Altruism historically has been a thorn in the side of many nonbelievers. Does evolution or any other theory explain diving in front of a bullet or jumping in shark infested waters, or running into a burning building to save a stranger? Of late many have attempted to incorporate altruism into a ’selfish gene’, claiming we do not only think about our own kid but we also have a small bit of love for the children of other people; for the sake of preserving the species and genetic variety. So, basically we don’t only think our kids are cute and therefore feed them, we occasionally think other peoples kids are adorable so we may feed them also. There seems to be a problem in such a belief, the problem with altruism is the fact that it mainly seems to appear in the form of random acts of kindness. Not universal cultural outrage! As Darfur, Hitler, Rwanda, Emmet Till, and Jonbenet have shown us; American racism and culture disproves evolution. (In the case of Jonbenet, black children were lost that day, also.) The type of altruism that evolution’s selfish gene predicts is not found anywhere or at any time. There is no universal code of altruism, that anyone can attest to; nor is altruism fairly distributed throughout the racial world. The type of altruism found can only be explained by a God that searches and finds one worthy enough to do a deed. A rare gem. Evolution cannot explain the rare gem altruism that we see in this world.
No, that would be confusing. It is weird to think that universities are a hot bed of atheism and a hatred of God. Most people don’t realize that some of the ‘greatest’ universities were created by Christians to study the One Truth of the creation that God fearfully and wonderfully made. It is a wonder that so many of them are now owned by atheists. But it is not hard to understand how it became this way. What probably happened was that some Christian scientists probably were like, let’s invite some atheists to our ‘knowledge club’ they like smart stuff too. This may have been akin to inviting homosexuals to church in our day. Who knew it would come so far, one day the Christian churches may be known for their love of homosexuality, lol. It could happen. Just in case you are wondering… invite people to bible studies not church this way they can learn the truth of Christ and when they show some agreement then… you see what settled pastors do, no one thinks it is their job to do a bible study because that is the pastor’s duty.
The Bible states that the fear of God is the beginning of knowledge, that is just another proven bible prophecy. Maybe that is why there are no real scientists anymore, like the best current scientist is probably, Steven Hawkins or something… what is his field of research… unprovable ‘science’ theoretical non application physics. Funny that he claims science will defeat religion. Ha, how, who is Monsanto helping? Yeah biotech is important maybe but if they are messing with farmers now will they not be messing with those same farmers when we need that food as population goes up? It is a simple fact if Steven Hawkins was a real scientist like Isaac Newton or Joseph Lister he would have probably cured all quadriplegics by now, If he was a Christian much less a real scientist.
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish;
because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion,
that they should believe a lie:
I remember reading Al Franken’s book a few years back, in his book he asked a minister or pastor what is God’s judgment against liars, the pastor told him that God would force them to believe there own lies. Franken thought that sounded weird so he asked a Catholic person not sure if he was a priest. The person told him that there was no such Bible verse. Well there it is in all its glory. God does in fact harden the hearts of liars to believe there own lie.
It makes me think about many worldwide lies especially the theory of evolution. It is hard to believe that scientists would just look us in the face and lie to us like that. But the problem is they really believe their lie! I remember I was watching Creationism in the 21st Century, and the host Carl Baugh would always pull out some fossilized foot print that he claimed was a human footprint overlapping a dinosaur footprint. Whenever he did that, though I am a fervent creationist, I always thought, ‘bigfoot’. Then one day I was watching another program and I heard the Evolutionists’ counterclaim. They said all the human footprints in dinosaur areas were actually eroded dinosaur footprints. I was like wow!! So you are saying such footprints are normal? Hahahaha…lying liars!! Normal enough to need a counter argument that does not involve bigfoot.
Scientist: Well what had happened was like a dinosaur came along and he was walking on his heals and um he didn’t have any toes and um Creationism is bad. Yep… so therefore argument proven. Evolution rocks.
I ordered the DVD Cosmic Conflict a few weeks ago from Amazing Facts. It was okay, I was a little disappointed. The computer graphics were good but they should have gotten a better artist, I think the art was confusing and non specific. But at least the story was true enough. I thought it was going to be more like a movie but it was more like a documentary with Doug Batchelor narrating.
I like that they used the clothing of light idea, the idea that Adam and Eve were clothed in light and lost it, but I don’t think that the purpose of the tree of life was solely because of Satan’s rebellion. I assume that God put tree’s of knowledge of good and evil on all planets. The devil was probably able to convince Eve because of her “youth”. I actually thought this was going to be a film depicting the “‘The Great Controversy,” it wasn’t but I guess it was okay over all.
I am currently watching the documentary The First Jesus on Nat Geo, it is about an ancient stone that has a story similar to the Jesus story. The truth is that the stone does not really say much, but for some reason the main guy who is studying the stone connects some random guy named Simon that claimed to be a messiah. He connects the two stories together and then uses that to create a Christlike figure that predates Christ. Obviously this is complete foolishness. The problem is this… even if the stone tablet had said 4 years before Jesus was born there was a guy named Jesus who had disciples and claimed to be resurrected and turned wine into water it would not matter because Daniel’s 70 week prophecy clearly tells the exact time of Jesus’ death. Therefore even if the story had been remotely similar it would mean absolutely nothing! The whole documentary revolves around a missing letter in a peculiar sentence. In the text the angel Gabriel tells an unnamed character that after 3 days he will commit some sort of action or activity. Because of a missing letter we are unable to figure out whether it is… ‘after three days you will [r]ise’. The main argument is that Christianity only makes sense if Jesus rose from them dead. I guess that’s the truth, but really the fact that no one has ever heard of the people who wrote this tablet, assuming it is legit, disproves that very argument! That is to say the one guy who believes this is claiming that the resurrection story is what made Jesus special… then he claimed that this tablet may also speak of a resurrected Messiah. All attempts, including special photographic techniques, to figure out what this word is supposed to be have failed. As usual the guy’s argument was complete nonsense because even if he was correct and the story did speak of a resurrection it would just be an intriguing similarity, remember there are whole websites dedicated to the similarities between the Kennedy and Lincoln assassination http://www.school-for-champions.com/history/lincolnjfk.htm , the problem for the guy was his very argument refutes itself … if the resurrection story is the aspect of Christianity that made it powerful then why didn’t the person on the tablet also start a magnanimous world changing religion, the way Jesus did?
I think it is funny that evolutionists also use this nonsensical “similarity therefore same”argument. The basic problem with such an argument is the implication that this world is so big so random that everything will always be miles apart. There are far greater reasons why two different unassociated objects or realities may seem to be so ordered. It may just be a matter of our lives either being scripted by the hands of God or the Devil. Josephus wrote more about this false Messiah named Simon actually more than he wrote about Jesus, remember Simon was not mentioned in the tablet, the problem is there are like 700 hundred prophecies/ definitions of the Messiah. That means even if Simon had died in 30 A.D. instead of 4 B.C. he would still need to match the other 699 prophecies, well 698… I am sure Simon was Jewish, lol. The funny part was when the narrator quoted Josephus by saying, Simon was inspired by his good looks and tallness. Here is a prophecy about the real Messiah.
He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. (Isaiah 53:2 NIV)
This is just another attempt to discredit the Bible, but the problem is Christianity is not a dumb religion, which is why you need such scholars distorting evidence to make the Bible seem ‘incredible.’ I will show you how one refutes a dumb religion; Many Buddhists and Hindus believe in the nonsensical theology of reincarnation. And we have even seen attempts to creep reincarnation into Christianity using the Biblical term, “Spirit of Elijah,” but we know that Elisha received a double portion of Elijah’s Spirit (2 Kings 2:9) so then to have the Spirit of Elijah is not to be Elijah. So when the Bible states…
Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. Malachi 4:5,6
It is not claiming Elijah will return in someone else’s body. But anyhoo… What is reincarnation, it is the belief that when we die depending on our works we will come back as another human or as a greater or lessor being. The highest being seems to be a Godlike state of nothingness called Nirvana (I probably can be more accurate and specific here but this blog is long enough) and the lowest state would be some sort of insect. What do we have here… do you see where I am going with this? Well currently, that is to say at this very moment in time there are 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 quintillion) insects alive. There are more insects alive than there are any living creature. It is true that some insects have short lifespans like Mayflies only live about a day but some insects like termites last for about 17 years we can’t just argue that the insects are just being reborn as insects; the insect birthrate grows exponentially. If we all started off as humans or a higher creature then a similar problem arises, where are all the insects coming from. Reincarnation is nonsense because of the mathematical impossibility and inconsistency of animals or humans or insects reoccupying the planet in a new body. Now that’s how you refute a dumb religion!
I think I have refuted quite a few things, Islam, Jewish views on the Messiah evolution, etc; now a thought on gayness. Recently Jerry Coyne’s book was in my head probably because of my last blog. I remembered his views on sexual selection. He claimed that most evolutionist did not believe a female of a species would be attracted to a male based on his genes.
Suppose, for example, that members of a species had evolved a visual preference for red color because that preference helped them locate ripe fruits and berries. If a mutant male appeared with a patch of red on his breast, he might be preferred by females simply because of this preexisting preference…females derive neither direct nor indirect benefits from choosing a particular male. p167
That is to say, girls don’t have ‘genetic sonar.’ So the honeys ain’t gonna diss you cause you got sickled cell unless you tell them… in layman’s terms. So hmmmm, hmmmm, hmmmmm. What do we have here? Are you smart enough to see where I am going with this. If a girl can’t look ‘into’ you and love you because of a gene you have, then how can a homosexual simply be attracted to the male gene or the female gene… note there are extremely macho tom boy girls and very sensitive boys. So you can’t claim maybe the gene just makes them like sensitivity or machoness. So the question is how can a human being be attracted to a male or a female from birth… there you go, because as my friend Jerry Coyne would imply, there is no direct genetic attraction. So how can one be attracted or detracted to a specific male or female gene? Selection is made superficially.
What is the scientific community trying to hide by not admitting that God is right? He is always right.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (Romans 1:26-27)
I once heard that dumb gay guy that Obama chose to deliver his prayer claim that the word ‘nature’ in Greek physikos should be interpreted ‘custom’… that is to say it just wasn’t very customary for Jews to be gay, as opposed to gayness being an abomination. Gays really like distorting the Bible. That word physikos is used once more in the Bible here it is.
…But these, as natural brute beasts… (2 Peter 2:12)
I guess animals are just customarily wild, 101. The following will be funnier if said with an English accent.
Lion Butler: Would you like a cup of tea with your zebra chops? Sire. Lion King: Indubitably, my good man. Do you have any grey poupon? Lion Butler: No, not really, Just honey mustard. Lion King: Off with his head! Lion Butler: Ahhhhh…(runs away)
Okay I’m taking this a little too far but you get my drift. bye.
There has always been controversy about what happened to the Nazis, well the ones that didn’t get a job at Nasa. Recently a TV show called Mysteryquest finally got permission from the Russian government to study Hitler’s skull. Supposedly they found that this skull believed to be Hitler’s may actually be the skull of a woman.
Well hopefully they will find him… but anyways to digress another far more important Hitler is missing… the ‘Hitler’ that got the real Adolf started on his path. This Hitler is “Evolution’s Hitler,” who is he you ask. Well the problem with evolution is the argument of randomness, think about true randomness, think how many places on your body you can grow a useless finger over a million years without it preventing your survival. If you started to grow a finger on your back though useless it would not prevent your survival, we know mother nature, whoever that is, allows many mistakes and diseases, so you can’t argue that a useless finger would never develop because it would steal energy from the body… there are plenty of diseases that steal energy from the body… and they develop fine. So then if evolution is true, as Jerry Coyne would put it, how does a truly random situation prevent all those survivable diseases and abnormalities. I don’t want to gross you out but imagine all the different places you can grow a finger without it killing you. So why haven’t you randomly grown fingers in those places. And if one of your potential ancestors grew fingers in the wrong place randomly who was the Hitler who committed inhumane acts against them?
Don’t worry I am not making light of the Holocaust, but I actually think maybe one of the reasons Adolf became Hitler is because he imagined it was his duty to be Evolution’s Hitler. He may have thought it was providence, nothing or no one else was killing all the slightly imperfect people; it is interesting that Evolution’s Hitler is missing because that aspect of evolution is the most controversial and evil. It really proves that God is good and one has to create or invent evil, as Darwin did.
Is it bigotry to hate drag queens or to be a drag queen? When I hear of men dressed as women I think, is that any different than if a person dressed up as a Mexican with a big sombrero in a ‘pretty boy’ Floyd ‘money’ Mayweather sort of way… if you wore a sombrero a fake mustache, yelling I no speaka de English and caroling ‘La Chupacabra’ at the top of your lungs… and when people stopped to ask you what you are doing you say… I know I am…let’s say… German but I’m feeling a little Mexican and I have a right to sing my national anthem… I’ve felt Mexican all my life… though I am clearly trapped in a German’s body.
Should you be given the right to demean the definition of being Mexican? Well why do gays and lesbians and drag queens have the right to distort and degrade the definition of being real men and real women… have they no shame, should we who disagree with them feel ashamed of our pride in our real men and women? The answer is no… I assume you didn’t know that. You probably think drag queens are honoring women with their mockery.
I actually saw a drag queen once… once was enough thank you. I was a cashier at Kmart and one was hanging out near my register, so I finally left my register and walked up to him, I asked if I could help and he asked me where the service desk was. And that was it I was a little suspicious cause the whole thing was weird and he was acting weird. He looked gross with all this makeup caked on his face. I don’t even like when women have makeup much less men.
Is there a difference between drag queens and black face?
