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.