new

There has been much talk in the news recently about a famous Penn State college football coach who has been accused of sexually abusing several young boys. The coach has maintained his innocence, but admits to foolishly showering NAKED with several young boys. This case alone shows what's wrong with public nakedness. One thing often leads to another and public nudity is asking for trouble. Americans are deceived to think that males and females can walk around immodestly dressed without consequences.

The Bible teaches that it's best to stay as far away from sin as possible, which is why Jesus equated lust with adultery (Matthew 5:28). James 1:14-16 plainly teach what is wrong with public nakedness, for it is the root cause of sexual immorality...

James 1:14-16, “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren.”

It all begins with lust. If you aren't in the presence of other naked people, then you cannot be drawn away by lust. it's not rocket-science!

It is unscriptural for men to shower naked around other men, let alone in the presence of young boys. This Scripture passage makes this clear. It is not good for men to see each other naked, as evidenced by the pederast homosexual problem. The Romans were infamous for pederasts (men having sex with boys). Socrates, the famous Greek philosopher, was a pederast homosexual.

There is nothing manly about men disrespecting one another by walking around naked in the shower room. It is proper and right for men to show respect for the body, and toward their fellow mankind, by clothing the body. It is more than coincidence that initiates into Luciferian occult groups are required to perform acts of homosexuality as part of their initiation rights. The purpose for this is to debase each other, removing all bastions of decency and reservation between one another. In all sexual relations, even if with a prostitute for a few minutes, a soul-tie is formed between the two people (whether male or female) involved in the act. This is one of the spiritual dangers of sexual immorality, which undermines one's entire soul's health. Proverb 6:32, “But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.”

I heard an internet radio commercial today advertising the product, “AGELESS MALE,” guaranteed to boost testosterone for men by 61%. Then the advertiser said, “Get back in the game!” That's not why I wrote this article, but the timing was perfect for this article, because it evidences the sinful and irresponsible attitude of society today toward sexual relations. Get back in the game??? Sadly, sex is a game to many people!!! This is the horrible consequence of America's sexually-indecent television programming, promiscuous sitcoms, perverted Late Night comedy shows and TV in general.

I don't watch TV because it is too evil. So when I do occasionally see a TV show on someone else's TV in a hotel or at a restaurant, I am absolutely shocked and angered by what I see and hear. If you watch TV all-the-time, you won't see just how evil it is, because you are sinking into the abyss of wickedness with the hellivision. I guarantee you that if you turn off your television for 6-months that you'll be absolutely shell-shocked when you turn it back on. I hate TV!

It is common practice in health clubs, YMCA's and locker-rooms across America for men to shower naked in the presence of other men, and to walk around naked and let it all hang out. It is uncouth, tasteless, lacking of respect for each other and unscriptural. The same is true of women's locker-rooms. Historically, sports and public nudity have always been synonymous. The Greeks were famous for sports and infamous for nudity.

Genesis 9:21-27 teach us several important life-changing and moral lessons. We see that alcoholic beverages are spiritually dangerous, linked to nakedness and sin. Noah sinned by getting drunk and led his son to sin by doing so. Don't think that Noah didn't think about that either. Noah had to live with the division created between him and his son because of booze. Alcohol brought shame upon Noah. Noah had to live from that day forward knowing that Ham saw him naked and drunk. Although Noah knew he was forgiven in Christ, he caused permanent division between he and his son, Ham.

We also see that Ham sinfully paraded his father's sins, instead of faithfully concealing the matter. America's history books, Wikipedia and newspapers are filled with what husbands and wives have hypocritically said about each other during and after a divorce. The next time you hear a woman talking about how evil her husband is ask her how she obtained perfection. The Bible warns against condemning anyone. James 4:12, “There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?”

By the way, I hate Wikipedia. I've noticed that celebrity profiles (like George Clooney) are locked, but gospel preacher's profiles are open for every snake, rat and God-hating trash to slander and serve roast preacher. Wikipedia is a sewer of American society and Jimmy Wales will give account to God for helping spread malicious gossip. Wikipedia is a weapon. It's easy for some worm who never built a hot-dog stand to throw rocks at a faithful preacher who gave his life to others in the Lord for 50-years, helping literally millions of people in so many ways and changing a nation for God.

[...]

The Demon-Possessed Maniac of Gadarenes

Luke 8:27 and 35, “And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs... Then they went out to see what was done; and came to Jesus, and found the man, out of whom the devils were departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.”

What a precious passage of Scripture! This afflicted man was possessed by devils, running around naked and living in the wild. The entire city knew he was insane. Yet the Bible says when he found Jesus, he came into his right mind and put his clothes back on. Amen! Jesus is the cure for insanity and nudity.

Millions of Americans go to psychologists, psychiatrists and religious leaders for help; but the Word of God says the afflicted man at Gadarenes came into his RIGHT MIND when he found Jesus. It is interesting that being in one's “right mind” is associated with being properly clothed. Americans have a problem keeping their clothes on because they AREN'T in their right minds, they are mentally-ill. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that nearly half of the women in America have murdered a child by abortion. Only a mentally-ill person would deliberately kill a precious child. So it doesn't surprise me in a rotten society that devours it's own children that they would also have a problem with nudity.

The Cure for Nudity is Jesus!

Women who love and respect the Lord won't wear bikinis at the beach, or wear miniskirts, or wear pants, or pose in Playboy. There's not an honest normal man alive who doesn't know what's wrong with women wearing pants—they are extremely revealing of a woman's flesh.

We are living in evil times, when unrepentant sinners are trying to justify every sin imaginable with the Bible. I heard a woman on the news, a professional pornographic model, claim that God approved of her vile career. She said that God created Adam and Eve naked, so nudity must be ok. Evidently she's never read Genesis 3:7 or 1st Timothy 2:9.

Here's a Scripture for all you women who keep trying to justify your nudity and immodest clothing ... “Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?” (Malachi 2:17). Beyonce Knowles claims to be a devout Christian; yet says she has permission from God to wear sexy clothes and strip on stage. She is woefully wrong! Beyonce needs to see Jesus.

God knows what we watch on TV. It's just as bad to watch adultery on TV as it would be for us to be in same room with them. The TV has a desensitizing effect on its viewers. Sin is not shocking anymore but rather becomes commonplace (no big deal). This is why many people have become lackadaisical and acceptant of the wicked sin of homosexuality. The following reads like a synopsis of hellivision and unholy-wood:

Romans 1:28-32 -"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:"

Here at TomatoBubble.com; we love all of our readers, including the Atheist / Evolutionists. From time to time an E-mail that reads something like the following will arrive in the inbox:

"Mike. I love your work but you really need to stick to history and current events. You do not understand the science behind Evolution and are only harming your credibility when you attack Darwin."

Though this type of feedback is certainly more cordial and tolerable than the occasional, "You are a stupid ignorant deranged 'Nazi' extremist who believes that a giant spaghetti monster created the universe in 7 days. Ha ha ha" - it is still a variation of the condescending you-do-not-understand-science ad hominem logical fallacy that Evolutionists always resort to. This rhetorical device is a weaponized trick that we shall now disarm.

First of all, the lack of any extensive "scientific background" does not necessarily disqualify a logical thinker from expressing an opinion on Evolution or any other matter related to science. If a man observes a rapidly darkening sky on a brutally hot and humid summer afternoon; followed by a sudden temperature drop and distant rumbles of thunder; would his lack of a "background in meteorology" invalidate his opinion that rain is forthcoming?

If a man opts to take the elevator downstairs instead of simply jumping out of a 40th floor window and into his waiting convertible; would his lack of a "background in physics" invalidate his fear of jumping out of skyscrapers?

This idea that any matters pertaining to science, or alleging to pertain to science, can only be discussed by those with the right "qualifications" is a clear example of another classic logical fallacy; the 'Appeal to Authority'. Every great philosopher from Buddha, to Confucius, to Plato, to Socrates, to Marcus Aurelius, to Jesus, to Schopenhauer and so many others specifically warned against the inherent errors associated with this type of boot-licking, group-thinking worship of authority figures. Buddha expressed the key to right thinking very well when he stated:

"Do not go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought."

In other words, "To hell with those diploma-decorated fools. Use your own reason and observation!" And with that, let us dispense with this puffed-up patronizing rubbish about "lack of a scientific background" once and for all. You see, it doesn't take a "scientific background" to understand the basic and timeless principles of what is known as "The Scientific Method". Ironically, it is the hallowed Scientific Method which dooms the "theoretical science" of Darwinian Evolution to the toilet bowl of pseudo-scientific error.

Had Darwin studied Greek or Buddhist philosophy, he would never have made such a monkey of himself.

What is the Scientific Method?

The Scientific Method consists of the flow-chart steps shown in the following chart:

image

Each step must logically flow into the next step until the process is complete. No skipping steps! As soon as the standards of any given step cannot be met, the game ends and the hypothesis goes into the garbage. Now, let's plug "Evolution" TM into the step climber and see what we get.

Step 1: Ask a Question

OK. This one is easy. Anyone can ask a question about anything. Here it goes: "How did we all get here?"

Step 2: Do Background Research

Gather data and observe it carefully. If you detect a pattern that suggests a plausible conclusion, then move onto the next step. What Darwin "discovered" during this step is that all living creatures share many common traits; and that the differences among them adapt them perfectly to their natural environment.

Step 3: Construct a Hypothesis

Based on your data mining, make an educated guess as to what the truth is. Not just any ole guess; not a wild and baseless guess; but an educated guess based on a compelling pattern of data. Here, at a very early stage of the Scientific Method, Darwin has already gone off the rails. In his own words:

"The real affinities of all organic beings, in contradiction to their adaptive resemblances, are due to inheritance or community of descent. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

What Darwin observed is nothing that a retarded 8 year old, living 10,000 years ago, could not have easily noticed on his own; namely, that all creatures have much in common. For example, a lizard has two eyes, a mouth, teeth, a tongue, four limbs, a spine, a skeleton etc; and, a human being also two eyes, a mouth, teeth, a tongue, four limbs, a spine, a skeleton etc. And from that, and nothing more, Darwin "hypothesizes" that all living things came from an original "single-cell" organism? Really Chuck?

Darwin himself even admits that there is no data to support his hypothesis; which means that the hypothesis itself should never have been put forth in the first place. Again, from his own mouth:

"On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life?

We meet with no such evidence. and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections used against my theory."

That's right Chuckie. The MILLIONS of "missing links' flowing from single-cell pond scum to modern man did not exist in the 1800's, nor have they been pieced together to this day. In fact, as even prominent Evolutionists openly admit, the fossil record actually appears to show that new life forms came on to the scene very suddenly.

Nonetheless, in spite of the fact that the standards of the 'Hypothesis Step' of Scientific Method have, by Darwin's own admission, not been met; let us, purely for the sake of argument, cheat a little and give the Evolutionists a "free pass" to the next step.

Step 4: Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

I don't even know where to even begin with this one. How does one construct an experiment to "prove" that great-great-great grandma^[x] was a piece of algae that spontaneously appeared in a pond, and "mutated" into millions of transitional species, culminating in what we are today. In the absence of any experimentation, one could conceivably skip this step and jump to an intense observation of unfolding natural processes; a "natural" experiment, so to speak.

But here again, there is nothing to observe. The reality is that trans-species evolution is not observable and has never been observed, neither in nature nor in the fossil record. Sorry Evolutionists, but a non-definitive skull fragment of some creature purported to be an "ape ancestor" does not meet the standard of observation; let alone constitute evidence that great-great-great grandma^[x] was single-celled pond scum. The same goes for your desperately hyped-up finches, peppered moths, 'super rats', platypuses etc.

And speaking of "simple" single-cell organisms (which we now know are more complex than nuclear submarines and space shuttles!), a single-cell organism has NEVER been observed to "mutate" into a new species of two-cell organism. My God! The Evolutionists cannot even validate, neither in nature nor in a laboratory, the jump from one-cell bacteria to two-cell bacteria; yet they call us "stupid" for doubting that our common one-celled pond scum great-great-great grandma^[x] "evolved" into the modern day human, elephant, bird, bumble bee, dolphin, eagle, spider, flower, tree etc.

Obviously, steps 5 and 6 of the Scientific Method are rendered mute; but that doesn't stop the dogmatic Evolutionists and degenerate Marxists from pounding their fists on the table and screaming "Science ... science ... science!" in your face; whilst viciously denouncing you as "uneducated" for daring to question their pond scum to human scenario.

The Theory of trans-species Evolution TM is neither testable nor observable. Likewise, the theory of life blindly coming from non-life is neither testable, nor observable; to say nothing of even being sane. Heck, these ideas were never even 'hypothesizable', and that was before our understanding of the incredibly complex DNA computer code we call the genome; a mind boggling instructional code that is programmed into all organisms, including those "simple" single-cell amoebas and bacteria!

Bottom Line: According to any honest rendering of the Scientific Method, Evolution TM is NOT science!