About a minute ago I hypothesized that if God had created the universe that the same types of animals separated by huge distances would be found on Earth, which would be evidence that land masses of Earth were once joined like the Bible says it was, and that humans, having been at least 1000 years advanced in wisdom with genetically superior brains, would have been able for a while after the flood to travel great distances over the still joined land, transplanting one type of animal in two remote places far far apart, like perhaps in Timbuktu and some a Himalayan forest, on purpose or without realizing it. When I then searched for a story like that on a search engine, I came up with even more dramatic evidence, and once again, ironically from Darwinsts trying to make themselves appear to be wise and oh so scientific:
Same Species Found at Both Ends of Earth
Scientists have determined that at least 235 species live in both polar seas.
Scientists have determined that at least 235 species live in both polar seas despite the 8,000 miles (13,000 km) between the ends of the Earth.
How some of the creatures wound up at the top and bottom of the planet is a mystery. Distance and habitat divisions — such as warm water between the two regions — are among the things that can separate creatures and lead to new species. A DNA analysis is underway to confirm if the like species are in fact identical, the researchers announced today
At around 12:30 A.M. this morning, some idiot called Dr. Lahr, a self-proclaimed medium, said on Coast to Coast A.M., “Guardian angels don’t have names because they don’t have an ego”. As usual, host Ian Punnet, Ian failed to rebuke the guest, a medium, “Dr.” Christian von Lähr for his stupid comment. This is the same “Dr.” the same one who did “The Nature People” interview in which he “talked about Nature People such as Gnomes, Elves, Fairies and Leprechauns” and who turns out to be an effeminate homosexual pedophile, and I’m intelligent guessing that everyone avoids and ignores him and his website for that apparent reason. God has a name, his son has a name, but does that mean that they have “egos”? Why would it? So when a baby is named it’s because it has an “ego”? Last time I checked Freud’s destructive nonsense was rejected years ago by most psychologists. Ian’s response when commercial break came? His smug chuckling and “I just want you to know I’m totally on board with this,” and then breaking God’s Law again by boasting that the medium would channel Michael Jackson, as if he were a prophet, knowing that Michael Jackson could be summoned.
The medium seemed to pretend to talk to Michael after the commercial beak, and made up nonsense about how Michael Jackson’s different spirit colors had different messages, yet after asking Michael about what the colors meant (how would Michael know what the colors of his soul meant?) asked him if he had any messages for anyone in the audience (I thought the medium be able to tell by Michael’s colors?). Then the medium claimed that Michael was in the astral plain, which is an emotional plane, and that it’s all about emotions. Of course he couldn’t produce any evidence for this, and it was vague nonsense. He didn’t say anything in his rant that would indicate that it was really Michael, everything he said could be made up based on what was already known about him. OH WAIT, just when I finished typing that last sentence he said, “There seems to be something personal there but I won’t get into that,” HOW CONVENIENT! And why wouldn’t he get into that if it was communicated to him by Michael? After that Ian had the medium ask Michael a question, and that is a clear violation of God’s Law, especially for a self-called Christian to do, at least he asked a hard question for the medium, which is if Michael would like to confess to any-wrong doing, and no surprise, the medium wouldn’t say anything condemning, nothing that could get him sued, although he did say that Michael did have regrets and that he couldn’t fix it now because of where he was (oh so he can’t so “SORRY” IN THE “EMOTIONAL PLAIN”?) LOL! And now that Michael is supposedly floating around in the emotional plane, HE’S STILL EMOTIONALLY WARPED: according to the medium he has no regrets about having plastic surgery because “everyone thought I was ugly”, including his dad. LOL! The “emo plane”, yeah, right. And so this universe we’re in now isn’t “about emotion”, not even with the millions of “emos” and countless trillions of beings that feel and expression emotion nonstop, and sometimes when sleeping even? So then what is this universe about? Stone? Being emotionless? Dark matter than no one can find? What sick liars.
“‘Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am Yahweh your God.’” – Leviticus 19:31
“‘I will set my face against the person who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute himself by following them, and I will cut him off from his people.’” – Leviticus 20:6
“‘A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.’” – Leviticus 20:27
“‘Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to Yahweh, and because of these detestable practices Yahweh your God will drive out those nations before you.’” – Deuteronomy 18:10-12
Mr. Fidget and Art Bell Says No One Should Explain How To Get Eternal Joy If They Know How to Get It
"[that Christian] shouldn’t tell other people what to believe because if his belief system worked, he wouldn’t have to." – Mr. Fidget (who was pressing hard to promote his belief system including in his fidget toys (still no where to be found after 12 years). Art Bell’s immediate reply was giddy laughter and "Good wisdom." A few minutes after Art asked him again why so many people were reporting to him that his toys were allowing them to time travel, Mr. Fidget replied, "I’m just a guy with one thought…" (That sounds about right to me) - 1997.
How many years longer will Christians, even saved ones, keep teaching that God loves everyone? It confuses the world and they use that teaching as a reason not to believe the Bible, saying that it’s a contradiction, because if God loved everyone, how could he send anyone to Hell? Here is an example of such an argument:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtmwrQoKvYKtTvz4B3noP.YjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20060712204909AAF6zUe (a double straw man question)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As09T8yxAKla2JS0c10ePK4jzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20090329213918AAngQ6m (a double straw man question)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Asz4e1WZIFdB9nrg3.FxtoojzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20070312083134AApxSYU (a partially nonsensical question)
http://answers.yahoo.com/my/profile;_ylt=Avsh16PMv7L8x_tGw8M1kYwjzKIX;_ylv=3?show=nDU84BkTaa (a typically dumb atheist’s stereotype-all-Christians-as-being-as-stupid-as-atheists question)
That’s all the questions I could find looking through the first 13 pages on God supposedly loving people he sends to Hell.
(And by the way notice how the Yahoo Anwers moderators pay so little attention that they don’t remove the redundant questions and that the atheists and anti-Christians, especially the long time members, could care less about the rules being broken, and are content to harass Christians repeatedly by letting redundant questions against Christians remain after being posted.)
The Bible doesn’t teach that God loves everyone, it’s a Catholic myth, and a lie taught by other false Christians mainly, including Episcopalians and Universalists. See if you can do the math:
"In hell, where [the rich man] was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’" – Jesus
Though Jesus seemingly said that it was impossible for that rich man to be in God’s presence, Paul said,
"I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." – apostle Paul
If you believe the Bible is God’s word, and that Jesus is God, and that God can’t lie, and that like humans, God uses riddles at times, then no, those two passages from the Bible arn’t contradicting each other. The Bible teaches God is omnipresent (and all powerful):
"If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there." – Psalm 139:8
But if God is able to cross over into Hell so to speak, the and if God has infinite power, then what did Jesus mean? He clearly meant the man couldn’t be rescued, and it is clear that God loves those whom he has rescued from Hell and will never stop loving them. Doing the math correctly shows that God must not love those who are going to Hell, and that it’s his love that isn’t present. God’s wrath is also related to Hell, which Jesus said was a place where people would be dead yet able to feel pain and sorrow, and where they would be salted with fire:
"For a fire has been kindled by my wrath, one that burns to the realm of death below." – Deuteronomy 32:22
So, Hell is a place of God’s hatred according to Scripture, and not love.
And if you aren’t able to do the math, then read the plain, and nearly plain answers from Scripture itself:
"You hate all who do wrong." – Psalm 5:5
There are six things Yahweh hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers. – Proverbs 6:16-19
"Yahweh passes the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates." – Psalm 11:5
Some might argue, or wonder, "If ‘God is love’ as the Bible says, then how can he hate anyone?" In other words, that God can’t hate anyone if he is "so loving" or is literally love. The argument implies that if God is love or "so loving" that he then can’t hate, and if he can’t hate, then he can’t hate anyone. Ironically some of those people who argue or wonder that teach that God hates sin or that if he hates anything it would be doing evil (though people who hate God have a warped version of what evil is). Clearly God hates sin according to the Bible, so then those who trust the Bible to be perfect (in it’s originally worded form) are contradicting themselves if they argue that God hates sin, yet can’t hate anything let alone humans if he is love. Either he can hate, or he can’t. The other false implication of the "God can’t hate" argument is that hate is a bad thing, butit’s God who decides what is bad, and he never said hate was a bad thing if it came from him or someone who is saved. He does clearly condemn unjust hate or love that is misplaced, like love for breaking his laws, or romantic love for an animal or someone of the same sex.
Third, God isn’t an emotion, emotions arn’t alive, so then it is reasonable to say that God was using a figure of speech. God describes himself as love because he doesn’t let a person who does wrong go unpunished (unless they had someone perfectly obedient to suffer the punishment for them, like Jesus). He also doesn’t send everyone who disobeys him to Hell right away, often he gives people plenty of time to learn the truth about the world and to repent. Would God be love if he let criminals sin forever or experience unhindered pleasure forever? Further, God perfectly loves justice, he doesn’t love injustice at all and will never praise anyone for doing moral wrong, in that way he can be thought of as love. On top of that, he allowed part of himself to perfectly obey his own laws in the place of those who hated him and didn’t love him at all, suffer for them, shed his blood for them, be wounded repeatedly for them, and to be executed in their place as well, and it wasn’t just for one person who only broke a few of his least important laws, but for millions of people, some who were extremely evil and who had murdered those who loved him and murdered them because they loved him. Not only that, at least 2000 years after demonstrating such great love, the world in general still hates him and twists his words. Yet God increased his mercy to the world, and didn’t diminish it, continuing to teach that we should love our enemies and forgive them if we want to be loved and forgiven by him, and there is still no sign of him no longer saving anyone from Hell even after 2000 years have passed. Truly, God is love.
As news organizations reported Michael Jackson’s hospitalization on Thursday afternoon, Wikipedia editors were wrestling with the problem of whether to allow an unverified report of the singer’s death to appear on the online encyclopedia.
The entertainment site TMZ.com reported at 2:20 p.m. PDT that: "We’re told when paramedics arrived Jackson had no pulse and they never got a pulse back."
Some Wikipedians repeatedly deleted references to Jackson’s alleged demise, saying in separate comments that "This is not yet verified," "He’s not dead," "Premature edits," and "ONCE AGAIN, HE IS NOT DEAD, JUST STOP.
Rest of the story here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10273277-93.html
Psychologist finds Wikipedians grumpy and closed-minded
* 01:00 03 January 2009 by Peter Aldhous
* For similar stories, visit the Mental Health Topic Guide
Disagreeable and closed to new ideas – that’s the picture that emerges of contributors to community-curated encyclopaedia Wikipedia from a survey of their psychological attributes.
Led by Yair Amichai-Hamburger of the Sammy Ofer School of Communication in Herzliya, Israel, a team of psychologists surveyed 69 Israeli contributors to the popular online encyclopedia, comparing them with a sample of 70 students matched for age and intensity of internet use.
All were given a short questionnaire called Real-Me, which tries to determine whether people prefer to express themselves in the real world or online, and a personality survey that gave ratings for five traits: openness to experience and ideas, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.
As Amichai-Hamburger expected, the Wikipedians were more comfortable online. "They feel the internet is a more meaningful place to them," he says. But to his surprise, although Wikipedia is founded on the notion of openly sharing and collecting knowledge as a community, they scored low on agreeableness and openness. …
Amichai-Hamburger speculates that rather than contributing altruistically, Wikipedians take part because they struggle to express themselves in real-world social situations. "They are compensating," he suggests. "It is their way to have a voice in this world."
This is consistent with previous research on online communication, says Scott Caplan of the University of Delaware in Newark, who suspects that heavy users of sites such as Digg and Twitter may have similar characteristics. "People who prefer online social behaviour tend to have higher levels of social anxiety and lower social skills," he says.
No way, really? Rest of the story here.
At 12:27 P.M. an x-Christian named Scott Roberts, on Coast to Coast A.M., said, "If God can create something out of nothing, nothingness, then he can shuffle a deck of [tarot] cards [to give you a message]." The Bible doesn’t say God created the universe out of nothing, and why couldn’t he have created through the Bible, and forbid divining? What disgusting stupidity. At least he acknowledged that demons exist and can appear to be beautiful.
A cute and beautiful girl flirted hard with me yesterday, she was only 9 or 10 I think. And a few weeks before that a 13 or 14 yr-old. If only older girls were as bold. The only older one I can remember flirting with me recently was what seemed to be a perfect-looking red-headed girl, about 19, named Kim. But this red-head like another perfect-looking one about the same age (who flirted with me about 10 years ago), was next to her boyfriend. So depressing. Such a cruel life I live. At least I’m not repellent to everyone though, and attractive to some, thanks to my merciful God.
If it’s something that someone made up it would have lasted an hour and a half. – Hypnotherapist, author, and reincarnation believer, Dr. Bruce Goldberg, Coast to Coast AM Radio Show, 10:26 P.M., 6/22/2009.
Well thanks Dr, Golderg for telling everyone that the Bible is 100% true. George Noory, who was hosting the show, didn’t even hint that Dr. Goldberg was wrong. Just one problem George and Dr. Bruce:
Later Dr. Bruce said we could "control and customize our destiny".
Dr. Bruce repeated that a new idea would be gone quickly if it was false. The teaching that doing wrong, Dr. Karma-Believing Bruce, to get your way in life, and that there is no karma or Hell or Heaven or universal right or wrong has been taught for thousands of years. Yet he and would have us believe then that’s it’s a true teaching.
Dr. Bruce emphatically called himself a scientist at 10:43 P.M., a few minutes later implied that all major religions were dogmatic when a Christian woman implied past memories from another life were from Satan, unlike what he was teaching about reincarnation and the soul, yet he repeatedly referred to scientists proving him right. Yet another false teacher who repeatedly forgets the differences between evidence, proof, facts, opinions, doctrine, and dogma.
Then he said, at 10:57 P,.M., "Any kind of gift is a terrible thing to waste." when George asked him how an allegedly eleven-year-old reincarnated boy should proceed in life. George Noory replied, "Good advice Bruce." What gift? The boy knows some things about certain aircraft, so what?
Then at about 12:50 A.M., according to the mother of the supposedly reincarnated child – when she asked him what she always wanted to know, if God was a man or a woman, he replied, "he isn’t a man or a woman, he’s whoever you want him to be at the moment." That’s a contradiction (it would mean he could be a man or a woman if you wanted him to be), and according to that answer God can also be prostitute approving of whatever you want to do, a pimp or Satan (and George’s reply, no surprise, was "Right answer.") How is it the mother and father could be bothered to check out the child’s false memories to see if reincarnation was true, yet couldn’t be bothered to read the Bible for the answer she always wanted to know nor check to see if their child’s answer was in accordance with God’s own word? So the question she always wanted to know wasn’t, "Does God love me," or "Where will I end up when I die," "Is the Bible true," or "Can God help me to understand what his word truly says and to get me to love it even if it displeases my body’s desire to do wrong?", but instead, a question of sex-pride? What an evil shallow careless attitude! What nonsense, disgusting, hateful. And George, though saying to Dr. Bruce and the rest of the world that "Western religion is far behind the other religions" (uh George, Christianity is the oldest religion, and it’s not a European creation, duh), he then when talking to the parents about how reincarnation affected their Christian beliefs, pandered to them when they said it strengthened their faith, by saying, it was compatible with it. What spineless leaf in the wind he is. All the contradictions and lies reminded me of something God said thousands of years ago to Israel:
"these also stagger from wine and reel from beer: Priests and prophets stagger from beer and are befuddled with wine; they reel from beer, they stagger when seeing visions, they stumble when rendering decisions. All the tables are covered with vomit and there is not a spot without filth. Who is it he is trying to teach? To whom is he explaining his message? To children weaned from their milk, to those just taken from the breast? For it is: "Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule; a little here, a little there." Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people, to whom he said, ‘This is the resting place, let the weary rest’; and, ‘This is the place of repose’—but they would not listen. So then, the word of Yahweh to them will become:
Do and do, do and do,
rule on rule, rule on rule;
a little here, a little there—
so that they will go and fall backward,
be injured and snared and captured.
Therefore hear the word of Yahweh, you scoffers who rule this people in Jerusalem. You boast, ‘We have entered into a covenant with death, with the grave we have made an agreement. When an overwhelming scourge sweeps by, it cannot touch us, for we have made a lie our refuge and falsehood our hiding place. So this is what the Sovereign Yahweh says:
‘See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone,
a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation;
the one who trusts in him will never be dismayed.’"
(Warning, foul language)
From an atheist, who thinks he’s objective apparently, making a comment after watching a video of an alien flying somewhere, with audio track supposedly uncensored, revealing it to be a supposed hoax:
TheTimeTraveller: "I used to believe shit like this all the time when I was a kid. Even UFOs, Ghosts, Telepathy and Telekenisis, even fucking magic. When I turned 17 all that shit blew past me as obvious bullshit. Well done finding the original audio, and lets hope Weeaboos and Harry Potter faggots get a nice swift kick in the balls from this."
So then, this atheist when from being gullible and yet believing what was evident, to full biased against anything unusual so that he will only believe it is an illusion or something plain/boring/conventional and especially if an anti-Christian "scientist" says so. And, he’s slandering even mainstream scientists and calling millions liars. For example, there are dozens of scientists, police, military officers (and some who fly jets or helicopters), and civilian pilots who’ve seen things that are not any known human-made aircraft or any known natural phenomenon. The reports that are designated unexplained by the military and scientists go into the thousands at least, maybe over 100,000 if all the military accounts of the world are counted. Further, his mindset which isn’t just skeptical but fully atheist (which is worse then skepticism) won’t accept anything beyond strange, so that learning ceases to happen in new areas (thereby preventing technological and scientific advancement). So if someone for examples sees a new phenomenon or new animal, this atheist claims, "you’re a lying faggot who denies the obvious plain explanation which I feel is whatever I say it is and I hope you get harmed for your lying and disbelief in my simple atheist view."
And as history, recent events and on going events show, this violent mindset atheists have does often lead to them torturing and murdering when they are given the power to do so if their government allows or commands them to (like the atheist governments of China, Vietnam, Burma, Eritrea, and what was once called the Soviet Union).
Today, people think chronic doubt and biased against anything strange or against the belief that anything strange happens, or the chronic inability to believe in anything strange, is "healthy" or "good" attitude to have or mindset, as many Darwinists claim and even some prominent pagan creationists like George Noory.
No surprise to me TheTimeTraveller was banned from youtube. But to my disgust, and ironically, the apparent atheist that approved of his comment is still on youtube, and filters comments as I found out when I tried to reply to TheTimeTraveller, and many hours later, my reply still hasn’t been approved. Atheists truly are mentally sick and evil.
Blind Biased Hypocrite Snake Father Bitter Atheist: "Is the Shroud of Turin really the burial cloth of Jesus Christ? Did he leave it behind when he took out his communicator and said, "Beam me up Dad"? (Are dad’s silly useless and stupid? Hate authority and the traditional useful family structure much? Ew, someone’s a sicko evil worm. And last time I checked moron, the atheist Gene Roddenberry invented the impossible concept of transporting matter from one place to another using the magical "matter stream". YOU MORON.
Blind Biased Hypocrite Snake Father Bitter Atheist: "Did the transporter energy imprint his body image onto the cloth?" No moron, because the atheist concept of transporting matter using the magical energy stream doesn’t exist and isn’t possible, hyper-moron. Why are you such a moron? You dumb dumb hypocrite mocker. Think you moron, think.
Blind Biased Hypocrite Snake Father Bitter Atheist: "Or like hundreds of other religious relics, is it just a medieval fake," (oooo, smell that hate. Grrrr, the atheist moron who makes fun of Christians for dumb dumb moronic concepts like beam me up Scotty with the magical energy stream is mad. He’s mad at fake relics… LET’S GO RAPE SOME CHRISTIAN KIDS IN FRONT OF THEIR PARENTS AND MURDER THEIR PARENTS IN FRONT OF THE KIDS WE RAPED RIGHT AFTER FELLOW ATHEISTS. PLEASE COMMIE ATHEISTS HELP US DEMOCRACY LOVING, WELL KIND DEMOCRACY LOVING, ATHEISTS RAPE SOME CHRISTIANS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS IDIOTS IN FRONT OF THEIR PARENTS AND THEN MURDER THE PARENTS. AND IF THE KIDS WON’T REPENT OF THEIR GRRR, BELIEF IN RELIGIOUS STUFF, LET’S RAPEM MORE N THEN KILL EM! Now that’s some technological, moral and Darwinistic evolutionary progress! You stupid idiot atheist.You violence-lover. When will you evolve stupid?)
Blind Biased Hypocrite Snake Father Bitter Atheist: "designed to fool the gullible and superstitious" Now children, unless you believe in the truth that billions of years ago random explosion for which there is no evidence and the magical popping of life from wet unknown chemical mixtures and billions of years of evolution, we’ll mock you as being stupid, and gullible if you believe in things that you can’t see. (But Father Atheist, none of us saw what you just said is the truth.)
"followers of a long dead carpenter? (ooooo those dumb carpenters, so useless and dumb and silly they are! Damn them working people! UGH, WORK SUCKS! Especially working wood! That’s only for silly dummies kids! Kids? What? I’m full or moronic hate? I’m talking like an immature kid raised by corrupt idiotic parents? You, you, I’ll rape you and kill your parents in front of you! I’ll put you in prison and mock you every day till you take that back and have faith in big explosions from billions of years ago and magic puddles of life-making stuff and and and and Darwinism!)
Blind Biased Hypocrite Snake Father Bitter Atheist: "Didn’t scientific carbon dating prove it was a fake" (no moron, keep up to date assuming impatient idiot, stop being gullible and arbitrarily believing what fits ur stupid ape feelings, look up the carbon dating research again u slow moron mocker, stop being a moron mocker), and why won’t the Pope who has possession of the shroud say it’s the real deal? (Why doesn’t a greedy, child-molestor protecting man following in the line of anti-Christian mass-murderers, and scientist-persecutors and killers declare the shroud to be genuine after scientists showed it to be geniune? E-tard?) He has a hot line to its alleged owner on matters such as evolution, the Big Bang, abortion and condom use, so why so non-committal on the matter of the shroud’s authenticity? (Can you speak English stupid? You’re brain couldn’t handle the hate bursting from your mind, might wanna tone down the attempt at high-mockery, that way you’ll have a better chance and mocking God, an all knowing being ready to throw your moron self into Hell to burn forever without any rest or hope of getting out constantly feeling guilty for having hated a loving God despite the obvious being gently placed before you every second for years into adulthood, which you rejected for childishness stupidity.
Does bitter sarcasm and mockery quality as evidence that you are not an inferior evil moron in comparison to God who mocks you everyday for being an evil mocker? Did atheists created a giant random explosion millions of years ago then have faith in based on stupid assumptions and lies and the desire for fame and money? Do they speak of the Big Bang and Evolution (mashing macroevolution and microevolution together confusing the issue on purpose) as if they really happened despite having ZERO scientific evidence for it, and using childish dodo brained verbal mockery like you have, torture, child rape, molestation, and murder to force their "truth" on the "lying silly violent Christians"? Yes they have democratic atheists, yes they have communist atheists, yet they have pagans, yes they have cultists, yes they have "free will" obsessed Christians. You’re a mere moron, who has nothing but silly rehash and hateful mockery to back your silly faith up.
Blind Biased Hypocrite Snake Father Bitter Atheist: "Billions and billions of years ago their was an explosion, we have it it on tape! Look! And then billions of years later some magic mud turned into a living self replicating thinking sex machine! And then they turned into pigs and spiders and fish and oh so primitive sheep and monkeys and insects that looked like plants oh and did I mention plants that are packed with countless chemicals that can be used as weapons and medicine and and and here’s the proof!: Aborting babies by the millions, raping Christian kids, sarcastic jokes, million dollar experiments that wasted tax payer dollars and time and went no where, stupid computer animations and cartoons, conflicting theories of TRUE evolution, and uh uh uh, the piltdown man and archeoraptor, no wait i mean uh uh the archeopteryx fossil! Yes that single one! It proves that we evolved billions and billions of years over time! Just forget all the billions of years of missing evidence! Forget the Forbidden Archeology book, that’s just God planting stuff in the ground to make Creationism look real! Forget design, that silly ole design is just there to make it look like there’s a design! Forget hat we keep talking about design, forget that hypocritical contradiction we nature worshipers keep saying without realizing what stupid fools we sound like by simultaneously denying there is a design! Forget that we keep, keep like ultra retarded fools keep mixing up species with kinds and act like ancient words have the same exact meanings as modern words! Um, just believe us cuz we feel we’re right! Have faith! "We’re still learning!" Give us time! We need 5 billion more years to explain our endless contradictions away! Please we’re begging you for a few 200 years more of your productivity time to babble endlessly about the big bang and evolution and how Christians are keeping us from finding the evidence! Just give us uh, billions more of your tax payer dollars to show u neat little dino cartoons with some cool sounds! We promise it will free ur sexuality so u can uh uh, learn to use condoms n stuff. Lol, you stupid Christians with that stupid Star Trek show u made lol! U seriously thought u could beam particles of yourself from one place to another like magic? LOL!!!!!! Oh, shit, wait, Gene Roddenberry the anti-Christian atheist invented that retarded concept and millions of atheists play dress-up instead of spending their time like Christians do helping the poor and needy so that the world can continue to advance scientifically. God I’m a retarded idiot mocker, good for nothing but hindering progress and ruining lives. I’m a living piece of poorly designed shit. God is such a bad designer. Damknit man.
Hee hee, ur such a smart funny atheist: you made fun of dads, magical atheist technology, historical artificacts, carpernters, and stereotyped Christians as all being Catholic, hee hee, ur smart. Ur rite, we all-Christians-are-Catholic-hypocites-are-dummies. And ur rite, da pope is a scientific guy, so he shud have sed da shroud was true. Uh, yeah.
My part reply to a Mormon, who seems to be a female:
S.W.D: "Mormons are cool- they’re always nice."
I met mormon missionaries who’ve been unfriendly to me. "Nice" at the beginning?: 6 were rude from the start, including a teen female. I’ve met 20 or more. One mormon said to, "I only care about having fun". He was fine with giving me some of his food whenever I came over, yet could care less about any problems I had in life. He was so addicted to games and toys that it overoad his paranoia over me having broken my probation (years ago) for something that was my p.o.’s fault.
One mormon missionary threatened in front of me in loud anger to rip up anything I gave him (merely) if it wasn’t going to agree with mormonism. Some lied about not being allowed to use the Internet. Is that "nice" to you; to arbitrarily rage and lie?
A mormon girl I met before that became enraged over a few emails she hadn’t even bothered to read, but just didn’t like that I send four in a day. She would later stalk me and then via the Internet, in public for the whole world to see, tried to get friends and strangers to burn my house down. It’s all documented.
One mormon missionary I met called to rebuke me for supposedly being at home and not letting him in and completely ignoring that he was at my door, but he was assuming, and his assumption was false.
One mormon bishop implied that he valued his mormon friends over obeying Scripture.
In total, five to seven of them harassed me, two very maliciously.
And does nice include repeatedly and as a way of life giving false interpretations of Scripture? Does it include the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Does it include Joseph Smith’s blackmailing teens into marrying and having sex with him and blackmailing their parents into letting him by threats of God sending them to Hell? Does it include Mormon child abusers who have been caught molesting, raping or abusing kids? Where is your common sense? You are so stupid, that you believe that millions and millions of Mormons throughout history are all good, that there are no fakes not even corrupt or apostate or backslidden ones? Not only are you denying Scripture in three ways (1.claiming that false Christians – Mormons – are nice on the outside, as if that matters more than the heart – and 2. you’re implying that Mormons who are false Christians as they do not fully accept Christ’s word are true Christians, and you’re rejecting it too by denying false Christians can be members of the true church, and 3. your denying that Christians ever sin! You’re extremely blind! Common experience shows no one is perfect, that’s why Jesus died for sinners in the first place and why God constantly tells us to obey him!)
S.W.D: "They think they’re right,"
Everyone does, so what? And what matters more: thinking you’re right, or being right and saying what is right? Common sense.
S.W.D: "but they won’t tell you you’re going to hell just cuz you believe different".
Wrong: Joseph Smith did. and many don’t even believe in Hell, and again one attempted to murder me via friends and strangers. Furthermore, since when did God say not to tell anyone they are going to Hell if they are unrepentant? Never, but just the opposite: In the Old Testament God repeatedly though rarely over the thousands of years, had prophets repeatedly warn Israel that they would be severely punished in various horrible ways even to their near extinction for not obeying Him. And Jesus and the apostles repeatedly told people they were going to Hell in various severe and detailed was for not believing his word, which was God’s word. And so what if Mormons don’t directly say, "You’re going to Hell unless you agree with me"?; what childish reasoning you have!: IMPLYING that Mormons are good so long as they don’t DIRECTLY say, "You’re going to Hell unless you agree with my personal beliefs and my feelings!" You yourself imply things all the time, does that mean you’re free from any sin so long as you don’t directly say anything? So as long as you don’t tell a direct lie, or say, "I hate you" but only imply it, you’re "nice"? Not according to Mormons when they are condemning you for not believing what they do. Mormons condemn people for indirectly going against their religion all the time, why then do you imply that only if they directly condemn you to Hell are they nice? You, like every Mormon I’ve had a religious encounter with, are being hypocritical. You remind me of anti-Christians who say all kind of evil things to me who as long as they don’t use "foul language" / "dirty words" think God is fine with the evil they say, or who think though they insult me and lie to me that they aren’t hating me as long as they don’t say, "I hate you." People like you are teaching, "You can do any evil to someone you want and still be good as long as you don’t tell them that you hate them." You’re sick, twisted and backwards.
Jesus suffered Hell to keep a limited number out of it and warned people as did the other prophets that the world was on it’s way to Hell unless it repented. I’m happy I’m no Mormon, but instead, a Christian.
So then, the behavior of Mormons and these logical arguments against them evidence shows that Mormons are liars, hypocrites, and panderers.
I’ve never listened to a C2C show that made me want to puke, but tonight is one. George and some guest author and Whitely Streiber all seemingly praised Moses for being our source of the knowledge of morality. Will they ever get anything right? Why are they always off? Some of the basic commandments were already known to the world from nearly the beginning: God clearly taught not to murder but to love your family if not all humans when he condemned Cain for murdering Abel. God clearly was against lying and tempting people to disobey him in his condemnation of Satan. God taught that murderers should be executed when he said that if you shed the blood of someone then yours should be shed, and later he wiped out the world except for a few people for not obeying these laws. God taught not to look at each others nakedness when he condemned Ham. God indicated though didn’t command, that we should give up our belongings to please him by using Abraham’s sacrifices as examples. And God taught that homosexuality and rape were hated by him in his condemnation of Sodom and Gommorah. Further, God says that we know some basic rights and wrongs from birth, which is evidentally true as we’ve all had our conscience burn at least once when we were kids. Ancient law-makers who made legal codes before Moses had laws that taught that murder, theft, adultery and blashpemy (though against a false god rather than God) were wrong and should be punished. Through Moses however, God assembled all the laws into a compact space for easy reading and made them more specific and made them direct commands rather than implied commands. He also included symbolic laws that were extentions of the "ten" sub-commandments which were based on the two main commandments, which Jesus pointed out.
On the same show, earlier, Richard Hoagland made a plain contradiction when he at first said (and he knows better) that scientists just ask questions and want answers, and then a few minutes later said that (there are) scientists who propagandize as he spoke about how scientists aren’t able to explain gravity. Though he said that he contradicted himself again by saying that there are secret governments which scientists that do know how to manipulate gravity. Perhaps he would excuse that contradiction by saying that though these secret scientists know how to manipulate it, they still don’t understand it well (but how would he know that?). He is a good example of how Darwinists are always contradicting themselves in every subject they talk about.
It’s about 12:24 P.M. and some really smug faggy guy (Daniel?) is droning on and on in an annoying voice about his experience with a (demon) that pretended to be Quetzoquotal, or however the Hell it’s spelled, which he was too stupid to figure out was a demon despite him saying the voice (of that person) was aggressive. And he just keeps droning on in a smug know-it-all faggy teen voice that just makes me so angry! I wish he would shut up. He actually did since it’s commericial break now, but he’s on hold for questions from the audience. How is it that so many people keep seeing that these "spirits" and oh so innocent "ghosts" despite being aggressive aren’t demons? Talk about blind and deluded!
If I have to listen to anymore of this show I will puke. I don’t think I’ll ever listen to this extremely stupid boastful show ever again, it’s truly shit, truly utter shit.
While listening to a female "Christian" minister and exorcist on Coast to Coast with George Noory, who is pushing her "positive affirmations" book, among others I heard her say something almost exactly like this, "that’s the key to everything: to gain greater inner strength and authority". No wonder she rejects God’s word when it says that demons are what possess and harass people, not human spirits that are lost and materialist as this false teacher claims. How sad that so many being harassed by demons fall for her imaginary "help", and end up moving farther away from the truth. She also claims that meditation has been known to be the key to higher conciousness – so much for obeying God out love.
How can this ordained minister call herself a Christian when she rejects his teaching about what demons are how to remove them from a person? Ironically, her latest book she says is, "How to Hear the Voice of God." Though not entirely ironic: anyone can hear a thing, but not everyone listens carefully. More important then hearing God’s voice, is reading and understanding his word. Jesus said,
Jesus answered, "It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone,
but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’ "
She also said, "There are many so called teachers… who don’t have the best intentions, who want to gain power over others… so you have to have discernment." and, "The healer shouldn’t get damaged… from helping other people, the healer should get good stuff." So Jesus, the greatest healer of all, shouldn’t have suffered and died for anyone? "Satan get behind me!" Clearly this so called teacher herself has little moral discernment and is ignorant of Christ’s teachings.
While studying my Coast to Coast AM archives, I noticed a long silly, anti-fundamentalist rant made by Graham Hancock, a psuedo-historian, hated by psuedo-historian atheists for contradicting their version history:
“…This point of view which is central to my argument in in uh Supernatural…is that our ancestors created these extraordinary cave paintings, and, uh, manifested this amazing quantum leap forward in their overall behavior eh as beings because they had altered states of consciousness, that they had encountered psychedelic plants, and that they had began to use these systematically their sha-mans, had begun to use them systematically, uh to, enter, alternative states of consciousness, and that in those states of consciousness they experienced visions and encounters with entities and beings, which they then, when they returned to a normal state of consciousness, uh depicted, the earliest documents of human history they depicted on the wall of the painted caves, and thus they document their, encounters with their beings. Now this is where, thus far and no further do I go with the mainstream academics [atheist, agnostic and liberal "Christian" academics], because they then stop and say, “Oh well, of course the art was majestic and of course there was a fantastic leap forward in human behavior but they were just hallucinations, and there’s no real fundamental meaning to this. And where I ended up taking this, because the evidence drove me there, is that these experiences that we call, hallucinations in our culture, and that the sha-mans of hunter-gatherer societies still surviving all around the world visions, that these uh, that these visions are not unreal, that they are uh a retuning uh um of the receiver wavelengths of the human brain, to allow us to see other realities, that surround us and interpentrate us at all times, but which in a normal alert problem-solving state of consciousness, uh we cannot normally access and uh in a way I this is a criticism I have of of mainstream, science, uh, in general is that it’s very state state specific everything that our science does is predicated on the notion, that one particular state of humnan consciencess the alert problem-solving state of conciousness that we find useful to function in business and the military and commerce in the modern, world that this is really the only state of conciousness and that there are no other, valid states of consciousness [George then says, "Right"], and that are science [atheist, agnostic and liberal Christian science], refuses to investigate other states of consciousness in fact perversely, or perhaps not perversely” George than says as Graham is saying “perversely”, “It it’s vey narrow isn’t it?” Graham replies, “It’s extremely narrow and actually not only do they not investigate, the vhast range of human consciousness, not only do they not investigate it but they’ve actually in in collaberation with government made it pretty much illegal, to investigate it, “You may the, there you may not go,” they say, and may actually send you to prison if you do investigate it. So it becomes very difficult to investigate this so we have this incredible creature ourselves, with a vhast range of consciousness, uh we rea truly truly immense, and we have decided that we are really interested in a tiny narrow sliver, of that vhast range of potential, and that we will only focus on that and that all our experimental methods, uh and all our so called scientific approach will be based on the notion that that is the only, valid, form of human consciousness and as a result we rule out almost the entire range of human potential in our investigation so no wonder in my opinion modern science while achieving great things in the material band, uh is so screwed up, and leads us to so many probloems.” George then asks him why we need mood-altering substances and why we can’t do without it. Graham replies:
Some of ussome of us, don’t need the mood-altering substances or the consciousness-altering substances, but many of us, do. Um there’s a Puritan streak in our society which regards um, you know taking anything, uh any any substance any any any plant to change our consciousness as as fundamentally wrong but I think we have to, we have to accept that that streak is rooted in a particular history, of a story of history that we have had and that it may not be, may not be valid… and therefore, we should hestitate before we automatically robotically like automata uh accept the Puritan notions that have been stuffed down our throats from the 17th century, we should hesitate before we fully accept those and consider the possibilities that since all our experiences our mediated by neurochemicals it may be interested to explore the range of experiences by altering the neurochemical of the brain specifically and deliberately as sha-mans have done for tens of thousands of years, using plants that have co-evolved with us on this planet I think we need to rid ourselves of that knee jerk Purtanical reaction which is frankly not thought through and is not based on any, on any logic and here’s the thing, we are phsyical beings for sure, my vone personal belief is that we are spiritiual beings in essence…” and on and on this redundant, nonsensical, narcissistic, Christian, pagan and atheist-history ignorant, fundamentalist, truth and sicence-hating wanderer rambled, he just did not shut up.
That is someone who truly needs a beating to get him to stop to think rationally for a few seconds or to refrain from sinning. He seems to think that maintsteam science is controlled by fundamentalist Christians with his anti-Puritan babble, which was actually anti-Bible babble. No Graham, it’s mainly controlled by ignorant God-haters like you, and you got to see what happens when you don’t pander to your atheist and liberal Christian brothers. And: How the hell do some paintings of horses and hunting scenes and some dinosaurs mean that we should investigate what demons have to say via messing up the chemical balance in our brain? And what is your evidence that cave-paintings are the earliest “documents” made by humans? And haven’t you already watched “ghost” videos and seen quija board sessions to know that demons are useless, destructive, malicious, time-wasting, idiots? How do you not know basic history by now?: Christians and pagans side-by-side with much resistance from pagans developed and advanced their technology till God destroyed the pagans and then with the advanced knowledge they had the Christians started the world over again which quickly became evil again. The advanced knowledge that Noah and his family had thinned out as it spread, making possible things like the pyramids. As for “sha-mans” you call them – it wasn’t just hunter-gatherer societies that had them, pagans did too, and for thousands of years they were used by leaders. How far did these oracles, wizards and witches help advance the world? They didn’t, instead they in large part caused it to stagnate, as they taught the hindering teachings of demons or nonsense of their own invention.
The “narrow-minded” one is you for rejecting the obvious. And being “narrow-minded” isn’t even a bad thing so long as you are rejecting lies. To be narrow-minded to lies is a good thing, to be open-minded to lies is a bad thing. That is logic, not the nonsense you’re teaching.
Graham is on Coast to Coast AM again. He’s being interviewed by Whitely Streiber. It’s good that Graham acknowledges that Christianity is a monotheistic religion (or rather that the Bible teaches that). However, does he believe in the Trinity, or does he also acknowledge that the Bible teaches a triune God? Or is he without saying it, implying that there is no trinity?
A caller on Coast to Coast AM just a few minutes ago said that he wanted everyone to stop crying and to just be happy and to "just accept things the way they are". George Noory, the host, replied, "that would be great if everyone could do that wouldn’t it?" Truly George and those who approve of his way are morally careless.