Posts Tagged ‘atheist’

“American Atheists” makes a hate religion of itself: The Religion of Intolerance of Speech

September 18, 2011

There’s a blog over at the american atheists web site with more of the same tired old lies. [Note: I chose not to place the link here to avoid adding to their stats, but I don’t mind if the reader finds it to see how much it lies about “fundamentalist Christians”, with its hate and vitriol.

The guy that wrote it obviously does not care what the truth is: That every possible Christian radio program, every Christian radio station throughout the country and even the world, has condemned in very clear language the behavior of the groups he mentioned and their approach to what they do. Nor does he clarify that their pitifully few handful of followers has NOT grown..

Remember: The worst oppressors and the worst mass killers of all the history of mankind were atheist tyrants and regimes whose OFFICIAL RELIGION was atheism: Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Mugabe.. And the Christian-hating God-hating Adolf Hitler with his hybrid of atheism plus occult paganism.

It’s true that ungodliness, a lack of love for your neighbor, disregarding God’s laws of love, have brought down every empire and every nation that engaged in oppression, including the Inquisition that itself BANNED THE BIBLE and fought all early attempts to get it into the vernacular of the people.

But when you try to pretend that the people who throw babies in the pond are the same as the people who try to save them from the pond you are showing yourself to be cut from the same cloth as the murderous dictator of North Korea.

Note the contrast between that mass murderer Kim Jong Il and this work of love of Christians who are working to help North Koreans both inside and outside North Korea:

Helping Hands Korea:
http://www.helpinghandskorea.org/

South Korea is a very heavily Christian society today. Ask any Korean that is able to talk freely to you where he prefers to live, where he –OR SHE!– prefers to live, where do they feel more free?

Ask the millions trying to flee North Korea even to China! Ask the Christian North Koreans who go back to North Korea and even give their lives in the effort to offer their fellow compatriots the freedom that the brutal ATHEIST ATHEIST ATHEIST rulers CANNOT STOP!

Even with cultural moles spouting Marxist talking points about religion, or Lenin’s useful idiots that swallow this deceit whole.

John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

 

Biblical Christianity is Evidence Based

June 24, 2011

Christianity is an evidence-based faith, based on true historical events, chief among them the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the six-day Creation of the universe with the evidence all over the heavens and on the earth and in the earth.

Because it’s real, the more we learn the Word the more we are able to see that the world works like God’s word says it does. That’s how faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. From all that comes “Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen”.

It is the atheist and agnostic that avoids the facts, denies the evidence, and has blind faith in the blind universe to blindly blunder into creating human intelligence.

Moses and the Red Sea!

September 23, 2010

It was an “east wind” that blew the waters back for sure, that’s what the Bible says. And when the Israelites were safely on the other side, Moses raised his hand and the waters came back so high the Egyptians drowned, chariots and all, even as they were already getting bogged down.

But some people today would rather worry more about a couple of parents refusing medical treatment for their faith than they do about handing their health care to government agents like the ones in the IRS, Medicare, Medicaid, you name it. And oh yeah, please, please give us the waiting lines for lab tests like in Canada and hold back health care to keep down costs like Obama’s guy said to England.

What about the people that have to wait six months in Canada and Europe for an X-Ray that shows they have cancer that could have been cured with quicker testing…

How about the science illiterates that today’s schools are turning out that don’t even know that the greatest founders of today’s science like Isaac Newton were not only men of faith but total creationists?! See, there’s no conflict between real science and faith, just a conflict between atheists and science.

How about those who think science gives them plenty enough wisdom without God thank you very much and give us the benefit of their atheist tyrannies, like it or not?

And what about those atheist regimes that always seem to get run by people enamored of their own voice and command themselves to commit mass murders in the tens of millions like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, in greater numbers than probably the entire population of Europe during the Inquisition.

What about the fact that the homicidal maniacs both the ones that are atheist and the ones supposedly saying “God told me”, the whole lot of them seems to want to wipe out Biblical Christians and Christianity, the Inquisition included?

There are people who SAY they would rather live in a world without Mother Theresa, the Red Cross, the YMCA, the Salvation Army, hospitals, clinics, orphanages, food banks, adoptions —all institutions begun by Christians ancient and modern.

So maybe they’d rather bring back the world that was before Jesus Christ through his TRUE followers (“Why call ye me Lord Lord and do not the things that I say”). Of course that would mean infant and human sacrifice, slavery, gladiator battles, legalizing the murder of one’s children.

Jesus Christ says Love Your Enemies. If people followed him instead of looking at hypocrites, they’d be way ahead. You, reader, you can have the truth, with Jesus Christ.

–trutherator

Answers to Monotonous Anti-Creation Cliches

July 3, 2010

Knocking down Darwinian props one by one…

>>…Regarding your anecdotes about how the faith of individuals is affected by the origins debate, I don’t doubt the accuracy of those stories. However, for every one of those I suspect there are dozens to thousands that cut the other way. They are an interesting, and important, sidebar. But they aren’t pertinent to the basic questions.

Sure there are billions in the earth who now doubt the Bible because of the non-stop relentless indoctrination of their teachers who told them “science” (the ancient pagan Darwinian myth) contradicted it, versus dozens to thousands of SCIENTISTS confronted with real world facts that compel the willing to accept Biblical truth. Creationism is growing lots faster than the long-ages myths.

To say that is not pertinent to the basic question of either the “origins debate” or sharing our faith is a preposterous illogical declaration.

Creation-deniers provide an excellent catalyst for sharing the truth. I hate lies, and Darwinism is The Big Lie of today. Not for nothing Mao Tse-Tung’s first priority in schools when he took China was not Marxism, but it was Darwinian evolution. It is the denial of the God of the Bible, because the truth of the Creation and the Resurrection is dangerous to atheism, paganism, communism, socialism, and every other tyrannical philosophy.

“Neither give place to the devil”. Subtle sideswipes and bigger broadsides against YEC and YECs and at the Bible text at face value (despite the ritual obligatory disclaimers to the contrary) with me are like saying “sic’ em” to a dog. Arf arf. Protecting the gullible from the Big Lie.

>>You said, “You have to torture the evidence and cover up the physical evidence to say the earth is so many billions of years old anyway. That would be crazy!”… ..There is abundant evidence for an old universe and an old earth. If there weren’t such evidence, the debate on this issue would not be sustainable. Possibly the current theories will prove to be wrong at some point in the future. But until they are it isn’t at all helpful to summarily dismiss them with inferences about conspiracy theories.

Using the old facile “conspiracy theories” canard gets you a loss of at lest ten points on the credibility scale.

And who told you “summarily”? It took me years of open-minded following of evidence to find out that the taxpayer-financed government indoctrination centers had been lying to me for sixteen years!

Using the same logic, without the abundant evidence for YEC and that old-earthers are torturing the physical evidence makes the debate sustainable against OEC.

–And if there were so much “abundant evidence for an old universe and an old earth” as versus YEC evidence then tell us… Why do the most prominent scientists who believe in the ancient pagan old-earth myth pee in their pants in horror at the prospect of an actual fair debate with a YEC scientist?

In the anti-creationist book “Science and Creationism”, the editor Ashley Montague said he put together this anthology of essays by their “big guns” because he was totally humiliated in a debate he took with an unnamed creation scientist. He didn’t say it that way but that’s what he said. At the time I was still under some trepidation, thinking maybe there was some science unknown to me on the subject. The book actually took me from firm to rock-solid convinced in YEC.

>>As I said, “Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the gospel defined to include a particular view on the process or dating of material creation”.

Repetition is no argument against the fact that the first chapter of the New Testament and the 3rd chapter of Luke repeat the genealogies of Jesus Christ Our Lord straight back in linear fashion to Adam himself, and notes that Adam’s parentage points to God. This is a reference to the Garden of Eden as a real-world fact, and the reference to Noah in their points to the Flood.

Besides which, Jesus said God made male and female, he didn’t say it just happened.

And don’t give us the condescending clap trap about God had to speak in terms of the ancients. The Old Earth Myth is an ancient myth, one shared by Hindus and Buddhists and Humanists and many other such religions. But God chose to tell the truth, how about that.

Everything was created before Adam, when the genealogies began. There are very legitimate language questions about the time interval from verse 1 to verse 3, that is if you insist on an interpretation based on a modernist focus on material origins. But there is also a very credible interpretation based on the cultural context of ancient cosmology that focuses on functional origins. There are just too many open questions on G1 to take a dogmatic position on age.

The “Gap Theory” so-called is a totally new myth invented by men who preferred to put their trust in men whose breath is in his nostrils than to put their trust in the eternal God, even though the Bible has made fools of its deniers for millennia. It was invented to cover for God’s obvious YEC message in Genesis, for people who didn’t want to give up their faith, and it was “popularized” by Bible-hater Darby in England and Cyrus Scofield the convicted swindler in the United States, followed by too many wannabes.

The most important Christian dogma is that the Bible is the Truth, period, end of point, no if’s and’s or but’s. There is so much overwhelming real-world evidence of this that anyone seeking the truth will find it.

> My point in this entire discussion is not to take a position for or against the global flood interpretation, but to simply point out that there are sufficient interpretative and technical questions to caution against a dogmatic position. The word ‘world’ or ‘earth’, as I pointed our below is not determinative, due to its varied uses. There are the possibilities of land bridge collapses at the Bosporus or Gibraltar. The flood occurred prior to Babel, so it’s possible that all of life was still in a relatively concentrated ‘region’. And of course there are all of the many technical questions about water volume and population logistics on the ark.

Watch out when they claim to be arguing for a “neutral” point of view. There is no such thing. Come, let us reason together, saith the Lord. The truth is not a neutral position between two opposing viewpoints.

It’s a dogmatic position to insist that the Bible is ambiguous where it obviously is not. Like trying to say “day” doesn’t mean “day”, or claiming that there is enough ambiguity between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3 to cram billions of years in there! It’s laughable, and no wonder atheists have a field day rejoicing over how Christians are trying to put their own pagan myths into the Bible.

>>The bottom line is that the flood was what it was, and the biblical testimony is attesting to what it was in the linguistic and cultural context of the biblical authors and audiences. Whether the flood was actually regional or global has no bearing on the validity of that testimony. Either way, the testimony is true and accurate in its ancient context.

Whether the narrative of the Flood is true to fact or not has “no bearing on the validity of that testimony”??! Wow. That’s amazing. It exposes the bias of summarily dismissing anything the Bible says if some self-arrogant “scientist” says it’s wrong.

Anyway, why would one want to play the fool just because the smarter-than-thou” crowd does? Why deny the physical evidence and agree with the foolish idea that the world is billions of years old just because some people who hated the Bible invented their own new variation on ancient pagan myths? Myths that were discredited long ago? Why should we be like dogs and return to the same vomit of ancient pagan myths like Darwinism?

No matter how much indoctrination they foist on the unsuspecting, pretending that their origins myth is something new from science, they cannot escape the fact that long ages for earth, the universe, and life on earth are ancient pagan myths. The ancient Hebrews knew intimately of them. It is a historically illiterate argument to say they would not have understood long ages. God told them, and us, the truth.

1. What ‘yom’ means in terms of our literal concept of time. There is more than one reasonable option on this question.

It’s mind-boggling that anti-creationists still use the word “day” in Genesis to defend themselves.

But now they’ll have to explain why plants lasted millions of years on the earth before land animals, they have to explain how there was night and day for how many eons before there was a sun. Putting millions or billions of years for “day” in Genesis One makes it a much greater super-miracle than the Biblical one they deny. The real-world question is, why would God take so long to make everything?

Note that the proponents of billion-year “days” never bother with “the evening and morning were the first day”.. “…the second day..” and “the third day”… The emphasis on the 24-hour day is manifold and does not rest on the meaning of “day”. Ask a Hebrew scholar whether “evening and morning” are a 24-hour day or whether it’s a million-year epoch.

And add to all that the ordinal nature of the list! The “first day”, “second day”, and so on– just adds emphasis to the clear meaning of the passage.

Claiming that Genesis One is a literal description of long-ages universe is so ridiculous that it is a much better argument to try to claim it’s not about Creation, or it’s symbolic or something.

2. The grammatical structure for 1:1-2 is disputed around 2-3 possibilities. Individual Hebrew scholars may prefer one option or the other, but virtually all acknowledge we can’t know with certainty what was grammatically intended.

That assertion is clearly contradicted by the fact that virtually all Orthodox Jewish scholars, with the rare exception, agree among themselves that they are certain about “what was grammatically intended”. Apparently you’ve been reading too much anti-creationist stuff out there where they state things as if they are just-so and fall right into the same pit.

3. A compelling case has been made that Genesis 1 is written in the context of ancient cosmology because that is the way it would have made sense to the original author and audience.

Again, that is a historically illiterate Big Lie by the crowd that hates the Bible, and is so easily refuted it is incredible how many people love to buy into it, as I stated above.

It came straight from the mouths of the smarter-than-thou academics who hate the Bible with a passion and see things through their own religious dogma that the Bible is myth. Sounds like something the misnamed “Jesus Seminar” babblers would come up with, who only got notice because their fellow Jesus-haters in big-name magazines like Time just loved anything that contradicted the Bible.

That was before we had the Internet as a forum to expose the stark-naked emperor. That’s why they are trying to figure out ways to shut us down. Senator Lieberman the other day praised the law giving Obama (and any other president) the authorization to just shut down the Internet, which also includes a clause immunizing telecommunications companies from any lawsuit that arises from any cooperation with the federal government. Lieberman says China has that capability so we shouldn’t worry about it.

Maybe we’re closer to the global dictatorship of The Beast than many think we are.

If Americans don’t yell it down with a roar, we’ll soon enough get another Gulf of Tonkin incident that will provide an excuse to shut down the Internet. Bush said they would not tolerate any conspiracy theories, but they are looking for a way to quash them.

The hard dogmatic position is held by anti-creationists who dogmatically and stubbornly hold to the dogma of radioisotope dating. One creationist who happened to get a course in geological dating reports the professor saying that their radioisotope dating (of billions of years) requires a total of no less that 22 assumptions.

Dogmatic pronouncements against “aspersions on alternative views on the dating of the original material creation are unwarranted” indeed.

Simply repeating ad infinitum that Genesis One does not mean what it says, is no argument at all. YEC scientists in this debate are the ones that keep pointing to science, while it is the creation-deniers and design-deniers that want to keep talking about religion.

Creation-denying pagan scientists can censor creation all they want from the oligarch-approved publications, they can censor countering evidence all they want from government indoctrination centers, they can keep publishing blatant lies in biology textbooks, they can deny tenure and deny research funds from science concerns that are open-minded on the origins questions.

But they have a problem with the Internet being so uncontrolled.

Beware of sneak attacks on the Internet. Whether they are from the big players or not.

–trutherator

Science: Witness to Creation

June 26, 2010

“From Raging Evolutionist to Creationist”

That title describes one of the most important aspects of my life in a nutshell, as well as that of tens of thousands of scientists and millions of people across the globe today.

As I was once a raging Darwinist and atheist myself, as well as being a former socialist, the recent article at HondurasWeekly condemning Intelligent Design theories compels an answer.

We can use this article as an exercise to show why the more prominent Darwinians among scientists today absolutely refuse to participate in a fair debate with formal and balanced rules with creation scientists, or even with Intelligent Design advocates.

The editors picked out an especially juicy paragraph to highlight this piece. It shows a repetition of the atheist strategy, applied in varying degrees by agnostics and theistic evolutionists, of using the worst hypocrites and money-grubbing “Christians” they can find in history to use Pavlov-driven associations to help make a point that is little more than invective. Effective for the de-facto monopoly stranglehold they have had on education the past century.

The author started off with a self-assured roar, using the phrase “absurd claims” and “anti-Darwinists” and “inject creationism into society”. Then he jumps right into the same attempt at pretending not to know the difference between creation science and intelligent design.

This strategy is built on their confidence in the use of the hypocrisy of money-grubbing hypocrites to make their case, instead of facts refuting the science. (Apologies to the few atheist scientists who do actually engage in real debate)

Never mind Jesus Christ himself drove those money-grubbing money-changers out of the temple at the wrong end of a bull whip, and called the religious Pharisees of his day “of your father the devil, for he is a liar”.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CREATION SCIENCE AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN

It is appropriate to clarify the terms for new initiates to this fascinating discussion, or those who only know the confusion coming from deniers of Creation and of common sense.

In a general sense, Creation Science is science as practiced by scientists who believe that the world was created by God, more or less as described in the Bible. “More or less” because there are others like Yarun Hahya, a Turkish Muslim who has a web site where you can find some intriguing factoids about science, as Muslims hold a similar view about creation.

Creation science in that general sense was the science practiced by the greats of science history like Isaac Newton, Roger Bacon, Michael Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Joseph Listerine, in fact the founders of every modern branch of science.

In a narrower way, Creation Science is science based on using the relevant declarations in the Bible as a guideline. This is mostly known for where it diverges from the Darwinian Creation Myth, of course, and research based on the six-day creation of Genesis One and Noah’s Flood. But there are other declarations in the Bible about the real world that sometimes provide for research, not always known as Creation Research.

Then there is Intelligent Design theory, which is a different approach to science. It is the study of those phenomena in nature that suggest the necessity of an outside intelligent agent for their explanation.

The SETI project is precisely the same kind of idea, being that we can use the tools of science to determine whether a given set of patterns in nature or behavior of naturally occurring entities suggests the existence of an intelligent agent. However, most SETI researchers restrict themselves to extraterrestrial intelligence that fit an anti-creationist model, arbitrary delimiter an unscientific though it is.

In fact, scientists and researchers involved with Intelligent Design propositions include agnostics and skeptics. Its proponents now include the late Andrew Flew, who was the most prominent and acclaimed promoter of atheism in intellectual circles until in his eighties the facts of DNA and how it works convinced him that there had to be some kind of intelligent designer. And no “Creationist” he, he at the same time continued to insist he did not believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

That’s the difference.

THE RELIGIOUS COVERUP IS BY DARWINISTS

We see the repetition of the tired old accusation that Intelligent Design advocates are somehow trying to “cover up” their religious affiliations. This is trying to win an argument with an attack on the motivations of the opponent rather than the argument. Crying “absurd!” and “is not!” do not count for rational discussion.

They apparently have not learned that for atheists and Darwinism, this has very heavy backfire potential, because the most prominent Darwinians who got any government power in history were the most brutal beasts of history, committing mass genocide on massive scales, and were the biggest liars of history to boot, and (they think) with a “safe” fifty years after the demise of the eugenicist race-breeding of the poster boy for tyranny, Hitler, they now think they can talk about race breeding again. Only call it something else. (Are you listening, Planned Parenthood, nee Birth Control League? Malthusians anyone?)

And Darwinism has its own history of frauds, scandals, coverups, lies, “trade secrets”, revisionist history, and a habit of publishing biology textbooks that present frauds as if they were facts, like Haeckel’s drawings, proven to be frauds 150 years agone already.

The insinuation that intelligent design advocates hide their religion is so easily refuted it should be a gross insult to the reader, and is an embarrassment for anyone who continues to use it, and shows an aversion to using an actual “fact” that speaks to the actual debate. Maybe the problem is the lack of facts for refutation.

Isaac Newton, both a creation scientist and intelligent design advocate, made no secret of his beliefs when doing science, and he made no secret that his motivations were to encourage the faith in God of others. It is the Darwinian education establishment that has kept hidden from us the facts of Isaac Newton’s emphatic beliefs in Creation, and the fact that he wrote more voluminously about the Bible and about his Christianity than he did science and math!

So WHO is hiding the religious affiliations of scientists here?

WHO IS “STIFLING HISTORY”?

The question is put when ID is called an “inquiry-stifling premise”.

Let us investigate the reality of WHO is actually stifling inquiry?

Vestigial organs: The stifling of life-saving research by Darwinian dogma:

There are two fronts here to point up. One is the actual

    historical results

of Darwinian and anti-creationist science, versus the actual results of ID advocates and creationists.

At one time, there were at least 32 human organs that Darwinians had declared “vestigial organs” that no purpose and were “leftovers” from “evolution”. Creationist scientists said do the research and find their purpose! And there are no more “vestigial organs”. You can live without tonsils, or an appendix, but you can live without both your legs too!

So medical research that could have saved lives, like finding the purpose for these human organs, was stifled and unfunded because of the ancient pagan myth of Darwinism.

Vestigial DNA: Stifling research:

Then in this 21st century, early came discussion about “vestigial DNA”, which comprises an actual majority part of the total DNA in your body. They called it this because they had only matched a tiny percentage to actual protein manufacture and other active functions.

My first encounter with the term “vestigial DNA” caused a big fit of laughter, wondering how long it would take them to correct this, yet another major faux pas from Darwinian dogma.

This time a few enterprising geneticists broke through and found that not only did this DNA have a few functions they were just beginning to get a glimpse of, it also served as a shelf of mix-and-match parts with which to do automatic experimentation in genetic combinations during times of environmental stress. Among other things.

<>>

THE HATE-GOD MONOLOGUES

Just like other places, we see here questions that really come from blaming God for everything we see as bad in the world. This is totally irrelevant to ID, for it is not creationism. ID is merely the study of criteria that can be used to determine whether a pattern or phenomenon is the result of design rather than spontaneous natural activity, and where this might or might not apply in science.

Actually, it is the same principle upon which is based much or most of forensic science, archaeology, and other endeavours.

The questions of why there is evil in the world therefore has nothing at all to do with Intelligent Design propositions. They are even irrelevant to Creation science. They used to defend the evil impact of belief in evolution as being irrelevant to the argument, but that was then people actually were educated enough to laugh out loud when somebody suggested evolution was better morally than believing in Jesus Christ.

It reminds me of one of the founders of the American Atheists Association after he became a Christian. He said he had only become atheist because he hated God for the hurt he had suffered in his life.

There are also a number of false premises embedded in most hate-God harangues, many that require answers for another writing. One such error is the long-discredited Malthusian idea that humankind is “procreating itself to extinction”.

Hey! It’s –NOT!– procreation that leads to extinction. By definition. Okay? NOT procreating IS extinction. Procreating is the best way to battle extinction.

Oh, yeah, and defending yourself against socialist and fascist tyrants like Pol Pot who kill off half their own people, or Chinese tryants who don’t bat an eyelid at the slaughter of forty TIMES the entire population of Cambodia, or Stalin who starved millions of Ukrainians to punish them for thinking independently. And beware of those who say they “have always been a Maoist”, like Hugo Chavez did in Beijing.

Complaining and whining bitterly about our lot in life and on the earth collectively as human beings is no argument for anything. Blaming God with a wave of the hand and piling on bitter invective without a serious considering the idea like Andrew Flew did, and other formerly embittered God-haters like myself, proves nothing about anything except for what it says about the accuser. At least Flew defended his ideas with actual arguments.

Take Haiti and Chile, two recent examples of victims of natural disasters. The earthquakes suffered by each country different enormously in terms of the fatalities, injuries, and to the economy. Haiti was helpless and without any kind of governing authority in the days following, while Chile was almost officially insulted by offers of help. This shows not that Haitians are to blame (although Haitian friends of mine do blame the spiritual condition of Haiti for its condition), but that natural disasters differ in their effect depending on the physical, economic, moral, spiritual condition of the affected parties.

And love goes a long way to healing the wounds and lifting up the physically broken and the broken-hearted.

My question about mental acuteness is how anyone could consider the coordinated network of digital computer systems that each one of us has in every one of the trillions of cells in our bodies, and claim –without any reasonable explanation whatsoever– that it just spontaneously arose from some kind of primeval ooze! And that’s just the DNA!

There’s much more for a later. Stay tuned.

But since the moral argument has been engaged, it will be enthusiastically answered.

Despite the best efforts of imposters, charlatans, hypocrites and identity thieves throughout history, the effect of Jesus Christ on history, especially after the terrestrial arrival of the Lord Jesus Christ, has been overwhelmingly positive. The basics of decent culture that are still left in our modern society owe themselves to Christ and the ones who followed his teachings.

Some people –if they were genuinely sincere and not just venting– ask how to tell the difference. Just compare the practice to the preaching. If it doesn’t match, it’s an imposter. Just make sure you don’t learn what the teaching is from people who don’t know it.

LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, and The Golden Rule…

Here’s two rules of thumb. One is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Simple. “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Matthew 7:12 Another is: Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 7:20

If only the tyrants and dictators who yell and go into fits trying to get Zelaya back into Honduras would be well served with the Golden Rule. They do not want people lying to them. The “human rights” hypocrites who claim they seek “reconciliation” by bringing the cause of division back into the country know full well that it would cause great trouble for Honduras. They know full well that the “Resistencia” does NOT want anything other than their socialist dictatorship, unfettered by bothersome human rights issues, and that Hondurans do not want this.

They know full well there was a constitutional succession. The idea is simply to force a small country to subjugate itself to the new world empire.

The “dangerous” Christians died by the tens of thousands under the had of Roman Emperors, in following these dictates.

Matthew 5:44  But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

<……..>

LET ME COUNT THE WAYS: How the world is better off after Christ came in the flesh:

It is when they became comfortable and prosperous under less brutal regimes that the doctrines began deteriorating under such intellectuals as St. Augustin, who had too much fondness for Greek intellectual hubris, and in the embrace of political power under the cultivation of emperors like Constantine.

Too bad many of today's Christians have rushed to receive the embrace of government money, as in the States where they have to promise, cross their heart and hope to get arrested if they ever talk about Jesus while using that "faith-based" money.

If Christ had never been born, or if nobody had ever followed him, we would have missed a lot of what we were never taught in government schools in the States.

Gladiator bouts begone:

The intervention of one Christian bishop in a gladiator bout that cost him his life, brought to dead silence the cheers of that crowd that had yelled for his blood, and brought embarrassment to the emperor that had thumbed him down, and provided the ending bell for this "sport" of devils.

Infanticide, begone!

The Greeks and Romans routinely killed any babies they did not want or deem fit. Spartans left them on the rocks on the hillside, Athenians wrapped them up against the cold and left them in holes. Roman law said fathers could kill their sons for any reason or no reason whatsoever at any time. But infants were saved from infanticide when mothers learned they could leave an infant on the doorstep of a Christian couple, who were glad to rescue a child and raise him to maturity.
A Christian missionary came back from China and spoke at a forum in an ecumenical council in Chicago around 1900. He begged them not to pass a resolution giving moral equivalency to all religions, pointing to the "baby pond" in the Chinese village where he resided, where some villagers went to throw "unwanted' infants. The mass genocides by atheist regimes were still yet future.

Cannibalism, begone:

Even the father of Darwinism himself, Charles Darwin, defended Christian missionaries in a letter to the editor, in answer to a tirade against them. He said if you were a world traveller like me, and had to make port in a faraway unknown island, you would behold the steeple with a cross atop with the greatest relief that you were not going to end up in a pot of stew.

Orphanages:

The practice of receiving "unwanted" babies that would have been sacrificed evolved later into orphanages.

Hospitals:

Orders of Christians who took in the sick and infirm became known for being such centers and evolved into today's hospitals.

Literacy:

The former slave to an Irish noble, St.Patrick, brought his message of love to the Irish. That message ended the brutal practices of Druid priests in Ireland, ended the human sacrifice, ended slavery in Ireland.

Patrick also taught the Irish to read and write. They took to the practice feverishly. The monasteries of his followers, which were families living together in harmony and in which sometimes women were the leaders, took such a delight in books that they rescued the great bulk of Greek and Roman classics that survive to us today, copying with copious dedication everything possible, while the Huns and Visigoths and assorted barbarians burned every library they could find.

Charlemagne learned of the fame of the learned monks from Ireland and Britain and brought them to his palaces to establish centers at which they could teach the priesthood throughout his reach.

Science:

With the Reformation, and the liberation it brought to thinkers and tinkerers everywhere, science flourished. Christianity cultivated modern science as we know it today, and so say as a historical fact historians who are much less than enamored with Christianity.

Just for example, it took the Internet free of the constraints of top-down controlled education to make it general knowledge that Isaac Newton, acclaimed to this day as the greatest scientist, wrote more about the Bible and his Christian beliefs than he did about science and math.

The Bible itself actually invites the reader to challenge the science. Paul did not say "Can you feel it", "If it feels right do it", he said we do not follow fables but we follow facts, and he points to more than five hundred people who were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus Christ.

The "heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his handiwork". (Psalm 19:1) David also spoke of the way God "wrote" our members into our body in the womb, a verse that one atheist said I twisted to make it sound like DNA!

See for yourself: Psalms 139:16  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

–Alan
http://www.truebook.wordpress.com
http://www.trutherator.wordpress.com

Is the constitution unconstitutional?!

April 17, 2010

A judge in Michigan says she understands the constitution better than the original body that designed the American Constitution, and has declared the National Day of Prayer to be unconstitutional!

These are people raised in history classes where they deliver indoctrination instead of history!

The Constitutional Convention at one point was stuck in a stalemate, and it looked like we were going to be thirteen independent little states on their own. But Benjamin Franklin suggested that they all just do a serious prayer meeting to ask for God’s help. Once upon a time the Smithsonian featured a public showing of a painting of this prayer meeting, showing all those representatives on their knees seeking God for guidance. That would be before they started purging such tokens of America’s Christian beginnings.

Better for us, to free the National Day of Prayer from interference or compromise from the overbearing involvement of government.

But idiot rulings like this are insane, another contortion of logic that requires either limited thinking abilities or a malicious disregard for the letter AND spirit of the Constitution.

What religion does a National Day of Prayer establish, in view of the fact that the most diverse religions possible participate?

What atheist is prevented from practicing their own atheism however they like? After all, this is their claim when it comes to banning homage to God within public service.

And government money? They should complain, hey! Billions of dollars goes to research by scientists that continue to try to disprove the Bible from the first chapter.

–trutherator

Embittered atheists

August 2, 2009

I found an interesting quote about these fiery militant atheists, proselytizers of “misotheism”, from no less that George Orwell:

George Orwell identified this sort of ‘atheist’ in the character of Bozo, in Down and Out in Paris and London: ‘He was an embittered atheist (the sort of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him)’.11 Interestingly, in The God Delusion, Dawkins carries on about what he doesn’t like about the God he doesn’t believe in.

Found here:
Is Richard Dawkins an atheist?
http://creation.com/is-richard-dawkins-an-atheist

Like the line from Shakespeare:

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

–trutherator

See the TrueBook blog:
https://truebook.wordpress.com/

More TrueBook Articles:
https://truebook.wordpress.com/index/

Some evolutionists say it’s OK to deceive students

August 2, 2009

Evolutionist: it’s OK to deceive students to believe evolution:

Examples include Bora Zivkovic, Online Community Manager at PLoS-ONE, and

Here are a few of those lies, some of which are going into textbooks into the 21st century, plucked from the above link (which has lots more to look at):

* Forged Haeckel embryo pictures, still used in many textbooks
* Staged photos of peppered moths which wouldn’t even prove goo-to-you evolution anyway but merely the creationist-invented theory of natural selection.
* Misleading analogies that cars and airplanes evolved when of course they were designed (Intelligent Design leader Phillip E. Johnson calls this ‘Berra’s Blunder’, and Ian Plimer committed this blunder too).
* Claiming that creationists believe that God must have created cave fish as blind.
* Insinuating that creationists deny natural selection and variation.
* Piltdown Man, an obvious forgery not exposed for 40 years, and the peccary tooth dubbed ‘Nebraska man’
* Archaeoraptor , the Piltdown Bird.

–trutherator

See the TrueBook blog:
https://truebook.wordpress.com/

More TrueBook Articles:
https://truebook.wordpress.com/index/

Gogonasus—a fish with human limbs?

April 12, 2009

“Gogonasus—a fish with human limbs?”
Oh yeah? Get a look at the real fossil fish: http://creation.com/gogonasusa-fish-with-human-limbs

Find the TrueBook index:
https://truebook.wordpress.com/index/

—trutherator

See the TrueBook blog:
https://truebook.wordpress.com/

More TrueBook Articles:
https://truebook.wordpress.com/index/