It occurred to me at about 9:25 P.M., while thinking about a refutation against Hinduism I’ve been writing and then thinking why it was so easy to refute various religions, and then thought that it was because there were so few variables, and remembered how one of the few and main variables is, “There is no absolute truth” which is self refuting. I then realized that religions which teach the opposite, like the Hindu religion, are self-refuting because that is indirectly saying, “Religions which say that Hinduism is false are also correct religions.” Obviously if you’re saying, “It’s true that I am wrong about how to achieve perfect lasting peace,” then you are admitting to being in error about how to achieve lasting perfect peace. Catholicism, a pagan Christianity, is also self-refuting as it accepts healthy adult persons and religions which are ignorant of the Bible or gospel, that would include religions against Catholicism, religious people who would kill Catholics and any other opposing religion without listening to reason (like “Fundamentalist” Muslims would do). Even traditionalist Catholic religions like Mel Gibson’s accept as good and would allow eternal life for those who ignorant of the gospel and yet tend to increasing destructiveness. Arminian Christian religions like Interfaith, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian in USA, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Free Will so and so, liberal churches and certain so called non-denominational Arminian ones (which is incorrectly taught as meaning “is not like other churches because they it doesn’t have the same name”, wrong because obviously you can have a different name but the same or basically the same main beliefs as other churches) are also accepting of adult ignorants.
So, formulas for judging what the so called “true religion” if any, would be:
1) If (religion) A says “There is no absolute truth” (in other words everything is false) then A is also false.
2) If (religion) A says (religion) B is a true religion and (religion) B says (religion) A is a false religion then (religion) A is a false religion because it says (religion) B is correct about (religion) A being a false (religion).
3) If (person or religion) B says “no person is true (or: “is not truthful”; “is not correct”; “is not real”) then (person or religion) B is not true (or: “is not truthful”; “is not correct”; “is not real”).
4) If C says C is false and true than C is false.
5) If D says D is true and only itself and A, B, and C false than D is true.
C could be replaced with “Islam” because in the Quran it teaches that all Muslims will go to Heaven, but it also says that all Muslims will go to Hell, and even if you don’t believe that, then it still fails, because all Muslims know that the Quran teaches that the Bible is God’s word, and the Bible excludes all religions except one. Any Christian religion that contradicts the method of salvation in the Bible some way while claiming that the Bible is entirely true can also be placed in C, because it’s refuting itself, and that would include every Arminian-compatible Christian sect (who teach forgiveness and God’s love can be earned or kept with good deeds, which the Bible either implies or directly says is impossible in some way, both in the Old and New Testament).
There is only one religion that I know of that excludes all other self-refuting and universalist-type religions (like Catholic, Arminian, Universalist, Interfaith, Hindu and Buddhist ones) that is not self-refuting and only accepts itself as the true religion, and that is the one which is known as Calvinism (though those who are Calvinists don’t always call themselves Calvinists, but may call themselves Reformed Christian, Baptist, Presbyterian, or Christian or non-denominational. That doesn’t mean that anyone calling themselves by those names is what they calling themselves however. Calvinism teaches that there is only one specific way to know the truth, be truthful and have eternal perfect peace and says what it is specifically (unlike all other religions), which you can learn here: http://eternian.wordpress.com/life
…when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth… – Arthur Conan Doyle
post link: http://truthproof.tk
Lemmiwink2′s comments, in the order they came, minus one minor sentence, are in bold, with my replies:
“Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies are under the misunderstanding that the universe had a beginning,”
And they are mistaken because you said so.
“Even as they are saying this, they acknowledge that there could be no reaction which could take place in a complete void,”
If they think it was simply a void then they are wrong. According to Genesis, which is accurate as can be shown indirectly by various evidences, including archaeology, prophecy and science, there was some formless mass from which God created the universe, or rather a formless universe from which he made an ordered one.
“and so there must have been something likions predicted an expanding universe until somebody told him.”
What is “likions”? And why did you refer to a him when you referred to two people before: Hawking and Davies? Something wrong with your thought process?
“Also, science until recently has been tied up with religion,”
No: the scientific method is programmed into humans. Everyone trying something new or trying to confirm what they are instinctively programmed to know how to do (like move their mouth and tongue to speak) has an emotional or mental thought to do something, and who wants to accomplish that thing, and finds the time and resources to, will try. And if they don’t succeed, they will try again unless past attempts from other things let them know it won’t work. But if they succeed, then they confirm that their desire or idea was possible. Everyone does that. Also, it’s vague to say, “tied up with”. What exactly does that mean? Do you mean hindered by religion? Did you know that Einstein said, “science without religion is lame”? And just how is it “tied up” with religion? Are you saying that when a Christian performs an experiment, he’s praising and worshiping God? And what is your point? That you personally don’t like God being praised while experiments are done, and…? So what?! Are you a stupid brat? So what if you hate God? Lame.
In the book of Judges, Gideon carries out the modern version of the scientific method: more than one try to confirm a hypothesis. Also, as you know, Christians have been using science to try and conform their beliefs since the concept became clear to them, and that was occurring since before Darwin was born, a man whom anti-Christians and ignoramuses act like is the father of science, forgetting about Christians like the great genius mathematician Euler.
“and religious beliefs played a part in scientists trying to prove what they already believed.”
And that isn’t recent.
“Early in Einstein’s career he believed in an eternal universe, with two equations: energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, and mass equals energy de a singularity of infinite density that the universe came out of, which would actually be the universe in a different form. They ask us to believe that this singularity existed for all eternity, unchanging, because there was no time, and then all of a sudden decided to explode. This is a ridiculous idea, because any reaction which possibly could take place would have already happened over eternity.”
More evidence that Genesis is true: that a thing or things without a will of their own, disordered, could not order itself/themselves without someone to order it.
“They are following the teachings of some respected scientist like Einstein who was in fact wrong in that particular case.”
Seems to be true from my study of Michio Kaku which I reported on in my journal here.
“Einstein was known to be wrong many times in his mathematical calculations, and didn’t see that his equativided by the speed of light squared seeming to back this up.”
That is a grammatically nonsensical sentence it seems to me: what is an “equativided”?
“The universe is eternal,”
And whatever you say is true because you said so? That’s not true for God, to simply speak and be right “juz cuz”, so then how can you be greater than God?
“and any theory which says that it can’t be needs to be reexamined.”
Just not yours, juz cuz. Contradictory arrogance.
“Anything which can possibly happen has happened before”
“and will continue to happen for all eternity.”
In the renewed universe, God teaches that sin will no longer exist, it will only exist in Hell, and people building homes with their own hands (or whatever) will cease. They will no longer feel pain. And God is always right.
“Big bang, big crunch.”
That’s not a sentence and makes no point.
“Please read my articles on the subject by googling rowan casey, and looking for my associated content profile.”
After reading your broken logic: no. And associated content is anti-Christian, or at least anti-[[Calvinist]], so double no.
“This is the second most popular theory, I don’t need to site my sources.”
Of course: because you’re God and whatever the false God says is true is true, juz cuz he said it’s the second most popular theory.
I just looked up “definition of god” on Google.com, and this is what it gave me:
Jul 1, 2010 … My definition of a god is: A being of unchallengeable power … G(capital g)od: The main power and creator of the religion of all forms of …
au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid… – Australia – Cached
Facebook is a social utility that connects people with friends and others who work, study and live around them. People use Facebook to keep up with friends, …
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=102028364820&topic…; – Cached
4 posts – 4 authors
My definition of a God is anything that is massively intelligent/powerful and unable to die. He/she/it exists outside of the multiverse as a blob of energy …
http://www.kh-vids.net/showthread.php?p=3215816 – Cached
Jul 8, 2008 … one who stands surety for another in the rite of Christian baptism. In the modern baptism of an infant or child the godparent or godparents make …
answers.yahoo.com › Pregnancy & Parenting › Parenting – Cached – SimilarWhat is your personal definition of God? – Apr 29, 2010
Is buddha the god of the buddhists? or just a prophet sort of like … – Jan 27, 2010
What is the definition of a God going by the difference between an … – Dec 3, 2009
What does being a god parent to a kid mean in the christian … – Dec 3, 2007
More results from answers.yahoo.com »
Why does Google keep giving answers from Yahoo Answers, a website everyone knows, even narcissists, is controlled by trolls and polluted with extreme stupidity, a place where idiotic anti-Christian, atheist- and Catholic-pandering moderators are constantly deleting the accounts of people they personally disagree with, rather than allowing “freedom of speech”, who despite their pandering keep angering the very people they pander to? And what is lgnosticism and who cares? Is that even a word? Why isn’t dictionary.com or freedictionary.com at the top? Google has become like Microsoft, Walmart and Amazon and banks that are too big to fail, watered down and inefficient; it’s become polluted with trash.
http://yippy.com and http://cuil.com are alternatives I recommend that gave me much better results than Goggle’s garbage, though I don’t like that both use Wikipedia in their search results, rather than the pages Wikipedia links to as its sources (and often pages on Wikipedia, don’t have sources, which is hypocritical of the Wikipedian moderators and administrators to allow):
The result page from cuil:
Wikipedia: God Names of God Conceptions of God Existence of God Definition of God, Kabbalistic Category:Conceptions of God Mainstream Orthodox Judaism teaches that God is neither matter nor spirit. They teach that God is the creator of both, but is Himself neither. This often raises the question: if God
Definition of god from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary with audio pronunciations, thesaurus, Word of the Day, and word games. God – Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Learn more about “god” and related topics at Britannica.com.
Metaphysics might include the study of the nature of the human mind, the definition and meaning of existence, or the nature of space, time, and/or causality. The origin of philosophy, beginning with the Pre-Socratics, was metaphysical in nature. He termed this ordering power in the universe “God.”
Man meets God in direct personal encounter. This revelation is a manifestation of God’s love, which turns towards the individual and commands him to love God in return. According to Rosenzweig this love relation between man and God redeems the ego from its isolation and its crippling form of death.
Definition of god from Webster’s New World College Dictionary. Meaning of god. Pronunciation of god. Definition of the word god. Origin of the word god
Literally, the word means “one who submits (to God)”. Muslim is the participle of the same verb of which Islam is the infinitive.  All Muslims observe Sunnah, but differences in the definition of what is and what is not Sunnah has led to the emergence of sectarian movements.
Suppose we agree that we shall hold that, by definition, God is morally perfect. Suppose further that we agree that we all mean by this that God possesses a set of properties which fall inside the limits imposed by idiosyncracy on what can count as “moral perfection”.
In the Gospel of John, the author writes that “to all who believed him and accepted him [Jesus], he gave the right to become children of God” [John 1:12]. The phrase “children of God” is used ten times in the New Testament.
God: Definition and Pronunciation God: meaning and definitions — Infoplease.com. (l.c.) to regard or treat as a god; deify; idolize. (used to express disappointment, disbelief, weariness, frustration, annoyance, or the like): God, do we have to listen to this nonsense?
If someone is a weak agnostic, they state only that they do not know if any gods exist or not. The possibility of some theoretical god or some specific god existing is not excluded. The possibility of someone else knowing for sure if some god exists or not is also not excluded.
God | Define God at Dictionary.com
God definition at Dictionary.com, a free online dictionary with pronunciation, synonyms and translation. “I want my lawyer, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God, because it means that I shall be cheated and robbed and cuckolded less often…. If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”
The result page from yippy:
The individual, as in him customary rules acquire ethical character by the recognition of distinct principles and ideals, all tending to a final unity or goal, which for the mere evolutionist is left very indeterminate, but for the Christian has adequate definition in a perfect possession of God by knowledge and love, without the contingency of further lapses from duty.
Definitions of religions and beliefs, ancient civilizations, Goddesses and Gods, spiritual and ritual items, and a variety of other related topics.
Extensive article about God , includes definition , history, monotheism, and conceptions. Also has names for God in different religiouns, such as Allah and Yaweh.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God – [cache] – Yahoo!, Ask
Definition of god from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary with audio pronunciations, thesaurus, Word of the Day, and word games.
I. Unchangeable Qualities of God: Creator, not creature … II. Qualities unique of God: … III. Qualities that God shares with righteous angels and men after resurrection:http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-definition-god.htm – [cache] – Ask, Yahoo!
Definition of god in the Online Dictionary. Meaning of god. Pronunciation of god. Translations of god. god synonyms, god antonyms. … [Old English god; related to Old Norse goth, Old High German
god n. God A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship
Thank you for donating your time and definition of god , and mostly, thank you for supporting God -defined.com. We can’t assure the accuracy of any of these god definitions contained herein but we certainly can ensure passion intertwined with …
God – Definition . This article focuses on the concept of singular, … God is a term referring to the concept of a supreme being, generally believed to be ruler …
Establish The Biblical Definition Of God … And finally, we know from the Bible that God is Mind, Soul, Spirit, Life, Truth, and Love. These are indisputable facts from which accurate conclusions
It’s very nonsensical that on Yippy, the Conscience page on the Catholic encyclopedia Newadvent.com shows up as the first result let alone any result rather than their page on God. And why is the infidel.com page in Cuil? Man-made algorithms truly are dumber than the ones God programmed into man, too bad we often ignore that and choose other schemes.
Anyways, this is my definition of a god, as is universally understood: A being able to travel without hindrance from matter or energy, existing as a spirit (a substance able to travel through matter and energy that is neither matter nor energy), who is able to move a huge amount of matter or energy by the use of a force that comes from its mind or by its spiritual body, especially a being with above average human wisdom, especially one that is wiser than a human, and which cannot be permanently imprisoned by another being which can only be killed by another being with almost equal or equal abilities.
And as a side note, God would be superior to any such god (if he existed) being that by definition he is immortal, can’t be damaged (except for while he existed in flesh as Jesus and he can be angered), permanently controls everything directly or indirectly, and perfectly understands everything there is to know, and can’t tell a lie directly, but if at all, allows deception by hiding information or by allowing it to be shown and allowing people to misunderstand, and so be deceived.
I finally updated the article on Tesla and Edison and changed the title seeing that I was wrong to say Edison was an atheist was wrong (I shouldn’t have assumed). I also found out some information very damaging to atheism about Edison and about Blavatsky which is damaging to the more modern neo-pagan movement.
The global warming hysteria continues: Tonight and into the morning Art Bell of Coast to Coast AM has on a ranting grand liberal poobah moron named Peter Douglas Ward (2) (3). Peter Ward is a narcissistic fruity mainstream scientist and a bigot. Besides laughing hysterically at things that aren’t funny, he indirectly implies that scientists are only people who practice science (which most likely is the stereotypical lie of what scientists are: people who experiment with “natural sciences”) and that no creationists are scientists and that scientists who don’t believe in global warming are not scientists. What he is implying is like someone implying that blacks are inferior to whites, or that blacks can’t be scientists, it’s similar because both are discrimination not based on evidence, and therefore hateful. Peter was also pushing the over population myth, claiming that the world’s population must go in reverse in order to raise everyone’s standard of living, which is circular reasoning. His reasoning goes like this:
“The population must be reduced to raise the standard of living, the standard of living must raise by lowering the population.” There is no evidence in the statement. Further, he said, “Everyone has the right to have a high standard of living.” Says who? Who made you God Peter? What is the evidence for this claims? Peter, obey the Bible which says to ask the rich to be generous to the poor, and which teaches the rich to use their money to help the needy, not kill “the burden of these extra mouths” as you said.
Peter also made the crazy statement on this show that increasing carbon dioxide would reduce plant growth, specifically, crops. Uh Peter the “scientists”, the “professor”: plants become healthier and grow better with carbon dioxide. No one has ever shown a crop dying from too much carbon dioxide. No marijuana plant has ever died from too march carbon dioxide. You’re deluded, your common sense buried under a flood of delusions just as God once flooded the world and buried it’s wisdom, so yours is deep under lies, covered in oil.
Art Bell is pandering to this moron as I write this, and earlier on this same show pretentiously claimed that he could understand why certain people were denying Global Warming, which was that it was for political reasons or they were tied into an oil company, but not for the average person, but just a few minutes earlier said that it was because people didn’t want to change their life style and so were in denial, which was evidence that he was pandering and making up stuff like a little kid as he went along. Art Bell, also on this show, said, “People just don’t like change”, an obviously false comment, which he seems to have noticed as he then tried to qualify it by saying, “they don’t like negative change.” Art then made the rhetorical question (and Peter chimed in after) “in there’s an infinite supply of oil” then “why are we drilling” “in dangerous places” to get oil and straining to get it. Here stupid: BECAUSE THE POPULATION OF THE PLANET KEEPS GROWING. You can’t support a planet full of people on one oil well you idiot. And who said it was infinite you liar? Though the Bible does imply that it will last a long time since it prophecied that the children of Ishmael (the Arabs) would make their profit from the blood of the earth (and live by war). Peter also agreed with Art’s reasoning parroting the same type of rhetorical question and also asked why people were using coal when it was easier to turn oil into electricity. Easy: To create more jobs, and because the U.S. government doesn’t always make it easy to drill for oil, and bans various people from drilling or pays them not to. There are national parks with oil but you can’t drill for it and there are environmentalists constantly trying to make it illegal for people to drill for oil in certain places, that includes on dry land, like in Alaska. Further, it’s not as simple as you try to make it seem: not everyone has easy access to oil, like South Africa, so they convert their coal to oil. Further, the cost simply isn’t in the conversion of coal or oil to electricity, there is also the cost of drilling and digging, and depending on the location of the coal and oil, it can be more or less expensive. Further, countries are constantly in a struggle with being energy independent or taking money from various energy companies to take their energy instead (for example the U.S.A. relies heavily on oil from the Middle East because of “price wars” and that includes using bribes).
Oil supplies are also used like weapon (besides being used to run weaponized machinery), for example you can flood a market with it at low prices to lower its price and by doing so lower the income those profiting from it. So if a country that was relying on oil from another country decided to hurt that country, or the oil company they were relying on, they would go exploring for oil, and after finding it, use it for themselves and sell it themselves. And you use coal for war too. Which reminds me: Germany also relied heavily on coal during WWII, converting it to oil and Japan went to war with America over President F.D.R. withholding it from them.
Here’s some advice for you Art: stop ranting, stop being mentally lazy by resorting to stupid cliches, CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH.
Also misleading about Peter’s comment on oil being easier to convert to electricity to coal was that he didn’t mention that oil isn’t simply used for energy (and neither is coal when it is converted to oil only used for energy). It’s used for many other things other than energy, including vaseline.
I can see and hear why Peter is being used as a front for evolution and Big Bang propaganda: he has an appearance of wisdom (physically and from his educational record), but sounds like a liberal 2o-year-old. If only he would accept the fact that his head puppeteers, the rich globalists with the help of their fanatical nature worshipers (hippies), manipulate his anti-petrol propaganda in an attempt to get rid of the middle class, destroy Christianity, and keep third world countries poor and easy to take advantage of.
There is another Peter Ward, a “Peter L. Ward” of Teton Tectonics who claims that the main cause of global warming is sulfur dioxide from volcanic eruptions, and uses the mythical evidence from the mythical time from before 6,500 years ago as evidence.
I have a message specifically for you Peter:
You said on Coast to Coast AM this morning, when asked by a caller how oil got down thousands of miles deep below the earth into the ocean if it was from plants, simply repeated, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, that it was from plants that were under great pressure. Peter how does that answer how the plants got down there? You didn’t answer the question, you bullshitted because you had no answer. You basically said, “It just is.” So who has the “God of the Gaps”, who is teaching anti-science Mr. It Just Is. Plants get eaten by bacteria and weathered away and burned away for fuel, they don’t magically pile up and rot into oil anymore than the plants of today do.
The Bible is true as is clear from the evidence: http://20questions.tk (scroll down to the links). You would be aware of this if you weren’t always dwelling on yourself and how you feel about things. As you are supposed to remember: truth is not determined by how you personally feel about it. You can talk all day long about the Earth being underwater, but God already flooded it, as you can see, as anyone can see from the jumble of sea fossils scattered all over the world’s dry land masses, including on the tops of mountains. There is no nice neat organized strata showing an imaginary steady gradual evolution from little “primitive” crystal fairy beings to “big advanced complex” beings. That’s all in your head, which you’ve chosen to fill with fanciful delusions. You are the absurd one to pretend TO SAY THAT YOU SPEAK FOR ALL SCIENTISTS IN YOUR FIELD LET ALONE ALL SCIENTISTS, that is a narcissist talking, not someone who is mentally sound. Who the Hell are you Mr. Liberal Friends Gave Me Fancy Sounding Degrees, to say a creationist isn’t a scientist or that a Christian is not one? Or that “bigger is righter”? What a fool, ignoring the obvious so that you can have fun getting everyone to listen to your drama queenery. “Oh look everyone the world is flooding, oh don’t believe that God Bible man in the sky which said the world could be flooded, that’s fairy toilet paper, but listen to us modern day evolutionist atheists and anti-Christian theists who were the only scientists and came up with all the inventions in the world and are non stop charities (yeah right): the world’s gonna be flooded again!” Is that what God reveals in any prophecies in Revelation? No. But what does it say after the flood occurred: THAT GOD WOULD NOT FLOOD THE WORLD AGAIN AND THAT THE RAINBOW WOULD BE A CONSTANT SIGN OF THIS. MAN IS NOT IN CONTROL OF THE WORLD: GOD IS. And wow, so you know what happened billions of years ago, 15 billion huh? But we Christians are the absurd ones for believing what happened 6,500? Insane much? Backwards much? You’re backwards. The primitive one is you and those who think backwards like you, who accuse others of the very hypocrisy you resort to just to look right, despite being an obvious liar. Listen to God false prophet, not your feelings. He made it convenient for you to learn what he taught, but you come up with every and any arbitrary excuse not to study. “Waaaah, I have to learn more after getting a thorough brainwashing from my evolutionist friends?! No thanks Daniel Knight I’ll stick with my way! No one can change my beliefs!” Yes, I know you’re a religious fanatic, what about it? How can someone with so many degrees be ignoring so much evidence against his insane ranting? You’re corrupt. You should have learned logic and studied morality and religion: life is not livable no matter how many numbers you fill your head with and no matter how many physics facts you learn, if you forget logic and moral laws. The scientific method is not a substitute for do not lie at all It’s not a commandment warning people about the danger of Hell. And if it helps, read Judges, and see if you can spot where it reveals the scientific method. And if it makes you feel any better, God made everyone a scientists. You’re not the only one who 1) Imagines 2) Tries 3) Tries again 4) Gives up or succeeds. That’s programmed into us all genius. Did you know that? Maybe if you weren’t so busy playing follow-my-liberal-feelings-preacher you would have noticed that Mr. I’m a Scientist Haha You’re Not. And Peter, you said you would take on arguments against global warming, why then did you reply with “that’s just a load of crap”, “that’s screed” when you were told that the eugenics movement was apart of the depopulation movement you’re supporting? You’re a liar. And what a hypocrite and weasel: You said on Art’s show this morning that the booing you got from creationists when you spoke scared your eight-year-old, awww poor you and poor eight-year-old, what about the millions of Christian kids murdered by the pagans of Rome, then millions more by the Catholics of Rome, then many millions more and more than just Christians killed by atheists in the name of “progress” and using “evolution” as justification? What about the endless bullying of Christians in atheist dominated countries like China, Russia and it’s former states and Vietnam, the endless tortures and imprisonments and enslaving of Christians in those countries? What about the babies you encourage mothers to murder in their womb, cut up without anesthetics? But yeah: poor you, you got booed when you spoke to endorse TORTURE, BULLYING, AND MURDER OF KIDS, OF BABIES EVEN, and your kid was scared. If you had taught your kid to fear God, and not you, then he wouldn’t have feared his idol dad being boed. What a self-centered, insulting, arrogant, hateful, ignorant wimp. You’re a babbling, gullible sophist, not a professor, and not a “Doctor” as Art and others pretentiously call you.
Learn more about broken logic here: http://circularreasoning.tk if you’d like and why it is false that the universe and Earth are older than 6,500 years, why the radiometric dating you rely on is false evidence.
I asked Peter to fulfill his claim on taking on anti-global warming arguments. Here was my letter to him:
[On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, Daniel Knight wrote:]
You said you would take on the anti-global warming arguments, can you
take on the one here?: http://artbell.tk
What answer could you possibly give other than, “Oh.” ?
As for email being the most hateful form of communication? Is that some
science based claim or your opinion?
God bless you.
And here was his hypocritical, bigoted biased reply:
There is no god. Wake up.
Professor Peter D Ward
Dept of Biology
The University of Washington
206-543-2962 ( Office )
In other words, this hypocrite atheist sent me the very hate mail he complained about, all because I asked God to bless him. In other words, he booed me for blessing him, but was perfectly happy to accept Art Bell’s, who has emphatically stated that he doesn’t believe in the Big Bang Theory. Someone that gets as easily upset as Ward, isn’t going to have the mental stamina to know much truth, especially if they spend their time obsessing on controlling what others think and say.
“This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes.” – Ecclesiastes 7:29
Post link: http:/neander.tk
By Daniel Knight, Science Editor
Below is an article by a guy named Mark, awesomely dubbed “Science Editor” making him a reliable source of truth on the topic of science. It’s an article by a Christian-hating evolutionists (as evolutionists usually are) helping other evolutionists to put a spin on evidence for the Bible, so that it appears to be evidence against the Bible. In other words, a lie. It spins the finding that Neanderthal DNA is apart of human DNA (BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY NEANDERTHALS ARE HUMANS) is a result of interbreeding with Neanderthals, conveniently not mentioning that the odds of two creatures evolving to be genetically compatible IS NOT POSSIBLE, and would take a string of coincidences that occurred for billions of years. That’s like telling someone something like, “I won 1 billion dollars once a minute by playing a lottery with 100 trillion other players for 15 billions years in a row.” No, I don’t think so. What is OBVIOUS is that if Neanderthals and humans are genetically compatible, and had offspring, is that THEY WERE HUMAN. Cats can’t have babies with dogs and dogs can’t have babies with cats, and whales can’t have kids with eels and eels can’t have kids with whales. But magically, thanks to the Fly Magical Big-Bang Evolution Spaghetti God of the Gaps, you can cross Neanderthals and Humans, yeah right:
Neanderthal gene found in human DNA of people living out of Africa
by Mark Henderson, [EVOLUTIONIST] Science Editor (sounds impressive doesn’t it?)
They have been extinct for 30,000 years [JUST TRUST US EVOLUTIONIST WHEN WE MAKE MERE CLAIMS], but a small part of the Neanderthals lives on in the DNA of every person with ancestors outside Africa.
The genetic code of Neanderthal Man has revealed that Homo sapiens mated with our closest evolutionary relatives soon after migrating out of Africa, leaving traces that can still be detected in human DNA.
A comparison of the genomes of the two human species has shown that between 1 and 4 per cent of the DNA of modern non-Africans has a Neanderthal origin, while no Neanderthal genes can be detected in Africans today. This indicates that the first modern humans to leave the continent must have interbred with Neanderthals they encountered, probably in the Middle East. Their descendants went on to populate the other continents.
“Those of us who live outside Africa carry a little Neanderthal DNA,” said Svante Pääbo, of the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Germany, who led the research. “What we find is that Neanderthals are slightly more similar in their genome to people outside Africa, no matter whether they live in Europe, Asia or Papua New Guinea. This shows that there has been gene flow between Neanderthals and populations ancestral to humans,” he added.
The findings, published in the [EVOLUTIONIST] journal Science, settle a long-running controversy over whether Neanderthals bred with modern humans or made any lasting contribution to the human gene pool.
This article is also contradictory, it says that DNA can still be “detected in human DNA” but a few words after says “human species”. Why do evolutionists refer to humans singularly and then in the next breath say they are a species (meaning more than one kind?). Yes, there are types of humans: Caucasian, Negretic and Semetic, and subtypes under them, but SPECIES? Huh? What’s that even mean? A species isn’t a race or subtype of race, so what do evolutionists mean with that magically conveniently vague word? As idiotic and heretical anti-Trinitarians love to say: How can one be three? In this case, one can’t be three because a human is a human like a cat is a cat and cats can’t have offspring from dogs. There are no two species of dogs anymore than there are two species of humans. It’s evolutionist misdirection confusion babble.
Also, as usual, where is the evidence that we evolved from little thingies, whatever these magic thingies were? When will evolutionists stop being gullible, deceiving themselves and deliberately lying to others? Money, temporary pleasure and (evil) friends don’t matter more than eternal peace and eternally good friends. When will the world heed that?
George Noory had on a little while ago two guests, Rosemary Ellen Guiley and Phillip Imbrogno, who are pretending to be expernts on the jinn mentioned in the Qur’an, claiming that they weren’t demons, but nicer, and made the absurd claim that demons invade your space and eventually possess you, but that (d)jinn don’t, although some can be psychotic (and don’t invade your space???). They also claimed jinn can partner with demons (wow big difference between them then there, not). They treated the Quran as if it were an honest book, when all the evidence shows that it is lies, and distortions of the truth. What these two idiot false expert guests didn’t mention was that Mohammed/Muhammed learned what he knew about spirituality from a Catholic monk, hence why the Quran contains distorted teaches that obviously came from the Bible, obvious to anyone who has carefully studied the Bible, especially the Bible and Quran. For example, Mohammed made the claim that Mary was part of the Trinity, which a non-Catholic would easily mistake seeing that Catholics worship Mary over Christ and the Holy Spirit, and being that they don’t make an idol of the Holy Spirit, it’s understandable why Mohammed would mistake Mary as a third person. More information about how the Catholic Church helped create the Muslim religion is here: How the Catholic Church Created Islam. Guiley and Imbrogno made many absurd claims, without evidence, but I won’t be mentioning them, at least for now, because they were clearly stupid to anyone whose studied Christianity and Islam carefully and who knows what evidence is and why it matters.
For those of you who don’t know, Mel Gibson started his own Catholic cult, or rather made room for the existing one, claiming it to be the true Catholic Church, and that the Roman Catholic one was apostate (1) (2). Now many people think that it doesn’t matter what your religion is, and that all people who claim to be a Christian are just as much a Christian as the next person (Christian means “Christ-follower/(obeyer)). But as many can find out for themselves, not all Christians are equal, they don’t all have the same amount of desire to obey God and so don’t all obey him equally. Various denominations show much more obedience to the Bible than others (the most obvious difference being between liberal, conservative, and fundamentalist churches, or rather between Arminian and Calvinistic ones). Mel is an example of a false Christian, and that his version of Christianity was false, and I point this out to help remind the world that not all Christians are the same and that includes Christian groups, just as the Bible says:
“For first of all, when you come together in the church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and I partly believe it. For there must also be heresies among you, that the Accepted may be revealed among you.” – 1 Corinthians 11:18-19
“Some men’s sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment. And some they also follow after. Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand, and those who are otherwise cannot be hidden. – 1 Timothy 5:24-25
“all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution, but evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.” – 2 Timothy 3:12-13
Mainstream scientists (macro-evolution-believing scientists) are blind and dumb in many ways and in many ways promote an anti-science, for example, many of them discourage people from making anti-gravity starships cheaply. Michio Kaku is such a scientist as is one he discussed on a a Coast to Coast AM show a few months ago, Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, whom he said was his friend on that same show, and concerning his claim that nature was (intelligently) preventing the Large Hadron Collider from working, sometimes said crazy things like that. And notice on the linked article that Niels promotes the pagan idea of “luck”, which isn’t scientific at all. I wondered long before the show if this mainstream scientist was joking, but Michio with his statement, and no one saying that this scientist was joking, confirmed that he seriously believed nature (meaning every physical thing in the universe as a whole, except spiritual things, which would include spirits and information) had intelligence (which is a spiritual thing) could, he implied, use some brain or brains somewhere and other parts of itself to prevent the LHC from working. If you didn’t notice, to say say that nature can think or have intent without intelligence, is a contradiction. Nothing can’t think without intelligence, and intelligence requires another spiritual thing to exist: a mind.
I also listened to Michio on Coast to Coast AM yesterday, being interviewed poorly and annoylingly by Art Bell, a moron mostly, on civilization classifications: a “type 0″ vs type 1, 2, 3 and 4 civilizations. Michio was being an idiot by claiming that civilizations that could make wormholes/stargates wouldn’t need starships and used the Borg and Stargate (the Ancients in Stargate?) as examples of types of civilizations that didn’t need starships. Is he a massive moron? How did he miss that the Borg travel in starships as did the Enterprise and Voyager using quantum tunneling and the Defiant and other ships through the artificial wormhole near the DS9 space station? What idiot thinks that just because you can make a wormhole that you won’t need an artificial environment to protect yourself from unknown conditions? What is the evidence that if you can make a wormhole, or time travel that you will instantly be able to survive or live comfortably in whatever environment is on the other side? What does one have to do with the other? And what’s his excuse for spreading such stupidity when the very sci-shows he cited made it obvious as to why starships (and spacesuits) would still be necessary? Michio is implying that if you can make a wormhole you’ll be God basically, which is making an idol of wormhole technology and/or whoever builds them – bizarre. It’s common sense from the experience we have that just because you have an advanced technology doesn’t mean you won’t need a less advanced technology as a back up or an alternative one as a back up or to make the advanced technology more easy to use. According to Michio, along with wormhole technology would come technology that would be able to be integrated into our bodies that would automatically make it so we could withstand any environment. I’m making an educated guess, that according to Michio, if you can make a wormhole, you will have mobile computer or computers and technology of some kind, like nano-robots or some robot that can manipulate matter and energy in any way, that can instantly or very quickly come up with technology and materials and energy to change your body or make a suit for it (or both) that can allow it to live in any environment with your brain still being able to work decently. But what is the evidence for that? It’s an assumption, and assuming is for idiots. Stargate and Star Trek made is easy to see why that even with wormhole technology you would still need artificial environments, both suits and ships, to survive and live comfortably: because people that have it or who are using it aren’t automatically technologically advanced enough to instantly survive and live comfortably wherever and whenever and don’t know the future perfectly. On both shows, it was shown that even with the ability to time travel, life was still unpredictable, and there were already well-known books out that made it clear why time travel wasn’t a solve-it-all technology, for example one book introduced the butterfly effect, which is a small indirect effect made in the past from a change to the past that causes a great change in the future.
Art asked Michio if he thought Genesis (the first book of the Bible, the first parts of Genesis roughly 6000 years old) was compatible with science, and Michio acknowledged that it was, saying (in a way) that it was scientific (I’d bet Michio read some of the books on the history of Christianity listed at http://bit.ly/truthstore or had heard from me, maybe indirectly that The Book of Judges teaches the scientific method), but without evidence, referred to it as “myths”. Michio again referred to Einstein as he usually does to give his opinion about God’s role in the creation of the universe, but this time he was much more bold, and said that many scientists could see beauty in the laws of the universe and that the beauty of various mathematical formulas were so beautiful to him, that he was almost brought to tears over them, as evidence that the universe wasn’t an accident. In other words: the beauty of the information in the universe is evidence of a creative act, and a creative act is evidence of intelligence, and this is just what the Bible, supposed myths according to scientists like Michio, said, thousands of years ago, more than once:
To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David: The heavens declare the glory of God; and the expanse proclaims His handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor are there words; their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth and their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun, and he comes forth as a bridegroom from his canopy; he rejoices as a strong man to run a race, going forth from the end of the heavens, and its course is to their ends. And there is nothing hid from its heat. The Law of Jehovah is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of Jehovah is sure, making the simple wise. – Psalm 19:1-7 (Notice that after the handiwork descriptions, that God’s Law’s are mentioned?
“For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them. For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse. Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things.” – Romans 1:18-1:23
Does Michio also find the main laws in the Bible, like the “ten (twelve) commandments” and the two highest, beautiful? If not, why?
And who is a great nation whose statutes and judgments are so righteous as all this Law which I set before you today?:
1) I am Jehovah your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods besides Me.
2) You shall not make a graven image for you, any likeness of anything that is in the heavens above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters beneath the earth.
3) You shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them. For I Jehovah your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Me, and doing mercy to thousands of those who love Me and keep My commandments.
4) You shall not take the name of Jehovah your God in vain, for Jehovah will not acquit the one who takes His name in vain.
5) Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as Jehovah your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day shall be the sabbath of Jehovah your God. In it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your ox, nor your mule, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger inside your gates, so that your manservant and your maidservant may rest like yourself. And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and Jehovah your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and with a stretched-out arm. Therefore Jehovah your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.
7) Honor your father and your mother, as Jehovah your God has commanded you, so that your days may be made longer, and that it may go well with you in the land which Jehovah your God gives you.
8) You shall not murder,
9) and you shall not commit adultery,
10) and you shall not steal,
11) and you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,
12) and you shall not lust after your neighbor’s wife, nor shall you crave your neighbor’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is your neighbor’s.
Oh that there were such a heart in them that they would fear Me and keep all My commandments always, so that it might be well with them and with their sons forever! – Deuteronomy 4:8, 5:6-21, 29
“hearing that [Jesus] had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees were gathered together. Then one of them, a lawyer, asked, tempting Him, and saying, ‘Master, which is the great commandment in the Law?’ Jesus said to him, ‘”You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” That is the first and great commandment and the second is like it, ‘”You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”‘ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” – Matthew 22:35-40
It’s no surprise to me that the “mainstream” is the bad and heavily polluted stream (that has on its tail many millions of magic-believing pagans pandering to it) in contrast to the stream less traveled steam of Christ:
“Go in through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many there are who go in through it because narrow is the gate and constricted is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” – Matthew 7:13-15
It’s good that Michio, a very intelligent person and prestigious scientist, acknowledges the value of the Bible, even seeing that it is scientific (though I’m not sure why he said that), but sad that he assumes it is myths and shamefully just referred to the whole thing as myth when most archaeologists of the Bible know that at least half of it is fact, even the atheists of the Jesus Seminar acknowledge that half of it is historical fact. Michio should stop obsessing on himself and physics so that he can learn the greater truths.
I just learned about a mud volcano in Indonesia while listening to a replay of the Alex Jones Show today, from a guest caller, which may have been caused by oil drilling. Here is a 2006 article which I edited a little (with more info below afterwards, including a picture gallery):
Mud volcano floods Java
Disaster-plagued Indonesian island faces new threat.
by Richard Van Noorden of the University of Padua, Italy
For 3 months a sea of hot mud has been gushing from the ground in Sidoarjo, East Java, 35 kilometres south of Indonesia’s second largest city, Surabaya. The steaming mud pool is growing at an estimated 50,000 cubic metres a day, accompanied by hydrogen sulphide gas, and now reportedly covers more than 25 square kilometres. The flow has not yet been stopped; thousands of people have lost their homes.
How bizarre… has this sort of disaster happened before? The Sidoarjo disaster is an example of a ‘mud volcano’. Mud and gas accumulates when sea sediments are trapped in subduction zones, where one tectonic plate slides under another, and can erupt out of volcanic cones or simply from a crack in the ground. Mud volcanoes have burst on every continent, but are abundant in the South Caspian region (offshore and onshore Azerbaijan) and offshore Indonesia in the East Java Basin.
But the Sidoarjo mud volcano is rather unusual. It’s huge. And, says Sam Rice, a geologist at the University of Cambridge, UK, reports of the mud eruption suggest that it is a hybrid between typical mud volcanoes and hydrothermal vents. The mud is of an unusually high temperature (60 °C) and contains enormously high concentrations of hydrogen sulphide gas. This suggests that some kind of volcanic, hydrothermal activity is going on at the same time.
What creates the conditions for a mud volcano?
Achim Kopf, a geologist from the University of Bremen, Germany, who has studied mud volcanoes extensively, explains that marine sediment can be scraped off an oceanic tectonic plate as it slides underneath a continental plate. If the sediment accumulates rapidly and water is trapped in its pores, this can stop the sediment being cemented by pressure. The resulting reservoir of mud can be trapped underground. In the case of the East Java mud flow, the mud is thought to have come from a reservoir some 2.7 kilometres below the Earth’s surface.
And what triggers an eruption?
A number of things can create a crack that allows trapped mud to bubble to the surface; particularly earthquakes and drilling.
And in Java specifically?
In Java both of these things have happened recently. The oil and gas exploration company PT Lapindo Brantas is drilling in the area, and the gas and hot mud first spewed from the company’s drilling rig on 28 May.
Geologist Georg Delisle of the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR), Hannover, Germany, explains that the drilling apparently penetrated into the liquid sediment and created a connection back to the surface. The pressure then squeezed up the mud, like toothpaste from a tube. But it is likely that other connections were made to the surface, he adds — not just through the drilling pipe — because attempts to pump concrete into the pipe to block the flow of mud have failed.
On 27 May an earthquake struck and devastated Yogyakarta on Java, and this too could have cracked the ground, potentially helping to release the mud. But the quake’s epicentre was some 300 kilometres away from the mud volcano (making it only 2 on the Richter scale in that area).
The issue of what, exactly, caused this disaster is highly politically charged. It is still under investigation by police, the government and international experts.
Just how big is the eruption?
According to many geological experts, the scale of this mud volcano is unprecedented — at least on land.
In 1945, the Makran earthquake in Pakistan triggered the sudden emergence of three offshore mud volcanoes, and in March 1999 a mud volcano rose out of the water overnight to form Malan Island, 3 kilometres from Pakistan’s coast. It is hard to estimate the volume of mud created by such underwater eruptions. And, notes Rice: “Because the extrusion of mud and toxic gas occurs on the seabed it does not threaten human life and does not make the headlines.”
‘Well-kick’ — the sudden surface eruption of gas and mud during offshore oil drilling — is common, but usually stops after a few days. Delisle recalls a smaller-scale incident in the 1960s where a geothermal well in the Wairakei geothermal field, New Zealand, ran wild: it took 3 months to stop the geothermal steam that found its way to the surface alongside the original borehole.
Can the disaster be stopped?
Nobody knows. So far, nothing has worked. PT Lapindo Brantas’s senior vice-president Imam Agustino has been quoted saying: “The best-case scenario [for stopping the mudflow] is now mid-November, but I have to admit it might never be stopped.”
Corrected: This article originally stated that Sam Rice was a geologist with the Cambridge Antarctic Shelf Programme; he is with CASP, which previously stood for the Cambridge ‘Arctic’ Shelf Programme. – Source
5/27/2009: Mud volcano in Indonesia, three years after: workers testing a dredging machine (The description has bad English.)
2/8/2010: Lusi Mud Volcano, Indonesia
4/15/2010: ‘Graft at Work’ in Lapindo Mudflow Probe
7/10/2010: Indonesia’s mud volcano flows on
Last night, George Noory had on a guest, Bill Wiese, obviously a Christian, who gave his account of being in Hell. At first George said it was a near death experience, but he was later corrected. Odd that being that he had his own OBE (out of body experience) that he’d mess up the details, especially on a rare incident like seeing Hell. You could say it was disrespectful on George’s part. Anyways, George, who prides himself on keeping his opinion out of the stories he gets, wrecked this story by, guess, injecting his opinion to try and refute this Christian, who was obviously the fundamentalist type, but the good kind, not the “be good by obeying God and not rejecting your forgiveness to get to Heaven” type (also known as Arminians). Unfortunately, sadly, Bill was being cowardly or weak when George rudely tried to refute him: George gave his usual Universalist Christian cliche, “I know a lot of people who don’t believe in God, I have on psychics who don’t do anything wrong, they don’t murder anyone. I think Hell is just a state of mind” reply which he gives when he hears, “If you don’t believe in God you’re going to Hell.” When George, or anyone says that, he’s saying it without evidence, and playing God over right and wrong. In list form, this is what he is doing wrong when he says such a thing:
1) He’s contradicting the commandments, which Jesus also repeated as valid, as did every Christian in the Bible. No one said (as sick Christians do), “Oh that’s legalistic to try and obey God to the letter” or “perfectly”. None said, “Just believe what you want” or “your religion is personal” or “God won’t punish reasonable people” or “right and wrong is whatever George Noory or I say it is.” For George to say that a person is “good”, besides being absurd, since there are hardly even any good true Christians, is also absurd because he’s pretending, obviously pretending, to know the hearts and to have seen the lifetime of deeds of the guests he has on. Can he really know what is going on in over a thousand peoples’ lives, even enough to say they’ve never murdered anyone? So he’s been watching them every hour of their life? That’s like a 16-year-old on facebook or myspace or bebo with over 200 friends, pretending that every single one of them is a close friend, and that they know them. I don’t think so. At best you can really “know” about twenty people after having worked with them for a few years, and a typical 16-year-old American or British person would know at best about 41 people from having been around them often. The Bible clearly states that it is wrong to deny God’s existence and that people who refuse to love him will not be forever tolerated in any place other than Hell. It clearly causes a disturbance of the peace, at the very least God’s, and disgusts every Christian, as in real Christ-followers, to see rebellion. A Christian may not make it apparent right away that you’re disturbing them by acting impure, and they might even find it funny for a a while, but after, it disgusts them. God wants, in the end, the majority of rebellious people be sent away, to disturb only other rebels, and get what they deserve for their hostility.
2) George is contradicting his claim that he doesn’t give his opinion, which he says he doesn’t do because the audience doesn’t want to hear him, but what the guests have to contribute. But he is a hypocrite obviously, a false Catholic (or an example of a typical Catholic, hypocritical), because when he hears the truth about God preached, his evil heart kicks back in it’s taking offense at being called “evil” or “not good”. He’s obviously bigoted, as are all who hate Christians.
3) George is contradicting his teaching that right and wrong is just whatever you believe it to be (even going so far as to teach that Hell is just a state of mind), and might as well be teaching that reality is whatever you want it to be. It’s a contradiction, because when then isn’t what a fundamentalist Christian believes to be just as real? It also shows hypocrisy and bigotry to imply that only Christians and murderers can’t affect anything with their beliefs.
4) It’s also a contradiction for George to imply or say that murderers and Christians can’t affect anything with their beliefs, since his hostile attitude towards them clearly implies that he does believe that what they believe can affect reality. It affects reality in this way: what people believe determines their behavior, including their speech, and many people know this, and so try and change the education people get in school, what they see and hear on the “news”, in movies, what they read in books, even going so far as to make corrupt translations of the Bible to fool people into believing things like that Peter was “the rock” or making it hard to determine if Jesus was not God (something Catholics have done with many translations).
5) By itself, it makes no point to say that “Hell is a state of mind.” If George’s point was simply that Hell was a state of mind, then how does that change that people will be in extreme torment? It’s just as pointless as saying, “I think Heaven is a state of mind.”
6) There is no evidence that Hell is a state of mind.
7) It makes no sense to say that Hell is a state of mind, because Hell is described the Bible as a place, just as it describes Heaven as a place and other locations, and besides that, there is indirect evidence that it does exist from the testimony of Christians and non-Christians whose soul or spirit has left their body. It’s just as much a place as is the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean, which though is rarely seen from eyes behind plastic or glass or from a few feet away, can be seen indirectly in other ways. A person would be thought of as fool to say that the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean is a state of mind, or that the farthest place in the universe from Earth is a state of mind, or that the center of the Earth is a state of mind or that the freezing Arctic is a state of mind.
8) Illogical bias: Does George also believe that Heaven and angels are also a state of mind? If not, why? Clearly he’s biased since rarely if ever does a person say that Heaven is a state of mind, except perhaps people of a certain religion, like Buddhism maybe. For a part Christian like George to dismiss Hell, but not Heaven, makes his bias obvious. He’s effectively saying, “I like this part of the Bible, but I personally hate this part, so don’t believe it.” Why would Heaven be real but not Hell?
9) Hypocrisy: George has, with bitterness in his voice, stated that he would not forgive someone who murdered a family member. He said this after a guest caller made a silly rant about how he had been taught from some spiritual beings or being, that his murdered family member wanted to be murdered (and so everything was okay) and so he forgave the murderer when he found himself next to him. If George isn’t willing to forgive murderers, why should God? Why shouldn’t God send them to Hell forever if George doesn’t believe they shouldn’t be forgiven? Further, the world figuratively speaking, murdered Jesus, and that was God’s family member, as were, indirectly, the millions of Christians who were killed for being Christ-followers. If God were to not forgive those who murdered or who greatly contributed to those murderers, then more than the number of those who killed Jesus and millions of Christians would be permanently unforgiven, and that may be, but the point is, then why would George feel repelled by the thought of many millions of murderers being in Hell?
10) Another contradiction, in a way, is that if George meant by, “Hell is just a sate of mind and therefore just change your outlook on life” is denying that murderers should be punished, because God wouldn’t send anyone to a prison, which is basically, is what Hell is. Basically, Hell i, “a prison below ground without light and in which you are continually in pain.”
11) Encouraging crime: if George was implying the disgusting cliche which is that, “Life is what you make of it” in other words, “Just change how you view things”, he’s teaching (just as other guests on Coast to Coast have, especially, big surprise, “psychics”), that harming people can be a good thing, or neither right or wrong, if that’s how you want to view it, and that painful punishment for harming someone, can simply be viewed as peaceful and pleasurable and a reward for harming people. And that’s also a contradiction of George’s teaching or encouraging people to hate murderers then.
12) George’s attempt to make it seem like God isn’t harsh/hard/strict/wouldn’t forgive by trying to do away with sending the criminals to prison, and just making it a “state of mind” reminds me of the dumb Arminian line that God didn’t design Hell for humans, but for Satan and demons (for example a Pastor Galen (father of the wifeless Pastor Dustin Galen said that), which is bigoted, because it’s making out humans to be inherently better than angels, like saying, “God didn’t make Hell for whites, but for black people”, on top of that it’s not Biblical in that the Bible teaches that angels are greater than humans, sinless in fact, and the Bible teaches that God predestined all things, including what we choose to do (using direct and indirect acts) and nothing in the Bible says Hell was only intended for sinful angels. On top of that, God clearly is going to send billions of humans to Hell, so what difference does it make if it were designed only for demons? And concerning destiny, why would it be good for God to control the wills of demons, but not humans? George seems to be trying to make it so that God doesn’t seem so bad by believing that he wouldn’t actually send criminals to a prison forever, but would only trick them into thinking that they were in Hell. Why would God simply use a mind-trick or senses-trick? So he’s going to have billions of people scattered about screaming in agony bursting with tears writhing in pain screaming blasphemies while they are in the renewed glorified universe of peace? And where would they be? Would they be scattered here and there among the peaceful and good people who are trying to enjoy the renewed universe and Heaven, or all in a big pile right next to God’s throne? Talk about dumb. There’s no point in keeping them around and it’s not just and makes God out to be a liar, being that he promised justice and perfect eternal peace for those who love him, not eternal torment by listening and seeing or feeling up against them those in eternal torment.
13) Another contradiction is that if reality is just a state of mind, as George implied by his Hell statement and his teaching or implying that reality can be affected by intent, is that murder doesn’t have to be considered murder, but like his ranting guest caller who said that his family member wanted to be murdered, a murderer can simply be a person doing a good deed or helping out by fulfilling a request, among other things, including just being an angel in disguise giving the gift of a peaceful death, even if it was by torturing a person to death.
This “reality is whatever I believe it to be and whatever everyone but fundamentalist Christians or Calvinist Christians want it to be” is clearly a hypocritical and nonsensical teaching. Not surprising to me, on the same show, George had on the narcissist (that includes elitist) scientist David Sereda, who was encouraging everyone to intend the oil spill to go away, and talked about supposed evidence from some prestigious university from some prestigious top physicist that your intentions and “karma” could, he implied, affect in a “positive” way, whatever you wanted to be fixed. He didn’t say positive, but that is what he implied. I point that out because he didn’t give any evidence that you could harm something or make water impure by intending it and doing a “good deed”. His mentioning of karma and “meditating” (on intending things to change, like for the oil spill to go away) by the way, is further of evidence of my belief that he is a Buddhist, though I’ve never heard him say or write that he was. And now that I write that, that’s just more evidence that Buddhists are also confused as to what is real or not (and big surprise since they, or many of them at least, believe that nothing exists, and is just an “illusion”). And now that I write about that, doesn’t that sound like what George was teaching: that reality is just an illusion? The illusion, for many millions, if not billions, sadly, is that George and his fellow host Ian Punnet, and their many psychopathic guests, are good teachers of the truth.
7-15-2010: Yesterday night George was asked if he was religious, or someone said, “I don’t know if you’re religious” and George gave this cliche response, “I’m spiritual”, which besides showing him to be a false Catholic, or not one at all, and just a supporter, shows his ignorance of what “spiritual” means. It simply means, “Having to do with that which is spiritual” WHICH IS TRUE FOR EVERYONE, since everyone processes and outputs information, which is a spiritual thing (you can’t see information itself, it can only be represented, though God may be able to see it directly somehow and allow others to).
7-18-2010: On the absurd Time Travelers show George Noory hosted, I think yesterday night, George lied and misquoted Wiese, asking this rambling deluded guest who never stops talking, Dr. Bruce Goldberg, if (George didn’t say his name, or rather forgot) a guest he had on who had seen Hell, was right to say that (with a sarcastic voice) “if you believe in very religious things, you’re going to Hell” which isn’t what Bill said, and shows more how childish Noory is. What is the difference between a religious and very religious thing? Weird. Was it not sufficient to say “religious things” or “trus in God” or “trust in Christ”? Apparently the names “Jesus” and “Christ” are terrible words to Noory, like rays of sunlight to a vampire. Bill Wiese basically said that Christ must be accepted as God’s (only direct) son and that you must accept him as your saviour (from your sins, as in you must ask God to forgive you for them and trust Jesus suffered the punishment you deserved for them: the shedding of his blood, hanging on a tree, and physical death, and suffering an eternity of pain for all your sins, not just some or certain ones, in a prison called “Hell”). What does that have to do with “things that very much have to do with a system of worship”? (which is what Noory said by “very religious things”). Dr. Goldberg gave a disgusting cliche response, which was something about how scare tactics like that are used when their power is threatened. WHAT POWER? Calvinists have great control over the world? I wish. And like Noory and Goldberg have no power or money interest, no customers? On top of that Goldberg is a hypnotist, taking advantage over weak-willed people and who commands people what to do without them resisting him. What hypocrite he is, taking the Bible out of context to make it appear to be a mere threat, and making an arbitrary attack like that. God’s power is not threatened by ranting morons who believe that time travelers exist and are whoever they feel them to be, and who say that they know what dogs see when they die and believe any fanciful story as long as it doesn’t threaten their beliefs. According to Dr. Bruce Goldberg then, every threat of punishment is about a fear of loss of control or power, it’s never about keeping peace or trying to give or restore peace in any way, and there should be no threat punishment to the breaking of any law nor a fear of being punished for breaking any laws, including abusing children, robbing the poor and needy, discriminating against strangers and murdering the innocent; did you expect the opposite belief from a “doctor” who believes that it’s okay to control the will of another person and to take advantage of them for fun and profit?
A few minutes later yet another caller praised George for not being confrontational to his guests. He sure is s sarcastic lying, conniving, jerk towards those who threaten the control (as in influence they have over others) and income that he and his “Psychic Hotline to Heaven” friends have. Hypocrites.
Hell is no more in the mind than Heaven. If Hell is in the mind, why not Heaven? If only painful things are in the mind, why not pleasurable? To those Satan isn’t blinding, it is obvious that there is no more reason to believe that Hell or Antarctica are “states of mind” or that “we make Hell here on Earth” anymore than Heaven is a state of mind and something we make on Earth. Those are stupid atheist and New Age cliches meant to express a denial of Biblical facts/that the Bible is God’s word, or that the Bible makes literal statements about a place called Hell and what it will be like in Hell, after God sets it on fire.
Talk about careless, stupid “a joke” and pathetic, the Huffington Post I just found out, has allowed the anti-science con artist Lynne McTaggart to post a conspiracy rant claiming that Dan Brown’s “Science Fiction is Mostly Fact” speaking of his “The Lost Symbol” book. And wow what a clever title she came up with” “science fiction is fact” what a clever contrast! So original to say “why his lies are mostly truthful” too right? Lynn’s article begins with, “The most vehement criticism of Dan Brown’s new book The Lost Symbol concerns the view of many reviewers that while the material about Freemasonry may be based on fact, the science is more akin to science fiction.” Whatever. Lynn is a moron, she put out a book called “The Intention Experiment” in which she makes a big deal over something obviously false, which is that intentions can influence things, in other words, that you can will things to happen, such as events, not merely moving an object, in other words: WISHING! Talk about “wishful thinking”! When I made a sarcastic review of her book soon after it was listen on Amazon, the community moderators aggressively took action to suppress my review which was, as I intended, getting votes up immediately. Meanwhile they allow endless fake, malicious, sarcastic rants on books which promote or show evidence for creation science / intelligent design. Wikipedia even allows itself to be used to promote Lynn McMoron, meanwhile, they harassed me and aggressively, for including a page on the scientist prominent J.L. Naudin, aggressively attacking me for it and then deleting the page after pretentious consideration of it, and also for making a page on the prominent con artist Tom Bearden, for showing him to be a pseudo scientist while also attacking me for supposedly promoting Naudin for being a pseudo scientist and another scientist and inventor. The points: don’t trust the Huffington Post or Wikipedia. Liberals just make no sense: they latch on to main stream scientists in order to repel Christianity and promote them as legitimate unlike Christian ones, and at the same time also embrace clear pseudo scientists like McTaggert and Bearden in order to gain more followers against the honest Christian scientists. Their acceptance of liars in their hatred of God works against them; it self-defeating and so long as they do this, the greater technologies they desire, just in reach, will, in my opinion, continue to be withheld from the majority of them by God, and for the evil ones that do obtain or already have them, will not benefit the majority.
Tonight, the heretic Ian Punnett had on an “afterlife paramedic” named Monica, who said that “on the other side” (some vague place where spirits can be seen) “there is no right, there is no wrong” and that “there’s an equal shift of giving and receiving”. So it’s not wrong to lie or steal or abuse anyone, and of course, stereotypical meaningless vague New Age babble about giving and receiving stuff in equal amounts. It’s a common tactic of Satan to try and comfort people by talking about “balance” and “equality” and being vague about what is meant and avoiding specific details, the idea being to make it harder for people to spot obvious contradictions. It would be like a liberal saying, “Children are equal to adults” and not saying in what way or literally meaning what they said. Monica might as well have said, “Everything is equal”, which would have been just as false and without evidence.
Ian asked her if there was a maleveolant force, and she said that she’d experienced “various dark energies in various forms”. Yet more vaguenes with no reference to Satan or other demons. She didn’t say, “Yes I saw a bad person” or “bad being” or “evil”, which would have directly contradicted her statement about there being no right or wrong, so she used the vague word, “negative”, a word which weasels (like fake Christians and anti-Christians) often use in place of “evil”, “wrong” and “bad” in order to avoid being being accused of “judging” or “condemning”. False Christians will also use “Satanic” in addition to “negative”. It stems from their hatred, ironically, of God’s laws, which also ironic, is a Satanic attitude itself, and definitely “negative”.
At about 1:12 A.M. (mountain time), after I had written the above: Almost immediately after a commercial break, Monica told Ian, “I found… an equilibrium” and a few seconds after that she’d encountered a “negative energy” and called it “an equilibrium setting”. Just as I said, “equality” is used as a catch word (by such non-Christians).
1:27 AM: More narcissist, word salad New Age babble from Monica: After being asked by Ian if there was a Heaven or Hell, she gave the cliche, “I believe Hell is of our own making… it really is… there’s different levels of frequency where emotions are concerned… there’s vibrating… there’s lower frequency emotions.” Again, it’s also a typical tactic of Satan to use “high words” that people don’t understand, and applying them in ways that make them seem understandable but are vague and nonsensical, and then getting other ignoramuses to repeat them in those wrong ways, and worse, which inflates their pride because they think they are saying something profound and wise. George Noory does it when he uses the word “dimensional” in a sentence like, “Are these beings dimensional or are they physical” which makes an illogical contrast between dimensional and physical, as if they were opposite and incompatible things, when they are not. Dimensional simply means,
having dimensions” not “spiritual” or “from another universe” or
from another dimension (that we can’t perceive)” as George incorrectly implies it means.
It’s really sad that so many people are confused like this and buy into the kind of nonsense that Ian, George and Monica put out, and wor3savesave resse, binds people more greatly on their way to Hell.
At about 1:48, Monica said that she believed that people chose to be born in their circumstances (for example homeless or disabled), and Ian replied, I find the idea of predestination very Calvinist, it’s very old school, I don’t know if I can accept that. Ian’s complaint was absurd and nonsensical since Monica was saying that we with out will were choosing our circumstance before hand, not “God does”. That is just another example of how stupid and ignorant and nonseniscal Ian’s reasoning is when it comes to anything that has to do with religion in general. He’s clearly, to those who can see, spiritually blind.
It would have been appropriate however, if Ian had asked Monica, “So you’re saying that if a little kid is sexuallyy abused, it’s okay, because they wanted to be sexually abused? Or if someone is raped it’s not really raped because they wanted to have sex?” So Monica not only has said that there is no right or wrong wherever it is she believes that spirits exist, but has also implied that there is no right or wrong where physical beings exist. Yet more justification criminal behavior.
Monica also said that dogs can see the “infrared plane” and that she had heard that it was a plane (as in a spiritual plane of existance). The infrared is actually a form of light, not a place or plane. Ian shamefully didn’t correct her, or was ignorant about this too. “Plane” is another one of those catch words that ignorant people fancy using, especially those who regard themselves as “spiritual”. To say “plane” in reference to spiritual places seems to me to be a Dungeons and Dragons invention, a fancy word in place of “place”. It’s also nonsensical since it implies that spiritual places are flat, or have flat surfaces. It reminds me of people who supposedly believed that Earth was flat. No surprise that make-believe books are part of the source of such New Age beliefs.