Absolute Proof Of God!

SCIENCE And The BIBLE, Do They Contradict???

AddThis Content

Subscribe To My Podcast

Witchcraft: the real truth exsposed! The personal Testimony of The Ministerofblog plus Others!

Those who have a testimony to share about what God took you from may do so in the comment section at the bottom of this page for others to be blessed and God to be Praised!

You may place your testimony at the bottom of the Page that applies to where God has brought you from. Check out the Pages on this site below.

New Twitter App Gets You Free Traffic..

Click Here To See How >>

Breaking the Chain of Lies so you can be FREE!

This is my Battle cry: Gal. 4:16
“Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?”
Read "END TIME DELUSIONS"
By Steve Wohlberg
This is A MUST READ IF YOU WANT TRUTH ABOUT THE LAST DAYS IN THIS TIME OF MUCH DELUSION ABOUT THE LAST DAYS!
MOST THINGS FROM RAY COMFORT I really love EXCEPT the "prophetical minefield" called dispensationalism!
I TRUST VERY LITTLE TODAY ABOUT "THE LAST DAYS" AS I AM NOW AN HISTORICIST AND DO NOT BELIEVE A MAJORITY OF THE PREACHERS OUT THERE THAT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAST DAYS!
I spent years teaching this prophetic nightmare, I was "Left Behind" the 8 Ball so to speak....
It's NOT that they don't love God or even are purposefully deceiving us, it's just that we have left our true roots!
The Church WAS NEVER this prophetically confused in it's early days, they had real purpose and direction and didn't hide behind the shell game of man-made prophetic ideas!
THE HISTORICIST VIEWPOINT IS THE MOST BIBLICAL VIEWPOINT HELD BY A MAJORITY OF OUR CHURCH FATHERS AND BIBLE WRITER'S
CHECK IT OUT ON HISTORICIST.COM SOMETIME!

Break out of your religious and intellectual Chains!

Truth ONLY comes to those who search for it not to those who settle for less!

Click the following links to listen to audio recordings of a series of sermons on Matthew 24 by Pastor Joe Haynes.

The sermon series is titled, "Are We Living in the End Times?" Delivered during the month of January, 2008.

Here's a FREE

"No Money Down Real Estate Course"

just for coming to my page!

It's free but very valuable!

Got Questions? Well...here are Answers to sharpen your mind and build your faith in the Anointed Jesus!

This Information represents months of hard work putting together the Best of the Best Information, please read the Evidence presented with deep Respect so that you might sharpen your faith or even GAIN new faith in God!

If you are helped by anything here, please...PLEASE, let me know in the comment section below!

This page needs your support!

You may ALSO leave your own Testimony of what God has done for your life there as well so that others may know what God has done! Or send it to me in an E-mail and I will use it AS IS in my blog!

The Real Truth about the organized Church of today may surprise you, unless you are one of its deceived victims!!!

It is PAST time that TRUE Christians the world over stop what their doing and realize that its their "Church-ianity" that the world really does hate!

I mean really, their supposed to hate US not our FAKE CHRISTIAN LIVES we surround ourselves with.

Not because we go to DEAD churches to hear DEAD sermons about DEAD faithless, platitude's that don't change lives. I as a minister of the Gospel these 37 ys.

I have both witnessed my OWN hypocrisy and the hypocrisy of the church in general; BUT is this not the MAIN reason the world hates us (Because of our Hypocrisy) and not the true reason THAT Jesus said we should be hated for (Because we TRY to convict of sin and unrighteousness)?

Think about it!

Matthew 7:22-24 (King James Version)

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:"

We should not be despised because we can't follow the Lord the way he told us too, we should be hated literally because they hate Jesus and see him in us.

"A cult is a religion with no political power." — Tom Wolfe.

"A religion is a cult that succeeded." And true Christianity was NEVER meant to be ether one.

The Organized Church of today DOES NOT IN ANY WAY resemble the New

Testament believers because these days we spend so much wasted time

DISPROVING WHAT WE SHOULD BE BELIEVING !

surrender

The answer to the question " Can God really free me?

is of course..YES...YES...YES!!! If your "god " cannot deliver from anything and everything...THEN WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU SERVE that god? Ω

The personal testimony of The "Minister of Blog" Clarence F. Sargent

I was raised in a small town, at the time called Taunton, Mass. after having moved from Ellsworth Maine where I was born where to this day, I do not know who my real mother and father were but because I know of the Sovereignty of God I also know his personal care of my life.

I can go on with my life knowing his plans have my best interest at heart.

afi007az

In his plan, I was adopted at birth by a very loving couple who were childless and really wanted me, my mother Mary a backsliding Baptist and my Father Alexander Sargent an agnostic when it came to all things spiritual, was level-headed and down to earth.

Now you have to realize that I only found out about my adoption at 29 years old; long after both my mom and my dad had died and I had already become a Christian. I received a letter from the social security administration telling me of a Sister who wished to get in touch with me.

My Sister Shirley told me that my real mom ( A full-blooded native American Indian, of which I am proud to have in my bloodline.) wanted an abortion because she could not care for me and all my siblings, a fact I'm not proud of!

(But I know now that this act is the ultimate rejection of a child in the womb, not an act of love but selfishness.)

She was actually at the doors of the clinic when some pro-life people talked her into adoption instead of murdering me, thank God for those who will stand up and stand out in this world for something good; if they had not, I would be among the millions a dead babies in a dumpster somewhere in Maine.

I think you know where I stand on abortion as a result of this.

No amount of arguments can convince someone who would have died that a child in the womb is not human enough to live.

I was raised in a lower middle class family and not used to the so-called "good things in life" as far as wealth is concerned but I was very much-loved and that’s what really mattered anyway.

BUT.... all that was soon to change because of an utterly stupid decision of mine. I began to practice the occult in my teen years; and it all started one afternoon when I was 6 years old sitting in front of the “boob tube” watching an innocent television show called “Bewitched” and from the moment that show aired [in 1964] I was hooked on the concept at least; of witchcraft, very innocently at first but nevertheless I was hooked.

What is the Craft? Who are the Witches? And should we be afraid of them?

What is a Witch or Wizard? What do I Have to Fear?By Clarence Sargent (The Ministerofblog) What is a Witch?Well in a most basic way witches or wizards are people who can mentally afflict others with harm or good by thinking them harm or good. But that is as far as they believe they can do because it is in the Freudian doctrine of the Omnipotence of Thought, that we find the belief that mankind can make use of their imaginations so they can affect others actions.They believe even the course of nature or circumstances themselves, simply by the projection of their thoughts towards them, either in an evil or good way can change the way nature or circumstances in the natural order of things works. What about spells or hexes? Casting spells are the ways and means to defend themselves against their fears, these actions are the end result of a base fear in all of mankind without the truth of God.Man always fears things he doesn't have the ability to understand outside of his or her personal space.This is the philosophy behind spell-casting in the first place, to use a person's own fears against them, to do themselves in by personal fear dwelling within them.The Witch or Wizard simply needs to find out specific information about their enemies life which in this day and age is not to hard to do. Once this information is known, all that is needed then is a personal item, a lock of hair or picture of them or family for personal connection, and the CURSE takes root in the mind and filters down to the spirit of the victim.

The real secret any form of witchcraft lies in the very nature of the human mind itself, and the projection of mental energies, which is simply conversion of feelings of guilt or anger into hostility towards others and is a well-known human problem that God hates.

This is responsible not only for the illusion of persecution but the need for a scapegoat. This seems to be a tendency in the human mind ( What the Bible terms the human Soul ) that doesn't get the renewing of spiritual rebirth through the Word of God.

Unfortunately this basic definition of a Witch covers a wide range of Christian practice in the church of the modern day as well as the occult.

This form of practice in the Church reveals itself through our worship and our prayers which we OVERLY ATTACH to the "emotion center" of our the brains, which if not kept in check by the reborn spirit can LEAD US DOWN A PATH THAT IS NOT OF GOD'S CREATION.

God never intended for our emotions to control our lives but only to enhance our spiritual experience.

Witchcraft utilizes ONLY that part of spirit (The Soul) which is LIMITED in man's incomplete understanding because of sin, it is not a TRUE SPIRITUAL POWER at all; but is anchored to the mind of the flesh as is taught in Galatians 5:18-25

"But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, sedition's, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

The old adage that says "If you do not set your belief on something that makes sense you'll set it upon NON-sense instead" and ANY form of the craft is "spiritual non-sense" because no amount of mind or flesh can ever equal an once of spirit!

How exactly is the Human Psyche effected by the "power of suggestion?" Well let's look at the radio broadcast drama "The War of the World's" by Orson Wells in the early 50s, not only was the power of suggestion well utilized, but it also began the era of mythical urban legends of our modern day society.

This broadcast proves that this is a power to be reckoned with when properly instituted, even if it were by accident.

The human psyche acts just like a shield; but like anything else, it eventually is pierced through by the power of over and over suggestion, this is how urban legends get a foothold in our minds and how traumatic events that happen in succession can change our thoughts to a more negative overall belief system .

Unbelievably, the power of suggestion can be not only our mental undoing in the negative sense; but can also be the catalyst for the complete mental regrouping or intuitive spark of the human psyche in the most positive sense as well, so we cannot throw out this power as "of the devil", he simply uses what he has available in the creation of God. This is how God changes our lives so it is a good thing if used by him through us.

What this is, is a mental faculty that we were created with so that we could use our faith to function in life, without the power to suggest to our minds we would never be able to believe God for anything.

When we speak of the power of suggestion in the Christian faith it can be BOTH a negative in the sense of believing a "wrong doctrine" over all the facts to the contrary.

But it can be a positive in the sense that our faith in God is better increased because the mind is taken out of the way and put in a proper place, it simply translates to the mind being convinced of spiritual facts no matter what the physical circumstance reveals.

Thus faith rules over physical law and can "recreate the physical circumstances" preventing a miracle from happening or being viewed in the physical realm.

The power of suggestion can indeed be viewed as the "omnipotent" part of God's faith when used in positive conjunction with affirmations as a method of the treatment of disease.

We have all experienced the power of suggestion any time we go shopping yet there is no witchcraft involved here, so it is a safe form if used alone with a heavy dose of "Self-control". The power of suggestion is everywhere and those who practice the Craft are simply using a tool available to the whole of mankind.

Another great example of the power of suggestion is the" placebo effect" where in testing they use a "sugar tablet" instead of the drug with half the group and the drug with other half and tell both groups they are getting better and watch the effect work time after time.

The bad news is that this power can work in the opposite direction and cause great damage and hurt simply because man without God has a missing part- Hope. There is no power so persuasive as the power of suggestion and Satan knows this all to well, after all he received 2/3rd's of heaven angels to follow him!

The power of the mind is the form of putting words in an order to make others interested in what you have to say...Advertising plan and simple....advertising what you want others to think about over and over. When we work to conquer obstacles in our way, we work to put the power of suggestion in motion.

When people are conditioned, it is usually easy to use the power of suggestion if our words are distributed properly, this is how "Organizations" of all types control their memberships to think the common thread of thought as one.

Everyday we are all open to the power of suggestion, whether we are at home, at work, or other areas of society. Recognizing the positive and negative forces of the power of suggestion can help us to avoid unwanted feelings that can affect our thinking process.

If you think about the hypocrisy in many religions today, you can see that people are often under the power of suggestion. Learning, reading, and meditating can help us to gain control over our thoughts vs. others' thoughts and avoid the unwanted suggestions.

When we have "evidence" that upholds our words such as the Bible, we have the ingredient that leads us to the proper use power of Self-suggestion effectively and Biblical based.

It is very important that as believers we NOT fear anything that God intends for good, but simply use as intended. Witchcraft cannot harm a true believer solidly standing upon the rock of God's commands! Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Clarence_Sargent

The "Craft" appealed to me on so many level’s both physically and spiritually.

I was already an introvert with very few friends and low self-esteem in school, other than the few out casts smoking dope in the parking lot of my school.

And being an only child caused me to develop many "imaginary friends". Now I believe this is Healthy to a point, but as I grew up these "imaginary friends" would drive my interest in the Occult and Drugs, for they were demonic in nature not the "imaginary friends" I thought they were.

Since my interest was peaked by these "familiar spirits".

[A familiar is a Witches guide in the realm of spirit. I now know that these spirits were guiding me into deeper and deeper FLESHLY TIES to my sinful nature.]

Watching that show sent me headlong into a downward spiral of flesh in control living.

EVEN AS a child I knew that "Hollywood Witch-craft" was not the real thing which is the reason I driven to know the real practice and THEREIN lies the true danger of parents allowing their children to view and read things WITHOUT PROPER SUPERVISION; the television is NOT a good babysitter.

Understand, that it’s alright for an older child to be curious about it, as long as YOU the parent are there to guide them away from the evil content and to explain (Click Here) why God hates those things in a reasonable manner.

It’s the great special effects that are the lure in the beginning, but that will not stand before a holy God at the judgment seat as your excuse.

I dedicated myself without any spiritual direction to find out about this ancient earth religion, as I began studying and looking for deeper truths in the world of magic and sorcery I was witness both to its beauty of focus and its pure savagery of intent. It wasn’t until after my adopted Mom died when I was only 17 that I was free to do as I pleased....and boy did I do as I pleased!

I must add to my testimony here because there may be some confusion as to how I could claim to an Atheist and at the same time a Witch? Well, first of all I said plainly that I wasn't a TRUE atheist but a fake atheist in that I mouthed the words of "hating all things God connected", but at the same time I turned toward Witchcraft to replace him.

My mothers death was the catalyst that started my hatred of God boiling! I simply didn't hate all other gods the same way!

I jumped headlong into drugs, Drinking, and Partying while trying to keep up a c+ to b average in high school, failing many courses because a lack of focus on them and because many of my teachers just wanted me out of their classes and passed me through without the proper training.

I joined Wicca, as a private practitioner taking a course in the art of magic by Gavin and Yvonne Frost; The Wicca fascination I had did not last very long as I was hungry for a darker side; the more power and knowledge of the occult the better.

I began to delve deeper and deeper into the so-called "Deep things of Occult Knowledge“, I would read Anton LaVeys "Satanic Bible" just to rebel against the God who, I felt “TOOK MY MOM FROM ME”.

Now this is where I now know a true Atheist from a fake one who is just a rebellious person trying to hate the God he knows exists but can't get close too in sin.

Understand that if you were a REAL ATHEIST you would have NO NEED to rebel against anything godly because HE ISN'T REALLY THERE.....I mean get down to earth, if God is not there what's the issue with the bible;
"the concept of God is the ONLY thing that could make that book real in any way, so if God isn't real then the bible cannot matter."
This is why I've never really meet a real Atheist because you all WASTE so much time trying to find evidence to DISPROVE what you say isn't there...is that healthy behavior?
After all I as a Christian don't get mad and spend any of my time trying to disprove the existence of "Fairy Tales" why do you?
i-am-worthy-of-gods-love

Remember what has happened to you is what makes you become great, so don't let life run you over.

Slow down, THINK for a moment:

Isn't there more to life than this?

f_emptym_59a9e16

The guy below is :

Aleister Crowley, I used to think he was the bomb but I was wrong.......big time!

He along with me knew nothing of God and who he really IS!

rhughes_crowley_painting072507a

This is what I played with in my early years in the Occult, it is not recommended by ANY OCCULTIST worth their salt to PLAY with these, they are very dangerous and can and WILL open you up to demon influences!

Don't be fooled into the idea that what you do is innocent ALL involvement is dangerous!

I began mixing in Aleister Crowley's works {Below}

ALEISTER CROWLEY (ALPHABETIC LIST OF WORKS) below is a list of the works of Aleister Crowley in alphabetic sequence. Crowley provided many of his texts with numerical identifiers in Latin. there is also a numeric index for this collection, which consists of a list of titles followed by a brief description of their content and importance. several of these files have multiple versions, being keyed in by different people or formatted for enhanced readability, and these versions are identified in no particular order other than when they were acquired as part of the archive. descriptive text in {set brackets} is taken from Crowley's "Book Four" appendices (capitalization regularized in many instances), text other than the titles of books or essays in "quotation marks" is from the work being described (whether in the subtitle or elsewhere). text followed by "-- (name)" identifies a description by the sourcename cited (detailed at the end of this document). text in [brackets] is commentary or interpretation from the Archivist. # Absinthe: The Green Goddess # An Account of the A.'. A.'. sub figura 33 {[An account of the Order of the Silver Star or "A.'.A.'."] first written in the language of his period by the Councillor von Eckartshausen, revised and rewritten [by Crowley].}# Across the Gulf sub figura 59 {A fantastic account of a previous incarnation. It story of the overthrowing of Isis by Osisis may help the reader to understand the meaning of the overthrowing of Osiris by Horus in the present aeon.}# AHA! sub figura 242 {An exposition in poetic language of several of the ways of attainment and the results obtained.}# Amrita [A lecture on the creation and application of the Elixir of Immortality.]# Ararita sub figura 813 (version 1) # Ararita sub figura 813 (version 2) {An account of the Hexagram and the method of reducing it to the Unity, and beyond.}

# De Arte Magica (version 1) # De Arte Magica (version 2) # De Arte Magica (version 3) [Sex magick instructions.]

# The Artistic Temperament [A Simon Iff story (fiction).]

# Astrology sub figura 536 (Preface) {A textbook on astrology composed on scientific lines by classifying observed facts rather than deducting from *a priori* theories.}

# Batrachophrenoboocosmomachia sub figura 536 {An instruction in expansion of the field of the mind.}

# The Beast sub figura 666 (?) {An account of the magical personality who is the Logos of the present aeon.} [Some suggest this became "The Equinox of the Gods", first published in 1936.]

# Berashith: An Essay in Ontology "With Some Remarks On Ceremonial Magic".

# Book Four sub figura 4 # Book Four sub figura 4 (Interlude) # {A general account in elementary terms of magical and mystical powers.} Book Four Part Three ('Magick in Theory and Practice') # 'Magick in Theory and Practice' Introduction # Book Four Part Three ('MiTaP'): excerpts relating to magic

# The Book of Lies (falsely so-called) {Deals with many matters on all planes of the very highest importance. An offiial publication of the Babes of the Abyss, but is recommended even to beginners as highly suggestive.}

# The Book of the Operation of the Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage

# "The Book of Thoth sub figura 78" {A complete treatise on the Tarot.}

# "The Book of Wisdom or Folly vel Aleph sub figura 111" {An extended and elaborate commentary on "The Book of the Law",in the form of a letter from [To Mega Therion] to his magical son, [Frater Achad]. Contains some of the deepest secrets of initiation, with a clear solution of many cosmic and ethical problems.}

# "The Butterfly Net sub figura 81" aka "Moonchild" {An account of a magical operation [of the Homunculus or Magical Child], particularly concerning the planet Luna, written in the form of a novel.}

# The Cephaloedium Working (version1)< # The Cephaloedium Working (version 2)

# The Chymical Jousting of Brother Perardua sub figura 55 {An account of the magical and mystic path in the language of alchemy.}

# Concerning "Blasphemy" in General & the Rites of Eleusis in Particular

# Concerning Death sub figura 106 {A treatise on the nature of death and the proper attitude to be taken towards it.}

# Concerning the Law of Thelema sub figura 161 "Specific instances of the application of the various programs and policies outlined in other papers such as The Open Letter."

# Desert Justice (Simon Iff Abroad) [Tales of Simon Iff (fiction).]

# Duty "A note on the chief rules of practical conduct to be observed by those who accept the Law of Thelema."

# EGC Gnostic Mass sub figura 15 [The central religious ritual of Crowley's O.T.O.]

# Eight Lectures on Yoga (version 1) # Eight Lectures on Yoga (version 2) [Instructions on the practice of Raja Yoga after the style and rigor of Patanjali.]

# Energized Enthusiasm "A Note on Theurgy" An essay developing the idea of creativity -- and genius -- as a sexual phenomenon. -- Crowley Cross-Index.

# Enochian Keys

# Enochian Notes

# The Equinox {Crowley's regular periodical in which many of his works appeared.}

# The Equinox of the Gods "The circumstances surrounding the dictation of [The Book of the Law]." -- Crowley Cross-Index

# Eroto-Comatose Lucidity (version 1) # Eroto-Comatose Lucidity (version 2) [An excerpt from De Arte Magica.]

# Gilles de Rais (version 1) # Gilles de Rais (version 2) [A historical lecture billed by Crowley as 'banned.']

# The Greek Qabalah (short form) "A complete Dictionary of all sacred and important words and phrases given in the Books of the Gnosis and other important writings both in the Greek and the Coptic."

# A Handbook of Geomancy "Attributions of geomantic figures to planets, zodiac, and ruling genii."

# The High History of Good Sir Palamedes the Saracen... sub figura 197 {A poetic account of the Great Work and enumeration of many obstacles.}

# An Intimation on The Constitution of the Order (O.T.O.) sub figura 194 {The Constitution and Government of our Holy Order [Crowley's O.T.O.]; by the study of its Balance you may yourself come to apprehension of how to rule your own life.}

# John St. John sub figura 860 {The record of the magical retirement of Frater O.M. A model of what a magical record should be, so far as accurate analysis and fullness of description are concerned.}

# Khabs Am Pekht sub figura 300 {A special instruction for the promulgation of the Law. This is the first and most important duty of every aspirant of whatever grade. It builds up in him the character and karma which forms the Spine of Attainment.}

# Khing Khang King sub figura 21 ["The Classic of Purity", by Ko Hsuen. Interpolation by Crowley.]

# The Law of Liberty sub figura 837 (version 1) # The Law of Liberty sub figura 837 (version 2) {A further explanation of "The Book of the Law" in reference to certain ethical problems.}

# De Lege Libellum sub figura 150 {A further explanation of "The Book of the Law", with special reference to the powers and privileges conferred by its acceptance.}

# Liber 8 (the 8th Aethyr of 'The Vision and the Voice sub figura 418') "[A description of attaining unto] the mystery of the knowledge and conversation of [the] Holy Guardian Angel" [originating in "The Vision and the Voice sub figura 418". See below for a commentary on the entire document.].

# Liber A vel Armorum sub figura 412 (version 1) # Liber A vel Armorum sub figura 412 (version 2) {An instruction on the preparation of the Elemental Instruments.}

# Liber A'ash vel Capricorni Pneumatici sub figura 370 [Sexual magick heavily veiled in symbolism.]

# Liber Adonis sub figura 335 {An account in poetic language of the struggle of the human and divine elements in the consciousness of man, giving their harmony following on the victory of the latter.}

# Liber Al vel Legis sub figura 220 {"The Book of the Law", the foundation of Crowley's [religious] work.}

# Liber Al vel Legis Commentary [Crowley's commentary on "The Book of the Law".]

# Liber Amalantrah sub figura 97 (version 1) # Liber Amalantrah sub figura 97 (version 2) {Diary concerning the Wizard Amalantrah and the working of like name.}

# Liber Arcanorum sub figura 231 {An account of the cosmic process so far as it is indicated by the Tarot Trumps in relation to the Genii of the Qliphoth.}

# Liber Astarte vel Berylli sub figura 175 {An instruction in attainment by the method of devotion, or bhakti-yoga.}

# Liber B vel Magi sub figura 1 *{An account of the Grade of Magus, the highest grade which it is ever possible to manifest in any way whatever upon this plane. Or so it is said by the Masters of the Temple.}

# Liber Cadaveris sub figura 120 [Zelator initiation ritual for the Order of Thelemites. Also called 'the Ritual of Passing Through the Tuat'.]

# Liber Causae sub figura 61 {The history and origin of the A.'.A.'. The object of the book is to discount mythopeia.}

# Liber Chanokh sub figura 89 {A brief abstraction of the symbolic representation of the universe derived by Dr. John Dee through the scrying of Sir Edward Kelly.}

# Liber Cheth vel Vallum Abiegni sub figura 156 {An account of the task of the Exempt Adept, considered under the symbols of a particular nonintellectual plane.}

# Liber Collegii Sancti sub figura 185 {The tasks of the Grades of the A.'.A.'. and their Oaths as pertains to "Graduum Montis Abiegni sub figura 13".}

# Liber Cordis Cincte Serpente sub figura 65 {An account of the relations of the aspirant [to the A.'.A.'.] with his Holy Guardian Angel.}

# Liber E vel Excitiorum sub figura 9 {Instructs the aspirant in the necessity of keeping a record. Suggests methods of testing physical clairvoyance. Gives instruction in Asana, Pranayama and Dharana, and advises the application of tests to the physical body, in order that the student may thoroughly understand his own limitations.}

# Liber Gaias sub figura 96 {A handbook of Geomancy.}

# Graduum Montis Abiegni sub figura 13 {An account of the task of the aspirant to the A.'.A.'. from Probationer to Adept.}

# Liber Had sub figura 555 {An instruction for attaining Hadit.}

# Liber HHH sub figura 341 (version 1) # Liber HHH sub figura 341 (version 2) {Three methods of attainment through a willed series of thoughts.}

# Liber Israfel sub figura 64 {An instruction in a suitable method of preaching.}

# Liber Jugorum sub figura 3 (version 1) # Liber Jugorum sub figura 3 (version 2) {An instruction for the control of speech, action and thought.}

# Liber Liberi vel Lapidis Lazuli sub figura 7 {The emancipation of an Exempt Adept from his adeptship. The birth words of a Master of the Temple.}

# Liber Librae sub figura 30 {An elementary course of morality suitable for the average man.}

# Liber Nikh vel Tzaba sub figura 93 (version1) # Liber Nikh vel Tzaba sub figura 93 (version 2) {A diary of heroin and cocaine use.}

# Liber O vel Manua et Sagitae sub figura 6 {Instructions given for elementary study of the qabalah, assumption of god forms, vibration of divine names, the rituals of Pentagram and Hexagram, and their uses in protection and invocation, a method of attaining astral visions so-called, and an instruction in the practice called 'Rising on the Planes'.}

# Liber Os Abysmi vel Da'ath sub figura 474 {An instruction in a purely intellectual method of entering the Abyss.}

# Liber Oz sub figura 77 (version 1) # Liber Oz sub figura 77 (version 2) [A Bill of Rights for the Aeon of Horus.]

# Liber Porta Lucis sub figura 10 {An account of the sending forth of [To Mega] Therion by the A.'.A.'. and an explanation of his mission.}

# Liber Pyramidos sub figura 671 {A ritual of self-initiation.}

# Liber Reguli sub figura 5 "The Ritual of the Mark of the Beast: an incantation proper to invoke the Energies of the Aeon of Horus, adapted for the daily use of the Magician of whatever grade."

# Liber Resh vel Helios sub figura 200 (version 1) # Liber Resh vel Helios sub figura 200 (version 2) {An instruction for the adoration of the Sun four times daily, with the object of composing the mind to meditation, and of regularizing the practices.}

# Liber Ru vel Spiritus sub figura 206 {Full instruction in Pranayama.}

# Liber Samekh sub figura 800 {The ritual employed by the Beast 666 for the attainment of the knowledge and conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel during the semester of his performance of the operation of the Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage. [from the book, apparently translated by Mathers]}

# Liber Stellae Rubae sub figura 66 {A secret ritual, the heart of IAO-OAI.}

# Liber Tau sub figura 400 {A graphic interpretation of the Tarot on the plane of initiation.}

# 777 (Fragment) {_777_: aka _Vel Prolegomena Symbolica Ad Systemam Sceptico-Mysticae Viae Explicandae, Fundamentum Hieroglyphicorum Sanctissimorum Scientiae Summae _: A complete dictionary of [Crowley's] correspondences of magical elements, reprinted with extensive additions.}

# Liber Trigrammaton sub figura 27 {A book of trigams of the mutations of the Tao with the Yin and the Yang. An account of the cosmic process.}

# Liber Turris vel Domus Dei sub figura 16 {An instruction for attaiment by the direct destruction of thoughts as they arise in the mind.}

# Liber Tzaddi vel Hamus Hermeticus sub figura 90 {An account of initiation, and an indication as to those who are suitable for same.}

# The Lost Continent sub figura 51 {An account of the continent of Atlantis: the manners and customs, magical rites and opinions of its people, together with an account of the catastrophe, so called, which ended in its disappearance.}

# Magick Without Tears {A compilation of correspondence between Crowley and an anonymous pupil concerning the basics of magick.}

# The Manifesto of the O.T.O. sub figura 52 "A concise summary of the various threads of initiatic tradition that make up the O.T.O."

# The Mass of the Phoenix sub figura 44 {A ritual of the Law.}

# The Message from the Master Therion sub figura 2 {Explains the essence of the new Law in a very simple manner.}

# An Open Letter to Those Who May Wish to Join the Order (O.T.O.) sub figura 101 "Guidelines for Thelemic social intercourse" [in the O.T.O.}

# The Paris Working [Homosexual magick instructions.]

# The Rites of Eleusis [Planetary rites in a regular cycle.]

# Sepher Sephiroth sub figura 500 {A dictionary of Hebrew words arranged according to numerical value. An encyclopedia of the Qabalah, a map of the universe, enabling man to attain perfect understanding.}

# The Soldier and the Hunchback (! & ?) sub figura 148 [Philosophy of expression, inquiry and logic.]

# The Star Ruby sub figura 25 {An improved form of the Lesser [Banishing] Ritual of the Pentagram.}

# Liber Star Sapphire sub figura 36 (version 1) # Liber Star Sapphire sub figura 36 (version 2) {An improved ritual of the Hexagram.}

# Tao Teh King sub figura 157 {"The Classic of the Way and its Virtue/Power", by Lao Tzu, Interpolated by Crowley.}

# De Thaumaturgia sub figura 633 {A statement of uncertain ethical considerations concering magick.} {"The Vision and the Voice" aka "Aerum vel Saeculi": the classical account of the thirty aethyrs and a model of all visions, the doctrine of the function of the Great White Brotherhood which is the foundation of the aspiration of the Adept. An account of a Master of the Temple.}

# Vision and Voice (418) Commentary

# Yi King sub figura 216 ["The Classic of Changes". Interpolated by Crowley.]

# Liber Yod sub figura 831 {An instruction giving three methods of reducing the manifold consciousness to the Unity. Adapted to facilitate the task of the attainment of Raja Yoga and of the knowledge and conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel.}

The Man, Myth, and Magic encyclopedia series was a great source of knowledge from my High School Library on class breaks.

man myth and magic

But Just about anything dealing with works on Witchcraft I would give place to simply because I was hungry for knowledge.

PLEASE DO NOT EVER UNDERESTIMATE A CHILD'S SEARCH FOR KNOWLEDGE!

CLICK HERE NOW TO:

Real help to keep your Children free from Occult influences!

Deliverance from the Occult PDF.

They will circumvent all efforts to stop them if all you do is say "Because I said so!" instead of explaining with evidence WHY they can't do it!

The occult became an obsession, a lifestyle that I was hooked on just like my drug use, it was “Mind-altering“.

I learned still more from friends, many of which were Questionable at best but they knew what I wanted to know about how to tell fortunes and use Tarot cards and playing cards to make money on the side.

I began to cast spells on others, while I worshiped the horned god and the goddess. I mixed all this knowledge together to form my own form of the Craft, never being a conformist I made it my own and would put it all in my journal called a "Witches Book of Shadows".

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="150" caption="An example of a Book of Shadows!"] An example of a Book of Shadows![/caption]

The Book of Shadows is a Witch's greatest tool. It provides a place for all personal Craft secrets, your spell work, rituals, family traditions if you have any, almost anything a Witch can think or act on is contained in this book. As I figured out what my personal practices were I would write them in this journal .

This was my personal "bible" to turn to anytime I needed help with a spell or spiritual concept, its ancient name is called a "Grimoire". I soon found out that when I would cast spells of evil intent on those I hated or disliked it began to work and I would also work "good magic" on those I liked that worked also. Everything seemed to be going my way.

But the problems I was going through at this time in life had nothing to do with what happened to me in the daytime hours when I worshipped other gods and goddesses; or even my study time in the craft when I gained deeper knowledge and power as a black Witch. My real trouble was a night-time issue, an issue of fear and discontent both in my dreams and waking hours.

I was in a constant deeply seated fear at the height of my power as a Witch. And no matter what anyone tells you about the Craft; good intent or bad intent it will produce the same results that any lifestyle outside of God’s grace produces, and that is DEATH IN YOUR LIFE.

Just what is a book of shadows?

Book of Shadows From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Book of Shadows is the name used for a book that contains magical and religious texts in the religion of Wicca and certain other neopagan witchcraft traditions. Typically, a Book of Shadows contains the core rituals, magical practices, ethics and philosophy of Wicca within it, and more often a list of the witch's personal spells.In British Traditional Wicca, which largely revolves around the structure of the coven, the book is traditionally copied by hand from that of one's initiating High Priestess or Priest, who copied theirs in turn from their initiator. In Eclectic Wiccan terminology, however, a Book of Shadows is a personal journal, though often serves in a similar capacity to that of traditionalists.Within traditional lineaged forms of Wicca there are a number of versions of the Book of Shadows, their contents varying to a greater or lesser degree from the early versions belonging to Gerald Gardner, who first popularised Wicca. While Gardner seems to have originally treated the book as a personal journal, it has come to be considered a religious text in most traditions. Origins Gerald Gardner, the "father of Wicca", first introduced the Book of Shadows to people that he had initiated into the craft through his Bricket Wood coven in the 1950s. He claimed that it was a personal cookbook of spells that have worked for the owner; they could copy from his own book and add or remove material as they saw fit. He said that the practice of Witches keeping such a book was ancient, and was practiced by the Witch-cult throughout history. According to tradition, Gardner claimed, the book was burned after a person died, so that it would not be discovered that they had been a witch.Gerald Gardner did not mention any such thing as a "Book of Shadows" in his 1949 (though written three years earlier), novel about mediaeval witchcraft, High Magic's Aid. Doreen Valiente claimed that this was because at the time, Gardner had not yet conceived of the idea, and only invented it after writing his novel.High Priestess Doreen Valiente made the claim that Gardner found the term "Book of Shadows" from a 1949 edition (Volume I, Number 3) of a magazine known as The Occult Observer. In this edition, she claimed, was an advertisement for Gardner's novel, High Magic's Aid, which was opposite an article titled "The Book of Shadows" written by the palmist Mir Bashir. The article in question was about an allegedly ancient Sanskrit divination manual which explained how to foretell things based upon the length of a person's shadow. Valiente theorised that Gardner then adopted this term for his Witches' grimoire. She maintained that "It was a good name, and it is a good name still, wherever Gardner found it". A page of Ye Booke of Ye Art Magical.A leatherbound manuscript written in Gardner's handwriting that was titled Ye Booke of Ye Art Magical (Ronald Hutton claims that it was spelt Ye Bok, but Valiente claims Ye Booke) was later found amongst his papers from the Museum after his death and was obtained by Valiente. It appeared to be a first draft of Gardner's Book of Shadows, and featured sections based upon the rituals of the Order of Templars of the Orient which had been devised by the occultist Aleister Crowley. Gardner had gained access to these rituals in 1946, when he had purchased a charter from Crowley giving him permission to perform the OTO rituals.Taking this evidence into account, it seems that Gardner invented the idea of a Witches' Grimoire sometime between 1946 (when he finished his novel High Magic's Aid), and 1949, and had named it Ye Booke of Ye Art Magical. In 1949, he had renamed it to the Book of Shadows, and soon began to make use of it with his Bricket Wood Coven.

Adding weight to the evidence indicating Gardner invented the Book was that other neopagan witches of the time, such as Robert Cochrane, never made use of such a book.

Valiente's rewriting

In 1953, Doreen Valiente joined Gardner's Bricket Wood coven, and soon rose to become its High Priestess. She noticed how much of the material in his Book of Shadows was taken not from ancient sources as Gardner had initially claimed, but from the works of the occultist Aleister Crowley, from Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches, from the Key of Solomon and also from the rituals of Freemasonry. She confronted Gardner with this, who admitted that the text he had received from the New Forest coven had been fragmentary and he had had to fill much of it using various sources. He also stated that "well, if you think you can do any better, go ahead", and Valiente thought that she could, later stating that: “ I accepted the challenge and set out to rewrite the Book of Shadows, cutting out the Crowleyanity as much as I could and trying to bring it back to what I felt was, if not so elaborate as Crowley's phraseology, at least our own and in our own words. ”

Valiente rewrote much of it, cutting out a lot of sections that had come from Crowley (whose negative reputation she feared), though retaining parts that originated with Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches, which she fealt was genuine witchcraft practice. Valiente dramatically rewrote sections such as the Charge of the Goddess and also wrote several poems for the book, such as The Witches Rune. She also helped to create a poem to include the Wiccan Rede within it.

Valiente also noticed that a chant in one ritual in the book was based upon the poem "A Tree Song" from Puck of Pook's Hill by Rudyard Kipling, which she had enjoyed as a child.. The chant in question stated that:

Oh, do not tell the priest our plight, Or he would call it sin; But - we have been in the woods all night, A-conjuring summer in ! And we bring you news by word of mouth - Good news for cattle and corn - Now is the Sun come up from the South, With Oak, and Ash, and Thorn!

This version, written by both Gardner and Valiente, but containing sections adopted from various sources, such as Aleister Crowley, Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches, and even Rudyard Kipling, went on to become the traditional text for Gardnerian Wicca.

In British Traditional Wicca

In forms of British Traditional Wicca, which include Gardnerian Wicca, Alexandrian Wicca and Algard Wicca, the Book of Shadows used by adherents is based upon that written by Garder and Valiente.

Although his own book had been put together with the help of Doreen Valiente and included material from a variety of modern sources, (notably from Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches and the writings of Aleister Crowley) it also included sections written in an antique (or mock-antique) style, including advice for witches brought to trial and tortured. Gardner claimed that these sections were genuinely historical in origin, and that witches had not been allowed to write anything down until recently, to avoid incrimination; when at last Books of Shadows were allowed, the rituals and spells had to be written in a jumbled manner to prevent any non-initiate from using them. More recent scholars however have doubted their authenticity.

It seems likely that Gardner told his three subsequent initiatory lines that the book should be copied word for word, and Wiccans descended from Eleanor Bone, Patricia Crowther and Monique Wilson have widely believed that the book was of ancient provenance. North American Gardnerians of the Long Island line allow covens to add rituals and teachings to the book, but nothing may be removed.

Contemporary usage

Some Traditional Wiccans keep two Books of Shadows: one book of core rituals which does not change, and from which new initiates copy; and another coven book for ritual use, which is different from group to group and may contain much added material. Such material is often traded between covens.

Some Wiccans keep a personal Book of Shadows in addition to that of their tradition. This is typically for individual use and is not passed on to one's initiates.

Publication

After Gardner's death, his rival, Charles Cardell, published much of the material from the Gardnerian Book of Shadows. In the 1970s, the Alexandrians Janet Farrar and Stewart Farrar decided, with the consent of Doreen Valiente, that much of the Gardnerian book should be published in its true form. Much of it was published by the Farrars in their 1984 book The Witches' Way. In Eclectic Wicca

In non-traditional or "eclectic" forms of Wiccan or neo-pagan practice, the term Book of Shadows is more often used to describe a personal journal, rather than a traditional text. This journal records rituals, spells, and their results, as well as other magical information. This can be either an individual or coven text, and is not normally passed from teacher to student. In many cases, this kind of Book of Shadows is an electronic document (disk or website) instead of a hand-written one. Some reserve the Book of Shadows for recording spells and keep a separate book, sometimes called the Book of Mirrors to contain thoughts, feelings and experiences. In popular culture

The television fantasy series Charmed features a fictional Book of Shadows which contains spells and arcane law, and has a supernatural ability to defend itself from harm. In the 1996 film The Craft, which some critics saw as a major influence on the series Charmed, the Book of Shadows was referred to as an object in which a witch keeps her "power thoughts".

The 2000 sequel to The Blair Witch Project was titled Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2, despite there being no mention of a Book of Shadows during the film, the title was seen as an attempt to capitalise on the Charmed series' established market.

Here is a COMMON excuse by those without knowledge of the Dangers of ALL FORMS of Witchcraft:
..."The Harry Potter books present a Godless universe -- one in which the most powerful wizard wins,"And that "most powerful wizard wins" this thing differs from evangelical christianity exactly how?
Here they speak of Religion being different from Witchcraft and they would be very wrong as God hates false religion just as much, but the point is well taken, there are powerful "Wizards" of religion in all of man's inventions.
God must be the most powerful being PERIOD!

NO EXCEPTION IS ALLOWED!!

And if you want your children to read only the bible, go right ahead. You'll end up having children who don't read unless they're forced to, and who don't like to read.
Kids need to enjoy reading in order to learn how to do it well, and that is what seems to get missed every time this topic comes up. Oh, and reading is important when it comes to getting an education, especially a college one."
This is THE most stupid remark from ignorance I've ever heard, they assume that to get an education means to sacrifice a child's soul in the process.
The Bible is THE most important book ever written NOT because its religious dogma, FAR FROM IT...The bible teaches children about every facet of life they could ever hope to encounter outside of "Religious training"! ENJOY reading?
YES... but always balance that skill with good MORAL TEACHINGS so that when they read something your not there to see, you'll know their perspective is right!
Harry Potter what's wrong?
Click here for the facts!

Deut. 7:26 says:

“Do not bring a detestable thing into your house or you, like it, will be set apart for destruction. Utterly abhor and detest it, for it is set apart for destruction.”

Lev. 20:27; 19:26

the second part of the verse says:

“A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist (wizard KJV) among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads. Do not practise divination or sorcery.”

Lev. 20:6 says:

“I will set my face against the person who turns to mediums and spiritist's (wizards KJV) to prostitute himself by following them, and I will cut him off from his people.”

Is. 47:13-14

says clearly: “ Let your astrologers come forward, those star-gazer who make predictions month by month, let them save you from what is coming upon you. Surely they are like stubble; the fire will burn them up. They cannot even save themselves from the power of the flame."

“ I am a Christian now and I’m proud of it, but I’m NOT RELIGIOUS and will not fit willingly into a denominational mold. I mean let’s be real here-Religion has killed and maimed it’s share of truth at the altar of good intention JUST as atheism has murdered it’s share FREE THOUGHT in the name of Fake science.

Let’s face real facts here for once shall we? BOTH RELIGION AND HUMANISM have dropped the ball as far as getting it right is concerned, so let’s not blow smokescreens up each others HINDQUARTERS about what’s true and what’s not.

A personal relationship is what God requires, he’s never been interested in “Church-ianity” or any form of man-made silliness on our part.

It’s about YOU and God, and not about YOU FITTING INTO A MOLD of like-minded minds which most of the FAKE CHURCH is now doing.

I get asked endlessly if I can prove that God exists? Well, an Atheist has already answered that question for me as I wrote in an article at ezinearticles.com

Proof That God Exist's From The Mouth Of An Atheist!By Clarence Sargent This question is one of the latest being asked by atheists and skeptics alike, and comes from the book," why doesn't god heal amputees""the bible clearly promises that god answers prayers. For example, in mark 11:24 Jesus says, "therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." And billions of Christians believe these promises. You can find thousands of books, magazine articles and web sites talking about the power of prayer. According to believers, god is answering millions of their prayers every day. So what should happen if we pray to god to restore amputated limbs? Clearly, if god is real, limbs should regenerate through prayer. In reality, they do not. Why not? Because god is imaginary. Notice that there is zero ambiguity in this situation (which simply put means I've got these Christians in a box under my rules and they can't get out!). There is only one way for a limb to regenerate through prayer (now I ask you, how do you know that, if it cannot happen? What's happening here is just a silly game of word play because no atheist has a clue how prayer must work!): god must exist and god must answer prayers. ( Are you certain you still want to word it that way? Because your own words are about to "bite you in the..... But that can't happen in my little life box! ) what we (atheists) find is that whenever we create a unambiguous situation like this and look at the results of prayer, prayer never works. " ( That could be because you put it in a self created "box" with rules that prayer cannot function within? But that's just what the bible says!) this atheist is saying that god could prove he exists, once and for all, by restoring someones lost limb as if healing un-healable disease and deformity was not proof enough. They point out that millions of Christians pray for healing every day, but nothing "irrefutable" by physical explanations, but such a restoration if it could ever be verified by doctors would be irrefutable proof that god is there. It always amazes me just how much atheists know about how god does things when they don't even give him the status of existing! Somehow an excuse will be found when this is shown to have happened. Let me eliminate part of this problem for you by stating that very few of these so-called prayers are ever prayed in faith nothing doubting as is required to get the result, so that leaves out all the unsaved who cannot trust in god without his help, which they must ask for. ( That's called salvation by the way! ) many people who say they are saved or were saved at one time ( the so-called ex-Christian convert or "recovering Christian") ( here's a revelation for some of you : what did Jesus do before the so-called "sinners prayer" was written in modern times? How were people saved before the "four spiritual laws" were printed? These are just man's ideas of salvation, they are in no way scriptural. You can be saved only one way......By faith alone! ) these people are not and never were Christians, so that eliminates a vast pool of millions of the so-called unanswered prayer issues right there. This is simply the biblical facts taught in scripture clearly, not an excuse! These are the bibles rules of interpretation not our rules, one way, one door, one path....Period! Atheists make the claim that every prayer that Christians have said were answered by god, can be explained by the natural forces of the universe and therefore are not real proof that there is a god! Wow! If natural law can do the things I've personally witnessed then the universe is god so you still have disprove the existence of a god no matter how you look at it...Hard to get out of you little box isn't it? That's a tall statement to say all prayers, clearly this atheist has not seen the evidence I've personally witnessed or they would never have put their extremely large foot in their mouth concerning things they understand not! But the question remains are they right? Is there no evidence out there of god "growing a brand new limb where one was missing"? Has the spirit of the almighty ever done this ? Well... Yes, many, many times in the bible god has made whole, missing flesh....It's called leprous skin. What is leprosy? It's a chronic bacterial disease of the skin and nerves in the hands and feet and, in some cases, the lining of the nose. The infection is characterized by abnormal changes of the skin. These changes, called lesions, are at first flat and red. Upon enlarging, they have irregular shapes and a characteristic appearance. The lesions are typically darker in color around the edges with discolored pale centers. Because the organism grows best at lower temperatures the leprosy bacillus has a preference for the skin, the mucous membranes and the nerves. Infection in and destruction of the nerves leads to sensory loss. The loss of sensation in the fingers and toes increases the risk of injury. Inadequate care causes infection of open wounds. Gangrene may also follow, causing body tissue to die, fall off or become deformed. This disease was common in biblical days and probably misdiagnosed many times, the point is this: these people had missing limbs and whenever Jesus healed them "they became whole from their disease" as he would tell them to "go show yourselves to the priest and offer the sacrifice commanded by moses to prove they had no disease in their bodies." If Jesus had the power to make whole from twisted bone and withered flesh, where is the problem in restoring missing flesh and bone? Yes god can and will heal completely, totally, and wholly of any and all things related to the physical, mental and spiritual world or healing is a farce...It's all or nothing with god's will you are not allowed to pick and choose what god can or can't do....Remember you cannot doubt or have any unbelief in regard to what you want for prayer to work! The bible is clear! So..... Here's the thing, the skeptics want an irrefutable, verifiable miracle by medical personnel, one that cannot be refuted. This is exactly what I would like them to do with their scientific facts....Prove and not just claim that god doesn't exist, this is their failure in all the talk, they have never presented evidence that can be examined with our hands and mind's that the god of the bible is not there!. But the real point is that even if they were presented with one right now and I will present said miracle in this article, they won't believe it no matter what the proof. They will always have an excuse or claim the photos were altered or the video was fake.What would it take to convince any skeptic that god does indeed exist? How about this: god appears as a man (Jesus the Christ), he walks among us for 33 years, claims to be god himself in human flesh and performs a multitude of outstanding miracles, miracles that have no earthly reason to have happened even to this day to disprove them, including (and this cannot be overstated) his own resurrection. That should do it for all time but no atheist will accept these irrefutable proofs that god already did, so what makes us think that a present day miracle will meet with any belief. what do skeptics do with this evidence anyway? they simply deny that it ever happened a completely childish response, they will not take pure evidence at face value as they think we should with evolution which has no evidence at all to prove it! Christian evidence is always just thrown out with the babies bath water...Baby and all, without the slightest protest and their lack of evidence is not even noticed in the school system...Why? There is no excuse for this unscientific approach to the evidence of god but that is all we can expect from people who are not honest in their evaluation of evidence.What skeptics really want is for god himself to appear to them and show them a personal miracle that even they cannot disprove. The only problem with this line of reasoning is that god did that already did that when he came the first time. He is not going to return for every skeptic to personally be proven wrong just like the missing link that never seems to appear for scientists to prove once and for all that "natural selection" is true. He was born once and he died only once, but in doing that he personally fulfilled more than 450 Jewish prophesies.Hebrews 9 says:that in itself is mathematically impossible to do unless you have perfect knowledge of all that would happen thousands of years in advance.......my friend that is a miracle! Hebrews states "and as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many ; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." One time was enough, now it's up to trust & faith! Now back to the offer of the atheist it was if I can prove that god could and did heal an amputated limb that you will believe in god ...Is that right? ( start sweating now.) http://healingsandmiracles.Org/ have I got a web-site for you to view and I absolutely dare you as an atheist to disprove this women's testimony. God healed her not only of an amputated leg but many, many fatal diseases that the doctors cannot explain! Go to this site if you have the nerve and can find any real evidence ( not excuses ) to refute Carole Miller Mccleery-Greenes claims... She has every form of evidence your "skeptical minds" have asked for and then some! This testimony of faith is an irrefutable evidence that god really does love and care for his creation on a level only seen by faith.....What will you do with this one my skeptical friend? Remember we know your trick double talk is not going to work here so "zip it" and examine the evidence honestly! Yet, I am fully aware that some of you are so steeped in doubt and unbelief that you wouldn't believe even if it was your personal limb that god was growing back! You might even say "well that leg came back over time, now if god is so powerful why didn't he instantly make it appear?" it is a well known fact of life that unbelief is a bottomless pit of excuses and not one thing that god or man shows you will ever get through your thickened faithless mind unless you stop and think for yourself and not as the status quo does. It is the "cynics" not the "skeptics" that act like this,so be a true skeptic but don't deny the facts before you...That's just plain stupid, a free-thinker is one who thinks freely unhindered by other opinions -- one who is prepared to consider any possibility no matter if it goes the direction he or she wishes, and who determines which ideas are right or wrong not by what they have been indoctrinated to think but by bringing reason to bear, according to a consistent set of rules such as the scientific method. As far as god is concerned man is not to reason with man about god, that's like standing in a room with others and they constantly refer to you in the third person as if you were not there (sounds like two atheists talking about god or two Christians discussing doctrine). The bible is clear on this: in Isaiah 1:18 this plain statement is made by god himself "come now, and let us (me & you) reason together, saith the lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."think for a moment...How in the world can two minds that are finite (small) reason together about a god so big in scope and dynamic that the bible says he held the oceans and the land in the palm of his hand and measured them out? Even as a skeptic you can appreciate the size of the facts at stake here and that god is a bigger issue than reasoning about the weather! The trouble with most skeptics and atheists is that you are not trying to find proof that god is real your only trying to protect beliefs just as any false religion does. If your beliefs are that fragile then get some that can stand up to evidence! Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Clarence_Sargent am always amazed when those who hate God say “I cannot be a part of a faith that attacks science and reality.” as if science were a humanistic invention, if you believe that you must have failed in history.

Science has many Christian roots.

Most of the early scientists were Christians such as Copernicus, Galileo, Pascal, Isaac Newton, Johannes Keppler, Robert Boyle, Louis Pasteur, Jean Henri Fabre, Michael Faraday, and John Ambrose Fleming.
These great scientists operated within a Christian framework.An interesting fact is that the vast majority of all scientific development has come out of western civilization, what are the odds of that happening?
And IT had Christianity as its basis to top that off. The idea is that the “laws of nature” came from Christianity, NOT HUMANISM; not to mention that the concepts of subduing nature and being stewards of nature are right from the first book of the Bible--Genesis and not in any way the invention of witches.
THAT IS WHY I view God as a rational and trustworthy person, which implies automatically that His creation is rational and orderly and thus can be examined FOR EVIDENCE OF HIS FINGERPRINTS.
The Art Of Knowing Your Enemy In Order To Defeat Him!By Clarence SargentUnderstand that demons ARE what they do...demons of (rebellion,sickness,doubt,unbelief..etc.) ARE BOUND TO ACT WITHIN THEIR PARTICULAR MISSION (Murder,Lust, etc..a devil of deception is as much deceived by his nature as the person he inhabits. Devils are filled with "Infighting among themselves" and ONLY WORK TOGETHER FOR THE COMMON GOAL OF DESTROYING YOU so they CANNOT do anything beyond what YOU allow them to do or to get away with in your life! THEY ARE BOUND TO "Flesh/Soul existence" doomed to eternal death, UNABLE TO ATTACK US IN THE SPIRITUAL REALM (Remember they were CAST OUT of heaven and INTO the heaven lies surrounding the earth.)- In fact DEMONS MUST ASK PERMISSION TO STAND BEFORE US IN ORDER TO TEMPT US,( Unless of course they have LEGAL GROUND to attack our lives. This can come through "Bloodline"curses or simply because YOU have invited the attack by playing around with witchcraft's of ANY TYPE.) All THAT Satan can do is DECEIVE, LIE AND MANIPULATE US AND THE LAWS OF SCIENCE WHICH HE IS BOUND TOO HIMSELF.Understand this simple truth about Satan and demons, NATURE ITSELF was created to be bound by certain laws of motion and energy, God HAS TOTAL CONTROL OVER SATAN because of these laws, he cannot go beyond the natural realm of science and nature. BUT understand something important here, SCIENCE AS WE KNOW IT IS STILL A LIMITED CONCEPT (IN OTHER WORDS SATAN KNOWS THINGS ABOUT NATURE AND ALL PHYSICAL LAWS THAT HUMANS ARE ONLY BEGINNING TO LEARN ABOUT. Thus he can APPEAR AS AN ANGEL (Messenger) OF RIGHTEOUSNESS (or Light) which he did to me as a black witch...HE'S VERY GOOD AT BEING VERY BAD..BUT HE'S EVEN BETTER AT DRESSING UP AS YOUR FRIEND UNTIL IT'S TIME TO PAY THE PRICE! Then all of a sudden he's on the inside as your conscience, condemning the actions he helped you produce.The problem is Most people think of demons in terms of Ugly, revolting, lizard like, or ghostlike creatures which are easy to detect well, they can appear as that if it suites the purpose at hand (i.e. Hunting's or Fantasy Illusions of the mind) BUT The real truth is that demons are most likely to appear in an attractive form that you relate to and even love to be with, a form that fulfills deep seated desires and practice THAT YOU ALREADY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH (i.e. Religious practices or even personal habits). Demons are deceivers.They love to masquerade, so even Christians are fooled by them (If it were possible even the elect could be fooled but it were for the spirit of God within to WARN US). They really love the deception of appearing as "PASSED ON LOVED ONES" with the end result being a misrepresentation of the spiritual laws which the bible makes very clear cannot ever happen (i.e. The fact that scripture says in the book of Hebrews that "After death is Judgment NOT HANGING AROUND IN A LIFE THAT CANNOT SUPPORT THEIR EXISTENCE)

A Demons NATURE (or How they act because of what their individual MISSIONS IN THE LIVES OF CERTAIN HUMANS are.) binds them within a certain moral framework by which they are controlled.

For instance a demon of LUST is bound to his lust just as his host is and this can be the undoing of his power over you if you learn how to counter it with scripture and DELIVERANCE.

The Bible clearly portrays them as personal beings.

They have personal intellect (Mark 5:7), knowledge (Acts 19:15), emotion (Matthew 9:31; Mark 5:7; James 2:19), self-awareness (Mark 5:9), will (Matthew 8:31), and ability to speak (Mark 1:24; 5:7-12; Acts 19:15).

They are in all ways just as PERSONAL as you are!

Demons act in conjunction with Satan's planed purpose BUT do not always obey his lead because they are inherently rebellious in their innermost being and can be TURNED UPON EACH OTHER as God has done many times in Scripture, turning whole armies upon themselves to protect Israel.

Each demon has its own "personal Agenda"aside from Satan's ultimate purpose, just as human hosts have personal agendas that drive them to success or failure aside from what family or friends might suggest.

The occult can certainly be a gateway for demonic activity and the Bible forbids us to be involved in occult activities EVEN IF IT SEEMS INNOCENT TO US THE DANGER IS THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE NOT ABLE TO RESIST IT'S ALLURE!

(Deuteronomy 18:9-14; Leviticus 19:26b,31; Isaiah 47:8-15):

1.) Divination = fortune telling (i.e. Taro cards, Crystal balls, E.S.P.) ,

2.) clairvoyance (Physics, Ghost whisperers).

3.)Sorcery which operates by charms (This also includes RELIGIOUS ITEMS worn to protect from evil as in Voodoo),

4.) music ( that instills or inspires to NEGATIVE EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENTS),

5.) drugs (Including anything that diminishes your ability to resist Demons from attaching to our past bloodline or current fleshly habits)

.6.) Witchcraft that operates by spells, curses, hypnosis and in some cases a form of MASS HYPNOSIS IS EMPLOYED TO DECEIVE LARGE AMOUNTS OF ADHERENTS AT ONE TIME.

7.) A Medium or spiritualist is someone who acts as a channel through whom the spirit {demon} speaks. They are Consulting the dead (or necromancer's), calling up the dead (spiritual entities)

Yet think about this : most of those whom Jesus delivered from demons were religious Jews, forbidden ever to practice witchcraft or idolatry.

They were "normal" people, neither criminal, insane, nor spooky (Matthew 8:16; Mark 1:39).

Demons are active in less obvious ways than the occult.

a.) The worship of other gods or idols is in fact the worship of demons (1 Corinthians 10:19-21; Revelation 9:20; Deuteronomy 32:17; Psalm 106:36-37) . b.) Demons are involved in the teaching of false doctrines (1 Timothy 4:1-2; 1 John 2:18-22; 4:1-3).

c.) Demons preach from the pulpit of some churches (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).

d.) Causing jealousy and discord among God's people is an activity of demons (1 Samuel 18:8-10).

e.) So too is lying (1 Kings 22:21-24).

REMEMBER RELIGIOUS DEMONS ARE JUST AS DANGEROUS AS if not all the more dangerous than THOSE BEHIND THE OCCULT!

But let's look at this closer is not FALSE RELIGIOUS PRACTICE NOTHING MORE THAN "Witchcraft" anyway?

Do not false religious people curse and otherwise defile the temple of God by hurting his true purpose in the earth "To FREE MANKIND FROM THE WORK OF SATAN"?

So in effect religion is a form of the Occult because it fulfills the purpose of the occult which is to spread the words of darkness throughout the earth - Anything that disobeys the word of God is IN DARKNESS!

Remember well that "Witchcraft"has received a BUM RAP OVER THE YEARS BY HOLLYWOOD IN THAT MOST OF THE SO-CALLED witch crafts on the screens that we see are nothing more than HYPED UP WISHFUL THINKING.

The Salem witch trials were more "Religious-craft" than witchcraft, the real witches were the PHONY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE THAT SHOWED THEIR PIOUS CONTEMPT FOR ALL THAT WAS TRULY GODLY IN NATURE IN EXCHANGE FOR SELF-GRATIFICATION and PERSONAL HATRED!

At times Jesus spoke directly to demons, and they to Him (Mark 3:11-12; 5:6-13).

However, there is no New Testament pattern for holding lengthy USELESS conversations with demons and I know personally this only works to the advantage of Satan keeping him in the host longer while we reveal info that he can use to stay there. This should be avoided since their basic nature is that of deception (1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Revelation 20:3,7,8,10).

What deliverance ministries do is to be specific and to the point in their questions to demons

1.)"What is your name (Nature)?

2.) Why are you here? revealing the root cause of infection

3.)and When did you come in? revealing the first reason and generational bind of the devil. But facts prove that this method is not always successful for the ground that gave the demon a place to reside cannot be cast out.

Deliverance from demonic influence will not be obtained by "casting out" only. The ground which admitted the evil spirit in the first place is the ground that can keep a person in possession or oppression (Ephesians 4:27 - "foothold").

Evil spirits can be cast out in the Name of the Lord Jesus, but the ground they have gained can only be removed by the intelligent choice of our wills refusing the territory given to them, and appropriating the deliverance by death with Christ on Calvary.

This should not surprise us for Jesus Himself plainly warned that demons will seek to return and may bring others with them (Matthew 12:43-45).

Upon at least one occasion Jesus commanded the demon to come out and specifically added "and never enter him again" (Mark 9:25).

Unless the ground of demonic influence is dealt with, no full relief can be obtained, or change seen, in the majority of deliverance's

I was born in Ellsworth Maine in 1959 in the month of June and started out as a normal boy, as many before me..BUT that was soon to change when I came into my teen years.

As a young boy of a Baptist mother and an Agnostic Father (What a Mix?) I was an introvert with few friends of any real character and was raised an only child, As I grew up, my interest in the Occult and drugs became clearly evident .

My first introduction to the occult was from a famous T.V. show called "Bewitched" when I was only 6 yrs old, from that first show my interest was peaked and I went on a downward spiral from there..as a child I knew that "Hollywood Witchcraft" was not real but I desired to know about the real thing and dedicated myself to find out about this ancient wisdom of earth religion.

I began studying and looking for deeper truths in the darkness of this MOST ANCIENT world of magic and sorcery!

It was after my adopted Mom (The only real mom I ever knew, which I loved with all my heart.) died when I was only 17 that I was free to do as I pleased....and boy did I do as I pleased! Drug use, Drinking, and Partying was my only thought while keeping a c+ to b average in high school (A miracle in itself) I soon found out about Wicca and became a card carrying mail order Witch, taking a course in the art of magic by Gavin & Yvonne Frost; which did not satisfy my LUST for the ultimate power as I was hungry for more and more power and knowledge of the occult than even they were willing to share.

I began to delve deeper and deeper into the so-called "Deep things" of Occult Knowledge READING Anton LaVeys "Satanic Bible" which fueled my fleshly desires even more.I also studied Aleister Crowley's works on magic.

I studied on lunch breaks in the library at school (Reading Man,Myth,and Magic encyclopedias and other works on Witchcraft ) and on all my free time when I wasn't partying and abusing myself otherwise..the occult became an obsession with me!

I learned even more from friends (Questionable Friends at best) about how to tell fortunes and use the Tarot to make money from unsuspecting people, and learn I did..casting spells and worshiping the goddess. I mixed all my Occult knowledge together to form my own "Witches Book of Shadows" (A Book Of Shadows is a Witch's Greatest tool.

It provides a place for Craft secrets, spell work, rituals, family traditions, otherworldly info & almost anything else a Witch can think. )As I progressed through the Craft & figured out what my personal practices were, so I needed a place to write my thoughts down!

This book became my "Bible" I would turn to it anytime I needed help, my "Grimoire"or "Book of Shadows was my only friend and I worshiped it's contents as my own creation, when I cast spells on those I hated it worked,things were going my way .....

UNTIL...GOD,

Who had other plans for me..he and he alone had the nerve to put two Christians into my life that could not be SCARED OR MOVED by my appearance or actions and kept coming day after day,night after night inviting me to church (No GUTS No GLORY)..THEY NEVER GIVE UP ON ME!

I remember giving them the SLIP so many times I lost count.

But one fateful Wednesday night Bible Study I sat at the BACK of the this little Church of God in Cheyenne Wyoming, half Drunk and half High.

I don't remember much of the service BUT I do remember hearing that God did not hate me for what I'd done but that HIS LAWS REQUIRED HIS JUDGMENT on my soul,God's LOVE reached out and touched this Witch and suffered him NOT to live a life without hope but revived him into NEW LIFE in Christ!

I saw a literal Light of deliverance shine down into my mind and for the first time in years I could think for myself without the "VOICES OF DEMONS (My Familiars)

WERE "interfering with my thoughts,that night became as "DAYTIME for me and now I am a new creation,OLD things HAVE PASSED AWAY and Jesus is my Lord and Savior FOREVER!

Of course there will be those who think "Well, that's you..you were special to God and he loved you more than me..I've done to many sick things for God to love me!"

THAT IS A LIE! God loves ALL MANKIND EQUALLY AND WITHOUT BEING PARTIAL TO ANY PERSON

(Since all go to hell for the same reason, REJECTION OF JESUS AS PERSONAL SAVIOR and NOT PERSONAL SIN!)

... the MASTER of the HALF-TRUTH tells us these things because HE LOST IT ALL TO HIS OWN PRIDE and wants YOU to suffer for his stupidity. Don't let him lie to you, God thinks as much of you as he does of his own son..just give him your heart and he'll do the rest! As a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ I extend this invitation to know him as I do now, get free and stay free it's your personal choice and no ones business but yours alone.

Accept what God has done on your behalf

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Clarence_Sargent

Nature in the Christian view (as compared to our non-Christian worldviews such as witchcraft) is that nature is no longer an object of fear and worship, because let‘s face it…we only “worship in ignorance” what we “Fear in ignorance”. God on the other hand only DEMANDS KNOWLEDGEABLE WORSHIP.
It is “False Religion” that MYSTIFIES GOD to the point that you can’t relate to him BUT must “BLINDLY FOLLOW PRECEPTS AND RULES THAT MAKE NO SENSE” to a freethinking mind.
We need to do a self-check, to make sure we get rid of all of our idols, good luck charms, crosses, medallions, and demonic symbols.
We must repent fully of trusting in fate, destiny, and luck: and put our whole trust in the Living Christ, follow Him wholeheartedly without exception to our fears from the past. Trusting in fate or luck is clearly a dependence upon evil spirits which I knew as “familiars.”
Now as to my testimony, as I alluded to earlier God’s plan for my life was set long before I was ever born and no matter what bad decisions I was making; up to this point, in fact I was on the very path to running into his power; that I had been running from; because he had the nerve to put two Christians into my life that could not be SCARED OR MOVED by my appearance or actions and REMEMBER I was a full out witch in both dress and lifestyle, they kept coming anyway; day after day and that impressed me.
They were always inviting me to go to their church and NEVER GIVE UP ON ME! And so, one fateful Wednesday night Bible Study I sat at the BACK of this little Church of God in Cheyenne Wyoming.
I came into the sanctuary half Drunk and half High, not wanting to be there at all.
Much of the service I cannot recall BUT I do remember hearing the statement that God “did not hate me for what I'd done, no matter how bad but that HIS LAWS REQUIRED HIS JUDGMENT on my soul” God’s LOVE reached down and touched this Witch and suffered him NOT to live a life without hope, reviving me into NEW LIFE with Christ!
I witnessed a literal shaft of Light shine down into my darkened mind and for the first time in over 8 years I could think for myself without the "VOICES OF DEMONS" interfering with my thoughts, that evening the night became "DAYTIME for me and now I can proudly say I am a new creation; the OLD dark things HAVE PASSED AWAY completely and Jesus is my Lord and Savior!
Of course there are those who will think "Well, that's you, you were special to God and he loved you then more than me now, I've done too many sick and unforgivable things for God to love me!"

THAT IS A LIE! A HUGE MISTAKE!

God loves ALL MANKIND EQUALLY AND WITHOUT BEING PARTIAL TO ANY PERSON. It is Satan, the MASTER of the HALF-TRUTH that tells us these things.

It is only because HE LOST IT ALL TO HIS OWN PRIDE that he wants YOU to suffer for his stupidity by following his path. Don't let him lie to you, God thinks as much of you as he does of his own son. Just give him your heart and he'll do the rest!

If God is God then He should be able to accomplish anything no matter what it may be..right?

Well I'm here to tell you that JESUS CHRIST is God and HE CAN AND WILL SAVE YOU NO MATTER WHAT YOU'VE DONE...he looks past what you do and love's you deeply.

weav01

A spiritual adventure of another witch:

For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline.

"My walk in darkness began when I was about three. I was sexually abused by my father. Unable to cope with the trauma, I developed alternate personalities to carry out the everyday demands of life. I retreated from life as much as I could, and had no real friends until Eighth grade.

Growing up in a hostile, abusive environment, I became addicted to seconals as a teenager, and I experimented with a great many drugs. My preference was always LSD. I dated and married abusive men. There was much violence in my life, a lot of death, a lot of horror. I never knew peace. Because my father read the Bible a lot, and shouted scriptures, I was confused about Jesus.

I became fascinated by the occult. I believed that my will, if strong and directed properly, could change anything. This is one of the foundations of witchcraft, which I started to embrace. I found the study appealing at the time, though difficult.

I began to be haunted in my dreams by a woman dancing in a way I had never seen before. It was breathtakingly beautiful. Supposing she must be another witch who wanted to teach me something, I began looking for her.

I was getting sick. Physically, the doctors could find nothing wrong. I was getting thinner, and increasingly, the spirits I thought I controlled were beginning to control me - taking over the body, while I was somewhere on the ceiling watching the horror they inflicted.

I called my best friend, who knew Jesus. She said, 'The Lord will bring a sword between us if you don't come out of witchcraft.' She had never known I was involved in witchcraft. I had kept her from knowing my beliefs.

Then she asked me to visit a church where she knew they weren't afraid to help abused women. She asked me to promise to just sit through one service. I promised. She knew I would do all I could to keep my word.

I'm glad of that promise, because it was the only thing that kept me in my seat. I had been in and out of all kinds of churches, but none of them affected me because they were spiritually dead. The presence of the Lord was not there. But it was very different in this place! I was ill before I reached the door.

Nauseous, and in pain - tearing pain - I rode an emotional rollercoaster. It was like some bad drug having an alien affect on me. Suddenly, I wanted to hurt people in the church.

I wanted to hit them and tear the skin off their faces. I knew I had no personal problem with these people, to cause all these feelings to erupt. Then, when the haze of pain began to clear, who should I see dancing before the altar worshipping the Lord but the woman in my dreams!

Now, beside the promise, I had another reason to fight to stay. I was beginning to realize that there must really and truly be a God, a supreme God, just like all the Bible stories. That woman in my dreams was here. I gripped the chair in front of me until my knuckles turned white, and I stayed.

The pastor was such a gifted speaker, that even the pain and nausea began to fade as I concentrated on what he was saying. He was talking about Jesus but in a real way - one that I could relate to in everyday life. He had my attention.

As he was beginning to draw to a close, he stopped, as though he could hear something that we couldn't. Then he said, 'There is someone here whose only wish is to die, because she is so tired. Rae? Rachel? Rachel, will you come to me?'

In one overwhelming second, I suddenly knew that this God loved me, called me by name, and wanted to know me. Without hesitation I stood up. I had tried committing suicide several times in my life. I was so tired; all I had really wanted was to die.

But God knew this. He had to have told this man, who was a stranger to me and yet had called me by name. I had to get to the front of the church! But the spirits took over and the battle was on. They recognized the pastor, and told him in the ugliest voice ever to come from my body, 'I know you!'

The pastor, must have somehow known by the Holy Spirit about these spirits. 'You will stop tearing the child,' he told them.

The pain stopped, but I began slithering like a snake. Then pray-ers in the church surrounded me. I couldn't breathe. I discovered later that that is an important sign.

When evil spirits quit trying to intimidate, and show off by making the person unable to breathe, they are about to exit the body. When I accepted Jesus, I immediately saw a glorious Being that I could not lift my unworthy face to look at. But the light . . . !

I can't describe it!

There was a sword in his hands. It was covered in leaping flames. 'Take my sword,' he told me. When I reached up for it I came into his world - Christ's realm. I was whole, and crying a river of tears - me who before would never allow myself to cry.

There was healing in those tears. I was also aware of the fear that the demons were in in those final moments. The Bible really is true: Every knee shall bow before Jesus. He is indeed Lord of Lords, King of Kings, and the Savior of our soul.

There is no life and no peace without Jesus. This is my birth experience into the Kingdom of the Living God.

As 2 Timothy 1:7 says:

Fear was the first spirit to enter me, but one of the first things I learned is that God is love." I was a sold-out, goddess-worshipping witch!

    • . . .by William Schnoebelen

      "I was a witch! I was a sold-out, goddess-worshiping witch!

    • When my "lady" and I chipped the ice out of a stream in the middle of Iowa wilderness to bathe and then celebrate the March equinox naked under the stars, we were totally consumed with zeal for the Wicca.

    • We drove 170 miles one way every weekend to teach classes in Wicca in a car with a bumper sticker which said "In Goddess We Trust!"

      We were kicked out of almost every apartment we tried to rent for wild circle dances and burning frankincense; and we had a firebomb thrown into one temple because we dared to publicly proclaim the goddess!

      Wicca is one of the more seductive deceptions that Satan has come up with.(1) It is the contemporary name for the cult of so-called "white" witchcraft or Neo-Paganism, which has been enjoying a renaissance in the United States.

      It claims to be a "back to nature" religion which worships the sky and earth, and thus has attracted many adherents among those sympathetic to environmental and ecology issues. Yet, for all its charm and nostalgic fantasy, Wicca drew me into the deepest quagmire of satanic evil imaginable.

      Almost everything we did back then raised eyebrows. Regrettably, we see people today doing things openly that we had to do in secret. We see books that used to only be available in dark, musty occult bookstores now being sold openly in shopping malls.

    • The meditation practices we taught in secret witchcraft circles are now being taught in "respectable" churches.

      Naturally, we believed we were doing good. I was a sincere devotee of the chief deity of Wicca, the Great Mother. At first I believed the rites we did were for the benefit of humanity and the earth itself. I also believed what I was told: that there was a profound difference between the Wicca and those called satanists or devil-worshipers.

      I thought that the whole meaning of Wicca was beneficial rituals to nature deities like Pan, Diana or Cernunnos; and of course rites of passage and initiation. I stood, blindfolded, naked and bound at the edge of the Circle "which is placed between the worlds."

    • I heard the words of the Great Mother and felt the prick of the swordpoint challenging my courage. I was anointed as a "Priest of the Goddess" and learned her secret name. I gave my life to her service.

      I truly believed that she was the One "who was with me from the beginning, and who was attained at the end of desire." I walked the earth and felt her a living, breathing thing; and I worshiped her as "Holy Mother Earth."

      It took me sixteen years of ardent devotion to her and the Craft to find out that I was terribly wrong. I had to learn the hard way that my only hope for true spiritual fulfillment in life was Jesus Christ!

      I finally learned in the most graphic fashion imaginable that the difference between witchcraft or Wicca and satanism is actually non-existent.

    • To be sure, an anthropologist or sociologist of religion might find them different, but such distinctions mean little when you are gambling with the eternal fate of your own immortal soul.

      The actual spiritual difference between Wicca and satanism might best be illustrated this way: Practicing Wicca is like having a hand-grenade blow up in your face, in terms of the spiritual impact.

    • Practicing satanism is like having a neutron bomb detonate in your face. The difference is there and discernable, but it is still an utter disaster for you, either way.

      In eternal perspective, the disaster of Wicca is altogether real and no less dangerous than that neutron bomb.

      Why Should YOU Believe This Warning?

      Before we discuss this subject, allow me to give my credentials. I was initiated into the Alexandrian Wicca on Imbolc, February 2, 1973 and made a High Priest and Magus is September of the same year.

    • That summer my lady and I were also promoted to the High Priestly rank in the Druidic Craft of the Wise. We also helped establish a Church of All Worlds "nest" in Milwaukee and studied under Gavin and Yvonne Frost and their Church and School of Wicca.

      Wicca has many "denominations" or traditions. Some are large and well-known, like the Alexandrian, Gardnerian, Druidic, Welsh Traditionalist, Gerogian, Dianic and Church of Wicca. Others are as small as a single coven or 13, or even a family tradition.

      My wife and I established covens all over the Midwest; Dubuque and Davenport, Iowa; Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Chicago. Over the years, we advanced to higher levels of witchcraft.

    • Up to our departure from the city of Milwaukee in 1984, we were presiding over one of the oldest and largest networks of covens in the Midwest.

      About a year after becoming a High Priest (1974), I was told by our initiators that Wicca was not what it seemed.

    • Although much of the extant literature written by witches (and Dr. Margaret Murray's work(2)) would lead one to believe that Wicca is a survival of the ancient pagan fertility cults, especially of Northern Europe and the British Isles; there is not a shred of real historical proof for any connection between Bronze Age cults and modern witchcraft.

      I learned from our initiators that it seemed that Wicca is, in fact, a manufactured religion not much older than this century. There did not seem to be evidence for any Book of Shadows (a combined "bible" and ritual book for Wiccans) much older than the 1910's!

      You see, Wicca is one of Satan's "nicer" creations, tailor-made for the last half of this century.

    • Although it may have existed for perhaps a century at most, it "came out of the broom closet" in 1951, when the British laws against witchcraft were repealed.

    • It is nothing really new, but its packaging is subtly different, tailored to a world strangling on its own technology and dying for romance, idealism and meaning.

      A Cult of Deception

      You may say:

    • "So you got sucked in too deep. So what? I've been a witch for years and never got into that satanic junk. It's just a Christian myth for real losers. As long as I stay where I am, I'm cool. I'm happy!" That may be so, but do you honestly want to belong to a cult that deals in deception?

      Let's look at the word, "Wicca," as an example. The OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY reveals that the word does not mean "wise one." It means twisted, bent, or warped.

    • Even Margot Adler admits that the word has its roots in the Indo-European roots "wic" or "weik" meaning "to bend or to turn." Of course, she tries to put the best possible face on it by saying that:

      "According to this view, a Witch would be a woman ( or man) skilled in the art of shaping, bending and changing reality." (4)

      Elsewhere, she asserts that:

      "The lexicographical (dictionary) definitions of witch are rather confusing and bear little relation to the definitions given by Witches themselves."(5)

      But this is playing games, the same sort of word games most cultists play to conceal the truth. By this standard, anyone, including Anton LaVey, could say they were a witch and be right.

      Yet you should hear the howls of rage among the Neo-Pagan community when even Gavin and Yvonne Frost first claimed to be witches. They couldn't be witches, they were monotheists, fakes and gay-bashers!

    • So all of a sudden there WAS an objective standard of what makes one a witch. Yet like many things in occultism, it vanishes like mist when you try and pin it down.

      In my own personal development as a witch, and the development of almost all our colleagues, I found that after about five or six yeaars it was necessary to begin pursuing the study of the "Higher Wisdom" of Satan in order to keep growing. Magick is like a drug. You keep needing more in order to stay at a level at which you feel fulfilled. There is no end to it!

      If you've stayed a Wiccan or "white" witch for a long time, it's only because you don't have enough of the Promethean itch to grow. OR it may be that you have many Christian friends or loved ones praying for you. Did you ever think of that?"

      Footnotes Introduction

    • 1. Wicca, pronounced "Wicha," contrary to popular practice, is the term most witches prefer to use for their faith. They pronounce it "Wikka" and frequently assert that it means "Wise One."

    • 2. Margaret Murray's books, THE WITCH CULT IN WESTERN EUROPE and THE GOD OF THE WITCHES, did much to popularize the concept that Wicca is a survival of ancient religions. In recent years, though, their scholarship has been seriously challenged.

    • 3. See Margot Adier's DRAWING DOWN THE MOON, Beacon Press, Boston, 1986 rev. ed., p.46.4. Adler.p.11.5. lbid.p.10.

      * This chapter was used by permission from William Schnoebelen's book.Wicca:Satan's Little White Lie".

    • f_oijahboradam_0a6ee11

Kimberly's Story - From Wicca to Christ

"When I read Candace's story I couldn't help but feel an eerie sence of familiarity. Much of what had happened to her happened to me, just not to the same harsh extent.

Growing up I had never been to church (beyond the occasional wedding) and my family never really spoke much of God or religion.

We were a happy family and maybe that's why we never talked about God or questioned his existence. We never had anything bad happen to make us ask "why?"

Then I became a teenager.

I don't know why I was attracted to the rebellious side of being a teen.

I wasn't doing it on purpose, it's just what I really wanted to be like. My "crowd" wasn't a bad one, at least we didn't think so, but we got into trouble now and then. I started smoking, ciggerattes and marijuana,drinking and staying out all night and lying to my Mother.

I was having sex at 13 and pregnancy scares at 14. I didn't care, I was having fun. Then it all went downhill.

I had broken up with my boyfriend of 5 years, and I was only 16. I started to do anything for any guy who would give me the time of day.

Then I did get pregnant, and I thought maybe I had found love again, but it wasn't so.

He never beat me but the verbal abuse I put up with threw me into a deep depresion. I tried so hard to be a good mother and house wife (even though we were not married) and nothing was ever good enough. He called me a slut and a whore.

He refused to claim his daughter when he knew I was with no one else. He called me fat and lazy while I was pregnant.

Sometimes I wished he would have beaten me. It probably would have hurt less. When I thought I could not take it anymore and was on the verge of suicide I happened upon something that would change my life.

I was watching an afternoon talk show one day. The subject was a new religion called Wicca. I heard them talk of thier love and worship of nature and all living creatures and the spiritual force of the earth and I was hooked.

I went out and found everything I could on wicca. I trained and practiced and finally I proclaimed myself a bonafide witch.

Wicca had opened up a whole new world for me. It gave me hope, it helped me with struggles, and it made me friends. It was a community where I belonged. For once I was happy.

I found the courage to take my 3 year old daughter and leave her father, and it was the best choice I had ever made. I moved into my own apartment and I was in total bliss. No more complaining if something wasn't cleaned right or put away in the right place.

I was finally on my own. But on your own can be a very lonely place.

I started to pray to my God and Goddess for someone to love me the way I needed to be loved. Someone that understood me. And it happened.

He was perfect in every way and we really got along great. We saw each other for a couple of weeks and then we slept together and I never heard from him again. I found out a while later that he was a virgin and that he had only used me to "get it over with" so to speak.

I was crushed. What self-esteem I had rebuilt was gone and I went wild. I started sneaking into bars and taking guys home I didn't even know for meaningless sex.

Sometimes these guys were 30 or 40 years old and I was only 19 going on 20. I had gone from having had slept with nine people to twenty seven people in two months. I had given up all hope of ever finding someone to love. Then I met Jeff.

I met him while I was working at one of my twelve jobs that I had had in that year. I had never seen him before but I just couldn't get him out of my head.

Well he kept coming back and it turned out that his ex-girlfriend was my co-worker and he had her ask me out. I said yes and we went to the only place I knew how to talk to guys at, the bar.

We hit it off instantly and I could tell that he wasn't like other guys. At the end of the night he asked for my phone number but I knew as I handed it to him that he would never call.

Much to my surprise the phone rang the next day and it was him asking me out on a second date. I twas the start of a long and beautiful relationship. But there was one problem. My beliefs were a conflict to his.

He was a strict christian and I was a witch. He never said anything but I could tell it bothered him. So finally one night we sat down and talked about it. I explained to him that it was what I had chosen because I knew of no other choice. He would talk to me about God and the Bible and I had no idea of anything that he said.

So he taught me. I resented it at first but then I started to see so many things falling in to place that I had given dumb luck and Wicca credit for.

He explained to me that Christianity was not a religion, it was a relationship. He never got frustrated, even when I did and was patient.

Almost a year into our relationship I accepted Jesus Christ and became a Christian. I have never been happier. I realize now that my ultimate unhappiness came from not knowing where I was going. I know now. "

Kimberly S. Pa

Deliverance From Satan and His Demonic Forces

If the person for whom you are interceding has not confessed Jesus as Savior and Lord, pray specifically for his/her salvation if you have not already done so. Stand and thank the Father that it is done in the name of Jesus. Then pray:

Father, in the name of Jesus, I come boldly to Your throne of grace and present ___________ before You. I stand in the gap and intercede in behalf of ___________, knowing that the Holy Spirit within me takes hold together with me against the evils that would attempt to hold ____________ in bondage. I unwrap ___________ from the bonds of wickedness with my prayers and take my shield of faith and quench every fiery dart of the adversary that would come against ___________.

Father, You say that whatever I bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever I loose on earth is loosed in heaven. You say for me to cast out demons in the name of Jesus.

So I speak to you, Satan, and to the principalities, the powers, the rulers of the darkness and spiritual wickedness in high places and the demonic spirits of_____________________________(names of spirits) assigned to __________. I take authority over you and bind you away from __________ in the mighty name of Jesus. You loose __________ and let him/her go free in the name of Jesus. I demand that you desist in your maneuvers now. Satan, you are a spoiled and defeated foe.

Ministering spirits of God, you go forth in the name of Jesus and provide the necessary help to and assistance for __________.

Father, I have laid hold of __________?s salvation and his/her confession of the Lordship of Jesus Christ. I speak of things that are not as though they were, for I choose to look at the unseen ? the eternal things of God. I say that Satan shall not get an advantage over __________, for I am not ignorant of Satan?s devices. I resist Satan, and he has run in terror from __________ in the name of Jesus. I give Satan no place in __________. I plead the blood of the Lamb over __________, for Satan and his cohorts are overcome by that blood and Your Word. I thank You, Father, that I tread on serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy in __________?s behalf. __________ is delivered from this present evil world. He/she is delivered from the powers of darkness and translated into the Kingdom of Your dear Son!

Father, I ask You now to fill those vacant places within __________ with Your redemption, Your Word, Your Holy Spirit, Your love, Your wisdom, Your righteousness and Your revelation knowledge in the name of Jesus.

I thank You, Father, that __________ is redeemed out of the hand of Satan by the blood of Jesus. He/she is justified and made righteous by the blood of Jesus and belongs to You ? spirit, soul and body. I thank You that every enslaving yoke is broken, for he/she will not become the slave of anything or be brought under its power in the name of Jesus. __________ has escaped the snare of the devil who has held him/her captive and henceforth does Your will, Father, which is to glorify You in his/her spirit, soul and body.

Thank You, Father, that Jesus was manifested that He might destroy the works of the devil. Satan?s works are destroyed in __________?s life in the name of Jesus. Hallelujah! __________ walks in the Kingdom of God, which is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit! Praise the Lord! Amen.

Once this prayer has been prayed, thank the Father that Satan and his cohorts are bound. Stand firm, fixed, immovable and steadfast on your confessions of faith as you intercede on this person?s behalf, for greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world (1 John 4:4).

© Copyright 2006http://www.occultresearch.org/- occult, cults, witchcraft & black magic - All rights reserved. Witchcraft explained

Witchcraft is said to be the use of magic through gardless of sex.

Practices which are classed as witchcraft

Throughout time, any practice which is thought to harm others by intent is said to be a form of witchcraft, some of the more common types of witchcraft are

Wishing harm on another’s person or property

This is perhaps the most well known of all witchcraft and usually involves the use of a curse or hex performed with the sole purpose of bringing harm to the intended victim or that persons property.

Spells can also be used to change a persons will and make them do something they otherwise wouldn’t, an example of this would be to make someone fall in love with you and this type of witchcraft is said to be white magic.

Spell casting

Perhaps one of the most well known aspects of witchcraft is the witches ability to cast spells, we all visualise the witch stirring the bubbling cauldron whispering an incantation over the spell.

However concocting spells in cauldrons is not the only way witches cast spells, spells can be cast through a variety of means. Some of the more popular methods involve the use of candles burning, chanting and reciting incantations, physical rituals and the preparation of herbal remedies.

Awakening the dead

Awakening or conjuring the spirits of the dead is a practice of witchcraft known as necromancy, the “witch of endor” is said to have routinely practiced this form of witchcraft for divination and prophecy, and it is also a form that the witch doctors of Jamaica performed in their voodoo ceremonies.

Witchcraft in the past

The practice of witchcraft using the methods described above was widespread in the past and was foremost in ancient Egypt and Babylonia as documentation has shown. During the Vedic, age witches were then called yoginis and the form of witchcraft was abhichara, witchcraft in this era was mainly aimed at Aryan people and took on the form of magical incantations.

The Hebrew bible constantly makes reference to witchcraft and condemns the practices as does also the New Testament in the bible, other popular forms of witchcraft which have been documented is African witchcraft and neopagan witchcraft.

The African form of witchcraft we all know is the witch doctor, the witch doctor traditionally practiced medicine as ways of healing people and also putting a curse or hex on unfortunate victims.

During the 20th century a lot of interest was taken into neopagan witchcraft with the most famous documentation being that of Margaret Murray in 1921 when she documented the theory of a pan European witch cult. Magical terms & traditions

* Alchemy – alchemy combines elements of chemistry, physics, medicine and spiritualism and was practiced in ancient Egypt, China, Persia and India. Today alchemy is mainly of interest to historians of science and philosophy for its mystic and artistic aspects.*

Astrology – there are many systems, traditions and beliefs that make up astrology and it is thought that knowledge of the positions of the stars can help us to get a better understanding and bring more knowledge of human affairs and events.

* Athame – the Athame is a ceremonial knife that witches use in ritual magic, the witch will take great care when purchasing or choosing the Athame and very often will use a family heirloom as their ceremonial knife.

* Banishing – this is the banishing of evil forces or spirits and is often performed before and after the main ritual.

* Black magic – this is a form of magic that is used to summon evil and direct evil which in turn brings bad luck and destruction to those on the receiving end.

* Ceremonial magic – this is a very elaborate and complex ritual and practitioners will use a variety of aids and accessories when performing the ceremonial ritual.

* Curse – a curse is the effect of a supernatural power aimed at someone to bring them bad luck and trouble, the gypsy curse was the more well known among curses.

* Demonology – demonology refers to a group of people that attempt to name demons and spirits which are said to be malevolent, it is the opposite of angelology which attempts to compile information from the angels for good intentions.

* Divination – this is an attempt to gain information by interpreting omens or a supernatural agency, it is a universal cultural belief which is seen in many cultures and religions up to the present day.

* Dowsing – dowsing has existed for thousands of years and has also been called water witching, those who practice it are said to be empowered with the ability to find water, precious metals, gemstones and hidden objects. Those practicing divination will use a rod, pendulum or y shaped twig over a piece of land or map.

* Geomancy – this is a form of divination which relies on interpreting markings on the ground, or how a handful of dirt will land when thrown back to the ground, it is a form of divination which was chiefly practiced in Africa.

* Hoodoo – hoodoo is an African traditional branch of folk magic which has been around for thousands of years, it is often used to describe a potion or spell and those who practice it are called hoodoo man. Some people also refer to this type of magic as hoodooism.

* Invocation – this is a spell or chant that is used to call upon the god or goddess for a favour or for protection.

* Magic circle – wicca and pagan traditions use what is known as circle casting, this is generally done with salt, crystals, candles or some other purifying substance, the circle is said to offer protection.

* Mojo – the mojo is a tiny bag which is normally worm under the clothes and holds a charm, it is used for protection and can also be used when practicing black magic with the intent to bring harm to others.

* Necromancy – this type of black magic involves conjuring the spirits of the dead in order to gain knowledge of future events.

* Obeah – those who practice magic in the west Indies call it obeah and it is similar to voodoo and hoodoo.

* Paganism – this refers to a broad range of spiritual and religious beliefs and is generally associated with someone who worships someone other than god.

* Shamanism – this is a type of magic which users are said to be able to cure suffering and illness, shamans are thought to have some control over many aspects such as the weather, interpretation of dreams and astral projection.

* Tarot – a deck of tarot cards consists of 78 cards which are used for divination, the tarot cards are thought to date back to 12th century Italy when they were used as a game.

* Voodoo – voodoo is a form of black magic that is practiced in west Africa, it is a system of religious worship and practices that is widespread in a multitude of African groups.

* Wicca – wicca is a form of neopagan religion which is found in many countries, the wiccan only practice magic for good and follow the rule of do no harm to others.

* Witchcraft – there are many forms of witchcraft and the term witchcraft is used when someone practices magic or sorcery of any kind both white and black magic. Types of witchcraft

There is a lot more to witchcraft and witches than the haggard, wart nosed old woman with the black cape, broomstick and black cat. Witchcraft comes in many shapes and forms and has been practised the world over in many different cultures. The renaissance and gothic Satanism

During the renaissance in the middle ages, the Roman Catholic Church proclaimed that evil people, mostly women had sold their sole to the devil and worshipped him in exchange for certain supernatural powers the devil bestowed upon them.

They were said to be witches who worshipped Diana and other goddesses of this time, they were classed as pure evil and are said to have took part in the kidnapping of babies and killing and eating their victims.

They were said to posses the ability to fly through the air in the middle of the night and hold meetings where spell casting took place and evil wrong doings.

These were all beliefs that the people during this period held and thousands of people were convicted of being a witch and worshipping the devil and were executed in what has come to be known as the “burning times”.

Wicca

Wicca is a more recent form of witchcraft and is a religion-based form of witchcraft; it is based on deities, seasonal times and symbols and is a form of celebration for the Celtic people.

Some followers of Wicca call themselves witches, pagans or neo-pagans and both men and women who follow this religion are called witches.

There are basically two laws that must be followed and these are the Wiccan rede and the three-fold law. The Wiccan rede says that those following the religion are free to do as they please as long as they harm no other; the three-fold law says that any evil that is done to others will return three times over.

These laws obviously encourage the Wiccan to do only good and any magic they practise is white magic and usually involves healing spells and incantations.

Religious Satanism

Modern day Satanists worship Satan and there are three main traditions to the followers of this religion, the church of Satan, the temple of set and church of satanic liberation. The church of Satan is thought to be the biggest of these and currently holds thousands of members in the United States.

Most Satanists believe that Satan is a force of nature not a particular deity and has nothing to do with the usual associations we think of when we think of Satan or the devil.

Satanists as you would expect are the total opposite of Wiccan and delight in causing harm and destruction wherever possible and only practise black magic.Witchcraft & wicca FAQs

* Can I follow the path of Wicca and witchcraft and still be a Christian?

There are many common factors of Wicca and being a Christian so the two are not worlds apart, so some say that yes the two can go hand in hand while others (Myself included) claim that there are no real connections of substance at all to Wicca and Christianity.

The two seem to compliment each other and the most important issue is doing what GOD SAYS FOR YOU TO DO NOT WHAT "FEELS GOOD" Because feelings can deceive the Heart. Having been a Wiccan I can attest to the fact that most Wiccans HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS TO HARM NO ONE ELSE, BUT ONLY TO LIVE AND ENJOY LIFE AS THEY SEE FIT, the problem is not in the intent of the witch but in the intent of the spirits that truely control the witch even if they do not see it.* Are witchcraft and Wicca the same thing?

People have different views regarding this; however, there are some main differences to the two which are worth noting, in general, Wicca’s are free to review different systems of belief and take what they want from the different beliefs and blend them together.

Pure witchcraft however relies on using magic and rituals to work with elemental and spiritual forces of nature. Some feel these differences are only slight and Wicca and witchcraft both have the same goals of working to achieve balance and harmony within nature.

* Whom does the witch worship?

Witches believe that there is a single force and this force is defined as “the one”, with the force being the universe. This divine energy is usually personified and witches will call it the goddess or god; however, this title is only put there to make it easier for the human mind to comprehend.

When some witches invoke the god or goddess, they might give those names such as Odin, pan, Dianna or Astarte, but this is only a matter of personal preference.

* Are witches anti-Christian?

Witchcraft and followers of Wicca are very tolerant towards other religions and views, Wiccan withhold the law of “harm no other” and as such allow others to speak their beliefs freely.

Wicca’s believe that there are many paths to the same destination and it doesn’t matter which one you choose to get there as long as no harm is done along the way.

* Wicca’s profess to follow the Wicca rede and this says, “harm no others and do as you will”, does this mean that the witch can do anything they want as long as they can justify it?

The whole philosophy behind Wicca is based on living in complete harmony with all other things; this includes every living thing in the world around them.

Following this rule, the witch has to make sure that no harm comes to any living thing in the world so the answer would be no, they could not please themselves if they thought that harm was going to come from something no matter how much it could be justified. The tools of witchcraft

There are many sacred tools that witches have used for thousand of years and there are numerous systems and traditions that they use, with some witches choosing to work in very elaborate settings while others use only the bare essentials and prefer a more natural approach.

Listed below are some of items and tools that witches commonly use and items which we associate with witches.Athame

The Athame is more commonly know as a knife and most witches will own several ritual knives, the Athame is a very personal and magical tool which the witch will take great care over when obtaining. The Athame should fit comfortably in the hand and feel right with many witches going to great lengths to make their own blades and hone them to perfection.

They also personalize them with great care with runes, carvings and other symbols with special meanings to them, with some witches preferring to use family heirlooms such as letter openers as their Athame.

The broom

Who doesn’t think of witches without thinking of the broom, this has been a symbol of the witch for thousands of years and indeed they do use it for the cleansing ritual. Many witches will also place a broom outside of their door with the brushy side up to ward off evil spirits and to stop unwanted outside energies from entering the home.

The bell

Perhaps not one of the most widely known tools of the witch, the bell is said to have magical properties and for centuries, it was thought to posses magical or spiritual powers. Bells are also associated with the divine and are commonly used in the opening and closing of ceremonies and the start and closing of spell casting.

The cauldron

The cauldron is another symbol that we all associate with the witch; the traditional cauldron has three legs and is thought to represent bounty and blessings.

The cauldron has also come to be known as representing the reincarnation and the cycles of birth, death and rebirth.

Witches will burn incense in them or create spells in them and the witch will have cauldrons in different sizes for the different tasks they want to perform.

The chalice

The chalice is a cup which is used on the altar and normally represents the female principle of water, chalices can be made of any material but most witches prefer silver or pewter.

The chalice is used with the Athame in the enactment of the great rite, which is the union of male and female from which life springs forth. The chalice can also be used to form a bond and will be passed around from person to person so they can all drink from it.

The Paton or altar pentacle

The pentacle for the altar is usually a disk or plate which is inscribed with a five pointed star surrounded by a circle, this will be used to consecrate the various other tools used and is also used as a concentration point for other magical spells. The laws of witchcraft

Unlike most religions and beliefs witchcraft does not have a long list of rules which have to be adhered to, there are only two basic laws which must be followed and adhered to at all times. These two rules are known as the Wiccan rede and the three-fold law; these two principles hold what the witches define as ethic and moral behaviour within the practice of witchcraft. The three-fold law

Many people will have heard the three-fold law put a different way, some people call it cause and effect, it literally means “what we reap, we will sow” and get back three times.

This is thought to be the reasons why many witches of today are loathe to practice black magic as this would turn around and come back at them three-fold. The witches of today primarily belong to a group or coven called the Wiccan and this law and the Wiccan rede are strictly followed.

The Wiccan rede

The law of the Wiccan rede states that witches are free to do whatever they wish as long as no harm befalls themselves and others. Harm is defined as physical, mental and physic damage to themselves and others around them.

For the majority of today’s witches harming others is simply something that is unthinkable and as such only good or white magic spells are performed.

The universe plays a big part in modern witchcraft and all things are thought to be connected to all others.

All spells which are cast by the witch of today are directed towards a specific task and are only cast after a great deal of thought has been given to them and the outcome.

One question that is often asked of the modern witch is while upholding this law are they then to take mistreatment from others without retaliating, the answer of course is no, witches will place a protection spell around themselves and their loved ones.

The protection spell will then neutralize harmful energies back into the universe without doing harm, the witch then waits for justice to even out as what comes around goes around and therefore justice will take place.

Code of ethics for healers

Certain witches are pagan healers and as such, they are bound by a code of ethics which they must follow, the ethics are:

* The primary obligation of the healer is to those they are healing.

* Any knowledge gained during a consultation should be kept confidential.

* Always be self critical and acknowledge your limitations.

* Work in co-operation with other healers.

* Always take into account the customs, values and beliefs of your client.

* They must not act in any way that would bring the wicca community into disrepute.

* If you feel ethically or morally compromised you have the right to refuse treatment.

* The healer should seek help when treating with herbal treatments. © Copyright 2006 Occultresearch.org - occult, cults, witchcraft & black magic - All rights reserved

© Copyright 2006http://www.occultresearch.org/- occult, cults, witchcraft & black magic - All rights reserved. Black magic explained

Black magic or dark magic as it is sometimes called is a form of magic that is intended to draw malevolent spirits or entities and is usually performed for acts of evil.

During the inquisition, Christians were frightened of witches and warlocks who practised these black magic rituals but now in modern times witches will use the term black magic to offset the good magic they profess to practise, as black magic is said to be very rarely used.

In olden days, black magic was performed to gain benefit without regard to the harm that it caused others and indeed most performed black magic solely to hurt and inflict damage on others.

The difference between black magic and white magic is still debated amongst modern witches with several theories contrasting the two branches. Theories such as the “all as one”, “no connection” and “separate but equal” theories all being popular and open for debate. The most popular theories include

The all as one theory

Believers of this theory believe that all magic, black or white is evil with black magic generally being associated with the devil or Satan. Religions such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism all follow the belief that any type of magic is bad.

The dark doctrine theory

As black magic refers to powers of darkness, believers of this theory believe that this type of magic relates directly to Satan.

The formal differences theory

There are thought to be many forms and components to black magic and those casting the black magic have different interests and reasons for doing so, followers of this theory believe that black magic is only harmful when it involves the use of personal items such as clothing, hair or blood of those the spell is directed towards.

The no connection theory

Followers of this theory believe that black and white magic have no connection at all as both practises use totally different forms, followers to this theory see both forms as totally opposing each other.

The separate but equal theory

People who follow this theory believe black and white magic are the same thing with the only difference being the goals they accomplish and the means by which witches get there.

All spells are spells and the difference is only determined by the outcome of the particular spell cast.

Black magic is usually said to be performed more by those who worship the devil hence the term black magic, magic spells cast this way will usually involve the use of ones personal belongings such a piece of clothing, a lock of hair or blood.

The spells cast are said to usually be for the sole purpose of bringing harm to the one they are directed at.

White magic is usually thought to help people and do no harm to others; popular spells of this type are love spells and potions, with the hope of bringing the love of your life into your arms.

However, spells of this type usually involve the use of personal belongings too but for different means.Curses & hexes

The basic curse or hex is perhaps one of the oldest forms of magic dating back thousands of years with forms of hexes and curses being used in many cultures and traditions.

Hexes vary considerably in different hands and can range from the simple to the more elaborate and can be cast in a variety of ways, the most simplest of curses and hexes do nothing more than bring the person bad luck while the more elaborate can cause many problems with the victims wealth, health and even specified body parts.

The very basic hex or curse can be a spoken curse wishing bad luck and unhappiness on the intended victim; this is usually invoked by briefly describing what you want to happen to the victim followed by a sacred word or magical name.

Gypsy curses

Gypsy curses are perhaps the best known of all curses, exactly why is not known, but it probably stems from gypsy fortune telling of many years ago and one of the most famous of all gypsy curses which has been portrayed on TV many times is.

“May you wander over the face of the earth forever, never sleep twice in the same bed, never drink water twice from the same well and never cross the same river twice in a year”.

As you can see gypsy curses can be pretty elaborate and not just simply one or two words, after all if we could be cursed or hexed with just a couple of simple words the parents of almost every teenage child would drop dead on the spot.

Voodoo, curses and hexes

Voodoo has long been recognised as a form of curse or hex, this tradition involves the use of a figure crafted in the fashion of the intended victim and often has some trait of the victim such as hair or blood.

The practitioner of voodoo would then use pins to stick in the doll with the hope of causing the victim great pain and suffering; the practice of voodoo is thought to have come from the Caribbean.

Different forms of curses and hexes

People throughout the world have their own different beliefs on curses and hexes with all of them intending to bring trouble and strife to the unsuspecting victim, the Chinese believe that they can deliver a curse by leaving a few grains of rice and some pennies on the victim’s doorstep. This type of curse symbolizes a wish for the victim to have great financial difficulty.

More recently a Tanzanian member of parliament declared they would put an Islamic death curse on the board members of a Tanzanian executive branch if they didn’t clean up corruption.

The aboriginal Australians strongly believe that a curse can be put on someone by pointing a kangaroo bone at them and curses have always been associated with the Egyptians.

King Tutankhamen’s tomb is a great example of this and it has always been shrouded with mystery and anyone said to have been associated with the opening of the tomb was cursed with six of the people involved with the opening of the tomb meeting untimely and unfortunate deaths.

The curse of Rasputin

Perhaps one of the most famous of all curses was the one which Rasputin mumbled from his deathbed, Rasputin cursed Russia’s ruling monarchs due to being shot, almost drowned and castrated by the Romanov prince.

This curse was apparently very effective as the entire family were dead within one year. What is Necromancy?

Necromancy is a form of divination which is used to conjure the spirits of the dead in order to gain knowledge about the future and the outcome of events in the future, the spirits conjured this way are called spirits of divination.

The spread of necromancy

During the middle ages, illiterate members of society were either nobility or Christian clergy and it is thought that either of these groups was responsible for the propagation and practice of necromancy, even though in Christianity it is forbidden and denied.

Some people deny that necromancy has anything to do with witchcraft while others say that it is a form of black magic and witchcraft and necromancers were tried as witches and hanged, the confessions of those accused of necromancy suggest that a wide range of spell casting and magical practices were involved in necromancy.

The practice of necromancy

It is though that to be able to conjure up the dead the practitioner needs the help of powerful spirits for both the practitioners’ protection and to make the corpse or ghost of the dead submit to his will. An ancient spell is the used to call upon the powers of powerful spirits to bind the dead with two essential elements that are needed to summon the dead, a burnt sacrifice and a blood-drenched altar.

Elaborate preparations are made which includes the careful study of the planets and in particular the moon and the influence of Saturn.

The site for the ritual also has to be chosen with great care with the most favourable sites being crossroads, vaults, ruins or a deserted forest.

Once the site has been chosen and the alignment of the planets is in favour a concentric circle of power is drawn on the ground, within the circle are inscribed crosses and other symbols.

For the magic to work, the necromancer and his assistant must stand within the circles centre and the circle must be blessed or consecrated.

The summoning of the dead or spirit of the dead can then take place using the names of power, when this is successful the dead will return full of anger at being summoned against his will to return to the land of living.

The necromancer must then struggle to gain control over the dead and when control has been gained, the necromancer can then control them and questions will be asked which the dead must answer.

After the ritual has finished the necromancer must not leave the circle until the dead has been dismissed and all flowers must then be removed from the area and burned and the ashes buried deep into the earth.

The ritual is one of the darkest forms of black magic and is the most dangerous of all forms of witchcraft.

© Copyright 2006 Occultresearch.org - occult, cults, witchcraft & black magic - All rights reserved

© Copyright 2006 http:// www.Occultresearch.org/ - occult, cults, witchcraft & black magic - All rights reserved.

Séances and Ouija boards : are a form of black magic and witchcraft which are a method of divination involving the summoning of the dead in order to gain information about future or past events.

Séances involve the use of a medium, which is the person who will go into a trance like state and then invoke spirits of the dead and open a channel of communication with them.Séances are usually held in a darkened room with the participants being seated around a table holding hands.

During the séance, the table can tilt and move slightly and a breeze can often be felt when the presence of the spirit is said to be in the room, some say these are all tricks by the medium and associates.

When the spirit of the dead person is within the room they will then speak through the medium and questions can be asked, very often people will go to a medium and request that they speak with loved ones who have departed.

Another popular method of communication with the dead is by use of a Ouija board where people will place their fingers lightly on a planchette on a board with letters of the alphabet, once the spirit has been raised then questions are asked by the medium and the planchette will begin to form letters on the board resulting in answers.

Belief in communication with the dead stems back to the 1820`s and was widely known as a form of sorcery and witchcraft, it is a form that is still practiced today and many sceptics regard mediums and séances as nothing more than scams.

Channelling during the séance

Channelling is a very common practice to the séance and is the practice of allowing the spirit to enter the body of the medium in order for it to be able to communicate with those present. This process is thought to be entirely different from that commonly known as possession, possession is said to be the non-consensual take over of a persons body by a malevolent spirit or demon.

Channelling involves welcoming the spirit of the dead into the body for the sole purpose of gaining information and interaction between the living and the dead. The physical manifestations of the channelling is the onset of an unusual voce and uncharacteristic behaviour of the medium, due to the nature of this, this is why so many people are sceptical as to how genuine séances are.

Sceptics believe that, as the bereaved are so emotional over the loss of their loved ones they can easily be tricked into giving information before the ritual which the medium then uses to their advantage during the séance.

Very often, the bereaved will clutch at any straw and if they believe they have a chance of speaking with their loved one for one last time then they take it with open arms and wallets.

How genuine séances and Ouija boards are is something that has been debated for many years and will continue to be debated and regarded with scepticism for some time to come.Tarot cards

The exact origins of the tarot cards are unknown but they are thought to closely resemble a pack of cards which were used to play a game in 15th century Italy where the cards were known as tarocchi.

How exactly tarot cards came to be used for divination is unclear but as early as 1540 drawings show simple cards being drawn and used as methods of divination or fortune telling.

The tarot deck

The typical deck of tarot cards holds 78 cards and are in two distinct parts, the first part is called the trump cards and these consist of 21 cards without suits, with the addition of a 22nd card which is called the fool.

These cards are known as the major arcana or greater secrets; the second part consists of 56 cards which are divided into 4 suits of 14 cards in each.

In the traditional Italian card deck, they were known as swords, batons, coins and cups but decks that are more modern call the baton suit rods or staves while the coins suit is called pentacles or disks.

These cards are known as minor arcana or lesser secrets.

The use of the tarot cards

In most parts of the world, the tarot deck is widely used as a form of divination or as a tool for assessing the unconscious. The cards are shuffled as a deck and then dealt out in various formations or patterns; they are often thought to show a persons thoughts or desires.

The cards can be used to show events that have happened in the past, present or future and are able to give answers to questions regarding uncertainties and indecision.

Each card in the deck has a variety of meanings which have varied widely throughout the years and many decks are customized for a particular person’s use, the kings, queens, pages and knights signify different people in the readings of the cards and each suit can provide information about the person’s attitude, emotional state and physical characteristics.

Scepticism of tarot readings

Many religious groups oppose the use of tarot cards because of their association with divination and fortune telling and consider them a form of witchcraft, many sceptics also oppose the readings of the tarot deck and believe that readers mislead their clients and exploit vulnerable people.

These people often come to depend on the tarot reader and return on a regular basis for help with problems of course at great expense. The witches' pentacle

The pentacle has long been thought of as a symbol of witchcraft, the pentagram dates back over 8,000 years and is said to represent an ancient philosophical concept both in the east and in west and is the most misunderstood and stigmatized of all symbols.

For the modern pagans of today the five points of the pentacle symbolize the four directions with the fifth as the sanctity of the spirit, with the circle symbolising unity and wholeness.

The pentacle is used and is one of the most powerful symbols, by those involved in ceremonial magic and Wicca, in magic the shape of the pentacle is draw in the air with a sacred blade.

Altars feature a pentacle in the form of a flat disc and are widely used as a tool in rituals and are featured on many tools such as cauldrons, chalices or the handles of daggers.

Spells and invocations are often repeated 5 times to ensure the effectiveness of the spell and many pagans wear the sign of the pentacle for protection and to show others that they are involved in the practice of magic and divine wisdom.

The pentagram is used the world over and has been recognised as a sacred symbol since ancient times with almost all cultures having some form of five folds symbol which bears significance to religion.

The elements of the pentacle

When the pentacle is drawn or written, it is called a pentagram and was originally made from clay or dough but today pentacles are more often found crafted in metals such a copper, brass and silver or gold. Many witches wear the pentacle as a sign or their religion and when made out of silver it is said to represent the moon energy.

It is widely used in the practice of magic and is used to either invoke or banish energies when draw certain ways, the simplest of these magic spells will usually involve the use of a candle placed on the points.

Each of the five angles on the pentagram are said to represent the five metaphysical elements and these are:

* Earth – this is the lower left hand corner and represents stability and physical endurance.

* Fire – the lower right hand corner and which represents courage and daring.

* Water – the upper right hand corner which represents intuition and the emotions.

* Air – the upper left hand corner which represents the arts and intelligence.

* Spirit – the topmost point which represents the divine.

The circle which encloses the points is thought to represent God or Goddess which brings protection and gives the wearer universal wisdom.

The pentagram dates back to pre-Babylonian times and is used by many people in many different cultures and has slightly different meanings to each religion. Pagan cults & evil practices

The origins of witchcraft date back to times when drawings were found in caves revealing that from the beginning of time magic rituals involving animals, birth and death have been associated with evil doing and witchcraft.

Tribes and communities each had their own form of leader such as high priest or priestess, sorcerer or wizard or witch.

The sole functions of these were to assist the tribe or village with weather conditions causing poor crops, disease, wars, birth and deaths.

Many of these practices involved the use of elaborate rituals or ceremonies and included the use of certain objects and plants which had carefully been passed down over time.

It was the Romans who associated Christians with magic and witchcraft believing them to take part in rituals involving sexual orgies, worshipping a god who had the head of an ass and who were said to make sacrifices using babies.

The empress Theodora ordered the death of over one hundred thousand members of what was believed to be a sect or cult, however after the 6th and 7th centuries were past the witch hunts died down and there were only a handful of executions for practicing witchcraft until the beginning of the 12th century.

When the church became the official cult in Europe, the Christian monks and priests began trying to eradicate any religion or belief that wasn’t Christian or part of the churches beliefs. Witches and wizards became sworn enemies of the church and those who followed Christian beliefs; it was the theologians of the Middle Ages who created the appalling witch massacres that occurred in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries.

The popular image of the devil or Satan as being horned with the hoofs of a goat was brought about by the early missionary church of the European horned god who was known in Greece as pan, to the Nordic people as Thor and to the ancient Gauls as cernununos.

The Jewish and Muslim religions were also considered as demons and heretics as these too opposed the church and their beliefs, as were the pre Christian cults of South America and India.

Christianity was therefore imposed upon the world and it is thought that only by sheer force on such a scale has the church maintained its dominance on religion for so many centuries.

Interesting facts

* A study into the victims of witch trials has shown that among the poor people, rich people were also condemned as witches; it was so easy to accuse and destroy reputations as tangible proof was claimed for the evidence of witchcraft.

It is thought that very often jealousy and rivalry were the prime motives for making accusations.

* Over 90% of all people accused during the witch-hunts were woman and many of these were old women, it is thought that the church believed that the devil could easily seduce women into joining him and so they were persecuted on this belief alone.

* The church itself used witchcraft in major accusations against other religions and followers of those religions, the albigensians of France were drowned in their own blood on the orders of pope innocent III.

When King Philip le bel of France tried to take over the vast knight’s templar wealth and dispose of his allies the templar’s were captured and tortured.

They subsequently confessed to worshipping an idol by the name of bapomet who was said to take on the form of a cat.

Perhaps the most famous was Joan of ark who it was thought became such a political threat to the hierarchy of power and being a woman, she was accused and burnt as a witch. What are Runes?

Runes are connected to witchcraft and they are a tool used in divination and magic which have been used throughout Europe, Scandinavia, the British Isles and Iceland from around 100 b.c.e.

They are used as an oracle for seeking advice and are said to work best on asking a specific question once having given details of the circumstances, although the outcome is sometimes questionable and unclear.

The runes at best will point you in the right direction but you will have to conclude the answer yourself from the information they give you and figure out exact details yourself, there is never a clear cut and dry answer to your problems.

However, rune casting or runic divination as it is called is not a way of fortune telling but rather a way of analyzing the particular path you are on and what the outcome is likely to be.

The word rune means mystery or secret and each rune has a special meaning and properties associated with it, each of them translates into a word or phrase that has a special meaning representing the forces of nature and the mind and each is associated with a Norse god.

The runes were also used as a method of writing and first made their appearance among German tribes in central Europe, it is thought that some of the rune symbols may have come from other languages such as Greek and early roman.

Inscriptions on the runic stones have been dated as far back as the 3rd century AD though it is thought that they existed a long time before then.

How to read runes

By far the simplest way of reading runes is to use the one rune method, after you have cleared your mind of all other thoughts ask the question in mind, concentrating on it.

When you have concentrated on your question and you feel the time is right take just one rune from your bag and from this stone, you will gather information relating to the question at hand, what you make of this information is entirely up to you.

If you think that more information is needed then you can take three runes instead of just the one from the bag, you will deduct information from the first rune regarding the circumstances of your question.

The second rune will give you an indication of the route you should take and the third is the likely outcome should you choose to go with the action.

This of course is only a very brief glimpse of casting runes and there are several books and websites you can read should you wish to delve deeper into the magic of runes. The tradition of Halloween

Obeah in the Virgin Islands

Perhaps the most famous form of obeah that we are all familiar with if we have visited the Virgin Islands is the mocko-jumbie or the stilt dancer.

Obeah tradition in the virgin islands proclaim that a jumbie is a lost or evil spirit and is thought to be related to the word nzumbi or as we more commonly know them zombies.

However as dark as the word suggests a jumbie might be they are totally opposite and wear brightly coloured clothing, they dance during the daylight hours and stilt dancing is very popular at holidays and at carnivals.

Obeah and wanga

The wanga is associated with obeah and it is a small magical charm packet which is used in the practice of black magic in Haiti, it is a form of magic that is associated with voodoo.

Wanga is also known as mojo, toby and jomo, it is usually a drawstring bag in which a charm is held and is worn under the clothing.

They are thought to hold supernatural powers and can protect the wearer from harm and evil, they are also used in the casting of evil spells with the intent to harm others, usually something relating to the person such as a lock of hair or fingernail clippings is used.

Particular attention is taken to the tying of the bag as this is thought to ensure that the particular spell works correctly and once it has been sealed then it is encouraged to work by using perfume or anointing oils on it regularly. The witches coven

When we think of a witches coven, we think of a group of old wart nosed witches standing around a simmering cauldron reciting incantations, however the true witch’s coven is nothing like this and they do exist today.

Of the covens existing today, the Wicca coven is perhaps the most notable and joining a coven or becoming the leader of one is is not a task that should be taken lightly.

There are many unqualified Wicca teachers out there who give bad advice and teachings, and it seems that just about anyone can and will set up a website claiming to be a Wicca.

Before letting you join the coven you will have to take a kind of interview and of course, you will have to decide as much as the coven if you want to be a part of the group.

The pagan belief system is very diverse and as such, practices from group to group will vary, however one thing that all groups or covens have in common is that they rely on the blending of spiritual energies within the group.

There are several questions you should ask of the group leader or high priest or priestess and also yourself before you join the group, questions to ask could be:

* What is this coven trying to accomplish?

* How many members are in the coven and how big do they expect to grow?

* What is the group’s general experience in the Wicca practice?

* What is the turnover rate of the coven, do members leave frequently? * Have the coven been forced to banish a member and if so why?

* What qualities are the groups leaders looking for and why?

* How do the covens leaders get to chosen as leaders?

* Do leaders have an excessive amount of power over the coven?

* Does the coven have a set of written rules they will let you see?

* What contributions are expected of its members?

* Who prepares and decides the rituals?

* What magical practices does the coven perform or use?

* Do the other members of the coven seem welcoming?

* Are the members committed to spiritual progress?

* Is input readily accepted from members?

Points to be wary of

* Be very wary of anyone who approaches you to ask you to join the coven, this is not normal wiccan behaviour, people aren’t asked to join.

* Beware of any covens that have young people under the age of 18 within their coven, responsible high priests and priestesses will never have anyone under the age of 18 in their coven.

* Beware of any coven that asks members to do chores or work for the high priest and priestesses, genuine high priests and priestesses never have this rule.

* Beware of any coven that abuses members for wrongdoing.

* Beware of any coven whose leader insists that a sexual ritual must take place with the high priest or priestess before being enrolled into the coven. The Salem witch trials

Perhaps the most famous of all witches and witch hunts were those accused of witchcraft during the Salem witch trials in what was then known as Salem village in Massachusetts U.S.A.

It was the bizarre behaviour of two of the daughters of the towns minister reverend Samuel Parris who started events in the small town in 1692. The events of the Salem witch trials

In January of 1692 Elizabeth parris age 9 and 11 year old Abigail Williams began to show signs of disturbing behaviour which ranged from seizures, trance like states, blasphemous screaming and shouting and mysterious happenings around them.

Within a very short space of time, other girls of similar age began to show these strange signs and symptoms, doctors were baffled as to the cause of these happenings and when they couldn’t find any medical cause for them they were declared to be under the influence of Satan.

By late February of that year after many prayer meetings and fastings conducted by the reverend parris in the hope of revealing their true identity and expose them as witches and under ever-increasing pressure, the girls named three women as witches.

By the end of February of that year these three women Tituba a Caribbean Indian slave of the parris family, Sarah good and Sarah osbourne were all arrested despite proclaiming their innocence.

However, the slave Tituba confessed that the devil sometimes appeared to her in the shape of part dog, part hog and said there was a conspiracy of witches at work in the village of Salem.

By march 1st after unrelenting questioning from the people of Salem Tituba finally admitted to practicing witchcraft, following this confession several of the towns people came forward and claimed they had seen or being harmed by strange apparitions of people in the community.

Accusations were made of many people in the village and among those accused were faithful churchgoers and upstanding citizens in the community along with those who had records of criminal activity.

During this period of time, several people were accused of witchcraft examined and denounced, with many of the townsfolk now starting to oppose the witchcraft trials petitions were being signed to protest people’s innocence.

By October 19th of that year over 20 people had been condemned as witches and hanged on the gallows during what was to be known as the Salem witch trials.

A letter was wrote during this time criticizing the trials and eventually the governor by the name of Phips ruled that spectral and intangible evidence no longer be admissible in the trials.

Salem today

Salem village is now known as Danvers and still standing is what was then known as the witch house on the corner of North and Essex in Salem, where guided tours with tales of the Salem witchcraft trials take place.

After all this time over 552 documents documenting the trials are still stored and preserved at the Peabody Essex museum along with several other pieces of memorabilia such as the pins used in the examination of the witches and what is said to be the finger bones of one of the victims of the Salem witch trials. What is Satanism?

Satanism is a form of witchcraft which is religion based and is more prevalent in the United States with the church of Satan being the most popular choice for followers of the devil. It is based on deep-seated philosophy and followers are bound by certain conditions and rules.The nine satanic statements

* Satan represents indulgence and abstinence is forgotten.

* Satan represents vital existence.

* Satan represents wisdom instead of self-deceit.

* Satan represents kindness to those who earn it.

* Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek.

* Satan represents responsibility to those who deserve it.

* Satan represents man as just another animal.

* Satan represents all of the so called sins.

* Satan is the church's best friend without him the church wouldn’t have lasted.

The eleven satanic rules of earth

* Do not give opinions or advice unless asked for it.

* Do not profess your troubles to others unless you’re sure they want to hear them.

* When in another lair treat them with respect.

* If a guest in your lair treats you disrespectfully treat them cruelly without showing mercy.

* Do not make advances sexually unless you are given a mating sign.

* Do not take something that doesn’t belong to you unless given it.

* Acknowledge the power of magic and use it successfully to obtain your desires.

* Do not complain about anything which doesn’t concern you.

* Do not harm small children.

* Do not kill non human animals unless they are food or for your protection.

* Bother no one but if someone bothers you ask them to stop, if they don’t destroy them.

The nine satanic sins

* Stupidity – Satanists must learn to see through the tricks that people can try.

* Solipsism – never show people your true feelings, reactions and responses.

* Self-deceit – never deceive yourself, the only time this is permissible is when self-deceit is for fun.

* Herd conformity – only conform to a person's wishes if it benefits you.

* Lack of perspective – never lose sight of who and what you are and the threat you can be to others.

* Forgetfulness of past orthodoxies – this is one of the keys to brainwashing people into accepting and trying something new.

* Counter productive pride – pride is acceptable up to a point but only if it works for you.

* Lack of aesthetics – aesthetics is important in lesser magic and should be cultivated. What is Voodoo?

Voodoo is one of the world’s oldest forms of religion which has been associated with witchcraft and has been around in Africa since the beginning of human civilisation.

Those who practice voodoo believe that nothing and no event happens on its own but that all things are connected, following this theory what you do to another, you do to yourself.

Rituals involved in voodoo ceremonies include prayers, singing, dancing and the sacrifice of animals, those following the beliefs of voodoo believe that god manifests through the spirits of dead ancestors and so must be honoured in these rituals.

Music and dance play a key role in the rituals and this has often been portrayed as the lead up to sexual frenzy and orgies, this however isn’t true. Voodoo dancing is an expression of spirituality, a way of connecting with divinity and the spiritual world.

The ancestors of those who follow the voodoo religion are thought to be part of the world of spirits and these spirits can be called on to help and give protection and guidance.

The voodoo priest or priestess can also use herbal remedies or medicines which have been passed down through families to help those who are sick, with faith healing playing a big part also in the religion.

Voodoo has always wrongly been categorised as an evil form of witchcraft with the rites and rituals being performed for evil doings however this is untrue.

The misconceptions of voodoo

Despite voodoo being one of the oldest of all religions it has been characterised as being barbaric and primitive based on superstition and fear, the Europeans seem to fear anything that comes out of Africa and especially anything they don’t fully understand.

Voodoo has however adopted several elements from Christianity but despite this when the French colonised Haiti they saw the voodoo religion as a threat and prohibited the practice of the religion severely punishing those who took part in rituals.

The struggle to banish the religion of voodoo lasted over three centuries but despite every effort it couldn’t be stopped and voodoo is still practiced today in a number of countries.

The power of voodoo

Due to the strength the Africans gained from their religion, voodoo survived the persecutions of the French and it is thought that the voodoo priests used their religion to determine how to fight the political battle in order to win it.

In 1804, the Haitians finally won the battle and independence and today the practice of voodoo reflects its history. © Copyright 2006 Occultresearch.org - occult, cults, witchcraft & black magic - All rights reserved

Below I will give links to TRUSTED web-sites that explain in small ways some of the so-called unexplained events that captivate Christian & non-Christian ALIKE!

In future blogs I will do detailed studies about all the unexplained things and HOW SATAN deceives MILLIONS into a belief system so close to the FACTS BUT OHHHH! SO FAR FROM THE TRUTH!

Remember the Occult is very real and just because "A FEW" PHONIES EXIST IN THE WHOLE DOES NOT MEAN THE THE WHOLE IS INNOCENT FUN.

Dangers of the Occult

By Richard F. Ames

Are witchcraft, astrology and spiritism just harmless hobbies, or are they deceptive sources of information and guidance?

Many do not realize that the occult now pervades modern culture, and that Christians must remain on guard against its evil influence.

Millions are pursuing astrology, witchcraft and the occult. Are they sowing seeds of doom and destruction? Are these just harmless hobbies, or can you face real dangers if you dabble in the occult?

Less than three months after its release, the movie Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone became the second-highest-grossing film ever, selling nearly $1 billion of tickets to theatergoers eager for a tale of witchcraft, wizardry and the occult.

The first of seven installments in author J. K. Rowling’s planned series, Harry Potter is at the helm of a multi-billion-dollar media empire that has made Rowling one of the three highest-paid women in Great Britain. Her books have sold more than 60 million copies in 200 countries around the world.

Yet, for many, the occult is more than fiction. A May 2000 Zogby America poll revealed that 57.7 percent of Americans aged 18–29 believe in ghosts.

This phenomenon is not confined to the United States; Time Magazine reported recently that belief in ghosts is shared by 45 percent in Britain.

Melbourne’s Saturday Herald Sun reported that 46 percent of Australian women, and 34 percent of Australian men, believe in ghosts (January 16, 1999).

Leger Marketing reported in October 2001 that 30.2 percent of Canadians believe in ghosts. In Rowling’s books, characters routinely interact with ghosts.

Harry communicates with his dead parents through a special mirror. Characters seek guidance from astrologers, cast occult spells and use their paranormal powers to fight their enemies.

The Bible condemns this as sorcery, yet it is a part of the ordinary world of Harry Potter.

The Harry Potter series teaches young minds a false and evil worldview in which occult powers, condemned in Scripture, can be used as tools for good.

Sadly, instead of condemning the dangerous and un-biblical world of witches and wizards, some churches and clergy have tried to exploit its appeal to youth.

Last year, a vicar in one English church held a special "Harry Potter liturgy." A serpent was hung in the church, while a clergyman wearing a wizard’s robe led the service. Other elements of the Harry Potter story were brought into the church service.

Incredibly, many other pastors expressed interest in having that liturgy for their own churches.

What have the world’s churches come to?

As one American commentator observed:

"Nobody respects a religious institution willing to compromise willy-nilly with the secular culture, on a fool’s quest for popularity. A church that will try anything stands for nothing!" (Rod Dreher, New York Post, Sept. 5, 2000).

Today’s media fascination with the occult extends far beyond Harry Potter.

Thirty-five years ago, many considered the television series Bewitched controversial. Today, it seems tame compared to such popular television fare as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Sabrina the Teenage Witch and Charmed, which glamorize the occult.

And the occult is not just for teenagers or couch potatoes.

Even leaders of nations pursue the occult. Former White House chief of staff Donald Regan reported, in his autobiography For the Record, that President Ronald Reagan’s travels and activities were approved by an astrologer of his wife’s choosing.

The London Daily Telegraph reported that former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher consulted an astrologer "for signs of future dangers."

Most members of India’s Parliament have personal astrologers on retainer. Even in the former Soviet Union, once a bastion of materialism, the occult holds sway, as Russia is "swamped by astrologers, UFOlogists, soothsayers, parapsychologists, bogus doctors and other charlatans, whom genuine scientists make few efforts to contradict.… One of the main tasks of a senior official in the Presidential Security Service is to study astrology and prepare horoscopes" (London Daily Telegraph, July 29, 1996).

How Has Mankind Been Deceived?

Scripture reveals the source of occult deception. "So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him" (Revelation 12:9).

Satan deceives the whole world, not just a part of this world. And he also has spirit helpers, called demons.

How does Satan deceive the whole world? He does it through the occult, false religion and false education—and through a social system that seeks licentious pleasure rather than God!

The prophet Isaiah wrote:

"And when they say to you, ‘Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,’ should not a people seek their God?

Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?" (Isaiah 8:19).

Who are people seeking today:

mediums, wizards or the true God?

Isaiah wrote:

"To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20).

We need to understand that there is a real spirit world!

Notice this warning:

"When you come into the land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations.

There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead" (Deuteronomy 18:9–11).

God Almighty condemns sorcery and witchcraft. If you are "playing around" with such darkness, then you need to reject that underworld of evil!

Seek the true God of your Bible! God’s warning continues:

"For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from before you.

You shall be blameless before the Lord your God. For these nations which you will dispossess listened to soothsayers and diviners; but as for you, the Lord your God has not appointed such for you" (Deuteronomy 18:12–14).

Can anything be more clear concerning the evils of witchcraft and sorcery?

And yet millions of adults are teaching their children that there is nothing wrong with a Harry Potter actively pursuing witchcraft and wizardry.

But the prophet Samuel told King Saul that witchcraft is sin. "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.

you have rejected the word of the Lord, He also has rejected you from being king" (1 Samuel 15:23).

God says that participation in the occult is spiritual harlotry (Psalm 106:38–39)! How did God punish His people for their wickedness?

"Therefore the wrath of the Lord was kindled against His people, so that He abhorred His own inheritance. And He gave them into the hand of the Gentiles, and those who hated them ruled over them.

Their enemies also oppressed them, and they were brought into subjection under their hand" (Psalm 106:40–42).

The nation of Israel went into captivity because of these abominable practices. A great tribulation and captivity will also come upon our peoples, if we fail to repent of our evil practices!

Some might argue that dressing up in Halloween costumes is "innocent" fun, and rationalize that parents today are not encouraging their children to expose themselves to symbols and practices of the occult.

But parents who take this approach are risking their children’s spiritual lives by underestimating the devil’s influence (Ephesians 2:2; 2 Corinthians 4:4).

In Luke’s gospel, we find that our Savior cured many individuals who were plagued by evil spirits:

"And that very hour He cured many of infirmities, afflictions, and evil spirits; and to many blind He gave sight" (Luke 7:21). Do we live contrary to our Savior’s example?

Do we teach our children to attract and cultivate evil spirits at Halloween? Certainly, dressing up like a demon or a witch invites evil rather than opposes it!

The Apostle James advises us to resist evil, not entertain it!

"Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you" (James 4:7).

That is your Creator’s instruction to you! He promises that the devil will flee from you. Yes, "Resist the devil!"

Do not join the masses in celebrating the dark world of Satan and the occult!

Do not participate in the dark traditions of Halloween or any other such practices.

Notice God’s warnings against mediums and familiar spirits:

"Give no regard to mediums and familiar spirits; do not seek after them, to be defiled by them:

I am the Lord your God" (Leviticus 19:31).

The Creator God plainly states that we should avoid mediums and spiritists.

He does not want you to be defiled by evil influence. Notice His strong language:

"The person who turns to mediums and familiar spirits, to prostitute himself with them, I will set My face against that person and cut him off from his people. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am the Lord your God" (Leviticus 20:6–7).

When a person consorts with mediums and familiar spirits, God says that he is prostituting himself. Christians are to be clean and wholesome.

They should be "holy" as we just read. Remember what the Apostle Peter wrote: "But as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, ‘Be holy, for I am holy’" (1 Peter 1:15–16).

Astrology and False Prophecy

Satan also deceives mankind through astrology. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Astrology originated in Mesopotamia, perhaps in the 3rd millennium bc, but attained its full development in the Western world much later, within the orbit of Greek civilization of the Hellenistic period.

It spread to India in its older Mesopotamian form. Islamic culture absorbed it as part of the Greek heritage; and in the Middle Ages, when Western Europe was strongly affected by Islamic science, European astrology also felt the influence of the Orient….

Although various Christian councils condemned astrology, the belief in the worldview it implies was not seriously shaken.

In the late European Middle Ages, a number of universities, among them Paris, Padua, Bologna, and Florence, had chairs of astrology."

Even though all true Christians have condemned astrology over the years, it has persisted. In our modern time, astrologers admit that the newspaper variety of horoscope advice is mainly entertainment.

But when world leaders consult astrologers for guidance, they are seeking the wrong god!

Listen to God’s warning through the prophet Jeremiah:

"Thus says the Lord: ‘Do not learn the way of the Gentiles; do not be dismayed at the signs of heaven, for the Gentiles are dismayed at them" (Jeremiah 10:2).

We have already seen that Jesus predicted that signs and wonders would deceive the many.

The book of Revelation reveals dramatic events leading up to the Second Coming of Christ. There will be a great false prophet and religious system that will perform miracles, signs and wonders.

The Apostle John writes this about the great false prophet. "He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men" (Revelation 13:13).

Millions, if not billions, of people will be deceived by these impressive miracles. "And he [the false prophet] deceives those who dwell on the earth by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast" (Revelation 13:14).

How can you tell whether someone is truly a minister of God, and not someone controlled by the occult world? Deuteronomy gives us a key.

"If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’; which you have not known; ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice, and you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him" (Deuteronomy 13:1–4).

A false minister or prophet may even prophesy accurately concerning some sign or wonder.

But God says that if he leads you after other gods—if he leads you away from the God of the Bible and the true Jesus Christ of your Bible—then he is a false prophet. Notice also that God may be testing you, to see if you will be faithful to His Word and to His way of life!

Satan has deceived the whole world. He has many methods of deception, including witches, wizardry, channeling, sorcery, astrology, spiritism and false religion.

You need to be on guard against the dangers of the occult. The Apostle Peter gave us this instruction in 1 Peter 5:8–9:

"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

Resist him, steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same sufferings are experienced by your brotherhood in the world."

God promises us protection from evil. Jesus taught us to pray:

"And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one" (Matthew 6:13).

Paul exhorted Christians: "Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:11–12).

You can overcome the wicked one by knowing the word of God—the Bible—and living by it.

You can overcome the temptations and deceptions of the occult and false religion. As the Apostle Paul encourages us in Philippians 4:13:

"I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." May God empower you to go forward in faith. May you live not by the dark deceptions of this world, but by the light of truth, God’s Word.

King Saul's Séance

Movies like The Sixth Sense, and television programs such as Crossing Over With John Edward, play on mankind’s wish that the dead could communicate with the living.

This is an age-old wish; nearly 3,000 years ago, a desperate King Saul sought help from a medium—and suffered greatly for doing so.

Saul had disobeyed God’s instructions regarding the Amalekites. He received God’s judgment that "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.

Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He also has rejected you from being king" (1 Samuel 15:23).

Because of Saul’s disobedience, the Spirit of God was no longer guiding him (1 Samuel 16:14; 28:6).

Desperate for guidance, Saul asked a medium to perform a séance, though he knew this violated God’s law, which prescribed the death penalty for witchcraft or mediumship (Leviticus 20:27).

During the séance, a spirit identified as Samuel (1 Samuel 28:14–15) warned that the Philistines would defeat Israel’s armies, and Saul would soon die.

Saul became "dreadfully afraid" because of these words, and "fell full length on the ground" (v. 20).

Clearly, this spirit’s message terrified Saul. But was the summoned spirit really Samuel?

No, it was not.

Scripture explains that Saul never actually saw Samuel; he only perceived that the spirit was Samuel because of the medium’s descriptions (1 Samuel 28:14).

The Bible faithfully records Saul’s experience, from his terrified point of view, but does not teach that the spirit was Samuel.

Interestingly, most of today’s mediums follow a similar practice, claiming to communicate with deceased spirits even though—like Saul—their clients never actually see those spirits.

Crossing Over With John Edward is wildly popular in some circles, and has even spawned imitators like The Pet Psychic, whose host claims to communicate with families’ dearly departed pets.

Spirit communication is not only the stuff of horror movies and cable television; even "innocent family fare" like Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol stirs the hope that our loved ones can still call to us from beyond the grave. But this is a false hope.

Our dead friends and relatives are unconscious, and will remain so until the resurrection (Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalm 146:4). Their state in death is compared to a sleep from which only God can wake them (1 Corinthians 15:51). No medium can summon the dead.

The Apostle Paul warned that some in the "latter times" would give "heed to deceiving spirits" (1 Timothy 4:1). Some modern mediums may be charlatans, who infer details about the dead by "reading" their living, paying clients.

But other "genuine" mediums may be genuinely deceived, communicating with demonic spirits who impersonate the deceased.

"Genuine" or not, mediumship is dangerous business. But few today realize the serious consequences of rebelling against God’s law and seeking after spirits.

What was the result for Saul?

Scripture explains:

"So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he had committed against the Lord, because he did not keep the word of the Lord, and also because he consulted a medium for guidance" (1 Chronicles 10:13).

Christians today should heed Saul’s cautionary example.

It has come to my attention through some contacts I have in Wicca and I have confirmed it to be true, that "Born Again Bible thumping Church Goers" are CONDEMNING, ACCUSING, and INSULTING PEOPLE OF OTHER FAITHS without knowing the facts about what they critisize.

{FACTS SHOULD NEVER BE USED TO CLUB PEOPLE OVER THE HEAD WITH, BUT ONLY TO CONVINCE AND LEAD us in the proper direction.}

This behavior of beating people up with "Bible Facts" IS NOT a GODLY practise, and God will not hold you ,whoever you are male or female blameless for these actions!

This behavior is "Mid evil"at best and shows a complete LACK of the love of God, for it is and ALWAYS HAS BEEN GOD THE FATHERS JOB TO LEAD THEM TO HIS SON...JESUS....NOT OURS! John 3:16-21 (GW)

" God loved the world this way:

He gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but to save the world.

18 Those who believe in him won't be condemned. But those who don't believe are already condemned because they don't believe in God's only Son.

This is why people are condemned:

The light came into the world. Yet, people loved the dark rather than the light because their actions were evil. People who do what is wrong hate the light and don't come to the light.

They don't want their actions to be exposed. But people who do what is true come to the light so that the things they do for God may be clearly seen."

It is NOT the place for Christians (If you can call yourselves that)I RECENTLY READ A BUMPER STICKER ON THE CAR OF A WICCAN THAT HURT MY HEART, NOT BECAUSE IT WAS SOME MOCKING OF GOD BUT BECAUSE IT STATED WHAT I'M SAYING HERE...."GOD...SAVE ME FROM YOUR GOOD PEOPLE!"

Please understand that God HATES SIN BUT REALLY DOES LOVE THE SINNER,therefore YOU have no RIGHT to call a sinner anything that God would not call them!

I was angered (Righteously) when a friend (ON YAHOO 360) I treasure as a good,honest,and caring person was SLANDERED by a SO-CALLED CHRISTIAN for being a Wiccan...This is wicked behavior CHURCH (I know you are few,but it only takes one rotten apple to spoil the good ones) Witches, Satanists, Atheist's and Skeptic's view "God and Jesus" through OUR BEHAVIORS and if we can't truly show the love of God to them then WE NEED TO SHUT UP and go away UNTIL WE GROW UP INTO HIS LOVE.

Psalms 101:5-7 (GW)

" I will destroy anyone who secretly slanders his neighbor. I will not tolerate anyone with a conceited look or arrogant heart. My eyes will be watching the faithful people in the land so that they may live with me.

The person who lives with integrity will serve me. The one who does deceitful things will not stay in my home. The one who tells lies will not remain in my presence. "

2 Corinthians 3:2 (KJV)

Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

Romans 2:24 (GW) As Scripture says, “God's name is cursed among the nations because of you.”

PRAY THIS PRAYER IF YOU ARE AFRAID OF THE DARKNESS AND I PROMISE IF YOU PRAY WITH FAITH,BELIEVING YOU WILL BECOME FEARLESS IN THE LORD'S WORK AND NO-LONGER NEED TO CONDEMN THOSE WHO ARE DIFFERENT,BECAUSE YOU'LL BE FREE!!!

Let's all learn to get along with those we don't agree with in the spirit of Christian LOVE,you will draw more bees with HONEY(LOVE) THAN WITH VINEGAR (UNWISE ZEAL).

There are many people out there that WON'T LISTEN TO US BECAUSE WE SHOW IGNORANCE OF WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND THEREFORE CAN'T REASON WITH THEM!

I know first hand how ignorant believers are for they condemned and beraded me for ever being a witch in the first place, NOT understanding that circumstances in my life led me into wiccan and black witchcraft..those were my choices at the time and I thank God that he had "a Remnant"of faithful followers that LOVED and reasoned with me for "Months"before God finally broke through my stubborn heart!

DON'T UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF PATIENCE WHEN DEALING WITH PEOPLE.The high value of a person's heart is WORTH THE WAIT,and above all don't be so naive as to believe that you can't learn from others..some of my Witch friends have good hearts that get HURT and BLEED just like yours..so be very careful with their hearts...please! to condemn and cause people to hate our God because of your misplaced ZEAL.

The Following Article is needed in the Church today because it says it all.....I have experienced both side of this issue and can confirm to you that it is true, so take back this holiday in confidence knowing the facts and tossing out the bull that religion has created!

The History of Halloween -- It's Probably Not What You Think

by Dennis Rupert, pastor New Life Community Church of Stafford Last update: 05/30/2008

This article has been carefully researched in an attempt to separate fact from hype and exaggeration.

Sources include scholarly works by folklorists, books by Celtic experts, internet sites, and various reference works. I read and talked with pagan sources to find out how they viewed Halloween, but did not rely upon them for information on the origins of Halloween.

I am especially indebted to folklorist W.J. Bethancourt III for initially bringing this history to my attention.

I have confirmed his research by my own limited study and highly recommend his site as the first place to view for information on Halloween practices (History of Halloween : Myths, Monsters and Devils).

The Celtic Connection

Our modern celebration of Halloween is a VERY distant descendant of the ancient Celtic fire festival called Samhain. (The word is pronounced "sow-en" rhyming with cow, because "mh" in the middle of an Irish word has a "w" sound.) It was the biggest and most significant holiday of the Celtic year.

The Celts (pronounced 'Kelts") lived more than 2,000 years ago in what is now Great Britain, Ireland, and France. Their new year began on November 1.

Celtic legends tell us that on this night, all the hearth fires in Ireland were extinguished, and then re-lit from the central fire of the Druids at Tlachtga, 12 miles from the royal hill of Tara. (The Druids were the learned class among the Celts.

They were religious priests who also acted as judges, lawmakers, poets, scholars, and scientists.) Upon this sacred bonfire the Druids burned animals and crops.

The extinguishing of the hearth fires symbolized the "dark half" of the year. The re-kindling from the Druidic fire was symbolic of the returning life that was hoped for in the spring.

The feast of Samhain is described by MacCane as order suspended.

"During this interval the normal order of the universe is suspended, the barriers between the natural and the supernatural are temporarily removed, the sidh lies open and all divine beings and the spirits of the dead move freely among men and interfere sometimes violently, in their affairs" (Celtic Mythology, p. 127).

The Celts believed that when people died, they went to a land of eternal youth and happiness called Tir nan Og. They did not have the concept of heaven and hell that the Christian church later brought into the land.

The dead were sometimes believed to be dwelling with the Fairy Folk, who lived in the numerous mounds or sidhe (pron. "shee") that dotted the Irish and Scottish countryside.

The Celts did not actually have demons and devils in their belief system. Some Christians describe Halloween as a festival in which the Celts sacrificed human beings to the devil or some evil demonic god of death.

This is not accurate. The Celts did believe in gods, giants, monsters, witches, spirits, and elves, but these were not considered evil, so much as dangerous.

The fairies, for example, were often considered hostile and menacing to humans because they were seen as being resentful of men taking over their lands.

On this night of Samhain, the fairies would sometimes trick humans into becoming lost in the fairy mounds, where they would be trapped forever.

Folk tradition tells us of some divination practices associated with Samhain. Among the most common were divinations dealing with marriage, weather, and the coming fortunes for the year.

These were performed via such methods as ducking for apples and apple peeling. Ducking for apples was a marriage divination.

The first person to bite an apple would be the first to marry in the coming year -- like the modern toss of the wedding bouquet. Apple peeling was a divination to see how long your life would be.

The longer the unbroken apple peel, the longer your life was destined to be. In Scotland, people would place stones or nuts in the ashes of the hearth before retiring for the night. Anyone whose stone had been disturbed during the night was said to be destined to die during the coming year.

Inaccurate Christian Teaching about Halloween

You will often read in the literature published by Christian organizations (such as the tracts and comic books from publisher Jack Chick) that, "Samhain was the Celtic God of the Dead, worshipped by the Druids with dreadful bloody sacrifices at Halloween."

Chick embroiders this fantasy in a tract called "The Trick" and a full-sized comic book called, "Spellbound?", shown here.halowen2.gif (63875 bytes)

His writings describe evil Druids going from castle-door-to-door seeking virgin princesses to rape and sacrifice, leaving carved pumpkins illuminated by candles ("made from human fat!") for those who cooperated, and arranging demonic assassinations for those who refused to give them what they wanted.

This, according to Mr. Chick, is supposed to be the "true" origin of trick or treating.

Let's look at a few historical facts : Contrary to information published by many Christian organizations, there is no historical or archeological evidence of any Celtic deity of the dead named "Samhain."

We know the names of some 350 Celtic deities and Samhain isn't found among them. The Celtic gods of the dead were Gwynn ap Nudd for the British, and Arawn for the Welsh. The Irish did not have a "lord of death" as such.

McBain's Etymological Dictionary of the Gaelic Language says that "samhuinn" (the Scots Gaelic spelling) means "summer's end."

It's not just Christian organizations that perpetuate this fallacy -- even the World Book encyclopedia (1990) writes about "Samhain, the Celtic lord of death" (World Book is in discussion with scholars in order to change this in future editions.)

This idea is based on a fallacy that seems to have come from Col. Charles Vallency's books in the 1770s before the reliable translations of existing Celtic literary works and before archaeological excavations.

(Col. Charles Vallency also tried to prove that the Irish were descended from the inhabitants of Armenia!) Samhain is the name of the holiday.

There is no evidence of any god or demon named "Samhain," "Samain," "Sam Hane," or however you want to vary the spelling.

  • Contrary to Christian criticism from many sources, Halloween did not originate as a Satanic festival, but was religious in nature (of course, the religion I am referring to is the Celtic faith of the ancient Druids rather than Christianity).
  • This is an important distinction, for Halloween’s association with Satanic worship is a modern phenomenon. The Celts didn't worship the devil (or any god of death) on Halloween.
  • It is important to distinguish between paganism and Satanism. Pagans are people who believe in more than one god.
  • Some modern day pagans call themselves Wiccans. [For more on Wicca and modern witchcraft see What is Witchcraft?] Pagans are quick to emphasize that they do not worship Satan or the devil.
  • The devil is a Judeo-Christian concept, they say, because one has to believe in a single God to believe in God's opposite: "We do not accept the concept of 'absolute evil,' nor do we worship any entity known as 'Satan' or 'The Devil.'" (Drawing Down the Moon, pp. 103).
  • Celts were pagans, not Satanists.Of course, from a Christian standpoint both are in error. But to my mind there is a major difference between:
  • (1) pagans (who have not heard the gospel) practicing a holiday containing fairies and elves and
  • (2) Satanists (in rebellion against God) who sacrifice children to the devil. There is no original evidence to indicate that Samhain was any more Satanic than pagan harvest festivals of other religions, like the Romans or the Greeks.
  • We have no evidence any where (from tradition, Celtic texts, or archaeology) that virgin princesses or any one else were being offered to the lord of death on Halloween.
  • There is general agreement that the Celts did in fact practice some form of human sacrifice or human execution, but this seems to have been limited to criminals, prisoners-of-war, or volunteers.
  • (For more information on human sacrifice and the Druids see History of Halloween : Myths, Monsters and Devils.)
  • We have no evidence that Druids practiced human sacrifice on Halloween (let alone sacrificed "virgin princesses").
  • The pumpkin is a New World plant that never grew in Europe until modern times, so it couldn't have been used to make jack-o-lanterns by the Druids.

  • There's zero evidence that the ancient Druids or their congregants ever dressed in costume or engaged in ritualized begging at harvest time. One Christian tract entitled Trick or Treat says:

The Druids went from house to house asking for a contribution to their demonic worship celebration. If a person didn't give, their trick was to kill him. The people feared the phrase "Trick or Treat."

This charge has been laid at the door step of the Celts so often that it's hard to believe there is no evidence for it, but there is absolutely none.

Tad Tuleja (a folklore expert) writes:

An exhaustive Victorian survey of Irish calendar customs mentions divination games and apple bobbing as Halloween pastimes, but says nothing about food collection or a procession of "spirits."...On the question of masked begging at the Celtic New Year, authorities on the Druids do not say a word. (Halloween and Other Festivals of Death and Life, p. 83).

Where did costuming at Halloween come from? There is a lot of confusion on this point.

But in spite of what you may have read in an encyclopedia or seen on the History Channel, I can find absolutely NO historical evidence of costumed begging among the Druids or as part of the Samhain festival.

We do have records of costumed processions in a much later time (Christian times), but these costumed processions were NOT limited to the Halloween holiday. They appear much more frequently at Christmas.

The earliest actual historic practice seems to have been poor folk in masks and costumes going from house to house.

They would put on a simple play or musical performance in return for food and drink. This practice is called mumming or guising and has no discernable connection to the Celts.

You may be surprised to learn that your parents or grandparents know nothing about costuming on Halloween. A reader sent me this email:

You mentioned in your article that the American custom came about in the 1930s as a reaction to vandalism.

My parents were kids in New York City in those days, and I started looking for more info because of a comment my mom made on Halloween night.

It seems that Halloween as we know it did not exist at the time--it was all pranks, as you mentioned (my mom mentioned taking gates off posts and moving outhouses, as you did, and my dad said that in the days of coal fuel there were big cans of ashes that the kids would tip over--a big mess).

The interesting part was that both of them said (Dad was born in 1924 and Mom in 1927) that each year as kids, they did go from door to door begging for food--but it was on Thanksgiving Day, not Halloween!

My mom said that rather than "Trick or Treat!" their line at each door was "Anything for the poor? Anything for the poor?"

They were given fruit, nuts, a cup of cider, or the occasional coin--that sort of thing.

This email is similar to conversations with my own father and mother (born 1928 and 1930 in western Pennsylvania), who told me that no one dressed in costumes or went door-to-door when they were children.

There were lots of pranks on Halloween (some of which make great stories for the grandchildren), but they know nothing of dressing up.

So where did costuming come from? That's a big question mark. Folklorist Tad Tuleja says that costume parties are frequently mentioned in the early decades of the 1900s (but nothing about going door-to-door in costume).

The costume parties themselves seem to be an attempt to involve children in disciplined "fun" as opposed to destructive "fun."

  • The actual phrase trickor treat" is not Druidic! The earliest known reference in print dates only to 1938 in an article in the Los Angeles Times entitled "Halloween Pranks Plotted by Youngsters of Southland," Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California), October 30, 1938, p. A8:

  • "Trick or treat!" is the Halloween hijacking game hundreds of Southern California youngsters will play tomorrow night as they practice streamlined versions of traditional Allhallows Eve pranks."

  • The phrase is not recorded by the Merriam-Webster Company until 1941. And the term is actually American, not European (Halloween and Other Festivals of Death and Life, p. 47,86-90)!

  • It's not only the phrase that is American, the practice is too!

  • In America in the late 1800s and early 1900s, there was a custom of playing pranks on Halloween.

  • This custom appears to have come from immigrants from Ireland and Scotland which had a practice called Mischief Night.

  • Favorite pranks included tipping over outhouses and unhinging fence gates (Charles Panati, Extraordinary Origins of Everyday Things).

  • The pleasant fiction was that such rambunctiousness was the work of "fairies," "elves," "witches" and "goblins" (Halloween and Other Festivals of Death and Life, p. 87). That's the "trick" part of Halloween.

Where did the "treat" part of Halloween come from?

Jill Pederson Meyer writes:

"By the turn of the century, Halloween had become an ever more destructive way to “let off steam” for crowded and poor urban dwellers.

As Stuart Schneider writes in 'Halloween in America' (1995), vandalism that had been limited to tipping outhouses; removing gates, soaping windows and switching shop signs, by the 1920’s had become nasty -- with real destruction of property and cruelty to animals and people.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the disguised nighttime terrorism and murders by the Ku Klux Klan reached their apex during this decade.

Schneider writes that neighborhood committees and local city clubs such as the Boy Scouts then mobilized to organize safe and fun alternatives to vandalism.

School posters of the time call for a “Sane Halloween.” Good children were encouraged to go door to door and receive treats from homes and shop owners, thereby keeping troublemakers away.

By the 1930’s, these “beggar’s nights” were enormously popular and being practiced nationwide, with the “trick or treat” greeting widespread from the late 1930s."

The Halloween begging activity known as trick-or-treat comes from America in the 1930s, not the British Isles (for confirmation see A Letter from a MacDonald). The custom was intended to control and displace disruptive pranks.

-------

Every year, right around Halloween, we are treated to an outpouring of literature making false statements about the origins of Halloween.

(In years past, I even helped distribute this type of literature to my congregation.) But my research on this subject has found that the Christian Halloween literature is vastly mistaken. Christians are guilty of spreading falsehood (perhaps out of ignorance, but falsehood none the less).

Believers do no service to God or to other Christians by creating very frightening fantasies masquerading as historical facts.

Sloppy and improper scholarship makes Christians look deceitful. It also makes God appear deceptive to unbelievers.

What I am arguing for is accurate information, rather than falsehood. No, I'm not a "closet pagan." No, I'm not "a wolf in sheep's clothing."

No, I haven't "bought into pagan propaganda." I'm a born-again, fundamentalist, Bible-believing, filled with the Spirit Christian (did I use enough labels?) trying to get at the historical truth.

At the Christian college I attended, I was taught that all truth was God's truth and that we don't need to fear truth -- whether it comes from secular, pagan, or Christian sources.

Over a period of years I have been reading and talking with folklorists, historians, Christians, pagans, and people from Scotland and Ireland.

The origins of Halloween are NOT what most Christian literature teaches. Sorry, no pumpkins with candles of human fat!

Sorry, no human sacrifices by evil druids.

Sorry, dressing up can't be historically connected to the Celts.

Sorry, treat-or-treat is not a Satanist plot to captivate our children.

Halloween and the Middle Ages

What do Christians do with a holiday when pagans refuse to stop practicing it?

This was the dilemma that faced Christians in the Middle Ages.

(It is also the dilemma facing Christians today with 40 million children going door-to-door each Halloween.)

In 601 A.D. Pope Gregory the First issued a now famous edict to his missionaries concerning the native beliefs and customs of the peoples he hoped to convert.

Rather than try to obliterate native peoples' customs and beliefs, the pope instructed his missionaries to use them:

if a group of people worshipped a tree, rather than cut it down, he advised them to consecrate it to Christ and build a church around it.

In terms of quickly adding people to the Christian faith, this was a brilliant concept and it became a basic approach used in Catholic missionary work.

In many cases, church holy days were purposely set to coincide with native holy days. Christmas, for instance, was assigned the arbitrary date of December 25th because it corresponded with the mid-winter celebration of many peoples.

In 835 Pope Gregory IV decided to move the practice of All Saints' Day to November 1.

This was possibly done to correspond with the Celtic practice of Samhain. The Mass that was said on this day was called Allhallowmas ("the mass of all the holy ones")

. The evening before All Saints' Day became known as All Hallow e'en ("the evening of all the holy ones"). So you see the name "Halloween" is actually Christian, not pagan. It is derived from All Saints Day.

The old beliefs associated with Samhain never died out entirely. The powerful symbolism of fairies, elves, and the traveling dead had a strong tie with the people and they were not satisfied with the new Catholic feast honoring dead saints. When people continued some of the beliefs and practices associated with Samhain, the church increased the rhetoric against Samhain.

They branded the earlier religion's practices as evil, and began to associate them with the devil. As representatives of the rival religion, Druids were considered malevolent worshippers of devilish or demonic gods and spirits.

Celtic belief in supernatural creatures (like elves and fairies) persisted, while the church made attempts to define them as being no longer merely mischievous, but wicked.

People continued to celebrate All Hallows Eve as a time of the wandering dead, but the supernatural beings were now thought to be Satanic.

How did witches become connected to Halloween? Once the Druids were branded as evil by the church, their practices were looked at as "witchcraft."

Followers of the old religion were persecuted, went into hiding, and were branded as witches who worshipped Satan.

This is why European witchcraft became connected with Satan, whereas witchcraft in other areas of the world is animistic in nature. October 31 became known as a witch holiday.

It was called "The Witches' Sabbath" by witch hunters and eventually European witches began celebrating October 31 as one of their four great Sabbaths held during the year.

Of course, in some ways from a Christian standpoint the church's response makes sense.

Doesn't the Bible view the worship of other gods as deception by demons (1 Corinthians 10:18-22)?

Yes, but the Bible also says that Satan often preaches in Christian churches (2 Corinthians 11:13-14).

Pagans don't have a monopoly on evil, demonic deception, or harmful practices. As a Christian (in spite of a good, pure, and holy God) I often do evil things and fall into deception.

Christians can also do very hurtful things in the name of Christ. (Some of the worst hate mail that I get comes from Christians who don't agree with me about baptism or giving or eternal security or grace or Halloween.)

I'm not sure that anything is gained by calling pagans, Satanists or demon worshippers. It's easy to view yourself as God's agent and to brand people with strong labels. Then you can justify not relating to them in grace.

You can begin to hate and fear them. And eventually you can persuade yourself that as agents of Satan they deserve persecution (i.e. the inquisition and witch burnings).

This goes against everything that Jesus taught about reaching out to pagans (1 Corinthians 5:9-13) and loving our enemies (Matthew 5:43-48), and showing mercy to them (Luke 6:27-36).

The truth is that sometimes Christians end up acting more like Satan, than pagans

The Present Day Celebration of Halloween

Halloween celebrations (of any kind or form) did not become popular in the United States until the late 1800s.

It appears to have arrived after 1840, when large numbers of immigrants arrived from Ireland and Scotland and introduced elements like Mischief Night, beliefs about elves and fairies, and practices such as jack-o'-lanterns.

(Many of the Halloween customs that they brought to America probably did not enter Irish and Scottish culture until after 1750.) The practice does not come from ancient times, but modern.

It must be said that "Halloween" as we know it in America, with all the folk stories and urban legends attached to it, is a distinctly American phenomenon, with the "Trick or Treat" bits occurring after 1930.

Halloween is celebrated in many countries today, but this is actually a result of secular American influence:

...the trick-or-treat and masking customs on 31 October in England and Finland have been introduced from the United States and Canada (Halloween and Other Festivals of Death, p. 162).

Does anyone today celebrate the Celtic holiday of Samhain as a religious observance? Yes. During the mid-1900's, a new interest in pagan religion occurred in Europe and the United States.

As a result, paganism as an organized religion has attracted large numbers of people. Many followers of various pagan religions, such as Druids and Wiccans observe Samhain as a religious festival.

They view it as a memorial day for their dead friends, similar to the United States' national holiday of Memorial Day in May.

Modern pagans (and non-Satanic witches) would vehemently deny that their celebration has anything to do with the demonic horrors depicted in such films as Friday the 13th.

To them, Halloween is one of the four greater Sabbats (holidays) held during the year. Halloween for them is a time of "harvest celebration.

It is a time of ritual, a time for ridding oneself of personal weaknesses, a time for feasting and joyful celebration. It is also a time for communing with the spirits of the dead. It is still a night to practice various forms of divination concerning future events."

Contrary to popular belief Halloween is not the most important celebration for Satanists.

Most Satanists celebrate their own birthdays as their most important "unholi"-day, which is to be expected from adherents of a religion who believe that the highest form of religion is "worship of self" (The Satanic Bible, Anton LaVey).

Some of the stories of Satanic ritual abuse that are passed around in Christian circles may have no basis in fact (like those found in Rebecca Brown's book "He Came to Set the Captives Free").

According to Christian researchers Bob and Gretchen Passantino (see their well-researched book entitled Satanism by Bob and Gretchen Passantino, Zondervan, 1995):

"The actual incidence level of satanic-associated crime is very low, and on Halloween consists mostly of petty vandalism and desecration of graveyards and churches; satanic graffiti; raucous rituals including drug and/or alcohol use and sexual promiscuity; and very rarely sexual violence or animal killing.

The most well-known documented criminal activity associated with Halloween are the "Devil's Night" fires that were rampant in the Detroit area.

These destructive bonfires were not religiously inspired, but were a convenient excuse for out-of-control juveniles to act destructively, often in their own communities.

It is not true that satanists look for "Christian virgins" to rape during Halloween rituals.

A young Christian is much more likely to be in danger of a drunk driver, or a party that gets out of hand with drug or alcohol use than of satanic abduction.

Occasional anti-social, criminally committed individuals or small groups that also practice self-styled satanism commit crimes on Halloween, but they invariably betray a pattern of sociopathy at other times as well.

It is not true that poisoning or sabotaging of Halloween treats is a significant risk if parents take sensible precautions. Most horror stories are unsubstantiated rumors that quickly cross the country, gaining embellishments, and unnecessarily frightening parents.

If parents are careful about restricting their children's treats to ones from people they know and trust, or from a formal program run by a church, community group, or merchant association, they should be fairly safe.

In many communities, local hospitals and/or police stations will screen treats free of charge."

How should Christians react to Halloween? Here are some Christian myths mixed with good old fashioned FEAR and Ignorence!

  • "Halloween is the most dangerous day of the year -- when Satanists and witches snatch children off the streets and sacrifice them in Satan's name!"

  • "We don't worship other gods or honor the dead on Halloween. Halloween is nothing but a secular time of fun and games -- an excuse for the kids to dress up and overload on sugar!"

  • "I love to see the children, out in the neighborhood streets with their parents, dressed in funny clothing, having a wonderful time .... and mocking the Devil with laughter."

These are three examples of very different Christian reactions to Halloween. Allow me to offer some opinions.

1. Occult and Satanic Elements:

Deuteronomy 18:11 says:

"There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, one who calls up the dead."

2. Non-Satanic elements:

Although some devil worshippers have adopted Halloween as their "holiday," the day itself did not grow out of Satanic practices.

Halloween has some weak connections to Celts celebrating a new year, but most of present day Halloween customs are neither pagan, nor Satanic. Here is a table of practices and dates as they are connected with Halloween:

practice
divination
necromancy
black cats, spiders
tricks & pranks
costuming
pumpkin carving
trick or treat
slasher movies
earliest date
ancient
?
Middle Ages
?
early 1900s(?)
after 1750s
1930s
1950s
source
pagan Celts
Celts or Medieval witchcraft
Medieval superstition
Irish Mischief Night
?
Irish
Boy Scouts & others
Hollywood
original intent
pagan religious practice
pagan religious practice
fear & easy labels
"those nasty fairies"
stop pranks(?)
ward off evil
stop pranks
make money
Biblically forbidden
yes
yes
no
if destructive
no
no
no
yes - Phil 4:8

Most holidays (even Christmasand Easter) contain evil, neutral, and good elements as part of their celebration. Christians must discern one from the other and make decisions that glorify God and cause no harm to their personal walk with Christ.

Christians seem to have no trouble making these distinctions about Christmas, but we utterly fail to do the necessary thinking when it comes to Halloween.

In my opinion, present day Halloween has some evil elements (divination rituals, communication with spirits), some neutral elements (sorry, costumes didn't come from evil Druids involved in human sacrifice), and some good elements (asking for candy was an attempt by the Boy Scouts of America to calm the abuse of the holiday!).

As W.J. Bethancourt III says:

"Each Christian must decide for themselves whether dressing up in funny clothes and asking for candy from the neighbors is 'satanic' and 'necromancing' or not. Allowing your children to dress up as mass-murderers and as villains from the Hollywood slasher movies may or may not be 'satanic,' but it certainly is stupid. Making such creatures objects of 'hero-worship' might not be giving the kind of message to a child that necessarily enables them to become sober, productive adults."

Costuming children as ballerinas or cartoon characters or Bible heroes seems far removed from Satanism or any practice of paganism.

What I have tried to show is that much of the association with witchcraft and Satanic elements has actually come from Christian misinformation attempting to "demonize" this holiday. There is no evidence that the original Celtic celebration was Satanic.

Much of the information on Halloween that Christians preach and write about is plainly based on shoddy research.

While Christians should absolutely avoid pagan practices, Christian hype tends to make us overreact to benign folk elements of Halloween.

We appear like zany buffoons to the world when there is no necessity for doing so. Furthermore, our groundless retreat from all elements of Halloween leaves a vacuum that wicked elements delight to fill.

October 31st is only a day on the calendar. Halloween, like any other day, is only as evil as one cares to make it.

3. Alternative Celebrations:

I would also suggest using the holiday to be involved in the joy and celebration of All Saints’ Day, thanksgiving for harvest, and the celebration of the Reformation of the Church. Here are two tracts which offer alternatives to the traditional American celebration of Halloween:

Tract 1:

One successful alternative used by a number of churches is a "Faith Festival" in which children dress as their favorite Bible character and gather for a special children's service with puppets, a Christian film, or something special.
This offers an ideal opportunity to explain the spiritual significance of Halloween and to encourage the children to remember Hebrews chapter 11, which features great men and women of faith who have gone before us. The "Faith Festival" can be a time to thank God for His many blessings.

Tract 2:

As believers, we can take this opportunity to provide a creative alternative to this celebration. In ancient Israel, the majority of Jewish festivals occurred at the same time as pagan festivals.
God did not simply tell his people not to engage in pagan festivals, He provided an alternative. During every major pagan festival, the Hebrew people would take part in a God-given alternative, a festival celebrating the same general subject but with a completely different focus.

There are many wholesome alternatives for our children: a church Bible costume party, Reformation Day church service, holding a harvest celebration like the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles.

4. Being Positive Without Fear:

Regardless of the position you take regarding your family's response to Halloween, if you are concerned about the evil associations with Halloween, you can rejoice that you can "resist the devil and he will flee from you" (James 4:7) and that through the cross Christ has "disarmed principalities and powers," and "made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them" (Colossians 2:15).

I would certainly suggest using the holiday to teach our children about the triumph in Christ of God over evil. This should not be a night that we hide from in fear, but a night (like every night) when a Christian can stand confident in victory, because the One who lives in us is greater, than the one who lives in the world (1 John 4:4). "You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them!" (1 John 4:4).

Holding oneself apart from the world is perhaps a good thing, but sometimes this is just an excuse for being afraid. We are reminded to be "in the world" and "sent to the world", as well as being "not of the world" (John 17:15-18).

There are very few times when strangers actually come to your door and ask you to give them something!

Our family has used Halloween to hand out Christian tapes to everyone that has come-a-begging!

Some Christian children use "trick or treating" by giving a tract in return for the candy they receive at each house. What a wonderful way to spread the gospel!

A smile, some candy, a tract and a "God bless you!" will save more souls than hiding in your house with the porch light off.

As a believer in Jesus Christ and thus a child of God, I personally do not give much honor to the celebration of Halloween, but our family does participate in some of the neutral elements of Halloween and we use Halloween to reach people who don't know Jesus.

We also use Halloween to celebrate the victory that I and other saints have over the wickedness of this world.

A good general principle should be to refrain from participating in anything that compromises your faith or brings dishonor to Jesus Christ.

Another good principle is to look for ways to become a positive, Christ-proclaiming voice in the midst of a secular and pagan world. Each Christian must be persuaded in his own conscience about how they approach Halloween.

Why Did I Write This Article?

What I'm arguing for is:

(1) Accurate information, rather than falsehood.

(2) A little bit of tolerance toward Christians who choose to participate in "harmless" Halloween activities that have no connection to paganism (like pumpkins, dressing up, or treat-or-treat).

(3) For the Christian community to think about how it is going to handle Halloween -- because it is not going to go away. It is more popular than ever. We can redeem it for Christ or we can use fear and scare tactics to hide our light under a basket (Matthew 5:15).

I think we find a close parallel in Christmas. Christmas wasn't celebrated by the early church until the fourth century. In that century, the church decided to try to redeem a Roman pagan winter solstice festival (the birthday of the unconquered sun).

Sometime before 336 the Church in Rome, unable to stamp out this pagan festival, spiritualized it as the "Feast of the Nativity of the Sun of Righteousness."

In some ways, I think Christians have succeeded in giving December 25 a new meaning.

I really think Pope Gregory had the right idea. Take pagan holidays and assign Christian events or practices to them and redeem them for Christ.

Christians have as much right as any other group to lay claim to a day on the calendar (Romans 14:6). What's the alternative?

The alternative is to let pagans, devil worshippers, or Hollywood producers put their stamp on October 31. At the very least, this will mean a day given over to the celebration of (what the Bible calls) superstitions, false gods and goddesses.

At its worst, Halloween becomes a Mardi gras of the grotesque, of destruction, of wickedness, and of death, because we weren't being a preservative for good (Matthew 5:13).

DEAR JESUS, I AM A SINNER BECAUSE I HAVE BROKEN YOUR LAWS,THE 10 COMMANDMENTS..

I BELIEVE YOUR LAW IS MY WARNING OF IMPENDING JUDGMENT IN HELL!

I CANNOT KEEP YOUR LAW IN AND OF MYSELF, I GIVE UP TRYING TO BE WHAT I CANNOT AND I CONFESS THAT I BELIEVE JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD AND DIED FOR MY SINS ON THE CROSS TAKING THE LAWS PUNISHMENT TO FORGIVE ALL OF MY SINS.

JESUS, I REPENT,I TURN AROUND NOW, NEVER TO LOOK BACK,I ASK YOU TO HAVE MERCY ON ME, A SINNER, AND COME INTO MY SPIRIT WITH YOUR SPIRIT AND YOUR POWER. HELP ME TO WALK IN YOU SO I CAN FOLLOW AND OBEY YOUR COMMANDMENTS, AND TO LIVE FOR YOU.

JESUS, I GIVE YOU COMPLETE CONTROL OF ALL MY LIFE AND I THANK YOU FOR HEARING MY PRAYER.

THANK YOU FOR COMING INTO MY LIFE. I ASK IT IN THE NAME OF MY LORD AND SAVIOR, JESUS CHRIST. AMEN.

As God is my eternal Witness, Savior, and judge, I do here by affirm that I am a child of God that has been purchased with the precious blood of the Lord Jesus Christ (Rms. 6:3-11):

I confess Him as my Lord and Savior and by my own volition, I specifically renounce Satan as my lord and god.

As one completely acknowledging and accepting the finished work of Christ on the cross for my redemption and my only hope of eternal life, I now renounce all ancestral and genetic ties, back as many generations on my dad's and mom's sides that God needs to go.

Because I have, through the lord Jesus Christ's own shed blood, been redeemed and delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son (Col. 1:13), I now cancel out and nullify all demonic power or effect that has been passed down to me from my ancestors, including the ancestral demon that carries my formal name and his network.

Also, I cancel out any other ancestral demon and their networks. Because the lord Jesus Christ became a curse for me by dying the death on the tree (Gal. 3:13), I use my authority that is found in Him to cancel every spell or curse that may have been placed on me with or without my knowledge.

As God's child, covered by the precious blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, and trusting totally in the atoning power of that blood (Eph.1:7), I cancel, renounce, sever, and nullify every agreement or pact I have made with Satan or anyone else, including blood pacts.

I renounce and sever any and every way that the Devil has gotten ground in my life and all ground that I have ever given to Satan that gave him power or claim over me.

I cancel, renounce, sever, and nullify any powers, gifts, or workings in me which are not of my Heavenly Father or pleasing to Him.

I confess that I belong totally to the Lord Jesus Christ. As one who has been crucified (Gal.2:20) and raised with Christ and now sits with Him in the heavenly places (Eph. 2:5), I sign myself eternally and completely over to the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is my desire to pray daily that my lord Jesus will have total control of my life. All of these things I do in the precious name of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ and by His absolute authority over all things, rulers, authorities, principalities, and powers (Eph. 1:18-23), and with a childlike faith, I thank you that it's done. Amen.

Full Name _____________________________

Witness: _______________________________ If you are serious about repentance pray this prayer today...It will work with your FAITH to break the powers of darkness!!

Print this prayer out and keep for your records so you can show Satan what HE lost and you gained!

Popular Posts

October 11, 2010

The Real Evidence concerning Evolution compared to Young Earth Creationism!

As long as I have been presenting this evidence of Creation, of God and any thing clearly proven by the scientific facts at hand, I have been ridiculed and cut down in my intelligence INSTEAD of personal investigation being done by those who fear this evidence. 

For those who read here, there must be civility in our discourses or there is no point in communicating at all because this insulting and name-calling for the sake of avoiding the proof is Childish.

If you cannot accept the clear evidence presented because of what your peers would say or what others believe you are not worthy of the truth. 

Accepting real truth requires us to drop anything that opposes that truth including Religious and Scientific presumptions that run crosswise of the facts!


"I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" By Norman L. Geisler, Frank Turek, David Limbaugh

"A Case for the Existence of God"

By Dean L. Overman
Here is a real great Evidence against an OLD Earth:
Go here for FREE P.D.F Downloads of the Books :

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (R.A.T.E.)

Scientists associated with the Institute for Creation Research have finished an eight-year research project known as R.A.T.E, or Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth.

For over a hundred years, evolutionists have insisted that the earth is billions of years old, and have arrogantly dismissed any views contrary to this belief. However, the team of seven creation scientists have discovered incredible physical evidence that supports what the Bible says about the young age of the earth.

Learn about their discoveries and explore the scientific evidence that supports biblical truth here!








Evidence for a Young World (#384) by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
RATE Audio
RATE - What Earthly Reason? Download MP3

RATE - Rocks Evolution, Part 1 Download MP3

RATE - Rocks Evolution, Part 2 Download MP3

RATE - Diamonds: A Creationist's Best Friend Download MP3

RATE - Thousands, Not Billions Download MP3

I have dealt with MANY subjects as a minister of His grace these past 32 years,but none have the FORCE of emotion that this one has; Atheism IS SO CLOSE TO THE TRUTH OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD that it hurts my heart to watch them BLINDLY GO ABOUT IN THEIR DARKNESS,UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO SEE THE PLAIN TRUTH!

Don't mistake my statement here to mean that I can't prove that God exist's to the OPEN MINDED SOUL, BUT IT IS NOT MY JOB TO PROVE WHAT I ALREADY KNOW TO BE TRUE:

I WAS A BLACK WITCH, A WICCAN AND SUBSTANCE ABUSER WHO CAME TO THAT KNOWLEDGE THE "HARD WAY" and although MANY have tried to do so, NO ONE HAS EVER DONE WHAT MUST BE DONE TO END THIS "SELF DELUDED DEBATE".

The "Ball is in the Atheist's court, NOT THE CHRISTIANS, TO PROVE IT ONCE AND FOR ALL!

Now before you say,"I'm averting the Question because I can't prove it."If you believe that, you would be SADLY MISTAKEN, I CAN PROVE GOD EXISTS BUT IN ORDER FOR THAT TO HAPPEN YOU MUST HAVE YOUR "PRECONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED"CHANGED,YOU SEE.....

THE EVIDENCE IS "HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT"ONLY REVEALED TO THE "HIDDEN MAN OF THE HEART" and that means you must first ALLOW GOD to open your heart to know truth.

As long as you head-butt the facts in front of you, your not seeing them in proper context...its impossible to view the evidence with clear minded thinking if your surrounded by "yelling, screaming, and insults to your character" if you even consider another viewpoint!

medicine 

A CHALLENGE TO ATHEISTS: PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST!

This is the true ISSUE....PROVE IT ONCE AND FOR ALL, STATE THE CASE IN SIMPLE PLAIN WORDS; NO DOUBLE TALK, SHADED MEANING, INSULTS, PERSONAL ATTACKS AND MOST OF ALL IF YOU ARE A TRUE "A-THEIST"THEN YOU CANNOT USE ANYTHING CONNECTED TO GOD [ i.e. The Bible, The Church ] you must set your case down beyond these things if I am to believe anything you say,WHY?

because your evidence [If it even is there at all] MUST PRECEDE any allusion to a GOD. ANY MENTION OF GOD at all DISPROVES YOUR CONCLUSIONS BEFORE YOU START.

If God does not exist, the EVIDENCE, which elucidates and enables the mind to see that truth must be proof arising from our own perceptions by the senses, or from the testimony of others, or from inductions of reason.

Our senses furnish evidence of the existence of matter, of solidity, of color, of heat and cold, of a difference in the qualities of bodies, of figure , &c. The declarations of a witness furnish evidence of facts to a court and jury; and reasoning, or the deductions of the mind from facts or arguments, furnish evidence of truth or falsehood.

THIS EVIDENCE MUST EXIST BEYOND AND SEPARATE FROM ALL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY SO THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT IT IS THE TRUTH.

This is the core problem between the evidence presented on both sides, it can be taken from both sides and turned around to say the opposite of the intent...so let's get real, find evidence that sets it in stone!

ur

To EXIST MEANS THE FOLLOWING:

To be; to have an essence or real being; applicable to matter or body, and to spiritual substances. To live; to have life or animation. To remain; to endure; to continue in being.

Can you PROVE it: meaning To try; to ascertain some unknown quality or truth by an experiment, or by a test or standard.

Thus we prove the strength of gunpowder by experiment; we prove the strength or solidity of cannon by experiment. We prove the contents of a vessel by comparing it with a standard measure.

To evince, establish or ascertain as truth, reality or fact, by testimony or other evidence. The plaintiff in a suit, must prove the truth of his declaration; the prosecutor must prove his charges against the accused.

To evince truth by argument, induction or reasoning; to deduce certain conclusions from propositions that are true or admitted.

If it is admitted that every immoral act is dishonorable to a rational being, and that dueling is an immoral act; then it is proved by necessary inference, that dueling is dishonorable to a rational being.

To experience; to try by suffering or encountering; to gain certain knowledge by the operation of something on ourselves, or by some act of our own.

To try; to examine.

One of the things atheists do, is to challenge true Christians to prove the existence of God.

So, I challenge them to prove the opposite, its as much required as the other....unless they cannot present PURE absolute facts.

Try hard, if you will, to perceive the worth of atheism and if you make a proper assessment of its worth to any portion of mankind, it will be revealed to you that atheism is a demonic ideology a religion that is utterly worthless, to say the least. It darkens the minds of its subjects and brings curses upon every facet of human life.

dinos

The decline or absence of morals in any society can be traced to atheism or the like. All the problems in every facet of society, the world over can be traced to atheism, or denial of God and disobedience to him. The rapid increase in crime the world over can be traced to the same. Atheism has nothing good to offer any society,THIS IS A FACT OF HISTORY.

How Old Is the Earth?

A RIDDLE FOR ATHEISTS

Johnny is 11. He is being taught the principles of the american constitution and its amendments by his atheistic parents. Recent lessons given him have focused on the first amendment.

The other day, Johnny's school teacher gave him some math problems for homework. When his teacher checked his homework the next day, she was astonished that Johnny gave every one of the problems incorrect answers.

His teacher therefore called him to her desk and asked him had he forgotten how to solve such problems. But Johnny said to his teacher, "None of my answers are incorrect." His teacher asked him why did he say such a thing?, and he said, "Because the answers are the ones I believe them to be, and I have a constitutional right to my opinion. 

You have the opinion that the answers should be such and such, but I say differently. You cannot say my answers are wrong. I have the right to my opinion and you have the right to yours. If you are dogmatic that my answers should be the same as yours, that makes you self-righteous and a biggot. If you say my answers are wrong, you are judging me. 

Judge not lest you be judged. I deserve an 'A' like everyone else."

The riddle is this: Who is right, Johnny or his teacher? Is there an atheist who can solve this riddle?

A Final Philosophy as Issuing from the Harmony of Science and Religion (Young Earth Creationism | Evolution | Biblical Geology | Darwin | Evolution | Princeton University | Textbook) 

You see, in order to prove that God does NOT EXIST,YOU MUST EXPERIENCE IT as a fact PERSONALLY!

THE EVIDENCE IS ON YOU NOT ME, YOU AS AN ATHEIST ARE THE EXPERIMENT THAT WILL ONCE AND FOR ALL PROVE THAT GOD ISN'T THERE!

So if God does not EVER INTERVENE IN YOUR LIFE BY OTHERS,THROUGH HIS WORD OR BY NATURE'S WITNESS,THEN AND ONLY THEN CAN YOU PERSONALLY SAY GOD DOES NOT EXIST.....HAVE YOU DONE THAT?

Have you found ANY evidence that is above & beyond all mention of God anywhere in History.....EVER?

Has there been no intervention at any time in your life by a loving God...something you cannot explain naturally?

word

Today, I make a perpetual, boast before all atheists, agnostics and non believers, which I challenge particularly the most educated of them to match.

The boast is this: The grace I have received from God Most high, the faith I have in Him and the holy principles of God I seek to exalt and live by have placed me in an infinitely superior and blessed position than any atheist, agnostic and non believer is in, I AM NOT BETTER THAN YOU; BUT I AM MUCH BETTER OFF THAN YOU.

The Laws I live by are superior to yours in that mine cause me to properly carry out my responsibilities to my Maker and to mankind, yours do NOT!

Mine cause me to glorify my Maker, yours glorify Satan { And it doesn't matter if you believe that or not}.

Mine cause me to live like humans were originally created to live, yours cause you to live contrary to proper human nature.

Mine cause me to bring forth fruit unto eternal life, yours to eternal damnation.

Mine causes me to seek to remove all sin and moral decay from the world, yours seek to remove morality from the world.

Mine cause me to seek to save the lives of innocent human fetuses and embryos, yours deceptively declare them as non-humans and put them to death unjustly and prevent you from seeking to save their lives or the mothers!

Mine cause me to seek to remove death worthy criminals from the face of the earth, yours causes you to keep death worthy criminals alive.

Mine causes me to hate all evil and love all righteousness, yours cause you to hate all righteousness and love all evil.

Mine seek to remove deception and all falsehood from the minds of people, yours work to keep them in deep deception.

Mine make true Christians a blessing to the world community and all creation, yours make you a curse to the human race and to all creation.

Mine gives me honor in the eyes of the truly righteous and dishonor among the wicked; yours give you high honor among criminals and the wicked, but dishonor among the righteous.

Neglect of Geologic Data Sedimentary Strata Compared With Young Earth 

It's a Young World After All 

The laws and principles I live by are eternal and shall endure throughout all eternity future, yours are already fading away; because mine never change, they are a sure foundation, yours are so transitory that they change by every wind that blows hard enough.

Mine make those who embrace them wise, yours make you foolish before the FACTS OF GOD; the grace I have received from God will put me in good stead with the One who will in the end judge all mankind, but yours cause the wrath of the Almighty Judge to curse and punish you forever.

Sites to find FACTS about God!

Disclaimer of some content contained in these sites:
I have not scanned every single one of these sites word for word so they may lead you to areas I do not condone theologically, such as those who endorse silly prophetic views like the "rapture hoaxers" in the church today. I do not embrace Dr Carl Baugh's 7 year tribulation assumptions OR THE PHONEY RAPTURE THEORY'S OF MANY!


Will the REAL word from God stand out![youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rssTt9aavuM&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1][youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BhjJQciq-A&hl=en&fs=1&]

Young Earth Creationists of the world unite!(Intelligent design): An article from: Skeptic (Altadena, CA) 

relatives 
Science, scripture, and the young earth: An answer to current attacks on the Biblical doctrines of recent creation and the global flood 
An Atheist once said to me:
"...you can't for certain say god exists, just as I cannot prove he doesn't. Until one of us can, you must accept that other people have different ideas to yours, and that either one of use could be right or wrong."
This is a very terrible mistake you have imbedded in you mind. I and everyone else including yourself can say for certain that God exists. Every house has its builder. Every invention has its designer. You cannot have any one of these without their authors. No house or invention brought itself into being.
It is the same with the heavens and the earth. Their existence is positive proof of the existence of God their Creator. The earth and the heavens and all therein and here on exist because God exists. Creation could not have brought itself into existence out of its non-existence. Even common correct logic says there had to be a Creator. Your own existence is positive proof of the existence of God because He is the fountain and sustainer of all life.
You are VERY right when you say that you cannot prove" that God is Non- existent ", because no such proof exists since He does indeed exist.
know for certain that God does indeed exist and I do not seek to suppress that fact. And since I know for certain that He does, this is what makes me intolerant of other beliefs to the contrary. You MUST understand a fundamental principle about truth? It is always intolerant to anything to the contrary. It is error that is tolerant of other beliefs because error is only opinion itself which has no sure and lasting foundation and it doesn't really know what it is talking about. But truth is always intolerant of anything to the contrary since it is truth.
kingNow you understand why all true Christians, not religious hypocrites are intolerant of all other beliefs that DENY GOD'S RIGHT TO RULE HIS CREATION. It is because they are right by vertue of all the evidence on OUR SIDE and We know it.
The question of whether God exists is one that ALL humans can answer.
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Creationist Research 
We have the necessary information with which to reasonably conclude that God exists. The nature of the things in the world testify to the fact that a Creator causes it to come to be and continue to be. It is reasonable to conclude that God exists, and to conclude against it rubs against reality itself. Pascal's Wager
Suppose you, the reader, still feel that all of these arguments are inconclusive. There is another, different kind of argument left. It has come to be known as Pascal's Wager. It is NOT a proof for the existence of God, but it can help YOU in your search for God in the absence of such proof.
As originally proposed by Pascal, the Wager assumes that logical reasoning by itself cannot decide for or against the existence of God; Now since reason cannot decide for sure, and since the question is of such importance that we must decide somehow, then we must "wager" if we cannot prove. And so we are asked: Where are you going to place your bet?
If you place it with God, you lose nothing, even if it turns out that God does not exist. But if you place it against God, and you are wrong and God does exist, you lose everything: God, eternity, heaven, infinite gain. "Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything, if you lose, you lose nothing."
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com Seeing God in science!

Messianic Jewishness of the Church!

cameltalk 
The scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome, one of the most extraordinary scientific achievements of our time, is about to publish a book positing that such discoveries bring man "closer to God."
Francis Collins, director of the U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute, says that unraveling the human genome gave him a first-hand view of the handiwork of the Almighty.
In his forthcoming book, "The Language of God," he explores one of the most amazing discoveries of the modern era ? that life is actually encoded with a mind-boggling amount of information-language. Needless to say, information and language are not the byproducts of random chemical reactions or other godless evolutionary mechanisms.
He explains: "When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can't survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can't help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind."
Like the renowned former atheist Antony Flew ? who announced last year that recent scientific discoveries had convinced him of the existence of a creator-god ? Collins grew up believing in evolution and had no interest whatsoever in the "God" question. He states: "I was very happy with the idea that God didn't exist and had no interest in me."
He began rethinking that position when, as a young doctor, he saw the strength that faith gave to some of his most critical patients.
"They had terrible diseases from which they were probably not going to escape," he recounts, "and yet instead of railing at God they seemed to lean on their faith as a source of great comfort and reassurance. That was interesting, puzzling and unsettling."
This kind of faith is only possible when someone has a biblical worldview ? an understanding that none of the evil and suffering in this world is God's doing but is due entirely to sin (our own sins or the sins of others) along with the knowledge that God will eradicate sin forevermore at some point in the future, at which time He will restore this world to its original state of perfection.
When a minister gave Collins a copy of the C.S. Lewis classic "Mere Christianity," the book changed his life. He says: "It was an argument I was not prepared to hear ... yet at the same time, I could not turn away."
Some time after that, he was hiking through the Cascade Mountains in Washington state when he was overwhelmed by the majesty of God's creation.
He said to himself, "I cannot resist this another moment," and so he didn't.
But by surrendering to God, was he abandoning science?
Not at all, as even an article about him in the Sunday Times in Britain acknowledged. The Times pointed out: "Collins joins a line of scientists whose research deepened their belief in God. Isaac Newton, whose discovery of the laws of gravity reshaped our understanding of the universe, said: 'This most beautiful system could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.' 
Although Einstein revolutionized our thinking about time, gravity and the conversion of matter to energy, he believed the universe had a creator."


xianmacro1
Where are you being led?

We must remember, after all, that the scientific method itself was developed in a distinctly Christian culture (Europe at the end of the Middle Ages) and was advanced for two primary Christian purposes ? for the glory of God and the benefit of mankind. These early scientists believed that because God was rational and orderly, and a Lawgiver to boot, the universe had to be rationally arranged in an orderly manner with fixed laws, which in turn meant it could be both studied and understood by His created beings. And that's precisely what they found ? rather than the chaotic world that would exist if evolution were true.
Furthermore, many of the greatest pioneers of science? including the founders of whole branches of science (Newton, Pascal, Boyle, Faraday, Pasteur, etc.) ? were Bible-believing Christians. Newton wrote far more on theology than he ever did on science, and observed that the sun was at the proper distance from Earth to give us the right amounts of heat and light.
"This did not happen by chance," he declared.
Scientists have since discovered dozens of such equations throughout the universe that, if any one of them were off by the smallest of fractions, life on our planet would be unsustainable. So it turns out the heavens really do declare the glory of God, as the Bible said all along. It's no wonder Kepler defined science as "thinking God's thoughts after Him."
In the case of Collins, though, he has not relinquished his belief in evolution. Instead, he has embraced theistic evolution, the theory that God used evolutionary processes to create mankind.
He speculates: "If God chose to create human beings in His image and decided the mechanism of evolution was an elegant way to accomplish that goal, who are we to say that is not the way?"
Actually, God said it wasn't the way in His Word, not us.
Romans 1:23, which sounds as if it is written specifically about evolutionists, declares: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man ? and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."
Still, even for those of us who hold to the Genesis account of creation, Collins has done a great service with "The Language of God." The importance of this book, above all else, is that it once again demonstrates the absurdity of the position held by the vast majority of evolutionists ? that random, unguided, godless evolution is the only viable explanation for the existence of life and therefore the only theory that should be taught in schools.
As devout naturalists, they are certainly entitled to reject God in their own lives and personal belief systems (and evolution is a belief system), but we're coming ever closer to the day when they will no longer be able to pass those views off as some sort of absolute scientific standard, as they've succeeded in doing for decades now. The increasing number of scientists turning to faith-based, intelligent-design theories predicated upon the observed data will ensure that.
Collins' book brings us another big step closer to that day.

Links to free videos online! About Creation!

bizarro-creationism

Debunking Evolution:
problems, errors, and lies exposed,
in plain language for non-scientists

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool for finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species.

But what evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed. They want you to think that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Do these big changes really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in a matter of hours.

There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: heat, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones1).

But they never turn into anything else. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition.

There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything else. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is false and is not happening today.

This is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection).

That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part.

But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence.

Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance.

That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how impossible it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.).

We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.

Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on. Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter. Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants. All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. But evolutionists are eternally optimistic. They believe that many beneficial mutations were passed on to every species that ever existed, since that is the only way evolutionists think different species are made.

There are two versions of evolution. The first (neo-Darwinism) proposed that many tiny changes made new creatures. They could not find these tiny changes between one type of creature and another in the fossil record, so a few evolutionists proposed instead that change occurred by occasional leaps (punctuated equilibrium).

Each hypothetical beneficial mutation could only make a slight change. Any more than that would be so disruptive as to cause death. So punctuated equilibrium is not really one leap at a time.

It envisions a lot of slight changes over thousands of years, then nothing happens for millions of years. Evolutionists say with a straight face that no fossils have been found from a leap because thousands of years is too fast in the billions of years of "geologic time" to leave any.

On the other hand, without fossils there is no evidence that any leaps ever happened, and of course there is no evidence that leaps or gradual changes are happening today in any of the millions of species that still exist.

whale 

Evolution is all about constant change, whether gradual or in leaps. Consider a cloud in the sky: it is constantly changing shape due to natural forces.

It might look like, say, a rabbit now, and a few minutes later appear to be, say, a horse. In between, the whole mass is shifting about. In a few more minutes it may look like a bird.

The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction". That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name.

If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing. The whole process is random trial and error, without direction.

So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction. It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts.

Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day. He wrote in his book The Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past. Since Darwin's day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture.

The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found. There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true.

In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish. In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish. That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that evolution is wrong and never happened.

The platypus has a duck-like bill, swims with webbed feet, and lays eggs. Yet nobody calls it a transitional creature between mammals and ducks.

Archaeopteryx has long been held up as the great example of a transitional creature, appearing to be part dinosaur and part bird. However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths. That is also the case for the other birds in the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists just placed some of the many living and extinct species next to each other to make the bird series.

The same is true for the famous horse series. Fossils of each type of supposed ancestor are of complete animals. They are not full of failed growths and there are no parts under construction. 

There are many more differences between each type of animal than their size and the number of toes. Every change in structure, function, and process, between Hyracotherium (formerly Eohippus) and the horse would have had to have developed through random trial-and-error if evolution were true.

The fossils have not caught any of these changes in the midst of being created, even though they should have occurred over long periods of time. Evolutionists just placed living and extinct species next to each other to make the horse series.

When researchers began "reading" the amino acids in proteins in the 1960's, evolutionists expected that proteins such as hemoglobin or cytochrome C, common to many types of creatures, would be more alike for creatures close to each other on the evolutionist's "tree of life", and more unlike for creatures farther apart on the "tree of life".

Instead, this comparative biochemistry found that the protein sequences were just as different between creatures near on the tree as between those far apart, using percent of sequence differences. There is lots of variation in these proteins, but no evolutionary progression.

f_chimpsaysnom_3b93fcd 

Another old evolution myth still popular is the notion that things that look like gill slits, tails, etc. in developing human embryos show the embryo repeating all the stages of human evolution.

In 1866, Ernst Haeckel proposed his "biogenitic law" (not to be confused with the law of biogenesis that says life only comes from life). His idea was that growing vertebrate embryos went through all the forms of their supposed evolutionary ancestors ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"). He published drawings comparing growing embryos of a number of animals such as the pig, cat, salamander, etc.to growing human embryos.

The similarities that he said he found helped persuade people to believe the theory of evolution. Scientists eventually discovered enough about embryology to quietly discard the "biogenetic law", but it was not until a careful photographic study of growing vertebrate embryos was conducted in 1997 that Haeckel's deceit was fully revealed.

They found that his drawings were so far from reality that they could not have been done from the actual embryos.4 He must have faked them.

2247994183_7fe19d9a4a 

Evolution violates two laws of science. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized, unless there is already a mechanism in place to build things up.

But this very same Law prevents such a mechanism from assembling by itself. The Law of Biogenesis was established by Louis Pasteur three years after Darwin's book was published, and simply says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but raw chemicals never fall together and life appears.

Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the false impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that, including the famous 1953 Miller/Urey experiment where all they got were clumps of amino acids.

Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter. For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory that violates two laws of science is in big trouble.

When confronted with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, evolutionists usually use two tricks to try to escape. The first is to state that "it only applies to closed systems, and biological creatures are open systems, so it doesn't affect evolution." Since most people know nothing about open or closed systems, the trick works. The fact is that the Second Law applies to all systems, open or closed, and to all actions and chemical reactions, from molecules to galaxies. The words "except for..." are not in this universal law. "Open system" means energy is free to flow through from the outside.

For example, you eat food (which comes from outside yourself) and your body survives. Evolutionists believe that all you need is an open system with sufficient energy flowing into it for evolution to succeed. If that were so, you could just stand right behind a jet engine as the aircraft prepares for takeoff, absorb that blast of energy, and evolve to a higher life form. In reality, of course, you would be incinerated because absorbing energy without a mechanism to convert it to a useful form is destructive or useless.

The mechanism must be very specific. Sticking food in your ear will not work; it must go into your mouth and through the digestive system. And the mechanism must be in place and functioning first, before energy is added or the energy is wasted.

The "open system" ploy is just an attempt to avoid dealing with the Second Law because the Law prohibits any biological mechanism from falling together by pure chance, without assistance or plan, using only the properties of matter.

aminal_mutant_justelite01 

The second trick is to say that "when you freeze water, the disordered molecules become beautifully ordered ice crystals or snowflakes. If water can bypass the Second Law and organize its molecules by a natural process, why not the chemicals of life?" At room temperature, water molecules are bouncing off each other and you have water.

When you take away heat and they freeze, water molecules stick to each other with weak molecular bonds, forming ice crystals and snowflakes because of the shape of the H2O molecule. The same thing happens if you put a bunch of weak magnets in a jar and shake it. The magnets bounce around. When you stop, the magnets stick together. They are at a lower energy level.

There is order, yet no complexity - just a simple repetitive structure that does not do anything. The Second Law is not bypassed or violated. But guess what. Amino acid molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resist combining at any temperature.

To combine, they need the help of mechanisms in a living cell or a biochemist in an organic chemistry laboratory. It means that nothing happens in the primeval soup, the pond of chemicals where evolutionists believe life began. DNA and RNA dissolve in water5, so there could not even be water in the primeval soup. DNA is made of only right-handed versions of nucleotides, while proteins are made of only left-handed versions of amino acids.

Yet any random chemical reaction that produced nucleotides or amino acids would make an equal mix of left and right-handed versions of each. Even if the thousands of nucleotides or amino acids needed to form individual DNA or protein molecules were able to combine from this mix, they would be a jumble of left and right-handed versions that could not function at all.

Ilya Prigogene coauthored a paper in 1972 that says in an open "system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures.

This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals... Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures."3 Prigogene won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977 for research in dissipative structures, such as tornados, for contributions to nonequilibrium thermodynamics, and for bridging the gap between biology and other sciences. 

Evolutionists wrongly claim he won for showing how thermodynamics could explain the formation of organized systems, from fluctuations in chaos, that lead to the origin of life. They thought he was their hero. Thirty years later, nothing has come of it.

There is no escape from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It prohibits the spontaneous origin of life and the progression from microbes to man.

duh-duh 

Even a single cell is not simple. In Darwin's day researchers looked at cells under the microscope and saw little balloons filled with goo they called protoplasm, so they thought cells were simple forms of life. Almost 150 years later we know that there are many types of cells, and each cell is a little city at work.

The smallest known genome (Mycoplasma genitalium) has 482 genes.2 The minimum possible for an organism to survive is probably 200 to 300 genes. Most bacteria have 1000 to 4000 genes. A popular textbook on the cell (Molecular Biology of THE CELL, 4th edition, 2002, Alberts, Johnson, Lewis, Raff, Roberts, Walter; Garland Science, NY, NY) is almost 1500 pages long and weighs 7 pounds. Everything about the cell is stunningly complex. Plants and animals are made of many millions of cells.

There are only two possibilities. Either every part of every living thing arose by random chance, or an intelligence designed them. In spite of the overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution is dead wrong, many are not ready to throw in the towel. They desperately hope that some natural process will be found that causes things to fall together into organized complexity.

These are people of great faith. And they are so afraid of connecting God with science that, like the Japanese Army of World War II, they would rather die than surrender. 

Unfortunately, the staunchest defenders sit in places of esteem and authority as professors, scientists, and editors, and have the full faith of the news media. The public is naturally in awe of their prestige. 

But once the facts are spelled out it becomes obvious that the theory of evolution is long overdue for the trash can, and to perpetuate it is a fraud. Perhaps it made sense for what was known when The Origin of Species was published in 1859, but not today.

Darwin is liked by evolutionists because he liberated science from the straitjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job security so they can wander through biology labs as if they belong there.

From David Coppedge
Speaking of Science, Creation Matters, May/June 2003

COME ON SKEPTICS..BRING IT ON!

pic_11978561645532 

What about Fossils and Natural Selection

The fossil record does not support the case for natural selection. One excellent summary (Gliedman, 1982, p. 90-91) reflects the current opinion well:

No fossil or other physical evidence directly connects, man to ape.... The problem for gradualism [those who support gradual evolution or orthodox Darwinian evolution] is that . . . these ancestral species remain essentially unchanged throughout their million-year life spans, yet each of them differs substantially from its immediate predecessor. . . . Sudden-change theorists find plenty of support for their point of view in the glaring list of critical evolutionary events that no gradualism, including Darwin's, has ever explained satisfactorily.

In addition to the lack of a missing link to explain the relatively sudden appearance of modern man, gradualism cannot easily explain the mysterious 'Cambrian explosion' 600 million years ago.

This was an evolutionary leap that transformed the earth . . . from a mess of simple microscopic bacteria and blue-green algae to a planet bursting at the seams with primitive representatives of every type of multicellular plant and invertebrate animal-from the lowly protozoans to such complex creatures as the trilobites, ... the best that gradualism can do is point to the ground beneath their feet; the fossils buried in the earth somewhere, they say, and may someday be discovered.

pic_11975945282199 

The lack of transitional forms is a serious problem that can no longer be attributed to hypothesized undiscovered fossils (Johnson, 1990; Gould, 1989). All of the multi-millions of fossils so far discovered fit quite well into existing groups and rarely is it even argued that a fossil type fits between two orders or even families.

Animals have come and gone, but very few of them meet even the minimal requirements necessary to claim that their fossil type is one of the many billions of different transitional forms that must have existed if the gradualism view is correct.

To explain this difficulty, believers in the punctuated equilibrist's view of Gould postulate that relatively few links exist, and very few fossils can be found because the rate of evolution during the gaps was geologically rapid. 

The theory also argues that the transitional forms were highly unstable, thus rapidly died off, leaving behind very few fossils. But once an animal was in a stable slot in the environment, though, it existed for long periods of time consequently leaving behind many more fossils during this stage.

The major problems with the punctuated equilibrium view is that it is based on almost a total lack of transitional forms; consequently one might ask, "How do we know that these creatures existed and were unstable if we have no evidence of them?" 

The reason that this is concluded is if they were stable and survived for long periods of time, we would have abundant evidence of them. Since we do not have this evidence, given evolution is true, they must have existed, but only for a short while and this is why no evidence of them now exists.

This argument from lack of evidence is, at best, misleading and, at worst, involves the circular reasoning fallacy. In the punctuated equilibrium view, multi-millions or more transitional forms must also exist, just fewer than in the old view. Arguing primarily from lack of evidence is also true of the gradualism model: none of these links have been discovered for certain. Hitching (1982, p. 40) concludes that:

Today most museums and textbooks accept gradualism as readily as they accept natural selection. Logically, then, the fossil record ought to show this stately progression. If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity.

The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"

Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals. Size and shape may have varied, such as the woolly mammoth compared to elephants today, but the variations were small.

Fossil intermediates are consistently missing in virtually all of the, most important places, and some paleontologists argue that no true, major transitional forms have been shown to exist, and that all claimed transitional forms are, at best debatable. Macro-evolutionists generally concede that, although the evidence for intermediates is at present limited, they have faith that they will be found in the future if we just keep digging.

The limited evidence, such as the few hypothesized transitional form claims as Archaeopteryx, often do not stand under examination. Archaeopteryx is probably the best-known and oldest example of a supposed intermediate, and the creature's traits, as well as where it fits in the fossil record, are still being hotly debated.

Benton (1983, p. 99) concluded that "no consensus on Archaeopteryx" exists, and that scientists are still debating even such basic questions as, "can the bird fly, is it ancestral to birds, did it originate from dinosaurs or from some earlier stock and, indeed, is it even a bird?"

He (1983, p. 99) quotes a detailed study on the brain case of Archaeopteryx that concludes that the "details of the brain case and associated bones at the back of the skull seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestral bird, but an offshoot from the early avian stem."

The relationship of Archaeopteryx in the origins of bird controversy is so controversial that Thulborn and Hamley in an extensive review identified seven hypotheses concerning the affinities of Archaeopteryx (Benton, 1983, p. 100).

This notorious lack of transitional forms is not due to any shortage of fossils. Billions have now been unearthed, so many that quality specimens are often sold to collectors for as little as a quarter. 

Petroleum, oil, natural gas, chalk, cement and many other petrochemicals and minerals are claimed to be products of fossils, thus are called fossil fuels or minerals.

Over 250,000 different species of fossil plants and animals are known to exist, and almost all of them are extremely similar to the 1.5 million species now known to be living on earth (and about one million of these are insects) while the rest fit into known extinct types (Day, 1989).

When a fossil is unearthed, it most always is known type. Discovery of a new species, whether extant or extinct, is a once in a lifetime event for many zoologists that is often rewarded by naming the species after the discoverer.

Rensch (1959) admitted that few, if any, examples of micro changes (which he calls transpacific evolution) exist in the fossil record. He added hopefully that finding intermediates in the future should not yet be regarded as impossible. Most research areas along this line have turned out to be dead-end roads which have diverted biologists from other far more promising areas of research.

Darwin's explanation for the lack of transitional forms, the alleged extreme imperfection of the geological record due to our poor search efforts, can no longer be used to explain away the evidence. We now have enough fossils to be assured that we have a fairly good idea of the variety of past animal life, especially those types with hard parts.

We can even make some reasonable conclusions about the extinct forms and variety of animals, such as jelly fish and bacteria, which are not preserved either as well or as often as animals with hard parts. Our good knowledge of many ancient insects is partly due to the many types that are preserved in amber or other substances which prevent the decay of the soft, fragile parts (Reid, 1985). These were described eloquently by Zahl (1978, p. 237):

3a21 

Recently, in a laboratory at Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology, I focused a magnifying glass on a clear marble-sized sphere in which a tiny fossil fly hung suspended.... This elegant piece of tea-hued amber, along with its elfin inclusion, was only one of several thousand stored in drawers stacked from floor to ceiling in the Museum's Department of Fossil Insects. . . . In each was a fly, ant, grasshopper, beetle, or spider, all perfectly lifelike as though some magic wand had cast the spell of frozen sleep upon them....embalmed you might say, fifty million years earlier; yet its tenants looked singularly like the fly, ant, grasshopper, beetle, or spider in my own garden. Had evolution overlooked such genera during the intervening fifty thousand millennia?

Trilobites, although long extinct, have been studied extensively and we now know a great deal about the morphology, growth, molting, appendages and internal anatomy of the 60 known species. We even have good insight into how their holochroalic eyes work. Enough is known about the past living world to produce a fairly good picture of it. And, this picture precludes macroevolution.

Natural selection, although it "explains" minute changes, is far less viable in explaining the events called for by the theory of punctuated equilibria. Many of the challenges to Darwinian evolution are specifically challenges to natural selection. And these are such that the theory at the very least requires severe modification (Leigh, 1971). As Hitching (1982)

stated, "Darwin's explanation of evolution is being challenged [today] as never before, not just by creationists, but by his fellow scientists." The fact is that: . . . for all its acceptance as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble."

The reason is because Darwinism or its modem version, neo-Darwinism, ". . . has not, contrary to general belief, and despite very great efforts, been proved." Given the above, why then is natural selection accepted? Macbeth (1971, p. 77) attempts an answer:

[Does] the evidence mean that Darwinism is correct? No. Sir Julian Huxley said, once the hypothesis of special creation is ruled out, adaptation can only be ascribed to natural selection, but this is utterly unjustified. He should say only that Darwinism is better than the other. But when the others are no good, this is faint praise.

Is there any glory in outrunning a cripple in a foot race?

Being best-in-field means nothing if the field is made up of fumblers."

That changes have occurred in nature and in animals, no informed person doubts. Nor does anyone deny that species have arisen and disappeared-the dinosaurs and trilobites are the most prominent of thousands of good examples. Many creatures that once roamed the earth no longer exist today, and some species around today evidently did not exist a long time ago.

The concern is that microevolution is labeled evolution, then based on the evidence for microevolution the claim is made that evolution has occurred. Microevolution has been well documented and creationists have no difficulty with this fact; they stress that we should go only as far as the empirical data carries us (Johnson, 1991).

The fact is, the documented changes are minor and fully explainable by innate,variation laws. Most creatures that are around now are close to identical to their ancestors who lived far back in time-some even from almost the very beginning of the fossil record, such as many types of bacteria, insects, jelly fish, reptiles and fish.

Even Darwin recognized that the natural selection theory had serious problems. For example, Gould (1980, p. 32) noted, "Darwin lived to see his name appropriated for an extreme view that he never held-for Darwinism has often been defined, both in his day and in our own, as the belief that virtually all evolutionary change is the product of natural selection." According to Gould, Darwin openly objected to this "misunderstanding" of his position. In the introduction of the 1872 edition of his Origins of the Species, Darwin stated:

As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection.... in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous at the close of the introduction-the following words: 'I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification.' This has been of no avail. (Quoted in Gould, 1980, p. 32)

A major reason that Darwin took this position, Gould (1980, p. 32) concludes, was because ". . . organisms display an array of features that are not adaptations and do not promote survival directly." Darwin attempted to explain away, or in some way account for these mechanisms, but largely failed and he knew this. In respect to Homo sapiens, Grasse (1977, p. 85-86) pointed out that, although the source of selection, namely mutations, differentiate individuals, yet

... the human species, despite the magnitude of its population and the diversity of its habitats, both of which are conditions favorable for the evolution of the human species, exhibits anatomical and physiological stability. In wealthy western societies natural selection is thwarted by medical care, good hygiene, and abundant food, but it was not always so.

Today in underdeveloped countries, where birth and death rates are equally high (tropical Africa, Amazon, Pakistan, India, Patagonia, some Polynesian islands), natural selection can exert its pressure freely; yet the human type hardly changes. In the population of the Yucatan, which since the Spanish conquest has been subjected to terrible vicissitudes, one can find Mayan men and women who are the exact replicas of their pre-Colombian ancestors from Palanque of Chicken Itza. For several millennia the Chinese have numbered hundreds of millions.

The conditions of their physical and social environment have favored intensive selection. To what result? None. They simply remain Chinese. Within each population, men differ by their genotype, and yet the species Homo sapiens has not modified its plan or structure or functions. To the common base are added a variety of diversifying and personifying ornaments, totally lacking evolutionary value.

Evolutionist's, Atheist's, & Skeptic's explain this..if you can!

THE DNA PROBLEM:HOW DID IT FORM?

The following studies will prove very interesting in the least, and very enlightening at best: our studies will take us on a journey to distant places and times from the PAST!

I WILL USE OTHERS SCIENTIFIC DATA HERE, SO NO "COPY- PASTE" ISSUES ARE ACCEPTED AS EXCUSES NOT TO ANSWER THESE FACTS AS PRESENTED!

"At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt"....... I.L. Cohen, Researcher and Mathematician; Member NY Academy of Sciences; Officer of the Archaeological Inst. of America; "Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities"; New Research Publications, 1984, p. 4 When Darwin began advocating his infant idea that the world could be explained by naturalistic means, the prevailing view of the cell was that it was as simple as a Hostess Ho Ho; chocolate icing on the outside, chocolate cake on the inside and a creamy filling.

It was the kind of thing those predisposed to do so could imagine could arise by accident --either the single cell or the HO HO. Darwin had no clue as to the perfect design and complexity of the "SIMPLE HUMAN CELL", in fact Darwin himself said : "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances---

eyeball_e0 

for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic observation---

could have been formed by natural selection seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Charles Darwin Origin of the Species, Chapter 6

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;

your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place.

When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body.

All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. "..Psalm 139 The truth is { And these are NOT MY FACTS they are your FACTS which make evolution IMPOSSIBLE! }, man with all his science and technological ability has not yet created anything as complex as the single living cell. This ALONE says VOLUMES ABOUT THE ABILITY OF SCIENCE COMPARED TO THE ALMIGHTY GOD OF SCRIPTURE!

"If all the DNA in your body were placed end-to-end, it would stretch from here to the Moon more than 500,000 times! In book form, that information would completely fill the Grand Canyon more than 75 times! Yet,if one set of DNA (one cell's worth) from every person who ever lived were placed in a pile, the final pile would weigh less than an aspirin!.....Center for Scientific Creation

In fact, in the simplest single cell of bacteria, there is as much information as there is in every book in each of three metropolitan libraries combined. DNA, Design and the Origin of LifeCharles B. Thaxton, Ph.D.


This paper was presented as part of the conference, Jesus Christ: God and Man, an international conference in Dallas, Texas, November 13-16, 1986. Dr. Thaxton was then Director of Research, The Julian Center, P.O. Box 400, Julian, CA 92036.

"The classical design argument looked at order in the world and concluded that God must have caused it. Archdeacon William Paley in the nineteenth century refined the argument. He also gave it perhaps its most eloquent and persuasive formulation. Paley looked at the order of human artifacts and compared it to the order in living beings.

If human intelligence was responsible for artifacts, reasoned Paley, then some intelligent power greater than man must have accounted for living beings.

The major problem with this design argument was its claim to reason from order in the world to a supernatural designer. For Paley did not provide any uniform experience of the supernatural, which alone could make good his claim. As valid as this objection was, however, only philosophers seemed concerned about it.

It was an argument by Charles Darwin that raised doubt for most people concerning true design in the world.According to Darwin natural selection produced apparent design which the faithful mistook for true design. So the matter has stood in the scientific community and the world at large for a century.

Scientific discoveries made in this century, however, threaten to change the outlook fundamentally in regards to design. However, few outside the relevant disciplines seem aware of it. I am referring to developments in relativity theory and quantum mechanics, neurophysiology,information theory, and molecular biology, particularly the elucidation of the structure of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). I shall focus my remarks on DNA and its relation to design and the origin of life.

Due to advances in molecular biology, the process of reproduction, or self-replication, has become better understood. At the core of this process is the DNA molecule. Though not itself alive, DNA is usually regarded as the sine qua non of life. DNA is considered the identifying mark of a living system. We judge something as living if it contains DNA.

Molecular biology has shown us how extremely intricate living things are, especially the genetic code and the genetic process. Interestingly enough, the genetic code can be best understood as an analogue to human language. It functions exactly like a code -- indeed, it is a code: it is a molecular communication system within the cell.

A sequence of chemical 'letters' stores and transmits the communication in the cell. Communication is possible whatever symbols used as an alphabet. The 26 letters we use in English, the 32 Cyrillic letters used in the Russian language, or the 4-letter genetic alphabet -- all serve in communication.

In recent years, scientists have applied information theory to biology, and in particular to the genetic code. Information theory is the science of message transmission developed by Claude Shannon and other engineers at Bell Telephone Laboratories in the late 1940s. It provides a mathematical means of measuring information. Information theory applies to any symbol system, regardless of the elements of that system. The so-called Shannon information laws apply equally well to human language, Morse code, and the genetic code.

The conclusion drawn from the application of information theory to biology is there exists a structural identity between the DNA code and a written language. H.P. Yockey notes in the Journal of Theoretical Biology:

It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical.

This development is highly significant for the modern origin of life discussion. Molecular biology has now uncovered an analogy between DNA and written human languages. It is more than an analogy, in fact: in terms of structure, the two are "mathematically identical."

In the case of written messages, we have uniform experience that they have an intelligent cause. What is uniform experience? It simply means that people everywhere observe a certain type of event always in association with a certain type of cause. When we find evidence that a similar event happened in the past, it is reasonable to infer it had a similar cause. As I shall argue, based on uniform experience there is good reason to accept an intelligent cause for the origin of life as well.

Two Kinds of Order

You may recognize this argument for an intelligent cause of life. It is a form of the design argument that has been popular among theists for centuries. The design argument makes use of the same mode of reasoning used in the historical sciences today -- namely, the argument from analogy.

The design argument assumes that the order we see in the world around us bears an analogy to the kind of order exhibited by human artifacts, by tools and machines and works of art. Since the two kinds of order are similar, the cause of one must be similar to the cause of the other. The order in human artifacts is the result of human intelligence. Therefore, the order in the world must be the result of an intelligent being we call the creator.

dna-an 

The argument from molecular biology is a modern restatement of the argument from design, with a few significant refinements. The older design argument went straight from order in the universe to the existence of God. From time immemorial, the beauty of birds and flowers, the cycle of the seasons, the remarkable adaptations in animals, have led people to posit some type of intelligent cause behind it all.

Not just Christians but a wide range of believers in some form of intelligence have buttressed their belief by appealing to the wonderful order and complexity in the world.

During the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century, the argument from order took on even greater force. Scientists studied the intricate structures in nature in a depth and detail unknown in previous ages. Many became more convinced than ever that such order required an intelligent cause. Isaac Newton expressed a common sentiment when he declared, "this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

"The argument from design has always been the argument most widely accepted by scientists. It is the most empirical of the arguments for God, based as it is on observational premises about the kind of order we discover in nature. Ironically, it was also the Scientific Revolution which eventually led many to reject the argument from design. Repeatedly, scientists discovered natural causes for events which until then had been mysterious. If natural causes could explain these things, perhaps they could explain everything else too. Do we really need an intelligent cause to explain the order of the world?

Take, for example, the structure of a snowflake. The intricate beauty of a snowflake has led many a believer to exclaim upon the wisdom of the creator. Yetthe snowflake's structure is nothing mysterious or supernatural. It is explained by the natural laws that govern the crystallization of water as it freezes.

The argument from design claims that the order we see around us cannot have arisen by natural causes. The snowflake seems to refute that claim. It demonstrates that at least some kinds of order can arise by natural causes. And if matter alone can give rise to order in some instances, why not in all others as well? Why do we need to appeal to an intelligent being any more to explain the origin of the world? We need only continue to search for natural causes. Many materialists today use this argument.

What is coming to light through the application of information theory is there are actually two kinds of order. The first kind (the snowflake's) arises from constraints within the material the thing is made of (the water molecules). We cannot infer an intelligent cause from it, except possibly in the remote sense of something behind the natural cause.

The second kind, however, is not a result of anything within matter itself. It is in principle opposed to anything we see forming naturally. This kind of order does provide evidence for an intelligent cause.

The Difference It Makes

Let's explain these two kinds of order in greater detail. As you travel through various parts of the United States, you may come across unusual rock formations. If you consult a tourists' guide, you will learn that such shapes result when more than one type of rock make up the formation.

Because their mineral composition varies, some rocks are softer than others. Rain and wind erode the soft parts of the formation faster than the hard parts, leaving the harder sections protruding. In this way, the formation may take on an unlikely shape. It may even come to resemble a familiar object like a face.

In other words, the formation may look as though it was deliberately carved. However, on closer inspection, say from a different angle, you notice the resemblance is only superficial. The shape invariably accords with what erosion can do, acting on the natural qualities of the rock (soft parts worn away, hard parts protruding). You therefore conclude the rock formed naturally. Natural forces suffice to account for the shape you see.

Now let's illustrate a different kind of order. Say in your travels you visit Mount Rushmore. Here you find four faces on a granite cliff. These faces do not follow the natural composition of the rock: the chip marks cut across both hard and soft sections. These shapes do not resemble anything you have seen resulting from erosion. In this case the shape of the rock is not the result of natural processes. Rather, you infer from uniform experience that an artisan has been at work. The four faces were intelligently imposed onto the material.

None of us finds it difficult to distinguish between these two kinds of order, the one produced naturally and the other by intelligence. To come back to the argument from design, the question is: which kind of order do we find in nature?

If we find only the first kind, then our conclusion will be that natural causes suffice to explain the universe as we see it today. An intelligent cause, if there is one, is merely a distant First Cause. It is a deistic kind of God who created matter with certain tendencies and then stood back to let these work themselves out mechanically.

If, on the other hand, we find any instances of the second kind of order, the kind produced by intelligence, these will be evidence of the activity of an intelligent cause. Science itself would then point beyond the physical world to its origin in an intelligent source.

It is easy enough to find examples of the first kind of order. The snowflake was one. The properties of the atoms that compose a snowflake determine its crystalline structure. Wind and temperature explain cloud shapes. Ripples of sand on a beach result from the impact of wind and waves. The waves of the sea form by wind, gravity, and the fluid properties of water. None of these goes beyond what we expect to result naturally, given the properties of the material itself. The beauty of a sunset may inspire poets, but natural causes suffice to explain it.

The pervasive example of the second kind of order is life itself.

A Code In Miniature

One of the greatest scientific developments of the twentieth century has been the discovery of the DNA code. DNA is the famous molecule of heredity. Each of us begins as a tiny ball about the size of a period at the end of a sentence. All our physical characteristics, i.e., height, hair color, eye color, etc., are 'spelled out' in our DNA. It guides our development into adulthood.

The DNA code is quite simple in its basic structure (although enormously complex in its functioning). By now most people are familiar with the double helix structure of the DNA molecule. It is like a long latter, twisted into a spiral. Sugar and phosphate molecules form the sides of the latter. Four bases make up its 'rungs.' These are adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine. These bases act as the 'letters' of a genetic alphabet. They combine in various sequences to form words, sentences, and paragraphs. These base sequences are all the instructions needed to guide the functioning of the cell.

The DNA code is a genetic 'language' that communicates information to the cell. The cell is very complicated, using many DNA instructions to control its every function. The amount of information in the DNA of even the single-celled bacterium, E. coli, is vast indeed. It is greater than the information contained in all the books in any of the world's largest libraries. The DNA molecule is exquisitely complex, and extremely precise: the 'letters' must be in a very exact sequence. If they are out-of-order, it is like a typing error in a message. The instructions that it gives the cell are garbled. This is what a mutation is.

The discovery of the DNA code gives the argument from design a new twist. Since life is at its core a chemical code, the origin of life is the origin of a code. A code is a very special kind of order. It represents "specified complexity. To understand that term, we need to take a brief excursion into information theory as it applies to biology.

Measuring Information

"One if by land, two if by sea." Paul Revere did not know information theory, but he was using its principles correctly. A simple but effective code informed the Patriots of the British route of approach.

dna_e0 

Information theory realizes an important goal of mathematicians, to make information measurable. It finds its place in biology through its ability to measure organization and to express it in numbers. Biology has long recognized the importance of the concept of organization. However, little practical was possible until there was a way to measure it. Organization stated in terms of information does this. "Roughly speaking," says Leslie Orgel, "the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure."The more complex a structure is, the more instructions needed to specify it.

Random structures require very few instructions at all. If you want to write out a series of nonsense letters, for example, here is all you do. The only instructions necessary are "write a letter between A and Z," followed by "now do it again," ad infinitum.

A highly ordered structure likewise requires few instructions if its order is the result of a constantly repeating structure. A whole book filled only with the sentence "I love you" repeated over and over is a highly ordered series of letters. A few instructions specify which letters to choose and in what sequence. These instructions followed by "now do it again" as many times as necessary completes the book. By contrast with either random or ordered structures, complex structures require many instructions. If we wanted a computer to write out a poem, for example, we would have to specify each letter. That is, the poem has a high information content.

Specifying a Sequence

Information in this context means the precise determination, or specification, of a sequence of letters. We said above that a code represents "specified complexity." We are now able to understand what "specified" means. A thing is more highly specified the fewer choices there are about fulfilling each instruction. In a random situation, options are unlimited and each option is equally probable. In generating a list of random letters, for instance, there are no constraints on the choice of letters at each step. The letters are unspecified.

An ordered structure, on the other hand, like our book of "I love you's," is highly specified. Each letter is specified. Nonetheless, it has a low information content, as noted before, because the instructions needed to specify it are few. Ordered structures and random structures are similar in that both have a low information content. However, they differ in that ordered structures are highly specified.

A complex structure like a poem is likewise highly specified. It differs from an ordered structure, however, in that it is not only highly specified, but also has a high information content. Writing a poem requires new instructions to specify each letter.

To sum up, information theory has given us tools to distinguish between the two kinds of order we spoke about at the beginning. Lack of order -- randomness -- is neither specified nor high in information.

The first kind of order is the kind found in a snowflake. Using the terms of information theory, a snowflake is specified but has a low information content. Its order arises from a single structure repeated over and over. It is like the book filled with "I love you." The second kind of order, the kind found in the faces on Mount Rushmore, is both specified and high in information.

Life Is Information

Molecules characterized by specified complexity make up living things. These molecules are, most notably, DNA and protein. By contrast, nonliving things fall into one of two categories. They are either unspecified and random (like lumps of granite and mixtures of random nucleotides), or they are specified but simple (like snowflakes and crystals). A crystal fails to qualify as living because it lacks complexity. A chain of random nucleotides fails to qualify because it lacks specificity. No nonliving things (except DNA and protein in living things, human artifacts and written language) have specified complexity.

For a long time biologists overlooked the distinction between two kinds of order (simple, periodic order versus specified complexity). Only recently have they appreciated that the distinguishing feature of living systems is not order but specified complexity. The sequence of nucleotides in DNA, or of amino acids in a protein, is not a repetitive order like a crystal. Instead it is like the letters in a written message. A message is not composed of a sequence of letters repeated over and over. It is not, in other words, the first kind of order.

Indeed, the letters that make up a message are in a sense random. There is nothing inherent in the letters "g-i-f-t" that tells us the word means "present." In fact, in German the same sequence of letters means "poison." In French the series is meaningless. If you came across a series of letters written in the Greek alphabet and didn't know Greek, you wouldn't be able to read it. Nor would you be able to tell if the letters formed Greek words or were just groupings of random letters. There is no detectable difference.

What distinguishes a language is that certain random groupings of letters have come to symbolize meanings according to a given symbol convention. Nothing distinguishes the sequence a-n-d from n-a-d or n-d-a for a person who doesn't know any English. Within the English language, however, the sequence a-n-d is very specific, and carries a particular meaning.

There is no detectable difference between the sequence of nucleotides in E. coli DNA and a random sequence of nucleotides. Yet within the E. coli cells, the sequence of "letters" of its DNA is very specific. Only that particular sequence is capable of biological function.

The discovery that life in its essence is information inscribed on DNA has greatly narrowed the question of life's origin. It has become the question of the origin of information. We now know there is no connection at all between the origin of order and the origin of specified complexity.

There is no connection between orderly repeating patterns and the specified complexity in protein and DNA. We cannot draw an analogy, as many do, between the formation of a crystal and the origin of life. We cannot argue that since natural forces can account for the crystal, then they can account for the structure of living things. The order we find in crystals and snowflakes is not analogous to the specified complexity we find in living things.

Are we not back to a more sophisticated form of the argument from design? With the insights from information theory we need no longer argue from order in a general sense. Order with low information content (the first kind) does arise by natural processes. However, there is no convincing experimental evidence that order with high information content (the second kind or specified complexity) can arise by natural processes. Indeed, the only evidence we have in the present is that it takes intelligence to produce the second kind of order.

The Present As the Key to the Past

Scientists can synthesize proteins suitable for life. Research chemists produce things like insulin for medical purposes in great quantities. The question is, how do they do it? Certainly not by simulating chance or natural causes. Only by highly constraining the experiment can chemists produce proteins like those found in living things. Placing constraints on the experiment limits the 'choices' at each step of the way. That is, it adds information. If we want to speculate on how the first informational molecules came into being, the most reasonable speculation is there was some form of intelligence around at the time.

The scientists searching for extra-terrestrial intelligence (ETI) would recognize the kind of order inherent in a decodable signal from space as evidence of an intelligent source. These scientists have never seen an extra-terrestrial creature. However, they would recognize the similarity of a message from space to messages generated by human intelligence. In the same way, we note that the structure of protein and of DNA has a high information content.

We recognize its similarity to information (like poems and computer programs) generated by human intelligence. Therefore we may properly infer that the source of information on the molecular level was likewise an intelligent being. Furthermore, we know of no other source of information. Efforts to produce information-bearing molecules by chance or natural forces have failed. We have not seen the creator, nor observed the act of creation. However, we recognize the kind of order that only comes from an intelligent being.

With the new data from molecular biology and information theory, we can now argue for an intelligent cause of the origin of life. It is based on the analogy between the DNA code and a written message. We cannot identify that source any further from the scientific data alone. We cannot supply a name for that intelligent cause.

We cannot be sure from the empirical data on DNA whether the intelligence is within the cosmos but off the earth as asserted by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe. It might be beyond the cosmos as historic theism maintains. All we can say is that, given the structure of a DNA molecule, it is certainly legitimate to conclude that an intelligent agent made it.

Life came from a who rather than a what. We may be able to identify that agent in greater detail by other arguments. We may, for example, gain insight from historical, philosophical, or theological argument, or by considering the relevant lines of evidence from other areas of science. However, from scientific data on DNA alone we can argue only to an intelligent cause.

Let's spell out the steps of the argument more explicitly. Does it in fact satisfy the principle of analogy? Yes, it does. First, we establish that an analogy does exist between the kind of order we see in living things and the kind we see in some other phenomena made by human intelligence.

We have an abundance of examples of specified complexity: books, machines, bridges, works of art, computers. All these are human artifacts. In our experience only human language and human artifacts match the specified complexity exhibited by protein and DNA. Second, we ask what is the source of the order in these modern examples? We know by uniform experience that its source is human intelligence.

The only remaining question is whether it is legitimate to use this reasoning to infer the existence of an intelligent cause before the existence of human beings. I would argue it is. A phenomenon from the past, known by uniform experience to be like that caused only by an intelligent source, is itself evidence that such a source existed. Even the simplest forms of life, with their store of DNA, are characterized by specified complexity. Therefore life itself is prima facie evidence that some form of intelligence was in existence at the time of its origin.

It is true that our actual experiential knowledge of intelligence is limited to carbon-based organisms, particularly human beings. However, scientists already speculate on some other kinds of intelligence, i.e., non-human, when they seriously seek to discover ETI's. Some even argue that intelligence exists in complex non-biological computer circuitry. Scientists today conceive of intelligence freed from biology as we know it. Then why can we not conceive of an intelligent being existing before the appearance of biological life on this planet?

Uniform Experience

In scientific terms, the analogy criterion is the same thing as the principle of uniformity. It is the dictum that our theories of the past must invoke causes similar to those acting in the present. David Hume was getting at the same idea with his phrase, "uniform experience."

As regards the origin of life, our uniform experience is that it takes an intelligent agent to generate information, codes, messages. As a result, it is reasonable to infer there was an intelligent cause of the original DNA code. DNA and written language both exhibit the property of specified complexity. Since we know an intelligent cause produces written language, it is legitimate to posit an intelligent cause as the source of DNA.

We have now defined the DNA code as a message. It is now clear that the claim that DNA arose by material forces is to say that information can arise by material forces. However, the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. The material base could not have anything to do with the message's origin. The message transcends chemistry and physics.

When I say a message is independent of the medium which conveys it, I mean that the materials used to send a message have no affect whatever on the content of the message. The content of "Apples are sweet" does not change when I write it in crayon instead of ink. It is unaffected by a switch to chalk or pencil. I can say the same thing if I use my finger and write it in the sand. I can also use smoke and write it in the sky. I can translate it into the dots and dashes of Morse code. Even people holding up posters at a baseball game can transmit the same information.

The point is, there is no relationship at all between information and the material base used to transmit it. The ink or chalk I use to write "Apples are sweet" does not itself look red, nor taste sweet like an apple. There is nothing in the ink molecules that compels me to write precisely or only that particular sentence. The information transmitted by my writing is not within the ink I use to write it. Instead, an outside source imposes information upon the ink using the elements of a particular linguistic symbol system.

The information within the genetic code is likewise entirely independent of the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule. The information transmitted by the sequence of bases has nothing to do with the bases themselves. There is nothing in the chemicals themselves that originates the communication transmitted to the cell by the DNA molecule.

These rather obvious facts are devastating to any theory that assumes life first arose by natural forces. Such theories dominate the intellectual landscape today. Some theories assume that self-organizing properties within the chemicals themselves created the information in the first DNA molecule. Others assume external self-organizing forces created DNA. Yet this is tantamount to saying the material used to transmit information also produced it. It is as though I were to say it was the chemical properties of the ink itself that caused me to write "Apples are sweet."

We can state our case even more strongly. To accept a material cause for the origin of life actually runs counter to the principle of uniformity. Uniform experience reveals that only an intelligent cause regularly produces specified complexity. To be sure, we may still posit a non-intelligent, material cause as the source of specified complexity, even though we do not regularly observe it.

We may argue that in the rare occurrence, in spite of its trivially small probability, such an event might happen. The problem is, however, that to argue this way is no longer to do science. Regular experience not negligible probabilities and remote possibilities is the basis of science.

Darwin convinced many of the leading intellectuals in his time that design in the world is only apparent, that it is the result of natural causes. Now, however, the situation has taken a dramatic turn, though few have recognized its significance. The elucidation of DNA and unravelling the secrets of the genetic code have opened again the possibility of seeing true design in the universe."

I WOULD PERSONALLY ADD THAT THE FEW WHO DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THIS ARE HARD CORE ATHEISTS WHO "CANNOT SEE TRUTH" BECAUSE IT IS NOT WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THEIR "FACTS ON THEIR TERMS BOX", WHICH IS THEIR WAY OF NOT ADMITTING DEFEAT ON A SCIENCE ISSUE!

Did you know that a recent poll taken among the Monkey community stated that 9 out of 10 simians agreed that Evolution was an insult to their intelligence?

CAN YOU DEFEND THE GENERAL THEORY OF EVOLUTION 

{MACRO NOT MICRO} ?

THE 250,000 DOLLAR CHALLENGE!

Why the Burden of Proof is on the Atheist By: Ralph McInerny
Should one review the considerations and discoveries and breakthroughs that have been taken to render religious belief false, inane or pointless, the list could prove amusing.

Greek atomism, disease and death, heliocentrism, electricity, the new physics or philosophy or psychology, have all been advanced as telling decisively against any belief in God. 

The point on which the refutation or rejection rests, for a moment the latest thing, is all too soon forgotten or refuted. Shouldn't this tell against atheism?

Of course skeptics seldom think of themselves as part of a tradition. They take no more responsibility for the follies of earlier versions of themselves than they do for the claims of theists. 

The skeptic is always at Square One, arguing ab ovo, willing to be himself alone against the world, and even when he wheels in the views of others for support we sense that he feels no need for company in order to hold what he does, or to deny what he does.

Believers have recently gotten a little weary of being assigned research projects or intellectual tasks by the skeptic and have devised a number of versions of the tu quoque to stop the demands. No one is more adroit at this than my colleague Alvin Plantinga and I shall not attempt to steal his fire. (The phrase has nice theistic overtones but perhaps assigns Al a place more exalted than he himself would claim.)

I simply refer to the structure of God and Other Minds. This book argues that it is no less reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the existence of other minds. But critics of theism cannot get along without belief in other minds, therefore they have no consistent way of objecting to theism.

In other words, So's your old man.

A later version of this is to counter the claim, one, that there are certain basic propositions which do not include 'God exists' and, two, that other such propositions as 'God exists' must be justified by grounding them in basic beliefs. The theist can accept this model of justification and blandly add that 'God exists' is one of his basic propositions. Why not?

This should not be understood in a private or subjective sense. When Job says that he knows that his redeemer liveth, he is not simply reporting on his psyche; he doesn't mean that he knows that he knows something or other, it doesn't matter what. It is the object proposition and the truth it contains he is asserting. Does the believer who says 'God exists' is basic for him want simply to report on his idiosyncratic convictions?

If he does, he may be saying only that he has as much right to take 'God exists' as basic as his critic does to take sense data or truths about the world as basic. Perhaps that is all Plantinga wishes to do. The upshot is then to claim that the believer and his critic are in the same boat.

They agree on some formal account-that there are basic propositions and propositions derivative from them-but there is no way to adjudicate claims as to what propositions, materialiter loquendo, can function as basic. The skeptic is simply wrong if he thinks some version of empiricism is beyond dispute or, worse, that it is part of the formal theory.

My own first question envisages a meatier interpretation than that. I am asking whether the skeptic is justified in calling into question the truth of 'God exists.' Why not put the burden on him?

Why not insist that he is attempting to convict of irrationality generations of human beings, rational animals like himself, whole cultures for whom belief in the divine and worship are part of what it is to be a human being?

Were all those millions, that silent majority, wrong? Surely to think something against the grain of the whole tradition of human experience is not to be done lightly. It is, need one say it, presumptuous to pit against that past one's own version of the modern mind.

This suggests that the present generation is in agreement on things incompatible with belief in God. Or that all informed people now alive, etc. etc. Meaning, I suppose, that all present day skeptics are skeptics.

Is there thus a prima facie argument against atheism drawn from tradition, the common consent of mankind both in the past and in the present time? I think so. There is a way in which it is natural for human beings to believe in God.

I think of St. Thomas who on several occasions observed that a person need only look around at the world and gain the idea of God. The order and arrangement and law like character of natural events impose the idea. Indeed, so easily does the idea come that it seems almost innate.

This may be taken both as a factual historical remark as well as a theoretical claim. Thus it has been in the experience of the race. The difficulty with this all but universal acceptance of the divine lies in the identification of God. That is, trees and wind, sun and the world itself have been identified with God, nor has it been necessary to choose among these possibilities. This diversity does not tell against the naturalness of the recognition.

Let me cite a parallel in St. Thomas in order that it may be clear what he is and what he is not saying here. Thomas, as you know, agrees with Aristotle that there is an ultimate end of whatever we do, that any human action of any human agent aims at the supreme good or ultimate end which is happiness. The familiar objection to this is that humans have very different aims when they act and that any given human appears to have a plurality of aims not easily reducible to the kind of unity Thomas's view suggests. Since Thomas was not the village idiot, we may presume that he is aware of the diversity mentioned and that he does not think it tells against his doctrine of ultimate end. How not?

He distinguishes in any action the ratio boni, the note of goodness, the formality under which we do any action, on the one hand, and, on the other, the particular deed done in which we take that formality to be realized. What the dizzying variety of deeds done have in common is the reason we do any of them, our aim, and that is that they are good for us to do, meaning, to do such-and-such is perfective of the kind of agent I am.

A vast variety of types and tokens of act fill that bill. Some do not. Just as I may, misled by a miracle diet plan, think ground glass is good for me, so I may think theft is a kind of action perfective of the kind of agent I am. To want to be healthy, the presumed goal of dieting, with being wealthy and wise following hard upon, of course, is an unquestionable good for man; physical well-being is a constituent of any adequate account of a fulfilled human life. The problem lies with the ground glass.

No need to go on about this here. What I wish to recall is the way in which Thomas holds that human agents always act under the same formality-aiming at what is perfective of them-and that this in no way precludes legitimate and illegitimate diversity in action.

In similar fashion, the idea of the divine, the concept of a god, is what is shared; the identification of this or that or the other thing as God does not destroy the common assumption. Men disagree about who and even what God is. Another way Thomas makes this point is by saying that 'God' is a common noun, not a proper name.

Consider Thomas's remark about Anselm's proof. Someone might not agree that 'God' means that than which nothing greater can be conceived. What does Thomas think is the common formality of the term 'God.' The etymology of the Greek term suggests to him: one who sees, with the connotation, I think, of one to whom we are responsible, one on whom we depend for being or well-being, one to thank, petition, worship, placate.

Thomas's reference to Anselm is in a discussion in which he argues that 'God exists' is not a self-evident truth. At first blush, this seems incompatible with his other view that knowledge of God is natural, easily had, widely shared, kind of unavoidable. There is no incompatibility because the latter claim, that knowledge of God is natural, means that men easily make the requisite inference as, e.g., from the order in the world.

Does not the burden of proof then fall on the shoulders of the skeptic? Yes. And the skeptic is the first to admit this-or at least to exemplify it. I would hazard the view that more attention is paid to theism, religious belief, the existence of God, as a problem to be dealt with, as something that is an intellectual task, by the skeptic than by the believer. I have met many more militant skeptics than I have believers who look as if they were going to toss and turn all night unless they developed an airtight proof for the existence of God.

The Thomist distinguishes rigorously between theism and Christianity in terms of the distinction between praeambula fidei and mysteria fidei. The preambles of faith are truths about God which happen to have been revealed but which had been discovered, independently of revelation, by the pagan philosophers. Theism, call it natural theology, establishes truths about God on the basis of other truths which are accessible in principle to any human being. Mysteries of faith, on the contrary, are truths about God which cannot be established as such by grounding them in or deriving them from what anyone knows.

This distinction would seem to imply that even if the best conceivable results were obtained on the level of theism, this would do nothing to establish the truth of the mysteries of faith, precisely those truths which are the heart and soul of Christianity, viz. that Jesus is both human and divine, that there is a Trinity of persons in the one divine nature, that we are called to an eternity of blissful union with God, etc.

The distinction between nature and grace, between the natural use of human reason and reasoning which is aided by grace and revelation, makes it clear that while Thomas holds that theism is natural and relatively easily attained, he does not regard this as making the further step into Christian belief as a continuation of the same sort of thinking.

It is, of course, within the ambiance of his own religious faith that Thomas makes such distinctions, just as it is in reflecting on revealed truths and on what philosophers have accomplished that he distinguishes the preambles from the mysteries.

Given the distinction, there would be no way in the world that the believer can respond to the non believer's demand that he show that the central truths of Christianity are true. Current day skeptics doubtless think that theism is in every bit as much trouble as Christian mysteries and thus that the distinction does not make much difference.

Indeed, the skeptic might well say to me that my suggestion that the burden of disproof is on him in the case of theism should lead me to the same claim with respect to Christian mysteries. That is, he might say, an awful lot of people over the last two thousand years and an awful lot of people today are Christians. Do I accordingly think that it is natural to be a Christian and that until proven otherwise Christianity ought to be accepted as true?

Of course the parallel does not hold. It is the Christian who makes the distinction. St. Paul says that the misbehaving Romans are inexcusable because they can come to knowledge of the invisible things of God from what God has made. Just as men have a law written in their hearts which is not identical with the law of the Gospel. It is the Christian who insists that it is only thanks to the grace of Christ that he has accepted the word of God.

It might seem that the believer would have no particular interest in theism. From the point of view of the fullness of revelation the truths about God men could learn on their own are few in number and relatively exiguous. There are several reasons why someone like Thomas Aquinas exhibits such an interest, but let me stress only one here, the one which enables him to formulate an argument for the reasonableness of belief.

The truths of faith, the mysteries, are truths about God whose truth cannot be established by natural reason. (Nor can their falsity.) Does this mean that Thomas is a fideist if by fideist we mean one who holds that nothing we know counts either for or against Christianity? No, because Thomas has devised proofs on behalf of the claim that it is reasonable to accept as true propositions whose truths we cannot now comprehend. And one of those arguments makes use of the preambles of faith.

It is not that preambles of faith provide premises from which mysteries of faith could be concluded to be true. That would of course erase the difference between preambles and mysteries. The argument is rather this. If some of the truths about himself that God has revealed can be known to be true (the preambles), it is reasonable to hold that all the rest (the mysteries) are true. It is that argument, and its far reaching implications, that explains the historic interest of Christian believers in theism and natural theology. If theism is accepted by the non-believer, he has one less obstacle to accepting the grace of faith.

The believer believes on the basis of Romans 1:19, and the Roman Catholic on the basis of Vatican I, that men can come to knowledge of God by natural reason. The believer does not need such proofs. He does not fret when relevant objections are brought against his own efforts to formulate one. He will return to the task, not to shore up his own faith and certainly not in search of something that will argue another irresistibly into the faith. There is only one way to come to believe.

This is why, in discussions with skeptics, the believer confines himself to philosophical theism. His aim is not to triumph, to crush, to embarrass, even simply to succeed, since success in natural theology has such an oblique relation to what is truly important, that all men recognize and accept the pearl of great price. If there is something that makes the believer toss and turn it is the thought that he might become an impediment to another's acceptance of the gift of faith. From the Web-site "ORIGINS" AT http://www.origins.org

Let me add here that I personally DO NOT NEED ANY PROOF OUTSIDE OF THE LIFE-CHANGING WORK THAT GOD HAS DONE INSIDE ME, BUT I SEE THAT THOSE WHO HAVE NOT COME TO THE FAITH, DO NEED OUTSIDE EVIDENCES TO BRING THEIR MINDS TO A PLACE WHERE THEY CAN ACCEPT BY FAITH WHAT THAT EVIDENCE LEADS TO!

For all the BIG TALK of people outside the Faith, all they want is HARD CORE, SOLID EVIDENCE SO THEY MAY TAKE THAT FIRST STEP! Chemist and five time Nobel nominee, Henry "Fritz" Schaefer of the University of Georgia, commented on the need to encourage debate on Darwin's theory of evolution.

"Some defenders of Darwinism," says Schaefer, "embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances." Schaefer was on the roster of signers of the statement, termed "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism."Which included 99 other Scientists.

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." HERE IS A GREAT CHANCE FOR ANY SKEPTIC TO EARN A COOL 250,000 DOLLARS, HOW? PROVE EVOLUTION TO THIS VERY SMART MAN! Well what are you waiting for?

Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer

Author: Dr. Kent Hovind

Formerly $10,000 offered since 1990

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.

Observed phenomena:

Most thinking people will agree that..

A highly ordered universe exists.

At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.

Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.

Known options:

Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being..

The universe was created by God.

The universe always existed.

The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.

Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena.

Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.

Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)

Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).

Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.

Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).

People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense.

It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.

How to collect the $250,000:

Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable.

Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.

If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:

The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).

No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.

No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.

Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.

My suggestion:

Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.

*NOTE:

When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.

Planets and stars formed from space dust.

Matter created life by itself.

Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.

Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

Answers to Commonly Asked Questions about the $250,000 Offer

Students in tax-supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact. We are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word "evolution" as used in science textbooks.

Cosmic evolution the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.

Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.

Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.

macroevolution Origin of major kinds.

Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer’s expense.

Even a quick review of a typical public school textbook will show that students are being deceived into thinking all six types of evolution above have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution. The first five are smuggled in when no one is watching.

This deception is a classic case of bait and switch. One definition of evolution (such as "descent with modification") is given and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith, have never been observed and are religious. Only the last one is scientific. It is also what the Bible predicted would happen. The animals and plants would bring forth "after their kind" in Genesis 1.

Many have responded to my offer of $250,000 for scientific proof for evolution. The terms and conditions of the offer are detailed very clearly on my web site www.drdino.com. Here are some answers to some commonly asked questions.

The offer is legitimate. A wealthy friend of mine has the money in the bank. If the conditions of the offer are met, the money will be paid out immediately. My word is good.

The members of the committee of scientists that will judge the evidence are all highly trained, have advanced degrees in science as well as many years of experience in their field. For example: there is a zoologist, a geologist, an aerospace engineer, a professor of radiology and biophysics, and an expert in radio metric dating to name a few. They are busy people and do not wish to waste time on foolish responses.

Nor do they wish to waste time arguing with skeptics and scoffers who seem to have nothing else to do than ask silly questions when they really don’t want answers (so far this has been the typical response to the offer). I will not reveal their names for this reason. Any legitimate evidence will be forward to them and they will respond. At that time they may identify themselves if they choose. The merit of the evidence presented and the reasonableness of their response does not depend on who they are.

Evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their time. For example, doubling the chromosome number of a sterile hybrid does not add additional genetic information; it duplicates what is already present in the parent plant.

Because of the absence of additional genetic information the resultant plant can't be classified as different or new species. The plant may differ in a number of ways - bigger, vigorous as observed in any polyploid plants. Such easily recognizable phenotypic changes have confused many. Some evolutionists have jumped to the conclusion that a new species has been evolved.

The key is that no new genetic information has been added. Even a new "species" is not proof for evolution as the offer calls for. See the conditions of the $250,000 offer on the web site. Some have insisted on a precise definition of the word "kind". The Bible defines "kind" as those that are able to "bring forth" or reproduce. Those animals that were originally able to reproduce were of the same kind. There may be diversity now, 6000 years later, that could cause some varieties of the original kind to not be able to reproduce now.

For example, I understand that rabbits from Alaska cannot breed with rabbits from Florida yet they are still the same kind of animal. It is obvious that a dog and a wolf are the same "kind" of animal (they are currently classed as different "species" yet are inter-fertile-- hmmm, what is the precise definition of "species"?) where a dog and a fish are not. While there may be some blurry areas that would be worthy of research in defining the original kinds, rather than muddy the issue with these type questions it would be wise to focus on the obvious cases like the dog/fish comparison.

These are obviously different "kinds" of animals. So, for the sake of clarity, prove the dog and the fish evolved from a common ancestor. The honest scientist would be wise to admit that no evidence exists that could begin to prove the dog and the fish have a common ancestor. He may believe that they are related but that is not science and that is my point in the offer. Some believe this type of evolution happens but it should not be presented to innocent students as a "fact". Further, it certainly is not evidence that the other four definitions of evolution have occurred.

The idea that the majority of scientists believe in the theory is not evidence either. Majority opinion is often wrong and must be corrected. History is full of examples.

Anonymous letters will be ignored.

Rather than simply sending in scientific evidence for evolution, some have wasted lots of their time and mine sending letters demanding to know who is on the committee, what bank account the money is in, asking Bill Clinton type questions about the definition of words like "is", etc.

When I do not respond the way they want me to they post notices on their web sites claiming that I owe them the money or that the offer is a sham! It is obvious they are using the Red Herring tactic to draw attention away from the fact that they have no evidence to support the religion of evolution. I tell everyone who inquires, if you have some evidence, send it in, don’t beat around the bush. Give us the best you have on the first try please to save time.

Many have offered evidence of microevolution and assumed that the other 5 meanings of the word are somehow magically connected. They don’t seem to realize that they are blinded to the obvious. Treat the $250,000 offer as a lawyer would treat a ‘who-done-it’ case. It is your job to prove that what is being taught to our kids as fact (all six meanings of the word evolution above), is indeed a fact.

If this cannot be done then it should be admitted that evolution is a religion but not a science. Some say it is unfair to define evolution including the origin of the universe. They say it only has to do with "change in gene frequency over time." All you need to do is read your local textbook and see that all 6 meanings of the word are part of what is taught as evolution theory. If these nay Sayers are agreeing that it should not be included then they should help me get it out of the books, if they are genuine.

Over the years I have heard many evolutionists say, "Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory. Don’t you believe in gravity?" They repeat this mantra as if repetition will make it true. Their example is silly of course. We can all observe gravity every moment of our lives. We can do tests and experiments to verify the theory of gravity. No one has ever seen an exception to it. By the same token, no one has ever observed evolution nor been able to demonstrate any evolution beyond minor variations within the kind. To try to make evolution science by associating it with theories like gravity is ridiculous.

Nearly all responses to my $250,000 offer go something like this: "Of course no one can prove evolution, can you prove creation?" This response is what I expected and wanted. Neither theory of origins can be proven. Both involve a great deal of faith in the unseen. So my next logical question is: "Why do I have to pay for the evolution religion to be taught to all the students in the tax supported school system?" Since all taxpayers are being forced to pay for evolution to be taught exclusively in public schools and evolutionists have had the last 130 years and billions of dollars in research grants to prove their religion, the burden of proof is on them to supply proof of their theory.

I do not have time or interest in getting involved in long e-mail debates, but I will talk to anyone by phone or debate with any qualified scientist (even a panel of evolutionists) in a public forum at a university, on radio or TV, as long as there is equal time for each position not each person. If you call, please have a list of topics to discuss or questions to ask and feel free to record the conversation if you like. Just inform me that you are recording please. I hope this response is satisfactory.

I have taught for years that evolution is nothing but a religion mixed in with real science. Many have been duped into believing in it. There is no evidence that any plant or animal ever can or did change to any other kind or creature. It is time that intelligent people the world over began to admit that the king has no clothes! There is no evidence for changes between kinds of animals.

The Bible teaches that God made them to "bring forth after their kind." This is all that has ever been observed. The same Bible teaches that everyone will face the Creator one day to be judged for everything they have said, done or thought. I recommend that everyone prepare for that day by taking advantage of God’s mercy and forgiveness afforded through the free salvation offered to any who will confess their sin and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord.

If you are interested in learning more about becoming a Christian, please call me. I travel a lot but always take time for calls when I am in the office. I am most often in Wednesday through Friday at 850-479-3466. Check my itinerary on my web site for my location if you need to talk with me while I am out speaking. If possible, attend a seminar. Seminars are free and we always have a question answer time for those who attend.

Sincerely,
Kent Hovind

THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST CHALLENGES TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF EVOLUTION I'VE EVER SEEN, AND IS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW WE HAVE THE BETTER THEORY OF BEGINNINGS THAN THEY DO AND THUS ANOTHER PROOF THAT THERE IS A GOD!

Feel free to take this challenge

{MAKE SURE YOU STAY WITHIN THE CHALLENGE, DON'T WASTE HIS TIME WITH SILLY EXAMPLES OF "MICRO-EVOLUTION" THIS IS NOT DENIED- ONLY "MACRO-EVOLUTION"UNDER THE GENERAL THEORY WHICH CAN'T BE PROVED.}

New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

A Seminal Presentation by Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross, given in South Barrington, Illinois, April 16, 1994

"The Discovery of the Century" -Stephen Hawking

I want to take you back to almost two years ago, April 23, 1992. On that day, a discovery was announced that, in the words of the British physicist Steven Hawking, “…is the discovery of the century, if not of all time.” This is remarkable because Steven Hawking has a reputation for understatement.

Michael Turner, from the University of Chicago, says the significance of this discovery cannot be overstated. They have found the Holy Grail of cosmology. As to how holy of a grail we're talking about, George Smoot, who led the team of 30 American astrophysicists who made the discovery said, “What we have found is evidence of the birth of the Universe. It's like looking at God.”

Frederick Burnham, a science historian, said in response to this discovery, “The idea that God created the Universe is a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years.”

The reason I'm starting with these quotes is because anything that is being called 'The greatest discovery of the century' and anything that makes belief in God more credible that it's ever been before, is something that every Christian should be apprised of and equipped to share with his friends at home, in the neighborhood and at work.

The Day They Found 90% of the Universe

Now, what exactly was it that these astronomers discovered? They found 90% of the universe. Any day that you find 90% of the universe is a red-letter day. What they essentially found was a new kind of matter. For a couple of years, physicists have suspected that the universe must have a different kind of matter.

Ordinary matter is the stuff that we're used to. Electrons, protons, neutrons, everything we see here on planet Earth is made up of ordinary matter. Ordinary matter is a property that strongly interacts with radiation, so it's rather easy for astronomers to detect the stuff.

But we found the problem, which was this: In 1990, the cosmic background explorer satellite proved that the universe is extremely entropic. In fact, the universe has a specific entropy measure of 1,000,000,000. Entropy measures the efficiency with which a system radiates heat and light, and the inefficiency in which it performs work.

The universe is by far the most entropic system in all existence. To give you a point of comparison, a burning candle has a specific entropy of two. A burning candle is something we realize is very efficient in making heat and light, and very inefficient in performing work. The universe is far more entropic than a candle, by many orders of magnitude.

But it led to a problem. If the universe has that high a degree of entropy and all matter strongly interacts with radiation, and the radiation left over from the creation event measures to be incredibly smooth, then the matter likewise should be that smoothly distributed. But it isn't.

As you look at the galaxies and clusters of galaxies, rather than being smoothly distributed like the radiation form the creation event, it's clumpy. Astronomers wanted to know why. We have proof that the universe was created in a hot, big, bang due to the incredible entropy, but how do we explain the galaxies?

The discovery of exotic matter explains the clustering of the galaxies. Exotic matter does not strongly interact with radiation, and because it doesn't, it can clump independent of the radiation. Since it doesn't really matter in gravity whether the matter is exotic or ordinary, the laws of physics still apply.

Two massive objects will attract one another under the law of gravity, and if one of those massive objects is made of ordinary matter and the other is made of exotic matter, they will still attract.

Once exotic matter clumps, it can draw ordinary matter to it, and hence we can have the universe we see today. The radiation from the creation event is still very smoothly distributed, but the galaxies and clusters of galaxies are clumped.

April 23, 1992 was the first detection an astronomer made of this type of matter. Since that time, there have been seven other independent detections of this exotic matter. If you're interested, you can read all about it in my book, The Creator and the Cosmos, which was published a few months ago.

In this back issue, we describe the set of discoveries that established the existence of exotic matter which led to the conclusions from the scientific community that we now have conclusive proof that the universe was indeed created, and that's why we say that we're looking at the face of God.

On April 24, 1992, I was on the radio with three other physicists to discuss this discovery. A couple of the gentlemen were from George Smoot's team, but the one that I was most curious about was Geoffrey Burbridge, who I had as a professor while I attended the University of Toronto, and who I knew to be an atheist.

Physicists Join "The First Church of Christ of the Big Bang"

I was wondering how Geoffery was going to respond to the news of this discovery. The first words out of his mouth were a complaint, and they were that as a result of this discovery, his peers in physics and astronomy were rushing off to join the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang.

What encouraged me about Jeffrey's statement was that even Jeffrey, as an atheist, recognized the equation, Big Bang = Jesus Christ. If you prove the Big Bang, you prove Jesus Christ. I want to briefly explain to you how that follows and I want to reveal something to you that leads to that.

Why Big Bang = Jesus Christ

It's something that's probably more beautiful than anything that you've ever seen living here in Illinois . Or for that matter California or where I grew up, British Colombia, which I think is the most beautiful place in the world.

I want to show you something that far transcends the beauty of even the scenery that we see on this planet Earth. [Shows Einstein's singularity equation.] But, then what could possibly transcend the beauty of equations of physics? For those of you who are starting to break out into a cold sweat, this will be gone in less than a minute and I'll never show you another one again.

I thought that you might be curious of the equation that convinced Albert Einstein that God exists, that God created the universe. This equation falls under the theory of general relativity. For those of you who have a background in calculus, you'll recognize this term here as an expression for acceleration.

What Einstein had done was to drive the equation for the acceleration of the entire universe. On the other side of the equation, you see four physical constants. I don't really have to explain them to you, except to point out that they all have positive values.

Four well-known physical constants with positive values, yet there's a minus sign in front. That immediately tells us that the entire universe experiences negative acceleration. The universe is decelerating. That was a tremendous challenge to the theology of his day because in the 200 years previous to Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, academic scientific society was operating on the premise that the universe was static.

Belief in a Static Universe Led to Darwinian Evolution

That was really what fostered the birth of Darwinian evolution, the idea that the universe is static, infinitely old and infinitely large. Static, in that it maintained the conditions essential for elements to assemble themselves into living systems, as Emanuel Kant reasoned, long before Charles Darwin came up with a theory.

Emanuel Kant longed to come up with a theory of biological evolution but he didn't have the biological data to develop it. Nevertheless, he laid the philosophical foundation that if the universe is infinitely old and infinitely large and static, maintaining the ideal chemical situation for life chemistry to proceed, then one can posit that the dice of chance is thrown an infinite number of times and in an infinite variety of ways.

If you have infinite throws at the dice of chance, then any matter of complexity would be conceivable - even something as complicated as a German philosopher. But this equation challenged that very notion by saying that the universe is not static; it decelerates.

Einstein was well aware that the term for pressure (P) in the universe is rather tiny compared to the term for mass density (represented by the Greek letter Rho ). It's divided by a huge number - the velocity of light squared. You've got this extremely small number divided by a huge number.

This means that for all intents and purposes, we can ignore that “3P/C²” relative to the density. We can drop that term out, and then we have something much simpler to solve.

Proof that the Universe is Not Static, but Expanding

It's still a non-linear differential equation, so it's not all that easy. But Einstein was able to perceive and demonstrate that, according to this equation, the universe not only decelerates, it positively expands. Hence, the Big Bang. How so? Normally, I demonstrate this for audiences by bringing a grenade, but they no longer let you take grenades on airplanes.

I only do that demonstration when I'm on TV or in California, so you're just going to have to pretend that I've got a grenade here in front of me. If I were to pull the pin from the grenade, you'd feel a few effects. One being that the pieces of the grenade would expand outward from the pin. That's positive expansion.

Those outwardly expanding pieces of the grenade would inevitably bump into obstacles into this room. When they collide with those obstacles, they slow down. That's deceleration. After a grenade has exploded, a physicist could make measurements of the positions and the velocities of the pieces of shrapnel, and through the equation Velocity = Distance/Time, he could calculate the moment that the pin was pulled on the grenade.

We can do the same thing with the galaxies in the universe. We can measure their positions and their velocities and calculate the moment that the “pin” was pulled on the entire universe.

As Einstein pointed out, the significance is that the universe has this moment of pin pulling. It has a beginning. Through the principle of positive fact, if the universe has a beginning, it must have a beginner, hence the existence of God.

To his dying day, Einstein held to his belief that as the result of the verification of his theory of General Relativity, God exists. (Good book on Einstein's extensive discussions of religion and theology: Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology by Max Jammer -Ed) God created the universe and God is intelligent. Today, we don't deny that God is personal. Einstein died too soon.

If he had lived to the late 1980's, he'd have seen direct scientific proof for the personality of the creator. But he acknowledged as a result of the confirmations of his equations and his theory that God is transcendent. That God exists, he is intelligent, he is creative and he is responsible for the universe.

But he didn't know the details of that transcendence. The details of that transcendence had to equate to a deeper solution of those equations of General Relativity. They are non-linear, which means they're hard to solve.

Stephen Hawking and Friends Solve The Equation

By 1970, three British astrophysicists had combined to produce a deeper solution of the equations of General Relativity. They culminated the paper, The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology, published in 1970. You should all go get it - its exciting reading.

It closes with the Space-Time theorem of General Relativity, which states that if the universe is governed by the equations of General Relativity, not only are we faced with an ultimate origin, we are all of the matter in the universe, and all of the energy in the universe. But we're faced with a coincident ultimate origin for even the dimensions of length, width, height and time.

Even Time Itself Was Created

As Steven Hawking, one of the three authors, boasted many years thereafter, we proved that time was created. We proved that time has a beginning. But through his contacts with certain Christians like his wife Jane, who's an Anglican, as a friend of mine from Cal Tech, Don Page, who had daily Bible studies with Steven and Jane Hawking while he was doing research pointed out, if you prove that time has a beginning, that it was created, it eliminates all theological possibilities but Jesus Christ.

Of all world religions, only Judeo-Christian theology says Time has a beginning

Why? Because if you were to open up the Holy books of the religions of the world, only one of them would describe God as a being that creates the universe independent of time, space, matter and energy.

The other Holy books describe God as creating within time. The Bible states that God creates independent of time. That's the difference.

Some verses that you might be familiar with: The first verse which states, “In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth…” The Hebrew words for heavens and Earth literally refer to the entire physical cosmos of matter, energy space and time. The universe.

Hebrews 11:3 makes it more specific stating, “The universe that we detect was made from that which we cannot detect.” We can make detections within matter, energy, length, width, height and time, but not beyond.

Eight places in the Bible tell us that God created time. I'll give you two examples: 2 Timothy 1:9 which states, “The Grace of God that we now experience was put into effect before the beginning of time” and Titus 1:2 which states, “The hope that we have in Jesus Christ was given to us before the beginning of time.”

The three things that the Apostle Paul was saying in those two verses were that time is beginning, that God created the time dimension of our universe and, most importantly, that God has the capacity to operate through cause and effect before the time dimension of our universe even exists.

Your friendly neighborhood physicist will tell you that time is defined as that dimension or realm in which cause and effect phenomena take place. What the Apostle Paul is telling us in these two places and in the six other portions of Scripture, is that we are confined to a single dimension of time.

In fact it's worse than that. We're confined to half of a line of time. Time, for us, is a line that goes forward only. Have you ever noticed that you cannot stop or reverse the arrow of time? No matter what you do, it just keeps going forward in one direction.

Any entity confined to half of the line of time, must have a beginning and must be created. I can walk home tonight, and that's it. It's the simplest, most rigorous proof of the existence of God.

We're confined, and the entire universe is confined to half of the line of time. Therefore, the universe must be created and we must be created. But God is not so confined.

When I present this evidence to atheists, their most frequent response is the same one I got from both of my sons when they were three years of age. It's, “If God created us, then who created God?”

God: Not Confined by Time

My sons and the atheists are assuming that God is confined to time in the same way that we are. But the Bible and the equations of General Relativity tell us that the entity that brought the universe into existence is not confined in time like we are, or the way that the universe is.

God can move and operate in at least two dimensions of time. In two dimensions of time, time becomes a plane, like a sheet of paper, length and width. In a plane, you can have as many lines as you want and as many directions as you want.

It would be possible for God to dwell on a time line running through a sheet of paper that's infinitely long, and that never crosses or touches the timeline of our universe. As such, God would have no beginning, no end and he would not be created. Sound familiar?

Why the God of Modern Physics Matches the God of the Bible

Both John Chapter One and Colossians Chapter One make that claim about God; He has no beginning, no end and He is not created. The Bible is the only Holy book that makes that statement about God.

What I've done for you in these few minutes is to establish the doctrine of the independent transcendence of the Creator. But we can go beyond this abstract, rigorous proof of the existence of the God of the Bible. It's Jesus Christ because we proved that the Creator must be an independent, transcendent being.

What I've discovered, even on the University campus, is that audiences much prefer tangible proof for the existence of God, to the abstract proof of the existence of God.

Today we have that, thanks to the efforts of astronomers in measuring the universe. Ours is the only generation of man that has ever lived to witness the measuring of the universe. This wasn't the case 15 years ago.

Measuring The Universe

Ours is a privileged generation because we have seen the measuring of the universe. The theological significance is that if you can measure the universe, you are measuring the creation. If you can measure the creation, you are measuring the Creator himself. Not all of his characteristics, of course, but many that are theologically significant.

What we've discovered in measuring the universe is that the third assumption of Emanuel Kant; that we have infinite time, the universe is static and that we have an infinite supply of building blocks for life isn't true.

We proved that the universe isn't static, that time isn't infinite. It's finite. The age of the universe is only 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 seconds (10 to the 18th power).

We also discovered that we do not have an infinite supply of building blocks. In fact, we discovered that it takes exquisite design to get any building blocks at all. Molecules, without which, life is impossible.

Atoms must be able to assemble in the molecules in order to gain sufficient complexity for life chemistry to proceed. That applies to any conceivable kind of life.

The Extreme Precision of Physical Constants

Unless the force electromagnetism takes on a particular value, molecules won't happen. Take the nucleus of an atom. There's an electron orbiting that nucleus. If the force electromagnetism is too weak, the electron will not orbit the nucleus.

Electromagnetism

There won't be sufficient electromagnetic pull to keep that electron orbiting the nucleus. If electrons cannot orbit nuclei, then electrons cannot be shared so that nuclei can come together to form molecules. Without molecules, we have no life.

If the force electromagnetism is too strong, the nuclei will hang onto their electrons with such strength that the electrons will not be shared with adjoining nuclei and again, molecules will never form. Unless the force electromagnetism is fine-tuned to a particular value, the universe will have no molecules and no life.

Strong Nuclear Force

We also have a problem in getting the right atoms. Now take a neutron and a proton. Protons and neutrons are held together in the nucleus of an atom by the strong nuclear force, which is the strongest of the four forces of physics.

If the nuclear force is too strong, the protons and neutrons in the universe will find themselves stuck to other protons and neutrons, which means we have a universe devoid of Hydrogen.

Hydrogen is the element composed of the bachelor proton. Without Hydrogen, there's no life chemistry. It's impossible to conceive of life chemistry without Hydrogen.

On the other hand, if we make the nuclear force slightly weaker, none of the protons and neutrons will stick together. All of the protons and neutrons will be bachelors, in which case the only element that would exist in the universe would be Hydrogen, and it's impossible to make life if all we've got is Hydrogen.

How sensitive must this strong nuclear force be designed for life to exist? It's so sensitive that if we were to make this force 3/10 of 1% stronger or 2% weaker, life would be impossible at any time in the universe.

Mass of the Proton and Neutron

We also have a problem with the protons and the neutrons themselves. The neutron is 0.138% more massive than the proton. Because of this, it takes a little more energy for the universe to make neutrons, as compared to protons. That's why in the universe of today we have seven times as many protons as neutrons.

If the neutron were 1/10th of 1% less massive than what we observe, then the universe would make so many neutrons that all of the matter in the universe would very quickly collapse into neutron stars and black holes, and life would be impossible.

If we made the neutron 1/10th of 1% more massive than what we observe, then the universe would make so few neutrons, that there wouldn't be enough neutrons to make Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, etc. These are the elements that are essential for life. So, we must delicately balance that mass to within 1/10 th of 1%, or life is impossible.

Electrons

With electrons we see an even more sense of the balance. In order for life to exist in the universe, the force of gravity must be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 40th power) times weaker than the force of electromagnetism. It's essential that the force of gravity be incredibly weak compared to the other three forces of physics.

Gravity

Yet planets, stars and galaxies will not form unless gravity is dominant in the universe, so the universe must be set up in such a way that the other forces of physics cancel out and leave gravity, the weakest of the forces, dominant.

It's necessary for the universe to be electrically neutral. The numbers of the positively charged particles must be equivalent to the numbers of negatively charged particles or else electromagnetism will dominate gravity, and stars, galaxies and planets will never form. If they don't form, then clearly life is impossible.

The numbers of electrons must equal the numbers of protons to better than one part of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 37 th power). That number is so large that it's difficult for laymen to get a handle on it. So I compare that number with another very large number - the national debt.

The National Debt

The national debt stands at $5,000,000,000,000. One way to visualize this is to imagine we cover one square mile of land with dimes piles 17 inches high. We can pay off the entire national debt with a pile of dimes 17 inches high in one square mile.

That's truly a lot of dimes. Out national debt problem is serious. But to get 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, we would have to cover the entire North American continent with dimes, but 17 inches high won't do.

We'd have to cover the entire North American continent from here all the way to the moon. That's a 250,000-mile high pile of dimes covering 10,000,000 square miles, and you'd have to do that with a billion North American continents from here all the way to the moon. That is one chance in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 37 th power).

To give you an idea, imagine that in those piles of billions of dimes, there's one dime colored red. If you were to randomly shuffle your way through those billions of dimes blindfolded, and you choose one dime, the odds that you would pick up that one red dime is one chance in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 .

God's Fine-Tuning vs. Man's Fine-Tuning

Another way of looking at this incredible fine-tuning of the universe in this one characteristic is to compare it with the very best that we humans have achieved. It's not built yet, but towards the end of this year, a machine will come online at Cal Tech. This machine will have the capacity to make measurements to within one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 23rd power). The best machine man has ever designed.

But the very best machine that man has ever designed, with all of our money, technology and education, falls one hundred trillion times short of the level of fine-tuning that we see in just this one characteristic of the universe.

Purposefully, I didn't choose the best example. In my book, The Creator and the Cosmos, I describe two other characteristics of the universe that are much more fine-tuned than the balance of electrons to protons. Some of these characteristics reveal more than what I've described here.

If the universe is fine-tuned in one part to the 10 to the 37th power, one part in 10 to the 40th power and one part in 10 to the 55th power on three different characteristics, then that tells us that God must be personal; that He's not only transcendent, he's personal!

God: 100 Trillion Trillion Times More Precise than Man

Why do we say this? Because only a person is capable of fine-tuning to the degree that we've observed, and that person must be orders of magnitude more intelligent and creative than we human beings. One hundred trillion times more intelligent and creative than we human beings, just based on that one characteristic. But he's also creative and loving.

Earth: An Insignificant Speck?

When I was a young man, questioning the holy books of the religions of the world, I knew God must exist because of the Big Bang. There's a beginning, there must be a beginner. But I doubted that God was personal and caring because I felt that planet Earth was just an insignificant speck in the eyes of a God that created a hundred trillion stars. What could we matter to such an awesome God?

Mass of the Universe

Astronomers have discovered that the total mass of the universe acts as a catalyst for nuclear fusion and the more massive the universe is, the more efficiently nuclear fusion operates in the cosmos. If the universe is too massive, the mass density too great, then very quickly all the matter in the universe is converted from Hydrogen into elements heavier than iron, which would render life impossible because the universe would be devoid of Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc.

If the universe has too little mass, then fusion would work so inefficiently that all that the universe would ever produce would be Hydrogen, or Hydrogen plus a small amount of Helium. But there again, the Carbon and Oxygen we need for life would be missing.

What does this tell me about the Creator? That God so loved the human race that he went to the expense of building one hundred billion stars and carefully shaped and crafted those hundred billion trillion stars for the entire age of the universe, so that for this brief moment in time, we could have a nice place to live.

It's the same logic that my five and eight year old sons use on me. They measure my love for them by how much money I spend on the gifts that I buy for them. We can use the same kind of logic to draw the conclusion that the God who created the universe must love we human beings very much, given how much he spent on our behalf.

We live in a Special Solar System, Too

We can extend this argument of design from the universe to the solar system itself. When we look at the solar system, we discover that we have a heavenly body problem. It's not that easy to get the right galaxy.

Life can only happen on late born stars. If it's a first or second-generation star, then life is impossible because you don't yet have the heavy elements necessary for life chemistry. There's a narrow window of time in the history of the universe when life can happen.

If the universe is too old or too young, life is impossible. Only spiral galaxies produce stars late enough in their history that they can take advantage of the elements that are essential for life history, and only 6% of the galaxies in our universe are spiral galaxies. Of those 6%, you must go with galaxies that produce all of the elements that are essential for life. It's not that easy.

Besides Hydrogen and Helium, the other elements are made in the cores of super giant stars. Super giant stars burn up quickly; they're gone in a just a few million years. When they go through the final stages of burning up their fuel, they explode ashes into outer space, and future generations of stars will absorb those ashes.

Births & Deaths of Multiple Stars Required to have Metals in Earth's Crust

When those stars go through their burning phase, they will take that heavy element ash material. This time when they explode, they make a whole bunch of material, capable of forming rocky planets and supporting life chemistry.

But we want these supernovae exploding early in the history of the galaxy. We don't want them going off now. If the star Cereus goes Super Nova, we're in serious trouble because it's only eight light years away. It would exterminate life on our planet.

We observe in our galaxy that there was a burst of Super Nova explosions early in its history, but it tapered off to where it isn't a threat to life that is now in existence. The Super Nova explosions took place in the right quantity and in the right locations so that life could happen here on Earth.

What does location have to do with it? Life is impossible in the center of our galaxy, or in the heel of our galaxy. It's only possible at a distance 2/3 from the center of our galaxy.

Mormon Astronomy - Accurate or not?

That's why I'm not a Mormon. Mormons tell us that life originated on a master planet right smack at the center of our galaxy. That's probably also why I've never met a Mormon astronomer.

The stars at the center of our galaxy are jammed so tightly together that the mutual gravity would destroy the planetary orbits. Moreover, their synchrotron radiation would be destructive to life molecules. But we don't want to be too far away from the center, either. If we get too far away, then there aren't enough heavy elements from the exploded remains of supernovae to enable life chemistry to proceed.

There's one life essential element that the supernovae do not make, however, and that's Fluorine. Fluorine is made only on the surfaces of white dwarf binaries. A white dwarf is a burned out star. It's like a cinder in a fireplace, just glowing.

Orbiting this white dwarf is a star that hasn't yet exhausted its nuclear fuel. It's an ordinary star, like our Sun. The white dwarf has enough mass relative to the ordinary star orbiting around it that it is capable of pulling mass off of the surface of the ordinary star and dragging it down so that it falls on its surface. When that material falls on the surface of the while dwarf, it ignites some very interesting nuclear reactions that produce Fluorine.

We need a white dwarf binary whose gravitational interactions between the white dwarf and the ordinary star are such that a strong enough stellar wind is sent from the white dwarf to blast the Fluorine beyond the gravitational pull of both stars, putting it into outer space, so that future generations of stars can absorb it. Then we have enough Fluorine for life chemistry.

A Trillion Galaxies - but as far as physicists know, only ours can support life

Two American astrophysicists concluded about a year ago that rare indeed is the galaxy that has the right number of this special kind white dwarf binary pair in the right location, occurring at the right time, so that life can exist today. The universe contains a trillion galaxies. But ours may be the only one that has the necessary conditions for life to exist.

The right star is needed. We can't have a star any bigger than our Sun. The bigger the star, the more rapidly and erratically it burns its fuel. Our Sun is just small enough to keep a stable enough flame for a sufficient period of time to make life possible. If it were any bigger, we couldn't have life on planet Earth. If it were any smaller, we'd be in trouble, too.

Smaller stars are even more stable than our star, the Sun, but they don't burn as hot. In order to keep our planet at the right temperature necessary to sustain life, we'd have to bring the planet closer to the star.

Tidal Forces

The physicists in the audience realize that when you bring a planet closer to its star, the tidal interaction between the star and the planet goes up to the inverse fourth power to the distance separating them. For those of you who are not physicists, that means that all you have to do is bring that planet ever so much closer to the star, and the tidal forces could be strong enough to break the rotational period.

That's what happened to Mercury and Venus. Those planets are too close to the Sun; so close that their rotational periods have been broken, from several hours to several months.

Earth is just barely far enough away to avoid that breaking. We have a rotation period of once every 24 hours. If we wait much longer, it will be every 26 or 28 hours, because the Earth's rotation rate is slowing down.

Going back in history, we can measure the time when the Earth was rotating every 20 hours. When the Earth was rotating once every 20 hours, human life was not possible. If it rotates once every 28 hours, human life will not be possible. It can only happen at 24 hours.

Speed of Earth's Rotation

If the planet rotates too quickly, you get too many tornadoes and hurricanes. If it rotates too slowly, it gets too cold at night and too hot during the day. We don't want it to be 170 degrees during the day, nor do we want it to be below –100 at night, because that's not ideal for life.

We don't want lots of hurricanes and tornadoes, either. What we currently have is an ideal situation, and God plays this. He created us here at the ideal time.

We need the right Earth. If the Earth is too massive, it retains a bunch of gases such as Ammonia, Methane, Hydrogen and Helium in its atmosphere. These gases are not acceptable for life, at least, not for advanced life. But if it's not massive enough, it won't retain water. For life to exist on planet Earth, we need a huge amount of water, but we don't need a lot of ammonia and methane.

Remember high school chemistry? Methane's molecular weight 16, ammonia's molecular weight 17, water's molecular weight is 18. God so designed planet Earth that we keep lots of the 18, but we don't keep any of the 16 or the 17. The incredible fine-tuning of the physical characteristics of Earth is necessary for that.

Jupiter Necessary, too

We even have to have the right Jupiter. We wrote about this in our Facts and Faith newsletter a few issues back, but it was also discovered by American astrophysicists just this past year. Unless you have a very massive planet like Jupiter, five times more distant from the star than the planet that has life, life will not exist on that planet.

It takes a super massive planet like Jupiter, located where it is, to act as a shield, guarding the Earth from comic collisions. We don't want a comet colliding with Earth every week. Thanks to Jupiter, that doesn't happen.

What these astrophysicists discovered in their models of planetary formation was that it's a very rare star system indeed that produces a planet as massive as Jupiter, in the right location, to act as such a shield.

We Even Need the Right Moon

The Earth's moon system is that of a small planet being orbited by a huge, single moon. That huge, single moon has the effect of stabilizing the rotation axis of planet Earth to 23½ degrees. That's the ideal tilt for life on planet Earth.

The axis on planet Mars moves through a tilt from zero to 60 degrees and flips back and forth. If that were to happen on Earth, life would be impossible. Thanks to the Moon, it's held stable at 23 ½ degrees.

Just as with the universe, in the case of the solar system, we can attach numbers to these. In this case, I've chosen to be extremely conservative in my estimates. I would feel justified in sticking a few zeros between the decimal point and the one. I would feel justified in making this 20 percent, 10 percent, for example, and on down the line.

We Even Need the Right Number of Earthquakes

I've got so many characteristics here, and I let the Californians know that you have to have the right number of earthquakes. Not too many, not too few, or life is not possible. I share them with my wife, who doesn't like earthquakes, but I just tell her that when you feel a good jolt, that's when you have to thank God for his perfect providence.

At Least 41 Fine-Tuned Characteristics, to have One Planet that Supports Life

The bottom line to all of this is that we have 41 characteristics of the solar system that must be fine-tuned for life to exist. But even if the universe contains as many planets as it does stars, which is a gross overestimate in my opinion, that still leaves us with less than one chance in a billion trillion that you'd find even one planet in the entire universe with the capacity for supporting life.

This tells us that we're wasting valuable taxpayer money looking for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Worse than that, we're wasting valuable telescope time. In the words of William Proxmyer, “It would be far wiser looking for intelligent life in Washington than looking for it in other galaxies.”

Planet Earth: Not an Accident

It also tells us that God wasn't wandering throughout the vastness of the cosmos saying, “Wow, that's the best one, I'll use that”. No. With odds this remote, we must realize that God especially designed and crafted, through miraculous means, planet Earth, so that it would support life and human beings. Planet Earth is not an accident; it is a product of divine design.

I would also say that's true of life on Earth. The fossil record testifies of life beginning on planet Earth 3.8 billion years ago. Over those 3.8 billion years, we have more and more species of greater and greater complexity and greater and greater diversity. But there's no fossil tree. We have no evidence for the horizontal branches.

Peculiarities in the Fossil Record

All we have is evidence that a certain species exists for a certain period of time without significant change, which then goes extinct to be replaced at a different time with a radically different species, with no connection from the previous species to the next one.

What the textbooks don't mention is that there's been a reversal of this fossil tree; it's only true up until the creation of man. Since the creation of man, the whole thing reverses. As time proceeds, we have fewer and fewer species with less and less diversity and complexity, and it's the land mammals that are being impacted in the worst way.

There were 30,000 land mammals on planet Earth when God created Adam and Eve. There are only 15,000 remaining today. In just a few thousand years, 15,000 species of mammals have disappeared.

Admittedly, man has a lot to do with that.

As Paul and Ann Erlich pointed out in their book on extinctions, though, even if we were to get rid of every vestige of humanity and civilization on planet Earth, a minimum of one species would still become extinct every year. How many species do we see appearing?

No New Species

Paul and Ann Erlich say we have yet to document the appearance of a single animal species in the world of nature, and in the vast majority in the world of species, we cannot even detect any genetic movement. It's a virtual zero.

The Bible offers the perfect explanation for this. For six days (periods of time), God created. On the seventh day, he rested. For six days, he replaced the species that were going extinct with more complex and diverse species. For six days, he created through special, miraculous means, the evidence of which we clearly see in the fossil record.

But the Bible tells us that when He created Eve, He ceased from his work of creating new species of life. God is at rest. We're now in the seventh day, where God is resting from his work of creating. All we see today is the natural processes. The natural processes tell us that the planet is heading to a culmination in death.

When Will God Create Again?

Revelation 21 tells us that the very instant that God conquers the problem of evil in man, he will create again. There is an eighth day of creation coming. It's exciting to think about the fact that God may have many weeks of creation planned for the future. We're simply through the first week.

Can you imagine what's going to happen in the second, third of fourth week, etc? It would be exciting news if we could be a part of that work with him.

Creation vs. Evolution?

Whenever I discuss this whole issue of creation evolution, everyone wants to talk about what we know the least about - the origin of man. You know the story. We begin with a primitive bipedal primate species, and wind up with an advanced character.

The truth of the matter is that the evidence of the bipedal primates that God created before Adam and Eve fills only one coffin full of bones. We don't have a lot of evidence. It's not like the dinosaurs. In no case are any of those bi-pedaled primate finds more than 30% complete; that's the most complete fossil find that we have.

Fossil Record: Not a Fraud!

Some Christians like to claim that this is all fraudulent, but that's not true. There are bones. They can be seen in museums and they are definitely bipedal species. But they existed long ago. They are extinct, and there's no relationship between those bipedal primates and human beings.

The Bible tells us that God created only one species of life on planet Earth that is spiritual in nature: Adam and Eve, and their descendents. All other species of life are either body only, or body and soul, like the birds and the mammals. Only the human species is comprised of body, soul and spirit.

You can go to any secular anthropologist and ask him to provide you with the most ancient evidence for spirit expression. They will confess that the most ancient evidence dates back to only 8,000 to 24,000 years ago. In the form of a moral code or religious relics, the most ancient finds have been these primitive Venus Idol figurines from 10,000 years ago.

What's the Biblical date of the creation of Adam and Eve? The genealogies are useless for giving us the creation date of the universe or the Earth, but they are effective for giving us the creation date of Adam and Eve. It was the very last event on the sixth day of creation.

I should say only slightly effective because there are gaps in the genealogy. The genealogies of Luke and Matthew contain names that are not in Genesis 5, but the best Hebrew scholars that I've spoken to say that it's about a factor of ten.

When Did Man Appear?

Six thousand to 60,000 years ago, God created Adam and Eve. That 6,000 to 60,000 encompasses the secular date of 8,000 to 24,000. Even at this most controversial level, we have so little data to work with that we see fundamental agreement between scientific evidence and the words of the Bible.

I close with a quote from Revelation 3:8, “See I place before you an open door that no one can shut.” In my book, The Creator and the Cosmos, I have a whole chapter filled with quotes from astronomers and physicists in response to this evidence.

Fine Tuning of the Universe: Proof Positive of the Existence of God

Let me read you one from the British cosmologist, Edward Harrison, who says, “Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God. The design argument of William Paley updated and refurbished. The fine-tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence for theistic design. Take you choice: blind chance that requires an infinite number of universes, or design that requires only one.”

Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline towards the theistic or the design argument, and for good reason. It's because the appeal to an infinite number of universes where ours by pure chance out of that infinite number takes on the conditions essential for life, is committing the gamblers fallacy.

To Assume it Happened By Chance = "The Gambler's Fallacy"

You're assuming the benefit of an infinite sample size, when you can only provide evidence for one. Let me give you an example. If I were to flip a coin 10,000 times and it were to come up heads 10,000 times in a row, you could conclude that the coin has been fixed with a purpose to come up heads. That's the rational bet.

But the irrational better would say that conceivably, two to the 10,000 coins could exist out there. And if those two to the 10,000 coins are like my coin, but all getting different results than I see here, then this coin could be fair.

It's the gamblers fallacy because you have no proof of the existence of those other coins or that they take on similar characteristics of the coin that you're flipping, and you have no evidence that those coins are producing different results.

The equations of General Relativity guarantee that we will never discover another universe. God may have created two, but we'll never know about it because the equations of General Relativity tell us that the Space-Time manifold of universe A will never overlap the space-time manifold of universe B.

Other Universes? No Way to Know

That means we will be forever ignorant about the possibility of other universes, because the sample size will always be one. Therefore, the appeal to infinite chances rather than to the God of the Bible is the gambler's fallacy.

Q&A from the Audience

Moderator: Okay, I know what you're thinking. Why didn't he tell us something that we don't already know? Right? Why do we keep doing all this mental cotton candy stuff, why don't we get to something deep?

Actually, I'm sure there are a lot of questions, so I'm going to make my way around with the mike, and I'll try to get around to the sides. We want to give you the chance to ask Dr. Ross some questions, and we'll do that for about 20 minutes.

If we have any spiritual seekers here, who have some questions, I'm especially interested in your perspective.

Why do we need earthquakes? Can you explain that a little more?

Hugh: Before I begin, let me just say that if you think of a question two hours from now, the ministry I work for, Reasons to Believe, maintains a daily hotline. You are welcome to call, two hours per day, to ask your questions. The number is (626)335-5282, 5:00pm to 7:00pm Pacific Time. You are also welcome to write, and we'll respond to your questions in writing. The service is available, free of charge, to anyone who'd like to take advantage of it. [Website is www.reasons.org – ed.]

In response to your question about earthquakes, without earthquakes or plate tectonic activity, nutrients that are essential for life on land would erode off of the continents and accumulate in the oceans. After awhile, life would be impossible on land, though you'd still have life in the oceans.

Thanks to earthquake activity, that stuff in the oceans gets recycled into new continents. We see here on earth precisely the right number and intensity of earthquakes to maintain that recycling, but not to such a degree that it's impossible for us to live in cities.

If it's any comfort to you, the risk of earthquake damage here in Chicago is greater than it is in Los Angeles . But that's only because we have stiffer building codes.

How do you account for the difference in time as described in Genesis for creation in a week, versus the vast span of time you describe since the Big Bang?

Hugh: You need to get a copy of my book Creation and Time that was just released a few days ago. In it, I point out that the idea that the days of creation in Genesis One are six consecutive 24-hour periods arose from the King James translation, not from church history or tradition.

Augustine & other Church Fathers: "Day" in Genesis is a long period of time

If you read the early fathers of the church, the vast majority of them adopted the view that these days of creation were long time periods, not 24-hour periods.

Why King James? The English language is the largest vocabulary language that man has ever invented. There are 4,000,000 nouns in the English language. The Hebrew language, by contrast, is one of the most noun poor languages that man has ever invented.

English vs. Hebrew

So, the English reader has a difficult time appreciating that in the Hebrew Old Testament, there are very few words to describe periods of time. The Hebrew word Yom, for “day long” can mean 12 hours, 24 hours or a long time period. You have to examine the context, to determine which of the three definitions to use.

Incidentally, we have the same problem with the word “heaven”, for which the Hebrew language has three different definitions. In Genesis One, you have to examine the context in order to determine which heaven is being used in which place. That's why Paul referred to the third heaven. So you'd know which one he was talking about.

Day 7: No Evening & Morning

I didn't know Hebrew when I first read the Bible. But I immediately recognized that they must have been talking about a longer period of time, because there is no evening or morning for the seventh day. Notice that the first six days are closed off with an evening and a morning. The seventh day is not, and there's a good reason for that.

When you read into the Bible, Psalm 95 and Hebrews 4, you discover that God's seventh day, the day of rest, is still proceeding, through the present and on into the future. Live your lives so that you will enter God's seventh day, day of rest.

Seventh Day is Now

We're still in the seventh day. If the seventh day is a long time period, then the first six days must likewise be long time periods. I also saw as a 17 year old that the fact that we're in the seventh day answers the enigma of the fossil record. Why we see it in the past but we don't see it today.

In the book, Creation and Time, I give you 21 biblical arguments for why the days must be long, and not 24 hours. It's helpful to realize that there is no Hebrew word to describe a long period of time. The only option is to use the word yom. Likewise, the words evening and morning also mean beginning and ending.

If you want the details, they're covered in the book. This opens an opportunity, because there are many non-Christians out there who are convinced that Christianity has no credibility because it speaks of the universe as being a mirage.

A Young Universe could only be an Illusion

If the universe is only thousands of years old, then it would have to be an illusion, because astronomers measure it to be a tremendous size and that size speaks of the billions of years. Non-Christians say that if the Bible has no credibility with respect to astronomy and physics, why should they trust it for anything else?

The Bible: Speaks of Billions of Years, Consistent with Astronomy

One reason I wrote this book was so that non-Christians would realize that the Bible is not speaking in terms of thousands of years; it's speaking in terms of billions of years. In speaking in terms of billions of years, we realize that there's no basis for claiming that the Bible is filled with scientific error.

On the contrary, in Genesis One, we see a testimony to scientific perfection. When, as a 17 year old, I compared the Bible to other holy books of the religions of the world, I noticed that only the Bible gets a perfect score on the creation account.

Biblical Account: 14 Statements, all 100% Consistent with Modern Observations

It gives three initial conditions and 11 creation events, and describes all 14 perfectly and puts them in the correct chronological sequence. The best I've found outside of the Bible is the New Militia of the Babylonians, which scores two to 13 correct.

The only reason it got such a high score is because the Babylonians weren't too far culturally from the descendents of Abraham. They probably heard a little bit about their story from them.

Do you differ with the scientists at the Institute for Creation Research?

Hugh: Yes, I differ with them about the age of the universe. I would agree with them on the recency of the creation of man. Though, we both hold that we are all descendent from Adam and Eve and that God created Adam and Eve only thousands of years ago.

Where we disagree is on the age of the Earth and the age of the universe, but I'd like to point out that it really doesn't matter. I believe that the universe is 17,000,000,000 years old [that was the best figure available in 1994; today we know the universe is 13.7 billion years old – Ed] and they believe that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. We only differ by a factor of 1,000,000. That's only six zeros.

I say this because I've brought another book here with me, written by an agnostic, Hubert Yockey, who founded the field of information theories that apply to molecular biology. He and others, including atheists, point out that in order for life to arise by natural processes, you would need an Earth in excess of 10 to the one hundred billionth power, years old. That's a hundred billion zeros after the one. It would fill 25,000 Bibles with zeros to write that number out long hand.

The fact that I differ with the Institute of Creation Research by only six zeros has no bearing on the creation evolution debate. Nor does it have any bearing on salvation. When God created is doctrinally insignificant.

I say that because in my opinion, there has been far too much emotion invested in what I consider to be a trivial issue in terms of creation evolution and basic viable doctrine. If we can get away from the emotion, I think we can resolve it.

How do you respond to the theory that the Big Bang that you're studying now is merely one of a series of Big Bangs? That the matter of the universe is constantly exploding, accelerating, decelerating, concentrating and re-exploding?

Hugh: I whizzed right past that in my talk, thinking no one would pick up on it, but you did. If the universe has sufficient mass, then it's expansion will stop. Two massive objects tend to attract one another. The universe contains enough galaxies and quasars and other material that the mutual attraction would eventually take the steam out of the expansion of the universe, forcing the universe into a subsequent period of collapse.

There have been those of the Hindu persuasion who first began to believe 3,000 years ago that when the universe collapses, it will go through a bounce. It will rebound into a second stage of expansion, collapse, expansion, collapse, etc.

Then we're back to infinite time. If there are an infinite number of bounces of the universe, then you can postulate that this just happens to be that lucky bounce of the cosmos in which conditions were just right for the formation of life.

The truth of the matter is that it's physically impossible for the universe to bounce. In 1983, Alan Guth and Mark Sher published a paper in the British Journal of Nature titled, “The impossibility of a Bouncing Universe”.

The reason it's impossible for the universe to bounce is because of its enormous entropy. It has a specific entropy of 1,000,000,000. That translates into a mechanical efficiency for the universe of 1/100,000,000 of a percent.

In terms of a bounce, if I have a ball in front of me, and I let if fall towards the carpeted floor, we can measure it's mechanical efficiency by how far it bounces off of the floor compared to the height from which I drop if. It's about 30% efficient.

The universe has a mechanical efficiency of 1/100,000,000 of a percent. Engineers in the audience will tell you that anytime an engine falls below a 1% mechanical efficiency, it will not oscillate. The universe falls 8 orders of magnitude short of that limit. Therefore, it's impossible.

This impossibility has not only been demonstrated in the classical physical sense, it's also been demonstrated under the conditions of quantum mechanics. Even if we're talking about a bounce in that period of time in which the universe is compressed smaller than a quantum entity, there too, it's impossible.

The universe could collapse, but we're still talking about only one creation event, only one beginning. Therefore, we pull the rug out from under Hinduism, Buddhism and New Age philosophy, because all of those religions preach that the universe reincarnates. The fact that astrophysicists have demonstrated the impossibility of reincarnation scientifically demonstrates the fallibility of Hinduism, Buddhism and New Age philosophy.

I'm still savoring the fact that since this is the seventh day, every day is Sunday and I'm living in a day of rest. I ask this somewhat naively, because I don't know much about astrology, but what relevance does your work have to do with astrology and the planets, etc? Or does it? Have you done any study in that?

Hugh: Are you trying to contrast astrology with astronomy?

Participant: No, I mean astrology, since it is very related to the planets and their placement and all that.

Hugh: The effect of the obstetrician is six times greater than the effect of all of the planets, the sun and the moon combined. On that basis, there is no scientific credibility to the claims of astrology. I've written a little paper called, “Astrology: Science or What?” in which I very carefully document the scientific incredible claims of astrology.

I'm not saying astrology has no validity. It has no physical validity. It may have some spiritual validity, but it's easy to prove that its spiritual validity is dangerous, and coming from the adversary of God, rather than from God himself. If you want to get it, it's a free handout that we make available for people who have questions on astrology.

It's my understanding that quantum mechanics, the quantum theory, is the latest method to shove God out of the way. Could you elaborate on the quantum theory?

Hugh: I have a whole hour lecture prepared on the quantum challenge to Christianity. It's exactly the opposite. Quantum mechanics does not provide a challenge to the Christian faith; it provides support. The reason people perceive it as a threat is because quantum mechanics is such an esoteric physical study that the vast majority of laymen have no clue what it means.

Therefore, when some New Age philosopher tells us that it establishes that we human beings can create independent of God, some of them actually believe it. But what quantum mechanics actually tells us is that the human observer or experimenter, is even more limited in his capacity to influence cause and effect than we thought, under the conditions of classical mechanics and physics. It makes the human condition worse, not better.

Quantum mechanics, rather than demoting God and elevating man, does exactly the reverse. If you have a specific question on quantum mechanics, I'd be happy to deal with it.

Let me just share this. There are a couple of chapters on this in my Creator and the Cosmos book. Quantum challenges to the Christian faith were first proposed in 1983 and culminating in some claims that were made a few months back, have moved in the direction of progressive absurdity.

In 1983 Paul Davies said, “The universe was created though a quantum fluctuation.” The problem with that is that the smaller the time interval in quantum mechanics, the smaller the probability the quantum fluctuation will occur.

If we're talking about the beginning of the universe, the time interval is zero, so the probability is zero. So we know for sure that quantum mechanics doesn't do it.

The latest challenge coming from quantum mechanics is that the universe is evolving together with the human race, and the fossil record gives the evidence for this. If you look at the fossil record, you see improvement with respect to time.

Since the author of this theory doesn't believe in God, and he believes that there's some kind of self-ordering factor in nature that explains that fossil record, he concludes that the universe is improving with time, and that we human beings are improving in time.

He believes that if we wait long enough, we'll meet at one another at the Omega point, where we'll become omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Then we become God and we'll be able to create in the past, which explains why we're here today. God doesn't exist yet, but he will. When he exists, he'll create the universe 17 billion years ago.

Skeptic Martin Gardener analyzed this theory a few months ago, and said, “This is not the FAP theory. This is the CRAP theory.” It was called the Final Anthropic Principle (FAP). He called it the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle (CRAP).

The thing I've noticed in quantum mechanics in an attempt to refute the Christian faith, is as time goes on their attempts to bypass the God of the Bible get progressively more absurd. The analogy of that would be the flat Earth society, which has been in existence for 100 years.

During those 100 years, the rationale for defending a flat Earth has become progressively absurd. They'll never run out of evidence for a flat Earth, but the fact that their evidence is being demonstrated as becoming progressively more absurd tells us that they don't have a strong case.

Likewise, I would say atheists pushing through quantum mechanics do not have a strong case. You can read the details in my book.

Can you tell us what your thoughts are on Eric Lerner's book The Big Bang Never Happened ?

Hugh: I have a few pages on it in both of my books. The book is passé now because he was assuming that there'd be no resolution to the problem of the clumping of the galaxies and the smoothness of the radiation from the creation event. That was his basis for saying the Big Bang model is in trouble.

With the discovery of exotic matter, we've dealt with that puzzle. Eric Lerner overlooked independent measures for the date of the creation. He was pushing for creation date in excess of quadrillions of years. He assumed that our only basis for establishing the age of the universe was its expansion velocity.

In fact, we have several methods for age dating the universe. The burning of the stars, the ages of the oldest stars, the radiometric elements, and how we still have Uranium and Thorium in the universe. If the universe were one quadrillion years old, there'd be no Uranium or Thorium left at all. The fact that they exist tells us that the universe is relatively young.

That's a quick response to Eric Lerner's book. It had some following before the COBE satellite discoveries, but that following has since evaporated.

Dr. Ross, my question is about the order of creation described in Genesis, which seems to teach a geocentric view of the universe in that the Earth is created and then the lights are created, the lesser lights, and the greater light, the Sun. Could you talk about that?

Hugh: Genesis One follows the scientific method, in that it doesn't begin to describe the sequence of creation events until it first identifies the point of view in the initial conditions. That's not strange because that's where the scientific method came from, so of course the Bible follows the scientific method.

We see in the second verse of Genesis, chapter one, that the spirit of God was brooding on the surface of the waters. We're told the account of creation from the point of view of the observer at the surface of the waters, below the clouds, not above the clouds. That's makes all the difference in how you interpret the text.

If you put the point of view up in the heavens, almost everything you get in Genesis One is wrong, compared to the record of nature. If you place it on the surface of the ocean, below the cloud layer, then everything is a perfect fit.

What happens on the first day of creation is not the creation of light, but the appearance of light. It says, “Let there be light”, and uses the Hebrew verb meaning “to be”. It doesn't say God created the light. The light was created in the beginning. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.

The Hebrew word for heavens & Earth refers to the entire physical cosmos, the stars, galaxies, matter, energy, space and time. Light was created in the beginning. It was dark on the surface of the waters because Earth had an atmosphere that was opaque to the passage of light at that time.

There was an intense interplanetary debris cloud and the gases in the Earth's atmosphere itself combined with that debris cloud to prevent the passage of sunlight to the surface of the Earth.

On the fourth day of creation, we again see the Hebrew verb meaning, “let there be”, the sun, moon and stars. The observer on the surface of the waters, for the first time, sees the objects that are responsible for the light that came through in the first stage of the fourth day.

It was not until the fourth day of creation that the Earth's atmosphere became transparent. Before the first day, it was opaque. From the first day to the fourth day, it was translucent, permanently overcast, and on the fourth day the clouds broke and the observer could now see the objects responsible for the light.

The problem is the 16th verse, which says, “So God made the sun, moon and stars.” The Hebrew verb for “made” means to manufacture or fabricate. What the English reader often doesn't pick up on is that the Hebrew language does not have verb tenses. They have strange forms which mean the action is either complete or has not yet been completed.

The 16th verse has the verb in its “completed” form, meaning the action was completed at some time in the past. It could have been completed on the fourth day, the third day, the second day, the first day, or in the beginning.

That sentence itself doesn't tell us which of those five options we should choose. We think, wouldn't it be nice if Moses told us? Well, he did. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth,” and that [Hebrew word for heavens and Earth] would include the sun, moon and stars. They were made in the beginning, but the observer doesn't see them until the fourth day.

What's fascinating is that the fifth and sixth days of creation, for the first time, mention species of life that require the visibility of the sun, moon and stars to regulate their biological clocks."

©1994-2007 Cosmic Fingerprints and Willow Creek Community Church, South Barrington, Illinois

Einstein's Big Blunder

100 years ago this year, Albert Einstein published
three papers that rocked the world. These papers
proved the existence of the atom, introduced the
theory of relativity, and described quantum
mechanics.Pretty good debut for a 26 year old scientist, huh?

His equations for relativity indicated that the universe
was expanding. This bothered him, because if it was
expanding, it must have had a beginning and a beginner.Since neither of these appealed to him, Einstein introduced a 'fudge factor' that ensured a 'steady state' universe,
one that had no beginning or end.

But in 1929, Edwin Hubble showed that the furthest
galaxies were fleeing away from each other, just as the Big Bang model predicted. So in 1931, Einstein embraced what would later be known as the Big Bang theory, saying, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened." He referred to the 'fudge factor' to achieve a steady-state universe as the biggest blunder of his career.

As I'll explain during the next couple of days,
Einstein's theories have been thoroughly proved and
verified by experiments and measurements. But there's an even more important implication of Einstein's discovery.
Not only does the universe have a beginning, but time
itself, our own dimension of cause and effect, began
with the Big Bang.

That's right -- time itself does not exist before
then. The very line of time begins with that creation
event. Matter, energy, time and space were created
in an instant by an intelligence outside of space
and time.

About this intelligence, Albert Einstein wrote
in his book "The World As I See It" that the harmony
of natural law "Reveals an intelligence of such
superiority that, compared with it, all the
systematic thinking and acting of human beings is
an utterly insignificant reflection."He went on to write, "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe--
a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in
the face of which we with our modest powers must feel
humble."

Pretty significant statement, wouldn't you say?

"Bird Droppings on my Telescope"

The Big Bang theory was totally rejected at first.
But those who supported it had predicted that the ignition of the Big Bang would have left behind a sort of 'hot flash' of radiation.If a big black wood stove produces heat that you can feel, then in a similar manner, the Big Bang should produce its own kind of heat that would echo throughout
the universe.

In 1965, without looking for it, two physicists at
Bell Labs in New Jersey found it. At first, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were bothered because, while trying to refine the world's most sensitive radio antenna,they couldn't eliminate a bothersome source of noise.They picked up this noise everywhere they pointed the antenna.

At first they thought it was bird droppings.The
antenna was so sensitive it could pick up the heat
of bird droppings (which certainly are warm when
they're brand new) but even after cleaning it off,
they still picked up this noise.

This noise had actually been predicted in detail
by other astronomers, and after a year of checking
and re-checking the data, they arrived at a conclusion:
This crazy Big Bang theory really was correct.In an interview, Penzias was asked why there was so much
resistance to the Big Bang theory.

He said, "Most physicists would rather attempt to
describe the universe in ways which require no explanation.And since science can't *explain* anything - it can only*describe* things - that's perfectly sensible.If you have a universe which has always been there, you don't explain it, right?

"Somebody asks you, 'How come all the secretaries
in your company are women?' You can say, 'Well, it's
always been that way.' That's a way of not having
to explain it. So in the same way, theories which
don't require explanation tend to be the ones
accepted by science, which is perfectly acceptable
and the best way to make science work."But on the older theory that the universe was eternal, he explains: "It turned out to be so ugly that people dismissed it. What we find - the simplest theory - is a creation out of nothing, the appearance out of nothing
of the universe."

Penzias and his partner, Robert Wilson, won the Nobel Prize for their discovery of this radiation. The Big Bang theory is now one of the most thoroughly
validated theories in all of science.

Robert Wilson was asked by journalist Fred Heeren if
the Big Bang indicated a creator. Wilson said, "Certainly there was something that
set it all off.Certainly, if you are religious, I can't
think of a better theory of the origin of the universe
to match with Genesis."
Part 3: Why the Big Bang was the most precisely planned event in all of history!
In your kitchen cabinet, you've probably got a spray
bottle with an adjustable nozzle.If you twist the nozzle
one way, it sprays a fine mist into the air.You twist
the nozzle the other way, it squirts a jet of water
in a straight line. You turn that nozzle to the exact
position you want so you can wash a mirror, clean up
a spill, or whatever.If the universe had expanded a little faster, the matter would have sprayed out into space like fine mist from a water bottle - so fast that a gazillion particles of dust would speed into infinity and never even form a single star.

If the universe had expanded just a little slower, the
material would have dribbled out like big drops of water,then collapsed back where it came from by the force of gravity.A little too fast, and you get a meaningless spray of fine dust. A little too slow, and the whole universe collapses back into one big black hole.
The surprising thing is just how narrow the difference
is.To strike the perfect balance between too fast and
too slow, the force, something that physicists call
"the Dark Energy Term" had to be accurate to one part in ten with 120 zeros.

If you wrote this as a decimal, the number would
look like this:

0.000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000001

In their paper "Disturbing Implications of
a Cosmological Constant" two atheist scientists
from Stanford University stated that the existence of
this dark energy term "Would have required a miracle... An external agent, external to space and time, intervened in cosmic history for reasons of its own."
Just for comparison, the best human engineering
example is the Gravity Wave Telescope, which was built with a precision of 23 zeros.The Designer, the 'external agent' that caused our universe must possess an intellect,knowledge, creativity and power trillions and trillions of times greater than we humans have.

Absolutely amazing.

Now a person who doesn't believe in God has to find some way to explain this. One of the more common explanations seems to be "There was an infinite number of universes, so it was inevitable that things would have turned out right in at least one of them."

The "infinite universes" theory is truly an amazing theory. Just think about it, if there is an infinite number of universes, then absolutely everything is not only possible...it's actually happened!

It means that somewhere, in some dimension, there is
a universe where the Chicago Cubs won the World Series last year.There's a universe where Jimmy Hoffa doesn't get cement shoes; instead he marries Joan Rivers and becomes President of the United States.There's even a universe where Elvis kicks his drug habit and still resides at Graceland and sings at concerts.Imagine the possibilities!
I might sound like I'm joking, but actually I'm dead
serious.To believe an infinite number of universes
made life possible by random chance is to believe everything else I just said, too.

Some people believe in God with a capital G.

And some folks believe in Chance with a Capital C.

Part 4: "If you can read this sentence,
I can prove to you that God exists"

See this email I just sent you, that you're reading
right now? This email is proof of the existence of God.

Yeah, I know, that sounds crazy. But I'm not asking you to believe anything just yet, until you see the evidence for yourself. All I ask is that you refrain from disbelieving while I show you my proof. It only takes a minute to convey, but it speaks to one of the most important questions of all time.So how is this email proof of the existence of God?:
This email you're reading contains letters, words and
sentences. It contains a message that means something.As long as you can read English, you can understand what I'm saying.

You can do all kinds of things with this email.You
can read it on your computer screen. You can print it out on your printer. You can read it out loud to a friend who's in the same room as you are.You can call your friend and read it to her over the telephone.You can save it as a Microsoft WORD document.You can forward it to someone via email, or you can post it on a website.

Regardless of how you copy it or where you send it,the information remains the same. My email contains a message.It contains information in the form of language.The message is independent of the medium it is sent in.

Messages are not matter, even though they can be carried by matter (like printing this email on a piece of paper).

Messages are not energy even though they can be carried by energy (like the sound of my voice.)

Messages are immaterial. Information is itself a unique kind of entity. It can be stored and transmitted and copied in many forms, but the meaning still stays the same.Messages can be in English, French or Chinese.Or Morse Code. Or mating calls of birds. Or the Internet. Or radio or television. Or computer programs or architect blueprints or stone carvings. Every cell in your body contains a message encoded in DNA, representing a complete plan for you.
OK, so what does this have to do with God?

It's very simple. Messages, languages, and coded
information ONLY come from a mind. A mind that
agrees on an alphabet and a meaning of words and sentences. A mind that expresses both desire and intent.

Whether I use the simplest possible explanation,
such as the one I'm giving you here, or if we analyze language with advanced mathematics and engineering communication theory, we can say this with total confidence:
"Messages, languages and coded information never,ever come from anything else besides a mind.No one has ever produced a single example of a message that did not come from a mind."
Nature can create fascinating patterns -snowflakes,
sand dunes, crystals, stalagmites and stalactites. Tornado's and turbulence and cloud formations.
But non-living things cannot create language. They*cannot* create codes. Rocks cannot think and they cannot talk. And they cannot create information.

It is believed by some that life on planet earth arose
accidentally from the "primordial soup," the early ocean which produced enzymes and eventually RNA, DNA, and primitive cells.But there is still a problem with this theory: It fails to answer the question, 'Where did the information come from? 'DNA is not merely a molecule. Nor is it simply a "pattern."
Yes, it contains chemicals and proteins, but those chemicals are arranged to form an intricate language, in the exact same way that English and Chinese and HTML are languages.DNA has a four-letter alphabet, and structures very similar to words, sentences and paragraphs. With very precise instructions and systems that check for errors and correct them.

To the person who says that life arose naturally, you need only ask: "Where did the information come from? Show me just ONE example of a language that didn't come from a mind."

As simple as this question is, I've personally presented it in public presentations and Internet discussion forums for more than two years. I've addressed more than fifty thousand people, including hostile, skeptical audiences who insist that life arose without the assistance of God.
But to a person, none of them have ever been able to
explain where the information came from. This riddle is "So simple any child can understand; so complex, no atheist can solve."You can hear or read my full presentation on this topic at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

For a high-school level, layman's version, go here:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/information.htm

Matter and energy have to come from somewhere. Everyone can agree on that. But information has to come from somewhere,too! Information is separate entity, fully on par with matter and energy. And information can only come from a mind. If books and poems and TV shows come from human intelligence, then all living things inevitably came from a super-intelligence. Every word you hear, every sentence you speak, every dog that barks, every song you sing, every email you read,every packet of information that zings across the Internet, is proof of the existence of God. Because information
and language always originate in a mind.

In the beginning were words and language.

In the Beginning was Information.

When we consider the mystery of life - where it came from and how this miracle is possible - do we not at the same time ask the question where it is going, and what its purpose is? Respectfully Submitted by Perry Marshall

Further reading:

-"If you can read this, I can prove God exists" - listen to my full presentation or read the Executive Summary here:

http://cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

-The Atheist's Riddle: Members of Infidels, the world's
largest atheist discussion board attempt to solve it
(for well over a year now!), without success:
www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm

-"OK, so then who made God?" and other questions about information and origins:

http://cosmicfingerprints.com/infotheoryqa.htm

Design theorists offer extensive evidence that blind, material causes are incapable of building irreducibly complex and information-rich systems. They then point out that whenever we know how such systems arose such as with an integrated circuit, a car engine, or a software program invariably a designing engineer played a role. Design theorists then extend this uniform experience to things like molecular machines and the sophisticated code needed to build even the first and simplest of cells. An increasing number of leading scholars attest that increased scientific knowledge about such things has greatly strengthened the argument for design.

This could be tomorrows headline, it's ALREADY IN ETERNITY'S MIND!

“Thine are the heavens, and thine is the earth: the world and the fulness thereof thou hast founded: the north and the sea thou hast created.” —Psalm 88:12-13

“For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.” —2 Timothy 4:3-4

“By the word of the Lord the heavens were established; and all the power of them by the spirit of his mouth: gathering together the waters of the sea, as in a vessel; laying up the depths in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the Lord, and let all the inhabitants of the world be in awe of him. For he spoke and they were made: he commanded and they were created.” —Psalm 32:6-9

“Thou in the beginning, O Lord, didst found the earth: and the works of thy hands are the heavens. They shall perish, but thou shalt continue: and they shall all grow old as a garment. And as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: but thou art the selfsame, and thy years shall not fail.” —Hebrews 1:10-12 THIS IS WHY WE MUST NEVER STOP FIGHTING EVOLUTION & ATHEISM ! It was an atheist named, Renan,who predicted that the collapse of the supernatural would lead to the collapse of moral convictions. Evolution’s naturalism has ousted supernaturalism, and we can see moral convictions collapsing. The Christian culture is crumbling; and the “Post-Christian era” has begun. That is the final fruit of evolutionism.

In 1859, Professor Sedgwick of Cambridge warned Darwin that, through his evolution ideas, “Humanity would suffer a damage that might brutalize it and sink the human race into a lower state of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history." Many Christians have attempted to harmonize the theory of evolution with the Bible. They say that the Genesis account of the creation of man is merely allegorical; that Adam was not a direct creation of God, but was the end result of millions of years of evolution from the ape and was, in fact, a monkey-man; that mankind has been evolving upward ever since and steadily developing higher physical and mental qualities, until, in the far distant future, the human family will have attained perfection. But this conception, besides being contrary to known facts, is diametrically opposed to the Bible. The two cannot be reconciled. # Century-Old Evolutionary Rule Disproved #

A long-held rule in evolution called "Cope's Rule" has apparently bitten the dust. Cope's Rule, developed a century ago by dinosaur bone hunter Edwin Cope, stated simply that plants and animals evolve into larger and larger sizes. According to the Chicago Tribune (1/16/97), Cope's Rule has been taught as true in high schools and universities for the past century.

However, David Jablonski, a paleontologist from the University of Chicago, had the audacity to actually collect data to see if Cope's rule was true. He spent 10 years measuring fossils from 1,086 species of snails, oysters, and clams. In all, he made over 6,000 measurements with his trusty calipers. His conclusion: Cope's Rule is not true.

How could such a rule, widely believed and taught by a century's worth of eminent scientists, not be true? How were the experts in biology, paleontology, and evolution hoodwinked for a century? Surely such learned men and women would have easily recognized Cope's Rule as bogus. Explanations given by two of the current crop of eminent scientists for the acceptance of this century-long evolutionary boo-boo were telling.

Steven Jay Gould, the noted Harvard paleontologist, wrote the following in a commentary in the same January 16, 1997, issue of Nature magazine where Jablonski's research was published:

"One would think that issues so fundamental, and so eminently testable, had been conclusively resolved long ago -- except for a pervasive trait of the human psyche," Gould wrote. "We tend to pick most ?notable' cases out of general pools, often for idiosyncratic reasons that can only distort a proper scientific investigation."

Translation: Evolutionists tend not to look at all the data as a whole, but are happy to selectively search for data that supports their theory.

Douglas Erwin, Smithsonian paleontologist:

"I think it's going to be a classic demonstration of the fact that a lot of what we think of as trends aren't trends at all," Erwin said. "There is, instead, some sort of perceptual bias that wants to find trends."

Translation: Evolutionists see trends and processes where none actually exist. Could it be -- dare we say -- that perhaps the whole general theory of evolution is a "classic demonstration of the fact that a lot of what we think of as trends aren't trends at all?"

Although we laud science when it corrects its mistakes, and evolutionists are not the only ones who tend to see what they want to in data, why do so many scientists {And their followers} arrogantly claim evolution is a fact? Perhaps this latest egg on the face of evolutionists will instill a bit of humility in the "evolution is a fact" breed of scientists. (I can dream, can't I?) If they were wrong for a hundred years about such an easily testable thing such as Cope's Rule, teaching it as a "fact", could they be wrong about the virtually untestable general theory of evolution?

The author of the Tribune article said, "The findings are not only certain to give the field of evolution a good shake, but also serve as a reminder that not all the dusty relics lying around museums and universities are bones and stones. Some are ideas." Yeah, like the idea of a blind and random evolutionary process creating order, design and complexity out of nothing.

One thing is for sure, someone should take away Jablonski's calipers before he starts collecting more data. Who knows what more damage can be done to the theory of evolution when its adherents actually look at all the data! "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."

Albert Einstein

I have enjoyed participating for some time in an Internet creation discussion group whose membership is limited to those who believe the universe is of recent origin. One of our members, a capable professor of physics, has openly stated that scientific evidence presented by creationists for a young earth is scanty and not very convincing at the present time. I had to agree with him almost line for line.

My own belief in a recent creation is a result of my Christian world-view and this in turn stands on my experience in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ over 35 years (almost half my life), plus my confidence in the integrity and accuracy of Scripture. When I first became a Christian I soon saw the New Testament promises for peace, hope, guidance--and power to overcome personal evil--were all demonstrably true in my own life.

One day I went to visit the pastor who had led me to the Lord. I had with me some exciting new scientific news that seemed to conflict with the Bible. To my surprise my pastor friend was not very interested. Instead he said something like, "Son you have seen that the truth of the New Testament can be experienced by faith. The whole Bible is the Word of God. Jesus lived by it, the apostles took it to be authoritative and accurate, you would do well to do the same."

Though my scientific pride was wounded that day I took my mentor's advice seriously and soon began to see that Old Testament is also true and accurate and will yield life-changing power and God-given insights when it is received by faith and acted upon in trust, (i.e., on the basis of faith plus obedience).

The simple discovery I had made some months earlier--namely that Jesus Christ was alive today and that He could be communicated with one-on-one--was radical for me. It worked! But rather than simplifying for me the issues of science and the Bible my new-found faith only raised for me the possibility that considerable tension might actually exist between man's current secular scientific conclusions and something more eternal and unchanging found in the Bible. Gradually over the years I tried to build an overall world-view beginning with Creation and explaining man's plight and destiny and God's work in history. Along with this growing knowledge of the simple historical narrative in Scripture it seemed to me more and more clear that the universe was surely of recent origin.

For instance, Adam and Jesus Christ are connected by a genealogy which has few if any gaps and this places Adam's time as being clearly not many thousands of years ago. Did it make sense to have an empty universe for billions of years with man arriving on the scene only very very recently? Yet the Bible links the very existence of the universe to man's presence and his exalted position as the original steward and manager over God's household. If Adam were recent, why not the rest of all that God had created as well? See Arthur Custance's work on this, The Genealogies of the Bible: A Neglected Study.

I saw that population growth is always very rapid---evolutionary time scales are absurd for generating the present population in time periods greater than a few thousand years. The present world population can easily have been generated in thousands--not millions of years. As I looked at recorded history, especially archaeological evidence, I saw that evidences about man and civilization extend thousands or at most ten thousands of year into the past, not longer. There may be older fossils of individual men or apes, but no ruined cities, no relics, no written records. See Population of the Pre-Flood World, by Tom Pickett and World Population Since Creation.

Ian Taylor's book, In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order helped me to see how the old paradigm of a young earth gave way to modern ideas of an old universe in the early 1800's--but not for really sound scientific reasons. Instead these changes were matters of philosophy and presupposition. All science rests on such presuppositions. I was fortunate to have been invited to Canada, not once by several times, where I met and traveled with and worked with Ian Taylor. His scholarship is impeccable and he is well-read and well-informed. We became good friends. I began to see that all science grows in the environment of an underlying philosophy. All theories begin with presuppositions. All mathematical models start with initial conditions and assumptions. I saw also that science is limited in scope to physical observables. Many intangibles in life I was aware of--mind, conscience, love, the soul, creativity, beauty, religious experience were real but not easily described and certainly not explained by science. As I came to know the Bible better I saw that Biblical revelation is additional information given to us from outside the system of the universe--data that comes to us from beyond time and space. Information contained in God's revelation to man is not data one can arrive at by scientific research,, by experience, or by intuition. Truth from revelation can be confirmed in individual experience to that individual's satisfaction even if it can not be established in a scientific court of inquiry.

I do believe it is important for me (and for everyone else, too) to form a self-consistent world view. My ultimate confidence is in the revelation of the Creator of everything to His creatures. My conclusions might leave me in the end keeping company with a very small number of fellow-travelers, but "Let God be true though every man be false, as it is written." (Romans 3:4)

On the other hand I believe evidence from science must ultimately agree with Biblical revelation. Otherwise I am an ostrich with his head in the sand and will in the end not have correctly interpreted the Bible. Down through history segments of the church have been greatly embarrassed because they shut themselves off from the outside world and stuck to their own rigid opinions about what the Bible did and did not say.

For many years I have followed, and worked closely with, Australian astronomer Barry Setterfield. Barry's main focus has been to show that the speed of light (c) is not a fixed constant over time but has dropped since creation. My colleague Canadian Statistician Alan Montgomery and I have worked together on the available measurements of various atomic constants. Alan and I and confirmed in published papers that the speed of light has dropped in the last 300 years. A decreasing speed of light would mean that the radiometric (atomic) clock has slowed down with respect to dynamical time by a factor of 10 or 11 orders of magnitude. See the Barry Setterfield Research Library for full details. Barry's recent work would indicate that Adam lived about 6000 BC and the Flood of Noah occurred about 3500 BC.

Most creation scientists believe there is indeed an appearance of age in the universe. For instance when we first meet newly-created Adam in the Garden of Eden it is generally assumed he was a fully grown man, that he had no navel, and the trees of the Garden were mature trees and not mere sprouts. There are corresponding atomic and dynamic time scales for the standard geological column.

The Masoretic Hebrew text (MT) of the Bible taken literally leads to a creation date of about 4004 BC. This has always seemed to me to be too recent. The Septuagint (LXX) translation ages and time spans give a creation date closer to 6000 BC. The LXX is used by Setterfield in his Creation and Catastrophe Chronology. Bible scholar Bernard Northrup likewise places confidence in LXX dates over the MT. See The Genesis of Geology, by Bernard Northrup, ThD. Curt Sewell presents a very helpful comparison of Old Testament dates, Biblical Chronology and Dating of the Early Bible. There are many problems in reconciling OT chronologies! Glenn Miller of the Christian Think Tank comments:

1. I know very little about number things in the OT, and what I do know is decreasing (e.g., I am losing confidence that all/many/most of them were MEANT by the author to be taken as real 'numbers'...some cases seem to be obvious symbolic values, semi-puns, pedagogical devices, memory aids, etc.).
2. Genealogies are especially problematic, IMO, since the numbers in them had ZERO importance to their social function (i.e., to situate an individual in an social context)--numbers meant/contributed NOTHING to this task, and are accordingly 'window dressing' and/or a way to indicate SOME THING ELSE. What this 'something else' is, in an ancient context, both variable and unclear to me.
3. The LXX "bails us out" several times in OT numerical problems/contradictions, so, as a source it has a high--but uneven--credibility with me for such things.
4. I haven't studied this, but if I had to, the approach I would START WITH would be to build a comparative table of four (maybe five or six) columns, with one row for each number in Gen 1-11 (not just genealogy numbers--patterns in other numbers might reveal some pattern of number 'meaning' or literary usage). The rows would consist of the numbers in the different versions: (1) The MT (obviously, but you would need to check the Text Apparatus for juicy variants), (2) The LXX (obviously), (3) The Dead Sea Scrolls (representing our OLDEST real mss of the Hebrew bible, of course. I would start with the work by Abegg, Flint, Ulrich --"The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible", and if one of the numbers they give look juicy, you could drill down); (4) the Peshitta (of possible value), (5) the Targums (late, but still BEFORE the MT in many cases); and (6) parallels from the OT Pseudepigrapha and Apoc.: the category/genre known as "Retold Bible" are paraphrases/expansions of the early narratives (esp. Patriarchal), so you might find some interesting stuff in there. Since many/most of these are pre-MT (and some anti-MT...smile), they might could be of importance to your quest. [You could also check the rabbinics--Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews probably has all the alternate dates/ages/lengths listed in his work...there might be some variants in there.]
That's all I can suggest, since the next step would depend upon what patterns were detectable in the columns, of course...but it would be a fascinating subject!

I certainly can not prove to anyone that the universe is young. Had I lived in the 18th Century I believe most everyone around me (in the Western world) would readily agree with my young-earth hypothesis. It was taken for granted back then and seldom challenged.

Regarding the true age of things, I believe Scripture suggests this may be one of the areas where we may never really know for sure. Ecclesiastes 3:11 says this,

"...[God] has put eternity into the hearts of men, yet so that no man can find out what God has done from the beginning to the end."

I take this to suggest that the past is obscured in mists and uncertainty--as is the future--so we can not resolve with certainty the true age of things nor the detailed history of the universe. If we could time travel from the present into the past we would encounter several discontinuities where God has interfered with the status quo and altered man's future course and destiny. The passage in Ecclesiastes is similar to the New Testament claim that we can not set dates for future dates which are predicted to occur.

"So when they [the disciples] had come together, they asked him, 'Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?' Jesus said to them, 'It is not for you to know times (chronos) or seasons (kairos) which the Father has fixed by his own authority.'" (Acts 1:6-7)

The Bible is clear in telling us that the actual history of the universe has not been "uniformitarian." (2 Peter 3:3ff)

First of all you must understand this, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own passions and saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? Forever since the fathers fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation." They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water and by means of water, through which the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

I was not present at the time of creation, none of my friends were. The scientific theories I have studied regarding the origin of the universe are surely only crude models. And they are built on the dubious assumptions that one can take 50 or 100 years of observations, compile the data and draw a curve extending backwards in time to t = 0. The Bible teaches me to be highly suspicious of any such simplistic models. The Apostle Peter's warning seems quite clear to me in this regard.

Though I personally assume the universe is young, and though I naturally look for evidence that this is really so, the age of the universe is not a major plank in my platform of beliefs.

I know that the gospel is primarily an appeal to the conscience. Knowing God is a moral issue above all else (and all men are without excuse). Apologetics, such as we Christians try to do, should indeed be done with the highest possible integrity and openness. We Christians represent the Most High God by all we do and say and are. The fact that God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise does not give us the right to be stupid and ill-informed, not doing our homework, nor ignoring our critics.

If individuals can be deceived and misled in this world--and I was once a prime example--then I have no problem with groups of well-intentioned scientists being wrong sometimes, or even often. I have lived long enough to have seen all sorts of once-popular scientific ideas give way to the newer and better.

The statement "It is the glory of God to conceal things, the glory of kings is to search them out" tells me God values and rewards our search and discovery processes. Our hard questions are welcome in His courts.

Astronomer Allan Sandage said this, "Science is the only self-correcting human institution, but it is also a process that progresses only by showing itself to be wrong."

Comments on the Age of the Universe, (from a colleague)

Question: Doesn't scientific evidence show that the earth is much more than only 6000 years old?

Answer: There is no scientific measurement of the earth's age whatsoever. That is because there was no clock starting at the beginning and continuing to the present. Instead, dating consists of "extrapolating" present-day processes of various sorts back into time assuming the processes have not changed in rate. But there is abundant evidence of changes in rate of radioactive decay and other processes (e.g., radiohalos).

The current estimates of about 4.7 billion years for the age of the earth were not arrived at by objective research with no thought of Darwinian evolution. They were found by predetermined notions that the age should be in the billions of years in order to allow sufficient time for evolution--in other words "objective" radiometric dating was designed specifically to help Darwin's theory.

A government scientist rejected scientific creationism and a young earth model with the following comments: So why does science now believe the age of the universe to be much older than some Christians propose? It is because the evidence overwhelmingly demands it. 'tis not something someone dreamed up and then looked for the evidence to support it.'

But that is exactly what evolutionists did in the late 19th century: They deliberately 'dreamed up' the idea that the earth must be from hundreds of millions to billions of years old and then went in search of evidence to support it.

Charles Darwin decided in the first edition of Origin of Species that he needed 'far longer' than 300,000,000 years of earth history in the Cenozoic era alone for his theory of evolution to work though he never explained why evolution needed that specific amount of time (and even today no more than about 65 million years is allowed for the Cenozoic era) - so there's your 'something someone dreamed up.' Lord Kelvin initially gave him less than a hundred million years, but his later estimates dropped still further and allied calculations such as Peter Tait's came down as low as several million years, thus creating what has sometimes been called Darwin's greatest crisis.

Darwin struggled for decades (from Kelvin's first direct challenge in 1865 until Darwin's death in 1882) trying to get around this problem. Darwin and his supporters enlisted help from every quarter - geologists, physicists, biologists, engineers, mathematicians, etc. - to try to refute Kelvin. It even made 'bulldog' Thomas Huxley, Darwin's staunchest defender, 'squirm,' says renowned evolution historian Loren Eiseley.

Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century (Anchor Books/Doubleday, Garden City, N.Y., 1961 [1958]) pp. 233-253, esp. p. 237 quoting Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (John Murray, London, 1859 [Philosophical Library, New York, 1951 reprint] p. 245. Eiseley wrote that there had been few if any scientific attempts to date the earth prior to Kelvin and that until then geologic time was considered vague and 'unlimited,' thus allowing whatever Darwin needed for his theory: '...within six years after the [1859] publication of that work [The Origin of Species] an attack on the conception of unlimited geological time had been launched with such vigor that, by the end of the century, it was still one of two leading arguments entertained by many naturalists as casting doubt upon the principle of natural selection.

It had SHAKEN THE CONFIDENCE OF DARWIN himself, forced Huxley into a defense characterized more by SOPHISTRY than scientific objectivity, and placed geology in general in the position of an errant schoolboy before his masters. The attack had been launched by Lord Kelvin, contended by many historians of science to be the outstanding physicist of the nineteenth century...'It can be observed from Darwin's letters that this development in physics gravely troubled him.

He refers to Lord Kelvin as an 'odious spectre,' and in a letter [of 1869] ...he writes: 'Notwithstanding your excellent remarks on the work which can be effected within a million years, I am GREATLY TROUBLED at the short duration of the world according to Sir W. Thomson [Lord Kelvin] for I require for my theoretical views a very long period before the Cambrian formation.' ...Painfully and doubtfully he [Darwin] wrote to Wallace in 1871, 'I have not as yet been able to digest the fundamental notion of the shortened age of the sun and earth.'(Eiseley, supra, pp. 234, 235, 240, my capitals added.)

Evolutionary geneticist Hugo De Vries wrote in Science in 1904 that Kelvin's age calculations 'threatened to impair the whole theory of descent' because gradual EVOLUTION REQUIRED 'many thousands of millions of years [= MANY BILLIONS OF YEARS].' (Science, N.S. 20:398, quoted in Eiseley, supra, p. 248.) Science historian Albritton writes of some of the desperate efforts about 1865-1900 to get around Kelvin's limit. As Kelvin kept reducing his estimates the reactions of the scientific community 'ranged from meek accommodation to RESOLUTE OPPOSITION. Alternate SCHEMES of measuring time past were DEVISED, and the figures resulting from these EXERCISES IN ARITHMETIC ranged between 10 million and 15 trillion years.' (Claude C. Albritton, Jr., The Abyss of Time Freeman, Cooper & Co., San Francisco, 1980) p. 203, my capitals added.)

Why would there have been "RESOLUTE OPPOSITION" to simple reductions of a number, the number representing the age of the earth, if it was all merely an objective and dispassionate "search for the truth"? The reality was that scholars made every effort to try to give the evolutionists what they wanted in the way of large amounts of geologic time. This was favoritism and bias towards Darwin. As with Darwin and those evolutionists cited by De Vries, this typically amounted to the order of magnitude of BILLIONS OF YEARS.

One author estimated the age of the earth from sedimentation rates for geologic strata as somewhere between 10 million and 5 trillion years, with a rough logarithmic mean of 6 BILLION YEARS. (William J. McGee, Science (1893) 21:309-310, cited in Albritton, supra, pp. 192-193.) Another author critiquing Kelvin's work said 'If PALEONTOLOGISTS have good reasons for demanding much greater times [than 400 million to 1 billion years] I see nothing from the physicists' point of view which denies them four times the greatest of these estimates' - in other words 4 BILLION YEARS. (John Perry, Nature (1895) 51:582-585 at p. 585, quoted in Albritton, supra, p. 195.)

Hence, there was a lot of effort in the 1865-1905 period to find evidence to support figures for the earth's age in the BILLION-YEAR range in order to aid the evolutionists' guesswork. Eiseley comments that 'A collected bibliography of the subject through the period 1862 to 1902 would be enormous.' Albritton remarks that these were not really scientifically sound estimates, 'Given the prevailing uncertainties ...one could arrive at almost any preconceived magnitude of time.' (Albritton, supra, pp. 186, 192, my capitals.)These pioneer geochronologists knew approximately what time frame to expect in order to satisfy the evolutionists and not surprisingly they eventually found it. As early as 1878, a scheme was worked out in which the basic geologic time scale approximating our Paleozoic-Mesozoic-Cenozoic eras would occupy about 600 million years - exactly the modern day figure to one-digit precision but long before radioactivity had even been discovered. (T. Mellard Reade, 'Limestone as an Index of Geological Time,' Proceedings of the Royal Society (1878) 28:281.)

Some like to suggest that the scientists who developed radiometric dating had no idea they were going to find an Old Earth, that they had no interest in the evolution controversy, that they simply reported the facts as they found them, unaware of the implications until after making the discovery. But history says differently. Once Curie and Laborde discovered in 1903 that radioactivity gave off heat, this immediately led Rutherford to suggest in 1904 that radioactivity could now refute Kelvin's overly restrictive age of the earth, which had been based on the projected cooling rate of the planet from a hot molten state. Rutherford wrote:

'...the temperature gradient observed in the earth may be due to the heat liberated by the radioactive matter...If this be the case...Lord Kelvin's computation may only supply the minimum limit to the age of this planet...The discovery of the RADIOACTIVE elements, which in their disintegration liberate enormous amounts of energy, thus increases the possible limit of the duration of life on this planet, and ALLOWS THE TIME CLAIMED by the geologist and biologist for the process of EVOLUTION.' (Ernest Rutherford, 'The Radiation and Emanation of Radium' part 2, Technics (August 1904) pp. 171-175, reprinted in The Collected Works of Lord Rutherford of Nelson (Allen & Unwin, London, 1962) vol. 1, p. 657, quoted in Albritton, supra, p. 203, my capitals added.)

Here we have a clear statement of interest by Rutherford in finding evidence to support the evolutionary time scale by use of radiometric dating -- at the very inception of the concept by its inventor, Rutherford. Shortly thereafter (1905), Bertram Boltwood and John Strutt (Lord Rayleigh) took up Rutherford's idea and made the first attempts to radiometrically date rock specimens. (Albritton, p. 204)

Question: Doesn't the fossil record indicate change over time? Why aren't there human fossils in all the strata?

Answer: The fossil record does NOT show the millions of fine intergradations between major categories of organisms that Darwin and his successors expected. That is why "punctuated equilibrium" theories were developed in recent decades to explain away the massive gaps in the fossil record.

Human fossils and manufactured artifacts ARE found in various geologic strata but they are relatively rare due to difficulty in finding them in the massive sediments constituting the "geologic record" since the Cambrian layer and due to the destructive effects of catastrophic sedimentation. (See Forbidden Archeology by Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson, a massively documented 1,000-page book researched by NON-Christian Hindus and devoted to compiling evidence of human remains and artifacts in geologic strata.) It is also likely that humans were better able than animals to avoid sudden catastrophic burial in sediment by fleeing to higher ground. Also, there may have been localized less sediment burials with the world's human population concentrated mainly in the Middle East where flood conditions may have been less severe than elsewhere (as witness of the survival of Noah's Ark).

Lambert Dolphin
lambert@ldolphin.org
Library
Originated, June 29, 1998. Revised March 14, 2003, November 7, 2003.

This page is dedicated to the heart of the seeking soul...no matter how you got there.

athe

The words contained herein are not only for reading enjoyment but also for those of you who have the "Guts to rethink your system of belief and get out of "Hive thinking Hypocrisy" from one of these systems "Religious or Atheistic" in nature, because there is no real difference between them...they both entrap you in circular reasoning and never ending drivel of dogma. Check out these Links to listen or Watch a real good debate:

View or download highlights of an

I Don't Have Enough

Faith to Be an Atheist

seminar with

Dr. Frank Turek: MPEG-4 OR Windows Media file

In the I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist seminar, we answer four major questions to establish why Christianity is the most reasonable worldview:

1. Does Truth Exist?

Christianity cannot be true (nor any other worldview) if truth is relative or just true for you but not for me. The seminar will show you why truth is absolute and knowable, and how you can logically refute anyone who claims it isn’t.

2. Does God Exist?

There can be no Word of God unless God exists. You’ll see three powerful arguments for the existence of God – two scientific and one philosophical. Those arguments will be established without any reference to the Bible.

3. Are Miracles Possible?

If miracles don’t happen as most university professors believe, then Christianity is nonsense. The seminar will show you that not only are miracles possible, but the greatest miracle of all has already occurred and we have scientific evidence for it.

4. Is The New Testament True?

Unless truth exists, God exists, and miracles are possible, the New Testament doesn’t have a prayer. But after establishing those points, you’ll see the Top Five Reasons to believe the New Testament is historically accurate—Jesus really did die and rise from the dead for the sins of the world. From the accuracy of the New Testament, the accuracy of the Old Testament can be established as well.

Turning the Tables on the Atheist

By Frank Turek

Before I attended Seminary, I took a class in Constitutional law at The George Washington University. The class was taught by a very liberal law professor who made it known she was an atheist. When we got to the so-called “separation of church and state” issue, the professor realized I was a Christian and began to grill me.
“Frank, are you a fundamentalist?” she barked, the contempt clear in her tone.
“Are you so religious that you believe the Bible is actually true?”
I tentatively answered yes, but I was stammering in my response. I hardly knew how to support my beliefs with any facts. Like most other Christian college students, I didn’t know much about the evidence in support of the Bible and Christianity, and I didn’t know how to turn the tables on her to reveal that she too was a religious fundamentalist who had a lot of faith.
What? She was an atheist—how could she be a religious fundamentalist with faith? It may sound counterintuitive, but I think it’s true. Just like everyone else, she was religious, had her own fundamentals, and needed faith to believe them. In fact, I’d like to offer a three-point news bulletin for the mocking critics of Christianity:

1. Everyone is religious.

Did you ever notice that people often give their opinions about religion but then caveat it by saying, “But I’m not a theologian”? Well, the truth is everyone’s a theologian. Some are more informed theologians than others, but everyone has some set of religious beliefs. If we define religion as someone’s explanation of ultimate reality—the origin, operation, meaning, and destiny of all things—then everyone is religious, including atheists. While some people devoutly believe that God is the cause of all this, others are just as devout in support of an atheistic explanation or that of some other religious worldview. Even those who are devoutly agnostic or indifferent have taken a religious position. It’s not that they’ve never thought about an explanation for ultimate reality, it’s that they believe the question is unknowable, undecided, or irrelevant. That’s still a religious position.

2. Everyone is a fundamentalist.

While Christians are often mocked for being fundamentalists, everyone has fundamental beliefs about why things are the way they are and how we should live in light of that. Atheists, for example, believe that there is no God; that life arose from non-life without any intelligent intervention; that there is no afterlife; and that science is the supreme if not exclusive source of all truth. Those fundamental beliefs usually result in moral fundamentals such as tolerance for everything (except for those who don’t tolerate everything). So the question is not who is or isn’t a fundamentalist—everyone is. The question is “whose fundamentals are true?”

3. Everyone has faith.

If we define faith as believing something that lacks complete evidence, then everyone has faith. Since no human is all-knowing, all of us—even atheists—require some degree of faith to believe our religious fundamentals. Those that have more evidence for their fundamentals, require less faith-- those with less evidence need more faith.

I say all that to show that the playing field is truly level. Everyone is some kind of religious fundamentalist, and everyone has a certain amount of faith. That means that the seventy-five percent of churched students who reject the Christian faith after high school are implicitly adopting another faith, one with its own set of fundamentals and religious beliefs. Of course, few realize that. They think that they are becoming beacons of rationality by rejecting Christianity. Ironically, I think the evidence shows that the exact opposite is true. Those who reject Christianity are becoming more irrational. They require more faith to believe their new worldview than the Christian one they abandoned. The "I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" seminar begins to show them why. (To go deeper into the details, get the book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.)
All About GodAllAboutGod.com

Over 15,000 pages of Answers!

Josh.orgJosh.org

The research findings of Josh McDowell for free!

ReasonableFaith.orgReasonableFaith.org

Site of Dr. William Lane Craig, one of the best Christian debaters.

LeeStrobel.comLeeStrobel.com

Watch answers at Lee Strobel’s site. It’s filled with short apologetics videos.

CARM.orgCARM.org

Lots of articles on apologetics topics from Matt Slick.

Equip.orgEquip.org

Apologetic resources from The Christian Research Institute and the Bible Answerman show hosted by Hank Hanegraaff.

Summit.orgSummit.org

The best place to get young people Christian worldview training in the summer.

SES.eduSES.edu

The best place to learn apologetics at the college and seminary level.

RatioChristi.orgRatioChristi.org

A student apologetics alliance sponsored by Southern Evangelical Seminary.

Probe.orgProbe.org

Apologetics resources from Probe Ministries, host of Mind Games Conferences.
STR.Typad.comSTR.Typad.com

Blog with a Christian perspective on current events. Hundreds of great articles. Led by Greg Koukl.

BASEInstitute.orgBASEInstitute.org

For the adventurer in you: site of Christian explorer Bob Cornuke.

Tektonics.orgTektonics.org

Lots of articles from apologist J.P. Holding.

Answering-Islam.orgAnswering-Islam.org

Answering the main theistic competitor to Christianity: Islam

TroubledWith.comTroubledWith.com

This site from Focus on the Family offers advice on many personal relationship issues from a Christain perspective.

DrudgeReport.comDrudgeReport.com

Hear about it first from Matt Drudge.

PearceyReport.comPearceyReport.com

News from a Christian perspective.

RealClearPolitics.comRealClearPolitics.com

Stay in touch with political opinion, and, at a glance, see who's winning the horse race in the polls.

7Tx7.net7Tx7.net

Custom PowerPoint presentations to help pastors reach their congregations.

Posted by Ministerofblog
Labels:Photos , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Nailing down why Atheism is a FALSE VIEW!

"A Skeptic is one who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions."
If your having trouble getting your mind around Creation Science then just see and read the proof in plain English.


Here are direct questions to better understand just why YOU as an Atheist invest so much energy trying to eliminate the "God who wasn't there" as you would say!


Remember TOTAL HONESTY is required to do this, so if you as an Atheist are not willing to find the truth and are predisposed to your stubborn habit of hating an IMAGINARY GOD you don't believe in.....THIS WON'T WORK!


What motivates your Hatred toward God?



What is logic?


What is truth?


Whose truth is right?


Are truth and logic material things?


Can you see it and therefore believe it?


To claim logic you must determine what determines logic or who?


Where does logic come from?


Who or what decides logic and whose to say whose logic is right?


Where did you get your views from?


Can you map it by purely material means?


How do you draw the conclusion of whose logic is true logic?


And when you get there how can you be sure it is true or even valid?


What will you use to determine the validity of your own logic?


and finally How can an atheist truly know what is wrong or bad?



Answer these questions and welcome to Agnosticism my Atheist friend!


[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/v/HvhGeNzdRZA&hl=en_US&fs=1]





Dr Whitaker - a terrifying experience of darkness as a dying atheist


Dr Whitaker M.D. an Atheist to the core was a very well-informed and well-educated medical doctor and researcher who was nevertheless an alcoholic. He fell gravely ill and was taken to hospital where he was slipping in and out of his body it seems.

PART 1......


[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAN8Qwu4_1w&feature=player_embedded]



PART 2....


[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocWYcB8yHqo&feature=player_embedded]




Article 1.)

What Exactly Does God Believe About Atheism and Christianity?

The Answer May Surprise You!










I know what your thinking, "Ohhh! no not another article about God and Atheism!" Well not quite, this article is not the same kind of article you've read before...


Why? Because in the first place I used to be one of those " fake Atheists" that claimed like the "Parrot" I was then, all the same rhetoric the real Atheists (so-called!) said!


I spouted the words but never saw a single bit of real evidence to support what I said all the years I stated it. Evolution in school DID NOT help me to recover any ground as the so-called science was changed many times over the years, from "Billions of years to Millions of years for the same processes (Not that the school text books ever cared or noticed the changes!)

I don't know about you but I as a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ have to get this out...I'm sick and tired of hearing from BOTH sides in this debate about God's existence.


I experienced the lack of evidence from BOTH ends, and the trouble started because we began from a wrong premise this debate is not about scientific or historical bantering back and forth; it is simply about "Hypocrisy" on both sides, outright lies and misdirection. My question is simple if evolution and for that matter Climate Science had the real truth, there would be NO NEED TO LIE and make-up evidence...WOULD THERE?


We all go though life with questions that seem unanswerable throughout our lives but do questions really make us hate someone who we say we don't believe in or is it more like we hate what we have become and don't want to face up to the judgment involved in THAT change?



Matthew 7:13-14 says


"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

What Jesus said is VERY simple to understand and I don't care if you believe in God or not, this can't be misunderstood without a lot of help. Life cannot be found on the world level it's hidden behind the trees on a NARROW path of life where God is both revealed and active by the seed that contains your proof called FAITH, in the lives of those who bother to seek him!

Now I ask you would it not be at the very least plain "Foolishness" to not see the facts at hand and turn around and use "Hypocrisy" as your reason to say God doesn't exist?


This little verse explains clearly that another path exists and its possible to take the wrong one...Right?

So knowing this simple fact alone explains those in the Churches who pretend to be Christian in the name of God. This proves nothing except that the Bible is 100% right about "Hypocrisy and False brethren".

People always use and abuse "good intentions" for both financial and personal gain and they themselves are "Atheistic in their personal lives" no one out there who uses the gospel this way is anything but a "Fool" (The Hebrew definition : of a fool is a heedless moral blockhead who is mentally insane, meaning they do the same stupid things over and over again but expect different results each time.)



John 3:18 plainly says:


"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."


This is also simple, if you refuse to believe (As an Atheist or Christian copycat) the words of God then the CONDEMNATION you feel is "already inside your heart".


God at no time condemns anyone, it is the sin within you that puts you down BECAUSE of disbelief.


In fact the Law did not in itself condemn people it was their personal handling of what the Law stated that condemned them and brought about their own judgment.


So for anyone to blame "The rules" presented for the "Results Received is a "fool" in the sense that they are "Morally stupid" about just what it means to be disobedient.


I mean let's get real if you break a Law in any country and get caught do you blame the "Rules" you broke or yourself for being stupid enough to get caught?


This is just simple stuff, nothing hard to understand..God treats all men, skeptic, atheist, agnostic or believer the same he expects you to listen and follow IN obedience just as millions have had to do before you...and that my Friend is completely FAIR AND BALANCED behavior!


John 8:24


"I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."


The issue is not believing in certain facts over other facts, it is a question of knowing clearly just who Jesus is in our personal thinking COMPARED to what the Bible presents as Jesus.


No matter what you say you believe about Jesus the question come down to what God says period. It's this simple: on judgment day your OPINION with not matter just the simple statements of Scripture!


Matthew 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."


BEWARE of those who sound off as religious leaders or lay people but are motivated ONLY by money, fame, or power (remember there's nothing wrong with money, fame or power BUT for these things to be your motivator makes you misjudge and to minimize the anointing in your life and glorify yourself).


Just as there are Hypocritical Atheist's that misuse and misapply information because they can't stand it when a real point is made there are also Hypocritical believers who use the Bible filled with God's Love as a tool to beat over the heads of others.


We must as humans learn to work around these "Foolish" people and come to the facts on both sides as clearly and concise as is humanly possible!


As I sit here looking at different websites about Atheism to find FOR ONCE something new..what do I see?


The same boring idle conversations parroted back and forth about how Christianity lies to us, and we need to end the rule of God! Nothing, absolutely nothing worth reading out there.


It's all the same and you might be surprised to know so is most all Christian banter...worthless diatribe that proves nothing but a total and purposeful misunderstanding of the other side. There MUST be others on both ends of this debate that feel the same way I do about others telling us what we all "must" believe or else? Only a being capable of perfect love and judgment is allowed to tell us what to believe because he and he alone has perfect knowledge of past, present and the future.


The only problem with this is us having agreement about his existence not the "side issues" of personal attacks!



What is a Lie?



A lie is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others, often with the further intention to maintain a secret or reputation, protect someones feelings or to avoid a punishment.


To lie is to state something that one knows in themselves to be false or that one has not reasonably investigated to be true with the intention that it be taken for the truth by oneself or someone else. We must realize that as human beings limited as we all are guilty of lying to ourselves as much as to others!



Lying is typically used to refer to deceptions in oral or written communication. Other forms of deception, such as disguises or forgeries, are generally not considered lies, though the underlying intent may be the same. However, even a true statement can be considered a lie if the person making that statement is doing so to deceive, thus the Bible stated in a wrong context becomes a lie.


In this situation, it is the intent of being untruthful rather than the truthfulness of the statement itself that is considered a lie.


A bold-faced which is what most in the debate on the Atheist side practice is a lie which is told when it is obvious to all concerned that it is a lie, but stated in such a way as to insult the intelligence of the hearer.


Everyone should agree that this form of "Lying evidence gathering" for either side is childish and unproductive!


The Old and New Testaments both contain statements that God is not capable of lying not just that he wouldn't lie but that he cannot as part of his nature lie! (Num 23:19, Ps 89:35, Hab. 2:3, Heb 6:13-18).



The Bible is filled with many instances of lying both to God and to others. This issue has set the rabid Atheists afire with retribution against the God of the Bible! But this is pure misunderstanding about the context of the lies in question! God in each case DID NOT want the lie but let the person do as THEY WISHED as he always does.


There is not one single skeptic alive that would allow God to force his will on anyone is there?


Sin is wrong in any context but our will prevents us from seeing the end from the beginning as God does, so we seldom make the right choice when confronted with truth or error!


No lie stated in scripture ever is said to prosper the teller and is punishable in many ways if we simply read it in complete context, something very few Christians and Atheists are willing to do!


Now what exactly does God believe in regards to Atheism? Well it's very simple actually God believes in all of US not in our actions against him, God sees past our imperfections. He witnesses our future obedience to him amidst our present sinful acts! There is not a person alive today that God sees as they are.


God sees things that are NOT now manifest as if they were manifest, therefore Mr. and Mrs Atheist and Christian believes in the you that should be not the you you've become by experience!


God "calls things that are not as though they were" (Romans 4:17).This not only states the obvious but speaks to the nature of God to look into the future and see us as we should be, free from our actions of disobedience.


The real issue is: will we cooperate or continue to look for him in the wrong place expecting to see what is not there, hear what cannot be heard, and feel what is somewhere else?


It's plain, God's terms or NO EVIDENCE will make sense to your "Unregenerate mind" no matter how convincing it seems to us!


I know that this article does not debate God as Atheists would like so they can tear it up and spit it out but I thought it would be better to reach the heart than argue with your head.


As I stated before to know God will not happen as long as you look for him in your limited mental capacity, that's just the plain fact of the matter.


God dwells in a realm built by his personal FAITH that saw the end before the beginning so I ask you how in the WORLD could he be asked to reveal himself in a faithless environment?


We all go though life with questions that seem unanswerable throughout our lives but do questions really make us hate someone who we say we don't believe in or is it more like we hate what we have become and don't want to face up to the judgment involved in change?



Remember...Psalm 14:1 says


"The fool has said in his heart there is no God."


it is you that must decide within your own heart that there is or is not a God but just remember you do have this in common with God:


God himself says there are NO OTHER gods but him, so in effect he too is an atheist (small case or big case)! He knows just what you mean when you say religion is fake and should be ended as it is!


The real Atheists are the hypocrites in religious power who deny him while saying they serve him.....this is true "A-theism" to be able to use a holy thing for all the wrong reasons means you really don't believe what you represent!


Isaiah 44:6-8



"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.


And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. 8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid:


have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."


Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Clarence_Sargent







There is more to being Christian than the standard Atheist definition of the word.


And it would be smart to know where your defining goes astray!



True and False Conversion - Ray Comfort & Kirk Cameron :


PLEASE CLICK


to view movie,this explains why some in the church are not living as "TRUE BELIEVERS"!


"CHRISTIAN" you've heard the name now let's understand the claim to the fame...


What does it really mean to be called a Christian?


I WARN YOU,THIS TEACHING IS DIRECTED TOWARD THOSE WHO ARE "HYPOCRITICAL" OR ARE GUILTY OF CAUSING STRIFE IN THE TRUE BODY OF CHRIST!

And if you think it's O.K. to do these things and be called Christian,then I have a Scriptural awakening for you..HELL WILL BE HOTTER FOR THE "HYPOCRITE"! Don't believe it? To bad it's still true anyway!

John 10:1-15 (GW)

1 “I can guarantee this truth: The person who doesn't enter the sheep pen through the gate but climbs in somewhere else is a thief or a robber.

2 But the one who enters through the gate is the shepherd.

3 The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep respond to his voice. He calls his sheep by name and leads them out of the pen.

4 After he has brought out all his sheep, he walks ahead of them. The sheep follow him because they recognize his voice.

5 They won't follow a stranger. Instead, they will run away from a stranger because they don't recognize his voice.”

6 Jesus used this illustration as he talked to the people, but they didn't understand what he meant.

7 Jesus emphasized, “I can guarantee this truth: I am the gate for the sheep.

8 All who came before I did were thieves or robbers. However, the sheep didn't respond to them.

9 I am the gate. Those who enter the sheep pen through me will be saved. They will go in and out of the sheep pen and find food.

10 A thief comes to steal, kill, and destroy. But I came so that my sheep will have life and so that they will have everything they need.

11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives his life for the sheep.

12 A hired hand isn't a shepherd and doesn't own the sheep. When he sees a wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and quickly runs away. So the wolf drags the sheep away and scatters the flock.

13 The hired hand is concerned about what he's going to get paid and not about the sheep.

14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my sheep as the Father knows me. My sheep know me as I know the Father.

15 So I give my life for my sheep."

Jesus said this NOT ABOUT THE DEVIL AS IS TAUGHT BY OTHERS BUT ABOUT RELIGIOUS HYPOCRITES that THINK they are doing God service by causing people to view THEM instead of Gods TRUTH!

To be called Christian simply means to be CHRIST-LIKE or like the ANOINTED,SO IF YOU ARE NOT ACTING IN ALL THINGS LIKE THE ANOINTED JESUS...NOW GET THIS....YOUR NOT SAVED!

Now I'm NOT TALKING ABOUT MAKING BAD DECISIONS OR SPEAKING OUT OF TURN, OR MAKING A MISTAKE......NOW GET THIS CLEARLY IN YOUR MIND...WE ALL DO THAT, SAINT & SINNER ALIKE; MISTAKES ARE MADE!

A hypocrite is a HEART CONDITION THAT ONLY GOD CAN HEAL...we can't help them...they must repent and receive their cleansing of their own free will.

This problem is the result of to much FOCUS ON SELF AND NO FOCUS ON GOD'S LAW,they strain hard to see the smallest parts of the Law of God and completely MISS GOD'S INTENT IN THE LAW..WHICH IS NONE OTHER THAN..."MERCY",THEY FIND EVERY PROBLEM,EVERY SIN,EVERY LITTLE MISTAKE BUT HAVE NO MERCY TO COVER SIN WITH!

To them "Judgment and Condemnation"are all they can see..this is why I believe that MOST (Not All) Hypocrites are UNSAVED,some Christians are victims of their Church doctrines and don't know any better!

Romans 1:18-25 (GW) "

18 God's anger is revealed from heaven against every ungodly and immoral thing people do as they try to suppress the truth by their immoral living.

19 What can be known about God is clear to them because he has made it clear to them.

20 From the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly observed in what he made. As a result, people have no excuse.

21 They knew God but did not praise and thank him for being God. Instead, their thoughts were pointless, and their misguided minds were plunged into darkness.

22 While claiming to be wise, they became fools.

23 They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for statues that looked like mortal humans, birds, animals, and snakes.

24 For this reason God allowed their lusts to control them. As a result, they dishonor their bodies by sexual perversion with each other.

25 These people have exchanged God's truth for a lie. So they have become ungodly and serve what is created rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen!

"Romans 2:1-8 (GW)

" 1 No matter who you are, if you judge anyone, you have no excuse. When you judge another person, you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the same things.

2 We know that God's judgment is right when he condemns people for doing these things.

3 When you judge people for doing these things but then do them yourself, do you think you will escape God's judgment?

4 Do you have contempt for God, who is very kind to you, puts up with you, and deals patiently with you? Don't you realize that it is God's kindness that is trying to lead you to him and change the way you think and act?

5 Since you are stubborn and don't want to change the way you think and act, you are adding to the anger that God will have against you on that day when God vents his anger. At that time God will reveal that his decisions are fair.

6 He will pay all people back for what they have done.

7 He will give everlasting life to those who search for glory, honor, and immortality by persisting in doing what is good. But he will bring

8 anger and fury on those who, in selfish pride, refuse to believe the truth and who follow what is wrong. "

1 John 1:5-10 (GW)

5. This is the message we heard from Christ and are reporting to you: God is light, and there isn't any darkness in him.

6 If we say, “We have a relationship with God” and yet live in the dark, we're lying. We aren't being truthful.

7 But if we live in the light in the same way that God is in the light, we have a relationship with each other. And the blood of his Son Jesus cleanses us from every sin.

8 If we say, “We aren't sinful” we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 God is faithful and reliable. If we confess our sins, he forgives them and cleanses us from everything we've done wrong.

10 If we say, “We have never sinned,” we turn God into a liar and his Word is not in us. "

James 4:1-12 (GW)

" 1 What causes fights and quarrels among you? Aren't they caused by the selfish desires that fight to control you?

2 You want what you don't have, so you commit murder. You're determined to have things, but you can't get what you want. You quarrel and fight. You don't have the things you want, because you don't pray for them.

3 When you pray for things, you don't get them because you want them for the wrong reason—for your own pleasure.

4 You unfaithful people! Don't you know that love for this {evil} world is hatred toward God? Whoever wants to be a friend of this world is an enemy of God

. 5 Do you think this passage means nothing? It says,

“The Spirit that lives in us wants us to be his own.”

6 But God shows us even more kindness. Scripture says, “God opposes arrogant people, but he is kind to humble people.”

7 So place yourselves under God's authority. Resist the devil, and he will run away from you.

8 Come close to God, and he will come close to you. Clean up your lives, you sinners, and clear your minds, you doubters.

9 Be miserable, mourn, and cry. Turn your laughter into mourning and your joy into gloom.

10 Humble yourselves in the Lord's presence. Then he will give you a high position.

11 Brothers and sisters, stop slandering each other. Those who slander and judge other believers slander and judge God's teachings. If you judge God's teachings, you are no longer following them. Instead, you are judging them.

12 There is only one teacher and judge. He is able to save or destroy you. So who are you to judge your neighbor? "






"CHRISTIAN" MEANS:





"like Christ".. SIMPLY PUT, act like Jesus..

HOW simple can this be?

If we would just think BEFORE WORDS ESCAPE OUR MOUTHS, I believe over half the problems in the Church would simply be no more...I mean let's face it MOST of our problems stem from selfishness in WORDS...WE "SELF CREATE" BIGGER AND BADDER ISSUES THAN ARE REALLY THERE,

SATAN IS A MASTER MANIPULATOR!

You see Satan likes to see the church INFIGHTING and WASTING TIME on selfish ambitions,and "Look at me politics"INSTEAD of doing what Jesus said to do!



 To those of you out there on the Internet,who are causing strife and harassing other believers FOR ANY REASON you are GUILTY BEFORE GOD...REPENT!

GET ON YOUR KNEES AND ASK FOR FORGIVENESS....

(TRUE BELIEVERS YOU MUST FORGIVE THEM)

If you "Willfully", will not repent of your sin then GOD HIMSELF WILL REMOVE YOU as a problem!

Matthew 7:1-6 (GW)

" 1 “Stop judging so that you will not be judged.

2 Otherwise, you will be judged by the same standard you use to judge others. The standards you use for others will be applied to you.

3 So why do you see the piece of sawdust in another believer's eye and not notice the wooden beam in your own eye?

4 How can you say to another believer, ‘Let me take the piece of sawdust out of your eye,' when you have a beam in your own eye?

5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye. Then you will see clearly to remove the piece of sawdust from another believer's eye.

6 “Don't give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls to pigs. Otherwise, they will trample them and then tear you to pieces. "

John 15:1-14 (GW)


" 1 {Then Jesus said,} “I am the true vine, and my Father takes care of the vineyard.


2 He removes every one of my branches that doesn't produce fruit. He also prunes every branch that does produce fruit to make it produce more fruit.


3 “You are already clean because of what I have told you.


4 Live in me, and I will live in you. A branch cannot produce any fruit by itself. It has to stay attached to the vine. In the same way, you cannot produce fruit unless you live in me.


5 “I am the vine. You are the branches. Those who live in me while I live in them will produce a lot of fruit. But you can't produce anything without me.


6 Whoever doesn't live in me is thrown away like a branch and dries up. Branches like this are gathered, thrown into a fire, and burned.


7 If you live in me and what I say lives in you, then ask for anything you want, and it will be yours.


8 You give glory to my Father when you produce a lot of fruit and therefore show that you are my disciples.


9 “I have loved you the same way the Father has loved me. So live in my love.


10 If you obey my commandments, you will live in my love. I have obeyed my Father's commandments, and in that way I live in his love.


11 I have told you this so that you will be as joyful as I am, and your joy will be complete.


12 Love each other as I have loved you. This is what I'm commanding you to do.


13 The greatest love you can show is to give your life for your friends.


14 You are my friends if you obey my commandments. "


It's up to you right now to realize your sin of intolerance to fellow believers..YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO JUDGE ANOTHER CHRISTIAN..WE ARE NEVER TO JUDGE PEOPLE..SAINT OR SINNER..EVER, ONLY "SIN ITSELF" CAN BE JUDGED,THAT'S OUR LIMITATION CHURCH..PERIOD!!!

1 Peter 1:22-25 (GW)


" 22 Love each other with a warm love that comes from the heart. After all, you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth. As a result you have a sincere love for each other.


23 You have been born again, not from a seed that can be destroyed, but through God's everlasting word that can't be destroyed. That's why {Scripture says},


24 “All people are like grass, and all their beauty is like a flower of the field. The grass dries up and the flower drops off,


25 but the word of the Lord lasts forever.” This word is the Good News that was told to you. "


1 Peter 2:1-2 (GW)


" 1 So get rid of every kind of evil, every kind of deception, hypocrisy, jealousy, and every kind of slander.


2 Desire God's pure word as newborn babies desire milk. Then you will grow in your salvation. "


1 Peter 4:1-19 (GW)


" 1 Since Christ has suffered physically, take the same attitude that he had. (A person who has suffered physically no longer sins.)


2 That way you won't be guided by sinful human desires as you live the rest of your lives on earth. Instead, you will be guided by what God wants you to do.


3 You spent enough time in the past doing what unbelievers like to do. You were promiscuous, had sinful desires, got drunk, went to wild parties, and took part in the forbidden worship of false gods.


4 Unbelievers insult you now because they are surprised that you no longer join them in the same excesses of wild living.


5 They will give an account to the one who is ready to judge the living and the dead.


6 After all, the Good News was told to people like that, although they are now dead. It was told to them so that they could be judged like humans in their earthly lives and live like God in their spiritual lives.


7 The end of everything is near. Therefore, practice self-control, and keep your minds clear so that you can pray.


8 Above all, love each other warmly, because love covers many sins.


9 Welcome each other as guests without complaining.


10 Each of you as a good manager must use the gift that God has given you to serve others.


11 Whoever speaks must speak God's words. Whoever serves must serve with the strength God supplies so that in every way God receives glory through Jesus Christ. Glory and power belong to Jesus Christ forever and ever! Amen.


12 Dear friends, don't be surprised by the fiery troubles that are coming in order to test you. Don't feel as though something strange is happening to you,


13 but be happy as you share Christ's sufferings. Then you will also be full of joy when he appears again in his glory.


14 If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed because the Spirit of glory—the Spirit of God—is resting on you.


15 If you suffer, you shouldn't suffer for being a murderer, thief, criminal, or troublemaker.


16 If you suffer for being a Christian, don't feel ashamed, but praise God for being called that name.


17 The time has come for the judgment to begin, and it will begin with God's family. If it starts with us, what will be the end for those who refuse to obey the Good News of God?


18 If it's hard for the person who has God's approval to be saved, what will happen to the godless sinner?


19 Those who suffer because that is God's will for them must entrust themselves to a faithful creator and continue to do what is good.


I pray that this message gets through your hard heart and blinded mind before it's to late..this is a matter of spiritual Life and Death..because

...Galatians 6:6-10 (GW)

"6 The person who is taught God's word should share all good things with his teacher.

7 Make no mistake about this: You can never make a fool out of God. Whatever you plant is what you'll harvest.

8 If you plant in {the soil of} your corrupt nature, you will harvest destruction. But if you plant in {the soil of} your spiritual nature, you will harvest everlasting life.

9 We can't allow ourselves to get tired of living the right way. Certainly, each of us will receive {everlasting life} at the proper time, if we don't give up.

10 Whenever we have the opportunity, we have to do what is good for everyone, especially for the family of believers. "


REPENT...REPENT!!!! THAT'S ALL WE HEAR IN CHURCHES AROUND THE WORLD...But just what do they mean by repentance?

To most I would say nothing more than believe what WE BELIEVE AND YOU WILL BE SAVED...BUT LET'S GET REAL HERE,THE BIBLE'S NOT GOING TO AGREE WITH THAT PREACHING AT ALL!!

True bible repentance is NOTHING LIKE MODERN PREACHERS ARE PORTRAYING IT...here's the problem in a nutshell, MOST PREACHERS THEMSELVES DON'T BELIEVE IN WHAT THEY PREACH as far as their personal lives are concerned so HOW CAN THEY PREACH TRUTH FROM ANY KIND OF CONVICTION?

True bible repentance is a matter of the HEART AND THE SOUL (Mind) it's NOT a matter of our churches stands on doctrine or what my preacher FEELS IS RIGHT AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT.

Salvation really is a PERSONAL HAPPENING ON A PERSONAL LEVEL,DEEP DOWN IN YOUR INNER-MOST BEING.

Salvation has nothing to do with HOW YOU LOOK,HOW YOU FEEL,OR EVEN WHO YOU ARE...ITS A PERSONAL INSIDE ME DEAL,NO ONE INCLUDING SATAN CAN EVER STOP IT OR TAKE IT FROM YOU ONCE YOU MAKE THE CHOICE PURE AND SIMPLE...THAT'S SALVATION!

Repentance means TURNING FROM one thing and NEVER GOING BACK so when you turn around your thinking about sin and won't go back to do it again then YOU HAVE REPENTED OF IT AND GOD IS FREE TO SAVE YOUR SPIRIT FROM HELL and BEGIN to save your soul (Mind) from A LIFETIME OF DARKNESS and DECEPTION.

Do not let ANYONE for any reason make you believe that God cannot save you,there is not one single person alive that God could'nt pull from Hell's grasp..THAT'S A FACT!!

Romans 10:9-10 states

"That IF you will CONFESS WITH YOUR MOUTH THE LORD JESUS,and will BELIEVE IN YOUR HEART THAT GOD HAS RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD,you WILL BE SAVED.

For with your heart you believe to get RIGHTEOUSNESS;and with the MOUTH CONFESSION IS MADE RESULTING IN SALVATION."

WHAT IS TRUE SALVATION?

Are you one of those that will not be there because you where deceived into a false salvation?

Nothing could be more misunderstood than what it takes for salvation and the purpose behind it.

Let’s first define what salvation is; Salvation is eternal life as the children of God.

This is a generally accepted idea by most Christian denominations, but varies in how they see achieving it. Let us now examine the truth of the matter, salvation as revealed in Gods Word. Saved By Grace The Bible repeatedly states that we are saved by grace, and therefore people cannot conceive of any works.

They do not understand that a Christian is in training for what he will be doing in the next life, and therefore missing the whole purpose of salvation.

The meaning of the term grace as used in the Bible is this, a free gift, or an undeserved pardon. We are all saved by grace, but we are also rewarded according to our works, good works or evil works.

Over and over again the Bible teaches us that we will be rewarded according to our works. We can not earn salvation by our own works, nor does the Bible teach it anywhere.

Now everyone has works of either good or bad, and bad works earn eternal death, but good works earn something too, and it is not salvation. We may receive it as Gods gift through Jesus, but a person can not of himself create it, we must go to God through Jesus to get it.

ISA 59:1-2 says:

"The Lords hand is not shortened that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy that it cannot hear:

but your sins have separated you from your God, and your sins have hid his face from you that he will not hear"

Also, Romans 3:23 tells us that our sins have cut us off from God and all have sinned, thus, cutting us off from his gift of salvation.

How then do you gain access?

"God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in (in what? in the gospel he taught) him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

"For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his son ... (ROM 5:10-11).

So then, we are now reconciled to God by Jesus death, we now have contact with God, and he has eternal life to give as a gift through his son.

" "that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his son. He that has the son has life; and he that does not have the Son of God has not life" (John 5:11-12).

But then, just how then do we receive it from him?

Our Faith "I say to you, He that believes (has faith) on me has everlasting life" (John 6:47)

It is commonly thought that one need only believe in Jesus for salvation, it is true that you need a belief or faith in Jesus, but do you understand what kind?

"For by grace are you saved through faith;" (EPH 2:8).

We must have faith that the blood of Christ has paid the penalty for our past sins, and that we are saved by grace, it does not however excuse our sins.

Faith does not do away with the law, for the law defines what sin is, (Romans 3:20)

It is by our faith that we establish the law. "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid (NO): we establish the law" (ROM 3:31).

We establish the law, and the law defines sin, and sin is the transgression of the law, and the law sets the rules by which to live. Therefore the law has the power to take the life of a sinner.

A sinner is under the law, but when a sinner repents and accepts the blood of Christ for payment of his sins he is pardoned by grace and the law is no longer hanging over him to claim his life. It is those who are still sinning, that do not repent, that are under the law.

"Even so, faith if it has not works is dead, being alone. Yes, a man may say, You have faith, and I have works: show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works ... But do you know o vain man, that faith without works is dead?" (James 2:17-20)

In other words, your belief is not enough, it is through your faith, an active faith, that you keep the law. Our works by faith, is a living faith that saves.

The Holy Spirit "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you will receive the gift of the holy spirit" (Acts 2:38).

It is on real repentance of sin, and a real desire to quite sinning, and a faith in Jesus, that is expressed in a water baptism that we receive the holy spirit as a gift, by grace.

"But if the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also enliven your mortal bodies by his spirit that dwells in you" (ROM 8:11).

"In whom (Christ) you also trusted, after that you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that you believed, you were sealed with that holy spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession..." (EPH 1:13-14).

Once one receives the holy spirit, sealed with the holy spirit of promise, they become heirs of Gods promise, not yet an inheritor of that promise, for the inheritance is conditional, getting into Gods kingdom is conditional.

The inheritance is freely given, by grace, one is now under the promise of grace and not under the penalty of the law, yet conditionally.

As long as the Holy Spirit resides within a person, they remain heirs to the promise. But how does one keep the Holy Spirit?

God gives the Holy Spirit to them that obey him Acts 5:32, by obeying!

But what does obeying God mean?

The word works means actions, labors, deeds, and can be broken down into two ways, physical acts or spiritual acts, both of which a true Christian must demonstrate in his life, for works are the demonstration of your faith.

"What then?

Shall we sin (transgress Gods law), because we are not under the law but under grace?

God forbid (NO!)."

Grace does not mean you are free to sin, "Sin is the transgression of the law"

(1 John 3:4).

"Do you not know brethren, (for I speak to them that have knowledge of the law) how that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?"

(ROM 7:1).

Being under grace, is to no longer be under the penalty or claim of the law, not the law itself, Christ paid the penalty, he satisfied the claim of the law, he did not do away with the law, the law reflects Gods character, setting the standard for sinless behavior.

"And hereby do we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that says I know him, and keeps not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But who ever keeps his word, in him is the love of God perfected"

(1 John 2:3-6)

If you are not keeping the commandments, yet you call yourself a Christian, you are a liar, the truth of Christ and God are not in you. You must prove that you know him by keeping the commandments.

"Not every one that says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven."

(Matt 7:21)

, to believe in Christ is not enough to get you into the kingdom of heaven, you must also do his will,

"for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law will be justified."

(ROM 2:13).

"They that do the commandments have a right to the tree of life."

(REV 22:14).

It is not hard to keep God's commandments with the power of the Holy Spirit living within one. The Holy Spirit is there to help a person keep Gods law by instilling his characteristics of patience, faith, and understanding.

But it is by our works that we are rewarded. Everyone has works, evil works, which are the disobedience of Gods laws or commandments, and which earn a death sentence, or good works that earn or have a reward, not salvation, for salvation is by grace.

A person is judged and rewarded according to his works during his converted (after receiving the Holy Spirit) life, to determine what position, office, or rank he will receive upon entering Gods kingdom.

"...has made us unto our God, kings and priests: and we will reign on the earth"

(Rev 5:10).

"For the Son of Man will come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he will reward every man according to his works"

(Matt 16:27).

"And he that overcomes, and keeps my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:"

(Rev 2:26).

"You can see how, by works a man is justified,.."

(James 2:24)

Whether we are kings, or priests, or some other position in Gods kingdom will be determined by our works here and now.

Grace will get one into Gods kingdom, but works will qualify one for an office in Gods kingdom, we are being saved to serve, and if you do not qualify to serve, your works can keep you out of God's kingdom, you can lose the promise, the gift of salvation.

Read the parable of the pounds in Luke 19:12-27 regarding the Christian reward upon Jesus return.

Salvation then is Gods free gift, by grace, to mankind, but it can only be achieved by faith in Christ and God.

Through the Holy Spirit dwelling within you, it becomes possible to produce good works separate from your own personal labour, which in turn qualifies one for a position in Gods kingdom !



[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKoCXriC9eM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1][youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPnGxeChCiw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1]


A quote from an Ex-Atheist:


"I used to be an atheist. And like most atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly.


What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?!


What causes us to do that?


When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people...to help them release their hope in a god which I believed was completely ill-founded.


To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise.


Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God completely. If I could "conclusively prove" to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table; and I would be free to go about my life.


I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was simply because the "God" I didn't believe in was pressing the issue upon my heart and mind.


I have come to find out that God wants to be known, he's NOT hiding from us at all. God requires all men to seek him as he has set-up to be sought NOT as we dictate to him! He created us with the intention that we would know him;and the "Internal Drive" to find him in all of what he made.This is the ONLY logical thing he could have done, as to not know him would make no sense at all.


He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. During the time I was denying HE WAS THERE I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God.


In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them AND THEY CANNOT IN THEIR PRIDE ADMIT to it.


{ THAT WOULD BE IT RIGHT THERE.....PRIDE!}


I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge, socialist and philosophical author, wrote,


"I had a notion that somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued." C.S. Lewis said he remembered, "...night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet.


I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England."


Lewis went on to write a book titled, "Surprised by Joy" as a result of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully admitting God's existence.


Yet over the following several months, I became amazed by his love for me." This question alone should make every Atheist in the world take stock in just what their motivation is, because IF they were right then they should have DISPROVED GOD LONG AGO since after all there is no such thing as "God in any form" and moved on with real life instead of wasting their time and money on one rabbit hole after another.


The very simple observation in any debate between a TRUE BELIEVER and real Atheist (Not just a religious person who found no joy in life following man invented rules; this is not a true Atheist) proves one thing clearly....an Atheist goes out of their way to DEGRADE, PUT DOWN, and otherwise abuse any reference to deity or the church.


This does not promote in any way a "logical debate" of the facts at hand but rather exposes a deep seated pre-hatred and animosity toward the very mention of any form of outside control to their lives.


It has been said and rightly so "that an Atheist cannot find God for the same reason that a thief cannot find a cop" they are in constant repel mode instead of attraction mode to the answer to an age old question, is God there?


I mean really just look at ANY online debate today on the net and see this pattern repeat itself over and over again: "I don't think this guy was ever really an atheist. I wonder what argument finally persuaded him to join the crazies? The hilarious argument from design?


He wanted to be a Christian. hell, he might have made it all up as christian propaganda. As far as I'm concerned, if you care about enlightenment and truth at all, you'll see through the petty superstitions of the past."This line of illogical reasoning without a breath continues to be the standard banner of the Atheist mindset in any forum.


Harassment instead of answering the question, misdirection and smoke and mirrors win the day for the Atheist NOT LOGICAL REASONING BUT NAME CALLING and vindictive sentiments are the only response to believers evidences that we give without EVER refuting one little bit of proof we present, it's no wonder Atheism has continued to fail in every way, both in its political and religious forms (Yes I said Religious! Atheism is as much a false religious belief system as any other on the earth.) Why?


Because it, like all forms of "MAN-MADE CRAP" fails to offer a shred of "life altering evidence" nothing that Atheists have done has made things better for the rest of us in the real world but even the worst faith on the planet can at the very least; claim good results for the poor and needy.


Where has this happened with the national Atheistic movements? I'm not saying that "individual Atheists" cannot effect change around them;of course they can and do. I'm talking about "the movement" as a whole. It is their "self worship" which becomes the god that the Atheist promotes. It is that same selfishness on a "grand scale" with no moral compass to give it a balance and give back to societies.



Photobucket



“Many people fear nothing more terribly than to take a position which stands out sharply and clearly from the prevailing opinion. The tendency of most is to adopt a view that is so ambiguous that it will include everything, and so popular that it will include everybody.”– Martin Luther King, Jr.



What this great man said is so true when it comes to taking a stand for or against the God question. Atheist's with only a few exceptions fail to present logical reasoned answers to "creationist evidences" and tend to resort to insults instead of trying to dismantle with reasonable thoughts the evidence presented to them. Why do they do this?










I believe it to be out of the fear of finding out they have both lied and been lied too, and simply cannot face the facts as we see them. It does not matter the reason, you will one day face the truth no matter who you fool here!

But it is also the way that God has made it possible to know him.....BY FAITH ALONE, there's no other way to have God revealed in the physical evidence you seek! All that can be seen now is circumstantial Evidence....FAITH ALONE releases the mind into deep truth!





The simple fact is that not one Atheist in all of history has DISPROVED GOD'S EXISTENCE with any certainty whatsoever speaks volumes; for if in all of history it had been done there would no longer be a need for Atheism as we know it today.


The questions would become mute at the point the "God issue" was DISPROVED!


Just as today you no longer see people who believe the earth is square and flat at least not people who are med free...WHY? Because that was DISPROVED centuries ago and the evidence has forever silenced the naysayers, the same is true concerning the God question!




Here is a quote proving this to be the case (from:HERE ):

"The word is out, “atheistic” humanism has failed!

Period!






This is most evident in the United States as we witness via organized humanism’s ineffectual response to the religious Right’s worldview, and via the general attitude of Americans toward religion, superstition and science.

Why has this happened to humanism when other “movements,” such as those championing African-Americans or Jews or Gays, have made significant progress, and have done so despite the secular and religious Right’s thirty-year affront to progressive ideals?

Could humanism’s failure as a worldview, to some extent, be because so many humanists see their worldview as an alternative to religion rather than a self-contained faithof its own?

How many times do we humanists find ourselves describing our beliefs by calling out a litany of ideas and faiths we don’t happen to subscribe to?

It is at times as if humanism would not exist if it were not for religion.

It is no wonder that organized humanism, cautious about becoming a religious alternative tend to follow a big tent model, wrapping as much as they can into their message – secularism, science advocacy, atheism, skepticism, and somewhere in the mess, humanism – while boosting their revenues even if that means diluting their original message." whatever that was!




There is a vast difference between being able to Think freely about what life really means and being bound to "religious stinking' thinking".

Religion as a man-made entity has never freed anyone from anything at any point in history, in fact just like Atheism it is nothing more than another man-made box to think from.

All any man-made institution has done is too barrow from the real thing and promote itself as something it's not, this is true Hypocrisy at the highest level, adding too or taking from what God made perfect already.






What about SIN and what it does to you?

It's important to know this in order to understand why you think the way you do about God!


This is something the Holy Spirit has layed on my heart, therefore I've spent lots of study time on this.... I hope that this will be an eye opener for anyone who reads this. These are not my words but rather that of the One True Living God!



Do Not be Deceived..........YOU Will NOT enter the Kingdom of Heaven with SIN in your life..GET IT OUT,NOW!!!



1 Corinthians 6:9-10






9 Do you not know that the UNRIGHTEOUS WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD? DO NOT BE DECEIVED. Neither FORNICATORS, nor IDOLATERS, nor ADULTERERS, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor SODOMITES, 10 nor THIEVES, nor COVETOUS, nor DRUNKARDS, nor REVILERS, nor EXTORTIONERS will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were (THIS IS THE KEY"WERE") some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.(NKJV)



UNRIGHTEOUS- wicked, unjust, heathen, ungodlyWILL NOT INHERIT- meaning to be an heir

THE KINGDOM OF GOD- Heaven and all that is connected to God's will and inheritance.



 DO NOT BE DECEIVED-a straying from, seduced, delusion, error, "the deceiver" is the title of the devil. Lit. "the deceiving one", Often it has the sense of "deceiving oneself" eg. 1Cor. 6:9;15:33, Gal 6:7NEITHER FORNICATORS,- (Greek word pornos)-whoremonger, prostitute, a crime of impurity between unmarried persons. Figuratively-infidelity to God.

NOR IDOLATERS-(Greek word eidololatres), an “idolater” is found in 1 Cor. 5:10, 11; 6:9; 10:7; the warning is to believers against turning away from God to idolatry, whether “openly or secretly, consciously or unconsciously” Eph. 5:5; Rev. 21:8; 22:15.

NOR ADULTERERS-(Greek word moichos) denotes one “who has unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another,”

NOR HOMOSEXUALS-(Greek word arsenokoite) Two occurrences; translates as “abuser of (one’s) self with mankind” once, and “defile (one’s) self with mankind” once. One who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual.

NOR SODOMITES-[malakos ] adj. Of uncertain affinity; Four occurrences; translates as “soft” three times, and “effeminate” once. 1 soft, soft to the touch. 2 metaph. in a bad sense. 2a effeminate. 2a1 of a catamite. 2a2 of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man. 2a3 of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness. 2a4 of a male prostitute.

NOR THIEVES-(Greek word kleptes) is used (a) literally, someone who steals, Matt. 6:19, 20; 24:43; Luke 12:33, 39; John 10:1, 10; 12:6; 1 Cor. 6:10; 1 Pet. 4:15; (b) metaphorically of “false teachers,” John 10:8;

NOR COVETOUS-(Greek word pleonektes), lit., “(eager) to have more” i.e., to have what belongs to others; hence, “greedy of gain, covetous,”

NOR DUNKARDS-(Greek word methysos), meth´-oo-sos; from tipsy, i.e. (as noun) a sot:— drunkard.Another form of to drink to intoxication, i.e. get drunk(Intoxication of ant kind)-Drugs

NOR REVILERS- (Greek word loidoros ) From loidos (mischief);

denotes “to abuse, revile,” to pick on, be mean,“to speak profanely, to accuse.

NOR EXTORTIONERS- (Greek word harpax) adj. 1 rapacious, ravenous. 2 a extortioner, a robber, extorting money or property

WILL INHERIT -(The Greek word used here is ou) “no, not,” expressing a negation absolutely, is rendered “nay,” e.g., in Matt. 5:37; 13:29; John 7:12, kjv (rv, “not so”); Acts 16:37; 2 Cor. 1:17-19; Jas. 5:12.






Now lets turn to Galatians 5:19-21




19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: ADULTERY, FORNICATION, UNCLEANNESS, LASCIVIOUSNESS, 20 IDOLATRY, WITCHCRAFT or SORCERY (Take note here once and for all, see below), HATRED, CONTENTIONS(variance), JEALOUSIES(emulations), OUTBURST OF WRATH, SELFISH AMBITIONS(strife), DISSENSIONS(seditions), HERESIES, 21 ENVY, MURDERS, DRUNKENNESS, REVELRIES(revelings), and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things WILL NOT INHERIT the kingdom of God.(NKJV)



ADULTERY-(Greek word moichos) denotes one “who has unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another,”FORNICATION,- (Greek word pornos)-whoremonger, prostitute, a crime of impurity between unmarried persons. Figuratively-infidelity to God.

UNCLEANNESS-(Greek word akatharsia) impure, [lewd] or [demonic]):— foul, unclean

LASCIVIOUSNESS-(Greek word aselgeia) “wantonness, licentiousness, lasciviousness,” is translated “filthy

IDOLATRY-(Greek word eidololatria), Heathen sacrifices were sacrificed to demons, 1 Cor. 10:19; there was a dire reality in the cup and table of demons and in the involved communion with demons. In Rom. 1:22-25, “idolatry,” the sin of the mind against God (Eph. 2:3), and immorality, sins of the flesh, are associated, and are traced to lack of the acknowledgment of God and of gratitude to Him. An “idolater” is a slave to the depraved ideas his idols represent, Gal. 4:8, 9; and thereby, to divers lusts, Titus 3:3

WITCHCRAFT or SORCERY-(Greek word pharmakeia and pharmakon), medication (“pharmacy”), magic (lit. or fig.):— sorcery, witchcraft.

(Greek word pharmakous), from pharmakon, (a drug, i.e. spell-giving potion); a druggist (“pharmacist”) or poisoner, a magician:— sorcerer. You will please note that IN NO WAY is Witchcraft to be equated with any form of Spiritual power is is however attached to the FLESHLY MENTAL REALM and is therefore LIMITED in its power toward the Church of Jesus, this does however explain WHY ITS POWER IS SO HARD TO UPROOT and why its influence goes so deep into societies through the Centuries.

HATRED-Greek word echthra), “enmity” “enmities,” “hatred.” It is the opposite of agape, “love.”

VARIANCE-(Greek words eris), er´-is; a quarrel, wrangling:— contention, debate, strife, variance.

EMULATIONS- (Greek word zelos), dzay´-los; heat, ardor; in an unfavorable one, jealousy, as of a husband [fig. of God], or an enemy, malice):— emulation, envy (-ing), fervent mind, indignation, “zeal, jealousy,” is rendered “fierceness”

WRATH-(Greek word thymos) “hot anger, wrath,” is rendered “fierceness”

STRIFE-(Greek word eritheia)“ambition, self-seeking, rivalry,” self-will being an underlying idea in the word; hence it denotes “party-making.” It is derived, not from eris, “strife,” but from erithos, “a hireling”; hence the meaning of “seeking to win followers,” “factions,” so rendered “strifes”; not improbably the meaning here is rivalries, or base ambitions (all the other words in the list express abstract ideas rather than factions)

SEDITIONS-(Greek words dichostasia) lit., “a standing apart” (dicha, “asunder, apart,” stasis, “a standing”), hence “a dissension, division,” is translated “seditions”

HERESIES-(Greek word hairesis)denotes (a) “a choosing, choice” (from haireomai, “to choose”); then, “that which is chosen,” and hence, “an opinion,” especially a self-willed opinion, which is substituted for submission to the power of truth, and leads to division and the formation of sects, Gal. 5:20 (marg., “parties”); such erroneous opinions are frequently the outcome of personal preference or the prospect of advantage; see 2 Pet. 2:1, where “destructive” signifies leading to ruin; some assign even this to (b); in the papyri the prevalent meaning is “choice” “a sect”; this secondary meaning, resulting from (a), is the dominating significance in the NT, Acts 5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14; 26:5; 28:22; “heresies” in 1 Cor. 11:19

ENVYINGS- (Greek word phthonos)“envy,” is the feeling of displeasure produced by witnessing or hearing of the advantage or prosperity of others; this evil sense always attachés to this word, Matt. 27:18; Mark 15:10; Rom. 1:29; Gal. 5:21; Phil. 1:15; 1 Tim. 6:4; Titus 3:3; 1 Pet. 2:1; so in Jas. 4:5, where the question is rhetorical and strongly remonstrative, signifying that the Spirit (or spirit) which God made to dwell in us was certainly not so bestowed that we should be guilty of “envy.”

MURDERS-(Greek word phonos)(to slay); murder:— murder, + be slain with, slaughter.

DRUNKENNESS-(Greek word methe)an intoxicant, i.e. (by impl.) intoxication:— drunkenness. “strong drink”, denotes “drunkenness, habitual intoxication,”

REVELLINGS-(Greek word komos)a carousal (as if letting loose):— revelling, rioting “a revel, carousal,” the concomitant and consequence of drunkenness, is used in the plural, Rom. 13:13, translated by the singular, “reveling” (kjv, “rioting”); Gal. 5:21 and 1 Pet. 4:3, “revelings.”, “prodigality, a wastefulness, profligacy"






"those who PRACTICE such things will NOT inherit the kingdom of God." ( A person who PRACTICES DAILY ANY OF THESE sinful, demonicly influenced WEAKNESSES in personality CANNOT be in a place to benifit from the Kingdoms influences and will end up in a different place than heaven NO MATTER WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT RELIGION AND FAITH! )



I have to say that this was an eye opener studying these verses word for word in the original text ; it gave me a much much better understanding of what God says. There is NO way to Mis-interpret what this text is saying. God has given us every tool, every truth, every key, everything at our finger tips. We have no excuse for not learning His truth. When we stand before the all Mighty and give account of our life we will find out that the ONLY thing that was worth our time and effort was seeking God's face, spending time with God's people, and serving God's interests. How foolish and naked we will feel, when He shows us all the fruitless time here on earth we've wasted. All these things that people do that will not enter the Kingdom, just don't seem worth the eternal consequence. Please, People re=read carefully the true meanings of these words. May the Holy Spirit convict us were we NEED to be convicted before it's to late. Remember these are God's definitions the original meanings, not the ones that we have thought. May our hearts be tender. None of it is worth losing our Heavenly Home. 1 John 5:18a "We know that anyone born of God does not CONTINUE to sin." We are called to be differnt, and to allow God's light (Jesus' light) to shine through us.



Let me give you an example: Here is a man who has struggles with approval and alcohol all His life. God gets a hold on Him, but He only give a little of Himself to God. He is deceiving Himself. By all outward appearance He is a Godly man, every time the church doors are open He's there dressed in His best. He talks an amazing talk, seems to be very Godly, But the truth is; is the man hasn't really changed, he still drinks, smokes, and smokes drugs, still flirts with other women, even though he's married. He is deceiving Himself. (interesting that God's word say " Do not be deceived ) And worst of all showing others that proclaiming to be a Christian is no different than being of this world. Yet this man still in all his pride and arrogant, believes he's right. And seems to refuse to repent and FULLY surrender his ALL to the Almighty. Now because of this man's life he's living ; His son who desperately needs God, and knows He's there but doesn't DO anything about it, See's this example of his earthly Father strutting in front of Him doing the same things as everyone else in this world. He doesn't see a Godly man showing Him the truth, the love, the wrath of the Almighty.

So now one of two things will happen....One the son See's no need to serve God (there's no difference)and use that as an excuse not to change and serve God or Two the son knowing that Christians aren't to act and live that way, will just get further away from receiving the truth of God and His transforming power. Either way the end result of the Father's ungodly and hypocritical behavior doesn't no one any good. It hurt God, and only keep Him from a close relationship with God, His deceives himself and walks in a non-victorious life, and he is hurting his son, who is watching. My heart truly hurts...Please open the eyes of your hearts people, If we are REAL children of God we WILL give up self and we will serve God in our outward and inward life. There Will be a major change in us. THE LIGHT in us WILL shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in Heaven.






Matthew 5:16 "We are called to be the salt of the earth.The world will know us by our fruit; the fruit of the spirit....."






THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRITGalatians 5:22-26






22 "BUT the fruit of the Spirit is LOVE, JOY, PEACE, LONG-SUFFERING, KINDNESS, GOODNESS, FAITHFULNESS, 23 GENTLENESS, SELF-CONTROL (Temperance). Against such there is no law. 24 And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another."



(Love which is the greatest command 1 Corinthians 13) read it



LOVE-(Greek words agape)“feast of charity” once. All in compassing love. 1 brotherly love, affection, good will, love, benevolence. 2 love feasts.JOY-(Greek word chara) cheerfulness, i.e. calm delight:— gladness, × greatly, (× be exceeding) joy (-ful, -fully, fulness, -ous).

PEACE-(Greek word eirene)prosperity:— one, peace, quietness, rest, + set at one again,the harmonized relationships between God and man

LONG-SUFFERING-(Greek word makrothymia)“forbearance, patience, longsuffering”

GENTLENESS-(Greek word chrestotes) usefulness, i.e. mor denotes “goodness” in the sense of what is upright, righteous, Rom. 3:12 (translated “good”); in the sense of kindness of heart or act, said of God, Rom. 2:4; 11:22; Eph. 2:7 (“kindness”); Titus 3:4 (“kindness”); said of believers and rendered “kindness,” 2 Cor. 6:6; Col. 3:12; Gal. 5:22 (rv; kjv, “gentleness”)






GOODNESS-(Greek word agathosyne)“over,” rendered “beyond” virtue or beneficence:— goodness.FAITH-(Greek word pistis)conviction, espec. reliance upon Christ for salvation; truth itself:— assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity “firm persuasion,” a conviction based upon hearing (akin to peitho, “to persuade”), is used in the NT always of “faith in God or Christ, or things spiritual.”

MEEKNESS-(Greek word praotes, praupathia), humility gentleness, mildness, meekness.

TEMPERANCE-(Greek words enkrateia)“strength,” occurs in Acts 24:25; Gal. 5:23; 2 Pet. 1:6 (twice), in all of which it is rendered “temperance”, “self-control” is the preferable rendering, as “temperance” is now limited to one form of self-control; the various powers bestowed by God upon man are capable of abuse; the right use demands the controlling power of the will under the operation of the Spirit of God; in Acts 24:25 the word follows “righteousness,” which represents God’s claims, self-control being man’s response thereto; in 2 Pet. 1:6, it follows “knowledge,” suggesting that what is learned requires to be put into practice






26 "Let us NOT become CONCEITED, PROVOKING one another, ENVYING one another"



Let us NOT-(Greek word for Not is-me, mege, mepou) me, may; a primary particle of qualified negation (expresses an absolute denial); (adv.) not, (conjunc.) lest; also whether:— any, but (that), × forbear, + God forbid, + lack, lest, neither, never, no (× wise in), none, nor, [can-] not, nothing, that not, un [-taken], without.CONCEITED {desirous of vain glory,}-(Greek word kenodoxos) vainly glorifying, i.e. self-conceited:— desirous of vain-glory in Gal. 5:26, (kjv, “desirous of vain glory”)

PROVOKING-(Greek word prokaleo)“to call forth,” as to a contest, hence “to stir up what is evil in another,” occurs in the middle voice in Gal. 5:26

ENVYING-(Greek word phthoneo)to be jealous of:— envy.






May you walk in the freedom and the joy that a walk close to God brings. If the Holy Spirit has convicted you in anyway, please repent (turn from that sin and not doing it anymore) and ask God for forgiveness. Please see the Video on my other post "True and False Conversion" And while this might just blow your theology out of the water, I WOULD ASK YOU...ISN'T HEAVEN FOREVER WORTH IT TO LOSE AN EARTHLY IDEA IN FAVOR OF AN ETERNAL TRUTH?





How to Defeat an atheist argument!
'Click'By spiderpam Hold them to their namesake

Ask questions make them walk out their irrational beliefs to the bitter end, don’t let them grab Christian morals or ideas in order to stay afloat.

Atheism is defined in two ways

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Godlessness; immorality.

When we debate an atheist the first and most prevalent point usually made is that Christianity is illogical. But wait

An atheist only has three places in which to base their standards and none of them can account for logic and thought let us look at them:

Nature- nature is defined for humans by the fives senses: touch, smell, sight, hear, taste.Thinking is not a sense found is nature thus you can't use it for any basis for thought or logic.

Society- Basically majority rule, but to use this for thought, logic or common sense majority cannot account for this world today. . When ever it’s tried, you get mass choas is the next step "you don’t agree with society, you die." We would be just robots the void of individual thought. And whose to say which society idea is right, There is no standard to base in a majority rule. Another point to bring it home is: Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?

Individualism- The most impossible, One individualism can never be wrong thus they can never be right everything is subjective. Atheist hate this, because by there very definition the claim an absolute NO GOD which means nothing when coming from an atheist. In our world today, can a atheist explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal, or how order could have ever resulted from chaos?

Morality- We can’t say atheist are immortal, but they have no basis for morality.

A true atheist can never say something is bad or wrong, to say so implies they must know what is good or right. That’s where they use Christian values to define their beliefs in the lack of values and the bible or God. To put it simple bad can only exist when there is first good ie rust can exist on a car, moth ridden clothes need clothes. Evil can only exist where there is good, Christians can tell what is bad because we know what is good. Atheists don’t have that luxury because their words are always subjective and an absolute can never be reached.

Keeping the above in mind ask an atheist these questions:

What is logic?

What is truth?

Whose truth is right?

Are truth and logic material?

Can you see it?

To claim logic you must determine what determines logic or who?

Where does logic come from?

Who or what decides logic and whose to say whose logic is right?

Where did you get your views from can you map them by purely material means?

How do draw the conclusion of whose logic is true logic?

And when you get there how can you be sure it is true or even valid?

What will you use to determine the validity of your own logic?

and finally How can an atheist truly know what is wrong or bad?

When you get through these you will have a new agnostic and then you can present the gospel and it will make more sense when they realize their whole view is senseless and illogical.

Don’t get me wrong I believe there are true atheists out there, but we will never meet them as they are the truly insane or the walking robot dead. A true atheist would never debate a Christian, how could they? Everything is subjective and he has no basis to fault Christianity. He can disagree, but it’s truly meaningless.

To you ex atheist or new agnostic be honest. Is there any evidence that would satisfy you and persuade you to become a believer, or are you just going to believe what you WANT to believe? If so why waste your time on a computer?

whygodreallyexists.com








Testimony of an Ex-Atheist


By Darren "Daz" Gedye


I grew up in a non-Christian home. My father is an atheist and my mother was a backsliding Christian, due mostly to marrying my father I suspect. Anyway, I grew up an atheist. I never went to Church or Sunday school, stayed in bed till lunch-time on Sundays, and hated Christians who I thought were all stupid.


When I came to adolescence I went through a really hard time due to circumstances that I won't bore you with, and I decided life would be easier to bear if I cut out all feelings and contact with other people. I was eleven years old.


I spent the next decade working at achieving that goal and also trying to find a meaning for my life. I went through a stage of fads, where I would be fanatically interested in some subject, and then drop it when I found that it did little or nothing to feed the hunger in my soul. I didn't have many friends at high school, and those I did associate with decided I was the person most likely to initiate a global holocaust.


I dropped out of school after failing my University Entrance exams, and got a job as a chemistry technician with the New Zealand Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. With the money came independence. I left home, was living in a house by myself, going to a job where I spoke to no-one, and going to night school at the local polytechnic where I did the same. I had achieved my goal: my life was empty of any emotions or meaningful contact with others. - It sucked.


The second year I was at night school I noticed a guy in my class was trying to talk to me. He'd been trying for the previous year as well, but I was too messed up to even notice. Luckily he was the patient type. He was a Christian and he invited me to go to an evangelistic outreach with him. I nearly punched him out. After that he tried just to be my friend and not try any heavy evangelism on me.Question marks


As I grew to trust him we started talking about life and stuff like that. I realized that a lot of what I had been told about Christians when I was growing up was not true. I started asking him questions about his beliefs and he answered them, but had the sense not to push it any further.


After a couple of years of this I realized that his worldview made more sense than mine did. I started reading a Bible he gave me and one night alone in my room it dawned on me that it was all true and I was the world's prize idiot. I hit the floor and asked Jesus to take control of my life.


My Mother has since reclaimed her faith so my family is now divided down the middle; my mother and I are Christians, my father and brother are atheists. Becoming a Christian didn't solve my problems, but it helped me to understand them and it opened the way for God to start healing me from my past.


After a few years I started going to Bible College at nights to learn more about God. I did that for two years, but then the pressures of trying to hold down a full-time and demanding job, go to Bible College at night, and help out in the Church and its youth group got too much. I dropped out of Church for a couple of months and failed my subjects at Bible College. I wanted to do something with my life for God, but I didn't know what.


After a long struggle and a fair bit of soul-searching I quit my job and applied for the Youth Intern position at my local Church. I have switched from doing a Diploma of Biblical Studies to doing a Ministry Internship Diploma, which is a much more practical course. I am trying to do less studying of God and more following him. So far I am enjoying it, but I know following God is a lifetime journey. I still have a long way to go.


As an aside, my friend from poly-tech is the most effective evangelist I have ever met. He has never been to Bible College or had any formal training and he says I now know far more theology than he does. But he has a love for God that still amazes me.




[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxc0NpTZE18&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1]




Professor Antony Flew confesses his belief in a creator!


Author of "Theology and Falsification," and "Darwinian Evolution""the most famous atheist in the academic world over the last half-century, Professor Antony Flew of England's University of Reading, now accepts the existence of God" (Dallas Morning News)

"Professor Antony Flew, a prominent British philosopher who is considered the world's best-known atheist, has cited advancements in science as proof of the existence of God." (Insight On The News)

"British professor Antony Flew, for decades one of the world's leading philosophers of atheism, publicly announced that he now affirms the existence of a deity." (Dallas Morning News)

"Now, in a remarkable reversal, Mr. Flew holds that the universe was brought into being by an infinite intelligence." (Dallas Morning News)

"This is comparable to Hugh Hefner announcing that he is becoming a celibate." (Insight On The News)Read the three Newspaper articles below:



"Former Atheist Says God Exists"


"An Atheist's Apostasy"



"Academics viewing the universe through a narrow scope should rethink assumptions"Although Flew, for the moment rejects Christianity, he gives his personal views in an interview:


"My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms." (private interview with Antony Flew, Dec 2004) Former Atheist Says God Exists


By: Cliff Kinkaid (Editor of the AIM Report)


Insight On The News


December 21, 2004


It didn't make news, on the front or back pages of leading American newspapers, but Professor Antony Flew, a prominent British philosopher who is considered the world's best-known atheist, has cited advancements in science as proof of the existence of God. This is comparable to Hugh Hefner announcing that he is becoming a celibate.


At a symposium sponsored by the Institute for Meta-scientific Research, Flew said he has come to believe in God based on developments in DNA research. Flew, author of the book, Darwinian Evolution, declared, "What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together. The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence."


Associated Press distributed a December 9 story by religion writer Richard N. Ostling about Flew's conversion. Flew told AP that his current ideas had some similarity with those of U.S. "intelligent design" theorists, who believe the complexity of life points to an intelligent source of life, rather than the random and natural processes posited by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.


Flew's statements have been covered in Britain, where he is a professor, but we found nothing about his transformation in major American newspapers such as USA Today, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. Ostling's status as a religion writer may help explain why. The secular press considers this a religion story.


To its credit, however, the Seattle Times permitted Jonathan Witt of the Discovery Institute to write a column noting Flew's conversion in the context of discussing the usually taboo subject of the holes in Darwinian theory.


Witt noted that Darwin and his contemporaries thought a single cell was a simple blob of protoplasm and that it wouldn't have been difficult for nature to randomly produce something so simple. "In those days the cell was a black box, a mystery. But in the 20th century, scientists were able to open that black box and peek inside," he notes. "There they found not a simple blob, but a world of complex circuits, miniaturized motors and digital code. We now know that even the simplest functional cell is almost unfathomable and complex, containing at least 250 genes and their corresponding proteins."


"Darwin's Black Box" is the title of Michael J. Behe's 1996 book. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, emphasizes the complexity of molecular systems such as the bacterial flagellum. Identified by electron microscopes, it is what Behe calls an "irreducibly complex system" that is necessarily composed of at least three parts: a paddle, a rotor, and a motor. He argues that Darwinian theory cannot account for it.


But those who believe in intelligent design or find gaping holes in the theory of evolution frequently encounter a hostile press. The Discovery Institute recently provided to Accuracy in Media a thick file of complaints about the way their representatives have been treated by the media, especially National Public Radio. The Discovery Institute focuses on the issue of whether there is any evidence of design in nature, rather than whether there is a designer. Still, its representatives tend to be portrayed in religious terms by the media.


Such a tactic is common operating procedure by the ACLU, which is determined to portray any alternative to evolution as religious and therefore not allowed to be taught or even discussed in the public schools.


Back in 2001, when the Public Broadcasting Service aired the seven-part series, Evolution, financed by Microsoft co-founder and billionaire Paul G. Allen, it asked Discovery Institute scientists to appear on the last segment dealing with God and religion. It was a trick. The institute rejected this ploy, saying that its representatives had scientific objections to evolution and that they should be included in the scientific episodes.


PBS went ahead with its one-sided program anyway. In response, the Discovery Institute produced a 152-page viewers guide, noting that the series distorts the scientific evidence, ignores scientific disagreements over Darwin's theory, and misrepresents the theory's critics. Because the PBS series is still being marketed to high schools around the country, the Discovery Institute critique continues to be helpful and relevant. You can find it at: www.reviewevolution.com


PBS and the rest of the media would be well-advised to follow the lead of Antony Flew, who said that his life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: "Follow the evidence, wherever it leads." Journalists can begin their investigation of the Socratic principle by simply reporting the facts surrounding Flew's amazing evolution and the implications that his statements have for a questionable theory that continues to be taught as the Gospel in the public schools. An Atheist's Apostasy:


By: Editorial Board


Dallas Morning News


December 15, 2004


An intellectual bombshell dropped last week when British professor Antony Flew, for decades one of the world's leading philosophers of atheism, publicly announced that he now affirms the existence of a deity.


To be sure, Mr. Flew has not become an adherent of any creed. He simply believes that science points to the existence of some sort of intelligent designer of the universe. He says evidence from DNA research convinces him that the genetic structure of biological life is too complex to have evolved entirely on its own. Though the 81-year-old philosopher believes Darwinian theory explains a lot, he contends that it cannot account for how life initially began.


We (the Editorial Board of the Dallas Morning News) found this conversion interesting in light of last year's controversy regarding proposed revisions to the state's (Texas) high school biology textbooks. Our view then was that while religion must be kept out of science classes, intellectual honesty demands that when science produces reliable data challenging the prevailing orthodoxies, students should be taught them.


We were bothered by Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin's statement that for scientists, materialism must be "absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." That's called stacking the deck.


Mr. Flew may be dead wrong, but it's refreshing to see that an academic of his stature is unafraid to let new facts change his mind. The philosopher told The Associated Press that if admirers are upset with his about-face, then "that's too bad. My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."


If the scientific data are compelling enough to cause an atheist academic of Antony Flew's reputation to recant much of his life's work, why shouldn't Texas schoolchildren be taught the controversy?Academics viewing the universe through a narrow scope should rethink assumptions


Dallas Morning News


By Roy Abraham Varghese


December 15, 2004


Last week, The Associated Press broke the news that the most famous atheist in the academic world over the last half-century, Professor Antony Flew of England's University of Reading, now accepts the existence of God.


Mr. Flew's best-known plaint for atheism, "Theology and Falsification," was delivered in 1950 to the Socratic Club, chaired by none other than C.S. Lewis. This paper went on to become the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the last five decades and set the agenda for modern atheism.


Now, in a remarkable reversal, Mr. Flew holds that the universe was brought into being by an infinite intelligence.


"What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together," he said. "The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence."


Given the conventional wisdom of some psychologists that people rarely, if ever, change their worldview after the age of 30, this radical new position adopted by an 81-year-old thinker may seem startling.


But Mr. Flew's change was consistent with his career-long principle of following the evidence where it led him. And his newfound theism is the product neither of a Damascus road experience nor of fresh philosophical arguments, but by his sustained analysis of scientific data.


Mr. Flew's conclusion is consistent with the actual beliefs of most modern scientific pioneers, from Albert Einstein to quantum physicists like Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg. In their view, the intelligence of the universe - its laws - points to intelligence that has no limitation - "a superior mind," as Einstein put it.


Not a few of our men and women of letters, it would seem, have been looking for God in all the wrong places. Those who dismiss God as a product of psychological conditioning or pre-scientific myth-making have not come to terms with the essential assumptions underlying the scientific enterprise.


Science assumes that the universe follows laws, which leads to the question of how the laws of nature came into being. How does the electron know what to do? In A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking asks what breathes fire into the equations of science and gives a universe for them to describe. The answer to the question of why the universe exists, he concluded, would reveal to us "the mind of God."


Last May, I helped organize a New York University symposium on religion and science, with the participation of Mr. Flew and others. Our starting point was science's new knowledge that the universe's history is a story of quantum leaps of intelligence, the sudden yet systematic appearance of intrinsically intelligent systems arranged in an ascending order.


Many people assume that the intelligence in the universe somehow evolved out of non-intelligence, given chance and enough time, and in the case of living beings, through natural selection and random mutation. But even in the most hardheaded materialistic scenario, intelligence and intelligent systems come fully formed from day one.


Matter came with all its ingenious, mathematically precise laws from the time it first appeared. Life came fully formed with the incredibly intelligent symbol processing of DNA, the astonishing phenomenon of protein-folding and the marvel of replication from its very first appearance. Language, the incarnation of conceptual thought with its inexplicable structure of syntax, symbols and semantics, appeared out of the blue, again with its essential infrastructure as is from day one.


The evidence we have shows unmistakably that there was no progressive, gradual evolution of non-intelligence into intelligence in any of the fundamental categories of energy, life or mind. Each one of the three had intrinsically intelligent structures from the time each first appeared. Each, it would seem, proceeds from an infinitely intelligent mind in a precise sequence.


We can, if we want, declare that there is no reason why there are reasonable laws, no explanation for the fact there are explanations, no logic underlying logical processes. But this is manifestly not the conclusion adopted by Einstein, Heisenberg and, most recently, Antony Flew.


Roy Abraham Varghese of Garland is the author of The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God (Tyr Publishing).


He helped organize presentations by Antony Flew in Dallas on two occasions. Readers may contact Mr. Varghese through tyrpublishing.com.







hand_right1Atheists and Skeptics have for years said that there is NO real evidence to prove that God is real and he alone is responsible for the creation! Evolution states that "We see evolution as based on the trial-and-error process of variation and natural selection of systems at all levels of complexity". And "The fact that mutations can corrupt DNA is important for the Darwinian paradigm because in order for an organism to eventually evolve into an entirely different organism, changes must be made to the creature's genome over time." The trouble is there is NO evidence anywhere that any life-form has ever changed into another life-form in any fossil record anywhere in the world!





[caption id="attachment_2210" align="alignleft" width="220" caption="Foundational thought makes us see through a FILTERED experience, we therefore filter the evidence we will OURSELVES to believe!"] Foundational thought makes us see through a FILTERED experience, we therefore filter the evidence we will to believe![/caption]

Then there are"Genetic similarities" between species interpreted by evolutionists as "DNA evidence" for evolution. The fact that human and chimp DNA are more than 96% the same is taken wrongly to mean that humans are genetically related rather than just similar to chimps and therefore descended from a common ancestor, of course we know that a common designer would have a lot of common design within his creation just when an Artist creates a series of paintings though not related to each other directly have similar traits to identify it's creator. This in no way PROVES anything one way or the other, although its interesting how evolutionists make such large leaps of faith in their theory without any truth to back it up and then claim that creationist's are using faith as a crutch!

The trouble with Evolution and there's a lot! Is in the clear cut facts of science thatdna-an they seem to refuse to fix when it's found out it's not science and untrue, here's a few to ponder: The Coelacanth ( Pronounced "seal-a-canth"a large fish) supposedly according to evolutionists disappeared from the fossil record with the last of the dinosaurs. That was supposedly 65 million years ago. The problem is that it is still alive and totally unchanged in our oceans today. Where is the evolution of this creature over time if it never changed into anything else? It's still as God made it less than 10,000 years ago! And what about God's "biggest Joke" towards these evolutionists? The platypus has a duck-like bill, swims with webbed feet, and lays eggs. Yet nobody calls it a transitional creature between mammals and ducks. Maybe it would have to go extinct for thousands of years and be found later so they can deceive a future class of people? What about their big theory on Dino's and Birds? Wasn't this at the time the end all to prove the missing link (Transition)? "Archaeopteryx" (Pronounced like "R-k-op-ter-x") has long been held up as the great example of transitional creatures, appearing to be part dinosaur and part bird. However, it is fully formed in and of itself, a complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths. That is also the case for the other birds in the evolutionary tree, does their shame never end? Evolutionists just threw some of the many living and extinct species of birds next to each other on their chart to make it look like a "series of birds over time", this was very deceptive not to mention dishonest and begs the question: "If their right why do they have to set up "straw-theory's" to knock over?" The same goes for Christians and creationist's that might do the same thing! I understand the jump to protect your theory but to deny scientific Law or kick the "proof"can down the road to avoid the facts is just dishonest research if there's any real research at all!

dna_e0The theory ; get that? "Theory" of Evolution violates completely, two LAWS, not theory's but pure science. The Second Law of Thermodynamics ( Which is the law of increasing entropy, It applies to all systems, open or closed, and to all actions and chemical reactions, from molecules to galaxies. This is a universal law. ) It says that things which start out concentrated together spread out over time or become unorganized, in other words they grow apart from each other rather than improving their state over time. The second issue is the Law of Bio-genesis which was established by Louis Pasteur three years after Darwin's book was published, and simply says that life only comes from life. No matter what these people say they CAN'T overcome these problems...ever, it's a WALL that cannot be penetrated! Living cells will always divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds will always develop into animals and plants, but "chemicals" the life blood of evolution's theory can never fall together randomly and make life appear out of nothing. Now remember this a scientific LAW not a theory but do evolutionist's care? No they simply shrug their shoulders and move on with a "Well evolution is a fact and there will be a way around it later in the future. So let's move on to the next point...please?" Instead of stopping and considering the silliness of their positions!


duh-duh Why is it that Amino acid molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA always resist combining at any temperature? Not to mention the simple fact that D.N.A. dilutes in any form of water, this alone means that the so-called "Primal Soup" of evolution would dilute anything begun as life automatically! It is a fact of science that they combine only with the help of "mechanisms" in a living cell or simply a biochemist forcing it to do so in an chemistry laboratory. Why is that? If evolution is at all true, why does it need our help? If the only evolution that can be done needs our help how can it be claimed that nature does it over time? How can we accept these excuses from evolutionist's who use "TIME" as the cure all to prove it could happen when scientific Law says no?


It is a scientific fact that the necessary proteins in D.N.A. cannot be FORMED one at a time over time. Either they are all there at once, ready to work all at once, or nothing takes place at all and they disintegrate, this is God's way of protecting his investment from crappy reasoning. Yet even if it could design proteins, mutation-natural selection would only work on one at a time sporadically over many years without the guarantee that the next one would ever be alike. It's funny that D.N.A. has rubbed scientific facts in the face of evolution for years and we just simply overlook the obvious stupidity involved in their claims and excuses!


The first question that anyone asks when faced with the end of their own strength is "Who am I? Why am I here? and Where am I going?"


Until mankind gets answers to these questions of life then no amount "pseudo-science speak" can answer these important questions, so we are left empty inside because as the tree cannot deny its roots so man cannot run from who he was created to be! Did you know that at the moment of your conception as a fertilized egg you were no bigger than the head of a pin? But you still contained ALL the information of 6 Billion Chemical letters, enough to fill 1,000 books that were 500 pages thick with print that was Microscopic in size!


Think for a moment just how wonderful you are as God's handy-work, because if ALL the D.N.A.'s chemical letters in your body were printed in books they would be able to FILL the Grand Canyon 50 times to the top. The Lord of Creation has made you his greatest creation ever so complex in nature, that you are a perfect walking paradox that evolutionists can't explain.


xianmacro1"The Origin of genetic code presents formidable unsolved problems. The coded information inside the nucleotide sequences is completely meaningless without the machinery to translate them, BUT the specification for this machinery is itself encoded inside the very D.N.A. it is to translate. Without this machinery the information is useless, but without the encoded information the machinery cannot be produced. This is the classic "chicken and the egg" problem to evolutionists.And ALL attempts to solve it have so far been sterile."


John Walton - Chemist


The ONLY true solution to this issue is to realize God's personal design and the FACT that it was all created at the same time which is the only way D.N.A. will work. Evolution destroys D.N.A. in every scenario we can think of because Living Cells cannot produce proteins until the D.N.A. R.N.A replication and translation machinery is in place and since that has to happen all at once...Then gradual evolutionary change over billions or even thousands of years cannot work for D.N.A.!








How Could a God of love create cancer cells, rattlesnakes, and earthquakes?



The answer to this question and the understanding of all reality is found in understanding God's love.


As we enter the third millennium, no word is still more abused, misused, and misunderstood than "love," especially when it is applied to God.


Christian teachers often project their own "personal understanding" right or wrong of love onto God or they relegate any apparent real world contradiction of God's love to the category of God works in mysterious ways


Understanding God's Love ends both the mystery and our personal misunderstanding of love by letting scripture define God's love. No doctrine is more central to Christianity than the nature of God.



Why is our image or understanding of God of critical importance?



Why does the God of the Old Testament often seem to contradict the God of the New Testament?



Is God omnipotent, omniscient, immutable or impassive?


What is God's judgment and justice?



Did God require the sacrificial suffering and death of Jesus on the cross?



How are today's clerical Sadducee and Pharisee distorting God's image?



What are some of today's Christian "high places" of misguided worship of God?



How are we to understand the end of the world, salvation, heaven, and hell?



The God of the Bible is made known to us in many ways. In a most elemental way, we have knowledge of Him by reason of the presence and order of this universe and of our very existence in it. In fact, He views as unacceptable and without excuse refusal to acknowledge this most fundamental proof of His Being.


The Bible claims that such suppression of truth is willful. It is the reason why we sometimes move down a path away from God, and why God steps back as we proceed toward a state of depravity in thinking, not able to discern basic differences between right and wrong.



A quest for "GOD" cannot omit a discussion of His basic character and nature, because we need to understand who we are dealing with. Although nature itself reveals certain things about God, the Bible is the best source of information concerning Him.



Do you want to see a religious person freak out? mention that you disagree with them about their understanding of the nature of God. It's guaranteed, the person will freak, and call you a heathen, and worse.


why?


Think about this, when you say "the nature of God" what do you mean?


How are you defining "the nature of God?" what weight are you placing on what word, and how important is it to you in the long run?



"What is the nature of God Christians believe in? What are His characteristics, His attributes, His qualities? What is He like?"


Christianity claims that the God of all things is unique in that He alone has the following divine characteristics (in no particular order):



SUPREMACY:


The God of Judaism and Christianity is the Supreme Being. He is not merely a different type of being or a superior being but the Supreme Being.



UNIQUENESS:


God is unique. The Bible describes Him in Greek as mono genesis, i.e., "one of a kind", "having a unique nature."



ETERNALNESS:


He always has existed and always will exist. He had no beginning and will never cease to exist.



OMNISCIENCE:


He knows all things.



OMNIPOTENCE :


He is all-powerful.



OMNIPRESENCE:


He is everywhere at the same time.



SELF-EXISTENT:


God is the only thing that had no beginning, that was not created by something else.



HOLINESS :


Holy means pure, undefiled.


TRIUNE NATURE: Not a Triad as in pagan religions! Triads were distinct persons BUT they were NEVER ONE in nature and purpose


The one God is a single "trinity" consisting of three distinct "persons":



FATHER



JESUS


- often referred to as the Son or "the Word of God"



THE HOLY SPIRIT



Don't get hung up on the "how can one be three?" issue!


Remember--we are imperfect, natural human beings with physical bodies trying to understand a perfect, supernatural spiritual being that does not have a physical body.


(Jesus' physical body was created; He did not always have a physical body.)


Trying to understand the "triune" nature of God intellectually is like trying to understand intellectually why some things smell nice and some things don't, without actually smelling anything. It is NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW BUT IT IS A LIMITED SPACE AND TIME I'M DEALING WITH HERE,SO I WILL DEAL WITH THE TRINITY LATER ON!



THEISTIC :


Deistic and theistic are adjectives from the field of comparative religion. They describe the relationship between a god and that which it creates. A deistic god is one that would distance himself from that which it creates (Such as in Theistic Evolution ), one that would not get involved in the activities of the things he created.


A deistic god would essentially be an "absentee father" god -- it would create a universe and then sit back and say "I made you, but I don't want to get involved. You're on your own!" The God of the Bible is FULLY INVOLVED.


He does not distance Himself from that which He creates. He gets actively involved in the activities of the things He created. In fact, the God of the Bible 'micromanages' things.



TRANSCENDENT:


God transcends that which He created, i.e., He "goes beyond" that which He created, He is not limited to IT, He is not bound by that which He created as Satan IS BOUND BY GOD'S CREATION. For example, in the physical universe it is impossible for a single being to consist of three distinct persons, but God is not limited by physical laws, so He can be one God and yet consist of three distinct persons.



Christianity claims that, in addition, this unique God shares the following characteristics with certain other things:


ALIVE :The one God is a living being.



PERSONAL:


God is a living person with thoughts, reactions, etc., not an impersonal thing.



SPIRIT:


A spirit is a living being that is incorporeal, i.e., it does not possess a physical body. Note that Jesus took on a physical human body. It is not an inherent part of His nature. By comparison, our bodies are part of our human nature but we put on clothes WHICH ARE NOT PART OF OUR NATURE.



INTELLIGENCE



SENTIENCE:


A sentient being has intelligence, and also is aware of its own existence, and aware that there is a 'big picture'. For instance, cats, dogs, and horses have intelligence but probably are not sentient or self-aware (They do not have God's Image ).



IMMORTAL :


God is a being that will live forever.


Note the technical difference between eternal-ness and immortality: God is eternal because had He had no beginning. He also is immortal because He will live forever. Humans, angels, demons, etc., are immortal because we will never cease to exist, but not eternal because we did not always exist.



It is important to realize that in practice eternal and immortal are often used interchangeably and the technical difference is not always maintained.



SEPARATE


God is separate from that which He created. The universe itself is not God. (The opposite is pantheism. Some "nature" religions believe that the universe itself is god.)



I believe that God did become a man, that Jesus had Gods Spiritual essence (That which made him God incarnate in a physical form ) and his own HUMAN spirit (That which made him completely man ). Although we must understand first what is the spirit. I don’t claim to know everything, but I have come to an understanding of what the spirit is!



What is the spirit? Through my studies, I have come to this understanding, that the spirit in it’s original meaning derives from the root words: Wind, Breeze and Breath.



Wind generally cannot be seen, but the wind when it blows can be heard, felt and seen by what it does. When a gust of wind or a breeze blows, it has the power for example to moves a stack of leaves or sways the branches of a tree.


God is like that, that is why he is called a spirit, which is wind or breeze, not that he is an actually wind or was ever seen as wind, but his works are like wind, unseen. This is why I believe the root word was used to express God, to show Gods power to change the cause of history, without being seen, stopped or traced. The wind was a mystery, to early man and so is God, thus we get the expression Spirit.



Spirit can also be described as breath, referring to the fact that to live we breath, and we breath in the oxygen God has given to live. If we are denied oxygen we die, and so to do all other living creatures that live off oxygen. God is the supplier of oxygen, and in relation to his creation is like oxygen.


God is the air we breath. Without God we would truly die, not only because he supplies the air we breath, but due to the fact that he gives or denies all our other necessities according to his will.



Then the spirit also refers to the life-giving power (breath of life) from God, that all living creatures need in order to live. The spirit can therefore be compared to electricity (all life needs electricity to live) but I am not directly saying that the spirit is electricity.


Like electricity gives the computer the energy to function, so too does the spirit give to living creatures. Cut off the electric supply from the computer, the machine shuts down, put back on the power supply the computer with all it functions is active again.


Now I believe that the spirit also refers to a mans mental disposition or Mind-sets: Anger, fear, love, depression etc.


including all emotions and other functions of the brain. Both written and spoken words carry spirits, because they carry the thoughts and feelings from a mans mental disposition, which come from the brain. Thoughts work like wind, in that they can’t be seen. A mind-set may be expressed by spoken or written words, but can’t be seen in the head, but only in a certain arena of expression.


So one brain can affect another by harsh words, or a harsh look, or a harsh thought, and even in feelings sensed. Thoughts and feelings cannot been seen, actively in a brain, even under any microscopic lens, but all thoughts are generated in the brain by chemical reactions.



So God is also a spirit, in all the descriptions found above and also in relation to his mental disposition. God has a perfectly balanced Mind, because he (Perfection ) is expressed in his mind, which is unseen, but can be manifested in the natural arena of sight etc.,


("God was manifested in the flesh and dwelt among us") also in all his creation and his recorded words (The Word of God was perfectly transmitted to IMPERFECT MAN by the perfect mind of God Who perfectly manipulated all circumstances surrounding its transmission down to the "LETTER" perfectly stating HIS perfect intent in man's way of expressing himself).


God has the functions found in the brain, but in an unconfined way. So when God created all living creatures, he reproduced his mind capacities in the confines of a brain, to give power to rest of the being. God gave man, above all creatures a greater capacity for intellect, but animals have spirits too. So the brain is the mind, and the spirit is the mind, which is the brain.


So according to the sets of thoughts and feelings projected in a beings expressions and reactions to stimulation's, the spirit is a function of the brain (God placed our Spiritual SEAT within our brains along with the Soulish power of life and we became a living soul animating a BODY MADE of dirt.)



Now how did God and man fuse together in Jesus Christ.


A man projects outwardly what his brain tells him to, and who he is, is what his brain is programmed to tell him, he is. A man is his thoughts, and all his thoughts are stimulated in the brain. You can read a book written by an author, and know the author by his writings, because he is in the writings. But if you saw the author, you wouldn't recognize him until he spoke and expressed the mental disposition found in his writings.



So too with God, you can’t look at Jesus and say, "hey look there’s God," because how would you know, you have never seen God. No man has seen God at any time, all we have seen of God, is his mind, or spirit, in his word.



The mind (Who God is,What makes God,God ) became flesh, the mind of God translated it’s self into a human body,confined himself in a small brain;created in the womb of Mary. Gods characteristic, emotions, feelings and thoughts all were transmitted and interpreted into a human brain.


God became all that makes a human, a human by having a normal sinless human spirit as Adam did before the fall, but Jesus Christ’s brain, with the externally given mental dispositions as an interpretation of Gods mind at the moment he needed instruction. God became a man!



Gods thoughts in addition to this, were conveyed by unseen means through the Spirit of God to Christ’s human brain, stimulating the brain of Jesus, like wind moves branches on a tree. Another mans thoughts can move the thinking processes of people to a specific action, by communications. So Gods spirit (mind) worked in Christ’s spirit (human brain the seat of spiritual existence) in the same manner.



So God truly projected himself into Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ had the developed brain through his personal lifestyle of prayer and fasting that was ready to receive the communications from Gods unseen and unconfined mind.


So therefore Jesus Christ’s mind was an interpretation in the human arena of the mind of God,He became a true transmission tool of what God desired to be done and there was NO SIN NATURE TAKING AWAY FROM THAT COMMUNICATION;BECAUSE HIS TRUE FATHER WAS GOD NOT JOSEPH WHO WOULD HAVE PASSED ON HIS SINFUL NATURE HAD HE BEEN THE FATHER OF JESUS!


Jesus’ mind was a human mind that was informed by God’s mind externally, not intrinsically. He did not have two different centers of consciousness within Him that constantly spoke to Him MAKING HIM CRAZY LOOKING.


Rather Jesus’ consciousness was His human spirit/mind, that was informed and directed from the Father externally,just as we are to be directed. God spoke to Him and revealed to Him what He was to do and to teach (John 3:32; 5:19-20; 8:28, 38, 40; 12:49-50; 17:8).



The difference between God (as the Creator) and us (as created beings) is so great, that it is beyond our comprehension. Because of this, God's ways and thoughts not identical to ours. (Compare to Isaiah 55:9.) This is so, even when we don't take into consideration the negative effects of sin, which reduces even further our ability to comprehend God.


Because of this, God "translates" his thoughts into terms that we can comprehend. He interacts with us on our level - and he is fully capable of doing so, without introducing any error! The authoritative nature of the Word. God speaks with authority on every matter mentioned in the Word - even though it will often disagree with what people may claim is true.


The fact that it is totally accurate and without error, even in the tiniest detail. There are no mistakes or errors in any detail mentioned in the Word - even though it will often disagree with the conclusions, speculations, "facts" and interpretations that people may believe are true.


This includes historical and scientific facts. Of course, this requires us to understand what is written in the Bible within its context, or we may reach false conclusions. For example, when the Bible was written, the concept of "star" referred to a point of light in the sky, not a huge ball of fiery plasma somewhere out in space.


Using their definition - which was accurate for what it said - it would be totally correct to describe planets as "wandering stars." However, with our definition of "star" - which is also accurate within our context - a planet would not be considered a "wandering star."


The distinction between genuine "God-breathed" writings (the Bible) and spurious writings. God's people do not "vote" for what books they want as part of the Bible; rather they are to simply "recognize" them for what they are.


Various influences of Satan's deceptions will cause specific individuals (or groups) to reach wrong conclusions about some specific book; various "religious institutions" like CATHOLICISM may choose to "vote in" certain books, to suit their agenda.


But across the span of time, the same group of books will tend to be recognized by God's people - compare to John 10:27, where Jesus reminds us, "My sheep hear my voice." By "God's people," we are referring to those who have chosen to be followers of Jesus, rather than to those who have chosen to become "members" of an institutional "church."



Who were the human authors? In some cases we know, but in other cases we don't. Why? In many instances it wasn't necessary. If the book was prophetic (such as the book of Isaiah), the people would need to know who the author was, so they could verify the prophet's accuracy, and put him to death if he proved to be a false prophet. (Compare to Deuteronomy 18:20-22. God says that being a false prophet is a serious matter!)


But if it was a record of history (example, the book of Judges) or a song (such as the Psalms), knowing the human author was unimportant. In such cases the human author frequently did not tell us who he was. Why? One of the factors has to do with humility. Being followers of the true God, the human authors wanted God to receive the attention!







I love you and God loves you!

If you have come to this page by accident, welcome to the Truth.

If you are a skeptic or even an Atheist at heart, thank you for reading my presentations of biblical facts from an OPEN MIND without PRE-determined thoughts about the questions. Honest skepticism is welcome here!

If you are an Occultist of any kind..I personally welcome you to this page, because I WAS where you are.

And If you CLAIM to be Christian, towards the BOTTOM of this page is YOUR PERSONAL CHALLENGE to live as Jesus did in THE HERE AND NOW!

Always Remember that God never calls you by your SHAME he always calls you by your name!

Answers to Atheist Attacks against God in their Context!

Proving the Bible's Worth!

If the Bible is God's Word then skeptics have NO ground to base their skepticism on EXCEPT lies.

IS THE BIBLE GOD'S WORD? by Dr. Phil Fernandes A chapter from his doctoral dissertation © 1997, Institute of Biblical Defense, All Rights Reserved

The preceding chapters have provided strong evidence for the historical reliability of the Bible, as well as for the resurrection and deity of Christ.

In this chapter, evidence showing the Bible to be God's Word will be examined.

The case for the inspiration of the Scriptures builds upon the evidence produced in the last four chapters

CHRIST'S TEACHINGS CONCERNING THE OLD TESTAMENT

This work has shown that the evidence demonstrates that Jesus is God. Therefore, whatever Jesus taught should be accepted as true and authoritative. John W. Wenham discussed Christ's view of the Old Testament:

Our Lord not only believed the truth of the Old Testament history and used the Scriptures as final authority in matters of faith and conduct, he also regarded the writings themselves as inspired. To Him, Moses, the prophets, David, and the other Scripture writers were given their messages by the Spirit of God.1

Some of Christ's teachings concerning the Old Testament are as follows:

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all has been accomplished"

(Matthew 5:17-18).

"And He answered and said to them, "And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother,' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.' "

(Matthew 15:3-4)

"But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"?

(Matthew 22:31-32)

He was also saying to them, "You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death'; but you say, 'If a man says to his father or mother, anything of mine you might have been helped by is Corban (that is to say, given to God),' you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down. . ."

(Mark 7:9-13).

David himself said in the Holy Spirit, "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand, until I put Thine enemies beneath Thy feet.' "

(Mark 12:36)

It is abundantly clear that Jesus considered the entire Old Testament (what the Jews of His day called "the Law and the Prophets") to be the inspired Word of God. He referred to the Old Testament authors as prophets

(Matthew 11:13; 12:39; 22:40; 23:31-35; 24:15; 26:56; Luke 16:16-17, 31; 18:31; 24:44; John 6:45),

meaning proclaimers of God's truth. In fact, Jesus spoke of the prophets as beginning with Abel and ending with Zechariah (Luke 11:49-51).

This covers the exact time period of the Old Testament, from creation to about 400BC. Since Christ is God Himself, his view of the Old Testament must be correct. Therefore, the Old Testament is the written Word of God.

CHRIST'S VIEW OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Christ ascended to heaven before the New Testament was recorded. However, the promises He made to his apostles guaranteed that the New Testament would be the inspired Word of God:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age"

(Matthew 28:19-20).

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away"

(Mark 13:31).

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you"

(John 14:26).

"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me, and you will bear witness also, because you have been with Me from the beginning"

(John 15:26-27).

"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come"

(John 16:13).

"But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth"

(Acts 1:8).

From these quotes of Christ, five conclusions can be drawn. First, Jesus promised that His teachings would be preserved.

Second, He said that the Holy Spirit would remind the apostles of all that He told them.

Third, the Holy Spirit would reveal future events to the apostles.

Fourth, the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into the truth (prevent them from promoting doctrinal errors).

Fifth, the Holy Spirit would empower the apostles to be Christ's authoritative representatives to the world.

From the above conclusions it is clear that Christ promised to preserve His teachings through the apostles' writings. Obviously, these writings make up the New Testament.

Since Jesus is almighty God, His plan cannot be thwarted.

Therefore, since He promised to preserve His words through the teachings of the apostles, then their teachings (which have been passed on to future generations) are the teachings of Christ. Hence, they are the Word of God

It should also be noted that Jesus taught that only the Old Testament and the teachings of His apostles (the New Testament) were the Word of God.

The evidence declares Jesus to be God. Jesus taught that both the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God. Therefore, the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God.

THE SUPERNATURAL WISDOM OF THE BIBLE

The evidence presented above is sufficient to demonstrate that the Bible is God's Word. Still, there are other factors which help corroborate this evidence.

The supernatural wisdom and the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible verify that the Bible is God's Word.

Christian thinkers such as Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)2 and Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984)3 have noted that only the Bible offers an adequate explanation for both man's greatness and man's wretchedness.

Modern man, even with all his accumulated knowledge, cannot sufficiently account for both aspects in man.

Atheistic evolutionists may be able to explain the wretchedness of man, for they see man as merely an animal, but they cannot satisfactorily account for man's greatness.

New Age Pantheists recognize man's greatness by attributing godhood to him, but, they offer no convincing reason why man is so wretched.

The Bible alone offers an adequate explanation for both aspects of man. Man is great because he was created in God's image; he is wretched because he is in a fallen state.4 This indicates that the wisdom found in the Bible supersedes the wisdom of man.

Evidence for the supernatural wisdom of the Bible can also be seen in the realm of science. At a time when men thought the earth was flat, the Bible taught that it was a sphere (Isaiah 40:22, 700BC).

At a time when men thought the earth rested on the back of a giant turtle, the Bible taught that is was suspended in space (Job 26:7, 2000BC).

At about 1500BC the Bible taught that the stars could not be counted (Genesis 15:5); yet, in 150AD an astronomer named Ptolemy taught that there were exactly 1056 stars.5 Today, modern science confirms that the stars are innumerable.

In about 1850AD, the first and second laws of thermodynamics were discovered by modern science. The first law teaches that no new energy is being created or destroyed.

The second law teaches that, though the amount of energy in the universe remains constant, the amount of usable energy is running down. Therefore, the universe is winding down. The Bible taught both of these laws thousands of years ago.

The Bible states that God is resting from His creation work (Genesis 2:1-3), and that the universe will someday pass away (Mark 13:31; Isaiah 40:31).

The Bible does teach, however, that God will make a new heaven and a new earth when the old ones pass away (Revelation 21:1).

There was no such thing as modern science in biblical times. Hence, the information mentioned above demands a source which transcends that of man, a supernatural source.6 H. L. Willmington commented on this subject:

In 1861 the French Academy of Science published a brochure of fifty-one "scientific facts" which supposedly contradicted the Bible. These were used by the atheists of that day in ridiculing Christians. Today all fifty-one of those "facts" are unacceptable to modern scientists.7

FULFILLED PROPHECIES

The Bible claims repeatedly to be the Word of God. One of the most powerful witnesses to the truth of this claim is the many fulfilled prophecies proclaimed in the Bible.

This work has already examined a sample of prophecies fulfilled by Christ. Here, a few more of the many biblical prophecies that have already come to pass will be discussed.

The Bible has made many predictions concerning the future of great nations and cities. The following is a brief discussion of a few of the prophecies fulfilled concerning these cities and nations.

Around 590—570BC, the prophet Ezekiel predicted that the city of Tyre would be destroyed and never be rebuilt, and that it would become a barren rock which fishermen would use to mend their nets (Ezekiel 26:4, 5, 14).

Though Tyre was destroyed and rebuilt many times throughout history, it was ultimately devastated in 1291AD by Muslim invaders.

Today, all that is left of the ancient site of Tyre is a small fishing community which uses the barren ground to dry their nets.8

In the sixth century BC, Ezekiel also predicted that the city of Sidon would suffer much violence and bloodshed throughout her history, yet remain in existence (Ezekiel 28:23).

Though Sidon has been invaded and defeated numerous times throughout her history, the city still exists today.9

In 625BC, the prophet Zephaniah predicted that the city of Ashkelon would someday be destroyed, but that it would eventually be inhabited by the Jews (Zephaniah 2:4, 6).

Ashkelon was destroyed in 1270AD by Sultan Bibars. The city remained uninhabited for centuries until the nation of Israel was reestablished in 1948. Now, the Jews have rebuilt and re-inhabited Ashkelon.10

Zephaniah also predicted that the Philistines—a powerful enemy of the Jews throughout much of the Old Testament—would be totally wiped out. Though they continued to prosper for many centuries, they eventually became extinct in 1200AD (Zephaniah 2:5).11

The prophet Obadiah, writing in either 841BC or 586BC, prophesied the extinction of the Edomites, who were the descendants of Esau and enemies of the Jews (Obadiah 18).

When the Romans devastated the city of Jerusalem in 70AD, they also defeated the remnants of Edom (called the Idumeans at that time). At that time, all traces of the Edomites disappear.12

In 740—680BC, the prophet Isaiah predicted that Egypt would still be a nation in the last days (Isaiah 19:21-22). In spite of the many wars Egypt has encountered throughout her four-thousand year history, this ancient nation remains in existence to this day.13

In 1410BC, Moses predicted that Israel would be scattered among the nations of the world (Deuteronomy 28:64).

The prophet Hosea, in 710BC, predicted this dispersion of Israel as well (Hosea 9:17). History records that after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, the Jews were scattered throughout the world.14

Both Isaiah and Ezekiel prophesied that Israel would be re-gathered in her land in the last days (Isaiah 11:11-12; Ezekiel 37:21). This happened in 1948AD when the nation of Israel was reestablished. The Jews continue to return to their land to this day.15

God told Abraham that those who cursed Israel would be cursed by God (Genesis 12:3). This prophecy has been fulfilled many times. Babylon, Assyria, Philistia, the Roman Empire, and Nazi Germany are a few examples of nations or empires that persecuted and oppressed Israel.

While the tiny nation of Israel still exists today, Babylon, Assyria, Philistia, the Roman Empire, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany have collapsed and are no longer in existence.

During the 1930's and 1940's, Nazi Germany had slaughtered six-million Jews and its war machine was devastating Europe. By 1948, Nazi Germany was nonexistent and the Jews had control of their homeland—the nation of Israel— for the first time since 586BC.16

Each of these prophecies has been fulfilled to the detail. Many other biblical prophecies have also been fulfilled. It should also be noted that no futuristic prophecy of Scripture has ever been shown to be false.

This separates the Bible from false prophets such as Edgar Cayce and Jean Dixon. Their success rate is much lower than the perfect accuracy of the predictions made by the Bible.17 Henry Morris made the following comment:

It seems reasonable to conclude that the phenomenon of fulfilled prophecy constitutes a unique and powerful evidence of the divine inspiration of the Bible.18

The evidence provided above for the Bible being God's Word is threefold. First, Jesus (who is God) taught that the Bible is God's Word. Second, the Bible contains insights that go beyond mere human wisdom.

Third, the Bible made numerous predictions, many of which have been fulfilled. None of these predictions have proven false (though some prophecies have yet to be fulfilled).

In short, there are good reasons for believing the Bible is God's Word. Those who reject the divine inspiration of the Bible have failed to explain the three factors above.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE DIVINE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE

Since the Bible can be shown to be God's Word, several implications follow. First, since the cosmological argument has shown God to be infinite and perfect, there can be no error in His Word as originally recorded.

God can only proclaim truth; otherwise, He would be less than perfect. Therefore, the Bible is wholly true (inerrant). Second, since the Bible is God's inerrant Word, it is authoritative. God has spoken, and everything must be tested by the truth He has given.

Third, whatever is taught in God's inerrant and authoritative Word should be adhered to by all.

This work has already presented evidence for some of the major tenents of orthodox Christianity (the existence of one God, creation by God, the resurrection of Jesus, and Christ's deity).

Since the evidence indicates the Bible is God's Word, whatever it teaches must be true.

Therefore, other important Christian doctrines (e.g., salvation by grace through faith in Christ, the substitutionary death of Christ, the Trinity, and Christ's future return to earth) can be defended by showing that they are taught in the Bible

Concerning salvation, the Bible teaches that all people are sinners who cannot save themselves (Romans 3:10, 23; 6:23; Matthew 19:25-26).

Scripture teaches that man cannot earn his salvation; salvation is a free gift given by God's grace (unmerited favor) to those who trust (believe) in Jesus for salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9; John 3:16-18; 6:35, 47; Romans 6:23). Only through Jesus can man be saved (John 14:6; Acts 4:12).

The Bible teaches that Jesus took mankind's punishment upon Himself by dying on the cross for their sins

(Isaiah 53:5-6, 12; Matthew 1:21; Mark 10:45; John 1:29; Romans 5:8-10; Ephesians 1:7; 2 Corinthians 5:15, 21; 1 Timothy 2:4-6; Hebrews 10:10, 14; 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18; 1 John 1:7; 2:1-2; Revelation 5:9).

The God of the Bible is holy and just; He cannot forgive sin unless it has been paid for in full. The good news is that Jesus (who is fully man and fully God) is the ultimately worthy sacrifice who has paid for the sins of the world through His death on the cross (Revelation 5:1-14).

He died as a substitute for all of mankind. Those who accept Jesus as their Savior receive the salvation and forgiveness that He has purchased for them.

One of the most controversial teachings of Christianity is the doctrine of the Trinity, for this teaching transcends human understanding.

This doctrine declares that the one true God eternally exists as three equal Persons (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). God is one in essence or nature (Mark 12:29; John 10:30), but three in Personhood (Matthew 3:16-17; John 14:16, 26; 15:26).

The Bible teaches that the Father is God (Galatians 1:1; 1 Peter 1:2). However, Jesus (the Son) is also called God and is described in ways that could only apply to God (Isaiah 9:6; Zechariah 14:5; John 1:1, 14; 5:17-18, 22-23; 8:58-59; 10:30-33; 17:5, 24; 20:28; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20; Revelation 1:17-18). Jesus is worshipped as God (Matthew 2:11; 28:9; John 9:38). The Holy Spirit is also called God (Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16).

Some have speculated that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, since they are one God, must also be one Person, but, this is not what the Bible teaches.

The Bible teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons (Isaiah 48:12-16; Psalm 110:1; Matthew 3:16-17; 28:19; John 14:16, 26; 15:26).

Before anything was created, the three Persons of the Trinity communicated with each other (Genesis 1:26; 11:7), shared the glory of God (John 17:5), and loved each other (John 17:24). Even while Christ was on earth, He and the Father spoke to one another, thus proving they were not the same Person (Matthew 3:16-17; 26:39; Luke 23:46; John 17:1).

When all the data is considered, it is clear that the Bible teaches that there is only one true God, but this God eternally exists as three equal Persons. Hence, the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Bible also teaches that Jesus Christ will someday return to earth in power and glory. After His return, He will rule over the nations for one-thousand years (Matthew 24:29-31; Revelation 11:15; 19:11-16; 20:4-6).

Since the available evidence declares the Bible to be God's Word, whatever it teaches must be true. Therefore, the biblical teachings concerning salvation, Christ's substitutionary death, the Trinity, and Christ's return should be accepted.

It is also important to note that since whatever the Bible teaches is true, the morality taught in the Bible is authoritative.

If God calls a practice wrong, then it is wrong, regardless of common political sentiment.

Though the Bible student must differentiate between absolute moral laws which are universally binding on all men and temporary cultural laws prescribed for a specific people at a specific time, absolute moral laws taught in the Bible should be adhered to by all.

The day will come when all must answer to God, at the judgment (2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 20:11-15).

CONCLUSION

The argument of this chapter is threefold.

First,

Jesus of Nazareth, who is God incarnate, taught that the Bible is God's Word. Therefore, the Bible is the Word of God.

Second,

this is confirmed by the supernatural wisdom of the Bible, as well as the many fulfilled prophecies of the Bible.

Third,

since God has been shown to be infinitely perfect, His Word is totally trustworthy. Therefore, whatever the Bible teaches is true.

Since the Bible teaches that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus as one's Savior, then Christianity is the one true faith.

All religions which deny salvation only through Christ alone are false religions. One's eternal destiny depends on his response to Christ. It is Jesus who calls out to all mankind, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest" (Matthew 11:28).

http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm 101 contradictions in the Bible CLEARED UP once and for all!

http://answers.org/apologetics/contradictions.html More evidence about the Bible!!

http://www.rbc.org/questions/ HARD QUESTIONS ANSWERED!!!

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheiststest.html

An Atheist TEST (ONLY FOR ATHEISTS) Reason And Faith by Van Fisher

One line of attack by skeptics and scoffers concerning attempts to show the compatibility of the Bible, truth and science, is to assert that belief is incompatible with reason.

Since we must accept the Bible not based solely on our own personal experience, but also by trusting in the fundamental truths of the Bible, the attack hits close to home.

The attack usually includes quotes indicating that our "science" is "ends driven," meaning that if the result fits with our biblical view of things, then we accept it as truth, and if it does not, we call it bogus or soft-science.

This line of attack has merit because it is partially true. However, it falls apart, or more accurately, the falsity surrounding the core of truth melts away, when put under the bright light of reason.

Starting with some stubborn facts, let's reason together. Man has a brain capable of reason, or what we call reason. We can consider things, current, past or future, and make judgments concerning them, funny, sad, true, bad, important or irrelevant.

We can work things out, study them, test them and arrange them in a way that makes sense to us - logically, if you will. An atheist will use reason because it is in his self-interest. So will a theist. So there does not appear to be any inherent problem with reason and belief.

When we make our judgments, accepting or rejecting things based on our sense, we label them. One thing is true, another is false. One thing is good; another is very bad. Something makes sense; another is bogus.

We have a memory, so as we gain experience, we fit things together. One thing is true because another is true; another cannot be true, because it conflicts with what I know to be true. And on and on.

The Bible tells us about things outside our experience. Nobody, born in our lifetime, walks on water or rises from the grave on the third day. So in order to accept the Bible, we must bridge the gap between what we know or believe, and what we trust.

And that bridge is not reason; it is faith. But the Bible also does not ask us to build the bridge without a foundation, which is knowledge.

Therefore, I believe that reason is not the enemy of trust; it is an essential part of the foundation. It follows, of course, that the foundation should be solid, not made of falsehoods or clever stories that melt away.

It must include the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. Our foundation of knowledge also includes what we believe to be true from science and from the Word of God.

Sometimes, what science in its day thought was true turned out to be bogus.

Sometimes what believers in their day thought was biblical truth, has turned out to be bogus.

An additional problem arises here.

Since trust in the Bible must be based on imperfect understanding, why not say,

"If my beliefs were good enough to gain salvation, they are good enough for all those who come after me."

The answer of course has to do with the bridge of faith. For example, I accepted Jesus Christ based on my understanding of the King James Version of the Bible.

I had studied it, memorized verses in it, had underlined whole passages and put notes in the margin. Even though I did not understand some of its vocabulary or figures of speech, I did not see a need to change to the New American Standard Bible or New International Version.

But when my local church recognized the need for a Bible that the people of our day could understand, we changed, and our impact for Christ increased. One way to look at the premise that we should not put God to the test is to say we should not ask people of our day to use more glue (faith) than necessary given their education and knowledge.

So building a foundation of a slightly different shape, using reason and a different knowledge base is consistent with our biblical mandate to be all things to all people so some can be saved.1

Once we accept the Bible, and file it under truth in our minds, we initially reject things that conflict with what we believe is biblical truth. We accept the premise that the Bible as originally written was completely true; but we also accept the premise that our understanding of the Bible is imperfect.

So our difficulty is in separating and discarding our imperfect understanding of either science or the Bible when confronted with a paradox, two things that seem to conflict yet both seem to be true.

For example, the book of James seemed to conflict with Paul's writings. Paul said salvation is through faith, works has nothing to do with it, and James said faith without works is dead.

However, using reason the apparent conflict can be resolved, without abandoning, or undermining the truth of both divinely inspired writings, because a reasonable interpretation shows that there is no conflict in the texts, but only in our understanding.

Works does not provide salvation; it proves salvation. Barking will not make you a dog, but a dog barks.

So the trick, it appears, is to see if we can fit scientific truth and biblical truth together, by perhaps improving our understanding and without creating additional unresolved conflicts. The task is impossible without a whole lot of Bible study.

But the Bible tells believers to study the Bible and study it well. How can I be sure of the Bible’s moral and spiritual reliability?

It must be made abundantly clear that in order for any answer to mean anything at all to those who ask,they MUST accept the RELIABILITY OF THE SOURCE OF THOSE ANSWERS !

There are many factors that give the Bible unparalleled moral and spiritual authority. The Old and New Testaments are deeply rooted in an historical and geographical record that is linked to laws, poetry, and predictions that express timeless life-changing wisdom.

Even the parts of the Old Testament with parallels in Mesopotamian literature (the creation story, the story of the flood, etc.) are incomparably superior to the pagan versions. Although it is an ancient document, its realism is stunning and contemporary.

The records of the Bible portray people in all of their complexity and inconsistency, with not only their achievements but also their sins—and the consequences of their sins—clearly displayed.

J. B. Phillips expressed in a few words what countless others have noticed about the New Testament:

It has the "ring of truth." There are few people of any religious tradition who are familiar with it that don’t hold it in high esteem.

Further, the historical accuracy of Scripture has been demonstrated time and again—often to the surprise of skeptical scholars.

The authority of the Bible is by far the most well-attested document to come out of ancient times. The reliability of the Old Testament was confirmed by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a remarkable collection of ancient documents found preserved in caves in the Judean desert in the mid-20th century.

The age of these documents, which included large portions of the Old Testament, was determined by several independent evidences, including:

Carbon 14 tests made on the linen wrappings of the scrolls. Coins associated with the scrolls, which date from 325 BC to AD 68.

The type of pottery found with the scrolls.

Comparative paleography (science of handwriting), a science which has already been well-established for many generations. Linguistic analysis of Aramaic documents found in the caves.

What made the Dead Sea Scrolls such a remarkable find in confirmation of the reliability of the Old Testament was the fact that prior to their discovery the earliest text in Hebrew, the Masoretic text, dated only to the 10th century AD.

Biblical scholar Gleason Archer noted that in spite of 1,000 years separating the Scrolls and the Masoretic Text, "The texts from Qumran proved to be word-for-word identical to our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text.

The 5 percent of variation consisted primarily of obvious slips of the pen and spelling alterations" (Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction [Chicago, IL: Moody, 1974], p. 25). Similarly, no serious scholar, Christian or non-Christian, has historical grounds to doubt that the modern New Testament corresponds closely to the original form in which it was written.

In his book Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell quotes a number of authorities on the reliability of our Bible. Here he quotes scholar A. T. Robertson:

"There are some 8,000 manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate and at least 1,000 for the other early versions. Add over 4,000 Greek manuscripts and we have 13,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament. Besides all this, much of the New Testament can be reproduced from the quotations of the early Christian writers."

Historical evidence for the reliability of the text is overwhelming. But its spiritual authority can only be seen by someone who is seeking truth,THIS IS THE TRUE "BIBLE CODE" HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT;WHICH ONLY THE HUMAN HEART CAN RELEASE.

It would require thousands of pages just to list the names of the outstanding people in every area of human endeavor who have looked to Scripture for their ultimate values. A random list of just a few might include:

Philosophy:

Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Soren Kierkegaard Science: Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Blaise Pascal Music: J. S. Bach

Literature:

Dante Alighieri, John Donne, John Milton, Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, T. S. Eliot, J. R. R Tolkien, C. S. Lewis Politics: William Wilberforce, William Gladstone, Abraham Kuyper

The fact that the Bible provided the foundation for the personal values of some of the greatest figures of Western history doesn’t constitute a "proof" of its authority.

But, along with the Bible’s age, textual reliability, and character as great literature, its appeal to such people certainly calls for an open-minded, respectful approach to its contents.

1. Anglican physicist/theologian/priest John Polkinghorne remarks on the value of scholarly comparison between ancient biblical and Mesopotamian texts:

Those who disdain a scholarly engagement with the same text will also miss the fact that, though the accounts are clearly influenced to a degree by neighbouring Near Eastern cosmogonies, they differ in a most marked and important way from those other creation stories.

It is deeply impressive that tales of conflict among the gods, with Marduk fighting Tiamath and slicing her dead body in half from which to form the earth and sky, are replaced by a sober account in which the one true God alone is the Creator, bringing creation into being by the power of the divine word.

Equally significant is the insight that human beings are not destined to be the slaves of the gods (as in the Babylonian epic, Enuma Elish), but are created in the image of God and given a blessing so that they may fulfill the command, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it" (Genesis 1:28 ).

(Science and the Trinity: The Christian Encounter with Reality, pp. 44-45).

2. To have a clear understanding of biblical authority, it is important to understand the nature of biblical inspiration. Inspiration has two aspects. One is its authority in providing truth without error in the words of Scripture. Scripture is truly the written Word of God.

The other aspect of inspiration is that it was written by human beings who wrote with their own vocabulary, cultural background, and personal style. This fact does not controvert inspiration. Just as Christ was both truly man and truly God, the divine element in inspiration doesn’t exclude the human limitations of the Bible’s writers.

The Bible has withstood the test of time,from every imaginable direction of attack..from "Religious Bigotry and HATRED" to Atheistic attacks still ongoing to NO AVAIL. The Bible CANNOT BE OVERTURNED!

Before going on I would like to state that the "BOOK" with the black cover on your coffee table IS NOT INSPIRED UNTIL IT GETS BEYOND YOUR DISBELIEF AND IS ACCEPTED BY FAITH.

Because no matter how many PROOFS TO THE CONTRARY,YOUR PRE-CONCEIVED "DISBELIEF" WILL NEVER ALLOW YOU TO BECOME "INTELLECTUALLY HONEST WITH YOURSELF,YOU ARE SELF-DECIEVED...REPENT OR DIE IN YOUR SIN!

You are doing yourself NO favors by denying the facts! "I believe all religions are true and that you can't say one is superior. Besides, good people go to heaven. So, who needs Christianity?"

Hasn't the Bible been rewritten so many times that we can't trust it anymore?

This is a common misconception. Some people think that the Bible was written in one language, translated to another language, then translated into yet another and so on until it was finally translated into the English.

The complaint is that since it was rewritten so many times in different languages throughout history, it must have become corrupted .

The "telephone" analogy is often used as an illustration. It goes like this. One person tells another person a sentence who then tells another person, who tells yet another, and so on and so on until the last person hears a sentence that has little or nothing to do with the original one.

The only problem with this analogy is that it doesn't fit the Bible at all. The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten. Take the New Testament, for example.

The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals.

These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure.

That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies that do not agree with each other perfectly.

But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations.

For example, instead of saying Jesus, a variation might be "Jesus Christ." So the actual amount of textual variation of any concern is extremely low.

Therefore, we can say that we have a remarkably accurate compilation of the original documents.

So when we translate the Bible, we do not translate from a translation of a translation of a translation. We translate from the original language into our language.

It is a one step process and not a series of steps that can lead to corruption. It is one translation step from the original to the English or to whatever language a person needs to read it in.

So we translate into Spanish from the same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Likewise we translate into the German from those same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as well. This is how it is done for each and every language we translate the Bible into.

We do not translate from the original languages to the English, to the Spanish, and then to the German. It is from the original languages to the English, or into the Spanish, or into the German. Therefore, the translations are very accurate and trustworthy in regards to what the Bible originally said.

The ONLY PROBLEMS COME UP IN THE NEWER TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE WHEN MEN WHO HATE GOD'S WORD

(THE JESUIT'S!)

TRANSLATE THE BIBLE WRONGLY ON PURPOSE.

David W. Daniels (Author) told this story: "Once upon a time there was a missionary in a far-off land.

He cared about the people there. He wanted them to know the gospel. So he began translating the Bible into their language the way he had been taught.

But when he came to Luke 15 he came to a problem. "These people don’t know what a sheep is," he said. "They have never seen one. How do I teach them the parable of the lost sheep, if they don’t know what a sheep is?"

Then he remembered his training. "I need to do one of two things. I could teach these people about "sheep" and make up a new word for it in their language.

Or I could find a dynamic equivalent for sheep in their culture." He decided the second was easier. And so he found an animal the people cared for like a sheep: a guinea pig.

And so he translated the Bible, finding dynamic equivalents wherever he thought he needed to. "I don’t need to teach these people all about Israel, the Hebrews and their culture," he thought. And finally he published this "Bible" and gave it to the people.

They loved their Bible and read from it often. Some even became Christians and moved away to a school to learn more. One day a student returned to his family and confronted the missionary.

"Why did you change the Bible?" he demanded. "The Bible doesn’t have guinea pigs and jungles, you liar!"

"But I thought you wouldn’t understand," replied the missionary.

"No! You told us lies about what God said!

How can we ever trust you again?" So the people no longer believed the missionary. All his work was ruined and he went home in disgrace.

There are only two ways to bring the gospel to people. You can tell them God’s words and help them to understand what they mean. Or you might change the truth to make it easy for them and hope they never find out

(THIS IS WHAT MOST OF THE NEWER VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE HAVE DONE ).

But if you do, what will you do when they know it’s not true? " THIS IS TRUTH, DON'T TRY TO FIX WHAT AIN'T BROKE,IT IS THE HOLY SPIRIT'S JOB TO TEACH , HE CAN "TRANSLATE IDEAS BETTER THAN ALL THE GREAT SCHOLAR'S COMBINED"

Are the Scriptures just the "ideas" of God, or are they the very WORDS of God?

You decide!

God promises to preserve His words.

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

(Psalms 12:6-7)

"You shall not add or take away, says God. Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you.

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

(Deuteronomy 4:1-2)

"God cares about every one of His words. Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

(Proverbs 30:5-6)

God's words will never pass away.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Jesus Christ, Son of God)"

(Mark 13:31)

God will curse those who change His Word.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

(Revelation 22:18-19)

"The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine They shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables"

(II Tim. iv, 3, 4).

"Of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them"

(Acts xx, 30).

"There shall be false teachers among you and many shall follow their pernicious ways, by reason of whom, the way of truth shall be evil spoken of"

(II Pet. ii, 1, 2).

"Try the spirits whether they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world"

(I John iv, 1).

"Their word will eat as doth a canker"

(II Tim. ii, 17).

"All nations deceived"

(Rev. 18, 23).

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

(Isaiah viii, 20).

It has become fashionable, under various learned sanctions (Those who believe they know more than God about what his word SHOULD SAY.), to question (Translated: Attack ) the authenticity of these books, while admitting (Aren't they nice?) the possible genuineness of the remaining portions of the Sacred Record.

Without attempting to discuss the question, I state that it is impossible to reconcile this attitude with allegiance to Christ.

You cannot reject Moses while accepting Christ.

Christ endorsed the writings of Moses. He said to the Jews by the mouth of Abraham in parable:

"They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them, if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke xvi, 29, 31).

It is also recorded that when he appeared incognito to two of his disciples after his resurrection, "beginning at MOSES and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself"

(Luke xxiv, 27).

Further, he said, "Had ye believed MOSES, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But IF YE BELIEVE NOT HIS WRITINGS, HOW SHALL YE BELIEVE MY WORDS?"

(John v, 46, 47).

If Christ was divine, this sanction of the Pentateuch by him settles the question; if the Pentateuch is a fiction, Christ was a deceiver, whether consciously or otherwise.

There is no middle ground. Moses and Christ stand or fall together.

If you DO NOT BELIEVE THE BIBLE TO BE THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF ALMIGHTY GOD THEN HOW CAN YOU EXPECT GOD TO GIVE AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTIONS IN LIFE?

Therefore your questions are simply lame attempts at deversion!

God requires FAITH in order to receive anything from him,have faith in the source of God's answers and they WILL FLOW LIKE A RIVER...THAT'S A PROMISE!!

I could go on for DAYS about this ONE theme but,suffice it to say that the word of God is trustworthy no matter what Atheists pull out of their EMPTY ARGUMENTS to the contrary.

AN EX-ATHEIST'S GOSPEL

Concepts and Scripture that can be understood outside of the faith.

Original Sin:

Man is born with a selfish nature. If two babies are in a playpen with one Gerber biscuit, the cage match that follows would put Jesse Ventura to shame.

Psalm 14:1-3 & Psalm 53:1-3

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God..." ; there is no one who does good. Note how these two passages link non-belief to an assertion that no man does good.

Could it be that the idea of God is dismissed because many believe that, if God and heaven are true, they are good enough to be admitted into heaven on their own merit?

Genesis 18:32; Then Abraham said,

"May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten righteous men can be found there?

" God answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy Sodom."

If God couldn't find 10 righteous men in all of Sodom, what are the chances that He would find you as righteous?

If your every thought could be made audible for all to hear, would those who heard your thoughts still consider you to be a good and righteous person?

Conviction

Ezekiel 28:

In the pride of your heart, you say,

"I am a god..." But you are a man and not a god, though you think you are as wise as a god.

You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.

Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor.

So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings...All who knew you are appalled at you; you have come to a horrible end and will be no more."

Do you remember your morality as a child?

How black and white everything was and how idealistic you were in your standards?

At what point did you begin breaking your own standard?

At what point did you begin lowering the standard?

Why?

Jesus Really Died for Us, for you personally:

Isaiah 53:

"He was pierced for our transgressions."

You Be The Judge:

Luke 2:34-40

"This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed."

Mark 8:29

"Who do you say I am?"

Our answer to this question says more about us than it does about Jesus. Jesus is presented to us as a perfect sinless and holy standard.

If we judge Him to be only a man, we are in effect saying that, we, as men, are capable of reaching that standard.

If we find fault with Jesus, how much more at fault are we?

By judging Jesus to be one with God, as God, we admit that we are incapable of reaching the high standard; we are asking God to grade us on a curve, because we know that we have no hope of passing the test on our own merit.

Salvation:

John 16:27

"For the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God."

John 3:3

"I tell you the truth, no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again."

By dying,

He taught us the meaning of self-sacrifice;

He taught us how to die to ourselves.

In rising,

He allowed us to be born again,

so that we could live for others and overcome our selfish nature.

What is Truth?:

How does a person know that the color red is real?

Because they see it. How does a person know that God is real?

Romans 10:17;

"Faith comes from hearing the Word of Christ."

John 18:37;

"Everyone that is of the truth, heareth my voice."

Mark 7:16;

"If any man has ears to hear, let him hear."

1Corinthians 2:14;

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

This reminds me of the Harley-Davidson motto:

"If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand."

Why Am I Not Hearing The Truth?:

The world makes people either too big to fit through the narrow gate, or too small and weak to push it open. I was of the former variety, having made myself too big-headed to see God's truth. These verses probably won't apply to anyone of the latter condition.

1Corinthians 1:19

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

1Corinthians 3:18-19;

"Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a fool so that he may become wise...He catches the wise in their craftiness."

An intelligent person can comprehend and disassemble meaning in the written word.

But the message of salvation is written in the living word,

which can't be torn down by the logic of men.

An ATHEIST ESSAY IN FULL CONTEXT: Get ready to be Shocked!

RUNNING AT THE BATTLE!!!
THIS IS THE DAVID PRINCIPLE OF WARFARE!
"The following was written by Charlotte and was previously posted in her own "Theists Suck" [ Catchy Name! ] website which is no longer in existence.
She gave permission to freely copy and distribute her essays, they are not copyrighted.This is from the Evil Bible.com web-site."
Some of this WILL BE offensive to "Theist's" but in the interest of FULL FAIRNESS TO THE ATHEIST ARGUMENT, I MUST PUT THIS IN FULL CONTEXT:
PLEASE I ASK ALL BELIEVER'S TO READ THIS WITH AN OPEN HEART TO THE PAIN BENEATH THIS MOTHER'S HEART.
THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THIS PERSON ARE "REAL PROBLEMS" THAT DESERVE REAL ANSWERS.
I WILL TAKE THIS LETTER APART IN SMALL SECTIONS AT A TIME TO EXPLAIN THEM FROM GODS POINT OF VIEW!
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU BUT THE GOD I SERVE LOVES THIS WOMEN JUST AS MUCH AS HE DOES YOU, SO I WOULD ASK THAT NO ONE ENGAGE IN "HATE SPEECH OF ANY TYPE" THAT WOULD ONLY EMBOLDEN HER SIDE OF THIS ARGUMENT AND DEFAME OUR SAVIOURS NAME.
{What is CONTEXT?:
The general series or composition of a discourse; more particularly, the parts of a discourse which precede or follow the sentence quoted; the passages of scripture which are near the text, either before it or after it. The sense of a passage of scripture is often illustrated by the context. }
I WILL POST HER ESSAY IN FULL CONTEXT SO THAT MY RESPONSE IS FULLY UNDERSTOOD BY THE ATHEIST SIDE , IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT MOST ATHEISTS & CHRISTIANS ATTACK RATHER THAN "KNOW CONTEXT" BUT I WILL IN NO WAY PROPAGATE THE SAME SHAMEFUL PRACTICE, SO HERE IS THE COMPLETE LETTER, INTERRUPTED only as necessary!
[ Hardest thing for me to do, but it's necessary ]
PRAY FOR HER AND THOSE WHO OPERATE THIS WEB-SITE TO FINALLY SEE THE LIGHT OF THE GOSPEL IN FULL!
{ ALL EMPHASIS IN THE TEXT IS MINE,OTHERWISE IT IS AS IT APPEARED THERE! }
"Why I Am Not A Christian: Introduction:
"This essay was inspired by the consistent assumption of Christians that if I believed the Bible were true, I would become a Christian.
There are several reasons for my atheism, the leading of which is the idea of a higher power is not probable in light of current scientific data.
The second of which is I do not find the state of the world in accordance with an idea of a loving and merciful higher power.
Then of course there is the factor that the basis of this essay shall be about; I do not find the Biblical God fit for worship.
Over the course of this essay there will be some times when I will speak as if I believe in the Bible, when in fact I do not.
I plan to examine the Bible with critical inquiry. This essay will not be based upon scientific facts and how they disprove the Bible.
It shall be an application of my emotions regarding compassion, love, mercy, patience, and justice.
I hope to explain more clearly why the God depicted in the Bible violates my idea of a moral being.
This shall be done over a series of topics. Each pointing out how Jehovah is undeserving of my worship.
I will utilize Biblical verses to support my claim as well as what I consider to be logical reasoning.
Now would be the time to ask you to please take out your bibles for consultation.
(I personally prefer the NIV or KJV)
I will only cite the verse and a brief over view. I do not have the space to write out the verse in its entirety.
I especially don’t wish to spew out so much information that I run the risk of overloading those people who dislike reading.
(Funny, it's conflicting here, isn’t it? We are on-line, in a purely textual world, and people still have the audacity to complain about reading.)
In the case that you dislike reading on-line essays, I recommend you print this out and thumb through it at your convenience.
Hell:
Hell, of course, is the mother of all of my problems with the bible.
It is perhaps the most despicable and hideous of all of the Christian God’s crimes.
Indeed, the cruelest of all concentration camps.
(Certainly far worse than the ones created by the Nazis.)
Described biblically as the "lake of fire", "the place of eternal torment with weeping and gnashing of teeth" Jesus said in Mark 9:42-48 That it is better to commit suicide or self maiming then to be delivered unto hell.
So, according to the bible I assume that all here can agree that there is an existence of hell, and that hell is the worst of all circumstance.
Knowing this, let me indulge you as to why the existence of hell paints the Christian God as not fit for worshiping.
I am a moderately compassionate individual, rational, moral, and nurturing. Most of all I am a creator, a mother. I propose this to you, a human question.
Can all here, Christian or atheist, safely say that if there is a God, he is our greatest thought magnified?
Whatever emotion we feel as human, being created in his image, God is infinitely more feeling? For he is the creator of all things created, I believe this concept is pretty safe to assume.
With this being so, my love for my daughter must be a fraction of God’s love for his children.
Speaking as a mother, I can safely say that if my child were to commit the greatest harm upon me tomorrow, I would never wish her harm. Why?
Simply because she is my creation.
If my daughter were to maim me, slander me, etc. I would still love her, for my instinct and emotion demands of me to protect and care for her regardless of her actions, much like all rational beings (animal kingdom included).
So now I pose the question, why then would God condemn us to hell for something as menial as lack of faith?
If he is not infinitely more so loving then me, why would hell even exist?
Any true loving being would never condemn his own children to everlasting torment, especially one that proclaims himself to having the very essence of forgiveness.
But "God Is Just" You Claim:
Most Christians have responded to this statement with the following rationalization. "God can not let all of his creations into heaven because he is just."
I ask in rebuttal to this, since when is justice more important than love in the heart of a parent? Is hell even justice, or is it simply cruel and unusual punishment? The bible states the system of justice very simply.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. There is also another variation of that system with the biblical verse "eye for an eye".
The Christian God violates his own system of law when he damns his creations to eternal suffering for sins as menial as theft or blasphemy.
I hardly think, nor would any logical person, that throwing someone into a gnashing jaw would be justly befitting of nearly any crime. (With the exception of murder, and even so, eternal punishment is pretty excessive.)
Most courts of law would take custody of your child from you just for an excessive spanking.
We as a people enacted these laws, for we thought them to be logical.
Is God above logic, or what we deem as compassionate behavior? After all he pitches a majority of his children into a lake of "fire and brimstone."
How many of us would want a parent such as that?
Anyone of us would immediately sever our ties with such an abusive person. Yet Christians knowingly continue the insanity of giving worship to a God so cruel!"
I MUST BREAK IN HERE TO PRESENT AN ARTICLE BY A FORMER ATHEIST ABOUT THIS PART OF HER ARGUMENT: THE FALSE ANALOGY OF COURTROOM RULES OF EVIDENCE by A.S.A. Jones
Why is it illogical to think that a Christian needs to 'prove' that the resurrection and other miracles happened, 'beyond a reasonable doubt', in order to see these beliefs as legitimate? See how David Hume's advice that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' can have embarrassing results.
SHOULD CHRISTIANS HAVE TO 'PROVE' THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT IN ORDER TO REASONABLY HOLD THOSE BELIEFS?
Let’s examine the idea that criminal court rules of evidence should be applied to claims of the miraculous based on high stakes or consequence involving the belief of the miraculous.
Obviously, the analogy is impractical because one cannot remove the rules of evidence from the entirety of the judicial process and expect a fair trial. Before a skeptic can claim that only the rules of evidence, as presented in criminal court cases, should apply to belief in God’s existence, he must be willing to agree to the following:
1) An impartial judge 2) An impartial jury 3) An examination of all of the claims that are said to result in God belief, including philosophical, societal, psychological, scientific arguments in addition to an examination of historical and experiential claims.
If skeptics insist on Christians using the rules of evidence as found in criminal law, then they can’t expect us to take them seriously when they present themselves as the sole juror, prosecuting attorney, and judge.
But there is a more compelling point of contention that demonstrates the falsity of the analogy; the criminal court rules of evidence are artificial constructs designed to minimize the convicting of the innocent. In order to prevent a wrongful conviction, by which the defendant would suffer the consequence of incarceration, the defendant is given the benefit of the doubt ; he is innocent until proven guilty and he must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
As the following will demonstrate, the simple actions of a man cannot be adequately compared to complex beliefs or belief structures.
Proposal #1
Skeptics claim that the reason why Christians must validate their beliefs beyond a reasonable doubt is because the consequence of belief may be negative (As if going to Hell were not negative as a result of failing to follow God!); it may result in war or dispute or restrictive moral legislation. Since the consequences involve high stakes, the criteria for evaluating the validity of the belief in question, must be of the highest caliber, that being the rules of evidence as is found in criminal court proceedings. In this particular proposal, the belief, or miraculous event, must be proven true, beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to avoid an undesirable consequence (war or dispute).
The comparison to a criminal case is thus: The Christian assumes the role of the prosecution, having to prove that God is real beyond a reasonable doubt, in order that the skeptic, who assumes the role of the defendant, will not be wrongfully sentenced to an undesirable consequence.
Proposal #2
However, a Christian may counter-argue that the consequence of belief is salvation or an orderly society, and that the consequence of non-belief is damnation or immorality and anarchy. In this proposal, the miracle or belief does not assume the role of the prosecution, but the role of defendant.
The comparison to a criminal case is thus: The Skeptic assumes the role of the prosecution, having to prove that God is not real beyond a reasonable doubt, in order that the Christian, who assumes the role of the defendant, will not be wrongfully sentenced to an undesirable consequence.
Examine the comparison:
CLAIMS OF WRONGDOING Error in interpreting the evidence could result in the _________ going to jail. The error would be in thinking that X [the defendant murdered a person] is true when in fact the negative of X is true.
CLAIMS OF GOD/MIRACLES Error in interpreting the evidence could result in the _________going to Hell. The error would be in thinking that X [God isn’t true] is true when in fact the negative of X is true.
Therefore, in order to minimize the error, the evidence that attempts to prove X true must be of the highest standard, that being the criminal court rules of evidence. Fill in the blanks. In a criminal court case, the plaintiff is not the one who is at risk for sentencing. Also, it is the prosecution that attempts to assert the truth of X, not the defense, since the establishment of the truth of X is what sentences the defendant to the consequence. What the analogy is actually proposing is that the evidence that would free the defendant from the consequence should be subject to the highest standards, while the evidence that could sentence the defendant should be subject to the lowest standards, that being the introduction of a reasonable doubt that the negative of X is true. In other words, in the second proposal, the skeptic is indeed suggesting that a defendant be presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Immediately, we begin to see the complexity that is involved when we try to equate beliefs with the criminal actions of men. When we attempt to put a belief on trial, there are any number of ways to design the case; some cases will have the belief as the plaintiff, others will have it take on the role of the defendant. Since the criminal court rules of evidence give the benefit of innocent until proven guilty to the defendant and place the task of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the plaintiff, how are we to decide which role the belief should assume, given that we have just made cases that demonstrate that the belief can assume either one?
What happens when we attempt to put other beliefs on trial, such as evolution? Can we logically say that ‘evolutionary beliefs should be held to criminal standards of evidence because belief in evolution carries with it the consequence of racism’?
Henry Osborne, who was professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University, said that blacks were further back on the evolutionary ladder (nearer the apes) than whites, and "The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens". http://www.cstnews.com/Code/BasisForRacism.html
In view of the above, should the belief of evolution have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before it can be considered legitimately true?
Now we are not only arguing for the validity of the belief, we are also having to prove that the belief itself is the cause of some undesirable consequence. There is no doubt that any beliefs that cause passion, also cause dispute. In that respect, evolution is as guilty as Christianity. However, dispute, in and of itself, is not a crime. But what if the dispute results in an atrocity or a crime? A skeptic will claim that religious disputes cause war and a religionist will say that the atheist agendas of Stalin and Mao Tse Tung also caused war. Just as a skeptic will argue that atheism and evolution can be misused to support political agendas, so will a Christian argue that Christian faith can also be misused. After all, it would be difficult to make a case that Christianity is being used properly by those who initiate dispute and warfare, given that it instructs its followers to ‘love one another’, and to ‘love your enemy’, and to ‘live peaceably among other men’.
So the main points are as follows:
1) Beliefs are more complex than the actions of men and cannot properly be ‘tried’ according to criminal rules of evidence. a. Beliefs alternately would assume the roles of both plaintiff and defendant, depending on the construction of the argument. b. The standards of evidence for plaintiff and defendant are in opposition to each other. i. The plaintiff must prove its claim true beyond a reasonable doubt. ii. The defendant must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
2) Variations among individual’s beliefs within a belief system should not subject the entire belief system to ‘sentencing’. a. Some evolutionists use evolution to promote racism. b. Some Christians use the Bible to promote war.
3) There is no logical reason why beliefs of a religious nature should be subject to the rules of evidence of criminal court, while beliefs of a non-religious nature should be immune.
Conclusion: Court room analogies fail to give reason why the religious belief should assume the role of plaintiff. While the person making any claim thereby becomes the claimant and has upon him the burden of proof, to be a claimant is not synonymous, nor can it properly be compared, with being the plaintiff. Thus, one who makes a claim outside of the context of a court of law or a lawsuit, does have the burden of proof, BUT that proof needn’t be subject to the high standard of the rules of evidence of criminal court in order to be considered reasonable or legitimate; there is no logical basis for requiring that claims of a religious nature be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to be considered justified.
WHAT CRITERIA SHOULD SUFFICE IN EVALUATING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS?
The proper standards for determining the validity of miraculous claims are the same standards of evidence that are already established and used to evaluate the validity of ordinary, non-miraculous claims.
I consider Hume's assertion that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' to be unreasonable. Hume defines a miracle as that which violates the laws of nature. He then suggests that no human testimony could ever be 'reliable' enough to outweigh our confidence in the laws of nature. In short, he is either saying that no miracles ever occur, or if they do, they should never be believed.
First of all, I disagree with Hume's definition of what constitutes a miracle and I do so based on the reaction of primitive mindsets to modern technology. People claim that a miracle has happened when something 'appears' to violate the laws of nature and when it is not within their intellectual capacity to give a natural explanation for the alleged event. An ignoramus who observes a metallic ball suspended in midair may think that he is eyewitness to the supernatural. He doesn't understand that the ball's suspension is the result of a magnetic field.
I would argue that a miracle is that which 'appears' to violate the laws of the nature and that relies upon the absence of knowledge by which it can be explained in order to maintain its classification as a miracle. Therefore, 'miracles' need not violate any laws of nature in order to be classified as such.
Secondly, there is a degree of folly in Hume's suggestion that no amount of human testimony can be considered reliable enough to validate that a 'miracle' has taken place. For example, despite public demonstrations and eyewitness testimonies, the claims of Wilbur and Orville Wright were derided and dismissed as a hoax by most American scientists.
The scientific community viewed heavier than air flight as a violation of natural laws; to fly would be a miracle. But hundreds of Americans were witnessing the miracle of flight long before scientists came up with equations that would validate it as a possibility. Yet according to Hume, American scientists were totally reasonable in dismissing the legitimacy of the flights, because no human testimony could be considered reliable enough to validate such a claim. That's right! The ignorant masses had accepted air flight as a demonstrable reality, while the scientific elite walked around for an entire year, pompously dismissing it as an utter impossibility.
In view of the above, and other instances that I won't take the time to print here, it can be said that human testimony, concerning allegations of the miraculous, should at least be subject to the same evaluations of human testimony regarding the mundane, if only to open the door into further inquiry.
Let us not forget that there are different courts of law with different rules, depending upon the nature of the claims. There is no 'law' stating that proof of miracles has to be tried according to criminal procedure. For example, our country has civil court. In civil court, one only has to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts are probably true. However, unless a miracle results in a bid for financial damages, I don't see why it should be held to the stringent rules of evidence found in civil proceedings no more than those found in criminal proceedings. Keep in mind that because criminal court rules of evidence are so stringent, the amount of evidence necessary to result in a conviction, need not necessarily negate the probability of guilt. For example, OJ Simpson was declared 'not-guilty' by criminal law standards, but guilty in the civil court. In other words, he is considered 'guilty' (he DID commit the crime), 'not proven'. By the same logic, religious beliefs may be considered true (i.e., the miracle DID happen), not proven.
Practically speaking, every day we apply the general rules of evidence in our decisions that lead us to what we will, and will not, believe. For example, your trusted friend is dating a bug exterminator, who seems like an honest, and well balanced person. Your friend tells you not to eat at a certain restaurant because her boyfriend says it is infested with cockroaches. In a court of law, this evidence would be inadmissible; it would be hearsay, and so you would have to dutifully disregard it. But in reality, you take this piece of information and conclude that you will never eat at the restaurant again, unless, of course, the hot wings are THAT good! In real life, and beyond the artificial constructs of a court of law, we depend a great deal upon eyewitness testimony and hearsay in order to form our belief structure. What separates the gullible from the prudent is the following set of evidential rules:
1) Confidence that an eyewitness, a reporter of hearsay, and the one reported to have said the hearsay, is honest, trustworthy and reliable.
Much of what we believe depends upon the character of the person making the claim or allegation. This is why a defense attorney attempts to discredit witnesses by trouncing upon their character. It is reasonable to believe those who have a reputation for honesty; it is gullible to believe those who are known liars.
A subset of this rule is establishing a lack of incentive that would cause an otherwise honest person to lie. If the person has something to gain by making the claim, there is a chance that he has lied in order to benefit himself. If the person stands to lose by making the claim, the probability of him lying decreases.
2) Corroboration amongst witnesses and other evidences.
If one person tells you that they saw a UFO (and by that, I mean just that, an unidentified flying object - I'm not making a case for alien life) hovering above the mall on Friday night, you may dismiss it as a trick of that person's visual perception. If two dozen people report it independently of each other, at the same time, I'd say that would be reasonable evidence to believe that a UFO of some type was in the area. When the mall reports scorch marks on its roof the next morning, I'd say it would be unreasonable to not believe at that point!
3) Upon close examination, there is an absence of evidence to the contrary.
While it may be considered acceptable to believe in the probability of something being true with little supportive evidence, it would be unreasonable to persist in believing something when there is a preponderance of evidence that indicates that it is untrue.
For example, crop circles and BigFoot used to be subjects of semi-serious speculation, until hoaxers came forward and demonstrated how they made the crop circles and faked BigFoot footprints.
4) There should be evidence that one would reasonably expect to find, dependent upon the nature of the claim.
For example, one can't expect to find dental evidence in a case involving a missing body, or evidence of semen in a rape victim who reports the crime a week later. We wouldn't expect to find scientific evidence involving a case concerning which tenant defaulted on paying the rent.
5) Personal experience is used as evidence for our beliefs, realistically speaking.
In 1938, a woman discovered a coelacanth, a primitive fish that was thought to have been extinct for over 65 million years, in a fish market. Had the fish escaped her possession and had she not been able to present it to a scientist, her claim to have seen the extinct fish would have remained unfounded; she would not have been in a position to convince others of her discovery. However, we are in no position to deny the woman her experience, and we may believe or disbelieve her claims, based on what we know of her character.
These 5 general rules of evidence are what we use in our daily evaluations of claims and I see no reason why claims of miracles should be treated any differently."

NOW to continue with the Atheist Letter!

"Free Will", You Say?

"It is also written that I was given free will with which to choose if I will go to hell or not. How can you possibly deem something free when you must fear consequences? That completely conflicts with the definition of free. If I were to hold a gun to your head and say "you have free will to not give me your wallet, but if you attempt to defy me I will kill you." Does it really feel as if you have a choice in the matter? Of course not. Free means to give or receive something with out an expectation of return. The whole free will concept is self-defeating. Call it Circumstantial Will, for that is what it truly is.
Despite this, I have still had the displeasure of debating with those Christians who accept hell as a rational and fair wrath of God. They defend Jehovah’s creation of hell with the opinion that those who are committed to hell go voluntary, as if it is a consequence rather than a punishment. That indeed, we as children of God, chose rather to be hell’s inmates then God’s disciples in heaven. It’s an interesting idea. However, you don’t have to hurt anyone to get into Hell. All it takes, according to Scripture, is knowing about Jesus and not accepting him as Savior. It doesn't’t matter how virtuous you are, how much good you do, how happy an environment you create for others. Given this, the voluntary entry argument doesn't’t make sense. The same argument could be used to justify the sending of Aryan opponents of Nazism to concentration camps: they voluntarily chose not to give homage to Hitler, so they chose to be interred. Why should we blame the Nazis for the inmates’ choice? Why should we blame God for the choice of the damned?
Genocide:
I hear a lot from Christians about God’s "infinite compassion and mercy".
Instead of harping on me about something so apparent, they should go tell it to the Midianites. (Please open your Bibles to Numbers 31) The following verses are a classic example of wholesale slaughter and rape under the direction of the same God they claim to be so merciful. A quick sample of this tale: On the way to the promised land, God had Moses wage a war campaign against the Midian. Moses was told to put every Midianite to death, plunder anything of value, set fire to their towns where they lived and all their encampments. Moses gave the orders to his troops (the sons of Israel) and went on a further campaign. On the return of his troops Moses was enraged with the commanders of the army. He said, "Why have you spared the life of all the women and children? You are to kill all the children and kill all the women who have slept with a man. The lord says spare the lives only of the young girls who have not slept with a man, and take them for yourselves, so that we may multiply into a great nation." Yes, friends, this is biblical infinite mercy and compassion for you. I particularly like the way that Moses got upset with them for sparing women and male children, but allowed the young girls to be kept for later raping.
I have had some Christians proclaim that these Midianite girls were not taken for raping but marriage. How ridiculous! If you continue further in the scripture you will find that marriage to a Midianite was a crime against God. A man named Zimri, broke the law and married a Midianite woman this angered God so he sent a plague among the Hebrews. Fortunately, a zealous son of Israel speared Zimri right through the genitals, and the plague went away. So now I ask you, if you could not marry a Midianite, just what were these "virgin woman who were to help multiply" good for?
I don’t think the first-born in Egypt during the captivity would have agreed with the verdict of compassion and mercy either. (Exodus 11:5 & 12:29) First of all, Jehovah is the one who purposely hardened the heart of the Pharaoh so that he would not let Moses and the Jews go. God messed with someone’s free will. God could have even ported the Jews out of captivity without bloodshed, or put the Egyptians to sleep while they left, but no. God decided to set up a situation in which he knew he would have to punish the Pharaoh. Though this he didn’t even do. He punished the children instead. Judging from God’s previous actions, killing innocent children is much more his forte.
Lastly, please attempt to read the entire book of Joshua some evening. It is a long sequence of atrocities. I have not given all these quotes for space reasons. I urge you to look them up for yourself. Especially for Christians who are not familiar with the bible. It will leave you not only shocked and in question of just what you are worshiping, but it will give a new definition to all morality you claimed was a derivative of God. If by some chance you read Joshua and you are still compliant with the loving notion of God, I suggest you re- evaluate your code of ethics.
Here is the place I will now speak of common rationalizations used for this slaughter. I have discovered via my discussions that there are two major forms: the corruption argument and the mercy argument. The former says that those slaughtered were evil and deserving of their fate; the latter says that since they were religiously incorrect, it was a mercy to terminate their existence.
The corruption argument simply does not hold up. The people slaughtered in the Old Testament were almost uniformly blameless (with a few exceptions, of course for instance, the Sodomites violated the conventions of hospitality.) Usually, no justification is offered beyond the fact that since they were of another tribe, it was OK to kill them. It goes without saying that the hordes of slaughtered children were innocent. (*Quick tip-If God was anti-abortion he wouldn’t have ordered the murder of pregnant women and young children.)
As to the mercy argument: If I don’t claim to be suffering, and don’t ask to die, neither you nor any god has the right to decide that you know better. (This would of course be a violation of my free will.) If a person tried to do this to me, I would quite frankly attempt to kill him; if a god tried, well, the only weapon I would have would be withholding my worship. Are you beginning to see why I do not comply with the worship of the Christian God?
Neglect:
Most of us, given omnipotence, would be able to do a far better job than Jehovah. What would you do if given omnipotence? If your answer is anything other than "abolish world hunger, disease or save the earth", there’s something more than a little skewed in your perception of mankind. There is no question that the very balance of life is in peril. To wish for these things doesn't’t take "infinite mercy", just normal compassion and a bit of common sense. God’s supposed infinite mercy is apparently the same thing as no mercy at all.
What makes this particularly unforgivable is that even Jesus’ own standards demand feeding of the poor. See Matthew 25:35, in which it is stated that the blessed feed the hungry, and that the damned do not. I find it funny that God is held blameless, though, for not feeding them. Does not the old saying "practice what you preach" apply to God? Is his lack of action, an hypocrisy or a sin? Could it perhaps be both?
Usually, when I bring this up in a discussion, someone says, "No. It is the evil of men that is to blame; they have lots of money and keep it to themselves rather than feeding the poor." (Funny thing that the Christians who say this are usually conservative.) This argument uses a double standard. Men are held guilty for not feeding the poor, while God is held innocent for doing exactly the same. In fact, it would be far easier for God to feed all the poor with his omnipotence, than for any mortal man to feed even one! Mankind is certainly not blameless here, but it is Jehovah who is the true villain.
Another popular rationalization is that life without "challenges" would be boring and dehumanizing, so God does not remove them. The fallacy here is grouping all challenges together. I personally lead a very challenging and satisfying life, but I have not lately had to flee any volcano's or earthquakes, go without food for a week, or suffer the ravages of some disease. I would be quite happy, in fact, if I never do have to face such challenges as those. There is plenty of room for amelioration of the human condition without making it dull. Does it not defeat the purpose of living life if you are to starve to death?
Faith Is Required To Know God:
Suppose you were an omnipotent god, and you demand worship, such as the Christian God. Would you give proof of your existence to those who wished to follow you? I imagine for Jehovah that it would be quite simple to perform a continual sequence of verifiable miracles. It would be quite logical in practice too, for it would keep God’s followers from delusion and doubt. There is no such luck with Jehovah though. He demands absolute fidelity without any demonstration of his existence. The only so-called record of his existence is the bible. I think it pretty much goes with out saying that not only is the bible 2,000 years out dated, but it is also very unoriginal. Any Christian who proposes that the bible is indeed evidence for God’s existence is proposing a double standard. For there are many books which claim to be actual accounts of a higher power. With this in mind, why not believe in Allah from the Koran? Could it be because your faith is what determines your belief and not your so-called "factual" book?
Let’s examine what faith is. The definition of faith is hope for a circumstance or thing that is not proven to be true. {NOT TRUE AT ALL} There is no virtue in accepting something on faith, since it may very well be false, and it is clearly not virtuous to believe the false. Faith has also been proven throughout history, time and again, that it is equivalent to massive hysteria; IE: Crusades, Burning Times, Inquisitions, Holy Wars, etc. On a grand scale faith, thus far, has only proven to be an intellectual weakness, and a significant barrier to scientific and moral progress. With all of this in mind, how can God possibly expect us to view faith as the greatest way to glorify him, let alone demand this of us?
Most importantly, the point to remember here is that if we don’t believe in him, we go to Hell, and this is a greater evil than a lack of the "virtue" of faith or a stunting of science, or anything else conceivable. If God is truly concerned about the good, he will do what he can to keep us from Hell, and withholding vital information from us is the exact opposite of this.
God Is The Creator Of Evil:
I am frustrated at two specific verses in the bible, which applies to this particular topic. The first is the biblical statement that "God is the Alpha and the Omega". Loosely defined it means the beginning and the end, the all-knowing. Which of course implies that all of his actions and the results are fore-known to him. I have a real problem with this notion. For if God was to know ahead of time that someday he would send me to hell for being an Atheist, I ask what was the purpose in him creating me in the first place? Was it simply to watch me be tortured? That seems to be the most logical explanation. I can think of no other rational explanation, nor neither has any Christian who I posed this question to. Some people have attempted to tell me that God has a purpose unknown to us, and that we must simply accept his will. Would you keep a friend who commits evil and offers no self-justification or remorse? Of course not, so why is this same judgment not applied to God? It’s seems rather contradictory that this trait is despised in humanity, yet, it is worshiped in religion.
Secondly, I want to reinforce the fact that God is indeed the creator of evil. Please read Isaiah 45:7. "I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the lord do all these things". The Christian God outright claims that he is indeed the source of evil. So how can he then claim to be sinless?
To be more specific, let’s talk about the lord’s creation of evil, let’s talk about the conception of Satan. This being was created and unleashed by God. Jehovah knew (for he is the all knowing) that at the time of Lucifer’s creation he would eventually become Satan, and spend his existence reeking havoc on man kind. Leading people into criminal activities. Suppose I were to build an evil robot, that I knew would go around torturing and murdering people. Whose fault would it be if I let it loose? Mine or the robot’s? Of course it would be mine, for I created it with that purpose and unleashed it for that purpose. Now I ask you, whose fault is deviltry in the world? Is it the PUPPET Satan or the being that deliberately created Satan’s evil?
Now God Plays Switch-A-Roo And Humans Are The Creators Of Evil Not only does the bible imply, but so do many Christians, that we as people are the creator of evil. It is clear for reading the bible that this is untrue, but the speculation still remains. Supposedly, when Adam and Eve fell from grace, they single-handedly brought evil into the world. All you have to do is think logically for a moment, and you will obviously see something is very unjust with this concept. Could any rational being hold a starving infant in Ethiopia responsible for the actions of two long dead people? Or perhaps, would you find it fair to be convicted of Jack the Ripper’s crimes? The connection in both of these instances are not only ludicrous but, disgusting to nod your head at. People who use this argument are simply attempting to rationalize sadism.
I must declare that a Christian that walks into a children’s ward and insists that it is correct that children suffer as a result of the original sin, must destroy themselves of all compassion and mercy. I insist that those who worship the lord knowing this hypocrisy must be as cruel as the Christian God he/she believes in. A complete and utter moral degenerate, taking stabs at protecting their belief system. A person as such would just as easily worship Satan as God in their blindness and faith. For apparently, no amount of evidence could convince him that God was bad once they decided to worship him; their basic assumption is that they are correct, which makes them untouchable by any amount of rationality.
Human Judgment
One of the criticisms most frequently leveled at me when presenting any of the above arguments has been that I have no right to judge God. A pretty feeble grasp at the straws. Christians proclaim that God is the definition of good. All morality proceeds downward from him, so it makes no sense to apply moral standards to him. But I must interject. God allowed my ancestors Adam and Eve to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. Thus, allowing us "to be like gods, and know the difference between good and evil". This very biblical verse, written in the first book of Genesis, conflicts with the same argument these Christians attempt to use. If we as humans are now capable of knowing good and evil LIKE THE GODS why can't we use our judgment? How can it be lower than God’s if God is the one who claimed that we are like him?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that I should not judge God. Well then, would it be fair to hold him up to his own standards? Please consult Matthew 25:41-46 We hear Jesus say: "Go away from me with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you never gave me food; I was thirsty and you never gave me anything to drink; I was a stranger and you never made me welcome, naked and you never clothed me, sick and in prison and you never visited me. . . And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the virtuous to eternal life."
Now, I have never personally seen Jesus feed the hungry nor, have I seen him give drink to those who thirst. But, I do personally see thousands of people die of starvation. I do not recall Jesus dispensing clothes. He has never made me feel welcome, let alone acknowledged. I see the faithful sicken and die on a daily basis. In light of this Jesus himself is the worst of all sinners; if there is no double standard he will be at the head of the line into eternal punishment. He is guilty of every crime of which he accuses the damned.
In Conclusion
I don’t think I could ever complete a whole list as to what I find objectionable regarding the bible. There are many more topics in which to tackle such as sexism, infanticide, homophobia, and the likes. Frankly, I find it too tiresome to go on any further. As I read over all that I have written. I simply wish to close this essay with a very brief summation: I do not believe in the reality of God, except as a psychological phenomenon, but if I did believe I would not worship that horror. It violates my morality to worship an hypocritical, judgmental, self-righteous murderer. In punishment, it could send me to the hell it’s made for those it dislikes, and if there was no other choice but worshiping it, I would walk in proudly."
That may have been PAINFUL to hear & read, but TRUST ME: To go on through life ignoring HER HEART CRY FOR REAL ANSWERS would be a travesty of Justice unequaled by any Atheist, now I know that she may not ever come to believe it, but that's in GOD'S HANDS NOT OURS, so stay tuned to read MY response to this letter! A CHALLENGE TO ATHEISM!
How to Witness to an Atheist
by
A.S.A. Jones
When a Christian did the impossible or the outrageous or lived out the extreme philosophy of Jesus Christ, these were the things that caused me to take notice and be offense. No amount of talk about God's Law could have made any difference with me. The only time that caught my attention was when a Christian acted extraordinarily in the Spirit of the Law.

What is the best way to witness to an atheist?

Live your Christianity, don't debate it.
Here are some of the Christians who ultimately made a positive impression on me.
BOB I worked with this mild-mannered, soft-spoken man for ten years. My co-workers and I were in the habit of making snide comments about his participation in anti-abortion marches and his belief in God. He wasn't overly pushy about his beliefs, but we were ready to call the ACLU if he said, "God bless you," when one of us sneezed.
When lay-offs came in the mid 90's, the company we worked for devised a unique way to avoid potential lawsuits. It demanded that the employees vote on a few select co-workers who would then compare and rate the workforce that voted for them. In other words, we were to be judged by our peers. Bob and I and two others were voted out and subsequently lost our jobs right before Christmas. While I deserved to lose my position because my apathy and boredom had compromised my job performance, Bob's only crime was that of being unpopular. It wasn't that he had any glaring personality faults; on the contrary, I couldn't recall him ever saying anything negative about anyone. It wasn't that his work was inadequate; he plugged away at every task he was given. But he stood for an offensive standard and because of that, he wasn't one of us and he paid the price.
Unable to admit to my own shortcomings, I became very bitter and very hateful toward the people who I felt had caused me to lose my job. I kept only one friend and we stayed in contact with each other in the months following my dismissal. It was during one of our talks that she mentioned going to a Christmas party at Bob's house right after the lay-offs. "Bob had a party?" I asked. "Why were you invited?" She then told me that Bob had invited everyone from the lab.
I couldn't believe it! This guy was in his 60's and he wasn't going to bounce back into any comparable employment. He had to know that the only reason he had lost his job was because his co-workers had despised him. I couldn't imagine him wanting to look at any of them let alone have a party for them. For years, every time that resentment welled up in me, I thought about Bob. How could he forgive them? How?
His action of forgiveness was a source of irritation to me, but eventually it became one piece in the puzzle of Jesus Christ.
6 RESIDENTS OF ST. ANNE'S NURSING HOME When I was in my 20's, I went to visit a friend at St. Anne's Nursing Home. We were seated in the activities room when the staff began wheeling in some of the other residents. These people were pitiable, all confined to reclining wheelchairs, their arms and legs grotesquely bent at odd and unimaginable angles. I had the thought that if I ever found myself in a state as deplorable as theirs, I would rather be dead.
Most were unable to speak or even move their heads, and I was curious to see in what activity these six patients had been assembled to participate. A nurse saw my curiosity, and giving a weak smile said, "They have church every week." The program director introduced a Baptist choir and, as they sang 'Amazing Grace', I watched those men and women in the crippled audience and I was shocked and unsettled to see peace and happiness take over their expressions. Some sat there with frozen smiles while others silently mouthed the words of the hymn, but there was victory in their eyes. At the time, I recall having thought that these people were already in heaven, despite being confined to an earthly hell.
After the choir left, I half-heartedly spoke to the one patient who could still verbalize. "How are you doing?" I asked. She was completely paralyzed and couldn't even turn her face to see me, but she was glowing.
"Wonderful!" she replied and continued smiling as a nurse wheeled her back to her room.
How could these people be happy? What allowed them to be this way in their tragic affliction while I could barely manage a smile in all my good fortune?

LET IT SHINE

The real power of Christ's light makes itself known when it shines forth in life's darkest hours. If we have been given adversity, we have also been given a good opportunity to witness.
It doesn't take the Spirit of Christ to be nice to nice people, nor does it take any divine spirit to be generous when one has wealth. Show me a poor person who sacrifices his own necessities for the welfare of strangers. Let me see persons who remain kindhearted to people who mistreat them. Show me a person who knowingly passes up a chance to destroy their enemy. When a person does these things, they are not acting according to human nature, but against it. The most valued attributes of mankind do not come naturally to the human animal; character borrows from the divine.
No matter what our situation may be, there will always be a profound way to represent our Lord. Christianity is extreme and we shouldn't settle for mediocrity or allow our walk to become a shuffling gait. Our best witness is a life lived for Christ!

PART 1 of A RESPONSE TO: Why I Am Not A Christian!

THE ATHEIST MINDSET REVEALED!

Introduction:

"This essay was inspired by the consistent assumption of Christians that if I believed the Bible were true, I would become a Christian. There are several reasons for my atheism, the leading of which is the idea of a higher power is not probable in light of current scientific data."

Most of this essay is " Strawman Theology" at it's best, BUT it is also "Riddled with GOOD QUESTIONS that need VERY GOOD ANSWERS."

You must be very careful when answering these type of QUESTIONING of PEOPLE BECAUSE IT IS A "MENTAL TRAP" to get emotional and Reactive to their "VITRIOL VENOM" of hate speech.

That is exactly why I asked that no one comment on these blogs with "LIKE HATRED OF SPEECH.

" So I will begin where SHE BEGAN...The Idea that REAL SCIENCE does not support a Living & Active God.

WHAT SHE REALLY MEANS IS,THAT EVOLUTION: { The act of unfolding or unrolling. A series of things unrolled or unfolded }DOES NOT SUPPORT THE IDEA OF GOD!

This is true, BUT we must understand what https://ministerofblog.wordpress.com/wp-admin/edit.php this so-called science is before DISMANTLING IT'S ATHEISTIC PREMISE!

Does everything have a natural cause?

Atheists believe that all cause and effect in the universe has a naturalistic origin. Observational data lead us to the conclusion that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Since all things that begin to exist must have a cause, this means that the universe has a cause.

However, a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe cannot be confirmed observationally. Therefore, atheists believe the tenet that all phenomena have a naturalistic cause based solely upon faith in naturalism.

Do skeptics have beliefs?

Most skeptics take pride in their intellectual ability and like to think that they have no "beliefs." However, modern science has shown us that everyone has beliefs, since this is how our brains work.

Although we would like to think that everything we believe is based upon evidence and logic, this is simply not true. In fact, we become emotionally bound to our worldview, so much so that worldview changes occur rarely, if at all.

Since I am asking you to consider a worldview change, I am going to ask you to dump your emotional attachment to your worldview and consider the evidence apart from your emotional attachments.

ARE YOU JUST MISSING THE OBVIOUS ABOUT GOD? "The Lone Ranger and Tonto are camping in the desert, set up their tent, and are asleep. Some hours later, The Lone Ranger wakes his faithful friend.

"Tonto, look up and tell me what you see." Tonto replies, "Me see millions of stars."

"What does that tell you?" asks The Lone Ranger.

Tonto ponders for a minute.

"Astronomically speaking, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, it tells me that Saturn is in Leo.

Time wise, it appears to be approximately a quarter past three. Theologically, it's evident the Lord is all powerful and we are small and insignificant.

Meteorologically, it seems we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. What it tell you, Kemo Sabi?"

The Lone Ranger is silent for a moment, then speaks. "Tonto, you Dumb Hoss, someone has stolen our tent."

The above joke is a good lesson in missing the obvious. Chances are that you were surprised by the Lone Ranger's response. However, the first sentence of the joke tells you that the Lone Ranger and Tonto were camping in a tent. It should have been clear at Tonto's first response that he was missing the obvious.

Likewise, those who have already decided that God does not exist and that all processes must have a naturalistic explanation, do not see the obvious evidence that the universe was designed, rather than happened by chance.

Rational explanations for the creation of the universe come down to two main possibilities:

"Design by an intelligent being"

OR IT

"Happened by random chance"

What are the differences between the two creators?

Both creators must possess certain characteristics in common, such as being eternal and being transcendent to this universe. However, the naturalistic creator must be "stupid" and must have created our exquisitely-designed universe through some sort of random process.

For some reason, the atheist chooses to believe that the universe arose randomly by the action of a stupid creator called Evolution, instead of seeing the obvious - that a well-designed universe would most likely come into being through the actions of an intelligent designer.

Let me give you an example. I show you a computer and ask you to make your best choice as to how it came into being:

Designed and put together by intelligent human beings or....

Random computer parts were put into a large box and the parts soldered randomly by spraying molten lead into the box as it was rotated. This process was continued many times until the computer happened to be produced.

Well, its your choice. Have you checked your tent lately? "Improbable things happen all the time" is the mantra of the atheist. It is certainly possible for improbable things to happen. However, it is virtually impossible that all the physical laws would just happen to be tightly constrained in order for stars and galaxies to exist.

SCIENCE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE "BIG BANG THEORY" Many scientists recognize two facts:

(1) There is no real evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, and....

(2) there is very definite evidence against it. But, complicating the matter, there a strong effort is being made by the establishment to muffle opposition. The following statements will provide you with a better understanding of this.

"The Big Bang is pure presumption. There are no physical principles from which it can be deduced that all of the matter in the universe would ever gather together in one location or an explosion would occur if the theoretical aggregation did take place. . .

"Theorists have great difficulty in constructing any self-consistent account of the conditions existing at the time of the hypothetical Big Bang. Attempts at mathematical treatment usually lead to concentration of the entire mass of the universe at a point.

" `The central thesis of Big Bang cosmology,' says Joseph Silk, `is that about 20 billion years ago, any two points in the observable universe were arbitrarily close together. The density of matter at this moment was infinite.'

"This concept of infinite density is not scientific. It is an idea from the realm of the supernatural, as most scientists realize when they meet infinites in other physical contexts. Richard Feynman puts it in this manner:

" `If we get infinity [when we calculate], how can we ever say that this agrees with nature?' This point alone is enough to invalidate the Big Bang theory in all its various forms."—*Dewey B. Larson, The Universe of Motion (1984), p. 415.

"The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed."—*W.H. McCrea, "Cosmology after Half a Century," Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297.

"Probably the strongest argument against a big bang is that when we come to the universe in total and the large number of complex condensed objects in it [stars, planets, etc.], the theory is able to explain so little."—*G. Burbidge, "Was There Really A Big Bang?" in Nature, 233:36-40.

"This persistent weakness has haunted the big bang theory ever since the 1930's. It can probably be understood most easily by thinking of what happens when a bomb explodes. After detonation, fragments are thrown into the air, moving with essentially uniform motion.

As is well-known in physics, uniform motion is inert, capable in itself of doing nothing. It is only when the fragments of a bomb strike a target—a building for example—that anything happens . . But in a big bang there are not targets at all, because the whole universe takes part in the explosion.

There is nothing for the expanded material to hit against, and after sufficient expansion, the whole affair should go dead."—*Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," in New Scientist, 92 (1981), pp. 521, 523.

THE ATOMIC GAPS The initial Big Bang explosion is said to have produced hydrogen and helium, which, through later explosions, changed into the heavier elements. But the atomic gaps would forbid this from occurring.

"In the sequence of atomic weight, numbers 5 and 8 are vacant. That is, there is no stable atom of mass 5 or mass 8 . . The question then is: How can the build-up of elements by neutron capture get by these gaps? The process could not go beyond helium 4 and even if it spanned this gap it would be stopped again at mass 8 . . This basic objection to Gamow's theory is a great disappointment in view of the promise and philosophical attractiveness of the idea." —*William A. Fowler, quoted in Creation Science, p. 90 [California Institute of Technology].

"There is no accepted theory as to how the hot gas clouds of hydrogen and helium arising out of the big bang condensed into galaxies, stars and planets. It would seem that the possibility of such a condensation is similar to the probability for all of the air in a room to collect in one corner—just by random motion of the molecules."—H.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 89.

WRONG ELEMENTS

Why is our earth and the other planets full of the heavier elements, whereas the stars are not? This is a mystery the Big Bang theory cannot explain.

"Apart from hydrogen and helium, all other elements are extremely rare, all over the universe. In the sun they [the heavier elements] amount to only about one percent of the total mass . . The contrast [of the sun's light elements with the heavy ones found on earth] brings out two important points.

"First, we see that material torn from the sun would not be at all suitable for the formation of the planets as we know them. Its composition would be hopelessly wrong. And our second point in this contrast is that it is the sun that is normal and the earth that is the freak.

The interstellar gas and most of the stars are composed of material like the sun, not like the earth. You must understand that, cosmically speaking, the room you are now sitting in is made of the wrong stuff. You yourself are a rarity. You are a cosmic collector's piece." —*Fred C. Hoyle, Harper's Magazine, April 1951, p. 64.

SUPERNOVA

When large stars explode, they are termed supernovas. Theorists tell us that supernova explosions of Population III stars produced the stars we now have. Yet it is a scientific fact that supernova explosions rarely occur.

"A supernova explodes in an average galaxy only once every 100 years or so."—*Reader's Digest Book of Facts (1987), p. 394.

"In a typical nova explosion, the star loses only about a hundred-thousandth part of its matter. The matter it throws off is a shell of glowing gases that expands outward into space . .

"A supernova throws off as much as 10 percent of its matter when it explodes. Supernovae and novae differ so much in the percentage of matter thrown off that scientists believe the two probably develop differently.

A supernova may increase in brightness as much as a billion times in few days. Astronomers believe that about 14 supernova explosions have taken place in the Milky Way during the past 2,000 years. The Crab Nebula, a huge cloud of dust and gas in the Milky Way, is the remains of a supernova seen in A.D. 1054. Super-novae are also rare in other galaxies."—*World Book Encyclopedia (1971), p. N-431.

"The explosion named Supernova 1987A in February 1987 was the first reasonably close one since the invention of the telescope. [The telescope was invented in 1609; that super-nova occurred in 1604.] . . [Astronomers] estimate that one goes off somewhere in the Milky Way every 50 to 100 years."—*Roberta Conlan, Frontiers of Time (1991), p. 34.

"Although supernovae may provide enough matter to form some new stars, whether there are enough of them to significantly forestall the [eventual] extinction of the galaxies seems doubtful. In the Milky Way, for instance, stars massive enough to go supernova make up a scant 4 percent of the galaxy's stars and contain only 11 percent of its total stellar mass.

Many galaxies may be similarly proportioned. Ellipticals, for example, much like the globular clusters at the Milky Way's outer edges, tend to consist of less massive, slower-burning, and hence, older bodies . . Galaxies are basically dependent on their original supply of gas."—*Op. cit., 71.

POPULATION-III STARS MISSING

The Big Bang theory requires the existence of a theoretical "Population III star," yet no such stars exist. (A "Population III star" is theorized to have hydrogen, helium, and essentially no other elements.)

"Are there any stars older than Population-II? There should be, if our ideas about the early history of the universe are correct. The immediate result of the Big Bang is hydrogen and helium with very little, if any, production of heavier elements. To provide the chemical composition observed in Population-II objects requires a previous generation of stars to perform the necessary nucleosynthesis. Such primordial `Population-III' stars would contain vanishingly small abundances of heavy elements."—*"Where is Population III?" Sky and Telescope, 64:19 (1982) [Nucleosynthesis"=production of heavier elements by nuclear fusion].

"There appears to be no observation evidence for the existence of true Population III stars in our Galaxy which formed in the denser regions of space, such as the Virgo cluster."—*J.G. Hills, "Where Are the Population III Stars?" Astrophysical Journal, 258:L67 (1982).

CALCULATIONS ARE TOO CLOSE

Few non-mathematicians realize how narrowly the calculations have been made to arrive at a theoretical Big Bang. (Yet, as we learn from other statements by scientists, the theory is still a failure. There is too much it does not explain.)

"If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been .1 percent less, then the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-2 gm / cm3, over 1016 times as great as the present mass density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to form stars."—*R.H. Dicke, Gravitation and the Universe (1969), p. 62.

"The alleged big bang would never have led to an expanding universe at all; rather it would all have collapsed into a black hole."—Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1982, p. 198 [referring to *St. Peter's calculation].

"It seems, for instance, that altering the rate of expansion at the Big Bang very marginally would have made our universe fall to bits too fast or undergo recollapse too quickly for Life to stand a chance of evolving. Persuading expanding gases to form themselves into galaxies of stars and planets requires an adjustment of gravitational and explosive forces quite as delicate as that between the two halves of a pencil in balance on a razor's edge.

". . Even as matters stand, it is hard to see how galaxies could have formed in a universe which is flying apart so fast—and an early speed increase by one thousandth would quickly have led to a thousandfold increase. Again, very slight reductions in the smoothness with which matter is distributed . . would apparently have multiplied the primeval heat billions of times with disastrous effects."—J. Leslie, Cosmology, Probability, and the Need to explain Life," in N. Rescher, (ed.), Scientific Explanation and Understanding (1983), pp. 53-54.

MISSING MATTER

There is not enough matter in the universe to fit the Big Bang requirements.

" `Most attempts to fit a cosmological model to observations have in fact implied that the total mean density of matter in the universe is much greater (maybe 100 times) than the mean density of luminous matter.' McCrae says that whether or not the universe contains this `missing mass' is `perhaps the most important unsolved problem of all present day astronomy.' "—*W.H. McCrae, quoted in H.R. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 89.

"Creationists (for example Slusher) have shown that there is insufficient mass of galaxies to hold gravitationally together over billions of years. Evolutionary astronomers have sought to explain away this difficulty by postulating some hidden source of mass, but such rationalizations are failures. Rizzo wrote:

"Another mystery concerns the problem of the invisible missing mass in clusters in galaxies. The author evaluates explanations based on black holes, neutrinos, and inaccurate measurements, and concludes that this remains one of the most intriguing mysteries in astronomy"—*P.V. Rizzo, "Review of Mysteries of the Universe," in Sky and Telescope, August 1982, p. 150.

EVER OUTFLOWING

The outward-flowing radiation from an initial Big Bang would have kept moving outward forever. The universe should not be filled with anything; it should have all gone outward!

"With no friction in space to stop it, the exploding material from the bang would keep moving onward forever. Eventually most of the universe would again be empty—with the exploded matter off on the edges, still traveling outward. Never packing together, never slowing, it would speed on through frictionless space forever."—*Richard Johnson, No Way Out (1963), p. 432.

"The farther out into scattered space we look, the further back in time we should be seeing. And as we look farther back in time, we should (according to the current theory) see a more densely packed universe, as it was then much younger. In fact, we find just the opposite. This might be called the Big Bang Paradox, and it shows that the Big Bang Theory cannot be correct."—A.W. Mehlert, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1983, p. 23 [emphasis his].

STELLAR ROTATION IS TOO RAPID

Many stars rotate too rapidly to have initially collected any nearby gas, much less be formed by compressing gas. By the way, thin hydrogen clouds would not push themselves together, and even if they could— what would start the balls twirling?

"There is much interstellar material in the vicinity of the sun, but it is not condensing. Greenstein of the Mount Wilson Observatory believed that the known stars rotate so fast they could never have been formed by a condensation process.

In fact, many stars have a rotation speed one hundred times that of the sun! With this speed, such stars should not be able to hold on to their surface layers. But if this is happening, how did such stars collapse in the first place? The initial gas clouds should have developed a stable circulation motion without collapsing into stars."—John C. Whitcomb, The Early Earth (1986), p. 58.

"Greenstein of Mt. Wilson Observatory believes that the `known stars rotate so fast that one must conclude that they could never have been formed by a condensation process.' "—H.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 90.

"Spectroscopic study by David Soderblom and John Stouffer of the Harvard-Smithsonian center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass., of the Doppler-shifted broadening of spectral lines that rotation causes, confirmed the ultra-fast rotation of 30 percent of the approximately 60 stars they observed in the Pleiades."—*D.E. Thomsen, "Stellar Evolution Spins a Surprise Stage," Science News, 125:388 (1984).

SORRY STAR-TREK FANS ANTI-MATTER IS NOT THERE

Whenever matter comes into existence, half of it is our kind of matter and the other half is "antimatter"—which immediately flies to the matter and destroys both. The Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of both, and they would have quickly destroyed one another. Yet the universe has almost no anti-matter.

"Antimatter: Matter made up of antiparticles. Antiparticles are identical in mass to matter particles, but opposite to them in properties such as electrical charge."—*R.M. Somerville, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), p. 132.

"Antimatter: It is believed that all particles have antimatter counterparts, particles with identical mass and spin as the original but with many other properties (such as electric charge) reversed . . Few such particles exist in nature . . Presently, there is no evidence of antigalaxies."—*American Institute of Physics, Glossary of Terms Used in Cosmology (1982), p. 2.

"We are pretty sure from our observations that the universe today contains matter, but very little if any antimatter."—*Victor Weisskopf, "The Origin of the Universe," in America Scientist, 71 (1983), p. 479.

"What ultimately seems decisive is the difficulty of imagining how matter and antimatter in the early universe could have become segregated into distinct regions. It seems more likely they would have simply annihilated each other everywhere."—*F. Wilczek, "The Cosmic Asymmetry between Matter and Antimatter," in Scientific American, December 1980, pp. 82-83.

"The principle is clear, however, and no physicist doubts it. Antimatter can exist.

"But does it exist in actuality? Are there masses of antimatter in the universe?

. . If they encountered ordinary matter, the massive annihilation reactions that result ought to be most noticeable. It ought to be, perhaps, but it is not. Astronomers have not spied any energy bursts anywhere in the sky that can be identified unequivocally as the result of matter-antimatter annihilation.

Can it be, then, that the universe is almost entirely matter, with little or no antimatter? If so, why? Since matter and antimatter are equivalent in all respects but that of electromagnetic charge oppositeness, any force that would create one [such as a Big Bang or steady state theory] would have to create the other, and the universe should be made of equal quantities of each.

"This is a dilemma. Theory tells us there should be antimatter out there; and observation refuses to back it up."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science (1984), p. 343.

"That the moon and Venus are made of ordinary matter is clear from direct observations. That the solar system in general contains no antimatter follows from the lack of solar-wind induced annihilation gamma rays. An `antiplanet' [a theoretical antimatter planet], for example, would have been the strongest gamma-ray source in the sky.

Similarly, gamma-ray observations show no nearby star is an `antistar.' Indeed, that the Galaxy can contain no interesting amounts of antimatter is strongly suggested by the absence of antinuclei in the cosmic rays, by the observations of Faraday rotation, and by the observations of galactic gamma rays."—*Gary Steigman, "Observational Tests of Antimatter Cosmologies," Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14:339 (1976).

"Even more fascinating was the realization—confirmed by a series of experiments during the 1950's and 1960's—that the electron-positron relationship is standard in the subatomic world. For each type of matter particle there is an antimatter equivalent that is opposite in electrical charge or some other fundamental property . .

"Although the symmetrical creation of matter and antimatter is common in such experiments, the universe outside the physics laboratory is dominated by matter—an asymmetry cosmologists find baffling.

"The implication was obvious: Extremely energetic processes that create matter should just as easily create antimatter. One such process, of course, was the formation of the universe, in which matter and energy came into being. Given the dynamics of the forces at work shortly after the Big Bang, antimatter should be just as abundant in the cosmos as matter. Where then is it?"—Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), pp. 98, 100.

"Clearly, no antimatter exists in any appreciable amount on Earth; if it did, it would readily come into contact with matter and vaporize [both of them] in huge explosions. And since Earth is made of matter, the Solar System must be also . . As for the entire galaxy, if there are such things as antimatter stars, some would already have gone supernova, pouring vast quantities of antiparticles into the interstellar medium and thereby producing almost constant matter-antimatter annihilations and their telltale bursts of energy."—*Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), pp. 98, 100.

UNIVERSE IS TOO LUMPY

Scientists tell us that the universe has "lumps" (stars) and "clumps" (galaxies), when, according to the Big Bang theory, it should be totally smooth (only have floating gas).

"The large-scale distribution of matter is strikingly clumpy; we see stars in galaxies, galaxies in groups and clusters, and clusters in superclusters."—*P. Peebles, "The Origin of Galaxies and Clusters of Galaxies," in Science, 224 (1984), pp. 1385-1386.

"Theorists are particularly disturbed by the growing evidence of large-scale inhomogeneity in the universe's structure, which conflicts with the uniformity of the cosmic background radiation."—*Horgan, "Big-Bang Bashers," in Scientific American, September 1987, pp. 22.

"[The lack of homogeneity] is in fact one of the major unsolved problems of cosmology."—*Waldrop, "Delving the Hole in Space," in Science 214 (1981), p. 1016.

"It is questioned whether the homogeneous four-dimensional big-bang model will survive in a universe of inhomogeneous three-dimensional structures."—*H. Alfven, On Hierarchical Cosmology (1982), p. 24.

"The standard Big Bang model does not give rise to lumpiness. That model assumes the universe started out as a blobally smooth, homogeneous expanding gas. If you apply the laws of physics to this model, you get a universe that is uniform, a cosmic vastness of evenly distributed atoms with no organization of any kind. `No galaxies, no stars, no planets, no nothing.' Needless to say, the night sky, dazzling in its lumps, clumps, and clusters, says otherwise.

"How then did the lumps get there? No one can say—at least not yet and perhaps not ever. The prerequisite for a cosmos with clusters of concentrated matter is inhomogeneity—some irregularity, some departure from uniformity, some wrinkle in the smoothness of space-time—around which matter, forged in the primordial furnace, can accrete.

"For now, some cosmologists all but ignore this most vexatiousness conundrum. They opt, instead, to take the inhomogeneity as given, as if some matrix of organization, some preexistent framework for clumping somehow leaked out of the primeval inferno into the newly evolving universe. With lumpiness in place, the laws of physics seem to work fine in explaining the evolution of the cosmos we've come to know."—*Ben Patrusky, "Why is the Cosmos Lumpy?" Science 81, 2:96, June 1981.

"Over the last 300 years, we have repeatedly discovered ever-larger inhomogeneities in the distribution of matter: stars, clusters, galaxies, groups of galaxies, clusters of groups, and clusters of clusters."—*R. Oldershaw, "The Continuing Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology," in Astrophysics and Space Science, 92 (1983), p. 349.

"This peculiarity of the initial state of matter required by the standard [Big Bang] model is called the smoothness problem."—*Guth and *Steinhardt, "The Inflationary Universe," in Scientific American, May 1984, p. 119.

BACKGROUND RADIATION

Background radiation and the redshift are said to be two primary "evidences" that a Big Bang occurred.

Background radiation does exist. It is a low-level microwave radiation, and is said to be the remnants of the Big Bang. But scientists tell us it does not provide the needed evidence. It is the wrong temperature, there is not enough of it, it does not come from only one direction, and it is much too smooth.

"Perhaps the most significant objection to this cosmology [the Big Bang], stems from the presence of the cosmic background radiation."—*J. Silk, the Big Bang (1979), p. 321.

"The observed cosmic microwave background radiation, which has a high degree of spatial isotropy . . is generally claimed to be the strongest piece of evidence in support of hot big bang cosmologies by its proponents . . [But] the claim that this radiation lends strong support to hot big bang cosmologies is without foundation."—*Hannes Alfven and *Asoka Mendis, "Interpretation of Observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation," in Nature, April 21, 1977, p. 698.

"Cosmologists would like to believe that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, that it is relatively smooth over-all and the same in all directions . . Our evidence for isotropy [a single-direction radiation source] is the microwave radio radiation, the so-called 3K black-body that pervades space and seems to be a relic of the very beginning of time. It used to seem to be the same in all directions.

"Not anymore. Five or six years ago we began to hear of a possible dipole anisotropy [two-directional source]. Then at the beginning of 1980 came hints of a quadruple anisotropy . . A quadruple anisotropy [radiation coming at us from four directions, each at right angles to the other] has to belong to the substance of the radiation of the universe itself."—Science News, 1981.

"The Big Bang theory includes a microwave background . . but this success is tempered by the fact that it was expected to be between ten and a thousand times more powerful than is actually the case."—*Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (1983), p. 181.

"The latest data [on background radiation] differ by so much from what theory would suggest as to kill the big bang cosmologies. But now, because the scientific world is emotionally attracted to the big-bang cosmologies, the data is ignored."—*Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," in New Scientist, 92 (1981), p. 522.

"Recent measurements of the density fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation show no fluctuations greater than 2.5 parts in 100,000. No galaxy could grow from a fluctuation that small—even in 15 billion years."—*William R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1987), p. 185.

REDSHIFT

The redshift is said to be the other "evidence" that a Big Bang occurred. But this is not true either. There are three possible explanations to the redshift seen in the spectra of more distant stars, Evolutionists declare that the speed (Doppler) redshift theory is the only cause of the spectral redshift. They say this because, if that is true, then the universe is expanding outward—which they say is caused by an earlier Big Bang.

But there are two other causes of redshifts, which have been proven by science, and these better explain the various oddities associated with red shifts: (1) The tired light redshift: Light gradually slows down as it travels over long distances. (2) The gravitational redshift: Light loses energy as it passes the gravitational fields of stars.

"The year after Sirius B was found to have its astonishing properties, Albert Einstein presented his general theory of relativity, which was mainly concerned with new ways of looking at gravity. Einstein's views of gravity led to the prediction that light emitted by a source possessing a very strong gravitational field should be displaced toward the red (the Einstein shift). [Walter S.] Adams, fascinated by the white dwarfs he had found, carried out careful studies of the spectrum of Sirius B [a dwarf star] and found that there was indeed the redshift predicted by Einstein.

"This was a point in favor not only of Einstein's theory but also of the superdensity of Sirius B, for in an ordinary star such as our sun, the redshift effect would be only one thirtieth as great. Nevertheless, in the early 1960's this very small Einstein shift produced by our sun was detected."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science (1984), p. 50.

"[Speed or Doppler redshifts] are caused by recession of one object in relation to another, and are similar to the Doppler effect of a car rapidly driving away and causing the sound heard by an observer to shift from treble to bass . . [In contrast] A gravitational redshift is the shift to longer wavelengths of light passing through a large gravitational field."—*American Institute of Physics, Glossary of Terms Used in Cosmology (1982), pp. 17-18.

"P. LaViolette has compared the tired light cosmology to the sandar [Big Bang-Doppler effect] model of an expanding universe on four different observational tests and has found that on each one the tired-light hypothesis was superior."—*W. Corliss, "Tired Light Revived," Science Frontiers, 47:2 (1986).

"Redshift observations are, of course, crucial to our modern view of the evolution of the cosmos. Usually, it is assumed that the observed redshifts are entirely due to the Doppler effects. If this assumption is incorrect, our cosmology [matter and stellar origins theories] must be drastically revised.

"At least five major classes of observations exist which tend to undermine the Doppler-effect assumption: (1) Laboratory measurements of spectral noninvariance; (2) Astonomical redshifts that can be correlated with large-scale mass distributions; (3) General comparisons between Doppler-redshift (expanding universe) cosmologies and cosmologies based on other redshift phenomena, such as `tired light,' showing the inferiority of the Doppler hypothesis; (4) Observations of redshift differences between objects thought to be at the same distance; and (5) Observations of quantized redshift."—*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1985), p. 148.

"When we observe galaxies with redshifts greater than z=1, the redshift-distance relationship tells us we are seeing stellar systems more than 10 billion light-years away. Since the universe is thought to be 16-18 billion years old, these distant galaxies must be only 6-8 billion years old, for we are looking back into time. The anomaly here is that these young galaxies do not seem much bluer than nearby old galaxies, 16-18 billion years of age. One would expect the younger galaxies to be much hotter [bluer] and more active."—*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1985), p. 185.

"A massive quantity of data has been accumulated for galactic clusters, galaxy pairs, stars, and other objects, primarily by W.G. Tifft and his colleagues. Although the catalogs of data on galaxies is not suspect, the analysis of those data in a way that supports redshift quantification has not been well-received. Supporting studies by other astronomers would generate more confidence in the reality of this phenomenon . .

"In clusters of galaxies the spirals tend to have higher redshifts than the E galaxies."—*Halton Arp, "Three New Cases of Galaxies with Large Discrepant Redshifts," Astrophysical Journal, 230:469 (1980). [This is because the spirals are exerting more gravity on the outflowing light.]

"The concept of an expanding universe hinges on the astrophysicists' assumption that no change occurs to the galaxies' photons on their long, undisturbed trip from the galaxies to us."—Russell Akridge, "The Expanding Universe Theory Is Internally Inconsistent," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1982, p. 56.

"A photon's energy loss is counted twice in the Big Bang expanding universe theory: [1] In the Big Bang theory, free photons must lose most of their original energy as they travel for vast times. [2] In the expanding universe theory, free photons must not lose any energy as they travel for vast times. { O.K. MY TURN TO ASK A QUESTION:Which IS IT,MUST or MUST NOT? Talk about "Having your cake & eating it too! }

"A free photon cannot do both at the same time.

"If a free photon loses energy, the Big Bang theory may [or may not] be correct, but the universe is not expanding. However, if the universe is expanding, free photons do not lose energy, because any photon loss is due to the expansion of the universe . . "If either the Big Bang or the expanding universe is true, the other cannot be true. Yet, they are both part of the same evolutionary scheme. Both must be true for either to be true. Therefore, the Big Bang expanding universe theory is false."—Op. cit., p. 58.

THE HALTON ARP DISCOVERIES

Halton C. Arp, a careful astronomer and astrophysicist, has compiled a remarkable collection of facts which negate acceptance of the speed theory of redshift. But the establishment had him fired for doing so, because his discoveries disprove the expanding universe theory, a primary "evidence" that a Big Bang once occurred.

"The astronomer, Halton Arp, has found enigmatic and disturbing cases where a galaxy and a quasar, or a pair of galaxies, that are in apparent physical association have very different redshifts. Occasionally there seems to be a bridge of gas and dust and stars connecting them. If the redshift is due to the expansion of the universe, very different redshifts imply very different distances."—*Carl Sagan, Cosmos (1980), pp. 255.

"In case the thesis of this book is correct, we want to know what the factors are that led to this long, implacable rejection of new knowledge, the wasted effort, and the retardation of progress."—*Halton Arp, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (1987), p. 5.

"There is massive, incontrovertible evidence for important phenomena and processes . . which we cannot currently understand or explain."—*Op. cit., p. 2.

"It is of profound importance to recall now that for a number of classes of . . objects, there was never any shred of evidence that they obeyed a Hubble relation . . The assumption that . . objects obeyed a redshift-distance relation sprang simply from the feeling that if one kind of object [Sb galaxies] did, all objects must do so. Such a generalization is an example of the oldest of logical fallacies. Nevertheless, it has become an article of faith despite many examples of contradictory evidence."—*Op. cit., p. 178.

"As with the statistical association of quasars with galaxies, the implication of physically interacting objects with different redshifts is revolutionary. The redshift distance relationship is a pillar of modern astronomy, and this pillar would be shattered if paired objects had different redshifts."—*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1985), p. 100.

"It cannot be stressed too strongly, however, that these discordant redshifts are not discovered in just one or two isolated cases that have no relation to each other. But in every case we can test—large clusters, groups, companions to nearby galaxies, companions to middle-distance galaxies, companions liked by luminous filaments, galaxies interacting gravitationally, chains of galaxies—in every conceivable case, we come out with the same answer: This same discordant redshifts for the same general class of younger, fainter galaxies."—*H. C. Arp, "Evidence for Discordant Redshifts," in G. Field (ed.), The Redshift Controversy, p. 54.

"This important result has largely been ignored by astonomers because it does not fit in with the current theoretical framework."—*H. Arp, "Further Examples of Companion Galaxies with Discordant Redshifts and Their Spectral Peculiarities," in Astrophysical Journal, 263 (1982), p. 54.

"Twenty-two new quasars close to galaxies are reported. Most of them are so close to companion galaxies that the probability of accidental occurrence is less than 0.01."—*Halton Arp, Quasars near Companion Galaxies, Astrophysical Journal, 250:31 (1981).

"Burbidge and Arp are upset by what they see as a distressingly one-sided approach to the quasar redshift question by the community of astromoners, `Observational evidence exists on both sides,' Burbidge argues, `Both sides are probably right. What is unfortunate . . is the great prejudice in the field. Arp's papers and others—suggesting that some quasars are nearby—are held up, interminably rejected. Heckman's polemic [calling for recantation] would not be published, were it on the other side.'

"If Heckman's call for recantation is meant in such `good humor,' Arp asks angrily, `Why has telescope time been cut off for proponents of the [opposing] viewpoint? { My turn again,THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF ATHEISTIC RULES FOR THE GAME ONLY...AND ANY "RULE" OF SCIENCE THAT DOES NOT FIT THE EVOLUTIONARY FRAMEWORK, AND THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF "SCIENTIFIC RULES THAT ARE BROKEN,SO THAT THESE HYPOCRITES CAN MAKE A FAKE POINT. }

" `Much is at stake,' says Burbidge. `If it is accepted that just one large redshift is not due to the universal expansion [expanding universe], Pandora's box is open. Much of our currently claimed knowledge of the extragalactic universe would be at risk, as would a number of scientific reputations.' "—*"Companion Galaxies Match Quasars Redshifts: The Debate Goes On," Physics Today, 37:17, December 1984. [Heckman's statement, calling for recantation by Arp's group, is given in *T.M. Heckman, et. al., "Low-Redshift Quasars, et. al.," Astronomical Journal, 89:958 (1984).]

"Thus, estimates of the size of the observable universe would shrink considerably—perhaps say Wolf, by a factor of 100 or more."—I. Amato, "Spectral Variation on a Universal Theme," Science News 130:166 (1986).

"No matter what they might turn out to be, quasars attracted attention most of all because of their apparent extreme distance from Earth. If they are as far away as redshift measurements seem to indicate, then they are remnants of the universe's very earliest eras and would allow theorists, in effect, to travel back to those epochs.

"Not all astronomers see quasars as time machines, however. A small though vocal minority has argued that since some supposedly distant quasars seem physically associated with relatively nearby galaxies, the redshift rule may not apply universally to all types of extragalactic objects. Striking, as it did, at one of the central pillars of modern cosmology—the redshift evidence of an exploding universe—this hypothesis touched off what had been characterized as one of the most bitter episodes in the history of astronomy.

"At the center of the debate is Halton Arp, the same astronomer who drew up an atlas of peculiar galaxies. Indeed, it was while investigating these extragalactic aberrations that Arp came upon what he believed was evidence for direct ties between some galaxies and quasars. Several Arp photographs show faint bridges apparently linking nearby galaxies with supposedly more distant quasars. Arp therefore argued that the high redshift of these quasars are caused by factors other than distance . .

"The astronomical community reacted harshly and not entirely rationally. Most astronomers dismissed Arp's views out of hand, suggesting that the supposed connections were optical illusions produced by chance alignments. Some even went so far as to impugn his integrity by remarking that most of the evidence of physical associations between objects of different redshifts came from photographs produced by Arp himself. [In which instance, he gave exact locations; the dissidents could verify the evidence if they had wished to do so.]

"A few eminent supporters, including the renowned astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge, made impassioned pleas for everyone to keep an open mind, but to no avail. In 1983, Arp was to suffer the indignity of being barred from the tools of his trade. Caltech's telescope allocation committee decided that his line of research was not worthy of support and that he would receive no more time for this work at the telescopes of the Mount Wilson and Palomar observatories.

"Arp refused to take up more conventional studies simply to please the committee; instead, he chose to leave Caltech for a position at the Max Planck Institute in Munich, where he continued to pursue his ideas. Referring to his abrupt and ignoble ouster, Burbidge later wrote, `No responsible scientist I know, including many astronomers who were strongly opposed to Arp's thesis, believes justice was served.' "—*Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), pp. 67-68.

"In a photograph by controversial astronomer Halton Arp, a large spiral galaxy located relatively near the Milky Way [our galaxy] and a quasar widely assumed to be a billion light-years more distant appear to be physically linked by a bridge of matter. Arp . . believes that the high redshifts may be caused by something other than increasing distances resulting from the expansion of the universe."—Op. cit., p. 69.

THIS IS A SMALL AMOUNT OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION,I WILL DO MORE ON "INTELLIGENT DESIGN"IN MY NEXT BLOG! AS YOU CAN SEE,EVOLUTION DOES NOT PLAY FAIR TO OPPOSITE EVIDENCE IN PLAIN SIGHT;BUT I WOULD ASK,IF EVOLUTION IS RIGHT WHY ACT SO JUVENILE?

PART 2 of My response to an Atheist Essay!

Creation in Genesis 1:1 in perspective from the HEBREW.

"Beresh’it bara elohim et hashamayim vaet haeretz vahaeretz tohu bohu vahoshech al penie tehom veruach elohim merehephet al penie hamayim"

In translation:

"In the beginning God created the land and the sky and land was empty and uninhabitable and darkness was upon the face of the deep and the spirit (or wind) of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

Thus literally begins one of the most debated passages of the Bible.

No matter if you believe the Earth is YOUNG or OLD as Geology suggests!

The Genesis creation account has been the source of great conflict between Christians and the Scientific Community, BUT that conflick believe it or not has NOT BEEN BECAUSE SCIENCE and the BIBLE DO NOT AGREE!

QUITE THE CONTRARY IS TRUE.

It is NOT SCIENCE BUT THE SCIENTISTS THAT ARE AT ODDS WITH THE FACTS OF NATURE and the scientific facts it presents to them because of PRECONCEIVED MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF LIFE!

A similar conflict can be seen in church history between Science and the Catholic Church over cosmology. Evangelicals are especially susceptible to this conflict, where many people equate taking the Bible at face value to meaning taking the Bible "literally."

There are places where the Bible is LITERAL AT FACE VALUE BUT THERE ARE ALSO TIMES WHEN IT IS "COUCHED IN ANALOGY"or "HIDDEN WITHIN A PRECEPT OF DEEPER TRUTH"

Some are intent on preserving the credibility and historicity of scripture, BUT IN THEIR ZEAL THEY have misinterpreted and damaged its credibility substantially. God speaks through two books: scripture and nature. He does not contradict himself.

Unfortunately, the church as the "guardians of Truth" too many times ARE guilty of substituting their own "culturally situated" understandings of Scripture for the inherent word of God and failing to see the difference between the two.

Upholding the Authority of Scripture from the very first Hebrew Word

------------------ Even A non-believer knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and related positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and the moon, cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a believer, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means too prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a believer and laugh it to scorn.

Augustine on the "literal" meaning of the Genesis Account. 12th Century A.D.

Simply put, evolution can be defined as the developing of new and complex forms of life, from simpler forms by natural processes rather than specific creation.

God is thus replaced by Nature; and evolutionists claim that all the amazing diversities of life on the earth do not speak of His wonderful creative Power, but of chance!

What they do NOT account for is the UNIVERSES PERFECT Fine Tuning?

Skeptics like to say that fine tuning cannot be proven by science, since we have only one universe to study. However, the discovery and quantification of dark energy has puzzled a number of scientists, who realize that its extremely small value requires that the initial conditions of the universe must have been extremely fine tuned in order that even matter would exist in our universe.

By chance, our universe would have been expected to consist of merely some thermal radiation.

How does this discovery impact atheists?

Those who favor naturalism had long sought to find the simplest explanation for the universe, hoping to avoid any evidence for design. A Big Bang model in which there was just enough matter to equal the critical density to account for a flat universe would have provided that. However, for many years, it has been evident that there is less than half of the amount of matter in the universe to account for a flat universe. A cosmological constant would provide an energy density to make up for the missing matter density, but would require an extreme amount of fine tuning.

The supernovae studies demonstrated that there was an energy density to the universe (but did not define the size of this energy density), and the recent Boomerang study demonstrated that this energy density is exactly what one would expect to get a flat universe. How finely tuned must this energy density be to get a flat universe? One part in 10120, which is:

1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

Atheists' reactions

What do atheists think about this level of design?

Here is a quote from a recent article:

"This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."

Atheists see a conflict because this level of design is something that one would not expect by chance from a universe that began through a purely naturalistic mechanism or The construction of a machine, engine or instrument, intended to apply power to a useful purpose; the structure of parts, or manner in which the parts of a machine are united to answer its design. "Common wisdom" is common only to those who must exclude a supernatural explanation for the creation of the universe.

Yet another study confirms the polarization of the cosmic microwave background radiation, left over from the Big Bang. The standard inflationary model predicted that the background radiation should be polarized when it interacted with matter, nearly 14 billion years ago. John Carlstrom, the S. Chandrasekhar Distinguished Service Professor in Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago, announced the discovery and made the following admission:

"Polarization is predicted. It's been detected and it's in line with theoretical predictions. We're stuck with this preposterous universe."

Naturalism fails the test

In another article entitled,

"Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant"

researchers from Stanford and MIT examined some of the "problems" associated with a cosmological constant. In their paper, they stated that the implications of a cosmological constant "lead to very deep paradoxes, which seem to require major revisions of our usual assumptions." They admit that "there is no universally accepted explanation of how the universe got into such a special state" and that their study, "Far from providing a solution to the problem, we will be led to a disturbing crisis." They also admit, "Some unknown agent initially started the inflation high up on its potential, and the rest is history."

In examining problems with the cosmological constant, the authors are concerned that ultimate fate of the universe is complete entropy with all the matter and energy distributed over maximally expanded spacetime. They cite the ability of the universe to undergo "Poincare recurrences" as a possible "solution" to one of the "problems."

There is a certain theoretical possibility that after the universe is maximally expanded that it would come back together again into one point. Think of it like this. Let's say you are in a room with air molecules randomly moving around in the room. There is a certain probability that the random motion of the molecules could cause all of them to travel to one corner of the room, leaving you in a complete vacuum.

Obviously, this would not be a good thing to happen, but it is possible, with an interval on the order of once every 1060 years. Since we only live 102 years in a universe that has been around for only 1010 years, it is practically impossible.

So, what is the time it would take for a fully expanded universe to come back into a single point?

The authors calculate the value as e10120 years, which they comment "seems like an absurdly big time between interesting events, which, by comparison, last for a very short time." Recent evidence suggests that even this estimate is very optimistic.

Some scientists believe that the universe will be permanently destroyed within 22 billion years, with no possibility of reassembly. Robert Caldwell of Dartmouth College says that the dark energy of the universe is increasing at a rate that will rip the universe apart and even the atoms themselves.

However, it is the nature of inflation and the temperature of the universe that deeply concerns these cosmologists. This is what they have to say about the nature of our current universe, among all other possible universes:

"In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures.

However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without "miracles," that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely."

Appealing to possible alternative ways that the universe might have evolved do not make fine tuning untenable. In fact, the vast majority of possible universes would contain no matter at all - just energy! Here is what Dyson says about the probability that our universe would be the way it is:

"The vast majority of the space consists of states which are macroscopically "dead de Sitter;" that is, nearly empty de Sitter containing only some thermal radiation. A tiny subset of the states are anthropically acceptable, meaning that they contain complex structures such as stars and galaxies, and a very small subset of those are macroscopically indistinguishable from our universe (labeled MIFOU in the figure).

Inflationary initial conditions occupy an even smaller fraction of the space. Trajectories which pass through the inflationary patch will almost always lead immediately to the MIFOU region, "mixing" into it in a "porous," phase-space-area-preserving manner. The vast majority of the points in the MIFOU region did not come from inflation, but rather from unstable trajectories originating in the dead region.

Finally, any trajectory in the dead region will remain there almost all of the time, but will occasionally enter the anthropically acceptable region, and very much more rarely the MIFOU region, and almost never the inflationary region. Therefore, livable universes are almost always created by fluctuations into the "miraculous" states discussed above."

THIS ALONE "TOTALLY DISPROVES"EVOLUTIONARY THOUGHT,WHICH SHOULD HAVE THEM ALL WORSHIPING GOD,SO WHY DON'T THEY?

WELL THE PROBLEM THEY HAVE IS "SPIRITUAL IN NATURE NOT MENTAL",THUS NO MATTER HOW IMPOSSIBLE THE ANSWER IS, THE HARDER THEY FIGHT THE RESULTS!

DID you know that if you make an endeavor to find out when and by whom atheism was authored you will not be able to find such information from any source? Not even the most "educated" atheists - particularly those associated with the most elite universities throughout the world can truthfully inform you when and by whom atheism originated. They can enlighten you as to who were its main perpetrators in different cultures; but they cannot identify its founder and when it actually originated.

The absence of a known author and time of origin of such a highly embraced philosophy is a strange phenomenon. But this phenomenon is highly indicative. It suggests that atheism is not of earthly origin - that it had its birth in another sphere before this state of time.

Atheism is not a man-made doctrine but a doctrine of the demons. Its originator is none other than the old serpent himself, namely, Satan. It had its origin from the very one it deceptively denies exists.

It is a doctrine which denies the authorship and existence of its own author! This accounts for the absence of information in any literature embraced by atheists that identify both a human author and earthly time of origin for atheism.

SEE, ALL THAT DENIAL HAS A PRICE DOESN'T IT? RESEARCH THE "BEGINNINGS OF ATHEISM" and you'll FIND EVERY ANSWER YOU'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR REVEALED!

If Satan is not the author of atheism, I hereby challenge the most educated and capable of them to prove that Satan is not its author and prove that it had an earthly origin.This may be the hardest thing any Atheist will ever do is to solve it's own origin problem!Creation 1 Evolution 0 , without a doubt then THIS IS PROOF POSITIVE THAT THERE IS BOTH A GOD & A CREATION HE CREATED, BECAUSE THE UNIVERSE DOES NOT SUPPORT A NATURALISTIC PROCESS ALONE FOR IT'S BEGINNING.

As I stated before all the PROVING IS IN THE COURT OF THE ATHEIST NOT THE CHRISTIAN!

PART 3 My response to an Atheist Essay!

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "GOD-IS-NO-WHERE & GOD-IS-NOW-HERE" is only a matter of PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE!

BACK TO THE ESSAY- "The second of which is I do not find the state of the world in accordance with an idea of a loving and merciful higher power. Then of course there is the factor that the basis of this essay shall be about; I do not find the Biblical God fit for worship. Over the course of this essay there will be some times when I will speak as if I believe in the Bible, when in fact I do not."

A.) THE STATE OF THE WORLD:

This I assume refers to the SORRY STATE THAT MAN { With God's HELP } HAS PUT THE WORLD IN SINCE HIS INTRODUCTION INTO GOD'S CREATION, WARS, FAMINE, HATRED, RELIGION.

{ YES, I SAID RELIGION BETTER KNOWN AS HYPOCRISY IN PRACTICE! }

Hypocrisy means:

Simulation; a feigning to be what one is not; or dissimulation, a concealment of one's real character or motives. More generally, hypocrisy is simulation, or the assuming of a false appearance of virtue or religion; a deceitful show of a good character, in morals or religion; a counterfeiting of religion.

This is the MAIN REASON for the existence of Atheism in our world today, I believe that for every hypocrite there are hundred's of NEW ATHEIST'S BORN!

The foolishness of a few so-called "Christian's" who thought it O.K. to pretend to be one thing while "LIVING ANOTHER WAY" has "Evolved into the most profound hypocrisy of all" an excuse to live WITHOUT THE DESIGNER OF CREATION!

BEHOLD THE HYPOCRISY WITHIN ALL OF US INCLUDING ATHEIST'S, INBREED IN OUR D.N.A.

Galatians 5:19-21

" Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

This is what makes MAN do the ugly things he does both to himself and to nature. ATHEIST'S DO ALL THESE THINGS AS WELL BECAUSE of The nature of SIN within is the cause of all the world's problems.

Her problem is a SELF-CREATED one, because of her own "preconceived ideas" about the God she thinks we believe in and how he SHOULD ACT as she see's it.

If a person who OPENLY IS DEFIANT TO THE GOD OF THE BIBLE reads the bible, they WILL NOT READ IT AS WE WOULD.

THIS IS A "PRECONCEIVED RESPONSE" rooted deep in the soul which can only be uprooted by an "INVASION OF PURE TRUTH" that breaks through the hardness of mental blocks that have been either self-taught or generationally instilled!

The problem of "Evil in the world" is a real issue and to properly understand it is the KEY to understanding OUR purpose in the plan of God. First we MUST understand that "Evil" is never to be understood in the OLD MIDDLE AGE DOGMAS of the false churches created to purposely confuse mankind about God!

B.) "THE IDEA OF A LOVING & MERCIFUL FATHER"

ONCE YOU UNDERSTAND WHY GOD DOES THINGS THE WAY HE DOES, THEN ALL THOSE IMPOSSIBLE OUTCOMES ARE NO LONGER IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND!

Here is more of her essay:

" I plan to examine the Bible with critical inquiry. This essay will not be based upon scientific facts and how they disprove the Bible. It shall be an application of my emotions regarding compassion, love, mercy, patience, and justice.

I hope to explain more clearly why the God depicted in the Bible violates my idea of a moral being. This shall be done over a series of topics. Each pointing out how Jehovah is undeserving of my worship. I will utilize Biblical verses to support my claim as well as what I consider to be logical reasoning."

You will notice that she is BASING THIS CRITICAL INQUIRY ON EMOTIONAL IDEALS,THEREFORE NEGATING HER RESULTS BECAUSE OF A COMPLETE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOD'S PURPOSE IN DOING THINGS THE WAY HE DID THEM!

She is using what she THINKS SHE WOULD DO IN GOD'S PLACE TO JUDGE HIS ACTIONS.

Is this fair?

No! It is common for all of us to do it BUT IT IS A VERY LIMITED WAY TO JUDGE ANY SUBJECT because our knowledge of the subject goes ONLY AS FAR AS OUR EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENTS TO IT, what I call a "Preconceived Idea"!

It's like a "SCRATCHED RECORD" we replay what we KNOW HAS OR WILL HAPPEN AGAIN AND AGAIN NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE EVIDENCE IS TO THE CONTRARY!

If we deem God "EVIL"then we cannot believe past our "IDEA that God is bad, even when the evidence is exactly the opposite.

It is always funny that the Atheist uses the very things that God has in FAR more abundance { Love, Grace, Mercy, Fairness, Righteousness, Kindness ect. } to disprove his ability to rule, SHE SAYS SHE WILL BE Capable of judging with accuracy; conforming to exact rules of propriety AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT THE WORD "CRITICAL" MEANS, I make NO SUCH CLAIM BECAUSE IT IS "IMPOSSIBLE TO DO SO, WHEN YOUR MIND IS ALREADY MADE UP CONCERNING WHAT YOU BELIEVE.

The only way to TRULY JUDGE THE BIBLE IS TO BE "COMPLETELY FREE OF ALL EMOTIONAL BAGGAGE" IN CONNECTION TO THESE SUBJECTS!

SO I ASK YOU IN ALL HONESTY.... CAN YOU OR ANYONE GET IN LINE FOR JUDGING GOD?

Unless you can look at the evidence with a purely "LOGICAL MIND" without NEGATIVE emotions of any kind then you "Atheist OR Christian" cannot judge what God did or does.....PERIOD!

It is NOT what I or you consider to be LOGICAL WITH OUR SHIFTING EMOTIONAL OUTBURSTS THAT SHOULD BE USED TO JUDGE EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST GOD'S ACTIONS BUT ONLY PURE LOGICAL DEDUCTION ALONE!

I am NOT saying that we cannot have emotional attachments to the subject God knows I do, what I am saying is that we cannot begin to be "Logical" if emotion takes the place of understanding."

The last blog I gave you "PROVED FROM SCIENCE THAT THERE IS THE PLAUSIBLE RIGHT TO BELIEVE THAT GOD DOES EXIST, WITHOUT ANY EMOTIONAL OUTBURST ATTACHED TO IT CAN YOU HONESTLY DENY THAT EVIDENCE?

If you can, then your battle is not with God but LOGICAL DEDUCTION ITSELF.

PROOF MEANS THIS:

In law and logic, that degree of evidence which convinces the mind of the certainty of truth of fact, and produces belief. Proof is derived from personal knowledge, or from the testimony of others, or from conclusive reasoning.

Proof differs from demonstration which is what Atheist's present constantly AS EVIDENCE, which is applicable only to those truths of which the contrary is inconceivable.

A PROOF PRODUCES Firmness of mind; stability not to be shaken; as a mind or virtue that is proof against the arts of seduction and the assaults of temptation. Let's face facts......

Atheist's have NEVER, THAT'S RIGHT NEVER PRESENTED "EVIDENCE IN PROOF" THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST...WHY?

Because they can't find any...so they do what comes naturally, ATTACK GOD'S CHARACTER INSTEAD.

Its almost "FUNNY" TO WATCH THE "NO-GODS" ATTACK THE CHARACTER OF SOMEONE WHO IS'NT THERE.

Now let's look at this behavior LOGICALLY-HOW CAN ANYONE ATTACK SOMEONE IF THEY DO NOT EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND CAN THAT "character information gathered to DISPROVE the existance of God REALLY BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST HIS EXISTENCE- TALK ABOUT "CIRCULAR REASONING"

{ God does not exist because of his bad character revealed in HIS WORD- THIS IS DENIAL OF THE FACTS NOT PROOF HE ISN'T THERE. }

THIS STINKS OF IT WITH EVERY FALSE ARGUMENT PRESENTED.

Another question,WHY DON'T ATHEIST'S EVER USE THE SAME REASONING AGAINST OTHER RELIGIONS JUST AS BRUTALLY AS THEY SEEM TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY?

There are a MULTITUDE OF GODS THROUGHOUT HISTORY THAT ARE FAR "WORSE" & MAKE THE OLD TESTAMENT LOOK LIKE A PICNIC IN COMPARISION,WHY NOT "ATTACK THEM?

The God of scripture SEEMS TO BE the ONLY GOD that warrents their anger,and THAT ALONE MAKES THEIR AURGUMENTS INVALID! IT PROVES THAT OUR GOD IS POWERFUL & ALL OTHERS ARE NOT,OR THEY WOULD ALL BE EQUALLY ATTACKED & MALINED!

THEREFORE I PRESENT BEFORE YOU THAT IT IS THE A-THEIST { THE TRUE BLUE there is NO God person } AND NOT GOD THAT DOES NOT EXIST!

PART 4 A response about "HELL" and a loving God!

"Hell, of course, is the mother of all of my problems with the bible. It is perhaps the most despicable and hideous of all of the Christian God’s crimes. Indeed, the cruelest of all concentration camps.""Most courts of law would take custody of your child from you just for an excessive spanking. We as a people enacted these laws, for we thought them to be logical. Is God above logic, or what we deem as compassionate behavior?"

{ THE REAL PROBLEM HERE IS THIS IS A "FALSE ARGUMENT,BECAUSE THE BIBLE NEVER SAYS A CHILD OF GOD CAN GO TO HELL; It is the "Illegitimate" Children of Satan THAT SPEND ETERNITY WITH THEIR FATHER SATAN,WHICH IS ONLY PROPER }

"Free Will", You Say?

"It is also written that I was given free will with which to choose if I will go to hell or not. How can you possibly deem something free when you must fear consequences?"

{ HERE I WOULD ASK: Is the FACT that we enjoy freedom in this country any reason to believe that, that freedom does not come with CONSEQUENCES ATTACHED and responsibilities as well?

EVERY ACTION WHETHER PHYSICAL OR SPIRITUAL HAS AN "EQUAL & OPPOSITE REACTION.

We as Americans have responsibility to function within the Laws of our country. If we go outside those Laws WE will be incarcerated or fined for the time allowed by Law, we cannot get around the Law just because we are "Citizens" of this country.}

"That (says she) completely conflicts with the definition of free. If I were to hold a gun to your head and say "you have free will to not give me your wallet, but if you attempt to defy me I will kill you." Does it really feel as if you have a choice in the matter? Of course not."

"Free means to give or receive something with out an expectation of return. The whole free will concept is self-defeating. Call it Circumstantial Will, for that is what it truly is."

"That indeed, we as children of God, chose rather to be hell’s inmates then God’s disciples in heaven. It’s an interesting idea. However, you don’t have to hurt anyone to get into Hell. All it takes, according to Scripture, is knowing about Jesus and not accepting him as Savior."

Here is where I would contend that she AND MOST IN THE CHURCHES have a total misunderstanding of the WILL of man.

You see the ONLY TIME THAT MAN'S WILL WAS TRULY FREE in the Bible is BEFORE THE FALL,WHEN HE WALKED WITH GOD FACE TO FACE!

AFTER THE FALL HIS WILL WAS THEN PULLED BY SIN AND SHADED IN THE VOID OF EVIL,WHEREVER "GOODNESS"WAS ABSENT.

The problem now is that our "mind, will & emotions" are under a shadow, a void, where our understanding must be "Enlightened" by God to TRULY SEE THE WAY- It does NOT matter whether or NOT our will is Free or Enslaved, it is still the only will we have to choose with.

But the real issue lies with "A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING ABOUT GOD'S ORIGINAL PLAN FOR US and because of this missing piece of the puzzle we "DECIDE OR CHOOSE" by wrong information given to us by satanic beings leading us astray and a fallen .

It is your WILL tainted as it is:

It is the part of you that DECIDES THINGS that is spiritually being "RAPED" by demonic lies. And each time a lie is accepted

OR IT CAN BE "GUIDED" BY GOD TO MAKE A RIGHT CHOICE!

But SHE IS RIGHT ABOUT one thing here ACCEPTING JESUS AS SAVIOR BEING THE ONLY WAY TO AVOID HELL!

THIS IS THE TRUE CHOICE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, FOR JESUS EMBODIES ALL THE PERFECTIONS OF HEAVEN! He and he alone can make the right choices because he's been there and has a "bird's eye view" of the future!

We have SELFISH, SELF ABSORBED WILLS THAT ARE BOUND BY WORLDLY PLEASURES AND MISCONCEPTIONS OF THOUGHT.

Our minds IN Hell will EMBODY ALL THE "REGRETFUL SUFFERINGS OF life"ONCE WE "DIE".

We will "KNOW FULLY WHAT WE'VE MISSED OUT ON "BECAUSE OF OUR PERSONAL CHOICES" TO SERVE SELF INSTEAD OF GOD, and this in turn will produce the "Physical sufferings of our spiritual bodies" in hell.

The suffering will equal our personal choices in life, no one will suffer for others sins so each punishment will be JUST! God KNOWS your secrets!

HELL EXISTS!

THIS IS A FACT!

Our beliefs do no change reality in this life or the next. No amount of "Worldly Reasoning" will make the slightest difference to the Judgement seat of Christ!

But there are those who try to attack GOD'S CHARACTER ABOUT HELL,which is like attacking the "WARDEN'S CHARACTER" BECAUSE HE RUNS A PRISON SANCTIONED BY THE LAW OF THE LAND!

ASK YOURSELF: Why would Jesus use wording that seems to be BASED UPON pagan false doctrine IF IT REALLY WERE FALSE DOCTRINE ?

The suggestion that Jesus used Jewish Fable and Pagan false doctrine in Luke 16 is inconceivable!

Arians, who believe Jesus sided with the Sadducees view of extinction, simply cannot explain Luke 16.

They are forced into falsely accusing Jesus of promoting what He knew was pagan false doctrine!

The only reasonable conclusion, is that conscious life after death IS NOT pagan false doctrine, but the very truth Jesus chose to convey by simply reading Luke 16!

Paul condemned using Jewish myths and fables in 1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7; 2 Tim. 4:4; Tit. 1:14; 2 Pet. 1:16!

Rather than call themselves false teachers, they call Jesus the false teacher!

Now PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT ATHEIST'S DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANYTHING SPIRITUAL AS A REALITY, HELL, HEAVEN, GOD....

SO THIS IS ONLY TO PROVE THAT JESUS TAUGHT THIS VERY IMPORTANT DOCTRINE AND IT WAS NOT A FALSE DOCTRINE!

Is there any real logic about Hell?

The 'logic' of hell in the bible is surprisingly simple:

You receive back the treatment/effects you gave others (including God and yourself) with some kind of multiplier effect.

[The bible is full of images of this reciprocity concept:

1.) reaping what you sow...

2.) being paid back....

3.) suffering loss as you had despoiled others.....

4.) unkindness for unkindness shown....

5.) apathy for apathy rendered.....

6.) 'eye for an eye'.....

7.) proportional judgment. ]

Most traditionalists also recognize that our exploitative actions toward others also modify our own characters in the process.

When I treat people destructively, I also treat myself in some way destructively.

When I treat people kindly, I also treat myself kindly.

From THE BOOK, Immortality: The Other Side of Death, by Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland

"Before proceeding, though, one more preliminary is in order. We do not accept the idea that hell is a place where God actively tortures people forever and ever.

There will indeed be everlasting, conscious, mental and physical torment in various degrees according to the lives people have lived here on earth.

But the essence of that torment is relational in nature: the banishment from heaven and all it stands for.

Mental and physical anguish result from the sorrow and shame of the judgment of being forever rationally excluded from God, heaven, and so forth.

It is not due to God himself inflicting torture."

"In response, we should first point out that we would agree that an un-ending hell of moment by moment, active torture by God would be unjust and hard to square with his love and the intrinsic dignity of man.

But we have already shown that our understanding of hell is different from the torture-chamber model."

Hell is not a torture chamber, and people in hell are not howling like dogs in mind-numbing pain. There are degrees of anguish in hell.

"The Bible describes hell primarily in relational terms--

it is 'away from' God.

Therefore, it involves banishment from his presence, his purposes, and his followers.

Like heaven, hell is a freely chosen destination.

What we decide to believe and do in this life sets us on a road leading to a final destination in the next...Hell is also a place of shame, sorrow, regret, and anguish.

This intense pain is not actively produced by God; he is not a cosmic torturer. Undoubtedly, anguish and torment will exist in hell.

And because we will have both body and soul in the resurrected state, the anguish experienced can be both mental and physical.

But the pain suffered will be due to the shame and sorrow resulting from the punishment of final, ultimate, unending banishment from God, his kingdom, and the good life for which we were created in the first place.

Hell's occupants will deeply and tragically regret all they lost. As Jesus said, 'For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?' (Matt 16:26)"

"The Bible's picture of hell, therefore, indicates that upon death, some people will be translated into a different, nonsocial mode of existence.

They will be conscious, and they will await the resurrection of their bodies, at which time they will be banished from heaven and secured in hell where they will experience unending, conscious exclusion from God, his people, and anything of value.

This banishment will include conscious sorrow, shame, and anguish to differing degrees, depending on the person's life on earth."

I could not have said it better myself, HELL HAS BEEN TOTALLY MISUNDERSTOOD BY EVEN THE CHURCH ITSELF...SO HOW MUCH MORE HAS IT BEEN MISUNDERSTOOD BY THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW GOD?

The second is from a Catholic source...SURPRISED! I WAS!

A New Catechism:

Catholic Faith for Adults, Seabury:1966, p.480:

"Jesus speaks of the of one's being eternally condemned. We read of 'eternal punishment' (Mt. 25:46).

This could be wrongly understood, as if a disaster or even an injustice then befell the damned, as can sometimes happen with punishments on earth.

Hence we find it more enlightening to express the same truth by the term 'eternal sin'.

The state of cold obstinacy has become eternal.

They have become impervious to God, love, goodness, Christ and fellowship.

But it was for these things that man was made.

It is now a total perversion, sin brought to its fullest self-expression.

To be lost means to be entirely closed in on oneself, without contact with others or with God. This is the punishment, the 'second death' (Rev. 20:14).

Scripture uses terrifying words to express it: darkness, gnashing of teeth, fire. They need not be taken as literal descriptions.

They are apt expressions nonetheless of the dismay at having missed the end and object of existence."

Let me point out here that these two sources would not be 'liberal' in ANY sense of the word.

They would represent mainstream, conservative, traditional views of hell.

Moreland and Habermas, for example, would probably be considered 'literalists' when it comes to the Book of Revelation (probably pre-millennialist).

The couple of passages that paint potential "mind-numbing" pictures of torment in hell would not be 'explained away' by these two, but would be given full weight in constructing their comment quoted above.

There is no 'softening' of the reality of hell here by them, but there is no Dante here either (they literally refer to hell as "living in a state with a low quality of life"--hardly a description of mind-numbing torment! (p.173))...

Now, it is important here to make sure we understand this point--that the traditional view of hell does not contain the images of torture of Dante, the Greek and Roman writers, the Jewish pseudepigraphal writers, and many of the early Church Fathers.

We must try to see the biblical teaching without these cultural and historical preconceptions.

“PART 5 A RESPONSE to an ATHEIST ABOUT "GENOCIDE"

It has been an honor as a teacher of the Word of God to uphold the standard of God's character against these UNFOUNDED ATTACKS by a simply MISINFORMED ATHEIST!

One who REFUSES TO SEE "THE WITNESS of CREATION" because of the deception she has embraced.

She goes on to say:

"I hear a lot from Christians tell me about God’s "infinite compassion and mercy".

"Instead of harping on me about something so unapparent, they should go tell it to the Midianites. "

What about Genocide & scripture, did God commit ETHNIC- {On heathen; or pagans} GENOCIDE? On heathen or pagans?

First what is GENOCIDE?

It is defined as:

"in international law, the intentional by Design and systematic by Method destroy, wholly or in part, by a government of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group. Although the term genocide was first coined in 1944, the crime itself has been committed often in history", BUT never by OR According to the doctrines of morality.

NO CRIME OF THIS MAGNITUDE IS DONE ON MORAL GROUNDS, IT CAN ONLY BE DONE BY AN A-MORAL PEOPLE devoid of personal judgment.

So we must judge this not on the moral standings of men BUT upon the ETHICAL STAND OF A MORAL GOD!

I must also interject here that Adolf Hitler "CLAIMED TO BE CHRISTIAN" BECAUSE HE AND HIS HENCHMEN WERE CATHOLICS, JESUIT TRAINED IN FACT..ALL THIS PROVES IS THAT "RELIGION IN ANY MAN-MADE FORM" IS NOT TRUE FAITH IN GOD AND THEREFORE NOT EVIDENCE OF GOD'S IMPROPRIETY.

If anything it shows the utter contempt for life that PAGANS PRETENDING TO BE CHRISTIAN THROUGH FALSE RELIGION have for each other and the rest of us...HITLER WAS NO MORE "GOD'S CHILD" THAN YOUR A HAMBURGER IF YOU GO TO McDonald's.

PRESENCE IN A CHURCH BUILDING DOES NOT EQUAL GOD'S PRESENCE IN THE HEART.

Here's an example of the type of verses atheist's misunderstand, NOT THE WORDING OF THE VERSE BUT THE INTENT OF GOD'S DIRECTION IN THE VERSE.

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

"How Could a Compassionate God Order the "Genocide" of the Canaanites or Amalek ?"

Now of course I can give the simple answer from the Bible which is enough for people who trust God but not for those who DOUBT HIS RIGHT TO RULE!

THE BIBLE SAYS that God gave them 400+ years to repent WARNING THEM BY EVERY WAY POSSIBLE and that their sins were beyond horrible, but the real question is an ethical one.

How can God who has such compassion for the innocents in Nineveh order the wholesale killing of innocent children in Palestine?

Is the God of the OT and the God of the NT the same Person?

How can I reconcile these, in modern terms, "unthinkable" crimes against humanity with the God of compassion revealed by Jesus?

We need to revisit the assessment of the Canaanites as "innocent people." Also remember that God sent Jonah to WARN NINEVEH WHICH WAS NOT INNOCENT or they would not have been warned!

SO THE BIBLICAL PATTERN REMAINS THE SAME-

WARNING!....

THEN SURE JUDGMENT!

From God's perspective, there is no such thing as an innocent human being (apart from Jesus Christ).

Every human heart is born with the nature of evil and bent on sin and rebellion. I see a strong parallel between God's actions against the Canaanites and the actions of an oncology surgeon.

He has to cut out what may appear to be healthy tissue but which is actually infected with cancer cells that ONLY HE SEES.

NO ONE would say "How could this compassionate doctor "CUT OFF" human flesh that is perfectly good?

Doesn't he know it HURTS the patient to do this, doesn't he KNOW that the patient will miss that part and "morn" that loss the rest of his or her life?

Was this loss really necessary?

Couldn't the doctor have done it some other way to AVOID ALL THAT PAIN?

Or whatever else the MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACK would teach?

Does not the doctor with all his vast knowledge know MORE THAN THE PATIENT ABOUT HIS PROBLEM?

This is the idea behind "PERSONAL ETHICS"THE DOCTOR MUST LOOK AT ALL AVENUES OF TREATMENT, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE MANY COMPONENTS OF THE PATIENTS LIFE, SICKNESS, HISTORY AND PHYSIOLOGY IN ORDER TO COME TO THE SOLUTION HE ULTIMATELY FOLLOWS THROUGH WITH.

This is "ETHICAL BEHAVIOR" FROM THE HUMAN PERSPECTIVE, HOW MUCH MORE DETAILED WOULD GOD'S INVESTIGATION BE IN REGARDS TO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?

HOW DARE ANY HUMAN JUDGE HIM!

The Canaanites were infected with sin, they practiced CHILD SACRIFICE TO FALSE GOD'S AND THE MOST PERVERTED SEXUAL DEVIANCE IMAGINABLE, with animals and human alike.

This was a judgment EQUAL TO THEIR SINS AGAINST MAN & NATURE as well as to GOD, the Utter annihilation of a civilization that was rotten to the core, BUILT UPON THE BLOOD OF IT'S OWN CHILDREN.

This kind of evil cannot ever be excused before the Cross of Christ, and the very fact that any Atheist would try too is APPALLING IN IT'S OWN RIGHT!

The children OF THESE EVIL PAGANS were not as innocent as we think they were. Remember children must be RAISED UP IN "EVIL PRACTICES" IN ORDER TO BE WILLING SACRIFICES TO THEIR GOD'S.

Look at the LRA in Uganda, and if you have a chance to watch a video called "Invisible Children", you'll see two opposites to children. To the same degree of innocence and the good from innocence that children can have is the same degree to which they can become even more evil and destructive.

Most of us live in a time and a place where we are mostly shielded from what true evil looks like. The evil that all people of all ages did in Sodom, Gomorrah, Canaan, Moab, Ammon, Edom, and other places dwarfs the worst acts we hear about on the news,we have not even come close to these evils today.

Until we understand what true evil looks like and the consequences of it and STOP JUSTIFYING IT AS FREE SPEECH!

We will have a hard time ever understanding God's justice and mercy and we will be shocked at what "normal people" or even "perverts" are truly capable of.

Until then, we will be shocked that a seemingly "normal" man went into an Amish schoolhouse and murdered without remorse, or that two boys went into Columbine high school and didn't come out alive, or that people could so hate us they will fly planes into our buildings,make no mistake about it...

THEY HAVE NO MERCY WITHIN THEM, BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN "SEARED INSIDE" by their constant sinning.

Also remember what happened in the case of Babylon/Persia bringing back the best of the children of captured countries -- Daniel and his buddies became the most powerful in the land.

This was a positive result BUT the same could also happen in a reverse scenario, and in a worst case scenario they would try to overthrow or pervert the Israelites with enough time and the right catalysts.

Let's also remember that the Canaanites did exactly the same to the Israelites (women and children included) years before, a fact passed over.

Who were the early inhabitants of the Holy Land?

They were the descendants of Shem and Arphaxed (ancestor of the Hebrews).

The PRE- PROMISED { In the heart of God } uninhabited land was populated by them shortly after the flood and was an inheritance for them. Traditions regarding the early history of the Holy Land can be found in the Book of Jubilee, the Kebra Nagast and commentaries of Rash, Philo and the Sepher Hayashar.

Those descended from Ham were known as the Canaanites and were given a different inheritance to occupy, however, this was not good enough for them and they invaded the lands of Shem.

The Canaanites drove out and/or killed the descendants of Shem and then occupied the land. Although the Bible does not directly mention the Canaanite invasion it implies the occurrence in Genesis 12:6 when it uses the expression "the Canaanites were in the land".

The Hebrew carries the connotation of, "then but not before", as opposed to, "then but not now", as Canaanites were present up and until the second Temple period by which time Genesis had certainly been written. Assuming this to be true the Israelite invasion was nothing short of an eye for an eye and was a righteous judgment according to Mosaic law.

BUT, please think about this- in the Old covenant relationship, God dealt with man WITHOUT A BORN AGAIN SPIRIT.

So God could not control men from the "HEART" like he can now in the New covenant,THIS IS NOT AN EXCUSE...IT IS SIMPLY A REASON AMONG MANY REASONS FOR GOD'S ACTIONS!

Had the Israelites not eradicated the Canaanite people, I dare say you would have had land disputes much like you see in the Holy Land today.

Just as if the doctor HAD NOT REMOVED THE "CANCER INFECTED CELLS" in the body of his patient, DESPITE THE PAIN AND SUFFERING THAT ACTION CAUSED, IT WAS "FAR BETTER" than the alternative!

It would have greatly hindered if not prevented the Israelite nation from EVER forming.

It was not just forming the nation God was worried about it was forming a nation free of the corruption and idol worship of the Canaanite people. God did not need more of the same from the Israelites as he got from the Canaanites.

Looking back you can see that God was successful only to the extent { HIS ULTIMATE PURPOSE FOR ISRAEL } that they were able to bring the Messiah into the world and preserve a remnant of the chosen people to serve him.

Let's be very clear here, God acted in the BEST INTEREST OF HIS END GOAL- TO BRING ULTIMATE DELIVERANCE OF THE SIN PROBLEM, BY THE BIRTH OF HIS SON INTO THIS EARTH!

She says: "I have discovered via my discussions that there are two major forms:

the corruption argument

and the mercy argument.

The former says that those slaughtered were evil and deserving of their fate; the latter says that since they were religiously incorrect, it was a mercy to terminate their existence."

Notice the precise wording of this statement, in order to give God no way out of the argument-

"Evil and Deserving"there is no MEAT in the middle with which to judge the action as I have plainly given, there is MORE between the EVIL and the DESERVING.

"RELIGIOUSLY INCORRECT" what does that mean exactly?

Numb 31:2

"Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people."

AGAIN....

" Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites:

" DID YOU SEE THAT? THESE MINIANITES HAD DONE THE SAME THING TO ISRAEL THAT GOD INSTRUCTED ISRAEL TO DO TO THEM, "AN EYE FOR AN EYE !"

For the injury they had done them, by sending their daughters among them, who enticed them to commit uncleanness with them, and then drew them into the worship of their idols, which brought the wrath of God upon them, and for which 24,000 persons were slain.

Now, though the Moabites had a concern in this affair as well as the Midianites, yet they were spared; which some think was for the sake of Lot, from whom they descended; but why not the Midianites for the sake of Abraham, whose offspring they were by Keturah?

Jarchi says, they were spared because of Ruth, who was to spring from them; and so she might, and yet vengeance be taken on great numbers of them: but the truer reason seems to be, either because the sin of the Moabites was not yet full, and they were reserved for a later punishment; or rather because they were not the principal actors in the above affair; but the Midianites, who seem to have advised Balak at first to send for Balaam to curse Israel, and who harboured that soothsayer after he had been dismissed by Balak, and to whom he gave his wicked counsel, and which they readily followed, and industriously pursued."

ETHER WAY YOU LOOK AT THIS- IT WAS "JUSTICE" & NOT "GENOCIDE!"

PART 6 of A RESPONSE TO AN ATHEIST ON GOD'S CHARACTER!

She states about Hell

"However, you don’t have to hurt anyone to get into Hell. All it takes, according to Scripture, is knowing about Jesus and not accepting him as Savior. It doesn't matter how virtuous you are, how much good you do, how happy an environment you create for others. Given this, the voluntary entry argument doesn't make sense.

The same argument could be used to justify the sending of Aryan opponents of Nazism to concentration camps: they voluntarily chose not to give homage to Hitler, so they chose to be interred. Why should we blame the Nazis for the inmates’ choice?

Why should we blame God for the choice of the damned?"

Of course the FACT that MOST of the Jews DID NOT CHOOSE TO BE INTERNED OR TO DIE DOES NOT ENTER HER MIND WHEN MAKING THIS POINTLESS POINT!

YOU WILL NOTICE HER CHOICE OF AN ANALOGY, SHE EQUATES GOD'S PERFECTLY JUST BALANCES WITH A "CONCENTRATION CAMP & THE SOLDIERS OF HITLER".

Why?

Because this invokes the worst of memories and causes the mind to attach this horror to what God did concerning Salvation, more to the fine point HOW SALVATION WORKS.

This argument against the most perfectly JUST & EQUAL PLAN OF SALVATION COULD ONLY COME FROM SATAN HIMSELF!

A false conclusion that God is unjust for His actions is what began the birth process of atheism. It is very important to keep that fact in mind.

A conclusion that the Almighty Righteous God is unjust or wrong for any of His actions cannot be arrived at except through the total depravity of those who draw such a conclusion.

So in order to understand how atheism had it's origin, It is crucial to realize that the total depravity of the nature of Satan is the key principle that underlies the origin of atheism.

Satan has CORRUPTED MORAL PRINCIPLES, AND IS DEVOID OF GOOD IN ANY FORM- THEREFORE "HE" IS THE BEGINNING OF THOSE WHO ATTEMPT TO DEFY GOD'S CHARACTER!

Even though the conclusion that God is unjust is high error and was known by Satan to be so, his total depravity nevertheless made it impossible for him to conclude otherwise.

Depravity must direct the hearts of its graceless subjects against God even though they know better. This is because of the very antithetical nature of depravity to God and His Law.

The nature of both human and demonic depravity is an unvarying and uncompromising principle that works apart from what its subjects know and remains opposed to God at all times despite God's actions and despite their knowledge that it is impossible for God to be wrong.

The negative expressions of God toward the existence and outworking of the depraved natures of humans and demons is always right, whereas the negative expressions and opposition of the depraved natures of humans and demons toward God are always wrong.

The very antithetical nature of the depravity of graceless humans and demons invariably enslaves them to react negatively to God regardless of what God does. Therefore, their depravity reacts negatively to God, despite the fact that God can never do evil and despite the fact that He is always perfectly innocent.

Here lies also the origin of insanity, WHICH MEANS TO BE TRAPPED IN A CYCLE OF DOING THE SAME THING OVER & OVER AGAIN EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT.

In order for Satan to have endeavored to judge God, there had to be in place some type of opinion, philosophy, religion, charter or law by which he used to try to judge God.

But God is not subject to anything. Nothing exists whatsoever that God is subject to or responsible to obey except his own word.

THIS REMINDS ME OF THE FUNNIEST ARGUMENT AGAINST GOD BEING GOD, I HAVE EVER HEARD.

"Who created God?

A super God, and who created the super God?

A super,super God?

AS IF THIS WAS A SERIOUS BLOW TO GIVE THE "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I? "DEFENSE!

God is not subject, SITUATED OR PLACED UNDER HIS OWN LAW even to the most noble law in the universe - the TEN COMMANDMENTS- which He made for mankind, nor to any law made for the angels. He is above all laws and does only His own will.

Why?

Because if ANYTHING IS ABOVE GOD, GOD CEASES TO BE GOD- GOD'S LAW IS A REFLECTION OF HIS PERSONAL MORAL CHARACTER, GOD HAS Moral sense, an innate or natural sense of right and wrong; an instinctive perception of what is right or wrong in moral conduct, which approves some actions and disapproves others.

God's WILL IN THE UNIVERSE ALWAYS FOLLOWS HIS LAW, BUT BECAUSE WE ARE "FINITE IN UNDERSTANDING" WE DO NOT HAVE THE BIG PICTURE AS HE DOES SO WE "MISUNDERSTAND" HIS CHOICES IN CONNECTION WITH HIS LAW BECAUSE WE ONLY SEE IN PART AND KNOW IN PART.

So there is no law He can possibly violate by any of His actions. Therefore, He cannot be rightly judged to be wrong in any action He performs.

I can hear the Atheist now, "What? so God is not held to his law"? NO THAT'S NOT QUITE WHAT I MEAN BY THIS, YOU SEE..GOD IS THE MOST ADVANCED MORAL PERSON EVER TO BE, SO HE HOLDS HIMSELF TO HIS OWN STANDARDS BECAUSE HE IS THE SOURCE OF ALL MORALITY.

An example of this is found in

Heb 6:13

"For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he swore by himself,.......

Heb 6:16

"For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife."

Heb 6:17

"Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:"

Heb 6:18

"That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us"

God is the LAW THAT ALL LAWS THAT ARE PROCEED FROM.

The only choices Satan had by which to seek to judge God were in some form of his own depravity - Either choice would be the evil one attempting to judge the Righteous One - evil trying to condemn the righteousness as being evil - an impossibility and absolute deception.

But he probably chose the latter so as to make God deceptively appear wrong by His own Law. Again, an impossibility and absolute deception. This was the actual deceptive and utterly foolish birth of atheism. Atheism didn't receive its origin by a true absence of proof of God's existence, because there has always been and always will be overwhelming proof to the contrary.

Atheism had its origin by the expression of Satan's depravity toward God, and it is embraced, maintained and perpetuated among graceless humans as a result of their total depravity. In other words, atheists follow in the footsteps of their master, the devil WHOM THEY DENY.

Now I will deal with the silliness of attacking salvation's "ENTRANCE FEE!

She said ONE TRUTH HERE THAT NEEDS REPEATING:

"All it takes, according to Scripture, is knowing about Jesus and not accepting him as Savior."

This is absolutely TRUE EXCEPT FOR THE KNOWING PART; IT'S INTIMATE PERSONAL INTERACTION OR NOTHING WITH GOD, the ONLY thing standing between you and hell is JESUS!

THAT'S HOW GOD PLANED IT AND IT IS THE SINGLE MOST FAIR WAY THAT HAS EVER BEEN DEVISED TO REDEEM MANKIND FROM HIMSELF AND SIN!

PLEASE, THINK FOR A MOMENT HERE...HOW COULD IT EVER BE FAIR TO JUDGE MAN ANY OTHER WAY?

John 3:14-21 SAYS:

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. "

{ Did you hear that, NO PERSONAL SIN SENDS YOU TO HELL- ONLY NOT RECEIVING JESUS IN YOUR LIFE }

"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men { Atheist's} loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."

Now why is this such a sticking point to the Atheist?

In their thinking it is UNJUST TO SEND US TO TORMENT BECAUSE OF A PERSONAL CHOICE IN LIFE AND THAT WOULD MAKE ALL THE FUSS OVER SINS THAT WE COMMIT AGAINST GOD- DISPROVED!

SO THAT WE CAN DO AS WE PLEASE WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES!

That is a FALSE CONCLUSION, SALVATION'S ENTRANCE FEE IS FAITH IN HIS SON [ THE DOOR] BUT PERSONAL SIN "STORES UP WRATH"AGAINST THAT DAY OF JUDGMENT, WHEN GOD WILL JUDGE THE WORKS OF MEN TO DETERMINE THEIR "AMOUNT OF TORMENT WHICH THEY NOT HE HAS STORED UP TO THEMSELVES FOR ETERNITY!

This is an equitable judgment, for you are NEVER PUNISHED BEYOND YOUR OWN CHOICE- IN LIFE OR IN DEATH!

If the entrance to heaven were by virtue of PERSONAL RIGHTEOUSNESS, NO ONE COULD EVER BE GOOD ENOUGH TO GET IN....AND IF THE ENTRANCE TO HELL WERE SIMPLY BASED ON PERSONAL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS NO ONE COULD EVER AVOID GOING THERE, BUT GOD MADE IT SIMPLE TO AVOID HELL AND SIMPLE TO GO TO HEAVEN-

Atheist's SIMPLY DON'T LIKE THE CHOICES so they wish to create a THIRD OPTION TO PARADISE: EAT OR BE EATEN AND NOT EVERYONE CAN MAKE IT!

THEIR PARADISE IS THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE WHERE THE WEAK ARE FOOD FOR THE STRONG!

BUT I ASK YOU, WHAT DO ANIMALS NEED WITH LOGIC IN A WORLD LIKE THAT?

GOD HAS ALWAYS HAD THE BETTER PLAN, BUT SATAN WILL NOT ALLOW MEN TO PLAINLY SEE IT.

PART 7 A RESPONSE to an ATHEIST Essay with a new challenge!

And before you even try to ANSWER this challenge and say "You own me!"

Really answer it and don't side-step it with insulting words...please!

HERE ARE SOME COMMON COMMENTS FROM ALL ATHEIST'S CONTAINED IN HER ESSAY

"Most of us, given omnipotence, would be able to do a far better job than Jehovah. What would you do if given omnipotence?

"God’s supposed infinite mercy is apparently the same thing as no mercy at all.

What makes this particularly unforgivable is that even Jesus’ own standards demand feeding of the poor. See Matthew 25:35, in which it is stated that the blessed feed the hungry, and that the damned do not. I find it funny that God is held blameless, though, for not feeding them.

Does not the old saying "practice what you preach" apply to God? Is his lack of action a hypocrisy or a sin? Could it perhaps be both?

In fact, it would be far easier for God to feed all the poor with his omnipotence, than for any mortal man to feed even one! Mankind is certainly not blameless here, but it is Jehovah who is the true villain."

MOST OF THIS IS AT BEST AN ASSUMPTION "A Strawman"OF WHAT GOD DOES BASED ON THE WORDING OF THE BIBLE IN CERTAIN PLACES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT...BUT LET US FOR A MOMENT LOOK AT THIS WITH THE BELIEF SYSTEM OF THE ATHEIST-

A. THERE IS NO GOD AND THERE NEVER HAS BEEN !

B. IF THERE IS NO GOD OR ANY GOD THEN THERE IS NO "WORD FROM GOD"IN ANY PLACE ON EARTH.

{ Stay with me here,THIS IS AN ATHEIST PARADISE I'M REVEALING HERE}

C. IF THERE ARE NO GODS, NO TRUE BIBLES AND WE ARE MERELY DELUDED INTO BELIEVING ALL THIS ....THEN LET'S LOOK AT THIS WITH PURE LOGIC, THE WORLD...THE UNIVERSE IS NOT IN THE HANDS OF A LOVING GOD, WE ARE DESCENDED FROM ANIMALS WITH ONLY EVOLVED INSTINCT TO SURVIVE WITH...THAT'S THE ATHEIST ALTERNATIVE TO GOD.

1. IF THIS IS TRUE WHO DO YOU BLAME FOR ALL THE PROBLEMS THEN?

2. DO YOUR ARGUMENTS HOLD WATER IN YOUR WORLD ORDER OF THINGS without God to blame?

3. WHOSE FAULT ARE THE STARVING MILLIONS THEN if God is not there?

4. WHO CAUSES CANCER NOW if God is not there to blame?

5. WHO CAUSES WARS, THAT HAVE KILLED MILLIONS NOW if God is not there to blame?

6.WHO OR WHAT GETS THE BLAME IF THERE IS AND NEVER WAS A GOD,"RELIGION!?

I HOPE YOU CAN SEE THE PLAIN FOOLISHNESS OF THIS WOMAN'S ARGUMENTS BASED IN ONLY EMOTIONAL TOPICS LIKE HUNGER, WAR, MURDER.

The whole problem with what she is doing is made clear when the "SHOE IS ON THE OTHER FOOT." You see..in order for atheist's to attack us they must TAKE ALL THE WORLD'S WOE'S AND BLAME THEM ON GOD "

This is their Strawman " TO DISTRACT FROM THE REAL ANSWER- Atheism causes all the things THEY BLAME GOD FOR! And before someone out there says...."

Well, I just think that it is religion that has caused all this trouble in the world!"

If that is true then we are back at the same point we started at....WHERE AND HOW DID RELIGION BEGIN IF THERE NEVER WAS A GOD to start it?

Where did the idea of a "ONE True God" come from without any knowledge of Him? If we started out as Atheist's in the beginning of time how did any knowledge of God get here!

This cannot be DISMISSED, YOU HAVE ONLY TWO CHOICES

- IT'S God's fault and he exists after all,

OR

IT'S THE "UTOPIA OF MEN'S" FAULT AND GOD CANNOT BE BLAMED BUT IN DISPROVING THE ONE YOU MUST ADMIT TO THE OTHER!

Talk about "Painting yourself into a corner!" MY POINT IS A GOOD ONE..IF ATHEIST'S USE THE BIBLE AGAINST GOD THEY ARE "CONCEDING" THAT HIS WORD IS TO BE OBEYED AND THEREFORE THAT HE EXISTS SO HE CAN BE BLAMED FOR ALL OUR PROBLEMS!

But if they truly believe what they teach, that there is and CAN BE NO GOD CONTROLLING ALL THINGS......THEN THEY ARE LEFT WITH A DILEMMA - WHO TO BLAME FOR ALL MAN'S SCREW UP'S...THINK THEY WILL BLAME THEMSELVES?

I know they won't!

I think the thing that STANDS OUT as the biggest DOUBLE STANDARD is the Atheist using THE BIBLE to disprove a NON-EXISTENT GOD and then turning around in the same essay and saying this:

"Suppose you were an omnipotent god, and you demand worship, such as the Christian God.

Would you give proof of your existence to those who wished to follow you? I imagine for Jehovah that it would be quite simple to perform a continual sequence of verifiable miracles. It would be quite logical in practice too, for it would keep God’s followers from delusion and doubt.

There is no such luck with Jehovah though. He demands absolute fidelity without any demonstration of his existence. The only so called record of his existence is the bible. I think it pretty much goes with out saying that not only is the bible 2,000 years out dated, but it is also very unoriginal.

Any Christian who proposes that the bible is indeed evidence for God’s existence is proposing a double standard. For there are many books which claim to be actual accounts of a higher power. With this in mind, why not believe in Allah from the Koran?

Could it be because your faith is what determines your belief and not your so called "factual" book?"

THIS IS THE SILLIEST ARGUMENT FOR AN ATHEIST TO MAKE....NOT ONLY DOES SHE HAVE ALL..NOT JUST SOME , BUT ALL HER FACTS MISPLACED! The bible is THE PROOF of God!

You see within the seed of Faith given to each believer is ALL the proof of God needed to get saved. BUT you must first believe to release that proof to your soul!

In the fist place, let's give her the benefit of MUCH doubt. Let's say she's right, the bible is NOT the word of God..there is no God and no gods at all anywhere and without asking HOW IN A GODLESS WORLD MEN THOUGHT UP RELIGIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE?{ Oooppps! I asked!}

Where does her questioning take her?

I'll tell YOU to my NEW CHALLENGE TO ATHEIST'S, WHICH IS THIS: And this is a very valid point!

Since there IS NO GOD AND RELIGION IS MAN-MADE, THE BIBLE INCLUDED- HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE UNIVERSAL PROBLEMS YOU BLAME ON GOD SO EMOTIONALLY TO PROVE GOD IS INCOMPETENT-DOESN'T THAT MEAN THAT IF THERE NEVER WAS A GOD TO BLAME....

THEN ATHEIST'S WERE IN CHARGE ALL ALONG WHEN THESE THINGS HAPPENED, IN FACT YOUR STILL IN CHARGE SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT OR GET OUT OF THE WAY!

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . ." – Mere Christianity

WHY NO ANSWERS FROM SKEPTICS?

You will notice in your traveling throughout the Skeptic mindset that they spend MORE TIME MAKING FUN OF and Mocking CREATION SCIENCE THAN THEY DO PROVIDING REAL SOLID ANSWERS TO OUR PRESENTATIONS!

Creationists ONLY ask for PROOF ON THE SUBJECT OF THE "GENERAL THEORY" of Evolution NOT MICRO EVOLUTION WHICH IS A FACT and does not in ANY WAY PROVE THE GENERAL THEORY TRUE.

That is why the MANY MONEY OFFERS FROM CREATION SCIENTISTS REMAIN IN THE BANK...Such as these BELOW: In order to stay on this page it will be easier to RIGHT CLICK ON THE LINK & OPEN IT IN A NEW
TAB.........................................................................

O.K. Atheists.....Answer this testimony!

John Clayton tells us about his life, his studies that led him away from atheism, as well as events in his life that led him to those studies. You won't agree, but think about it, why would an avowed Atheist change if there is no God to change too? And remember its NOT the same as the "So-called Christians" who become Atheists because they were NEVER REALLY Christian from God's view, and yes that's the truth.

2 TIMOTHY 3:12-17 ( Amplified Bible )

"Indeed all who delight in piety and are determined to live a devoted and godly life in Christ Jesus will meet with persecution [will be made to suffer because of their religious stand].
But wicked men and imposters will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and leading astray others and being deceived and led astray themselves.
But as for you, continue to hold to the things that you have learned and of which you are convinced, knowing from whom you learned [them],
And how from your childhood you have had a knowledge of and been acquainted with the sacred Writings, which are able to instruct you and give you the understanding for salvation which comes through faith in Christ Jesus [through the leaning of the entire human personality on God in Christ Jesus in absolute trust and confidence in His power, wisdom, and goodness]. Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God's will in thought, purpose, and action), So that the man of God may be complete and proficient, well fitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work."

You can't SELL your Soul if its not yours to sell!

Image Hosting by Picoodle.com ALL CONTRACTS NULL & VOID IN JESUS CHRIST! Have you SOLD your soul to your present lifestyle? Do you think..: "I can't change what is now, I've gone to far from what God wants!" DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT, SATAN CANNOT KEEP WHAT DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM! He has deceived you into believing that you could sell your soul to him, YOU CAN'T SELL WHAT IS NOT YOURS TO SELL- YOUR SOUL BELONGS TO GOD NOT YOU...IT WAS CREATED TO SERVE HIM NOT SATAN!

My Articles at Ezine Articles.com

JESUS IS THE MESSIAH OF ISRAEL!

Isaiah 53:1-12" (1.)WHO HAS believed (trusted in, relied upon, and clung to) our message [of that which was revealed to us]? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been disclosed?(2.)For [the Servant of God] grew up before Him like a tender plant, and like a root out of dry ground; He has no form or comeliness [royal, kingly pomp], that we should look at Him, and no beauty that we should desire Him.(3.)He was despised and rejected and forsaken by men, a Man of sorrows and pains, and acquainted with grief and sickness; and like One from Whom men hide their faces He was despised, and we did not appreciate His worth or have any esteem for Him.(4.)Surely He has borne our griefs (sicknesses, weaknesses, and distresses) and carried our sorrows and pains [of punishment], yet we [ignorantly] considered Him stricken, smitten, and afflicted by God [as if with leprosy].(5.)But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our guilt and iniquities; the chastisement [needful to obtain] peace and well-being for us was upon Him, and with the stripes [that wounded] Him we are healed and made whole.(6.)All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has made to light upon Him the guilt and iniquity of us all.(7.)He was oppressed, [yet when] He was afflicted, He was submissive and opened not His mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He opened not His mouth.(8.)By oppression and judgment He was taken away; and as for His generation, who among them considered that He was cut off out of the land of the living [stricken to His death] for the transgression of my [Isaiah's] people, to whom the stroke was due?(9.)And they assigned Him a grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in His death, although He had done no violence, neither was any deceit in His mouth.(10.)Yet it was the will of the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief and made Him sick. When You and He make His life an offering for sin [and He has risen from the dead, in time to come], He shall see His [spiritual] offspring, He shall prolong His days, and the will and pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.(11.)He shall see [the fruit] of the travail of His soul and be satisfied; by His knowledge of Himself [which He possesses and imparts to others] shall My [uncompromisingly] righteous One, My Servant, justify many and make many righteous (upright and in right standing with God), for He shall bear their iniquities and their guilt [with the consequences, says the Lord].(12.)Therefore will I divide Him a portion with the great [kings and rulers], and He shall divide the spoil with the mighty, because He poured out His life unto death, and [He let Himself] be regarded as a criminal and be numbered with the transgressors; yet He bore [and took away] the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors (the rebellious)."
Photobucket

The Bible stands TRUE no matter what!

EVER SINCE THE EARLY PROPHETS & KINGS MADE THE STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE WORD OF GOD: THE ENEMIES OF GOD HAVE "TWISTED" AND MISAPPLIED WHAT WAS SAID BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT BRING THEMSELVES TO OBEY THE MESSAGE PRESENTED TO THEM! BUT FOR 2,000 YEARS THE BIBLE HAS STOOD AS A TESTIMONY TO THE STRENGTH OF GOD AND HIS PEOPLE!
Image Hosting by Picoodle.com
Photobucket

A WORD TO THE WISE CHRISTIAN!

Above are some of the MANY apologetics Ministries that we all trust to Defend the Bible and God before the world..BUT, let this serve as A WARNING TO ALL WHO TRUST MEN WITH TOTAL TRUTH! Just because they are SMART in one area of expertise DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY "HAVE GODLY SENSE" when it comes to deep spiritual matters of the faith...SO I WILL INCLUDE OTHER SITES TO BALANCE THEIR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE IN THESE AREAS..............................................

Fix it yourself and save bundles of cash!

What If Repairing Your Own Computer, Troubleshooting, or Upgrading your hardware was as easy... as opening this book?

DIY Computer Repair E-Book, only $27.95 Order yours Today!


It's Time To Send Your "Computer Tech" On Vacation, permanently!

I'll Just Skip The Usual Bullcrap - And Say It Like It Is:

The owner and author of DIY Computer Repair
Monte Russell
Owner - DIY Computer Repair

Hello. I'm Monte Russell, owner of diy-computer-repair.com

With a degree in Computer Engineering, numerous certifications not only from hardware manufactures but from Microsoft, I find most repair jobs are simple, using a ABC process, and I assure you that you can repair a computer yourself.

Very few repairs require a degree in Computer Science or Electronics Engineering. I wrote this e-book in everyday language, terms explained, easy to follow format.

I'm not a salesman... I'm a computer repair technician...

:: Let me show you how to repair, upgrade, and troubleshoot your own computer...CLICK HERE NOW!

Using Him is EASY following His word proves your manhood or womanhood!

Image Hosting by Picoodle.com

THIS IS WHAT JESUS DID FOR YOU!

THIS IS WHAT JESUS DID FOR YOU!
If this isn't LOVE what is?

So you like your N.I.V. so-called bible! TRY THIS!

Try Answering These From Your NIV

By Rex L. Cobb
INSTRUCTIONS:
Using the New International Version Bible, answer the following questions to this NIV quiz.
Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text).
  1. Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies,__________ them that curse you, ______________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you."
  2. According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon?
  3. According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?
  4. According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?
  5. In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.
  6. In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to: ____________
  7. According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?
  8. According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?
  9. In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?
  10. In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?
  11. In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?
  12. According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?
  13. In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?
  14. John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?
  15. What happened each year as told in John 5:4?
  16. In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?
  17. In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?
  18. What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?
  19. Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.
  20. Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?
  21. Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.
  22. First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?
  23. In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?
  24. Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?
  25. Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A______________ and O___________, the _________ and the _______:"
Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers, but it's much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you not only failed the test, you receive a big goose egg.
( These are all missing in the NIV.) So now what do you think of your "accurate, easy to understand, up to date Bible"?
If you would like to improve your score, and in fact score 100%, you can take this test using the Authorized (King James) Bible.
It does not amaze me in the least that evolutionist scientists STILL after all these years insist upon trying to discredit Creation Science which has all the answers in abundance.

It would seem even to the UNTRAINED EYE that they simply have a complete lack of HONESTY and evidence or they would have refuted God from the beginning!

The web-site below is PROOF of this statement, it would do an evolutionist good to admit for ONCE that they DO NOT HAVE THEIR DUCKS IN A ROW!

A Creationist's DARE YA! Go ahead TRY!

The Evidence on Video streaming!