that the Earth may have been visited by aliens in the past, or that aliens might have built the pyramids, etc., have been visiting us for a long time, or even that aliens seeded life here on earth. This theory is known as “panspermia” or “exogenesis”. And some abductees already believe that humanity was genetically engineered by aliens that were here in Earth’s past. The foundation of these ideas is the Theory of Evolution. If people are deceived into thinking Abaddon is an “alien”, who was here in the past, this may be the grand finale of the Theory of Evolution, which has grown beyond a science theory, to be a faith-based religious system. In fact, it seems to be the best candidate out there for the “Strong Delusion” spoken of in 2 Thessalonians.

“As much as believing in evolution is a matter of faith… Exogenesis is also a matter of faith. What if someday people were told by reliable sources, such as the government or mainstream media, that “aliens” were real, here, and from another planet in another solar system? What if someday people were told by reliable sources that the “aliens” had said they guided the evolution of mankind through genetic engineering, or were the ones who originally brought life to the Earth from outerspace? If this were the case, many people would believe it, especially those who already believe in evolution. Because if a person believes that life evolved here on earth, it leads them to think life could have evolved in space as well, and “aliens” could exist… the Theory of Evolution has been very effective in prepping the world to be deceived by Abaddon, should he claim to be an “alien” who was here in Earth’s past.”

Vince Dhimos #wingnut #conspiracy newsilkstrategies.com

The inability of most grassroots Americans to see the whole picture of the US Establishment’s actions and intentions will be the downfall of the US.

Many Trump supporters blindly believe that Trump is pro-Russia but anti-China.

I get many messages from Trump supporters indoctrinated by MAGA propaganda, who say they admire Putin but that they don’t trust China. Some acquaintances of mine who lead “peace” organizations say essentially the same thing, praising Putin but smearing Xi. These people are hopelessly naive to think that Putin would ever betray Xi Jinping because of some foolish suggestion of theirs or their government’s. Look, if you want to be friendly toward Russia, then you have to be aware that Russia’s main hope in the world is China, nothing else. Only China and Russia have the clout and the economic and military power to oppose the war-mongering US-led West, and they both know it. To think that some puny little peace activist or some oversized US official could possibly sway one of them to turn against the other is utter brainlessness.

Of course many MAGA enthusiasts remember that Trump had said in his campaign that he thought he could “get along with Putin,” and they foolishly figured that Trump is a friend of Russia and that the whole “Deep State” wants the poor man to be punished for his supposed friendliness toward Putin. They are partly right because certain prominent Democrats have tried to have Trump impeached on silly charges, but these hyperliberals are not deeply enough embedded in the Establishment to understand the nuances of US foreign policy. Further, these hyperpatriots on the far right have apparently slept through all the anti-Russian sanctions that Trump promoted, and all the flashing lights spelling out that, despite the show of friendliness toward Putin, he is fully engaged in the Establishment’s game of trying to drive a wedge between Russia and China. Of course, Trump and his cronies in Big Government miss the clear signals that this policy of theirs is a non-starter and that Russia and China will not only always be close partners – de facto allies – in their opposition to the US and its sleazy tricks, and the more virulent the anti-China campaign becomes, the tighter their bond will become. This is because Russia and China are a whole lot smarter than the Washington misfits give them credit for.

Since Congress first opened up trade with China in the 80s, the ulterior motive of the biggest Neocons and Neoliberals was to use China as a tool to keep these two countries from forming an alliance that might throw a spanner into Washington's plans for world domination. It never worked out, especially after Putin stepped into the picture. Yet they keep hatching their childish plots to propagandize Russia into abandoning its partnership with China. The very existence of these obvious ploys to weaken their friendship is a major factor that drives them together, but that never occurs to the Washington game players, who never bother to follow Sun-Tzu’s advice to know the enemy.

Just last week, a rumour surfaced in both Israeli and US media that supposedly Putin was ready to turn his back on Assad. It was a brainless attempt to sow chaos by making Assad think Putin was about to ditch him, and was the umpteenth time this kind of fake news had been tried, to no avail, of course. Just a few days ago, Russian officials pointed out that the Russian who started this rumour was not a Russian official and that the rumour was not true.

Now comes Mike Pompeo offering an olive branch to Russia, obviously in an attempt to ensnare Russia into a plot to weaken China. Nobody is falling for it in Russia or China, but that won’t prevent Pompeo from thinking he is a genius for dreaming up this cute little plot.

theicarlyangel #fundie comments.deviantart.com

thanks to them, I call myself homophobic because of how mean and nasty they are. One of them sent me a gay porn fanfiction and I was disgusted, but I dealt with him maturely and blocked him. Now I really DO consider myself homophobic because they're terrifying. As one a cartoon animated character once said, "You think the only people, are people who think like you."
Be proud of being homophobic/hating homosexuality. I get bullied too and been told to die in Hell. :XD: Idgafudge though. :D That just shows them how immature they can be. :) I am never teaching my kids homosexuality is okay, but I will also not let them bully the LGBT. The LGBT is just hurt and confused, if they would just stop being so mean and respect others' beliefs, that'd be great. And accepting a belief is not the same thing as supporting a belief.


[ "Do you know the reasons WHY the LGBT community is often hurt and confused?" ]

Bullied, kicked out of their homes, etc. So yeah, I do know. Why should that change my viewpoint that I don't agree with homosexual rights?

[ "Have you seen the way society treats homosexuals?" ]

No, but I surely do see how homosexuals treat non-supporters of homosexuality.

[ "They are constantly being shunned simply for their sexuality. I've heard of people who can't get a job just for being gay, gay children are being disowned and kicked out of their houses by their own parents, people have even been MURDERED just for the sake of being homosexual. The treatment towards REAL homosexuals is more than just "bullying the LGBT"." ]

Yes, and guess what? People who don't support homosexuality also get shunned simply because of their own belief and viewpoint AND on what they wish to follow. People also get fired from their jobs if they disagree with homosexuality which isn't fair either. Yes, in OTHER COUNTRIES. I did nothing. Don't bash me, someone that's innocent who doesn't wish death upon homosexuals. People have also sent me death threats for not support homosexuality. I guess being on both sides sucks.

[ "Homosexuals aren't just sensitive or butthurt about people having different beliefs. They're not being "mean"; they're biting back." ]

But I did NOTHING. Why bash someone innocent when I did NOTHING? Do you think every freaking non-support of the homosexuality club wishes death upon people or wants them to die or wants them to be bullied? NO. What they're doing is sick and wrong. (I'm talking about the whole biting back issue.) They are butthurt and sensitive when someone doesn't follow their ways, so yeah. There's a HUGE problem here.

[ "Now I'm not saying that I HAVEN'T seen any rabid or immature LGBT members, but the main reasons for homosexuals attacking the homophobes back is NOT simply because of the fact that they don't support LGBT; it's because they're fighting to earn the same rights for not being judged by their sexuality, since enough homophobes have already judged gays simply by their sexuality. Telling a gay person to respect a homophobe's opinion is basically like telling a black person to respect a racist's opinion." ]

A skin color is different from a sexuality. Don't even compare the two. -_- I do not wish for gay/lesbian coupling to be as equal as straight coupling. What REALLY needs to happen here is for the LGBT to fight back the bullies and search for someone who is open-minded and kind. Religious people also get bashed as well. Now, imagine if everyone followed the bible, THEN everyone get along as well, but NO. Not going to happen, want to know why? Because not everyone believes God exists, not everyone thinks he made our world. They believe in the Big Bang Theory. Sure, it would be easier if everyone got along, but not everyone is going to see eye-to-eye and you need to learn to cope with it.

[ I am sorry, but the fact that you are ONLY looking at rabid LGBT members who have attacked YOU on the Internet makes you sound biased. NOT ALL homosexuals attack homophobes for not following their beliefs, but you treat it like they do. You probably still missed my point that LGBT is MORE than just an "opinion". I brought up race with sexuality because... as I said, they are both a matter of human rights. You can't just simply tell gays to respect homophobes' opinions and get over it because "Oh everyone thinks differently and we should all respect each other's beliefs just fine and dandy like that", no. Then can we just simply say that blacks should respect racists' opinions or that women should respect sexists' opinions just because they think differently. ]

First of all, I don't need to be 'educated' when I obviously am going to disagree with you. No, I don't. Also I know that, and I know not all homosexuals are bad and they actually accept me for me. No, a sexuality is NOT human rights. Yaoi and Yuri is wrong and it will forever BE wrong. You may think whatever you'd like, go on. You've got a choice to be gay or not, I don't think they should be as accepted as straight couples because homosexuality IS wrong. I don't know why you bring racism into something that is gay. I don't know enough about racism to debate about that so I am going to leave you be for someone else to argue with you.

[ Really? You're just going to let a serious issue slide like that? Being oppressed/disowned/killed over one little aspect means nothing to you? ]

Ummm... I'm gonna say, yes. Because hey, everyone's been through Hell and that's me included, but you gotta stay boss and move onwards and don't let people drive you down in the dirt. You gotta think happily and positively and whatever has been done has been done. I can't do anything about that. Do I think it's okay for them to be oppressed, disowned, and killed? No. Do I have to worry about it? No. Because I don't live where they are and I can't help them out when I am probably half-way across the world. Like someone said, ya gotta leave the past behind ya. It's not my fault it's still going on. No need to bash on me.

[ So you're basically saying an inferior group is not allowed to be equal as a superior group just based on their sexuality? Welp, I'm sorry, but that IS judging people by their sexuality, saying that homos don't deserve the same rights as straights. You are basically okay with oppressing human rights there. No, I disagree! ]

How on Earth is that judging someone on their sexuality?! JUST HOW? I don't understand your logic, what gave you that conclusion?! I NEVER said I want homosexuals to die and rot in Hell, seriously and that they should be treated like garbage, WHAT made you come to that conclusion? Are you that dense and close-minded or what? Agreeing with someone's rights is not the same thing as accepting someone for who they are.


[ Also, I have often seen you try to use "I hate homosexuality, but not homosexuals" as an excuse. That doesn't even make any friggin sense. It'd be like saying "I hate black skin color but I don't hate black people!" or "I hate vaginas but don't hate women for having them". Here's another reason I bring up sexism/racism to homophobia. Like different races with their skin color, homosexuals can NOT control their sexuality. They can't just wake up one morning and decide "Oh I want to be gay from now on!". Sexuality is a NATURAL aspect that people carry with them from birth or at a very young age. You can't change sexuality, and that is why most homosexuals hate homophobes. They are being oppressed for having a natural trait that they can't control, and that is another form of anti human rights. ]

Okay, first of all, it does make sense. It means I hate same-gender coupling and I could care less about it, but to people who like it or who are gay, then fine. I won't stop you. Be whoever you want. Give me one good reason why I should hate you over your sexuality. Don't you dare compare someone's skin color to a sexuality. Those are TWO different things. Look, I don't think racism is that much of an issue because from where I live, there's not much of it here... and anyways, loving someone versus a color of a skin are two completely different things. Sure, you can't help if someone has a skin color or if someone's gay, that's just who they are. It doesn't mean I hate them, it just means I would either hate their skin color or a sexuality. Just like if someone wore an outfit you personally don't like. You don't have to like it, it's their style and their choice. I for one don't hate anyone for being black/tan. It is not NATURAL. Okay, I can't change a sexuality, but what I can do is be against homosexuality. I am not supporting the idea to oppressed people. Seriously, how does someone NOT support homosexuality made you even come to that conclusion?

Ugh, I am done here. You're way too thick-headed for me. Go do something that makes you happy and positive. We are obviously gonna disagree here and nothing you say will change my mind and I will not change my beliefs just to please you. Have an awesome day and remember: Treat others the way you like to be treated.


[Also, regarding your last comment there; Just because you have not been oppressed it doesn't mean that you simply shouldn't care. There is a thing called empathy. If you could just put herself in a homosexual's shoes for once, you would know that being abandoned and killed just for being gay is not something you can just "think positively and get over with" about.]

I do care and I do feel bad for them, but I shouldn't worry about it. I should worry about myself and what needs to get done and what I can do to help make things a better place. Heck, I've been sexually abused since I was little, been bullied and harassed since the 3rd grade, and have gotten my heart broken. When people debate with me, my heart and liver hurts even more. It REALLY does. Which is why I tend to block people and think happily and positively and worry about myself first. I still need to worry about the work I need to get done and how am I going to succeed in life.

[ When you say that famous line 'treat others the way you want to be treated' , you need to understand that it also means that involves human rights as well. And that no one should be denied them. You wouldn't like your rights being taken away I'm sure. ]

Straight is normal and since two of the opposite gender can make a baby, I feel okay with that. I'm sorry, I disagree. Don't debate about me on this though, just please don't. I really think the LGBT should just stick up for themselves for once and call the cops. Maybe it's not easy, but I am here to help out whenever someone is needed. This involves NOT harming the innocent and shoving their beliefs down others' throats. Sorry, my mind has not changed and I don't want to debate about this.

Caamib, Elliot Rodger, various incels #sexist pastebin.com

(Caamib's translation of an article about an interview between him and German news magazine Der Spiegel in 2014)

Male, single, life-threatening

The man who killed six people in Santa Barbara in May, was a member of an obscure community: So-called Incels live involuntarily as single, and some develop a hatred of women, which can be fatal. Who are these men?

Written by Takis Strangler

Marijan says there are people in his community who hate the summer. In summer they have no choice but to see more of the women, their skin, their bare knees, tight clothes and their breasts. Marijan says he does not look at women, and he was trying to avoid places where he has to see naked female skin. He says: "If you're hungry but cannot eat, you're not going into a street fully loaded with cakes."

Marijan, 26, from Zagreb wishes a girlfried, and because he’s unable to find one, he experiences his life as a torment. He is lonely, but in his loneliness he is not alone. His community meets on the Internet.

He belongs to a group of people who answer to the moniker "Incel", which is the abbreviation for the English term "involuntary celibacy”. Marijan frequents forums in which an own culture of solitude has developed.

People who gather there are almost always men, a few hundred in total. How many there are exactly, can be difficult to estimate, there are English, German, Dutch, Australians and especially Americans.

One of them wrote in the past year on an internet forum: "One day the Incels will realize their true strength and number and overthrow the oppressive feminist system. Imagine a world in which the WOMEN FEAR YOU. "

The author of these lines was student Rodger Elliot. On 23 May this year, Rodger (22), from Santa Barbara, California, recorded a video from himself. He put the camera on the dashboard of his BMW and sat behind the wheel.

He said: "This is my last video. Tomorrow is the day of retribution. The day on which humanity will experience my retaliation. Which you all will experience. In the past eight years of my life, since I reached puberty, I was forced to endure loneliness, an existence full of rejection and unrequited desire. All just because women never felt attracted to me. In the last years I rotted in solitude. "

Now and then Rodger laughed in the camera, a handsome young man with black hair and white teeth. Through the window of his car palm trees were visible.

A short time later, he killed three fellow students in his apartment. Forensic scientists examine which weapon he used. The wounds of the corpses are not clear. The police secured fingerprints on two machetes, a knife and a hammer.

When the men were dead, Rodger took his Sig Sauer P226, his Glock 34 and two semi-automatic pistols, and went out in the neighboring community of Isla Vista. He knocked at the house of a sorority. Nobody answered him.

A few steps further on he shot two students. He went into a snackbar and shot and killed a customer. Then he climbed into his car, drove through the town and shot at passers-by, injuring 13 people.

He rammed his BMW into a cyclist, slammed into a parked car and killed himself with a shot in the head. Rodger left a few videos and a 137-page manifesto. In it are phrases like: "Women are like a plague. They are like animals, completely controlled by their animalistic instincts, and corrupt feelings and impulses. "

Many men who became lone gunmen have, as Rodger had, a sick relation with women in general. Eric Harris, one of the boys involved in the 1999 at Columbine High School shooting in the United States, killing 13 people and killed himself, wrote in his diary: "Maybe I just need to have sex. Perhaps that would change this shit. "

And his accomplice Dylan Klebold wrote: "I do not know what I do wrong with people (especially women) - it is, as if they hate me and scare me. "

During a shooting rampage in Winnenden in 2009 Tim Kretschmer killed eight female students, three female teachers and a male student in his former school.

In the same year the American George Sodini shot three women and wounded nine more, before taking his own life in a gymstudio. Previously, he had written in his blog:

"Women simply don’t like me. There are 30 million desirable women in the United States (is my estimate) - and I find none "!

These gunman leave questions:

Why people had to die? Exists there a connection between the murders and the loneliness of the perpetrators? What has this incel community from the Internet to do with the murders?

Rodger can answer no longer, and even if he could, he could hardly give any clear answers. But there are people who understand a few of his thoughts. Because they share his anger at women and his loneliness. One of them is Marijan (not his real name). You can reach him on his blog, thatincelblogger.wordpress.com.

After a few emails he agreed to meet, in Zagreb, Croatia, his hometown.

Before a pizzeria near the Cathedral a handsome young man, tall, with jet black hair and a three-day beard is waiting, he wears a white, loose T-shirt and cropped trousers.

While shaking hands he does not look one in the eyes. As he sits at a table, in the back, in a quiet corner of the restaurant, he says: "I'm going to look bad in the article, but what have I got to lose? "

He says he was angry after Rodgers rampage. The whole world again only talked about tougher gun laws. But no one thought about other reasons that drove Rodgers to his rampage. No one had thought about incel.

Marijan talks much and long. He doesn’t allow a lot of questions. It is less a conversation but rather a series of lectures, which he conducts with great precision.

Sentence after sentence, lecture to lecture, he leads the listener deeper into his world, deeper into the darkness in which there seems to be no happiness, only immeasurable hatred.

Excerpts from lecture one, subject: Women.

Women are simply designed robots with the desire to procreate. Young women in past generations always had help from their grandmother. She helped with finding a man. She said: This is a good type, he will take care of you. These grandmothers were replaced with the magazine Cosmopolitan. Today women want to marry up. They want improve their station. I would not say that we Incels hate women. But if you were rejected 50 times, then you develop negative feelings, which is normal.

Excerpts from lecture two, Topic: seduction game.

Women can now provide for themselves, so their preferences have changed from breadwinners to seducers. A minority of men has sex with the majority of women. The successful men are the Bad Boys. If you want to have a woman today, you need to become a Bad Boy and lose your ethics.

Excerpts from lecture three, theme: a better world.

I want a society in which a group of men cooperates in total trust. Each man gets a woman. The women are fairly distributed. People are monogamous and marry as a virgin. If a man wants sexual diversity, he goes to a prostitute. Feminists would be made prostitutes in this society. When a man tries to seduce multiple woman, he is killed instantly.

Marijan and other Incels meet on various forums on the Internet. the forum, that Elliot Rodger used, is now closed. Another is a relatively moderate forum called love-shy.com. The members speak there about topics such as pick-up lines, plastic surgery and other ways to escape their despair.

The users of the forum had opened a discussion about Elliot Rodger. On the first page a moderator writes that he condemns the deed and that Rodger did not reflect the philosophies of loveshy.com. The moderator announces that all posts glorifying the deed will be deleted.

One user writes on one of the later pages: "I think about Elliot Rodger ... why didn’t he just rape a slut at gunpoint? "

Another user wrote: "I was always taught to respect women and not to be sexually aggressive. That was a bucket full of shit. All what they really want is a muscle man who fucks them in the ass instead of fucking a real person with feelings”

A user writes on one of the last pages about Rodger: "He is a martyr, in the real sense of the word, one must give him that. "

On the forum Marijan calls himself "Dante Alighieri”, as the medieval poet. Dante started his poem “the Divine Comedy” with the words: "Halfway through the path of human life I found /myself in a devious dark forest/ Because I strayed from the right path."

On the morning after the first meeting Marijan wears the same clothes as on the day before. He says he did not sleep well, because the conversation had him stirred. In the café he ordered a chocolate cake and tells his life story.

Marijan grew up in a middle class family, he has a brother, and both parents were employeed. In school he had many years of little contact with girls. As he started to get interested in girls, they were alien to him. He was afraid of them. "My brain has not developed normally, " Marijan says. He was "love-shy". The American psychology professor Brian Gilmartin invented this term in 1987. The men who suffer from this condition complain about their complete inability to enter into a romantic relationship.

Some men report panic attacks, when they are alone with women, some break out in sweat, others can hardly move anymore when they think of a date, to which they look forward to. Marijan developed a morbid fear of women mingled with a steadily growing demand for a relationship with a woman.

He says: "My standards are very low, as long as the woman is not overweight or is unhygienic. And I have trouble with bad teeth. "

At 19, he met a girl through an SMS Chat. She was 16 and said to Marijan, that she wanted to sleep with him. She showed him how she likes to be kissed. The girl became Marijans girlfriend. He was happy for a moment.

Then she went on vacation over the summer to an island. Before parting, Marijan was angry because he did not want her to go, and told her that maybe they should become just friends.

The girl went anyway. Marijan sent her many SMSes and self-written poems. When she returned, she told him that she no longer liked him. Marijan could not cry for three days. Then when he finally cried, he didn’t go to the university for months and stuffed himself full with chocolate. He didn’t get over it, says Marijan. After one year he wrote on an Incel forum on the internet that he was planning on shooting himself and the girl. The owners of this forum contacted Interpol. Marijan got a visit of the Croatian police.

He testified that he no longer wanted to kill. The policemen nevertheless arrested him and charged him with the suspicion of murder threats and put him in pre-trial detention. After a month a judge released Marijan because he hadn’t threatened anyone directly. The judge said, so tells Marijan: "Maybe you’ll meet another woman just outside the court."

It was followed by two years without a kiss.

As Marijan turned 24 years old, he wrote on an Internet forum that he was a male virgin and looking for a woman, that would deflower him. A Croatian woman contacted him, visited him in Zagreb, slept with him and then said that he was pathetic , as he tells it.

In the years after he managed to bed three other women. "One of them was crazy and
a total bitch, "says Marijan. When she left him for another, he remained lying in bed for months, he says. He thought about suicide, and spent five days in a psychiatric ward.

Later he earned a degree in Medieval History at the Zagreb University. But he never wanted to work, because, as he says, he didn’t want to pay taxes that will reward sluts.

Today he says he no longer dates because he never want to feel disappointment again. He’s been alone for a year.

Most gunmen send out signals before their deeds, signals which could have been interpreted as warnings in retrospect. Allusions, threats, videos on the Internet.

Some gunman stuck a note on the school toilet wall, on which was written: "Tomorrow you're dead." Some men start wearing black clothes and leather jackets before they act. Elliot Rodger wrote his fantasies on blogs.

Marijan says: "There are a lot of broken people waiting to die. And he says:" I do not know when I will snap. " This English word "Snap" has several meanings. It can mean break, tear or explode. Marijan says: "I think Incel that can cause people to shoot or kill with a bomb. "

He smiles, it seems as if he enjoy the moment. Psychologists and psychiatrists that deal with school shootings, try to explain why men kill women, but women almost never kill men. Testosterone was one reason, the researchers say, and gender roles are also to blame, since men are more likely to resolve conflict with force and women are more likely to retreat. At the end they still lack a satisfactory explanation.

The FBI, the American Federal - police, writes in a report about shootings at schools that offenders are often focused on perceived injustices. One goes through life and picks out everything, that offends them. Every stupid comments of a classmate is remembered, each breakup with a girl finds his place in the collection of misery, until someone thinks the whole society is against you.

Many gunman also like to play videogames, where it’s the goal to shoot people’s head off. And many suffer from a narcissistic disorder.

But correlation does not equate causation, so no handy formula like this one can be derived: loneliness + computer games + narcissism = rampage. There are many lonely, narcissistic gamers who never shoot people.

In the life of a crazed gunman something happens, that the psychiatrists and psychologists cannot explain. Evil is sometimes greater than a simple explanation.

The assassin who tried in 1981 to shoot U.S. President Ronald Reagan, said when interviewed: "You know a few things about me, sweetheart, for example, that I’m obsessed with fantasy, but why don’t you understand, that fantasy in my world becomes reality? "

Another gunman from the USA heard voices that told him: "You have to kill all. You have to kill the whole world. "

According to Wikipedia: "The trigger of a rampage is a combination of an advanced psychosocial uprooting of the offender, the loss of professional integration through unemployment, demotion or transfer, increasingly experienced insults and partnership conflicts. "

After all, what Marijan tells about himself, he has few friends, no job, no partner, and he experiences his life as an insult, which becomes greater each passing dayl. Those looking for long enough, will realize that the template fits him.

The last meeting with Marijan is in the evening and takes place in a restaurant, again at a table away from the other guests. It is a warm evening, but Marijan sits down inside the restaurant, the place where no one else sits. He says that he wished that women have the right to vote taken away.

Then he says that he once tried to kill himself with sleeping pills, but one and a half days later he had woken up. His eyes light up with pleasure when he takes on the theme rampage. Then he unleashes the bad thoughts from his mind in the world. He says: "I will cause dissatisfaction. I want to make people angry. I do not think that I'm going to kill people. " After a moment of silence, he says: "I want to spread a little panic. "

He again starts talking about similar topics as on the first day, always it comes to women, and always it comes to himself, he says: "I've started to see women as the filth that they are. " A little later he says: "I do not like people."

This article attempts to explain about the Incel community and the research leads to different men, who identify as Incel. One dreams of to find a farm where Incels can live together. The farm dwellers could agree to import women from Mexico and divided them amongst themselves. One sat with radiant eyes in a small German town and told of how he overcame his fear of women by simply spending more time with women. He looked happy and said it was probably a good idea if the Incel forums were monitored by psychiatrists to ensure that the users can find professional help.

Another hopes to, finally, in his mid-twenties, to kiss a woman. A few of these men seem lost. Nobody seems dangerous. And in end it became clear that there is no Incel community. There are only a few lonely men.

Many men from the Incel community can simply find no partner and look for help on the internet. For them the forums can perhaps save them. For other men the forums offer the opportunity to cultivate their hatred in a group.

For 20 years, such people would remain in their hole, alone with their bad thoughts. Probably a man is difficult to love when he is full of hatred. While carrying these thoughts, it’s possible to want to kill everyone around you and yourself. The potential gunman becomes Incel. And not the Incel a potential gunman.

Elliot Rodger was in his mid twenties when he died, he had visited several therapists, he had been bullied at school, he had his own blog on the Internet.

Marijan is mid-twenties, he has visited several therapists, he was bullied at school, he wrote his own blog on the Internet. One was a mass murderer. The other meets with a journalist and eats chocolate cake.

Rodger left us with the question:

Why did six people have to die? There is no logical explanation. His 137-page manifesto that he wrote before he became a murderer, ends raving about the prospect of killing people. It shall be the punishment for not getting a woman who loves him. Rodger has named the work "My fucked-up world ". He writes that he will retaliate and punish everyone. The last sentence of the manuscript is as follows:

"Finally, I can show true value to the world. "And in the penultimate sentence Elliot Rodger, 22, a young man from California, who had his whole life before him writes: "And it will be beautiful."

Marijan wrote recently a new entry on his blog. He analyzed why he is lonely: "I finally understand the depths of madness and sexism in our society. All the betrayal, the whole heartless and horrible behavior of women were seen as my fault. That is hatred. "

Nathan Rinne #fundie patheos.com

In the Western world, today’s “conservatives” are increasingly libertarian when it comes to matters of sexual morality. Whatever good might come out of a Trump Presidency (full disclosure: I voted for the man), it seems unlikely that the nation’s appreciation for the importance of sexual morality will deepen.

Increasingly in our society, the expectation for any romantic relationship is that it must be sexual or get sexual without much delay – married or not. Going hand in hand with this, political progressives and libertarians both seem basically united on the idea that the choice of each individual is the controlling principle. As some on the Supreme Court told us in 1992, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

This kind of thinking really does not seem all that alien from what the Trump-supporting “free speech fundamentalist” Milo Yiannopoulos has said:

Read what you want.
Watch what you want.
Play what you want.
Think what you want.
Say what you want.

That might not work in a marriage, but otherwise why the hell not? (marriage couldn’t be that important anyways, could it?) Political correctness can die the death it so richly deserves! The sky is the limit!

Yiannopoulos may say that some – by virtue of biological and psychological limitations – can’t be whatever they want to be, but with his emphasis on the individual’s rights, one is hard-pressed to argue why some, at least, shouldn’t give it a shot (please note I say all of this wanting to defend free speech to, while being concerned that not all of our speech is helpful).

And, tying this back to matters of sexual morality, why suppress human nature? Yiannopoulos regularly encourages college students to not hold back in exploring their sexuality with others. And, when asked here about Harvard’s men’s soccer team this past week – namely, about their recently revealed shared Google form treating their female counterparts as sexual objects – Yiannopoulos defended them to the hilt. One might think he could have said, at the very least, that the men’s behavior was to be strongly discouraged – even if the Harvard President had overreacted (read this and this for a balanced perspective). He didn’t say this though – he simply talked about our inability to overcome human nature: basically “men will be men”.

After all, as popular You Tuber Gavin McInnes says (language alert) all men act like this. And likewise, all men must surely know that they are incapable of waiting for sex – and they must be lying if they say they do! Guys like Tim Tebow (what has he accomplished lately?) are surely hypocrites, and evidently, most of the time, just aren’t manly enough to obtain the good things that come their way, grabbing them by the….

But even if we perhaps should respect the real power of human nature here, we also cannot overcome the consequences of human nature. Even if you, by virtue of your social capital and financial resources, appear able to rise above some of the most socially deleterious effects of sexual licentiousness, many – particularly the most vulnerable – can’t. And all of this contributes to the fracturing and weakening of the family, which one would hope any conservative would understand. This glorification of our choices when it comes to matters sexual, of course, makes the goal of marriage – and the commitment involved therein – less and less of a possibility for many (listen to Jennifer Roback Morse here).

Yiannopoulos may have once written about the dangers of pornography in the past (see here and here), but these days, he seems to have left that concern behind (a necessary casualty of his message and newfound fame?). Now, ironically, it is some on the left (some!) who are bringing up the critical importance of this issue (see here and here for example). Speaking merely from a tactical standpoint, perhaps persons like Yiannopoulos should find a creative way to address this, before being outflanked by progressives concerned about the truth of these matters?

So, what does any of this have to do with the theory of evolution – and sophisty?! Hang on… we getting there right now….

First of all, a popular meaning of the word sophistry is “the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving”. It is a simply a matter of fact that men are capable of controlling themselves (though, if I may say, we seem to live in an age that likes to play with the fire of temptation).

Second, in the theory of evolution, all is about sex (and death): everything comes down to being able to pass on one’s genes to the next generation. Supposedly, evolution “designed” us for this.

Third, and here is the meat of my point, in a recent edition of the Atlantic, an article called “The Case Against Reality” lays out the implications of the theory of evolution (spurred on by what I call the MSTM, the modern scientific and technological mindset) in a very helpful manner. An interview with cognitive science Donald D. Hoffman is featured, where he argues that “the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses… the world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality” (as the Atlantic sums him up).

In short, Hoffman believes that “evolution itself [is] to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by driving truth to extinction” (italics mine). It is not accurate perceptions which helps us to effectively pass on our genes but “fitness functions,” i.e. “mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction.” “Suppose,” he says, “there’s a blue rectangular icon on the lower right corner of your computer’s desktop — does that mean that the file itself is blue and rectangular and lives in the lower right corner of your computer? Of course not… And yet the desktop is useful.”[ii] Hoffman says that this is “conscious realism,” meaning that “Objective reality is just conscious agents, just points of view.”

And hence, evolution’s connection with classical understandings of sophistry is complete. Perhaps Christians taken with evolution should take evolutionists like Daniel Dennet more seriously when they assert that it is a “universal acid” that “eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways” (see here).

The Sophists of the ancient world said that our base assumption should be that certain truth and goodness is unattainable. With change being the only constant and knowledge an illusion, everything is about building consensus through persuasion. The ethical sophist – assuming positing such a person is reasonable! – would persuade on the basis of arguing for things that are not true, but possible and perhaps probable…

How does this not sync perfectly with what Hoffman is saying, a “match made in heaven,” or hell, as the case may be? Can’t he – or anyone else – see the implications of this thinking for human reason itself?

Let’s break it down:

In brief, Hoffman, assuming temporal survival is what life is all about, says that it is our “fitness functions,” and not accurate perceptions, which help us to pass on our genes.
Therefore, it follows that being able to create grand, plausible sounding theories – whether they are true or not – also can be reduced to being about the survival value they have (in that they attract partners who know brains are valuable – and who can pass on genes).
Therefore, as long as one can avoid the impression one is totally disconnected from matters of concrete fact, disqualifying one’s self in other’s eyes, the sky is the limit!
As Hoffman says, our perceptions are “tuned to fitness, but not to truth”. Why would our capacity to construct narratives, our story-telling imaginations, not be as well? Why would this also not figure into the all controlling “fitness function”?
So, if this is the case, why believe the theory of evolution is true at all? It might be useful for passing on genes, but true?

And yet, of course, what Hoffman is doing in his interview – what he cannot avoid doing even if he might protest he is doing it – is putting forth a truth claim. Truth, in one sense, is “driven to extinction,” where, in another, it rises from the ashes reborn. “Believe me,” he is saying… “I am speaking with some real authority on these matters.” The ancient sophists played the same game… the truth is that we cannot not really know truth… what is important is that you listen to me, noticing how smart I am…

And so, as evolution and truth evolves, so does “our” (Not mine! Not yours I hope!) understanding of individuality, sex, and gender.

To state the obvious, given his assumptions, is that not just his “fitness function” speaking? And if he opposes me socially and politically and I fight back, evidently with my own fitness function that still falsely believes there is truth, just what hope for common ground do we now have?

I’m calling B.S. I’m calling out these new sophists for the danger to society and culture that they are. Absolute. Total. Nonsense.

CrossRufus #dunning-kruger #conspiracy #fundie #crackpot #pratt reddit.com

One thing I have been increasingly taking notice of is how e-skepticals - you know, the "science, reason, facts and logic" crowd, people you can easily find at internet communities such as "Fundies Say The Darndest Things", "RationalWiki" and basically most left-wing forums - tend to be extremelly vain, ego-driven and arrogantic. For instance, let's illustrate this with a hypothetical situation: imagine it's scientific consensus that a few million years ago there was a frozen continent named "Lumumba" and that a random man named Edmund contests the existence of Lumumba; according to the skepticals Edmund is a mentally unstable idiot whose brain lives in an alternative reality. At a first glance it could seem fair to regard him as such, he's in disagreement with thousands of individuals who are educated on that field after all, right? However, let's take into account that Edmund currently has no means to verify these claims by himself (like most people) and it basically has no relevance at all to his practical life; having that in mind, one should start to question if it really makes sense to mock and belittle that person. Why must he believe what a bunch of people with diplomas tell him on the matter in order to not be deemed as intelectually inferior? If having an inquisitive mindset is so valued and praised by the "facts and reason" crew then why people like Edmund are supposed to just accept everything scientists say? Why does that say anything about his mental health if believing or not believing in Lumumba causes literally zero negative impact in his life or in the lives of others? The whole issue here comes down to the fact that these skepticals aren't really interested in promoting scientific thinking and skepticism but rather in feeding their own ego and trying to affirme themselves as smart and enlightened in comparison to the "idiotic science-denying bigoted cranky fundies"; that's why you have youtube videos with titles such as "physicist reacts to flat-earthers" and websites such as the ones mentioned at the beggining (RationalWiki and FDST), it's all a huge group session of intellectual masturbation.

And no, I am not strawmaning, that hypothetical situation is based-off something quite similar I saw on a FDST thread: it was a comment that labeled anyone who took Pink Swastika (a book about alleged homosexuals in the Nazi Party and the connection between homossexuality and the fascist ideology) seriously was clinically insane. I mean, really? The view one has about things that happened more than seven decades ago in another continent is really so relevant to the point of determining their mental health? I can kind of understand cases like the mockery of flat-earthers (well, actually I don't, thinking that the Earth is flat causes no damage to anyone, so why not just let them have their belief instead of starting this whole outrage?), since it's actually possible to verify by yourself that the Earth cannot be flat (for example, by looking at the clouds in the sky or realizing that people in other countries are under different time-zones), but having this same attitude towards something so inexact, imprecise, malleable and distant such as the study of the past is an attestation of arrogance.

"You clearly don't understand how science works, the scientific method is extremely rigorous and scientists have to stand scrutiny from their peers in order to have their findings accepted as factual. If you have doubts about a certain topic you can simply study and verify it by yourself" Ok then, I will study it by myself and come to my own conclusions, but until I'm in my right to have doubts and having them instead of just blindly accepting everything the scientific community says (like, let's be honest, everyone does) doesn't make me intelectually inferior to anyone. However, let's not ignore that it would take me years and years of study to "understans" just one specific topic, that I would still have to just accept as true everything that my peers from the hundreds of other fields say (no, you can't seriously expect someone to specialize on everything in a lifetime, come on) and that even in my own field I would have to assume as true the countless premises that it's based upon (for example, an archeologist has to accept this or that method of dating as the most precise so everything he has learned so far can make sense - this example may not be accurate but I just wanted something to illustrate what I meant)

"Yikes, the Dunning-Kruger is strong on this one. Ok Mr. Nuanced Contrarian, so if all doctors said that taking poison is harmful for your well-being and may possibly culminate in your death but a local charlatan claimed it would give you superpowers then you would take both claims as having the same weight just because you can't verify it by yourself first?" No, I would absolutely stand with the doctors on that one; however, that's not because they are science-people but rather due the fact I know from my own experience that poison is harmful (by seeing all the cases of people who took it and experienced negative effects). So yes, I agree that it's stupid to do certain things when you can verify with YOUR OWN EYES that it won't have a good outcome (not vaccinating your kids, for example)

"We know that science is accurate because it works" Why? Where that implication comes from? Just because a certain institution or group of people creates things that work and improve our lives it doesn't necessarily mean their explanations and theories behind their "inventions" are true; if that is the case then the healers of some amazonian tribe are correct in their beliefs about spirits just because some of their cures are effective?

"If you are so against science then why don't you just drop your phone, leave everything behind and go live in the wilderness?" Again, why? Where that implication comes from? Just because I don't accept as true some explanations of reality that the scientific community come up with it doesn't mean that I think everything related to science is evil and that we should reject all of it's inventions

"You are thinking of scientists as 'the others' when in reality they are just people like you. Also, it would make no sense for scientists to try hiding something from the public when in fact they would receive prestige for exposing the findings of their peers as false" Well, what if they are indeed 'the others'? I mean, who knows? There could be a lobby to push for some agenda or a certain conspiracy to cover something up; this may sound like silly conspirationism but you can't really know for sure. As for the "scientists will seek to disprove their peers instead of covering them up" part, it's just an assumption, there is no reason to say that scientists will necessarily have such mindset; it can be true but it could also be true that anyone who questioned the consensus would risk getting ostracized or even losing their diploma and their source of income - I mean, who knows?

"Science may not have the answers for everything but that doesn't mean your cranky nutjob theories are on the same level of accuracy and respectability" Well, that's a "case by case" situation since there are many different "cranky nutjob theories" out there, but to spare some words and space let's say that such affirmation is mostly true. What then? Just because the alternative theories are wrong it doesn't mean all criticism is invalid. Furthermore, you have to have in mind that different worldviews often come from differing premises and assumptions; science, for instance, is based on methodological naturalism, the assumption the explanation for every topic investigated must be a natural/material/non-supernatural one, while a religious person, for example, takes into account the existence of the divine and thus will likely come up with an alternative and supernatural view of the same phenomenon (what you mockingly label as "goddidit"). Yes, these people have a faith they embrace and because of that they think differently, what's your problem with that? Why can't you just let them be? Oh, I forgot: you guys are desperate for self-affirmation and in constant need of feeling smart and enlightened in comparison to the "cranks, bigots and fundies", right?

AnkhMorpork #conspiracy abovetopsecret.com

Somewhere I'd read a story about an island in the Pacific Ocean where the US Government (Naval Intelligence) had arranged a rendezvous with an advanced ET Civilization/Race, and it appeared credible (need to go back and do more research, and perhaps someone here might help shed light on that story), and of course there's all the rumors about Area 51, Majestic 12, Apex of the Trilateral Commission, etc, and all of this got me to thinking about how I'd handle that kind of "op" if I were the secret government involved in alien contact..

First thing that would come to my mind would be an exchange of some kind to get some of our people aboard their spacecraft for a "tour", to then be debriefed in secret upon return, with an agreed upon 2nd meeting scheduled for some time in the future.

Which leads me to suspect that even now, as we speak, human beings are living on alien worlds either in this galaxy or any another, since if they're getting here, the Spacetime Continuum doesn't have the same kind of meaning that we think it does and thus, they could be coming from anywhere just as easily as they could within a sphere of 100 lights years.

Could you imagine?

Would you volunteer for such an assignment?

Leave it all behind and risk getting killed if/when you ever return?

Perhaps the aliens, knowing full well that the returning humans would be killed because of their knowledge, made the deal that people could come along on the caveat that they would not be returned, yet they still volunteered to go along for the ride.

If we've made contact, then I think it's fair to assume that this is in fact the case in some form or another.

Which is why I think that if/when we ever take to the stars that by the time we get to other inhabitable worlds, we'll already be there in one form or another to greet us, from world to world even in the same sequence that we make the discoveries of each new habitable world.

Such a scenario would give new meaning to the saying "the first shall be last and the last, first".

If they are out there, then they've organized according to some sort of interplanetary legal framework about what they can and cannot do, or this Earth as we know it, would already be colonized and we would not be here as we are.

We are either alone, or, on the threshold of an interplanetary and intergalactic society, the implications of which would cook our noodle, and even still there would be dishes to do and a job to go to in the morning.

Life would go on, but nothing would be the same if ever we come into this domain of what might be called a "long Earth" with iterations and variations strewn across the cosmos, and with the means to get there from here, so it would be from there to here, to everywhere.

The UFO phenomenon, if of those that are of the "unexplainable" variety, some really are ET spacecraft, suggests in no uncertain terms that FTL travel is possible, and even happening.

The implications of this are utterly astounding.

Do people just like you and me look up at a different POV of the heavens with something other than the Milky Way Galaxy arcing across the sky like a river?

And if not like us, how do "they" see the world and themselves and even us, if they've discovered us already?

And wouldn't it be funny if they all turned out to be true Christian believers/brothers ie: understanding that an indomitable love rules the roost, with it's own implied mutual commitments and obligations and even the reason that they didn't invade or colonize our world.

Would we abide by the same rules when we get there, and will there perhaps already be teachers waiting for us when we do?

That would really freak people out, if everywhere we went we were greeted by humanoid forms ready to teach us about the root and source of all our character defects so that we cannot become a destructive force as we move to the stars. I mean just look at what we did to Iraq..

Can we be trusted, human beings. That I think is the question that the aliens ask themselves as they "man" the quarantine while giving a handful of people the ride of their lives..

WorldGoneCrazy #fundie disqus.com

(attempting to prove God exists)

Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God:

Premise 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2. The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe had a Cause.

God is the (first uncaused) Cause. We know that since space, time, and matter had a beginning at the Big Bang, this Cause MUST transcend space, time, and matter. In other words, the Cause must be spaceless, timeless, and non-material. We also know that this Cause MUST be immensely powerful, right, in order to create 100 billion galaxies out of (literally) nothing?!? We can also surmise that this Cause must be personal, in some sense, as It has chosen to create, and only personal agents can create, to our knowledge. Moreover, this Cause has chosen to create (or allow the creation of) persons (that's us!) - indicating strongly that It is personal.

This Cause is also self-existing, right? We know that either the universe (or multiverses, if they exist) are self-existing OR the Cause of same is self-existing. (Those are really the 2 options we have.) But, since the secular data points toward the universe having a beginning (and overwhelmingly so), then we must conclude that the First Uncaused Cause is self-existing.
There is also a way to argue that this Cause is immutable or changeless. Let's not get into that too much, but it's worth thinking about on your own, OK?

So, we have: spaceless, timeless, non-material, immensely powerful, personal free will, self-existing, changeless. That sounds a LOT like Yahweh, no? All we are really missing is omnispresent, omniscient, and holy. There are arguments there as well, particularly for the first two. In summary, we have e stablished, through metaphysical analysis only, many of the prime characteristics of the Judeo-Christian God (the Father in Christian theology) Yahweh. So, He was there in the Kalam argument all along.

Moral Argument for the Existence of God:

Premise 1: If there is no God, then objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective evil exists.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, objective moral values DO exist.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, God exists.

Here are 3 more reasons to back up Premise 1:

1. Under naturalism, the only things that exist are those things described by and measured with science. Objective moral values do not apply. You cannot locate moral values in a test tube.

2. Why would human beings, under Darwinism, have any objective moral value? We are, in that view, just byproducts of macro-evolution and social conditioning - no objective moral values there. In fact, rewind the clock and play evolution over again, and you will, based on the randomness involved, get something entirely different:

“If … men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be any doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.” Charles Darwin, “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” p. 100.

3. As for moral duties, we would have no more basis for them than any other animal. That means that, as in the animal kingdom, we can kill or rape for any reason whatsoever - animals are not restricted by some sort of "traffic cop" in doing so. There is no one saying "OK, Mr. Lion, you can take out that gazelle, but only if you eat all of him." :-)

Conclusion 1 is based on identity with Premise 2. If objective evil exists, then at least one objective moral value (evil) must exist. So, it is a restatement of Premise 2 based on the identity function of logic, perfectly acceptable. All we have to show Conclusion 1 is to find just one objective mor al value, and we did - objective evil.

Once we have Premise 1 and Conclusion 1, then by Modus Tollens, we necessarily have Conclusion 2. That's the second proof for God's existence.

Fine-Tuning Argument for the Existence of God:

Premise 1: The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
Premise 2: It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is due to design.

Now, it must be noted that both Dawkins and Sir Martin Rees reject the possibility that it is due to physical necessity because the fine-tuning constants are independent of the physical laws of the universe. That is a key point: the G in the universal gravitational formula could, in theory, be anything - but if it were much different, no life whatsoever could exist - not just life as we know it, but no life.

Additionally, we would be forced, if what you say is true, to conclude that a life-prohibiting universe is a physical impossibility. That just seems to be a fantastic conclusion that would require some evidence. Why couldn't there exist a universe with no life whatsoever? Huge parts of our universe cannot support any kind of life. You would have to share some burden here yourself to provide a line of thought for why this might be true.

Even under M-theory, or superstring theory, the overwhelming number of possible universes are life-prohibiting. So, such a theory would seem to compound the need for showing physical necessity. It is an interesting line you are taking here, but I would like to see a little bit of evidence to support why that is true. I have provided several arguments against it, but I am open to your views in support of it.

ChocolateHead #sexist reddit.com

A 14-year-old Afghan mother washing her new baby
image

I'm gonna play devil's advocate and defend Afghan culture. Here come the downvotes.

14 years old is not the same there as it here. Their whole whole conception of what it means to be an adult and a child are completely different than ours. They don't have arbitrary lines defining when it's ok to vote (18), to drive (16), to drink (21), etc... because they don't have any of those things. They also don't have mandatory public school or college like we do, so they don't see a 14 year old as a "child" like we do. A 12 year old girl probably has all the same responsibilities in a household as an adult woman would have because she has nothing else to do. Now, I'm not defending sex with pre-pubescent girls, but if you want to understand what they're thinking, you have to understand their surroundings.

This can't be blamed completely on Islam. This type of thing is also partly (in my opinion, mostly) due to living in a tribal culture with no real law, institutions, media, education, etc... If you go to any backwards tribal culture you will see things that horrify you. I personally think the stuff that goes on in China is much more horrifying than this.

It's common to hear Westerners say things like that men over there "hate" women, "oppress" women, etc... You can disagree with how men treat women over there, but in their mind they think they are protecting and loving women. Now, once again, you can disagree with what they're doing, but ascribing it to evil motivations is wrong in my opinion.

I may be wrong, but this type of thing isn't common. I think this only happens in the most rural, uneducated, tribal areas. Educated city dwellers don't live like this, so it's not right to stereotype their entire region based on stuff like this.

Here's my most controversial defense: women are ready to have sex when they hit puberty. They're gonna do it no matter what. The American way is to have sex with people your own age clandestinely, oftentimes without your parents knowing or approving, and teenage pregnancy and disease is rampant here. At least there when they hit puberty they enter into a "loving" (you can obviously judge for yourself how loving those marriages are) relationship with a committed partner with approval from their friends and family. Girls in America get dumped a million times before they are 25, have sex with multiple partners, suffer emotional damage and self-esteem issues, etc... I'm not saying the way they do it is better, but it does have some positives that we overlook because we are so confident our way is better.

various #fundie ummah.com

Should a marriage in an infidel country be segregated?

Family refusing to have a segregated wedding

What would you do if your parents and/or your prospect refuse to have a segregated wedding because it's an alien concept in your country and they don't want to make the guests uncomfortable? Would you call the wedding off or is it something that can be compromised?

Avice follows . . .

It is a test of prioritising ppl's wishes over Allah's requirements...your level of iman will determine who wins...

I personally wouldnt go for a man who prioritises ppl over his love and respect for Allah.... who knows, if you find a lady with the same mindset you'll both insist on your choice and make it happen! Having similar mindset can save lots of future troubles...

1. As you're the male, your parents do not have a right to tell you how to get married. You're old enough to get married, that means, you old enough for responsibilities, so you respect your parents as in you be nice to them, but that doesn't mean they control/own you.

2. Why would you want to get married to someone who doesn't understand something as basic as segregation?

3. If segregation is an alien concept in your country, does that mean Islam is also an alien religion in your country?

4. If Islam is an alien religion in your country, I don't think you have a choice in that case, unless you move out of that country and go into a country to get married where Islam and segregation are not alien concepts.

5. Or do you live in a country where people just call themselves Muslims but don't follow Islam?
...............

Segregation as prescribed by Islam is definitely an alien concept in certain Muslim cultures.

...................

Get an Islamic marriage, but that's it. Don't have your little party afterwards if people insist on you sinning.

........................
We're talking about culture here, most people never give up on their cultural beliefs, so I feel you're fighting a losing battle, a battle you can't win. I feel the only way you can win this battle is to not fight it, but instead sidestep it, as in, if you leave the entire culture, leave the country, and move to a country which doesn't have similar cultural beliefs. To fight a battle based on culture is extremely difficult and lonely!

.....................

I would like to comment too. As told by my beautiful people.
Just think that whom you want to invite for your marriage function Angels by true Islamic way of marriage or shayateen by nowadays cultural weddings which are totally against islam. Choice is yours that how you want to start your new life by blessings of angels or with in shayateen's presence. I believe nowadays divorce ratio is high because we are so much in to displeasing Allah swt and inviting shayateen instead of angels.
...................................
Follow the link for more fundie

Adam Ford #fundie adam4d.com

Jesus, Paul and the theological liberal

Jesus: And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the Kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Hell, where the worm never dies and the fire never quenches. (Matthew 9:47)

Strawman: Whoawhoawhoa Jesus, WHOAAA! Don't you know what that sounds like to people ?

(=Addressing the audience=)

Strawman: Alright guys, so check it out. I know that sounded super bad, but Jesus didn't REALLY mean what it seemed like he obviously meant with all that ugly sin and hell and fire and stuff. There's metaphors, smiles and just WAIT until you here about this one garbage dump...

Next panel.

Paul: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, - (1 Corinthians 6:9)

Strawman: PAUL! Wait man! Did you really have to include THAT one ?

(=Addressing the audience=)

Strawman: Alright guys, wow, yeah that def sounded waay not OK. I know it sounds like Paul was talking about men who practiced homosexuality when he said "Men who practiced homosexuality" but there are different ways of looking at it, lemme just explain it to you okay ?

Next panel.

Jesus: Just as Jonah spent three days and nights in the belly of a fish, so will the Son of Man spend three days and nights in the heart of- (Matthew 12:40)

Strawman: (bursts out laughing) JESUS! So embarrassing!!! Please just stop now and let me explain this to people.

(=Addressing the audience=)

Strawman: I know Jesus just validated as literal one of the craziest sounding stories of the Old Testament but listen: he didn't mean it LITERALLY, you know ? Jesus would never say something that contradicts science - he's just referring to this story as, like, a Jewish legend or something. Everyone knows there's no way a dude could live inside a huge fish for three days! Even God can't make that happen.

Next panel.

Paul: But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (1 Galations 8:9)

Strawman: PAUL! BRO! Harsh sounding for reals.

(=Addressing the audience=)

Strawmen: Wow Paul can be an animated fellow huh! I know that sounded pretty bad but listen, it's not as it seems: God's love is big enough to cover ALL people and by what I mean by that is whatever you or o want to be true about God and how he deals with people is true. Okay :)

Next panel.

Jesus: Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. (Luke 9:26)

Strawman: JESUS! Ugh, that sounds so bad!!!

(=Attempts to address the audience=)

Strawman: Alright look, Jesus didn't really mean that he just... (Pauses before glancing to the side) Hey you didn't really mean that, right ?

Luposian #fundie boston.com

On the LHC again. also how is this person not in a mental ward.

I suspect that if we Christians are meant to see any of Revelation come to pass, this LHC may be how it happens. Ever wonder how on earth such strange horrible creatures as mentioned in Revelation, which attack man or cause other mayhem, could possibly exist? Most Christians say it's allegorical (I think I'm using that word right), not literal. But... what if this device actually creates a rip between the physical realm and the spirit realm and we start seeing manifestations of these horrible creatures?

Or maybe the radiation and all whatnot, cause massive mutations. Maybe demons help the process along. Insects live very short lives. The mutatable life cycle of an insect is relatively short. Weeks to months, on average. What if those flying insects with scorpion tails and crowns and whatnot, actually are mutated, demon possessed creatures, as a result of this LHC doing it's thing?

Could a small black hole, formed on earth, suck space debris down to earth, causing large rocks "about the weight of a talent" (50-100 lbs. each, from what I've read) to hit?

This device might very well open us up to seeing stuff we never before imagined. Stuff that would make make us ALL cower in fear... saying "My God, what have we unleashed upon ourselves?!?"

I sense this LHC device may be the beginning of sorrows, the likes of which NONE of us can imagine... but I guess we'll all see soon enough, if that happens...

Plenty of people were warned... can't say they weren't. Mankind is definitely playing with forces of which they ought not. It may well be our ultimate undoing. And, that undoing, would all be (interestingly enough) noted down in a little book called... the bible.

But, I must admit... the thing is unfathomably MASSIVE! The arial pic shows just how big it is. The inside is huge, but... the rings... MILES in length! How long has this thing in contruction? Years? And to think I hadn't heard of it until just this year! Wild.

"A danger foreseen is half avoided."

Unknown Author #fundie ocii.com

The possibility exists that living dinosaurs never existed. "Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth” (Mark 9:23).

The dinosaur industry should be investigated and questions need to be asked. I am unaware of any evidence or reason for absolutely believing dinosaurs ever were alive on earth. The possibility exists that the concept of prehistoric living dinosaurs has been a fabrication of nineteenth and twentieth century people possibly pursuing an evolutionary and anti-Bible and anti-Christian agenda.

The past existence of living dinosaurs has not yet been proven. Questioning what is being told instead is a better choice rather than blindly believing the dinosaur story.

unknown #fundie au.answers.yahoo.com

Atheists: Evidence science is wrong?

The possibility exists that living dinosaurs never existed. "Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth” (Mark 9:23).
The dinosaur industry should be investigated and questions need to be asked. I am unaware of any evidence or reason for absolutely believing dinosaurs ever were alive on earth. The possibility exists that the concept of prehistoric living dinosaurs has been a fabrication of nineteenth and twentieth century people possibly pursuing an evolutionary and anti-Bible and anti-Christian agenda.

The past existence of living dinosaurs has not yet been proven. Questioning what is being told instead is a better choice rather than blindly believing the dinosaur story. Issues should be carefully considered for the sake of good science. "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called” (1 Timothy 6:20).

The choice between believing the word of man, the evolutionists, or the word of God, the Bible, is a matter of faith.

Arthur Christian #fundie loveforlife.com.au

[Full text is interesting, but long. This is just the conclusion]

Conclusion

The possibility exists that living dinosaurs never existed. "Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth” (Mark 9:23).
The dinosaur industry should be investigated and questions need to be asked. I am unaware of any evidence or reason for absolutely believing dinosaurs ever were alive on earth. The possibility exists that the concept of prehistoric living dinosaurs has been a fabrication of nineteenth and twentieth century people possibly pursuing an evolutionary and anti-Bible and anti-Christian agenda.

The past existence of living dinosaurs has not yet been proven. Questioning what is being told instead is a better choice rather than blindly believing the dinosaur story. Issues should be carefully considered for the sake of good science. "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called” (1 Timothy 6:20).

The choice between believing the word of man, the evolutionists, or the word of God, the Bible, is a matter of faith.

Art Corvelay #crackpot #pratt #ufo theflatearthsociety.org

How is assuming a meteorite anymore valid than assuming nuclear weapons? We know both things exist and we know that both things cause iridium contamination. Nuclear weapons also cause uranium soil contamination, which is found all across these blast sites.

Like I've explained before, you're saying I'm speculating but you are also speculating as well by assuming these blasts were caused by meteorites. You cannot personally verify that they were caused by meteorites, and the same evidence you claim proves it was meteorites also proves it as nukes.

Additionally, if these blasts were indeed caused by meteorites, then why is it that we are no longer being bombarded by huge meteorites all the time like in the past? Literally, some of these impact craters happened very soon after the other... how is this possible? Did we just magically become immune to meteors all the sudden? I don't think so.


Also, "an incandescent column of smoke and fire, as brilliant as ten thousand suns rose in all its splendour"is a pretty close representation of a nuclear blast. I don't think you can get much clearly than that besides straight up saying "it was a nuclear blast". This is describing a mushroom cloud... and don't say "volcanoes", because they were not in the area being described in the ancient texts. You're reaching if you think that this passage is describing anything other than a nuclear blast.

Terry Watkins #fundie av1611.org

According to the book The Emerging Generation, the average teenager consumes 6 hours a day of rock music! It is their most devoted companion. It's their teacher, preacher, and guiding light! It dictates every detail of their life — from what they wear . . . to what they believe! Dr. Alan Bloom, in the The Closing of the American Mind, writes:

"It is their passion; nothing else excites them as it does; they cannot take seriously anything alien to music." (The Closing of the American Mind, p.68)

Rock music is more than just music — IT'S THEIR LIFE!

I want to take you on a tour through today's rock music. And if think rock is still — "I Want to Hold Your Hand" — you're in for the shock of your life!

Homosexual rock star, David Bowie in Rolling Stone magazine (Feb. 12, 1976), stunned the music world, when he stated:

"Rock has always been THE DEVIL'S MUSIC . . . I believe rock and roll is dangerous . . . I feel we're only heralding SOMETHING EVEN DARKER THAN OURSELVES." (Rolling Stone, Feb. 12, 1976)

(...)

Tommy, your typical, all-American, fourteen-year-old, one Saturday night, slit his own mother's throat, and then gouged her eyes out. Tommy then slashed his wrists and cut his throat from ear-to-ear, with an intensity that nearly decapitated him. Mayor Fran Slayton said, "There's just something that's bothering me about this situation. It bothers me that a good kid like that can go in two weeks." Tommy's father said, all week his son had been singing a ROCK SONG, "about blood and killing your mother."

Dr. Paul King, medical director of the adolescent program at Charter Lakeside Hospital, in Memphis Tennessee, says more than 80 percent of his patients are there because of rock music. He says, "the lyrics become a philosophy of life, a RELIGION."

One of the most popular groups in rock history is Slayer. Slayer sing of themselves, as: "Warriors from the gates of hell . . .
In lord Satan we trust." Slayer's albums sell in the millions! And song after song — IS PRAISE TO SATAN! Their song "Hell Awaits" says:

"Jesus knows your soul cannot be saved
CRUCIFY THE SO CALLED LORD
He soon shall fall to me
Your souls are damned
Your God has fell to slave for me eternally
Hell awaits."
The beginning of their song "Hell Awaits" contains an obvious backwards message. When played forward, nothing but garbled noise is heard, but when played backwards — you hear the real message — "JOIN US, JOIN US, JOIN US" — over and over!

Does this music effect young people?

Trey Azagthoh of Morbid Angel claims to be a REAL vampire, and while playing onstage — he actually bites himself and then drinks his own blood!
The song "Stairway to Heaven" by the group Led Zeppelin is the most popular song in rock history. One line of the song, says, "you know sometimes words have TWO MEANINGS." They should know — the song is drenched in satanic backmasking! One part when played forward, says: "Yes, their are two paths you can go by, but in the long run there's still time to change the road you're on."

But when played backwards, you clearly hear: "IT'S MY SWEET SATAN . . . Oh I will sing because I live with Satan." This is the number one song in rock history! Just a coincidence — not hardly! Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin is a devout follower of satanist, Aliester Crowley. One of Crowley's satanic teachings, learn to cast unsuspecting spells on people by saying them backwards! Zeppelin's song "Houses of the Holy", they sing, "Let the music be YOUR MASTER/ Will you heed the master's call/ Oh, Satan . . ."

One of the top songs of the 70's was "Hotel California" by the Eagles. Most people have no idea the song refers to the Church of Satan, which happens to be located in a converted HOTEL on CALIFORNIA street! On the inside of the album cover, looking down on the festivities, is Anton Lavey, the founder of the Church of Satan and author of the Satanic Bible! People say, the Eagles aren't serious, they're just selling records. That's what you think! The Eagles manager, Larry Salter, admitted in the Waco Tribune-Herald, (Feb. 28, 1982) that the Eagles were involved with the Church of Satan! Not surprisingly, one of the Eagles's songs is titled "Have A Good Day in Hell."

Charles Lawson #fundie rawstory.com

Fundamentalist Christianity is under a heavy threat from an ever changing world that relies on science for answers, technology, medicine, research and exploration. But Tennessee Pastor Charles Lawson hates science almost as much as he hates Katy Perry, Lady GaGa and their devil music. Perhaps that is why he is conveniently using conspiracy theories and unconfirmed assumptions to fit into his own ideology.

After a lengthy discussion about “spirit guides” that can take us from the Earth to the Heavenly world on the lost continent of Atlantis, bigfoot and UFO sightings on Mt. Shasta in California, Lawson declares the “scientific” facts. “Think about what I’m saying about aliens communicating with you. Aliens from above,” Lawson says as he points toward the sky. “Something coming down from the skies and communicating with us here on this earth. A lot of scientists, a lot of them, and there’s really no way to know specifically because of political correctness and the pressure that’s put upon them. A lot of scientists have abandoned Darwin, but because of fear of losing their jobs, fear of losing the ability to produce papers, uh, fear, peer pressure, they have to keep it in, and they don’t come out with it, but here and there some do. They have abandoned Darwin. They have abandoned evolution.”

Of course, there is “no way to know specifically” since he’s making up his claims. Specifics are no match for a fire-and-brimstone pastor who can simply point toward the sky and say “God did it.”

Lawson continued that all of this comes down to scientists, who must now find answers to big questions, that evolution once provided these scientists, who have “abandoned Darwin.” Instead, these scientists “have jettisoned Darwin and now they’re looking up, and past, and they’re getting into the spirit world, into the paranormal world. And the two of them, they compliment each other, and they begin to get into something that their scientific books know nothing about.”

He is right about one thing, “You can get a Ph.D. from Harvard and not know one thing about a spirit.” Ghosts or spirits are not part of the prerequisite requirements for engineering sciences at Harvard.

“What I’m trying to do in these lessons,” Lawson enlightens his Sunday school class, “is to open your mind up and make you begin to think with a broader spectrum at the deception that is coming down upon us. Because it’s coming from every direction.”

The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) relies on science to get its work done. Their radio telescopes “listen” to the spectrum of the universe and their vast computers and volunteers to parse actual data gathered from real science. While it might seem a fool’s errand to some, writer Michael Crichton explained, “A wonderful area for speculative academic work is the unknowable. These days religious subjects are in disfavor, but there are still plenty of good topics. The nature of consciousness, the workings of the brain, the origin of aggression, the origin of language, the origin of life on earth, SETI and life on other worlds…this is all great stuff. Wonderful stuff. You can argue it interminably. But it can’t be contradicted, because nobody knows the answer to any of these topics.”

Gregory Hood #racist amren.com

Scandinavian Airlines Erases Scandinavian Identity

“Once any group has been stripped of their identity and existence in theory, it is only a matter of time before someone will seek to strip them of their existence literally,” wrote Joel Richardson.

“Whiteness is not a culture,” said the late Noel Ignatiev, “but a privilege and exists for no reason other than to defend it.” He wanted to “abolish the white race,” but said this was a political project, not a call to genocide. “Perhaps AR should publicly call for the destruction of the black race,” wrote Michael Levin, “and then explain that this is just a way of criticizing affirmative action.”

Ignatiev at least said “Italian culture” and “Irish culture” are real. Today, even that may be politically incorrect.

“What is truly Scandinavian?” asked a recent ad from Scandinavian Airlines (SAS). “Absolutely nothing.”

“There is no such thing,” say two girls in the ad.

Posted on February 26, 2020Scandinavian Airlines Erases Scandinavian Identity
Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, February 26, 2020

“Once any group has been stripped of their identity and existence in theory, it is only a matter of time before someone will seek to strip them of their existence literally,” wrote Joel Richardson.

“Whiteness is not a culture,” said the late Noel Ignatiev, “but a privilege and exists for no reason other than to defend it.” He wanted to “abolish the white race,” but said this was a political project, not a call to genocide. “Perhaps AR should publicly call for the destruction of the black race,” wrote Michael Levin, “and then explain that this is just a way of criticizing affirmative action.”

Ignatiev at least said “Italian culture” and “Irish culture” are real. Today, even that may be politically incorrect.

“What is truly Scandinavian?” asked a recent ad from Scandinavian Airlines (SAS). “Absolutely nothing.”

“There is no such thing,” say two girls in the ad.

The ad says Scandinavian traditions and achievements came from elsewhere. “We’re no better than our Viking ancestors,” explains a black man.

image

The ad doesn’t say why SAS is a good airline. The ad is pure Woke Capital — a company pushing politics. If you know about Stonetoss, you’re probably thinking about his “Burgers?” cartoon.

image

The ad insults Scandinavians in three ways.

Scandinavians have no culture except what they took from others. “In a way,” says the narrator, “Scandinavia was brought here.”

Scandinavian identity belongs to everyone. Non-whites, including the black Viking, represent Scandinavia.

Finally, the few Scandinavian achievements the ad finds worth mentioning are egalitarian projects, including “our democracy” and “women’s rights” — but Scandinavia can’t claim these either. The ad credits democracy to ancient Greece and women’s suffrage to America. (Of course, linking modern Scandinavia to ancient Greece admits there’s a larger Western, white culture that goes back millennia.)

The ad doesn’t mention Scandinavian explorers, composers, novelists, commanders, or scientists.

The good news is that people hated the ad. On YouTube, about 13,000 people “liked” the ad, while 112,000 “disliked” it.

Danish People’s Party foreign affairs spokesman Soeren Espersen said SAS “spit on us.” “What nonsense and self-hatred,” said Swedish Democrats secretary Richard Jomhof on Facebook.

SAS pulled the ad from its website but didn’t apologize. It vowed to continue the campaign and released a shorter version with the same message. It said the problem wasn’t the ad, but the people who didn’t like it.

Some media agreed. “4chan Trolls Target Scandinavian Airlines With Racist Harassment Campaign,” said Mother Jones, comparing the flap to the “coordinated harassment campaign” of Gamergate. LoyaltyLobby, which tracks travel loyalty programs, said the controversy was “made up.” Aftonbladet’s Jenny Wennberg’s blamed Russian propaganda and said “only an idiot” would object to the claim “Scandinavia was brought here bit by bit.” Expressen cited reports that the criticism came from “hate sites,” the “extreme right,” and Russia.

Blaming “trolls” or “Russia” is a way to claim any opposition to the ad was fake. It’s true that the Russian outlet Sputnik posted an article about the ad on February 12. However, Twitter users were protesting the ad before that.

No national airway of any non-white country would ever say its people had no culture. No company would ever say a non-white race, region, or country had no culture. McDonalds, Target, and Disney and scores of other companies celebrate Black History Month. The film Black Panther invented fictional history to make blacks feel better. If whites adopt black, Hispanic, or Asian traditions, non-whites accuse them of “cultural appropriation.” Somehow, a black man claiming “Viking ancestors” is fine.

The SAS controversy may seem small, but it’s part of our race’s central problem. Those with financial and political power seem to think we shouldn’t have anything of our own. If we have no culture, why should we have countries? Journalists and academics can call “The Great Replacement” a conspiracy theory because there’s nothing there to be replaced.

This is why white identity isn’t just about biology, pride, or politics. It’s about survival. The SAS ad wasn’t just an insult. It was a warning.

Kellz #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Neither. Based on everything you wrote, its a tactic against an enemy, which is you in this case. Trust me, its not the second thing, your enemy could be a rabid rapist who likes to dress up in his mother's high heels while singing Diana Ross tunes, yet if this is a war against you, you start to see the telltrue signs of war, one of those is mal-progranda or facetious proganda.

By facetious, I mean deliberately saying something about your enemy that is not true. Like your enemy is the cross dresser, but yet he says you are. In addition to randomly having humans read your mind, when telepathic technology has yet to be introduced, you have the issue of someone purposely lying about you.

Like see this bit right here:
Whenever I prayed to god in my head, they recoiled and showed outward disgust or fear.

Please. Look into some wars, some recent, some not. Humanity on this planet is without compassion when it comes to war.

I'm going through what your going through, and trust me, people saying 'mean' things about your thoughts is the LEAST of your worries.
Wait until they go from one lie to the next. Wait until they're right in front of you with their masks on, with a soul clearly stuck underneath them. Is it you? Is it your team? Watch them, see the kinds of reinforcement methods they have about themselves.

Another thing that might be kind of hard to chew, but is quite real, they have have your spirit eye or your power.
Try this one for a scenario, as sick as it is, you are a 34 year old male, I'm female, I'm setting this up as an example. Anyway, you live on a planet called Greatworld, but what you don't know about this planet is it has many secrets, some of them are extreme and wild beyond human comprehension. One of them is that your planet does not look quite the way it does in pictures, and this planet is actually called Raiders. Planet Greatworld is full of deception, treasures, lies, sex, and anything else you could think of.

Planet Greatworld is run in part by Ancient and Mythic Gods, and a very Human group of people, whom weild the power of Gods. There are actual Gods, yes as you will come to find out later, but in your case, this Human group of people is actually very important. This group is called The Secret Society of Hoarders for the Enslavement Benefit of The Rich and Powerful Mankind, or SSHBM for short.

A lot of Greatworld residents know about this, but keep it hidden for advancement in a religious hierarchy that is very important to them, for it is the only thing they know. It is the only system that provides them freedom and understanding in life and in death. Besides, what may be perceived as bad to one person, might be just and righteous to everyone else.

Every human born on planet Raiders gets a spiritual implant (Demon Angel Eye Nobody knows what it is really) installed in them from birth. This helps the human controllers control and monitor everything you do, most importantly, it literally gives them control over your soul, yet little people know this. Every once in a while, when someone dies on planet Greatworld, they go to a different planet entirely, sometimes, they even advance in all manners of Spirit Evolution. Sometimes a human can actually, after many years in the spiritual world, become a God. You don't know this, but the shadowy elite knows this.

One year, it begins. Everyone starts reacting to you negatively similar to a body of Christ infected with Lupus. The whole of planet Greatworld, including it's seedy spirit world, is against you.

Heres where it gets bizarre, you have a beard, and a penis, yet the people of Greatworld, whom had up until this point called you a dude, now call you a female. Its like a fun Satanic load of crackerjacks. Anyway, so you wait until this shit blows over, because theres way too many fucking lies for you to get the straight of it. You die, then go to a different planet entirely. You evolve in death and go on to become a spirit and protector of a world.
Yes, this is great, its your birthday, go love your world.

However a group that you have forgotten, whom has never forgotten you, knew. They knew and know. You see whenever a spirit goes on to another planet as you did, and do what you did, the SSBHM knows because of the implant. This gives them knowledge of other planets and allows them a window into a world, without actually being there.

While you are overseeing the nice, pretty, true world that is yours, the SSHBM is literally salivating at the mouths like hungry wolves. SURPRISE! They are just in your low orbit with a fleet of war spaceships that you never even saw on planet Greatworld. They are there for one word, and one word only RAID. Not only do they want your world's treasures, they want your essence as well. Quite sad. You are overtaken and de-deified by advanced humans, your eye/spirit given to someone else.

Another surprise, due to the warping of space, this RAID incident happens in the past. This is why people on planet Greatworld treat you like a piece of shit, because if you meet your enemy, know they're your enemy, and have already seen their doom, then whats the point of politeness? To the Victors go the spoils, so in their mind, you're just a minor inconvencience before getting to something really good. They don't give a shit about you. They stick to the script and they're military in their ways. In fact, if you were the person in this scenenario I wouldn't call it quits as much as I would just you know Akuna Matada that shit, because to be fair that memory cap on the way out will cancel any plans for opposition, even if you did believe such a far-fetched idea.

Top 5s Finest #conspiracy youtube.com

5 Aliens Creatures Left Behind on Earth!

Description:

History and mythology are filled with human explorers lost in unknown lands. Odysseus is one such famous explorer. If aliens existed, wouldn’t that mean their explorers could be left behind too? These are 5 alien creatures left behind on earth. Let’s begin!

5.) 4chan Alien Image
http://imgur.com/UrEgV3d

This allegedly a real image of an alien that was posted on 4chan. According to witnesses, the photo was posted before the website was suddenly taken down by a DDOS attack. When the site returned, the image of the alleged alien was gone, as well as any copies on archived versions of 4chan. Stranger yet, those who claimed to have downloaded the image claimed to have lost their copies as well, as if they were deleted from their computer by an unknown intruder. The story associated with this image suggests that this picture remains because of an error that left it corrupted, making it difficult for automatic algorithms to detect and delete from websites and computers.


4.) Alien Survivors Turn Russian Soldiers to Stone
http://beforeitsnews.com/paranormal/2017/04/23-russian-soldiers-killed-by-an-alien-entity-2523515.html

During the Cold War there were a number of classified sightings and close encounters with aliens that remained unreported until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. While there are a number of reports of confrontations between the Soviet military and aliens, this is perhaps one of the strangest and most disturbing. According to official reports, a UFO was shot down over Siberia during military training exercises. When soldiers went to retrieve the craft, they were attacked by aliens. It was there that they found that the aliens were not only alive, but resistant, and reportedly used their technology to turn the Soviet soldiers into stone - mirroring ancient mythologies.

3.) Strange Creature Found in California Woods
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3310657/It-dead-Body-slimy-pink-creature-Californian-woman-s-backyard-leads-frenzied-speculation-alien.html

The day after a strange light had been seen off the California coast, a Facebook user named Gianna Peponis found a strange, slimy corpse at the edge of her property in San Jose, California. According to Peponis, she heard a scream outside her house and went to investigate. She found this creature in the woods that surround her property. It was translucent, gooey, and apparently dead. Peponis claimed that Facebook removed the picture, trying to censor her. People speculated as to the creature’s origin.

2.) Dr. Reed’s Alien Surgery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxy-k7CZYKc
http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/80/590x/secondary/Reed-UFO-631838.jpg

This video captures the autopsy of an alien wounded by one Dr. Jonathan Reed. Reed, a psychologist, was taking photographs while while through the woods when he was attacked by an alien. Reed knocked the creature unconscious with a stone, or perhaps even killed it, and took a photo of its black, triangular craft. The doctor wrapped the creature in a thermal blanket and escaped with the body before any witnesses arrived. After returning to his home with the body of the alien, he undertook a home autopsy in his garage, recording it the entire time. This creature seems to reflect a classical alien; it’s grey, humanoid, with long, lanky limbs, and wears some kind of featureless uniform.

1.) McGuire Alien Air Force Base
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/777533/Alien-shot-McGuire-Air-Force-New-Jersey-Base-Sgt-Jeff-Morse

Aliens are often associated with military bases for one reason or another. Many claim that military bases often serve as places where militaries of Earth house and work alongside aliens to some unknown, horrifying ends. If they were working together, that would not explain this strange encounter a U.S. service member had with an alien while patrolling the base. According to reports, Sgt. Jeff Morse, a military policeman, was patrolling the base when he encountered an alien entity in the road. Sgt. Morse got out of his jeep, and instructed the creature to surrender itself, and fired on it when it did not, killing it. The base called law enforcement, but a strange military unit Sgt. Morse was unfamiliar with arrived, claiming the alien’s body and taking it away. This happened after a series of UFO sightings near the base - could it be that this alien was a recon scout preparing for an invasion?

Jon Rappoport #conspiracy jonrappoport.wordpress.com

"Logic students used to learn: you can have a perfectly valid argument, even if your premises, your first assumptions are completely false. Well, if the argument is about politics, your conclusion will be insane. Implementing the conclusion will earn you praise as you destroy lives. What we’re talking about here is a species of mind control.” ](The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

What’s the latest solution to the virus that causes nothing?

Here we go.

Punch line: MIT Technology Review, 2/8/16: “We have the technology to destroy all Zika mosquitoes.”

“A controversial genetic technology able to wipe out the mosquito carrying the Zika virus will be available within months, scientists say.

“The technology, called a 'gene drive,’ was demonstrated only last year in yeast cells, fruit flies, and a species of mosquito that transmits malaria. It uses the gene-snipping technology CRISPR to force a genetic change to spread through a population as it reproduces.

“Three U.S. labs that handle mosquitoes, two in California and one in Virginia, say they are already working toward a gene drive for Aedes aegypti, the type of mosquito blamed for spreading Zika. If deployed, the technology could theoretically drive the species to extinction. (emphasis added)

“’We could have it easily within a year,’ says Anthony James, a molecular biologist at the University of California, Irvine.

“Any release of a gene drive in the wild would be hotly debated by ecologists … But with Zika sowing fear across Latin America and beyond, the technology is likely to get a closer look. Four weeks ago we were trying to justify why we are doing this. Now they’re saying “Get the lead out,”’ says James. It’s absolutely going to change the conversation.’”

No kidding.

Unforeseen consequences? Unpredicted results? Ecological domino effect? Transfer of genes from mosquitoes to humans? Don’t be silly. All is well. Don’t worry, be happy. Move straight ahead with your mouth shut and your eyes closed.

In previous articles, I’ve been reviewing the basics of covert ops, because Zika fits the bill. In this case, take a virus that causes nothing, falsely link it to a tragic condition (babies born with small heads and brain damage), and then slide in the real agendas. I’ve already spelled out some of those plans, which are materializing in front of our eyes.

Gene editing is a towering plan: technocrats don’t like a species — wipe it out.

Build up the threat with lies and obfuscations and false science and wall-to-wall propaganda — then introduce the grand solution.

Depopulation turns out to be easy. Just reconfigure genes. Snip-snip.

The Zika virus isn’t “sowing fear,” as the MIT Review claims. The World Health Organization is inventing that fear. In the 70 years since Zika was discovered, it has, at worst, caused mild transient illness. Now, suddenly, it’s supposed to be creating radical birth defects. Of course, the Brazilian researchers can only find a possible correlation between Zika and the birth defect in 17 cases. Seventeen. Maybe.

But never mind. Wipe out all the mosquitoes that may be carrying Zika. Wipe out the whole species.

And come to think of it, could a case be made that certain human populations are destructive and, well, superfluous? There are people who think so. They also think that, in the onrush of automation and AI, efficient robots could replace those useless populations.

Face it. Despite all the warnings about viruses running out of control and wiping out half the world, the depopulation freaks just haven’t been able to put a dent in the global population. They hope, they pray, but no dice.

However, they have been able to produce one result: planting fear of viruses in humans. They’re adequate to that task. So wake up and smell the cover story.

“In order to destroy the imminent threat of viruses and save the human race, we must turn to cutting-edge technology: gene editing. That’s our ultimate hope.”

Destroy the village in order to save it.

Here are the final paragraphs of the MIT article:

“But a gene drive [gene editing] can also make mosquito populations disappear. The simplest way to do that is to spread a genetic payload that leads to only male offspring. As the 'male-only' instructions spread with each new generation, eventually there would be no females left, says Adelman. His lab discovered the Aedes aegypti gene that determines sex only last spring. The next step will be to link it to a gene drive.

“Kevin Esvelt, a gene-drive researcher at MIT’s Media Lab who has been outspoken about the need to proceed cautiously, also thinks Aedes aegypti eradication should be the goal, so long as the public is onboard and the safety of the idea proved.

“’Technologically, we could probably do it in a couple of years,’ says Esvelt. I’m sure we’ll be able to do it before people can agree if we should.’”

Did you get that last piece? The “cautious” scientist says: what the hell, let’s eliminate a whole species if “the public is onboard” and we prove it’s safe.

How to prove safety before launch? Hard to say. Basically, try it and then we’ll know. Vote for the bill and then you can read what’s in it. Allow a global explosion of GMO crops based on zero science about health and economic consequences, and see what happens. Expand the list of mandated vaccines for children from six to 60 and see what happens. Spray poisonous pesticides all over the planet and see what happens.

Only cranks and conspiracists and rubes and yokels and Luddites and tree huggers and bitter clingers oppose the march of science. How about editing their genes? It would make things so much easier.

Wipe out the mosquitoes. One small step for man, one giant step for mankind. Today, the mosquito, tomorrow the (fill in the blank).

The mind plays tricks:

“Listen, we’re not talking about depopulation in general. Don’t be silly. We’re just going to wipe out one species of very troublesome insect that’s wreaking havoc. Come on. It’s just once. We’ll never do it again. We’re not crazy. We’re researchers. Just give us a chance. Please. We want to launch the experiment and watch it with joy. That’s what we do. Just once. It’s our present under the Xmas tree.”

Why not? All you have to do is forget the giant clue that’s clubbing you on the head:

The virus they’re going to stop causes nothing.

What are they counting on? They’re counting on you not being able to believe the virus causes nothing. They’re betting on that.

They’re betting you’re in the trance they created.

BitcoinIsFemale #racist #wingnut reddit.com

The problem is that Blacks don't know how to work, and definitely don't know how to work hard.

And I don't mean being lazy (though the two often go hand in hand), I mean they LITERALLY do not know "how to work".

This is why they cannot access any of the wealth that this country has to offer to everyone who is here, INCLUDING illegal immigrants who take full advantage of the economic mobility. This is why you have some Indian or Chinese peasant becoming a millionaire or multi-millionaire within the first generation of being here. This is also why you don't see Mexicans or South Americans complaining about "muh inequality"... because they know full well how fucking amazing it is to live in America and take part in our opportunities, even if they are illegal. It's pretty much incontestable that America has and still does provide the greatest economic mobility the world has ever seen. And yes, I have lived in multiple countries, grew up in semi-rural America and have lived in SF for 9 years, so while I don't have a perfect grasp, no one does, I have seen much of the world and how it works and I'd welcome anyone to challenge me on my assertion about economic mobility in America.

Before I continue, I don't hate Black people. Very few people "hate" black people, many may say they do but what they actually hate is the problems that blacks cause. BIG difference. So let's try to figure out what the fuck is black people's problem.

My theory is that they literally don't know how to work hard or even work at all. "Working" doesn't mean just physical labor or typing things into a spreadsheet. It also means working together with others in a civilized and professional manner that facilitates common goals of providing goods and services to society.

Hence why when a black person thinks it's ok to wear a "BLM" hat to work at Starbucks, self-overriding the corporate policy of having to wear a specific uniform, they are demonstrating that they don't know how to work and also demonstrating "anti-work" behavior. They don't even have a basic understanding of how to hold a job and sustain themselves, hence generational welfare, etc.

Call them lazy, call them stupid, whatever, I don't think that's the issue at all. Black culture (mostly entertainment, which targets the youth) promotes being shitty and stupid, as well as violence, immorality, and the carefree use of drugs. This isn't helping them. We probably all know this here, but during segregation the average black family did FAR BETTER than they did now. I believe the main reason is that they had to work together to survive and the concept of "working" had not been beaten out of them by a combination of democratic policies and "entertainment" aka hypnosis.

We have a real fucking problem in America right now, and it's not police brutality. It's that for whatever reason, blacks are anti-social, anti-work, cannot get ahead because of it, and starting to freak out.

The emotions they are feeling are very real, the reasons for them feeing that way are being manipulated for, most likely, nefarious reasons.

Even if the blacks get what they want with this quasi-revolution, they will not be happy because none of the actual concerns plaguing them as a demographic are being addressed

Amos Moses #fundie disqus.com

Sally Edwards:
This isn't about denying a creator, it's about there being nothing about transgenderism in the Bible. And there isn't.

Amos Moses:
WOW .... because i have been in NUMEROUS conversations right here on this forum ..... where it was claimed that it DOES ...... so which is wrong ..... YOU ..... or the "TRANSGENDERED" person i had the conversations with .......... do tell ..... which of you is a liar ............

Sally Edwards:
Look Amos, it isn’t hard. Either present me with scripture that specifically addresses transgenderism or admit it does not appear anywhere in the Bible. And invite anyone you know to do the same.

Amos Moses:
as i said .... AGAIN .....i have been in NUMEROUS conversations right here on this forum ..... WITH "TRANSGENDERED" PERSONS ...... or so they claim .......... where THEY claimed that it DOES appear in scripture ...... and that it is NOT a SIN ........ so are YOU ..... or the "TRANSGENDERED" person i had the conversations with LYING .......... do tell ..... which of you is a liar .............. YOU are on the "TRANSGENDERED" side of this issue ..... your position is DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to their position ...... you both CANNOT be telling the truth ....... so ..... AGAIN ...... which of you IS LYING .....

Sally Edwards:
So you can't name the scripture. Consider the matter settled. Thank you.

Amos Moses:
MATTHEW 19 ........ that is the scripture they used .............. so WHICH OF YOU IS LYING ..... the "transgendered" person OR YOU ...........
OR since they are saying it does talk about them and that it is not sin and YOU are saying it does not talk about them .... YOU are calling them LIARS ..............
do i understand your position correctly ............ those "transgendered" persons LIED .........

Sally Edwards:
I don't care who used it. It doesn't say transgendered or specifically refer to them. They are wrong and so are you.

Amos Moses:
so when it says ..........
19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
that is not them ...... and YOU are calling THEM LIARS ............ and they are wrong and you are right ..... WHY .............

Sally Edwards:
Eunuchs are not transgendered people. That's why.

Amos Moses:
WHY .... who says ... YOU say so ..... WHY .... what are YOUR qualifications to make that judgement ...... those "transgenders" are reading the exact same text ...... what makes you smarter than them ...... are YOU a "transgender" ..........

Sally Edwards:
Because they're not transgendered people, Amos. They have entirely different definitions. Do you know what a transgendered person is? Maybe you don't and that explains why you're so unsympathetic to them. A eunuch is a sexless person. A transgendered person still has a gender.

Amos Moses:
they were TRANSGENDERED persons saying that ... are you calling them stupid ...... that they do not know what they read and they do not know WHAT they are .... YOU are SMARTER than they are as to WHAT THEY ARE ............. ARE YOU SERIOUS ............. and then YOU have the temerity to say " Do you know what a transgendered person is?" .... are you saying THEY do not know ...............

Sally Edwards:
In the first place I'm sure they didn't say that, I think you're probably misquoting them. Secondly it's not a difficult concept, the idea of transgenderism is relatively new, and so it could not possibly have appeared in the Bible.

diggerfortruth #conspiracy #racism diggerfortruth.wordpress.com

It wasn’t too long ago that I too believed some of these misconceptions. Sooner or later the Truth and reality catches up with all of us.


1/. White European nations became rich off of the backs of the slave trade and plundering other nations
This is inaccurate. It was always the jews and the gentry directly serving the jews who benefited from the slave trade. After all it was mainly blacks enslaving blacks in Africa. The jews just capitalised on this industry. The actual lower classes never benefited from slavery, because they were slaves themselves; and still are.

And to argue that even the lower classes indirectly benefited due to the infrastructure, this too is not accurate. The European mind and energy has always had the ability to produce, create and invent at an incredible capacity. The railroads, hospitals, theatres, educational institutes were all physically produced by the working class on meagre wages. Any financial gains obtained by jewish families were spent internally to help international jewry; certainly not philanthropically distributed amongst society for the benefit of European peoples. The trickle down effect is another myth. We built and financed everything ourselves, through our hard work, ingenuity and creativity. That is the reality.

The myth that European nations are rich because we pilfered and enslaved others is nonsense – just more jewish mind control to guilt Europeans into accepting their white genocide.


2/. White Europeans invaded African culture, enslaved the blacks and had a cruel apartheid system
First the white Europeans who were fleeing jewish enslavement settled in a barren uninhabited South Africa. There was nothing much there other than nature’s elements – rocks and bushes. The hard working, ingenious, mixed Europeans literately created a superpower out of the bushes. Then when they had built a civilised structure – the blacks came to them. They did not build up their culture off the backs of the blacks.

As for the apartheid – what else could they do? It was the most sensible thing to do, to keep the blacks from rampaging their culture. Just look what is happening to the Afrikaners now that the apartheid has been abolished. The apartheid was essentially a border control that’s all.

The myth that the white South Africans used the blacks to create their lifestyle is ridiculous propaganda – just more jewish mind control to guilt Europeans into accepting their white genocide.
[please listen to Karen Smith’s interview below]
t
t
3/. Being racist is the most anti-social thing one can be
Well first of all this word racist was coined by a mass murdering jew called Trotsky. This was created in order to guilt up any Whites who dare to stand up for their European culture. It is a powerful word and meme and this single word alone enables vast amounts of white people to bend over backwards to accommodate non-whites into their culture, just in order not be labeled a racist. Whites will give up their heritage, jobs, culture, lineage, identity and lifestyle so long as they are not called this silly little name. It is truly incredible the power of trigger words through mind control – just more jewish mind control to guilt Europeans into accepting their white genocide.
t
t
4/. Diversity enriches European societies
On the surface, one could argue that having multiple choices of restaurants from many different cultures is a positive thing for society. One could indeed say that these cultures are contributing to European culture by providing alternatives. But at what price? How much of a payoff do we have for this enrichment? It is obvious by now to anyone who is prepared to use an ounce of logic that behind the surface of this colourful enrichment; the indigenous European peoples are paying a hefty price. In fact we are suffocating. Multiculturalism is the death spell of European culture and civilisation. Had Europeans just had a policy that only small amounts of people can stay providing they provide a unique contribution: a Chinese martial art, a Korean healing system, an Indian meditation technique, etc; then this really would be enrichment. The reality is most people coming to Europe have only one interest – to serve themselves. None of them give a damn about the preservation of our European culture. Every single migrant cares only about their self interests and their culture. None of them actively help to preserve European culture. Diversity = white genocide. Diversity is enrichment – just more jewish mind control to guilt Europeans into accepting their white genocide.
t
t
5/. Colour is just skin deep – we’re all equal
This is simply not true! One only has to objectively look at each race and look at each races’ achievements. One can use all the excuses in the world as to why certain cultures have not been able to develop; but we all have been on this planet for the same time. It’s too much of a coincidence that in every single part of the globe that White European cultures have lived – civilised cultures have blossomed. Europeans built the pyramids. It is only because of jewish interference that white Europeans have not been able to fully develop. Just look what Germany achieved in just six years free of the parasitic jews. The same for England after Edward the 1st (Longshanks) booted the jews out of England ….look how England prospered. It’s been the same in every European culture, if Europeans are left to flourish on their own without the parasitic jew. The ‘we’re all equal’ narrative is just more jewish mind control to guilt Europeans into accepting their white genocide.
t
t
6/. The only reason a high percentage of blacks are violent is because they have been socially suppressed by whites and all they are doing is venting their righteous anger – it’s justified
Righteous anger – about what exactly? Having been afforded 100 fold opportunities in a European culture than in their own culture? Just look at the opportunities they have been given. Companies and local councils are bending over backwards with ‘affirmative action’/equal opportunities for non-whites. In fact it is easier now for a non-white to get a job in a Government/local council job. Not to mention the handouts. And how can the unprovoked attacks on whites be explained in South Africa? These were not oppressed people’s, they were outsiders coming in to destroy White civilisation. The notion that all blacks (as a collective) need is education and they will blend into any civilised European society has now been proven a myth. How far do we have to stretch things to continually come up with excuses for black on white crimes – just more jewish mind control to guilt Europeans into accepting their white genocide. [please see video channel below]
t
t
7/. White people and white cultures are innately racist
What could be further than the Truth. White people (as a collective) are THE least racist people on the planet. And I struggle with this term racist anyway; as it is another trigger word created by the jews. But as far as being accommodating – there is no race on the planet more accommodating than the white European race. We have given and given and given and given throughout our whole existence. And we continue to give in endless charitable and philanthropic projects. Yet somehow as the providers, we always seem to end up with the racist label and the ones feeling guilty for not having done enough and somehow being the suppressors of non-whites. Had it not been for the white peoples’ inventiveness, with sanitation, electricity, medical resources, etc; the population of non-whites would be far less. Whites are evil racists – just more jewish mind control to guilt Europeans into accepting their white genocide.
t
t
8/. All races can pull together to fight the common evil
At one point I truly did believe this nonsense. I really did think that if all races and cultures woke up to the JCN, then we’ld live a more peaceful existence – ha. Oh dear, how embarrassing. The concept that if we all pull together to fight our common foe, we would live in peace. Utter nonsense. Just look at each race and how they only look after themselves. You can see it within the Truth movement – the blacks are all about their black issues, the Muslims are only pro-Islam, even the gays only care about their gay issues. None of these secular groups want to join forces to fight the jewish agenda, because secretly they know who is funding their particular agenda. They’re all ultimately about bringing down the European race.
t
t
9/. Just like mongrel dogs, mixed race people are healthier and less susceptible to inbred diseases
And there are people out there who propagate this garbage. As with all these modern memes, it couldn’t be further from the Truth and as always just more inverted Truth. The healthiest of races are the purest of races. This is a given. Mixed race children apparently are not able to receive organ donations. Why all of a sudden would genetics suddenly change in cultures? If races have bred amongst their own for thousands of years; why now is this seemed unhealthy? A jewish propagandised narrative perhaps – just more jewish mind control to guilt Europeans into accepting their white genocide.
t
t
10/. Black men are more virile than white men
I know this may seem like scraping the barrel, but this topic often crops ups. I’ve had to listen to this crap all my life. It’s so obvious who is behind this myth and why they would propagate it. It is just another method to knock the white man’s confidence. To make him feel inferior to other races. Whilst at the same time programme (propagandise) white women, (along with the music industry) into believing that dating black men is a better option and somehow black men are more masculine. Hence to encourage race-mixing – just more jewish mind control to guilt Europeans into accepting their white genocide.

Alamongordo Prophecies #ufo #fundie #conspiracy alamongordo.com

THE RETURNED CHRIST AND ALIENS & UFO’S
At Armageddon of Revelation 16, there is a great (nuclear) war, this could be started by the number 1 person that could be The Antichrist Vladimir Putin around 2017-2020. The Antichrist is defeated by the returned Christ, as described in Revelation 19. The returned Christ (possibly returning in 2018-2022) with his armies (Aliens and UFO’s) may actually be an invasion of earth by aliens in UFOs, read Revelation 19 and it sounds like that.
A reason for invading earth may be that the aliens are concerned about global warming and earth’s environment, refer to Revelation 11:18 “shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth“. And the New Jerusalem of Revelation 21 could be a giant alien city that comes down to earth after the alien invasion. Revelation 21 and 22 seem to be describing the reorganizing of earth by aliens. So Christ would be “lead alien”. And Nostradamus prophecies also prophesied alien invasion of earth and human genetics DNA modified for immortality…

Sounds crazy? Yes but it could be true … When you read mythology and several “stories” on the Internet, it could be that Christ is the “good” alien and Satan is the “bad” alien ! The “fallen” angels from the “Bible” and other religious books where aliens that wanted to stay on earth (and they took the women of earth).

The sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:4)

WHAT IS GOING ON ?
There is overwhelming evidence in the past several years from “Whistle Blowers” retired military officers who have finally said, enough is enough! It’s time the government told the people the truth!”

These officers, such as Navy Intelligence officer, William Cooper, Major John Lear (whose father founded the Lear Jet Corp.) and Air Force officer William English, to name but a few, have all discovered the truth, and at the risk of their very lives, are trying to alert YOU to the secrets behind the UFO’s and the Alien Presence on this earth.

These people worked on the secret projects, had access to ’classified’ Top Secret documents , had seen with there own eyes ’captured’ aliens, or extraterrestrial entities, UFO’s and the incredible technology they brought with them.

According the Bible, the Antichrist will come in peace… Maybe the fallen angels (bad aliens) come in peace. We all believe that they come in peace and take the “mark” … It could also be that they will get help from a leader on earth to install there government (Vladimir Putin???). According to the Bible (and other books) the “good alien” … Christ will save the good people of earth (without the mark of the beast) and the “good” government will be installed on earth.

Sightings of UFO’s have been reported throughout history, and biblical and historic references to “Flaming Chariots” huge flying ’birds’ and odd looking beings predate our history by thousands of years. In the 1940’s several alien spacecraft were recovered by the U.S. and other countries, along with a few dead aliens and one live one they named EBE (a name suggested by Dr. Vannever Bush and was short for Extraterrestrial Biological Entity).

In 1953 astronomers discovered large objects in space which were moving toward earth. At first they believed they were asteroids, but later evidence proved the objects could only be spaceships. Project Sigma and Project Plato intercepted alien radio communication and using the computer binary language, was able to arrange a landing that resulted in face-to-face contact with alien beings from another planet.

Meanwhile, a race of human-looking aliens (The Good ?) contacted the U.S. Government, warning us that the aliens orbiting the equator were hostile beings from Orion (The Bad ?).

These human-type aliens demanded we dismantle and destroy our nuclear weapons, that we were on a path of self-destruction and we must stop killing each other, stop polluting the earth, stop raping the earths natural resources and learn to live in harmony with one another. President Eisenhower rejected these demands.

Later in 1954 the race of aliens, known as Greys, from Zeta Reticuli area in space, who had been orbiting the equator, landed at Holloman Air Force base.

They stated their planet was dying and needed quarters on earth to conduct genetic experiments that might allow their race to survive; this in exchange for certain technology.

President Eisenhower met with the aliens and a formal treaty was signed. The treaty stated the aliens would not interfere in our affairs and we would not interfere in theirs. We would keep their presence on earth secret; they would furnish us with advanced technology.

They could abduct humans on a limited basis for the purpose of medical examination and monitoring, with the stipulation that the humans would not be harmed, would be returned to their point of abduction, that the humans have no memory of the event. It was also agreed the alien bases would be constructed underground, beneath Indian reservations in the 4 corners area of Utah, New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado.

Another was to be constructed in Nevada in the area known as S-4, about 7 miles south of Area 51, known as ’Dreamland’. A multi-billion dollar secret fund was organized and kept by the Military Office of the White House, supposedly to build secret underground sites for the President and the staff in case of military attacks.

u/smellyuglypouchld #racist reddit.com

u/smellyuglypouch1d

AITA for throwing away my gf's umbilical cord?

Throwaway because her brother knows my reddit.

Hi, my (34M) gf (21F) of two years is native American and she had this small, beaten up leather pouch. It was about the size of a golf ball, and it was beaded but there were beads missing and thread exposed and the leather was stained and greasy with something. It was supposed to look like a turtle or a lizard or something, but it was so beaten that I was hard to tell. The thing absolutely stunk. We had it in a box of keepsakes along with our photos and other things, and it made the box have a musty smell.

Imagine my horror when I asked her what the thing was, and she told me it was her umbilical cord?? It grossed me out and I thought she was joking, so I laughed. She looked upset, so I asked if she was serious. She was. I asked her why she had it, and she told me it was her people's cultural practice to stop you from searching for things or something among other things. I thought the sentiment was nice, but it stunk and was hideous.

I understand that some people keep teeth and that sort of thing, but teeth don't stink. And teeth aren't kept in a strange little pouch. The whole thing skeezed me out, so I put it back and left it alone.

But two weeks ago when she was sleeping, I was going through our things and wanted to scan an old photo. I opened our keepsake box and the wave of musty air hit me. I couldn't take it anymore, so I hid the thing in a box in the basement. We went through our photos and things together (it was a lovely night, we did it over wine) and she didn't even acknowledge that it was missing. I even asked her if she noticed anything gone from our stuff. She said she didn't, and laughed.

So yesterday, I decided to rid us of it and put it in the trash. It went, and I could breathe a sigh of relief knowing my girlfriend's actual entire mummified umbilical cord was where it should've been to begin with.

But today her mom called, and told her that she was willing to remake the pouch for her if she sent it. Oops... She proceeded to tear apart our room looking for it, sobbing hysterically and not listening to any kind of reason... I'll admit, I felt bad. Maybe I should've just left it alone, but why even keep such a thing? I came clean and told her that I threw it away because I thought she wouldn't notice.

She started screaming at me and said that it wasn't my right to throw her things away. I reminded her of when she threw my favorite shirt away just because it had a hole and a grease stain. She told me it wasn't the same thing, but isn't it? They were both items kept purely out of sentimentality. At least my shirt wasn't making our photos smell musty.

She was suddenly calm, and I thought she was willing to talk about it, but she started packing her stuff. I begged her to stay but she took her car and her stuff and left. I don't know where she went, or if she'll be back, but I'm so devastated. It was such a small and dumb thing to split us up over, but I do regret it. Am I the asshole?

ETA Stop bringing our ages into this, she was and is an adult and you have no right to judge us. Focus on what I'm talking about here and now. I didn't want to put it in a different container because at the end of the day, we still would've had a body part that should've been tossed to begin with. Just because something is cultural doesn't mean that justifies it. Would it be okay if I kept all my fecal matter in a little bag because I thought it was special? It doesn't and didn't make sense. I feel like she was overreacting and I think everyone calling me the asshole should have to smell the damn thing. Then you'd know why I tossed it.

ETA2 All these comments are making me feel like complete shit. The last time we fought, she came back after an hour. She isn't back yet, and it's starting to take a toll. She's the one that makes dinner, cleans, comforts me. She's always there for me. The notion that I might spend tonight alone is destroying me. She's always been perfect to me, and I do things like this that upset her. Maybe I AM the asshole.... I'm sorry guys. I've been calling her and calling her and she won't answer. I just want to apologize and get her back. I want her to know how much she means to me. I think I might call her mom and tell her what I did and see if she can make another one... I know it won't be the same and it won't have her umbilical cord anymore, but maybe it'll be a start?

ETA3 I couldn't get ahold of her mom, but I have been on the phone with the sanitation department for our city, and they put me on hold for 45 minutes looking through the trash from our neighborhood. I barely caught them, and it took a lot of pleading and convincing but they were kind. They managed to find the pouch, and I'll have to pay a huge recovery fee, but that's all worth it. They agreed to let me pick it up tomorrow. If I can get ahold of my gf, hopefully she'll come back to me and things can be alright. I'll never touch her stuff again if it means she'll stay with me. I'll update this when I can get ahold of her.

ETA4 This will be the last update... I'm so devastated. I got the pouch back from the sanitation center today as soon as they called me at 8am this morning. It was a little smashed up but it's ok. If our city wasn't as small as it is, I might not have been able to get it back. I paid them and left. I left a voicemail for my gf telling her I got it back, and she finally called me back. She told me she was coming back and I felt butterflies again like when I first met her. I was waiting for her to show up, and I wanted to fully check the condition of the pouch, so I opened it and discovered what was causing it to smell-there was a cigarette butt in it beside her umbilical cord that looked like it might have been wet at some point. It made the pouch smell like ash, along with the leather stinking from whatever greasy substance was on it. The pouch was okay, so I waited for my gf to come.

Well she came this evening and asked for it immediately. I asked if she wanted to have dinner with me and she said no. I was hurt, she said she was coming back? She told me no, she just wants her pouch. I didn't want to be an asshole again, so I just gave it to her. I told her I loved her and she slammed my own door in my face. I began to mourn our relationship but she came back in and grabbed me by my shirt and asked why I opened it. I told her I wanted to see if it was ok.

She said I didn't need to open it, and asked if I took the cigarette out. I told her I just touched it to look at it and she began to cry... She told me she was keeping that since her father committed suicide because it was the last thing he touched. She grabbed me again and I thought she was going to hit me, but she just went to our room presumably to see if she got all her stuff. Then she told me not to contact her again or she'd send her brothers to me.... I won't be an asshole and get the police involved, but that was definitely a threat.

I'm so heartbroken... I've lost my whole life. For two whole years, she was everything to me. I helped her get off her reservation, I paid for her GED. I did so much for her but none of it matters now. I put so much time into our relationship and into her, I was in it for the long haul. I know I messed up. I know I'm an asshole. I know I'll be alone forever. Thank you all for making me see that.

I went to our room, and she threw what looks like porcupine quills or something everywhere. She stabbed them into my side of the bed, put them in my shoes, in my dresser drawers. It seems spiteful to leave something so difficult to pick out of carpeting and bedding. They're all I have of her now though. I'm going to keep them. I hope she's better off without me. Lesson learned I guess.

Daren Mehl #fundie darenmehlblog.com

LEFOU, YOU’RE NOT GAY FRIEND!

Dear Lefou,

Before you start thinking you’re gay and acting out with behaviors you’re not familiar with, hear me out. I think there is more to you than your sexuality, and there is more going on in your life related to your newly discovered feelings toward Gaston. Instead of accepting the false identity of a gay man, you should consider the following:

Many people will be claiming that you’re gay, because you have an attraction to a guy that you just can’t place. You find him extremely attractive, and you’re not sure why. You hear from people that you must be gay! And that seems like the easy answer. You’ve seen movies with gay people in them and feel like you can relate to them. You’ve seen how your peers at Disney romanticize same- sex relationships as being healthy and normal; and it brings you peace thinking that could be you. Now that you’ve got this feeling you can’t hide, that deep down desire that is directed toward Gaston, you probably think that must mean you are gay, huh? Before you hasten to choose a gay identity, consider that there are negative factors that could be influencing your identity and behavior, if not subconsciously, then overtly. You may recall things as I mention them, or you may have to pray to recall repressed memories.

HERE WE GO, WILL YOU HEAR ME OUT LEFOU?

What if certain things from your past have caused you to have these unusual feelings? Many people who have been where you are, took on the gay identity, only to find themselves coming to a different identity that isn’t gay. Me for example. This is because they have identified experiences from their past that led them to nurture a mistaken identity.

What are these experiences? They include unrealized masculine qualities you wish you had and covet in other men (Gaston for example), feelings of rejection from women (so I’ve heard Claudette, Laurette and Paulette have been hard on you), lack of healthy masculine relationships with other men, and a really dark subject, abuse. Let’s review these one at a time:

UNREALIZED MASCULINE QUALITIES

Let me tell you about what happened to me here. I grew up very smart like you, energetic, fun to have around. Also like you, I was not really athletic and the girls ridiculed me constantly. I also found myself wishing I was the alpha male, daydreaming of being one of those big guys who got the attention of the girls and was awesome in all sports. (I suppose for you it’s hunting and fishing?) Something in me changed over time because of the coveting and the lust of their masculinity, including their bodies. I started to see them as attractive, not platonicly speaking, but with a desire to possess. With many of my peers jeering at my lack of masculinity, and calling me gay and queer because of it, I wondered if that was the explanation as to why I had those feelings. Perhaps those feelings were sexual? And if they were sexual toward the same sex, I must be gay?

You see LeFou, you have been bullied for a long time by Gaston. That guy has a huge ego, and he uses people like you to feel important and strong. It’s seems he is demonstrating dysfunctional behaviors in relationships with both men and women and needs help. He has been teasing you and demonstrating his masculinity to taunt you for his benefit. You recognize his strength and are intimidated by it, yet somewhat curious and attracted to it. What could be happening is the masculine qualities you think you don’t or can’t have that he possesses is causing feelings of desire. He seems to be using that to his benefit. It seems you’re stuck in a victimzier/victim relationship.

LACK OF HEALTHY MASCULINE MALE RELATIONSHIPS

I went the majority of my life without a healthy masculine relationship. My father, God bless him, was very busy man working to take care of our family, but unavailable for those father/son bonding experiences that you see in old shows like My Three Sons or Leave it to Beaver. The male peers with whom I hung out frequently made me the brunt of the jokes because I was a pushover. Always wanting to please others, wanting people to like me because I was so alone– wait, isn’t that your story? Yeah, we’re a lot alike.

It wasn’t until later in life that I met a male friend who eventually became a spiritual brother to me. My friend demonstrated masculinity in a way that didn’t intimidate or show condescension towards me. He wanted to help me find my masculinity. He came alongside me and encouraged my growth instead of holding his masculinity above me like a carrot to get me to do things.

Gaston is using you, and you are allowing it because you are getting male attention, albeit all negative . It is true he is a handsome and strong man, a seemingly very capable individual. But he dangles it over you to get a response for his ego, to get you to serve him, to oogle over him. Like I said, his ego is so big he uses women and men and wants them to swoon over him.

But you know what? There are better guys out there who will be your brother. Some other guys will come along and befriend you. These new friends will be your equal and your guide you in obtaining the masculine qualities you want. They can help you get comfortable in your own skin. Ask and I bet they can help you in prayer as you seek counseling from therapists. And then you’ll learn the strong men in your life are your peers, not your lovers.

TROUBLES WITH THE LADIES

Here is another area I have some experience in. Not the good kind, the bad kind. I see how the ladies treat you with disdain. They look at you and wince. In middle school I was setup by three mean girls. They invited me to ‘the dance’ with a plan to destroy me. When I arrived at my date’s house, they literally cornered me in the den and emotionally berated and emasculated me. I ran home for support, but instead, I was rejected by my step mother and told to go to my room.

I was crushed. It was not until years later that I learned I had believed those girls when they said I was gay, that I was ugly and stupid, and that no girl (or woman) would ever want to be with me. This experience dramatically changed the way I related to women and ultimately how I related to men. Not trusting women with my feelings, that left me with men. Now that I’ve recovered from that trauma, I am able to trust a woman with my feelings.

ABUSE

If you read the news, you’ll see there sure are a lot of stories around questioning identity and sexual brokenness lately. People are discovering their ‘true’ selves after being abused. George Takei was sexually molested as a 13 year old child by a male adult at a summer camp before he took on a gay identity. Ellen Degeneres was sexually assaulted by her step father over and over. Milo Yiannopoulos was sexually abused as a 13 year old by a man and later again by another man. Tragically, when children are exposed to sexual abuse, they can get very confused, hide the abuse from their parents, or worse not be believed by their parents, and then bury the pain and later act out in unhealthy ways by making poor choices and end up taking on identities they wouldn’t have ever had if they had not been abused.

Have you been abused? You don’t need to tell me. I ask just to give you something consider if you need healing in that area of your life.

SEEKING HELP

If any of these areas ring true to your heart, and you believe there may be any sort of brokenness; I would encourage you to seek professional therapy and support. It seems the longer you go, the farther you’ll repress that pain until it becomes part of your identity.
What do I mean by that? Well, for many people there comes a point when you just give up and ‘admit’ you’re are gay because you can’t address the pain of the causes of your brokenness or explain or deal with the confusing or unwanted same sex attraction. The ‘coming out’ experience seems inevitable when compared to the huge wall of pain. Giving in feels like a relief because sometimes it’s easier to accept the identity of a gay person than to address the pain of brokenness. I’m not saying this is your struggle or your solution, just hoping to enlighten you that this could be an issue for you and if so there is hope for wholeness. It was certainly a struggle for me, and I prayed and God lead me to healing my brokenness and restoration of my true identity. Write me back and we can talk more about that.

Sincerely,

Daren
Your Not Gay Friend

Linda Harvey #fundie rightwingwatch.org

I’ll say that again, It Gets Better. It’s a video campaign organized by a radical and vicious, vicious, vulgar, profane, anti-Christian, I can’t say enough things along that line about him. Dan Savage. He’s an activist, been around for years. This It Gets Better campaign is a video campaign that a lot of the leftist politicians including our president have jumped on board, so have some celebrities. It’s supposed to encourage kids, that’s great. Encourage kids, say, you know if you’re having trouble, you’re getting bullied, you feel despaired, don’t give up. That would be a worthy goal if they stop there. But no they tag on to it approval of homosexuality and the implication that anybody who objects is just like those bullies out there and they’re leading you or others into suicide. That’s just wrong, it’s evil, it’s dark, this Dan Savage has already come out attacking my friend Peter [LaBarbera].

whalenapp's dad #fundie reddit.com

[To give some context my father in-law is a true piece of shit. He cheated on his first wife and his second wife, multiple times. Never paid child support. His first set of kids from his first marriage (of which my wife is the oldest) hates him.

But he loves Jesus, also thats how the email was sent. No paragraphs, no formatting, and lots of bad grammar.]

Nicole, There are a lot of things that you should know about what is going on. 2500 armored vehicles ordered by homeland security. Use of drones here. The 6500 Moslems in the military. The moslems in his administration. I still don't understand how you can call what lesbians and gay men do as love. Its just a hurt on hurt codependent relationship that has 60% more disease than heterosexuals, and they live 20 yrs. less. So how does that make it good for homo's. Telling the truth, is not hate. Everyone is trying to redefine definitions so they can support there own position. They are trying to make truth relative to support whatever position they want to take. Its obvious by the design of men and women, what God meant. Its also obvious by the consequences, just like with any other sin, what God meant. But most dangerous of all, there is no conscience more seared and dead, than that of a homosexual. They can perform well to look normal, but it is all an act. They want you to think they are equal or better than hetero's, and by God, without the responsibility of kids and a wife, they can look better in some regards. But how gross is it for a child to have homo parents, daddy and daddy, mommy and mommy. How can you not see this. Its gross, nasty, vile. How can you call that love. Anyway, not a putdown, just an alert. Your are swimming in very dangerous waters with sharks. You have know idea what Barak and his supporters are up to, and that boggles my mind. Its something far beyond socialism. But even if it were only socialism, given the impoverished and tyrannical nature of all socialist governments, all of them, how can you possibly support that. All those idiots have to do is mention the abuses of the wealthy, which pale in comparison to the abuses on a population under socialism, and you run to there support. How did the professors at ASU make you so blind. Capitalism has nothing to do with the greed or money, but the model and structure within which one discovers there passion, how God made us to be and what he made us to do, and then having a way to use it to achieve the highest and best possible life and happiness, at least here on this globe. That is not even remotely possible under any other form of government. Its me being a landscaper, you working at a capitalist paving company, Clarissa doing her hair thing. Capitalism is capitalizing on opportunity. It only exist like that here. How in the world can you want that to die. It took Jesus Christ, and thousands of years of oppression to birth it, and now you want to kill it because of a few reject professors, and probably a few friends who drink the same kool aid. And as far as Mike thinking that the whole Bible is a metaphor, the miracles and all, I bet he would like to have one of those miracles about now, say? I mean when you say you pray, do you pray to the God and Jesus one and only of the Bible, or the great cosmos, the great spirit. Some enigmatic unknowable God made up by the deceived and perverted minds of men to promote their own evil desires over the blind masses. Barak Obama has almost succeeded in destroying the only thing left before he declares himself to be Moslem, and that is our government itself. He promotes such ridiculous laws that conservatives and Christians could obviously never vote for, and then pounds it home that they don't support him, that he tried to work with them, and that Congress is acting along party lines, rather than working for the good of the country. He wants to make them look so ineffective, that the people, of which you are one of his minions, will give him complete power and control to fix everything. At that time, he will round up all the Christians, because they are as extreme as the Islamics according to him, put them in concentration camps that he is already making, complete with thousand and thousands of plastic coffins, and give everyone else a chip to put in the arm, which you will gladly wear yourself, and be proud that he finally fixed everything, just like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao and the others did. How can you not see what he is really up to. We need to have a talk about this and stop acting like everything is OK. I love you and Clarissa to death, but you are in love with the "John the Baptist" of the antichrist, or the antichrist himself. I can not rap my mind around that, and I can not ignore it any longer. Just like with all ravenous unrestrained sinners, the more power Barak gets, the more he bypasses Congress and sees he can get away with it, the more he wants. Its the law of diminishing returns, just like with drug addicts, sexaholics who have to continually do more and more perverse things to get the same high, money holics who will do anything to anyone to get it, its the same thing. How does this escape someone who is as smart as you are, and knowing what you know about God and the Bible. You must come to terms with this before it is too late. Football, work, life, love, all great, but there is a 900 pd guerilla in the room. Lets talk about him. I love you sweety, way too much to remain silent and hope you will figure this all out for yourself. I would be the worst dad if I did not address this, the worst. There is only one path way to heaven, not because I am blind and God is mean, but men are blind, and there is only one God, who sent his only Son. Other Gods are just made up in the minds of men. Only one God has intervened, and shown himself to man. Only one God who made earth, talks to his creation, helps his creation, loves his creation, and has sought to redeem us from our own acts. All other religions tell you just go out and do good things. But this does not change your heart, only Jesus can change the heart so that our good becomes the automatic extension of our relationship with him. We don't have to spend hours chanting, or clanging on gongs, or talking to dead relatives. We don't have to do good to cover our evil. Jesus covers our evil so we can be and do good. Lets come to agreement on these things over time, and in the power of Gods love. There is no freedom outside of Christ, and the entire history of man, and the history of this country prove that beyond argument. I love you love you, and this is why I send this. I pray that mikes fistula just disappears, and that he sees the power and glory of God. He needs to know God. I did not say he wasn't nice and wonderful, he is. I just want him to know God and the fullness of his love. Talk to you soon, Dad

Vincent Cheung #fundie vincentcheung.com

First, I am guessing this person implies that my view is foreign to the Bible, so that the questions are raised against my view in particular and not against the Bible itself. Coming from a Christian, this indicates ignorance and prejudice. I am not using these words as insults but to label the problem areas. There are numerous passages in the Bible indicating that sin is God's idea – not that he condones it, but that he decrees it – both in general and in particular instances. Given the fact that it is the Bible that teaches this, the person who asks these questions against my view is ignorant of and/or prejudiced against those passages teaching that it is God who devises evil against people and that he decrees that people should commit certain sins so that they would be judged and destroyed, or otherwise be disciplined or to further some other purpose.

People often disassociate a teaching in the Bible that they dislike from the person who teaches it from the Bible, and then they make the pretense of attacking the person for the teaching, when in reality they are attacking the Bible itself. Relative to these questions, it would make no difference even if God were to "passively" cause evil (whatever that means) – since the idea of evil would still originate in God. The only way out is to say that God has no concept of evil at all, and that evil must be wholly attributed to another entity. This is the heresy of dualism – the logical conclusion that God is not the author of sin. Second, the questions are incomplete. They make an assumption that the person fails to justify or even mention. Since it is so ingrained, he is probably unaware of it. He asks, "How can God actively cause and control the evil thoughts of unregenerate men without nullifying his holiness?" But what is the problem? The question does not tell us. The assumption seems to be that to directly control evil is to commit evil – to cause sin is to commit sin, and to author sin is to be a sinner. But where does the Bible teach this?

Evil is defined by God, not by man, and unless God says that for him to directly control evil is to commit evil, then for him to directly control evil is not to commit evil. It is not up to man to say otherwise. In fact, the person who asks the question has placed himself above God. To paraphrase, the question is really, "How can God remain holy if he does something that is against my standard of what it means for God to be holy?" I shudder at the idea that someone would dare think this way, but this is what the question implies. Then, as for the question, "That is, isn't God thinking the evil thoughts before he causes men to think them?" My first reaction is, "So what?" The same is true with foreknowledge (here the word means prescience, and not the biblical meaning of foreordination). Are we now saying that God cannot foreknow any evil in order to remain holy? If so, does God know about evil after someone has done it? Would not that taint his holiness as well? Imagine all the thoughts of murder, rape, perjury, theft, and countless other sins that are in God's mind! From this perspective, God has more evil thoughts in his mind than even Satan himself. Scripture and I do not think that this is a problem, but the question implies that it is.

Do you see how unbiblical and sinister this line of reasoning is? But this is the common way of thinking. People do not realize how inconsistent and wicked it is to disallow to God something that he never forbids to himself. Of course, with foreknowledge, when God thinks thoughts of murder and rape, it is because he possesses information about how his creatures would violate his laws in these ways. It is certainly not that God would commit murder and rape. But if this is a satisfactory explanation for foreknowledge, then it is also satisfactory for the active ordination and causation of sin. It is not that God would commit these sins, but that he would actively cause his creatures to do them. And – here is the important point – there is no revealed moral law and no revelation about his nature saying that he could not or would not do this. The problem occurs only when man invents the premise and imposes it on God, and in doing so, actually thinks that he is protecting God's holiness. Third, if we are against the idea that God actively causes evil, what does it mean when we say that he passively decrees or causes it?

Yes, you can say it, but does it mean anything? Or is it nonsense? Ask someone to explain it and prove it. Bust through the standard slogans, go deeper, and see what you get. How is it metaphysically possible to infallibly ordain something and not cause it? And how is it metaphysically possible to unfailinglycause something, but do it passively? How is it possible to ordain the precise types and numbers of all sins, and the ways that they would be performed, so that all things must turn out as he has ordained, without using any active power to bring it about? How is it possible for God to merely permit evil without causing it when he is the one who sustains all things, moment by moment? Either we must attribute to man a metaphysical status and power that the Bible says he does not have – that is, the power of self-existence and self-causation, thus making man into God – or we must say that God actively causes all things.

Not everyone is oblivious to the inconsistency, but instead of deducing their theology from the Bible, they appeal to "mystery" in order to hold on to their nonsense. The view that I espouse has no mystery and no inconsistency. People do not like it just because it is againstwhat they have imposed upon God. Moreover, if they can appeal to mystery whenever they want, then I should be allowed to say mystery, mystery, mystery over and over until the critics leave me alone. But somehow their mystery is superior to my clarity. What the Bible clearly tells us is not mystery, but revelation. The appeal to mystery is often a diversion from the fact that a person sinfully refuses to accept what the Bible plainly reveals. In short, the answer is that causing evil is different from committing evil. To cause evil refers to a metaphysical relationship, while to commit evil refers to a transgression of divine moral law. For it to be wrong for God to cause evil, he must establish a self-imposed moral law stating that it is wrong for him to cause evil. If he does not do this, then he has not defined it as evil. Rather, precisely because God is righteous, all that he does is righteous by definition. Therefore, it is righteous for him to cause evil whenever he wishes.

And it is evil to oppose or to question him in this. In other words, the question skips a premise – or, it assumes a premise that is either unjustified or unmentioned. This is the assumption that for the creator to cause a creature to perform evil is for the creator himself to perform evil. This view is both irrational and blasphemous. The topic is very educational and revealing. It exposes how common it is for us to dictate to God how he must behave – he must adhere to our standard in order to remain what he says he is! Just look through all the theological publications in church history. It is almost unanimous that God cannot be "the author of sin" – but none of them can tell you why, even if some of them mention the unjustified and unbiblical assertion that for him to cause evil would be the same as to commit evil. No one in church history has ever been able to prove this premise, and few even try.

Theeohn Megistus #conspiracy in5d.com

In the beginning of this universe Divine Creator created “Games”. The Game for this Universe was called Polarity Integration. The goal was simple: experience polarity and integrate it; once achieved, reunite with Divine Creator. The players of this game would be the Humanoids and the Reptilians. The Humanoids were given a creation myth which stated that the Humans could colonize any planet they chose, but if they find another race on the planet, they must negotiate a peace treaty and strive for harmony. The Reptilians were given a creation myth that stated that they owned the Galaxy and had the right to colonize any planet they chose. If a non-reptilian race is present, they could and should destroy it. Humans were created right-brain dominant (or feminine polarized), Reptilians left-brain dominant (or masculine polarized).

The Reptiles were given a head start so that their technology would start out superior to the Humans. Their home world was called Aln and was located in the Orion Constellation. The Reptiles already attained space travel when the humans were still swimming in the oceans. The humanoid home world was Avyon in the Vegan star system and existed initially as aquatic primates (the Cetaceans).

When humanoids became advanced enough for space travel about 22 million years ago, they colonized another planet called Avalon. Soon the reptiles arrived and a conflict resulted. They infiltrated the colony with their advanced technology and while courting friendship and trust, sowed the seeds of discord between those that wished to grow spiritually and those that wanted to grow technologically. A civil war ensued and the reptiles supplied both sides with sufficient technology to annihilate themselves. This was round one. The reptiles won.

The Founders of the Game moved some of the humanoids to Sirius B so they could be away from the reptilian interference. Over a very long period of time two groups emerged called the “Etherics” (non- physicals) and the “Physicals.” The Etherics were feminine polarized and the Physicals were male polarized. The Founders then moved the Physicals to Aln, the Reptilians home world and the Etherics were moved to Tiamat, the primordial Earth.

The Reptilians weren’t real happy about the Physical Humanoids showing up on their planet and soon the battles began and the colony was nearly destroyed. Some of the humans were forced into slavery and others went underground and formed the Black League. The Black League managed to escape Aln for Tiamat to join the Etherics.

The Reptilians eventually found out about Tiamat and decided to colonize it. When they arrived, there was a proto-humanoid civilization and the Etherics. The Etherics sent positive energy to the Reptiles in an effort to create a peaceful coexistence and get them to let go of their Creation Myth. It worked well for a very long while. It almost looked like integration had already occurred. There were snake reptiles on one side, dinoid reptiles on the other and the humanoids in the middle. The humanoids had learned farming and were growing enough food to feed the whole planet. This was subsequently called the Great Experiment, the forerunner of planet Earth. This was the first time Etherics had been used to obtain a peaceful coexistence and it was amazingly successful.

However, word got out that a planet existed that was living in peace and harmony and the ruling Orion Reptilians decided to pay a visit. This was, of course, in violation of the Creation Myth and they immediately started sowing the seeds of discord among the Reptiles in an attempt to convince them that the Humanoids were secretly planning their destruction. It took a very long time for the ruling Reptilians to work this plan through because the Etherics kept sending thoughts of love and harmony and the physical humanoids kept sending them food. But ultimately the Creation Myth won out and the Reptiles developed a plan to destroy the humanoids through germ warfare.

The proto-humanoids understood what was happening and decided that they would leave the planet and go to the Pleiades aboard the starship Pegasus and the Etherics would mutate back into the aquatic primates (whales and dolphins) and maintain the biosphere. A plan was devised to rid the planet of the Reptiles through implosions of the underground fusion generators. About 98% of the Reptiles were destroyed in the ensuing world-wide cataclysm but a few survived and were present when the remaining planet was repopulated as Earth. Another small group was given sanctuary aboard the Pegasus and went to the Pleiades. Another group fled to the planet Maldek. This all happened about 8 million years ago.

A long period of peace existed after these events. The land guardianship role was vacant so the cetaceans and spiritual hierarchy began searching for a replacement which they eventually found on the fourth planet of the Vega system, the birthplace of present-day humans. They were aquatic primates at that time but through assistance of the Galactic Guardians their evolution was allowed to jump forward to become the Vegan Humans and subsequently created a new galactic guardian group. This was about 4.5 million years ago. A Galactic Federation was created and in the ensuing migration over 2.5 million years, the Galactic Federation agreed to colonize Earth again. The Earth Colony Hybornea was created in the northern lands near present day Florida (the Earth axis has shifted since then). It was a civilization that existed for nearly a million years beginning two million years ago.

The Lyrans decided that, in order to live in complete harmony, they would eliminate the self-defense function. They did this through genetic engineering. However, it left them defenseless so they developed a warrior race which lived separate from their civilization. They were genetically engineered with enhanced adrenaline output to react more aggressively than natural. However, this change caused an imbalance which limited the ability of this altered being to connect to its creator. These new helpers were unstable and threatening to the civilization that created it. As a solution to the problem the Lyrans exiled the whole population of altered beings to a sparsely inhabited planet in a far-off corner of the galaxy. To ensure this would never be revealed to anyone, they altered all memory of this experience and no records were allowed to be taken. This new planet was called Earth. Humanity was left on this “prison planet” to work out the genetic imbalance through adaptation.

Sometime after humans were marooned on Earth, a different extraterrestrial race arrived and attempted to enslave them. However, they did not comprehend human warlike capabilities and were repulsed. They have been planning retribution ever since and now confer with the present-day hierarchy at the top of the secret societies. The planetary awareness of these beings has been in the form of the beast or Satan or the devil. If their plan is allowed to be completed, the planet could be destroyed. They don’t care, they only want revenge.

A war of liberation broke out on Lyra about 360,000 years ago during which the terrorizing army fled to the Pleiades and took possession of the Hesperides system. The name was changed to the Pleja system in honor of their leader. She led an expedition to the SOL system and took control of Mars, Earth and Malona. Conflict broke out on Malona over control of the planetary government. Earth was evacuated back to Lyra-Vega. The war on Malona ultimately pulverized the planet and caused significant destructions on Mars, Venus and Earth.

A peaceful group of Lyran-Vegans migrated back to Earth many years later and developed a high civilization of Hybornea which lasted 6000 years and was again destroyed by wars. About 53,000 years ago wars again broke out in the Lyran system and a leader named Pelegon came to Earth with 70,000 men to establish another civilization which lasted 10,000 years and ultimately was again destroyed by wars. About 100,000 people fled to the Barnard Star (Beta Centaurus) while Earth was thrown back to the Stone Age.

They returned after 7000 years under the leadership of Atlant to create the great Atlantian civilization. His wife Karyatide created Lesser Atlantis and her father Muras created the great civilization of Mu. These blossomed into a planetary civilization which lasted 18,000 years until, in 13,000 B.C., a group of scientists tried seizing power. They were trying to again create a race to support their violent tendencies. Before the scientists were subdued and escaped back to Beta Centaurus, much of the continent of Atlantis was destroyed.

Two thousand years later this same group returned for revenge under the leadership of Arus (the Barbarian) and his 200 sub-leaders. He conquered Hybornea and began to systematically subjugate the rest of the world by attacking India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and surrounding areas. It was Arus and his men who were the “Sons of Heaven” that bred with the Earth females called the “Evas” to create the biblical Adam and Eve,the ancestors of many present-day humans. The descendants of Arus left the planet in 26 A.D. after creating Jmmanuel and implanting the Galactic laws and philosophies in humanity.

The origins of Lemuria began on a continent in what is now the Pacific Ocean around 900,000 B.C. and lasted until 26,000 B.C. It was a Lyrian/Sirian styled civilization with democratic principles of governance. It created a number of daughter empires during its existence; the most important of those was Atlantis (which existed in part, on a huge island-continent in the center of the Atlantic Ocean), the Libyan/Egyptian Empire in Africa and the Yü Empire of central China and Tibet.

Due to the influence of renegade Pleiadians / Centurians (Anunnaki), the Atlanteans began developing a hierarchical society which led to feelings of separateness and superiority. After they were granted equal guardianship of the planet 26,000 years ago by the Lemurians, they began plotting ways to grab the sole guardianship. They found allies in the colonies of Alpha Centauri and the Pleiades mostly through the Galactic Federation outpost colonies that shared the concept of a hierarchical society. They and various Pleiadian and Centaurian rebel-renegades plotted the destruction of Lemuria. Their plan was a technical success; however it resulted in the destruction of one of the Earth’s moons, the entire continent of Lemuria, cataclysmic events over the entire earth and a mini-ice-age.

The Atlantians (with the assistance of the Pleiadian and Centurian Rebels) used space ships with force fields to cause one of the Earths moon’s to spiral inward and just as the moon reached the ‘LaGrange Point’, they blasted it with particle beam weaponry. This resulted in a massive meteor shower over Lemuria with the resulting rupture of its subterranean gas chambers and the sinking of the entire continent. The physical destruction of Lemuria was so complete that nothing remained except legends. This was Great Flood #1.

Atlantis had its beginnings about 100,000 years ago. It was destroyed three times; the last time was coincident with Great Flood #3. In the second incarnation, which began 25,000 years ago, they had made great technological progress which was far greater that anything man has attained today however, it lacked sufficient spiritual development and became locked into materialistic endeavors. They wished to replace the clan structure of Lemurian society with an elite structure. This concept of governance was not well received and resulted in a series of costly civil wars across the entire planet. The clan structure is based on groups of people who all shared the same vision and goals about what should be accomplished in their respective fields. It was similar to our present-day scientist and technical trade-groups, except that these trade-groups also had limited governing authority. It meant that the most knowledgeable people were the ones in charge. It has been the elite form of governance that has been in place on this planet ever since Atlantis came to power 25,000 years ago.

They brought in one of the artificial Maldek moons to help balance the planet. The destruction of one of Earth’s two moons caused an unstable wobble in the Earth. This artificial moon was, in fact, a fully armed battle station. It was also an attempt to signal to the rebellious holdouts that military superiority was at hand which was ready and able to end all civil wars and rebellions. The rebellions instead continued over the entire 10,000 year period of this Middle Empire. There was a period of terrorism, torture and inquisitions. They created a superior ruling class which was sustained by the myth of a god-king. A single supreme god-king ruled over all.

Following the destruction of Lemuria, the Libyan/Egyptian Empire negotiated an understanding that allowed them to maintain some autonomy over their own affairs; however they did have to make some concessions to do this. The only other Empire of significance was the Yü, which refused to bow down to the Atlanteans. They even issued several decrees demanding an apology to the other empires for their careless and inhumane destruction of Lemuria and the subsequent cataclysms.

The Atlanteans, jointly with the Egyptians, countered with demands to rescind the decrees. The Yü Empire refused. The combined forces of the Atlantians, the Egyptians and the renegade Pleiadian Centurian allies forced the remnants of the Yü Empire underground. They still exist today as the Kingdom of Agharta in deep underground caverns beneath the Himalayan Mountains and under present day Tibet. The entrances from Tibet were all closed after China invaded in 1949. It is not clear, but is believed that they were searching for the entrances. Attempts to find it using modern day tunneling equipment have been unsuccessful.

Towards the end of the second Empire, autocratic rule was in full force and the remaining rebel alliance was exiled to southern Europe, to a place called Ionia (Greece) and there they would stay until they renounced their ways and complied with the ruling authority. This rebel alliance consisted of the former ruling elite as well as leading scientists. They decided instead to create a Lemurian style governance with plans to ultimately bring their government back to Atlantis. In other words, they became even more organized and dangerous than before they were exiled.

This did not sit well with the ruling authority of Atlantis. The rebels had defied them at every turn and now they were a greater threat than before. A plan was devised to end the problem by destroying Ionia by a method similar to the way they destroyed Lemuria. The plan required the assistance of the rebel Pleiadians and Centurians. This plot was discovered by the Ionians. The result was that the Ionians were able to counter the attack by interrupting their energy beam from Nibiru and the moon exploded over Atlantis instead. Atlantis therefore was destroyed in much the same manner as it had destroyed Lemuria. The Atlantean subcontinent was reduced to a few scattered islands. One of the two Firmament layers was destroyed as well. This was Great Flood #2. This happened 13,000 years ago.

This event did not completely destroy Atlantis however and attempts were made to reconstitute the civilization with what remained. They developed a crystal technology that was capable of transmitting energy wirelessly over great distances. They used the device to propel and guide airplanes, surface vehicles and submarines. They tapped solar energy and also found a way to tap the collective consciousness of the human mind. They eventually found a way to use the collective mind in harmony with the crystals and the Earth as a power source. The people became subservient to this system of mind and power control against their will (ala “The Matrix”). They also found a way to harness the power of the crystal to rejuvenate a person endlessly. One of the crystals is in the Biblical Ark.

Several thousand years before the first flood, the Anunnaki showed up in a ceremonious fashion and presented themselves as gods from heaven to the Atlantians. They started plugging into the ego-consciousness of the leaders by stimulating and fueling their base desires. New technologies were offered as gifts and in return they would do their bidding in holding influence over their subjects in rather depraved ways. They were instrumental in creating mind-Earth resonance devices and even came up with a way to alter the mind of the people to obey their wishes through a slow-pitched electro-magnetic pulse transmitted through the crystal generator network. This sound, which was inaudible to the human ear, caused a release of neurochemicals (the peptides that influence behavior) that caused irrational emotional states and submission to authority. They began attacking lesser civilizations to conquer and take their resources. Through genetic engineering they also helped develop a mutant human who was disconnected from his higher self. These humans would be unaware of their spirituality and would be much easier to control. These evolved into present-day humans.

The final destruction of Atlantis occurred sometime around 10,000 years ago. There was a conflict in the Middle East between the Rama Empire, the Egyptian Empire and the Sumerian Empire. In an attempt to end the conflict they destroyed some of the crystal temples that held up the Firmament. The idea was to open a hole just big enough to flood the enemy out of their positions. However, there was a simultaneous destruction of multiple temples on both sides which destroyed a sufficient number to cause the entire Firmament to collapse. This caused all of the water ice suspended in the atmosphere to come crashing down in a cascade effect over the entire planet. What remained of Atlantis was gone forever beneath the waves. A significant portion of Atlantis still exists at the bottom of the ocean in the Central Atlantic, off the coast of the Carolinas, the Bahamas and the south-western coast of Cuba. This was Great Flood #3.

The Firmament was created before humans existed. They were placed here by the Game Lords to allow for the development of sentient life approximately thirty-five million years ago. It has been destroyed and repaired many times. It consisted of two layers of water ice that acted as a shield against harmful radiation and caused there to be a uniform climate across the entire Earth surface. The temperature was in the high 70’s near the equator and the low 70’s at the poles. The winds were a modest 5 mph, the skies were always sunny, and there were few clouds, no hard rain, no significant winds and no storms. The ice in the Firmament created a lensing effect which made the Moon, Sun and stars all look bigger than they otherwise appear. The Firmament held about as much water as all the oceans rivers and streams on the planet, so when it came down, it would appear as though the sky was literally falling down.

Of course, the empires of Sumeria, Rama and Egypt were all destroyed in the subsequent flood. This flood spread world-wide to encompass the Americas, Asia, Europe and Africa. Every indigenous culture has a flood story. It rained for 40 days and in that time an entire world civilization was destroyed. What were left were legends and myths of gods and goddesses from an age which was completely erased from the earth. Approximately two million people survived the event on the surface. The Agharta (Lemurian) Empire also survived as they were already protected underground.

The Atlantean rulers and their associates fled to the star system of Hadar (a.k.a. Beta Centauri). The people of Hadar insisted that nothing should be done to save what was left of the human race. An argument ensued with the Pleiadians over the issue but the renegade Pleiadians won out. They intervened and restored many areas including the Middle East (Sumeria), the central valley in Mexico (Maya and other Mesoamerican civilizations), the Indus valley area of India and in North Central China near the city of Xian, and the entire Nile river basin in the land of the Egyptians.

So the restoration of life on this planet was once again in the hands of the same people who caused the problem in the first place. It was their intervention that triggered the destruction of Lemuria, the destruction of Atlantis and the entire world civilization. Through it all, it still didn’t sink into the Pleiadian rebels what they were doing to mankind. In the period 1500 B.C. through 1200 B.C. the renegade Pleiadians were forced to withdraw from direct intervention by the main defense forces of the Pleiadian Star League. This finally brought the “reign of terror” to an end.

The Spiritual Hierarchy was responsible for sending the Christ, Budda, Mohammed, Ahkenaton and other ascended masters to show us “the way the truth and the light”. This planted the seeds of spiritual consciousness. Other attempts to bring back the Sirian/Lemurian style governance included Noah and the Hebrews. Noah didn’t get very far and after the Exodus; the Hebrews instituted the concept of Judges to bring the people a concept of a society led by spiritual beings. However, these attempts failed because the human psyche was not ready for it and it was decided that planting the idea of a Christ consciousness would grow into the human psyche over thousands of years and be ultimately successful. Emperor Constantine modified these teachings in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicea.

Because of the destruction of the Firmament, a significant amount of damaging radiation has been allowed to hit the planet surface. This causes a disastrous effect on all living things. There was no reasonable chance that humans would be able to survive over the long term independent of outside support with their spiritual selves disconnected.

Most humans don’t know that their primary mission on the planet is to be a guardian of the planet; that without their conscious support of the biosphere in concert with the cetaceans, all life on the planet falls apart, literally. The only thing that’s still holding it together right now is the cetaceans and the Spiritual Hierarchy. A guardian is one who brings in the energies of creation and regulates them for the biosphere. The Earth land guardian is man. It is a very unique process whereby the creative life energies given by the Spiritual Hierarchy are physically transmuted into maintenance life energies. Chanting, singing, dancing, ceremony and meditation are all forms of this process. A guardian must consciously and subconsciously maintain these inter-dimensional energies so that they are dispersed in a proper manner. Using Universal Law, a guardian imagines, then combines this with feeling to create. Children do this instinctively when they play and sing and jump around although this is decidedly less focused.

CJ Hopkins #conspiracy counterpunch.org

The Dawning of the Age of Non-Terrorist Terrorism

by CJ Hopkins

shutterstock_339441194

Frederic Legrand – COMEO | Shutterstock.com

Berlin.

Of all the types of terrorist threats we are being conditioned to live in a more or less constant state of low-level fear of, the most terrifying of all has got to be the type we’ve witnessed throughout the Summer — a Summer so terrifying The Guardian is now officially calling it “The Summer of Fear.” Orlando, Nice, Würzberg, Munich, Reutlingen, Ansbach, Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray … the Terror just keeps coming, and coming, like the monster in some blockbuster Hollywood movie. The most terrifying part of it is that these are no ordinary terrorist attacks carried out by ordinary terrorists at the behest of ordinary terrorist groups, but, rather, the work of a new breed of terrorist … a terrorist who has no connection to any type of terrorist groups, is not primarily motivated by Terrorism, and, basically, has nothing to do with Terrorism. Let’s go ahead and call him the “non-terrorist terrorist.”

According to the official narrative being propagated by the Western media, non-terrorist Terrorism officially began in late September 2014 with a statement by Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, a terrorist spokesman for ISIS, ISIL, Daesh, or whatever we’re calling it this week. This statement, which has since been quoted as often as humanly possible by the press, exhorted decentralized terrorist cells, aspiring terrorists, and other random individuals, to launch attacks against innocent Westerners, to wit, to “mash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with a car, or throw him down from a high place …” and so on.

According to the same official narrative, the first attack by a non-terrorist terrorist was carried out in Dijon, France — yes, the place the mustard comes from — in late December 2014, three months after the al-Adnani statement. (The 2013 Boston Marathon bomb attack apparently doesn’t count anymore, as it occurred before the al-Adnani statement and thus doesn’t fit the official narrative.) The prosecutor in the case — the French case, of course — described the perpetrator as a “barely coherent,” mentally unbalanced, middle-aged man who used his car to mow down over a dozen innocent French pedestrians while shouting Islamic stuff out the window.

This, we are learning, is part of the cunning modus operandi of the non-terrorist terrorists, the way they are able to extensively plan and carry out terrifying terrorist attacks while posing as mentally disturbed individuals, or as sexually confused or alienated loners, who have absolutely nothing to do with Terrorism. This ruse was deployed again in Orlando, where the non-terrorist terrorist went as far as to pose as a closeted homosexual; and in Nice, where the attacker maintained his cover for years as a wife-beating petty criminal; and in Würzberg, where apparently the teenage terrorist had been masquerading as an orphaned refugee, but in fact was an insidious sleeper agent sent by ISIS to attack some random train in the middle of the German countryside.

According to knowledgeable Terrorism experts, Western governments, and the mainstream media, we’re going to be seeing more and more of this — these seemingly uncoordinated attacks, both on targets like Nice, which fit the narrative, but also on targets that make no sense, and that terrorists like ISIS have never even heard of, but to which they have nonetheless dispatched their agents to attack Asian tourists with kitchen knives and hatchets while shouting “Allahu Akbar” at the top of their lungs. Who knows where the next attack will take place? Vossevangen, Norway? Demming, New Mexico? Menomonie, Wisconsin? The Outer Hebrides? Your guess is as good as mine.

The point is, as the War on Terror — which, as you probably remember, President Obama officially ended in 2013 — enters this new and more terrifying phase, we will need to prepare ourselves, both logistically and emotionally, for the dramatically heightened level of Terror engendered by the non-terrorist terrorist threat, as well as the invasive “security measures” that will be required to pretend to combat it. Fear, as ever, will be the watchword. Everyone will need to do their part to assist the authorities in identifying, indefinitely detaining, and enhanced-interrogating potential non-terrorist terrorist suspects, and anyone else who looks kind of fishy. Let’s take a look at how that will work.

How to Spot a Non-Terrorist Terrorist

The non-terrorist terrorist is difficult to identify and place on a secret government watch-list as he exhibits few — and sometimes none — of the characteristics of the conventional terrorist. Whereas the conventional terrorist is typically a devout Muslim, and a member of some notorious terrorist group, like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, or Al-Nusra Front (although the latter may not be terrorists, currently, depending on what’s going on in Syria), the non-terrorist terrorist is usually not at all religious, is not a member of any terrorist group, and has absolutely no connection to Terrorism. This lack of any type of terrorist background, or any other ties to actual Terrorism, given the current restrictive limits imposed on anti-Terror professionals by laws, national constitutions, and the like, effectively renders the non-terrorist terrorist undetainable in advance by government agents, anti-Terror police units, and corporate mercenaries, at least in developed Western countries, so they’re going to need all the help they can get in terms of surveilling and profiling everyone. With that in mind, here are some tips for identifying potential non-terrorist terrorists.

The most important thing to remember is that the non-terrorist terrorist is definitely a Muslim, or at least is vaguely Muslim-looking, or has a Muslim-sounding name. White supremacists, neo-Nazis, heavily-armed fundamentalist Christians, and garden-variety white-skinned criminals, unattractive and dangerous though they may be, do not fall into the Terror category, unless, that is, they blow up something like the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, but even that might not count anymore, as it happened before the War on Terror, and … well, once you start calling white people “terrorists,” the distinctions between things get really confusing.

In spite of the fact that he is definitely a Muslim, the non-terrorist terrorist exhibits any or all of an assortment of “non-Muslim behaviors.” He drinks, smokes, abuses drugs, is sexually promiscuous (or aspires to promiscuity), does not attend mosque, rarely prays, and otherwise appears to be just another stressed-out, debt-burdened Western consumer struggling to make sense of late-capitalist society, and to support himself — and, in some cases, his family — with some soul-crushing job at the foreign subsidiary of some global corporation he isn’t even aware of, or as an Uber-driver, or temporary security guard, or with some other type of micro-entrepreneurial activity that’s making his life a living hell, which feeds right into his other cover.

The non-terrorist terrorist often goes to great lengths to create the appearance of having had a long history of psychological and emotional problems. This cover (which the non-terrorist terrorist may begin constructing as early as his late-adolescence) may involve the feigning of a series of nervous breakdowns, or episodes of clinical depression, or suicide attempts, or other such symptoms. Don’t let this “emotionally unstable” act fool you by playing on your empathy for other human beings. If ever in doubt about a disturbed individual, or anyone expressing extremist views, or acting in any way unusual, best to just go ahead and report him, and let the authorities sort it out. You could be dealing with a non-terrorist terrorist in the process of “sudden self-radicalization.”

The “Suddenly Self-Radicalized” Non-Terrorist Terrorist

Unlike the conventional, or “actual” terrorist, the non-terrorist terrorist is often radicalized shortly before the time of his attack, or during his attack, or shortly thereafter. “Radicalization” is a tricky process, which can occur in any number of ways, e.g., over time, in structured settings, but also in purely imaginary ways that only exist in the minds of the terrorists, or the media, or anti-Terrorism experts. In any event, it’s not like the old days, when aspiring terrorists were forced to attend those terrorist training camps out in the desert, and actually get involved with Terrorism. Nowadays all it takes is the Internet, and sincere desire to radicalize yourself.

“Self-radicalization” is a growing problem, and not just among Islamic terrorists. “Radicalism” in any form that opposes or questions global Capitalism, Neoliberalism, and other Western values, is spreading like a mass psychological disorder (see Jonathan Rauch’s recent article in The Atlantic, where he diagnoses the American public’s pathological resentment of the political class). Like the child with Oppositional Defiant Disorder, sometimes even the non-terrorist terrorist — or whatever type of “self-radicalized” person — doesn’t even realize he’s becoming a terrorist, or a non-terrorist terrorist, until it’s too late.

“Self-radicalization” often begins with irrational and inappropriate resentment, which is typically projected onto affluent individuals, major corporations, investment banks, politicians, billionaires, members of the media, or the populations of other countries that happen to be invading or bombing the country of the “self-radicalizing” person in question. This misdirected pathological resentment, if allowed to fester, inevitably leads to the thinking of extremist or terrorist thoughts, which leads to the tweeting of terrorist tweets, and to terrorist Facebook posts, and so on. In no time at all, the self-radicalizing person has transformed into a full-blown non-terrorist terrorist, and is snorting up lines of pulverized Captagon, drawing half-assed ISIS flags on the walls of his apartment with indelible markers, and loading up on weapons at Walmart, or whatever passes for Walmart in his country.

This is just a preliminary check-list of the hallmark features of the non-terrorist terrorist, which the mainstream media will be adding to as The Summer of Fear approaches its climax, and presumably throughout the indefinite future, as the Age of Non-Terrorist Terrorism continues, possibly until the end of Time.

A Word of Warning Regarding Terminology

All right, I know what you’re probably thinking … you’re thinking we’ve finally reached some level of absurdity with this calling people “terrorists” thing where the term completely loses its meaning, and its ability to scare the bejesus out of people. Fortunately, this is not the case. In fact, it’s almost exactly the obverse — the more nonsensical, oxymoronic and utterly meaningless the terms we use to describe the heinous, subhuman enemies (who want to slaughter us because of our freedom) are, the more meaningful, effective and terrifying they are. This is crucial when distinguishing between, for example, our friends in Saudi Arabia and barbarous mad-dog terrorists like ISIS, both of whom chop off people’s heads for crimes like apostasy, idolatry, and adultery … but, of course, the Saudis are not savage terrorists, despite their involvement with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and … well, you can see the danger here, when you start to actually think about things.

The point is, our new “non-terrorist terrorist” designation should not in any way call into question the widely-acknowledged definition, and constant repetition, of the terms “terrorist,” “Terror,” and “Terrorism,” when applied to terrorists, whether of the “non-terrorist” or “terrorist” type. Terrorism is not a word game, or some specious semiotic construct, or an essentially arbitrary made-up label that can be slapped onto any type of violent activity or ideology we want to demonize. Terrorism is Terrorism. The word means exactly what it means … whatever that might be at this point. You can look it up on the Internet, on Google, or Wikipedia, or whatever.

And as for the “non-terrorist terrorist” designation, let’s not get all freaked out about it and make it any more confusing than it is. We can sit around and argue forever over whether the “non-terrorist terrorist” is a terrorist, but, honestly, where is that going to get us? The simple fact of the matter is, as the adjectival in the term denotes, the non-terrorist terrorist is not a terrorist … nevertheless he is a terrorist, and the fact that he is and is not a terrorist simultaneously defines what he is and makes absolutely no difference at all, at least not within the official narrative.

No, despite what terrorist apologists will tell you, calling some terrorists “non-terrorist terrorists” doesn’t mean they aren’t terrorists, or that there isn’t any such thing as “Terrorism,” except within the simulation of “reality” the global capitalist ruling classes need to maintain to keep the masses entertained and borderline paranoid, as they — i.e., the capitalists, not the masses — transform the rest of the entire planet into a combination shopping mall/labor camp.

If that were true, the “War on Terror” would be nothing but an elaborate farce, a simulacrum that was there to distract us from the sociopolitical and economic dynamics of the historical period we were actually living through … which dynamics might have something to do with something a bit more complex than “Terror,” “Evil,” “Hate,” and other empty but terror-inspiring words like that.

As stressful as things are at the moment, imagine how exhausting that would be … having to think about all that stuff, transnational Capitalism’s ideology, the manufacturing of consensus reality, all the childish narratives we would be being fed moment by moment by the corporate-owned media, and the amount of mental energy it would take to try to resist it on a daily basis … but then, seeing as you’ve made it to the end of this piece, I’m pretty sure you already have.

Calypsis4 #fundie evolutionfairytale.com

So live in denial. The fact is that Criss Angel made a blood pact with the devil in order to gain the power to do such things. It's in his own autobiography & when I can locate that quote in my files I will bring it out. As far as O'Neal and what happened to him: he was hypnotized before going over the house. You missed that. But he saw the recording.Furthermore, you did not explain in the slightest as to how Criss Angel managed to pull this off in any physical or illusionary matter. That's because you can't. It was supernatural and we have personally seen it before more than once. I counseled a seriously demonized woman who levitated all of her body off the floor(at a 35 degree angle) except the tips of her toes after being knocked out cold by a force we could not see. Don't even try to tell me such things don't exist. The woman was only two feet in front of me when this happened to her and I have witnesses that saw it with me. These things exist in line with what the Bible says about the supernatural and it is all related to what God told us in His Word.

Sheshbazzar #fundie godlikeproductions.com

Jesus is God: A Simple Biblical Argument

I challenge all of you to point out what is heretical in what follows. Monotheism, I serve Yahweh, I know him. You don't and are a coward for your avoiding this simple, innocent question, namely whether Jesus is or isn't the word "God".

All of you effeminate deniers of Jesus' godhood have a lacking reason, you cannot prove the obvious, that Son = Father, and insist on proving the unprovable i.e., that Son != Father. This your modest reason, you, irrationally obviously, still want to stuff in the stead of your other lacuna, you want to substitute reason for faith, dividing your already mince reason, faith being nonexistent in you. Thus it is that

For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. (Matthew 13.12)

Argument (turn your brain on, if you can):

Jesus is the word of God, the word "God". Word of God, means that "word" is a property of "God" i.e., "God" is a word. Jesus is the word "God". (Already lost?).

This word of God is spoken of God. This word "God" is the original meaning of the word "God", what does it means to be God. This word is the concept of God which God begat by thinking on himself. God conceived his concept by introspection, God knew himself: who knows God better than God himself? Yea, who knows God at all except God?

This word of God says everything about God, whatever you will ever correctly think about God is derivable from the word of God. This word of God is simply the I of God. This I of God is his identity, his image and likeness. This word is the temple of God, the stones of which are the angels, messages of God, words of God, children of God who speak about God, they are the properties, relations of God, just like in mathematical logic. The chief cornerstone thereof being the word of God itself. Yes the word "God" is a proper part of itself.

This word is the praise of God for whatever it says about God can only be praise. This praise of God, by speaking about what it witnesses, by praising God, says itself because it is itself that praise. Thus the word of God says itself. The word of God, like God, says the word of God. The word of God knows God. The word of God is God because, as already mentioned, only God can know himself. (Quick test: go and say "I" in public, does anyone, except you, answers "here I am"?).

The above is a rational proof of Father = Son.
Notice that whenever you speak about God, your sentence, as a concept, involves nothing but concepts, in particular the concept of God. Consider for instance the following true relation "Father begets Son". What is the word "Father"? It is none other than the concept of God. This concept is none other than the word of God, the word "God", the Son. Hence the equivalent relation: "Son begets Son". Can you distinguish Father from Son? No, as the above example a posteriori confirms. The name of God "I become" or "I was, I am, I come" makes this obvious: "I come" is begotten of "I am" and yet is still the name of God, the I of God i.e., the Son.

And yet, the Son isn't God, but this is unprovable and leads to a contradiction. You cannot say it, it is beyond any concept. I tacitly believe this. But you can't, your faculty of faith is atrophied. What the mysterious equality Father = Son causes is the contradictory, void and without form hell where we are right now. Where the Son was sent, where we, Ittai the Gittite, fell, following the Son withersoever he goeth, even unto death.

You don't know God, you don't know the Bible, you are worthless dross to be done away with.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesus-is-lord.com

(Submitter’s note: I edited out a lot of the clubber texts to shorten the guys rant)

A gentleman kindly submitted me a copy of a letter that Paul Harvey read on his radio newscast. It is entitled, "An Open Letter from God" a.k.a. "A Letter from God". I read it with rapt interest for many people had been looking for a copy of it. It is a blasphemy and heresy.
I was stunned by the universalist viewpoint of this letter. Believe me, the true God did not write it. A god of the writer's imagination did. Let's take a SCRIPTURAL look at "A Letter from God" read by Paul Harvey (if you want to read the actual letter read by Paul Harvey go here). In the following commentary, Mr. Harvey's comments are in red...

(Aside: I was recently made aware that "A Letter from God" was a letter anonymously submitted to Mr. Harvey. When I wrote the article that you are about to read, I wasn't sure if Paul Harvey wrote the letter or if one of his listeners did. It didn't make much difference either way because by reading it on his program, it seems that Mr. Harvey put his endorsement to it.)

Paul Harvey says everybody is a child of God.

"My Dear Children...believe me, that is all of you."

Everybody is a creature of God, but not everybody is a child of God. Jesus said that the Devil is the father of those who do not belong to Him:
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
--Jesus Christ, John 8:44

The only way to become a child of God is to be adopted by faith in the blood of Jesus Christ. There is NO OTHER WAY:

Paul Harvey says God used evolution in creation.
"I consider myself a pretty patient guy. I mean, look at the Grand Canyon. It took millions of years to get it right. And about evolution-- boy, nothing is slower than designing that whole Darwinian thing to take place cell by cell and gene by gene."

The Bible says that God created the universe and everything in it in six literal days:
...in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
Exodus 31:17
God made man from the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7), even the Periodic Table shows that. Those who believe the Bible already know that the theory of evolution is a lie. Even a cursory examination of their flimsy "evidence" reveals evolution to be a fairy tale.

Paul Harvey says God didn't author the Bible and you can't trust it.
As you will see below, he calls the books of all religions "bibles." The only "religion" with a book called the "Bible" is the Christian religion. Within the CHRISTIAN religion (NOT the Roman Catholic religion), The Authorized Version of the Bible conformable to the edition of 1611 is the authorized version of the Bible--AND YES YOU ******CAN******** TRUST IT--MORE THAN YOUR TWO EYES !!!!!!!!!!!!! The apostles did not follow cunningly devised fables--they were eyewitnesses of the majesty of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ--



Many people are following the false teachers. They are denying the Lord Jesus Christ today. His blood is the only thing that will save the sinner. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. We need forgiveness of our sins. To be forgiven we must believe in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The reader may wish to see our article entitled, How to Get to Heaven. Men today are blaspheming the name of the Lord Jesus. They are denying him, and they are choosing evil spirits, and idols and images and yoga and meditation and are heading toward hell. And they are speaking evil of the Bible, the word of God.

2 Peter 2:2 AND MANY SHALL FOLLOW THEIR PERNICIOUS WAYS; BY REASON OF WHOM THE WAY OF TRUTH SHALL BE EVIL SPOKEN OF.
Time is winding up and many people are believing the lies and blasphemies of the false teachers--that includes the multitude of fake Christian groups and fake churches.
"Every one of your religions claims... that it's bible was written personally by me, that all the other bibles are man made. Oh, me! How do I ever begin to put a stop to such utter nonsense...I hate to break it to you, but I don't write...so all of your books, including those bibles, were written by men and women. They were inspired men and women...they also made mistakes here and there and I made sure of that so that you would NEVER TRUST A WRITTEN WORD rather than your own living heart!"
This is a blasphemy-packed statement by Harvey's god. We'll look at several things here.
God indeed wrote the Holy Bible using living instruments--these were holy men of old:

The god of Paul Harvey says that we should never trust in a written word. This is a biggie. Without the Bible, we have lies for the Bible IS TRUTH. In one stroke, Mr. Harvey takes away the only source of truth that we have. Jesus said:
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. John 17:17
The written word has always been operative in God's dealing with mankind. The Ten Commandments were written in stone! The Jewish people were the careful custodians of the written scriptures:
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. (Romans 3:1-2)

God has always emphasized the importance of keeping His written word:
This BOOK OF THE LAW SHALL NOT DEPART OUT OF THY MOUTH; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is WRITTEN therein... (Joshua 1:8)
Psalm 119 is the longest chapter in the Bible and it is ALL about the importance of knowing the scriptures.
But what about in the New Testament? Jesus read from the BOOK Isaiah in the synagogue in Luke 4:17.
Paul read the gospel of JESUS IN THE WRITTEN WORD! Listen:

Paul Harvey's god says we should trust in our own hearts. What doth the Bible say about our hearts?

For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. Matthew 15:19
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9

Paul Harvey says God is a Father and a MOTHER.
"All right, listen up now! I am your father and mother."

The Bible NEVER refers to God as a mother. It only refers to Him as a Father. This mother business is some new age mumbo-jumbo and goddess worship.
Paul Harvey says God doesn't want the gospel preached.

"You act like I need you and your religion to stick up for me or win souls for my sake. Please don't do me any favors. I can stand on my own, thank you."
Jesus said to preach the gospel to everyone! His parting words are called, "The Great Commission". Paul Harvey mentions a Jesus in his "A Letter From God"--why? Why? Why? Look at what Jesus said after He rose from the dead:
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20)

Jesus said to go, but Paul Harvey's god says, "Shut up and let people perish in hell! I don't need your help!"

Paul Harvey's god accepts the disobedient, the murderer, liar, drunkard, thief, whoremonger, pedophile, etc. "with no strings attached." All criminals are in good standing with his god no matter what they do--it is the devil that accepts all criminals and sins and false religions that drown men in perdition, but the true and the living God is a good God and he is just and holy. All those that come to him through faith in his Son, Jesus, are helped by him to live rightly and holily. The days filled with fornication, lying, theft, and false worship are over--and God's true people are glad about that--true Christians are not like some kind of penned in dog wishing he were free to do evil. When we are born again, we start obeying God's word and we find that even our very desires change. Paul Harvey's god says, "No strings attached." It is the devil that tells men to do what they feel like doing. The devil is the god of this world (ref. 2 Corinthians 4:4). It is the devil that has seducing spirits and doctrines of devils that entice and deceive people. The true and the living God has holy, righteous commands found in his word.

"...And I love you anyway with NO STRINGS ATTACHED. So, lighten up, and enjoy me. That's what religions are for."
Ah, but there is a string attached--His name is Jesus and without him, a person will NEVER enter glory but eternal punishment in the lake of fire will be his dwelling place. Jesus said (not the Jesus of Mr. Harvey's imagination):
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36
Jesus came to save us from our sins. We are all spiritual criminals.

Paul Harvey says every devil (behind the idols are devils) and false prophet is God.
"And, I am very tired of your main excuse. Do you think I care whether you call me God, or Jaway, or Jehovah, or Allah, Wakatonka, Branda, Father, Mother, even the Void of Nirvana. Do you think I care which of my special children you feel closest to: Jesus, Mary, Buddha, Krishna, Muhammad, or any of the others? You can call me and my special ones any name you choose if only you will go about my business of loving one another as I love you."

The Bible says that there is ONLY ONE NAME THAT CAN SAVE YOUR SOUL

THAT NAME IS JESUS!
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is NONE OTHER NAME under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

Paul Harvey says there are many paths to God. This is a lie. God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit AND IN TRUTH (see John 4:24)! What is truth? God's word is truth (see John 17:17)! None of this "make-it-up-as-you-go-and-you-will-be-alright." The Bible reveals that this is not so! It will not be alright. I walked that do-what-you-feel-like-doing-path for too long--I dishonoured myself and others, I was on my way to hell, AND MY BABY IS DEAD FROM ABORTION! IF YOU WANT TO LIVE WITH GOD, YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN BY REPENTING OF YOUR SINS AND BELIEVING ON THE DEATH, BURIAL AND RESURRECTION OF HIS SON, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. WE ALL NEED THE LORD JESUS--THAT INCLUDES ALL THOSE THAT THINK THAT THEY ARE "GOOD". ROMANS 3:23 TEACHES THAT ALL HAVE SINNED AND COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD. (How to Get to Heaven)

"Each has a unique style so that people can find the best path for themselves. But my special children, the ones your religions revolve around all live in the same place, in my heart. And they get along perfectly, I assure you. The clergy must stop creating a myth of sibling rivalry where there is none."

This is the essence of eastern mysticism--you can get to God any old kind of way. People operate by absolutes in EVERY area of life--a foot is 12 inches, stop at a stoplight, pay taxes, etc.--but when it comes to the most important thing in the universe all of a sudden people say that they cannot know the truth about the Lord God who created them. The truth of the matter is that people don't like God's requirements (found in the Holy Bible--the Authorized (King James) Version of 1611) so they go off in their own direction and choose what they want to follow. They are rebels. God left his commandments written down on paper so that we can come to faith and not be confused and deceived by deceivers. Many people want to be in God's good graces--but they want to do it their way and do whatever sins they feel like doing.

This will only ensure their eternal damnation. We come to God on his terms. We have sinned and he sent his only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to die for our sins so that we can be forgiven. If we do not repent of our sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, we will die in our sins. "There are many paths just find the one that best fits you," is a lie from Satan. Disobedient church people are now basically jumping into the eastern mysticism through the "contemplative prayer" vain repetition movement. It looks like that is going to be the occult devil-worshipping spirituality for these end times.

All the occult traditions/repetitious calling-spirits traditions seem to be coming together--hinduism, buddhism, Roman Catholic mysticism, Greek Orthodox Hesychast, Kabbalism, etc. People are being prepared for the coming of the beast is coming. By peace he shall destroy man. The day of the Lord is also coming. On that day we will all stand before God at the final judgment and the books are going to be opened. We will all be there--including all the dead people...they won't be left out--nobody will be left out.

Paul Harvey says religions get along perfectly--but a cursory look around reveals that that is not true. just look at the writings of each and see that they CONTRADICT each other. Just look at their names--THEY ARE DIFFERENT. DIFFERENT THINGS DO NOT AGREE. The Lord Jesus Christ made known that he is the way, the truth, and the life; NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER BUT BY HIM (see John 14:6, Authorized Version of 1611 of the Bible). Look at Islam's conquest by the sword. Look at the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic "Church" and her torturing and burning people up that do not agree with her. Finally, "the clergy" is not creating sibling rivalry because...

The Bible is what is dividing people and exposing the truth, not the "clergy". Jesus said in Matthew 10:34, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Amen and glory to God. The Word of God is quick and powerful and sharp. Mr. Harvey espouses an imaginary Jesus who does not resemble the real Jesus Christ who is Lord of Lords and King of Kings.

There is no "sibling rivalry" because until a person has been born again, they are not my brother or sister in the faith (in the flesh yes, in the faith, no. We are all children of Adam and Eve and I have had the opportunity to enjoy the fellowship of many different peoples--black, white, Samoan, Japanese, Philippino, etc. but my brethren in the Lord know him.). Any so-called rivalry between the true Christian and the heathen is not rivalry at all. Heathens killing Christians is not sibling rivalry--it is the unrighteous persecuting the righteous (not righteous because we are righteous in and of ourselves but because we are made the righteousness of God in the Lord Jesus--because we believe in him and obey his word). The persecuting non-Christian is offended at the gospel message. This is no surprise because the Bible clearly says that Jesus Christ is a rock of offense to the disobedient: "...a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient..." ( 1 Peter 2:8). Real Christians (there are plenty of fake ones) do not use persecution and force against others.

I have one last comment.

This, "A Letter from God" should be called,
A LETTER FROM SATAN

Stinky_Nigger #racist niggermania.net

So yesterday I was heading back to my house from Manchester yesterday with my friend, We had met gone shopping for food etc and was going to have an evening at my place. We get on the tram (With 2 bucks boarding behind us) there is one seat which we head over to. I say to my friend you sit down, she sits down I stand next to her and we start talking. Because I knew niggers were on the tram my guard was up. I look around and I saw the buck and its mate staring at me like a bull does.

So I go back to my friend and was evaluating the situation, but the stops before are in fuxxated areas so we wouldn't be safe. We get to our stop. One of the bucks is sat down, legs wide open blocking the aisle of the tram (No doubt for showing its muhdick purposes) I say "Excuse me" it looks at me like I offended it. so I get past. I must have touched it and it looked at me like I found its stash and binned it. The sat down buck looks at the other buck and nod we get off and they get off too. It starts following us. I tell my friend to walk in front and to keep her bag close to her.

One of the bucks starts ooking "Why beez disrespecting me n sheeit" and starts ooking that I need to pay it respect. I'm following rule #1 and keep walking down the ramp to the street. It starts ooking that some more nigger babble and starting ooking to my friend that it would muh dick her or whatever. When it said this, I turned round to say something along the lines of "You know I'm sorry if I've upset you but just leave off" sort of deal but instead it gets right up to me, starts pushing me on the shoulder and ooking and eeking about respect.

I go to walk off and the next bits a blurr and next thing I know is one buck is running away my friend is calling the police crying "He's been stabbed hes been stabbed" and I've got the nigger on the floor and its ooking it "didum do nuffinz". The longest minutes pass and the police turn up and arrest the nigger and I'm taken to an ambulance.

From what I understand from my friend is the nigger took a swing and had a blade I went to defend myself and got hit on my arm. So that nigger gets taken to jail and a free trip to the magistrates Monday morning and I get a night in the hospital. Waiting for the police to take my statement.

Timothy Lokker #fundie quora.com

Do you think it's a simple ordeal to be crucified? Jesus lived for thirty three years likely knowing he would be subject to an agonizing death. He came to earth knowing what had to he done.

He also left a perfect existence in Heaven with his father, to descend to a grimy, tortuous world.

Do you, question asker, think you could say, it's only an extended period of torture, but I'll get through it? Do you think, as a father, you could watch your son be tortured by sadists, when you have the power to wipe them out? Could you love these people, ask your father to forgive them while they torture you?

The aspect we commonly see, is only the physical pain, which is bad enough. There's so much more, I'm completely sure, that had to make it much worse for Jesus that we can't even understand. He was pure, perfect, innocent - taking all sin upon himself. We can't know what that feels like to perfect God. And... I can't possibly know this, but maybe Jesus will always have those scars in his hands and feet?

Finally, no matter how hard it is to accept something more important than ourselves... Jesus is eternally superior to us in worth, even though he shares his glory with us, his blood. We can't compare Jesus with anything man has done. Any terrible thing that has happened to man, any good thing a human has done, it can't compare to one iota Jesus has suffered, it can't compare to one step Jesus takes out of heaven for us. Jesus is deserving of all glory and praise, we are deserving of death. Yet still Jesus came down and let himself be tortured, he gave his life through us. God, who rules over all, who has perfect joy, who doesn't know time or inability, became subject to pain, became the suffering servant. He owes nothing to us. Yet he sacrificed his son in love.

Lest you think I can't empathize, I've asked this question before. I've struggled with it. I still can't understand how much Jesus really did sacrifice himself ultimately.

But when your next sacrifice comes along, think about this. Would you be able to go through with something, that literally makes you sweat blood in knowing what horrible pain is to come?

Michael & Stephanie Relfe #conspiracy metatech.org

The Lacerta Files

Interview with a Reptilian

[...]

Question: Can you tell me something about the natural history and evolution of your species? How old is your species? Have you evolved from primitive reptiles as mankind has evolved from apes?

Answer: Oh, this is a very long and complex story and it sounds certainly unbelievable to you, but it’s the truth. I will try to explain it in short. Around 65 million years ago, many of our unadvanced ancestors from the dinosaur race died in a great global cataclysm. The reason for this destruction was not a natural disaster—an asteroid impact as your scientists believe falsely—but a war between two enemy alien groups that took mainly place in the orbit and high atmosphere of your planet. According to our limited knowledge about the early days this global war was the first alien war on planet earth but it was definitely not the last (and a future war is coming soon, while a “cold war”—as you call it—between alien groups is ongoing since the last 73 years on your planet).

The opponents in this 65 million year old war were two advanced alien species, whose both names are again not pronounceable for your tongues. I’m able to say them but it would hurt your ear if I tell you the names in their original way. One race was humanoid like your species (but much older) and was from this universe, from a solar system in the star constellation you call “Procyon” today in your maps. The other species—about which we know not so much—was a reptilian species, but they have nothing to do with our own species, because we have evolved from local saurians without exterior influence (except the successful manipulation of our own genes by us. More about that later). The advanced reptilian species came not from this universe but from a—well, how should I explain it to you. Your scientists have not really understood the true nature of the universe, because your illogical mind is not able to see the easiest things and relies on wrong mathematics and numbers. This is part of the genetic programming of your kind to which I will come later. Let me say, that you are nearly as far away from the understanding of the universe as you were 500 years ago.

To use a term you will maybe understand: the other species came not from this universe but from another “bubble” in the foam of the omniverse. You would call it maybe another dimension, but this is not the right word to describe it correctly (by the way, the term dimension is generally wrong in the way you understand it). The fact you should remember is, that advanced species are able to “walk” between bubbles by use of—as you would call it—quantum technology and sometimes in special ways only by use of their mind (my own species had also advanced mental abilities in comparison to your species, but we are not able to do the matterstring/bubble changing without technology, but other species active on this planet are able and this looks to you like magic as it had to your ancestors.)

Back to our own history: the first species (the humanoids) had reached Earth around 150 years before the reptilians and they built some colonies on the former continents. There was a large colony on the continent you call “Antarctica” today and another one in the continent you call “Asia” today. These people lived together with animal-like saurians on the planet without problems. When the advanced reptilian species arrived in this system, the humanoid colonists from “Procyon” tried to communicate peacefully, but they were not successful and a global war started within months.

You must understand that both species were interested in this young planet not for its biology and undeveloped species, but for only one reason: raw material, especially copper. To understand this reason, you must know that copper is a very important material for some advanced species (even today) because it is—together with some unstable materials—able to produce new stable elements if you induce a high electromagnetic field in the right angle with a high nuclear radiation field to produce an over-crossing of fluctuating fields. The fusion of copper with other elements in such a magnetic/radiation field-chamber can produce a force field of special nature that is very useful for various technological tasks (but the base for this is an extremely complex formula you are not able to discover because of the restrictions of your simple mind).

Both species wanted to have the copper of Planet Earth and for this reason, they fought a not very long war in space and orbit. The humanoid species seemed to be successful during the first time, but in a last battle the reptilians decided to use a mighty experimental weapon—a special kind of fusion bomb which should destroy the life forms on the planet but should not harm the valuable raw materials and the copper. The bomb was fired from space and detonated at a point of your planet you call “Middle America” today. As it detonated in the ocean, it produced an unpredictable fusion with hydrogen and the effect was much stronger then the reptilians had expected. A deadly radiation, an over-production of fusion-oxygen, a fall-out of different elements and a “nuclear winter” for nearly 200 years were the results. Most of the humanoids were killed and the reptilians lost their interest on the planet after some years for (even for us) unknown reasons—maybe because of the radiation.

Planet Earth was on its own again and the animals on the surface died. By the way, one result of the fusionbomb was the fall-out of different elements and materials created in the burning process and one of that materials was Iridium. Your human scientists today see the Iridium concentration in the ground as an evidence for an asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs. That is not true, but how should you know that?

Well, most of the dinosaurs died (not all in the detonation but in the bad things which came after the war, especially in the nuclear winter and in the fall-out). Nearly all dinosaurs and reptilians were dead within the next 20 years. Some of them—especially those in the oceans—were able to survive for the next 200 to 300 years even in this changed world, but these species also died, because the climate had changed. The nuclear winter ended after 200 years, but it was colder on earth then before. Despite the cataclysm, some species were able to survive: fish (like the sharks), birds, little creepy mammals (your ancestors), various reptiles like crocodiles…and there was a special kind of small but advanced dinosaur which had developed together with the last large animal-reptilians like the species you call Tyrannosaurus.

This new reptile was walking on two legs and looked at little bit like your reconstruction of an Iguanodon (it originated in this family) but it was smaller (around 1.50 metres tall) with some humanoid features, a changed bone structure, a larger skull and brain, a hand with a thumb which was able to grab things, a different organism and digestion, advanced eyes in the middle of the head like your eyes and…most important…with a new and better brain structure. This was our direct ancestor.

There are theories that the radiation from the bomb took part in the mutations of the organism of this new breed, but this is not proven. Nevertheless, this little humanoid-like dinosaur evolved during the following 30 million years (as I have said earlier, a species need generally more time to evolve then you think, if the evolution is not artificially induced like in your case) from an animal to a more or less thinking being. These beings were intelligent enough not to die in the next millions of years, because they learned to change their behavior, they lived in caves instead in the cold nature and they learned to use stones and branches as first tools and the use of fire as help to warm them—especially to warm their blood which is very important for our kind to survive. During the next 20 million years this species was divided by nature into 27 sub-species (unfortunately, former reptilian species were prone to divide themselves in a more or less illogical way into sub-species during the evolution process. You can clearly see this in the unnecessary high number of animal-dinosaur species in earlier times) and there were many (mainly primitive) wars between this sub-species for dominance.

Well, nature was not very friendly to us and as far as we know from the 27 sub-species, 24 were extincted in primitive wars and in evolution, because their organism and mind was not developed enough to survive and (as main reason) they were not able to change their blood temperature in the right way when the climate changed. 50 million years after the war and after the end of Dinosaurs, only three (now also technological) advanced reptilian species were remaining on this planet together with all the other lower animals. Through natural and artificial crossbreedings this three species were united to one reptilian species and through the invention of genetic manipulations, we were able to “eliminate” the dividing-prone genes in our genetic structure.

According to our history and belief, this was the time when our final reptilian race—as you see me today—was created by use of genetic engineering. This was around 10 million years ago and our evolution nearly stopped at this point (well, actually there were some minor changes in our look toward a more humanoid and mammal-like appearance during the coming ages, but we have not divided again into sub-species). You see, we are a very old race in comparison to your kind, which was jumping around as small monkey-like animals in the trees at this time while we invented technology, colonized other planets of this system, built large cities on this planet (which disappeared without a trace in the ages) and engineered our own genes while your genes where still those of animals.

10 million years ago the small simians started to grow and they came down from the trees to the ground (again because of the change of the climate—especially on the so-called African continent). But they evolved very slow as it is normal for a mammal and if nothing extraordinary had happened to your kind, we wouldn’t be able to sit here and talk because I would sit in my comfortable modern house and you would sit in your cave clothed with fur and trying to discover the secrets of fire—or you would maybe sit in one of our zoos.

But the things had developed differently and you believe now you are the “crown of creation” and you can sit in the modern house and we must hide and live beneath the earth and in remote areas. Around 1.5 million years ago, another alien species arrived at Earth (it was surprisingly the first species since over 60 million years. This would be more surprising for you if you would know how many different species are here today).

The interest of this humanoid species—you call them “Ilojiim” today—was not the raw material and the copper, it were to our astonishment the unadvanced ape-humanoids. Despite our presence on this planet, the aliens decided to “help” the apes to evolve a little bit faster, to serve them in the future as some kind of slave-race in coming wars. The fate of your species was not really important for us, but we didn’t liked the presence of the “Ilojiim” on our planet and they didn’t liked our presence on their new “galactic zoo” planet and so your sixth and seventh creation was the reason for a war between us and them. You can read about that war for example partly in the book you call “Bible” in a very strange way of description. The real truth is a very long and difficult story. Should I continue?

Question: No, not now. I’ve made some notes about your history and now I have some questions.

Answer: Please ask.

Question: First of all, you handle with a very large time scale. You claim that your primitive ancestors lived together with the dinosaurs, survived the—as you called it—artificial cataclysm and evolved then over 40 million years and your evolution was completed 10 million years ago. This sounds very unbelievable to me. Can you say something to this?

Answer: I understand that this must sound absolutely unbelievable to you, because you are a young and genetically engineered species. Your historical horizon ends at a scale of just some thousands of years and you think this is right. But it isn’t. This is impossible. Your programmed mind is obviously not able to handle with such large time scales. Our evolution time may seem incredibly long to you, but this is in fact the original way of nature. Remember, your early mammal ancestors developed together with dinosaurs and they survived the bomb like us. They evolved slowly during the next millions of years and they divided into various species and shapes, some of them larger, some of them smaller. This is evolution of the body.

But what about their mind and intelligence? They were simple animals. The mammals evolved since—let us say—150 millions of years, but only in the last 2–3 millions of years they were able to become intelligent and thinking. And within this small period beings like you were created. From nature? 148 millions of years time for the evolution of animal-like mammals, 2 millions of years time for the development of (more or less) intelligent beings like you? Ask yourself: Do you really think this accelerated evolution is natural? Then your species is more ignorant then I’ve thought. We have not evolved wrong but you.

Question: I understand. But I have another question. You’ve mentioned many facts about the ancient war between the aliens 65 million years ago. This happened very long before your kind became really intelligent (as far as I have understood you). Why do you know so many things about that “first war” and about the evolution of your species?

Answer: This is a good question (much better then the previous) and I have not explained it properly to you. Our knowledge about the first war comes completely from an ancient artifact, which was found around 16,000 years ago from our archeologists on the continent you call North America today. They found there a round plate with a diameter of approximately 47 of your centimeters The plate was made of an even for us unknown magnetic material and inside the plate there was another smaller crystal plate which contained an enormous amount of information coded in the molecular structure of the crystal.

This “memory plate” was manufactured from the last bomb survivors of human race from “Procyon” already 65 million years ago but it was completely intact when we found it. Our scientists were able to encode the messages and data and so we heard the first time about the events which took place in the distant past and which led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. The plate contained detailed descriptions of both species (but more about the humanoids) and about the events and weapons, including the fusion bomb. It contained also a description of the animals and saurians on earth, including our pre-intelligent ancestor species. The rest of our knowledge about our evolution comes from skeletons and from the back-reading and de/encoding of our DNA. You see, we know the real truth about our roots since 16,000 years. Before that time, there was a more religious idea of our creation.

(Note by Michael Relfe: Assuming that this female is providing accurate information, from what she has been taught, it now becomes apparent that everything the “reptilians” understand about their history is from an unknown alien artifact, created by an unknown alien group at an unknown time for an unknown purpose. Just as the reptilians enjoy subjecting humans to propaganda and disinformation, it seems that some other group is “running a game” on the reptilians as well. So this “advanced” reptilian race has no hard facts on their history, contrary to what they would have humans believe.)

Ron Paul #conspiracy ronpaullibertyreport.com

Ron Paul claimed on Wednesday’s broadcast of “The Liberty Report” that all signs point toward Tuesday’s chemical attack in Syria being a false flag operation.
?
“Before this episode of possible gas exposure and who did what, things were going along reasonably well for the conditions,” the former Texas congressman stated. “Trump said let the Syrians decide who should run their country, and peace talks were making out, and Al Qaeda and ISIS were on the run.”

“It looks like, maybe, somebody didn’t like that so there had to be an episode, and the blame now is we can’t let that happen because it looks like it might benefit Assad.”

“It’s not so easy though is it? What happened four years ago in 2013, you know, this whole thing about crossing the red line?” he posed. “Ever since then, the neocons have been yelling and screaming, a part of the administration has been yelling and screaming about Assad using poison gas.”

“It was never proven in fact,” agreed Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity executive director Daniel McAdams. “U.N. official Carla Del Ponte said it was most likely done by the rebels.”
?
“It makes no sense, even if you were totally separate from this and take no sides of this and you were just an analyst, it doesn’t make sense for Assad under these conditions to all of the sudden use poison gasses,” Paul continued. “I think it’s zero chance that he would have done this deliberately.”

Back in January, Paul said in an interview with The Daily Caller that false flag attacks could be used by both the so-called American “deep state” and foreign actors to draw the Trump administration into foreign engagements.

“All we need is a false flag and an accident and everybody will be for teaching them a lesson,” he told TheDC’s Alex Pfeiffer. “You know the deep state is very very powerful and they have a lot of control.”

“I think there’s the shadow government, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, and all the things that can be done because they just melt away and they do exactly what the establishment says.”

Jumpgirl, Leucosticte and dsar9012 #sexist pro-rape.com

[Comments under “Rape baiters”, from their "Femoid Containment" section; Jumpgirl is described as a "Confirmed Femoid"]

@Leucosticte

@Jumpgirl
What do you guys think about them? On one hand, the idea to me is quite bizarre; if they want to be raped then surely it's not rape..? I guess they might be into sex, but, if they didn't want to have sex with someone I doubt they'd be very happy about it. But at the same time, if they're going to bait guys to "rape" them, then what do they expect? I've also heard about a specific bunch of rape baiters who will wait for a dude to rape them, but then they'll run and tell everyone that the guy literally forced her into stuff... That actually disgusts me. It's one thing lying about getting raped, but it seems like a whole different level if they literally go out and bait some guy into it then tell everyone, right? I don't know if this is an actual thing they do, but I've seen a few people talking about it happening.

Women are usually the ones who indicate interest initially nonverbally, by acting flirty. If a girl is being that way, and also acting vulnerable, and maybe also being provocative (e.g. by saying no at the last minute), I think a guy is probably justified in going ahead and "raping" her. A jury could reasonably find, her behavior indicated she was willing, even if she said no, since we know that rape-baiting is a thing. Why else would she be acting that way, especially around horny guys in a place where there's enough privacy to rape her?

A good example of rape-baiting is in the film The Accused. The protagonist does everything she can to act drunk and slutty in a back room of a bar where there are a bunch of horny men and no women around. A waitress walks in, sees this going on, and thinks she's just "partying" so she doesn't dial 911 or anything.

Another thing about that movie is that there were actresses lining up to the play the role of the flirty woman who gets gang-raped. I just wish they could've gotten a girl who was barely legal to play it, as Jodie Foster was getting kinda old by this point.

Reply by dsar9012:

This femoid is rape baiter extroidinaire.

Why I’m Not a Feminist Anymore

She mentions getting "Raped" multiple times, JFL, it is funny that many women are raped multiple times, while the decent women, if they exist, never get raped. Now the dumb whore is whining about how she isn't feminist anymore as soon as she sees Chads avoiding feminists. Typical whore, still hates men that are incel no doubt.

Braveheart #racist stormfront.org

It's a Wonderful Race, After All

by James Bronson (part 1)

There once was a college freshman named George who thought he knew it all. One night over dinner, George got into an argument with his father. The argument began when the young student tried to explain to his father that as White people, they should be held accountable for all the evils that they had inflicted upon non-Whites throughout history. George explained: "Because of European racism, we stole the Indians' land, we held blacks in slavery, we persecuted the Jews, and we plundered the environment. We've been oppressive racists for thousands of years so it's only fair that we pay economic reparations for all the harm we've done to the world. I'm pleased to see that we are ending our political and economic domination of the oppressed peoples."

George's dad was shocked to hear such talk. "Who put such commie-pinko nonsense into your head, boy? Did one of your sandal-wearing hippie college professors teach you that?" the father asked.

To which the son replied: "That's the truth dad. My anthropology professor, Dr. Irving Silverstein, says so. He ought to know. Dr. Silverstein is a well-respected Ph.D. People of your generation just don't understand because you were raised in a White supremacist, racist society. That's why I've come to admire Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King as the greatest man in American history. He stood up to the racists of your generation. Because of him, my generation of White kids is completely color blind."

The father angrily replied: "That's bull****! I've always been fair-minded and tolerant of people from all backgrounds and races. I haven't 'oppressed' anybody, and furthermore there's nothing wrong with being proud of one's own people, including the European race of people. Your race is in your blood. It's like an extension of your biological family and you ought to be proud of your European heritage and identity, just like every other racial group in America is proud of its. Why is it OK for them to have a strong sense of racial
identity but it's evil for us Europeans to feel that way?"

The young "intellectual" laughed at his father. "Come on dad, that's the kind of crap Hitler tried to peddle. Those racist attitudes were discredited years ago. There's only one race and that's the human race. Diversity is our greatest strength. Differences in so-called "race" are as insignificant as differences in belly buttons. And besides, UN statistics now show that low White birth rates, along with the fact that we live in an multicultural society, will mean that Europeans and their ethnocentrist and racist culture will have died out by the end of the century," young George said.

Turning red with anger, the father yelled: "You are a walking cliché, you know that, boy? And you think it's a good thing that the European peoples of the world will have faded out and ceased to exist?" Young George replied; "I think it's great! It will mean the end of racism and the end of hate. The oppressed peoples of the world would have been better off if us racist Europeans had never existed to begin with."

Suddenly there was a blast of cold wind, an explosion, and a huge smoke cloud. When the smoke had settled, George found himself alone and lost in a cold open field.

An angel named Clarence then appeared to him and said "Well George, you've got your wish."

George asked: "Where am I? What's going on here? And who are you?"

The angel answered, "George, I'm Clarence the Angel. I was sent here to show you what the world would have been like if Europeans, or Whites, had never existed. You now live in a world where Europeans never existed."

"Oh. That's cool. I'll have no problem adapting because there's not a racist bone in my body. And when I get back to my world, I'll be able to tell my professor and my friends how great this non-racist world was. Say, I'm freezing my ass off out here. Where's the nearest motel?"

"Motel?" replied the angel. "There are no motels here in what was once called North America. But there are some caves up in those mountains where you can find shelter."

"Caves? No way, man. I want a nice warm bed to sleep in."

"I don't think you understand George. There are no buildings here in non-white America because the evil Europeans never came here to build them. Whites never existed, remember? The natives live in tents. Would you like to go meet some local Indians? Perhaps they'll let you stay in a tent."

"A tent? But it's 10 degrees outside?...Oh well. It's better than a cave I suppose. Let's go talk to these Indians...... Wait a second, are these Indians friendly or hostile?"

"Why, George, that's a racist question to ask. Just because some Indians were brutal savages who scalped their victims alive, it doesn't mean they all were", said the angel sarcastically.

"I know that Clarence. And I'm not a racist. I hate racism. Nonetheless, I'd feel safer if I could have a gun to defend myself if they turn out to be violent."

"Gun?" replied the angel. "There are no guns for you to defend yourself with. Firearms were invented by evil Europeans. Though, we could make a spear with those twigs over there…"

"That's too much work. Give me a telephone then. I'll call the Indians to ask if it's OK."

"Telephone"? replied the angel. There are no telephones here. Alexander Graham Bell was another evil white man, so he never existed. No Europeans remember?" "Forget it then," replied George. "I'll sleep in the damn cave."

Upon arriving at the cave, a shivering George asked the angel for a lighter so that he could light a fire. "A lighter?" replied Clarence. "There are no lighters here, and no matches. Those are European gadgets and evil Europeans never existed remember? If you want to get warm, you need to do like the locals do and start rubbing twigs together."

"Oh come on man! You mean to tell me these people still rub sticks together for fire?"

"That's right George. The Indians live exactly as they did before the evil pilgrims arrived from Europe just a few centuries ago." said the angel sarcastically.

"I refuse to stay in this cold cave and I damn sure ain't gonna light a fire with twigs, and I refuse to sleep in a teepee. I'll go to South America. I can make it in a warmer climate and I'll adapt quickly to the great Incan civilization I learned about at college. Since European racists like Columbus, Cortez and Pizzaro never existed, the Incans will still be there... I need a car"

"Car?" replied the angel. "There are no cars here. Daimler and Benz, the evil German inventors of the internal combustion engine, were never born...nor was Henry Ford. There are no paved roads either. This is a world without evil Europeans remember?"

"No cars! Oh. I'll just have to take a train."

"There are no trains in this world either George. Evil Europeans weren't here to build locomotive engines or to discover the many uses of coal, oil and gas, or to build trains or lay tracks. But I'll allow you to cheat just a bit. Grab hold of my magic robe and we'll fly
south."

George touched the angel's robe and they flew south until they arrived in an abandoned mud hut in the midst of Incan territory. George was grateful for the warm weather but it wasn't long until he began to complain about the heat and humidity.

"Clarence, this hut is a little ****hole and I'm sweating up a storm here. Get me an air-conditioner…please!"

"Air-conditioner?" replied the angel. "There are no air-conditioners here. Air conditioning and refrigeration were inventions created by evil White men."

"What?!! You mean to tell me that in the year 2003 these people still haven't figured out a way to keep themselves or their food cool?” a frustrated George asked.

"No George, they haven't. And they never will."

"This is ridiculous. Let's go to the main city to see the Emperor. I can't live like this. Where's a car...oh I forget...no cars! Dammit I'll walk. Let's go."

After walking through the jungle for about an hour or so, it began to get dark. George then asked Clarence to give him a flashlight so that he could see. "Flashlight? Sorry George, but Thomas Edison was an evil White man too...and he was never born. There are some branches over there if you want to make a torch."

"Never mind that!" George shouted back.

By morning time, Clarence and George had arrived at the temple of the Incans. A bloody human sacrifice was in progress. George turned to Clarence and cried, "They're going to butcher that poor soul! Somebody has got to stop this. What horrible murdering beasts! Can't anyone stop them?"

The angel replied "I'm afraid not. Ritual killings are common place here.” Those evil European racists like Columbus, Cortez and Pizzaro never existed so the Incans just continued their brutal ways. In fact, it was the oppressed peoples themselves who made up the bulk of the Spanish armed forces. The people saw the Spaniards as liberators who would rid them of the oppressive Incan and Mayan rulers and give them a better life."

"I can't blame them for helping the Spaniards then. This is a horrible place. Get me out of this ****hole now!" said George.

'Where would you like to go?" Clarence replied.

George said: "Take me to Africa, maybe there's a more advanced and humane civilization there that I can fit into. Where’s the nearest airport?"

"Oh, I forgot...no Wright Brothers." George said. "How about a boat?"

"Boats?" replied the angel. "I'm afraid the most seaworthy rafts available to you won't be of much help in crossing the vast Atlantic Ocean. The great Viking sailors and European navigators never existed. No Phoenicians, no Leif Eriksson, no Henry the Navigator, no Columbus, no Magellan, no Hudson and no Robert Fulton. Even if you could build your own ship, there would be no compass for you to navigate with and no sextant either. I'm afraid you're stuck here George."

"Can I touch your robe and fly to Africa then" asked George.

"You're cheating again George, but all right. Touch my robe and we'll fly to Africa."

When they arrived in Africa, George saw thousands of half-naked African tribesmen being herded along a dirt path. They were guarded by other Africans with spears. "What are they doing to those poor men?" George asked Clarence.

"They are being enslaved by another tribe. Slavery was common in Africa long before the whites arrived," Clarence said. "In fact, most of the slaves who were shipped to the Americas were sold to the slave traders by African tribal leaders."

"That's so sad,” George said. "I want to meet Martin Luther King. Since his White assassin never existed, this great man should still be alive. He's probably a great tribal chief somewhere and leader of an advanced civilization. He will free these slaves from their African masters. Take me to him, Clarence."

Clarence led George to a little hut deep in the heart of Africa. The naked women and children looked at George in wonder. The young men were out on a hunt but the older men stayed behind. George was led to the dingy little hut of the tribal witchdoctor and spiritual leader. There he saw a wild-looking man with a necklace of teeth around his neck and a huge ring pierced through his nose. "What the hell is that?” George asked.

"Meet Witch-doctor Matunbo Lutamba Kinga" Clarence said. He never became Reverend Martin Luther King because there were no universities or seminaries built to educate him. Europeans weren't there to create such opportunities. But he did become the tribe's spiritual leader. He specializes in casting evil spells. Perhaps he can help you?"

The witch doctor gazed in wonder at George. Then he motioned to his henchmen to seize young George. The tribesmen grabbed hold of George and tied him to a nearby tree.

"Stop it! Let me go. What are they going to do to me?" cried George hysterically.

"They're going to perform a ritual killing on you, George. The good doctor King...I mean Kinga -- believes that by cutting your heart out while you are still alive, it will bring good fortune and fertility to his tribe," laughed Clarence.

"Clarence! Clarence! Help me Clarence! Help me!

"But George, you told me that you wanted to go to Africa and to meet your hero Reverend King."

George said: "This part of Africa has not developed yet. I can see that now. Take me to North Africa where Egypt and Carthage established great civilizations. Just get me out of here, please."

Just as the witch doctor's spear was about to carve out George's heart, George vanished into thin air. He then found himself on the banks of the river Nile in Egypt.

"Thank you Clarence. Thank you," George said. "I don't understand it Clarence. Why does so much of the world remain so brutal and primitive? I learned during Black History Month about many talented black inventors and scientists. Garrett Morgan, George Washington Carver, Benjamin Banneker, Granville Woods. Then there's Dr. Carson, the preeminent brain surgeon in all of America. Where are these men?"

Clarence replied: "Don't you understand yet? America, and Africa, exist exactly as they did before the Europeans discovered them. Civilization as you had known it had only been introduced to these people just a few centuries ago by the Europeans. There are no universities, no hospitals, no means of transportation other than animals, no science, no medicine, no machines. In fact, the wheel hasn't even been discovered in Sub-Saharan Africa! Those black scientists, inventors, doctors, athletes, and entertainers you speak of were never given the opportunity to realize their full human potential because Europeans weren't around to introduce higher civilization and learning to them. There are no George Washington Carvers in this non-European world, no Dr. Carsons, no Booker T. Washingtons, no Benjamin Bannekers, no Michael Jordans, no Oprah Winfreys, no Bill Cosbys, no..."

"Stop it! That can't be!" cried George. "Let's walk over to the great pyramids of Egypt right now and I'll show you one of the great wonders of the world ...built by non-Whites"

They walked a few miles before George stopped and asked where the nearest toilet was. "Toilets?" replied the angel. There are no toilets or urinals in this world. Plumbing was developed by evil Europeans. The people in this non-White world still relieve themselves in open fields."

Clarence turned around so George could do his business. "I need some toilet paper." George said.

"Toilet paper?" replied the angel. "There..."

"I know. I know. Toilet paper hasn't been invented yet. Just hand me a rag then".

Clarence obliged and the two of them went on their way.

David J. Stewart and David Hyles #fundie godlovespeople.com

Psalms 11:7, “For the righteous LORD loveth righteousness; his countenance doth behold the upright.”

I very much admire the following words below, penned by David Hyles to address his army of internet critics; but first, let me give you some introduction. David is the beloved son of Dr. Jack Hyles (1926-2001), the legendary former pastor of the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana for over 42 years. It is no secret that all humans are sinners by birth, inherent to our nature. David Hyles' has been much criticized for his sins and bad choices in life, but he has repented openly and apologized. Yet, the diatribes (thundering verbal attacks) from David critics are relentless, merciless and saturated with hated.

The Bible teaches that some people's sins are open (known) beforehand here on earth (such as David's). But the Bible teaches that everyone else's sins will follow them and be revealed in eternity, causing shame and reproach...

1st Timothy 5:24, “Some men's sins are open beforehand,
going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.”

David Hyles' alleged sins are openly known beforehand, just as the Bible teaches; but every person who has ever been born is a sinner and our sins will be made open for all to see in eternity. No one will be able to retain a cocky and arrogant attitude toward others who have sinned when we stand in judgment before God. If the truth be known, everyone is a horrible sinner. People who are fortunate enough to live above reproach find it easy to condemn others who openly sin (or their sins become openly revealed). If all of our sins were known, no one would ever be able to slander, gossip or criticize others who sin. NO ONE is a shining example to be held up as the standard of perfection, except the precious Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the spotless “Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

In his own words, David Hyles appeals to his critics with God's love, pointing out five evils caused by their hurtful attacks...

“First you are hurting the lost. Several years ago I worked with a young man who knew I was a Christian. This young man was searching. He had dabbled into several religions in his search. He respected me and began to question me about Christ. God was working in his life and I felt he was very close to accepting Christ as his Savior. Someone, in an attempt to hurt my business began circulating an email through my workplace and he received it, anonymously, of course. He never again listened to me and eventually our paths parted. I pray every day for God to save him. It was not MY sins that turned him away. No, actually it was the evil spirit of those my accusers who claimed to be Christians. He wanted no part of that.

Secondly, you are hurting the fallen. Countless Christians have seen what you have done to me and to others who have fallen and decided to just disappear rather than being restored. I believe that there have been suicides and other tragedies that could have been prevented if a fallen brother or sister had felt there was hope. You diatribes on your filthy forums serve Satan’s purpose well.

Thirdly you are hurting those who I have hurt. Please hear me on this. Every fallen pastor or Christian leaves hurting people in their sinful wake. I did. I know that. It breaks my heart. David did too and his heart was broken. There is little we can do to repair the damage. Their deliverance must come from God and it will not come from revenge or retribution. It will come only from forgiveness. Please allow God to be God and to deal with his children as He will. Stay out of it and encourage those who have been hurt to find their peace from God not from your vigilante system of internet justice.

Allow me to elaborate on this just a bit more. People who are hurt by a sinner are destroyed by bitterness. No one’s sin can destroy your life. Our loving Father would not allow that. He stands ready as a loving Father to pick you up and mend your broken heart. Sinners (and that includes us all) do bad things that affect other’s lives. For all have sinned… However, if we get them to take their eyes off of the offender and place it on the Savior they can be healed. Closure does not come from our flawed idea of justice. It comes from letting God heal us even as He deals with the one who offended or hurt us.

Fourthly you are hurting you! The manure you are hurling fails to hit me but your hands sure do smell of the filth you have no business picking up. I am sorry for the pain that makes you feel that somehow you will gain some kind of satisfaction from trying to hurt me. I wish this book could give you the peace you are lacking but I sincerely doubt it will.

Finally and most importantly, you are hurting the Father. I have news for you that is not going to please you, but here goes. GOD LOVES ME and I AM SAVED AND FORGIVEN! I fell but, you see, when a Christian falls we do not fall away from grace, we fall into it, hence the name of this book. I am in His grace and one day I will stand before Him clothed in the righteousness of His Son and not the sin of my own. Why would you dare try and hurt the heart of God? Is it because there is unconfessed sin in your life? Are you so far from Him that you have lost the sweetness of His mercy and grace in your own life? That is sad.”

We are all sinners. Who are you, me or anyone else to condemn someone for their sins. James 4:12, “There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?” God is our eternal Judge, and we are cautioned to be careful how we judge others, for the Lord will treat us the same way that we treat others (Matthew 7:1-5).

I love what David Hyles says about “Fallen Into Grace,” rather than “falling from grace” as Calvinists errantly teach. When the apostle Paul speaks of falling from grace, he simply means that a person who rejects Christ cannot be saved any other way. Galatians 5:4, “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” False teachers say that a believer loses their salvation when they sin. The Bible calls them liars. Being born-again is a birth (a spiritual, second, new birth), and is as irreversible as the first, physical, natural birth. If saved, always saved!

Some people are so filled with malicious hatred that they have decided that David Hyles could never be saved. The Bible warns in Matthew 7:1-5 that God will one day judge critics and scorners by the SAME measure by which they have judged others. So if you mistreat someone and condemn them without mercy, God will treat you the same one day unless you repent. I would 10,000 times rather be a humiliated big sinner in men's eyes, than to be a self-righteous hypocrite who's filled with hatred and scorn toward someone who has sinned. To point a finger of condemnation at anyone is to have three of our own fingers pointing right back at us.

When a Christian sins, we are not fallen from grace; but rather, we have fallen into God's wondrous grace. God's mercy is abundant. The Lord promises to forgive those who come to Him. 1st John 1:9, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

I also love what David Hyles says...

“I am in His grace and one day I will stand before Him clothed in the righteousness of His Son and not the sin of my own.”

David Hyles as a genuine Christian fully realizes that salvation is only possible through Christ's imputed righteousness, and not by any self-righteousness of our own. Christ bore our burden of sins upon Himself on the cross. There's no way that you nor I, nor anyone else, could ever bear the weight of our own sins. Have you ever found yourself looking at an impossible situation, wondering how your life could ever become so messed up, realizing that there's no way humanly possible to ever make things right? I've been there! But when I had those thoughts the Lord impressed a truth upon my heart, saying, “You're right, you could never make things right, no matter how hard you try. That's why I went to the cross and paid your sin debt... so I could make things right!” It's Jesus precious blood that He sacrificed for our sins that makes everything right in God's eyes!

Many religious people are trying to make things right in their own human strength, as did Adam with his fig-leaf religion. God rejected Adam's fig-leaves and killed an innocent animal instead, shedding its blood which represented the coming Lamb of God, the Messiah, Who would one day die on the cross for the sins of the world. Thank you Lord Jesus!

Conclusion

When the truth is known, ALL PEOPLE will be exposed as wicked and shameful sinners. When asked to give the name of the worst and most horrible sinners we know, most people tend to think of people besides them self. This is the hypocritical nature of humanity. This is why all gossip is sinful and wrong, that is, because we are just as sinful as the people that we criticize. James 4:12, “There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?” No one has any right to talk bad in public about Christians who have fallen. Satan always brings up past sins to discourage us, but the Holy Spirit only convicts us about present sins that need to be confessed and forsaken.

A person is never more like Satan than when they point a finger of damnation toward others. Revelation 12:10, “And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.” Satan accuses believers round-the-clock before the throne of God, continually pointing out the hypocrisy, sins and failures of God's children. Most gossip is true, which is what makes it so dangerous. Proverbs 11:9, “An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.”

David's enemies will condemn him to his grave, as did king David's enemies in the Bible; but thanks be to God, only God can condemn a person to Hell and there is no condemnation upon Christian believers who have faith in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). The Lord showed me one day while reading the Psalms that the reason for king David's enemies was his sins of adultery, conspiracy and murder. The words “enemy” and “enemies” appear 103 times in Psalms. David's enemies condemned him to his grave, continually trying to destroy him, but God protected him.

The Lord knows that I have many enemies as a fighting fundamental preacher, and many people slander and say garbage about me all the time. I don't read gossip, so it cannot affect me. I don't know what my critics say about me. I'm too busy serving the Lord to stop and see how I'm doing or what critics are saying about me. The only opinion that matters to me is God's. Revelation 4:11 says that we were all created for God's pleasure.

Thank God for the gift of His dear only begotten Son, Jesus, the Christ. If it weren't for God's love, mercy and grace that sent Jesus to Calvary to shed His blood for our sins, we would all be doomed to eternity in Hell.

Ironically, the very scorners who accuse fallen Christians of not being saved are likely not saved themselves. The Bible teaches that hatred for others is a sign that we've never been saved. 1st John 3:15-16, “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.” Dr. Hyles often stated in his sermons that, “The Christian army is the only army in the world that slays its wounded.” This is because most believers are carnally-minded, walking in the flesh instead of the Spirit. Galatians 5:25, “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.” Every Christian believer has the Holy Spirit living within their body (1st Corinthians 3:17-18; Romans 8:9). The Bible is saying in Galatians 3:25 that we ought to also walk in the Spirit Who indwells us. As Christians we continually have to decide whether we are going to walk in the sinful flesh or the Spirit of God Who came to live within us the moment that we were born-again (saved). It's a constant battle (Romans 7:14-25; 1st Peter 2:11).

All men and women are sinners. We are not sinners because we sin; but rather, we sin because we are sinners. Jeremiah 17:9 teaches that the human heart is desperately wicked and deceitful above all else. The Bible plainly teaches that all men are equally as guilty of sin in God's eyes. James 2:10, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” Committing even one sin is enough to send a person to the Lake of Fire forever and ever. That's why God sent His Son into the world to die on Calvary's cross to pay our sin debt.

So please remember, whoever you may be, that when we sin as Christian believers we don't fall from grace; but rather, we fall into God's grace because of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.