One in 25 business leaders ‘could be a psychopath’

As many as one in 25 company bosses could be a psychopath, according to a new study.
By Nick Collins, Science Correspondent
9/2/2011/7:30 A.M. BST

Psychopaths are defined by their lack of moral instincts, but many are able to hide this by a natural ability to charm and manipulate both their seniors and subordinates.

While some psychopaths are outwardly aggressive and destructive, factors like a happy upbringing can help others to mimic colleagues and fit in at work.

The capacity of the ‘successful psychopath’ to identify and outwardly display the qualities corporate leaders admire helps them climb the career ladder quickly despite being poor managers.

This makes it virtually impossible to tell the difference between a psychopath and a genuinely good boss, leading psychologists said in a BBC Horizon programme to be screened on Wednesday.

Paul Babiak, a New York psychologist, said: “Psychopaths really aren’t the kind of person you think they are … you could be living with or married to one for 20 years or more and not know that person is a psychopath.

“Part of the problem is that the very things we’re looking for in our leaders, the psychopath can easily mimic.

“Their natural tendency is to be charming. Take that charm and couch it in the right business language and it sounds like charismatic leadership”.

Prof Bob Hare of the University of British Columbia in Canada said as many as one in 100 Americans have some psychopathic characteristics.

He added: “A psychopath can actually put themselves in your skin, intellectually not emotionally.

“What this allows them to do is use words to manipulate and con and to interact with you without the baggage of feeling your pain.” – More here

“Could be psychopaths”? More like 9 in 2 humans is a chronically arrogant and illogical and 10 in 1 are stupid and 20 in 3 are ignorant (obviously with blame to spread around, going all the way back to the first sinner, Satan, who was also the first narcissist and psychopath).

More Information:

The Signs of a Narcissist, Sociopath and Psychopath

FTL: New Evidence Against Relativity… From CERN

[There is an update to this story, the experiment has been repeated and succeeded again click here to read about it]

Faster than light? CERN findings bewilder scientists
By Eryn Brown and Amina Khan, Los Angeles Times
9/23/2011

Physicists at the lab near Geneva say they’ve observed subatomic particles moving faster than the speed of light. If confirmed, it would defy Einstein — and upend our understanding of physics.

The globe of the CERN laboratory shines outside Geneva. A team of experimental physicists there says it has recorded neutrinos traveling 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light. Albert Einstein had the idea. A century of observations have backed it up. It’s one of the cornerstones of physics: Nothing travels faster than the speed of light.

But now a team of experimental physicists at the European Organization for Nuclear Research, known as CERN, says that one exotic particle possibly can.

The scientists reached their conclusion after sending streams of tiny, subatomic particles called neutrinos hurtling from an accelerator at CERN outside Geneva to a detector at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy, about 450 miles away.

The neutrinos seemed to get there too soon — 60 nanoseconds too soon, give or take — than they should if they’d been traveling at the speed of light.

That slight edge, if it holds up under scrutiny, has enormous implications for our understanding of the laws of nature, physicists said – More here

“Basically, all of special relativity would be wrong,” said Drexel University physics professor Dave Goldberg, referring to Einstein’s 1905 theory establishing that light travels at a constant speed, regardless of how fast an observer is traveling, and that nothing in the universe can go faster than it. – More here

More information:

The Great Gravity Probe B Hoax

Faster Than Light? Neutrino Finding Puzzles Scientists

Faster than a Speeding Light Wave

The First Test That Proves General Theory of Relativity Wrong

Was the Speed of Light Faster In the Early Universe?

Speed of Light May Have Varied in the Early Universe

The Decrease in The Speed of Light (Video) Part 1

The Decrease in The Speed of Light (Video) Part 2

The Decrease In the Speed of Light – An Update On Developments

Reports of the Death of Speed of Light Decay are Premature

On the Constancy of the Speed of Light

Starlight and Time

Breakthrough: Pictures Decoded From Memories Using MRI

Scientists Use Brain Imaging to Reveal the Movies in Our Mind
9/22/2011

Imagine tapping into the mind of a coma patient, or watching one’s own dream on YouTube. With a cutting-edge blend of brain imaging and computer simulation, scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, are bringing these futuristic scenarios within reach.

Using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) and computational models, UC Berkeley researchers have succeeded in decoding and reconstructing people’s dynamic visual experiences — in this case, watching Hollywood movie trailers. – More here

Related Info:

Brain-Reading Devices Could Kill the Keyboard

Batgirl Hits On Guy, Guy Tries to Break Batgirl’s Neck: Romantic Dreams Gone Wrong

Post link: http://changeling.tk

Yesterday, while shopping, I saw a cute 1 year old with blue eyes sitting on top of a shopping cart while her mom was shopping. She kept waving to me when she saw me, it was so cute. And yes, I waved back.

The next day, I had a dream. I’ve never heard of anyone having one like this before, because it was a cross between a dream and a nightmare. It was a short dream, and in general was a little blurry, not sharp and vivid. I was near some village, and it was at night. It seemed like I was outside of the village boundary, because I only sensed houses to the left side of me. They looked like they were made of dark gray stone, and the few windows I saw were lit with a bright yellow light. I saw moon illuminating a blue sky and showing white clouds and maybe some dark ones. I was playing with a large-sized dog and a giant cat with long black shaggyish hair, but the cat may have started out as a dog at first. Then a black whispyish humanoid with bat-like wings flew overhead and I sensed terrified people running around. And from miles away I saw this creature land on the highest peak of the mountains where the moon was overhead and it crouched there with it’s huge wings, and I mean huge. Of course, if it was miles away, it would have had to have been a giant, but that wasn’t the impression I got. I’m not sure if it was at this point of when it was flying overhead, that I stopped playing with the animals and let out a screech like a bird to show the creature I wasn’t afraid, I guess to show it I would fight it if it attacked me. It reminded me of a nightmare I had many months ago when a demon attacked my mom, and without any fear I ran up to it to make it go away. This time it was different though… the creature (flew?) to me and transformed into a very beautiful woman with medium brown hair, a little longer than a bowl cut, blue eyes, red lips, and an average-looking gray sweater, like one a guy would wear at Walmart, and blue jeans, and I picked up that cat in fear of her, so that it was facing her while I held it around its chest area. At least I didn’t pick up some villager’s baby right? Or my own. She walked up to me and was looking at me in the face and smiling the whole time and with her arms was trying to move the cat out of the way. She looked about nineteen or twenty. And I think the cat got loose and it went away, though not fast. Then I tried to break her neck. Don’t worry, I wouldn’t actually do this to you if you trying to hit on me, unless I thought you were going to eat me.

I thought she might eat me, so I put my hands on her head, though didn’t see my hands since I could see the side of her face clearly, and tried to break her neck while my elbows were near my stomach (not the best position to have your elbows when trying to break someone’s neck). And I got her head to turn to the right, but she showed no sign of pain, and I was too filled with fear to get the strength to snap it. I think then I woke up.

I wish I had hugged and kissed her instead of the stupid cat :(

No I didn’t kiss the giant shaggy cat.

Maybe she would have taken me to a giant nest in the mountains and I would have had changeling babies with her, among other things.

I think this dream was a result of a hot white girl with long dark hair, blue eyes and another significant feature, living in my neighborhood, and having heard a Van Helsing son a few days ago and then thinking about that movie and the hot vampire girls in it. Did Kate Beckinsale have blue eyes in that movie? And rather than me thinking the girl was romantically approaching me, maybe it was a reflection of the baby’s friendly inquisitiveness that my mind infused into this bat creature, or a cross between that and romance.

I wonder why the changeling girl that tried to get close to me had brown hair, and not dark? And why a bowl cut? And what was with the red lips? I don’t remember thinking about those things recently.

Oh, I just realize something a little while after copying and pasting this story to here, I think the thought about the changeling biting off my head came from watching V, when I saw that blonde clone girl (with blue eyes right?) bite whatever his name was’ neck. Why did they kill that guy? Maybe he got sick of the show, and wanted to go. Didn’t he have blue eyes too? What about his mom?

What If Patent Law Had Never Been Invented?

I could find any article with a title like that while searching for one on the Internet, but perhaps someone can come up with an alternative history based on the world’s history right up to the point before there were any patent or copyright laws, and after reading these articles on why patents and copyrights are more of a hindrance then a help to the world (and I hope won’t copyright it):

The Myth of the Rule of Law
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

The Case against Copyright: A Comparative Institutional Analysis of Intellectual Property Regimes
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=600802

The Case Against Copyright Litigation
http://www.law.uoregon.edu/org/olr/archives/84/844depoorter.pdf

The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights
http://freenation.org/a/f31l1.html

The Case Against Patents
http://electronics.wesrch.com/page-summary-pdf-EL1GP9KR0DECH-the-case-against-patents-1

The Surprising History of Copyright and The Promise of a Post-Copyright World
http://questioncopyright.org/promise

Chaining Open Source Software: The Case Against Software Patents
http://progfree.org/Patents/chaining-oss.html

Internet Business Method Patents: Why the Contrarians have it Right
http://digitalbusinesslawgroup.com/BMP_ContrariansRight_DBLG.pdf

The Creator-Endorsed Mark as an Alternative to Copyright
http://blog.mises.org/13286/the-creator-endorsed-mark-as-an-alternative-to-copyright

Ten Myths About Patents – Falkvinge on Infopolicy
http://falkvinge.net/2011/06/21/ten-myths-about-patents

Against Intellectual Property – Danny Yee
http://danny.oz.au/free-software/advocacy/against_IP.html

Funding creativity and innovation (without patents or copyright)
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Mises-Economics-Blog/2010/1208/Funding-creativity-and-innovation-without-patents-or-copyright

How patents prevent rather than promote adoption of new technologies
http://blog.hasslberger.com/2010/09/how_patents_prevent_rather_tha-print.html

Related Information:

Hobbes’ Mistake – The Rational Case For Anarchy

The Case Against Open Sources

The Shallow Ancient Astronaut Theory of Giorgio Tsoukalos

Post link http://tsoukalos.tk

Tonight, on the Kevin Trudeau show, ancient astronaut “theorist” Giorgio Tsoukalos was a guest. He’s hardly a theorist, rather he rehashes existing ancient alien visitation theories and claims that they are facts. Concerning buildings like the pyramids and the ones at Tiahuanaco, Giorgio said, “I defy anyone to tell me how it’s done.” Sure, I’ll tell you without any payment. How naive. Does he really expect someone to just give him that information freely? That’s what he sounded like. I wonder if he is a narcissist. He also said, “real life stone masons that I’ve talked to today… they say to me… he says… that not for any amount of time or money” would he volunteer to do this. So, because some stone masons expressed doubt about building giant buildings of stone which humans built, and that the “ancient texts” say that the “teachers from the sky” came down and helped them. 1) What ancient texts? 2) Gave what help? 3) Therefore we shouldn’t try to figure out how to do so even if we had help from aliens building them, despite not knowing WHAT KIND of help? For all he knows they gave us extra food. And he kept repeating that “we would have difficulty” building them with modern technology. Tsoukalos is the type by the way to only hone in on the less than 1 percent of the Bible that mentions the “flying chariots” and wheels within wheels, as if none of the rest of the 99% is anything but useless or bad filler to control your mind. Arbitrary. So the only part that matters is the “sci-fi” part. That’s childish, shallow thinking and obviously misleading. Which is more important: Ezekiel talking about difficult to understand beings that had a small role in visions he had concerning the downfall and later supremecy of Israel, or being shown how good, doing to others as you would have them do to you, even when they are tyring to kill you, is? Which matters more: The star of Bethlehem hovering over Jesus, or learning not to and why not to lie, steal, cheat, become impatient, murder, hate anyone, blaspheme, throw fits or assume and learning to be mentally and emotionally self-controlled? Tsoukalos would have you believe it’s seeing a spaceship and hankering on the question of how stones weighing over 12 tons could be moved for miles, and then uphill and stacked on other such stones, not getting the answer as to how exactly, but just marvelling that aliens helped us and forever wondering how it was done. Or maybe he thinks that if we all admit aliens helped us they will come down and tell us how to do it again, and then? So forget self-control and morals, just marvel, wonder and wait on information on how to cut and stack stones.

There are a few other good theories as to how these stones were cut and moved, perfectly reasonable with evidence to back them up, but if we all to follow Tsoukalos, we’d all be stupid, primitive ignorants doting on such buildings, getting no where, and losing time and money. Though he claims to be an expert on the ancient astronaut theory, what he says is rehash of what has been said before in many books and shows. He’s just good at rehashing it and making a show of it. His “expertise” is not expertise at all. Conclusion: not someone to listen to for spiritual guidance, Biblical interpretation or guidance on how to build ancient buildings.

He also said on the show, “They weren’t stupid they weren’t dumb there were as smart as us we are today.” But no one among them was smarter then “the average person”? No one among them could have discovered some clever way to cut and lift giant rock? Are we all of “average intelligence” today?

Kevin asked Tsoukalos about Roswell, and poised a nonsensical questions, that if aliens have come from tens of thousands of miles, they must be pretty poor pilots because they crash a lot.” Where is the evidence they crash a lot? Where is the evidence that only a few come and a lot crash out of the few? So it’s a question based on assumptions and misinformation. Tsoukalos then went off on a tangent and said he was happy to talk to Kevin and then started talking about Chariots of the Gods and the Nazca lines and then finally go to Roswell, to say, “I don’t know what happened… I live it to my modern experts and researchers”. So he really can’t learn about something so significant, because he too busy looking at ancient buildings to tell us, “We were too stupid to build those, too weak, not clever enough, aliens had to help us!”

Here are questions for Tsoukalos and his fellow freethinkers to freely think about if they can:

Does no one make any astounding discoveries or are their no prodigies or people who are highly skilled and learned? Do you know anything about Edward Leedskalnin or the ancient Egyptian model plane found in a tomb? Are you aware of books like Forbidden Archeology, which show that mankind rather than being simple and boring as Tsoukalos implies: were primitive and boring and stayed that way till aliens came down to help us them megaliths? Are you aware of the Flood account, not just from the Bible but dozens of surviving tribes from all over the world? Tsoukalos is aware of an ancient plane found in Mexico, or was it South America. He talked about it with Kevin, and Kevin said they didn’t have electricity and didn’t fly and only maybe invented the wheel, but Tsoukalos said that that is what mainstream scientists claimed. Tsoukalos gave evidence that he thought they did make a wheel because they had a game with a hoop and that they should have thought about some other usage for such a circle. By that logic everyone seeing anything round, like the sun, should have made a wheel. That’s a good example of Tsukoloses very shallow, very weak, very arbitrary. It’s the same kind of logic that evolutionists use, “Oh these ancient bones look similar, and the smaller creatures turned into the big ones, and then the big ones got little again because we got hit with an asteroid. Oh wait, new theory: the giant lizards turned into feathered birds. Wait, another new theory: there was crazy evolution of all kinds going on. Let’s watch a Discovery Channel cartoon and Jurassic Park again, it will help take your mind off those stupid fundies and their claims that there is all kinds of easily found evidence to verify the historical records of the Bible, and help brainwash you into thinking we actually have evidence for our theories. We can watch South Park after that and then pass out drunk and spend another five billion dollars on a 10 mile long machine to mash some particles together. Cool right? And those fundies will just waste their lives reading the Bible and trying to control you by hitting your head with it.”

Though Tsoukalos makes his theory to be in and of itself astounding and useful, it falls for short of reality, and reality that is far more amazing then he makes it out to be, so much more, that the Bible says it can’t be imagined till seen.

Update 10-26-2012:

Tsoukalous said on Coast to Coast AM tonight (25th) that creationists who believed the world is 6,000 years old (it’s actually about 6,500) are wrong about the fossil record, because “why don’t mainstream scientists and geologists in universities (this is literally how this guy talks, in a simpleton’s way of thinking that is) believe this, are they all crazy? I don’t think so.” Yet this is a guy who goes against mainstream scientists AND ARCHEOLOGISTS, INCLUDING BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGISTS (which includes ATHEISTS) and MAINSTREAM GEOLOGISTS every moment with his “ancient aliens theory”! And not long before that, in that same hour, said that his show and website was all about ASKING QUESTIONS, not affirming what is true and what isn’t! What an extreme oblivious hypocrite. And after he said, “ALL WE DO IS ASK QUESTIONS”. This is a confused person who states such and such is true but at the same time uses double speak, by saying nothing can be believed since you have to keep asking questions about the same things he implies. He doesn’t understand the importance of believing what is clearly true, but arbitrarily believes whatever he feels like. This is a truly confused and confusing person. He also, I noted, when referring to GEOLOGISTS, did not say MAINSTREAM and spoke as if there WERE NO SUCH THING AS CREATIONIST GEOLOGISTS, OR CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS, THIS GUY IS A BIGOT, A BIGOT DESPITE ALL HIS TALK ABOUT ACCEPTING WHAT OTHERS BELIEVE. Oh and did I mention that after saying we should accept the right of creationists to believe what they want, and “Who am I to say they are wrong” said that their beliefs, in a pretty sly way, was crazy, by saying, “That’s the crazy world we live in”, he said that right after saying we have to accept what they believe. And just minutes before he was done with his interview ended, said, “Nothing is too wild, because we should always leave open the possibility… nothing has been solved. … We should stop to be arrogant (sic), and (accept that nothing has been solved).” LIAR! IF NOTHING HAS BEEN SOLVED WHY DOES HE SAID IT IS CRAZY TO BELIEVE THAT THE UNIVERSE IS 6,000 YEARS OLD AND THAT MAINSTREAM SCIENTISTS CAN BE WRONG?! Why does he conveniently ignore that not all scientists are mainstream scientists when it comes to assessing if Christians are telling the truth or not? Why doesn’t he take into account the obvious: PRIDE AND MONEY?! DID HE NOT JUST SAY BEFORE HIS INTERVIEW ENDED, “STOP THE ARROGANCE (UNJUSTIFIED PRIDE)”?! Don’t all scholars know one of the most basic most influential verses in the Bible: THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL!? Horrible!!!!!!!!!

Freethinkers – Do You Know What You Mean by ”Free”?

Post link: http://freethinkers.tk

Related Previous Post:

Atheists Do Worse Than Eating Babies: Response to Darrel the Atheist

Freethinkers – Do You Know What You Mean by “Free”?

Being free isn’t, “doing whatever I feel like”, being a slave to your passions, the feelings of your heart, and calling that “free thinking (with my mind)”. Thinking with your heart and allowing it to do whatever it wants to do and restricting it with your mind just enough to stay out of jail (if you have the mental control even for that), isn’t being “free”. You can’t even be totally free anyways: there are always constraints on us, our emotional and physical limitations also prevent us from thinking however we want to. People can influence how others think easily, by insulting or telling the truth, by helping or not or giving pleasure or causing pain. Few people can keep themselves totally unbiased at all times. And why should a goal in life be being as free as you can in your thoughts? Is it healthy to dwell on evil continuously, to make that your main focus? Or to always think about what is sad when you eat? Is it healthy to desire revenge till you get it? Is it healthy to lust after anyone? No. Rather, restraining yourself helps you to have and preserve a a life of freedom thinking logically and being emotionally controlled so that you can have comfort even when being sad, which appropriate sadness brings.

Nor is it “humanism” being that that is a set of rules meant to restrict immoral and unhelpful thinking, like the Bible is, nor is it merely “freedom from religion.” According to one definition, it is, “inclined to forms one’s own opinions rather than depend upon authority, especially about social and religious issues; exhibiting boldness of speculation; skeptical of authority.”

Opinions are statements that are not necessarily based on clear facts, but guided in part by feelings and sometimes debatable evidence. Remember that, “feelings.” Note also “one’s own rather than depend on authority”, which (though is nonsensical since opinions can only be formed by the person forming them, not another, as nonsensical as literally saying that a Christian isn’t thinking for themselves – they wouldn’t be responsible for their thoughts then), which implies a reject of listening to others and instead an inclination to make judgments based on little information, which suggests a hatred of obeying rules, restrictions, those who may be wiser and those who may have a right to command, and in directly shows an illogical bias in what the free thinker is willing to learn or who to take advice from, biased because authorities are not necessarily less wise than a non-authority. Then it says, “exhibiting boldness of speculation”, which is something that is not limited to “free thinkers”. If theists were not that way, we’d be “primitive”, probably only living under trees, in caves and holes in the ground, and with a very low population. Then it says, “skeptical of authority”, meaning doubting that those in authority are best to lead or that authorities are needed. And from that it can be logically concluded that some free thinkers then are likely to be anarchists and others simply hateful of anyone with power over them (including God) and will therefore be more likely to resist anyone supposedly or who is, at least in by decree, their leader. What the definition does not say, is why this way of living or mindset is or is not logical, though I’ve said a little as to why it isn’t logical. That was a dictionary definition, but others take it to mean something more simple (because they themselves are simple), like “thinking as one pleases rather than according to a religion or set of rules or any rule”. There is a contradiction in that: To say you don’t think by any rule would contradict that you live by the rule of not thinking according to any rule. It’s similar to saying, “There is no absolute truth” which is a self-refuting statement (because then not even that statement that there is no absolute truth would be true, which would then mean that there are absolute truths, not “none”). The correct definition is, “Someone who is against the belief in and worship of gods or God and who doubts that authorities are superior to non-authorities or beneficial to themselves anymore than a non-authority.” Now that hones in on what freethinking is really about: resistance of authority based on personal doubt that any authority is better than themselves or helpful to themselves. And really, they want to be king of themselves as much as they can be. This is understandable to a degree, because like Scripture says, “The [human] heart is desperately wicked; who can know [how evil] it [is]?” And, “There is none good, no not one.”

Others say that freethinker, skeptic and atheist are synonymous, or some may think that only skeptic and freethinker are. But skepticism as a lifestyle, is an illogical mindset, because it is illogical to start out doubting something before having the facts. Or if you define skepticism as doubting supernatural events, UFOs, and the usual (except that the law of conservation can be broken), it is still illogical since there is plenty of evidence of supernatural events UFOs and aliens. If you don’t bother studying UFOs and aliens much you may not be aware that an small alien was captured in Mexico, and it’s dedicated body available for study.

To be as free as possible, in a way that doesn’t lead to your destruction, to an eternity in Hell, is to get right with God, the Creator, our Father. You can get it by seeking his forgiveness with all your heart, and he will free your mind and body from being a slave to your passions of your heart. Sadly, merely reading my words won’t cause that to happen, anymore than reading, “I’m against homophobia, and you should be too” can free a person from illogical thoughts, which freethinkers don’t realize. Rather, God has to change a person’s heart and guide their mind and cut off Satan’s influence over their heart and mind. And God won’t do this for whoever I want him to, ultimately it’s up to him to forgive a person, or allow them to continue being “free” from his life-saving eternal love.

Remember the idea of the atheist Gene Roddenberry, who came up with Vulcans, who realized that they were slaves to their emotions? Though his idea doesn’t work (deadening your emotions leads to depression, because we are emotional beings). But by being forgiven, and so free from eternal punishment, and obeying. By obeying you will be free from eternal punishment of the continuous kind, and temporary kind on Earth. By ceasing to strive against the Truth, Yahweh, he will cease to strive against you, to withhold from you “the desires of your heart” so long as they are not self-centered desires, meaning, desires made without perfect concern for others, that includes perfect concern for the feelings of God, who is not a rock, but a living being with emotions and concerns like us. He will not show himself to just anyone or whenever they want him to, and why should he to such corrupt people, people so corrupt that even some of the most corrupt of them see their extreme evil as “progress” and “good” and “moral”? Is he a God that has to come out of his house whenever we want him to? No, he is what his title says, “God”, a god, the only god, more than a god: all powerful, all knowing, invincible, only able to imprisoned if he allows it, and he only allowed it to happen once.

So between theists and atheists: I choose the group that ratio-wise, is much less destructive, who contributes far more to society due to their superior logic and patience. But atheists, they are so intolerant, they end up killing hundreds of millions in only 100 years, and if they continued that way, will kill all humans in less than 2000 years. And if you fear global warming, or think morals matter, than how can you be apart of the most murderous most destructive group on earth? In a way, “freethinker” is an appropriate term for what you and other atheists are, because you make up for yourselves arbitrary morality, convenient morality, morality that suits your emotional whims, rather than based on logic and truth, on what is evidence, rather than debatable. “Freeradicals” is a better term. Or simply, “wild”. But as you know, a wild animal isn’t “free”, it is still bounded by nature, limited by the other wild animals around it. But those who live in a civilized way, who bind their emotions and thoughts so that they don’t stray “whenever their heart feels like” – they are far more free, far more likely to live long. You may think back to atheist China, and forget about their forced abortions, and their murdering their female babies in favor of males (you do know about that don’t you “feminist for the freedom of females which atheists prevent because Jesus hated females and treated them like they are inferior and said they can’t get into Heaven and won’t be equal to the angels”? Oh, right, Jesus didn’t say that did he?), and think, “But China is civilized, they may have a problem with sexism and oppressing the poor and brutality and arbitrary violation of the rights of their citizens and intolerance of free speech, and slave-like laborers and forced evacuations and cover ups of government and police abuse and on and on and on…” oh, not very civilized are the atheists of China are they? How about Cuba, are those atheist “free”? But it’s those bad theists’ fault, all their fault, oh damn them for building up civilization, especially those reformed Christians when they went to America and didn’t obey that crazy king, they should have stayed and became atheists or established an atheist country and told people religion is just stupid, which is how they ended up in America in the first place, because religion is just so dumb. It was atheism that got them to America. So it comes down to this: how long are you going to ignore the evidence that the Bible is not just “some book” that “is oppressive”, no wait, “that says anything you want it to” (which is freethinking atheists? can’t make up your free unbound wild minds?), but rather is obviously written by a being that made this universe, didn’t abandoned it, but cared enough to allow people to have some freedom from him ever being in their face and repeating his commands and word over and over and calling them to repentance audibly every day, from morning to night, cared enough to let them “be freethinkers”, to see how far they could get without him. Well like the Bible says, the last days will be worse than any other time, logically then, things should be getting worse, degrading from false religions, to an even worse state: atheism and the deliberate denial that idols are not representations of or containers of the spirits of gods, and worshiping them?

Yet despite God not being in your face every day, telling you that you are wrong, never letting you escape from him, you still fault him, still say you are anti-God. What must he do, come out of his house in full glory, and bow before you? Will that be enough? Or must he be a genie in a bottle for you? Go when you want him to do what you want him to? “Then I’ll believe you’re God oh God, when you do this too! Oh you won’t? Oh you can’t be God then : ), no, you have to do this last thing. Oh great you did it, so I’ll believe you’re God for one more day, oh, I want you to do this for me too God: give me your place, then I’ll know you are truly loving and trust that you are God forever (never mind that contradiction God). So what are you waiting for Mr. Real God, give me all your powers and knowledge, the knowledge of how to get when I want and when to do it, not all that “truth” stuff, like about your word, keep that oppressive boring stuff to yourself, God.”

I think that is the real you, who like everyone else who realizes God exists, but hates him for not being what they want him to be, provokes him by denying his existence, merely because they can’t see him with their eyes, or feel them with their hands, or hear them with their ears, or grasp how a being can be of one mind yet have three minds simultaneously. Or, more honorably, rather, delude themselves that God can’t possibly exist, because no all powerful being could possibly exist that doesn’t give them whatever they want whenever they want, or that would let painful things happen to them, even if they were far from perfect.

Unlike you, and I know you can’t make this claim, I have carefully, very carefully, and patiently, gone over every argument against religion, theism and Christianity, painstakingly gone through all of them, listed them, categorized them. I was able to see flaws in all of them, before I had learned about “logical fallacies”. And I found many of those arguments contradicted themselves and other arguments (big surprise that if God were the embodiment of truth that arguments against him would turn out to be self-defeating lies). And many years later when I learned about logical fallacies, I was able to see more errors.

The whole idea of “freethinking” is contradictory too, as I’ve pointed out, but I’ll do so more clearly for you: if you believe it makes you a robot or unable to think logically / freely by believing that Christ was right about their being absolute truth, and that miracles by God are possible, then how are you free by absolutely denying those things, or either? If you say, “YOU MUST think this way, that Jesus wasn’t God, didn’t do any miracles” or whatever you say, how is that “freedom”? So only thinking YOUR WAY is freedom? Wasn’t the whole point of you calling yourself “free” to point out that you think as you please and that theism prevents that? Yet see, that’s not the end of the story, that’s not all there was to your ideology of freethinking, it was about you letting theists know that they shouldn’t believe in gods or God or even the possibility of it, but by thinking in your narrow minded intolerant biased way, which is a way based on your personal feelings and shallow evidence you arbitrarily use as evidence to make it seem as if it’s not really about you just pleasing your feelings, not really about you hating truths that go against your feelings, your lusts. Your free isn’t really freedom anymore than being in jail is freedom, it’s the opposite. You’ve simply renamed “sin” and “rebellion” to “free”. The mask is off, I can see through your makeup and smile. Though you may be happy, very happy, high, in bliss, it’s covering an endless craving inside that can never be satisfied so long as you keep refusing to obey your Father in Heaven.

The Bible teaches that truth is absolute, that there are also definite morals as a result. But you freethinkers forget that, and think you can part God from his word, as if God was just an arbitrary lie to get people to either be moral or be slaves to those who preached (which is an argument easily proven false). But if the Bible is wrong, the most tried and true book for peace (if you obey it unhypocritically), especially peace for the one who obeys it rather than attacking it’s message of eternal peace and warning of eternal punishment for those who refuse the only possible way to eternal peace), then why even if a freethinker claimed to believe in absolute truth, and had all the commandments except not blaspheming God, and worshiping Him alone, even then, why should anyone trust in them? Are freethinkers perfect, free of hypocrisy? How have they demonstrated that they are better than reformed Christians, who go about being charitable even while poor, who give even if there’s no Bible or pamphlet to give along with their money, homes, churches, clothing, food, seeds or livestock? And some give and rarely preach (and will be rewarded likewise by God for that lack of leading anyone to Christ or correcting a Christian doing wrong). How are you better? Where are you commandments? Where is your good news? Your message of hope? This is it: “accept homosexual activity because I Felicia am cool, I am a photographer, beautiful, I’ve had a sexual partner that I won’t pledge myself too not even after 8 years, whom I refer to as a “boy”. I say, without explanation, that I’m a feminist, against the fear of homosexuals (against people who are against homosexuality), and because I’m a freethinker (able to think logically unlike people who merely believe in a god, gods or God).” So that defeats all theists? Wait, it’s also because you posted pictures of yourself acting cute and wearing trendy and custom clothing and jewelry. That’s why we stupid, robot theists should obey you, and that’s how we can “snap out of it”, but just reading those few words and looking at your pictures. Lusting after you and admiring you will free us! Isn’t that shallow? I can call that kind of thinking of yours all kinds of other names.

So it comes down to this: What kind of freedom do you want: freedom from God’s love and the freedom from eternal pain and eternal pleasures that comes with it? The eternal peace and happiness that comes with it? Or freedom while being bound forever in chains, feeling like burning salt and wind is hitting you, in total or near total darkness, a worm (maggot) always eating away at you, surrounded by continuous screams of sorrow and pain, feeling extreme sorrow, always screaming out in pain? And how well will you be able to enjoy your memories of your past life, especially after having gone through God’s judgment in front of millions or even millions of people, both humans and angels and perhaps even your friends and enemies? Will that be “freedom” and “life”?

For those of you who argue, “Oh you have to threaten with Hell to get people to listen!” What is your point? Parents threaten children who won’t listen to them, to correction of commands. The Bible itself says that mere words will not get a servant to listen. That doesn’t mean that you must threaten or inflict pain, but that the servant, to be one that is obedient, must be familiar with pain, must be familiar with unpleasant consequences for not doing their job, just like a child if that child is to grow up self-controlled and productive, not rebellious and wild. And, you are ignoring the rest of this letter in which I explained that in another way, I didn’t, nor does God, simply threaten pain.

The atheist version of “freethinking” is not logical and leads to a chaotic life, one that can’t achieve healthy freedom/living. And for those who claim they are not obeying their heart over logic, where is the evidence? As I’ve shown in this letter, the logic is not there, but is wrong logic. I show all throughout my journal the result of “free thinking” or “freedom from religion” of “freedom from guilt by giving up religion”: it leads to extreme sorrow, pain and often death for those who don’t have the health, money and power to shield themselves against people who live as they please. Criminals live “free” in the way that atheists advise, or command, and ultimately will pay for it unless God saves them from themselves. Christians live like tamed animals, and note in a mental cage or box like atheists pretend or mock them as living like (and ironically many atheists, not just pagans or Catholics, have kidnapped, imprisoned and murdered millions of Christians). So again, it comes down to the temporary freedom you might get by disobeying God (and look at the condition of the world: in general, are people who disobey the Bible filled with hope that they will continue on peacefully into Heaven, or distressed, obsessed with material things, suffering from contradicting themselves all the time and other things that wear a person down?) or the promise of eternal freedom, freedom from any pain, from confusion, chaotic thinking, eternal bliss without ignorance or shame.

A Demon-fooled Mormon and Noory’s Evil Jester ”JC”

On the “NDEs & Open Lines” September 2, 2011 edition of Coast to Coast AM, after Noory interviewed Kathy Baker, he had open lines and spoke with a Mormon grandmother(?) who told him a detailed story. Her story added to the evidence for my claim that demons pretend to be angels and dead humans to fool people into thinking that the Bible (and the religion of fundamentalist Christians that is based on it) are wrong, in other words that you can get to Heaven without needing forgiveness. She told a story about a 5 year old boy whom she took care of who had a mom he hated. I think it was his grandmother. She said one day he said to her that he wanted to die and to make a long story short missed Jesus and wanted to be with him. And the next day said he could travel through time and space and one day found him in a perfect lotus position, and said that angels taught him how to do that. She said that amazed her because she was a Mormon and thought that only her religion was true. That was a stupid statement because simply sitting in a lotus position doesn’t mean there is more than one true religion, it’s just a way of sitting. It’s ironic too since logically she should have seen it as verification of her religion since unlike traditional Christianity, her false version (Mormonism) teaches we are with Jesus before we are born. But Mormons are stupid when it comes to evidence and logic, so no surprise there. It’s also not surprising she was duped into believing whatever it is those demons bothering the kid wanted them to believe, because the Mormon religion is based on a narcissist named Joseph Smith who supposedly received a revelation/having a vision from an angel or angels (and Joseph Smith kept changing his “first vision” story by the way, despite what most Mormon’s claim) or instead God and Jesus who gave Joseph a new gospel, that being that “none of [the churches] are true.” Gospel means “good news” if you don’t know. Great gospel huh? Instead of, “Good news, Jesus suffered and died for sinners making possible their ability to live in peace forever if they repent,” it’s, “You’re all wrong cuz I had a vision no one else saw, and I’ll not tell you why till nine years have gone by while I make my own more exciting Bible to show why you’re all wrong.” So, from the day the the 5 year old said he wanted to die, he got hit by a car 2 weeks later and died in a car “accident”. I suspect rather it was a demon or demons that caused it, he had been trying ever since he said that to kill the boy and possibly get the grandmother, mom and 16 year old guy who hit him, to all commit suicide.

George also let on an idiot called J.C. I think after the Mormon’s woman was on. J.C. is an annoying fool who has been on more than four times, and each time pretends to be a fundamentalist southern Baptist Christian as best I can tell. George said of him that he “cracks me up”. He decided to let J.C. give his usual rants and to do something “different” this time, and let him speak to other guests. The first caller that comes on at that point is a man who wanted to talk about his dead sister and clearly didn’t want to talk to J.C. So what does George do after J.C. trounces on the other caller? Allowed J.C. to move on to another caller while putting the other caller on hold… How about put J.C. the idiot on hold till that caller got to tell his story? Two other calls also didn’t want to talk to J.C. out of three and George finally got rid of J.C. What a fool. Ironically George had asked J.C. if he believed in ghosts, and J.C. said of course and that they were bad spirits. Interestingly he didn’t say they were demons, but implied that they were dead humans who didn’t qualify to get to Heaven. He also seemed to indicate that he had a conscience without saying it when he pointed out that he would seem like a jerk to people listening when the first caller was someone who wanted to talk about his dead sister, which J.C. didn’t realize when joking with him. A person without a conscience wouldn’t have shown concern. So, I don’t think J.C. was “anti-social”. But, that comment about ghosts not being demons, that is unlike a fundamentalist Christian, since F.C.’s believe ghosts are demons pretending to be humans. On top of his usual poor imitation of them, that comment about ghosts he made is evidence to me that he has little knowledge of F.C.s, even if he used to attend some F.C. church. If he did, he must not have paid much attention. His stereotype is very narrow and seems outdated. For example he was saying that he was rescuing some woman from “rock n’ roll” music, which is something unheard of to me. At best a parent will just try and prevent their kid from listening to it, not try to “rescue” them from it. And not many Christians in my experience are against it. The only ones I knew of who were are the ones who follow the narcissist pseudo-Christian Bill Gothard and “orthodox” Presbyterians, not all of whom are against it, but who just have a problem with the lyrics or it not being a style of music that fits their usual moods, just like most people don’t listen to death metal, because it doesn’t fit their usual moods either.

I noticed that George seemed about to say that the angels the 5 year old had seen, might be demons, but him not being the type to offend, especially since the 5 year old died and the grandmother distraught, didn’t say that, but just, with a contrived tone, pretended they were angels coming to take him away. What was interesting is that when J.C. came on, my perception seemed right, since it seemed he was hinting at what he was actually thinking concerning the previous call, was that those angels were demons, because he asked J.C. what he thought of ghosts. That may seem like a stretch, but the grandmother had just gotten off and might have been listening, and if he said, “What do you think of those angels the five year old saw actually being demons trying to send him to Hell?” might have gotten the grandmother to cry more and upset a large number of listeners.

I wonder if George, who claims to be a Catholic, but who is more like a pseudo-Catholic, ever thinks about this verses in the Bible:

“God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.” – Paul

“Man shall not live by bread alone, by by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” – Jesus

My Reply to Claudius the Catholic | Why Catholics are Heretics

After writing a grammatical exposition of the controversial passage in Matthew which Catholics claim shows Peter is their Pope, Claudius the Catholic said,

“Now that I have all that grammar out of the way we need to all sit and think about what this all means.”

Sure, now let’s look at your second statement after that one:

“We have the prophecy from Daniel that the Catholic Church fulfills”

So then rather than sticking with that passage you jump thousands of years back to Daniel, well if you can do that I can also refer to other Scriptures on whether or not the Catholic Church is the true Church or not. I’m guessing you’re talking about Daniel 2, being that this is the only speech I could find on the net from a Catholic claiming that D2 supported Catholicism,

“It refutes the Protestant and Mormon notion of a “Great Apostasy.” Believers in a Great Apostasy believe that at some point, either Catholicism replaced the True Church, or overran it. Yet Daniel 2’s prophesy says that during the days of the Roman Empire, Christ will set up a Kingdom, and it’ll never “be left to another people.” There’s no room for a New Church or New Kingdom in a post-Roman age (in either sense of “Roman,” there). No need to hypothesize about who the first pope was, or when the Church was formed. Daniel 2 lays the foundation you need, and the New Testament clears up the gray areas.”

The problem with this part of the Catholic’s rant are obvious:

1) The Bible says there will be an apostasy in the New Testament, more than once. So this Catholic like so many others just doesn’t know, forgets or deliberately avoids certain Scripture.
2) He’s forgetting yet another Scripture in which Jesus said that his kingdom should not be awaited, but that it was already here. OBVIOUSLY, there was no Catholic Church at that time, and if Peter was the first pope, he sure wasn’t at that time. So out goes that massive stretch.
3) The Roman Catholic church is not a kingdom. And Revelation does say the Catholic church whores about with them (“seven mountains”, don’t forget).
4) That line about the church not being left to another people as evidence is utterly stupid and infantile and nonsensical: A protestant could easily make that claim as evidence, what does it prove? “Hi, Bible says my church won’t be left to another people, so you Catholics aren’t the true church.” WOW EXCELLENT PROOF! NOT. Really how stupid can you get Catholics? Why not say, “Bible says Jesus is the Christ, that’s means our Christ, so you’re not the real Christians.” Wow, awesome, proved sooo much. Might as well say, “Nanny nanny boo boo we are true not you.”

Yet, if I and other Christians don’t read Catholic arguments like that, we face replies like, “Nanny nanny boo boo I can’t hear you.” (referring to us). But no: we don’t have to endlessly read Catholic claims and defenses, once you read their some of their common replies and claims as to why they are the true Church, whether it has an official stamp of of approval from their Pope or not, and review their TRUE history, whether it has the official seal of approval from their Pope or not, and see the flaws in them, whether their Pope acknowledges them or not, that is enough ignore the Nanny Boo Booers who just want to torment you more for not following them.

What makes the other people claim so ultra stupid, is that it makes no point and the Catholic using it is implying that it’s true just because he says it is (based on his claim that Kingdom = Catholic Church). How is that better than the Mormon babble that he claims is false? Better than their “oh Jesus said he has ‘other sheep’ and ‘other sheep’ is the Indians, bcuz the Book of Mormon said so. Just trust your good heart we’re right, and pray too so you can trust more, and if you don’t trust, well then you must be wrong, because we can see the truth no matter what you say, and truth is our hearts tell us we’re right, and the Book of Mormon too.” Vain, stretched, contrived, absurd, circles.

Moving on, what about Revelation? Why do Catholics keep avoiding that Book? The Catholic Church is CLEARLY being referred to in Revelation, CLEARLY fulfills the prophecy of the whore that rides the beast and the reference to the seven mountains makes it almost plain. No other entity fits that prophecy, despite the repeated fallacy made by Catholics when they refer to Protestants as a single entity, even though they contract themselves by trumping up the divisions between them! You can’t have it both ways Arbitrary Church.

Concerning the grammar? As usual, we only need to refer to other passages of Scripture. Over and over God and Jesus are called the Rock of eternity, and Jesus the foundation. ALL the apostles are referred to as the foundation, not just Peter, and obviously God does not mean bedrock it’s on or whatever is holding the foundation together (obviously that would be God, not Peter or the apostles). And anyone who has studied Protestant arguments on this matter, if they aren’t a newbie, knows the argument that Peter does not nearly contribute as much as Paul did, and it would make more sense to call Paul the foundation of the church. Peter supplemented Paul, not the other way around. So then it’s not unreasonable just based on that fact that Jesus wasn’t calling Peter a cornerstone or secondary foundation and the apostles playing inferior roles. Another Protestant argument is that Jesus pointed to himself, which some Catholics think absurd or unrealistic. BUT IT ISN’T, because Jesus gave a riddle to the Pharisees in which it clearly states he was referring to himself, rather than what they thought he, to them, appeared to LITERALLY mean, and so Catholics are being arbitrary with how they are literally interpreting the “and on this rock” passage. Further, NOTHING in that verse says anything about Peter being a Pope, or that the Catholic Church is the true Church. Any idiot can proclaim, “Peter was our pope, here’s proof: other members of the Catholic Church agree” or “Oh these Christians said so” and NOT bring up the CHARACTER of those people they use as witnesses, something clearly not Biblical to do. You don’t just trust anyone, that is ARBITRARY, it’s “picking and choosing”. It’s evil. And Catholics hate to hear this:

“By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?”

Do I even need to start pointing out the severe corruption in your Church? Do I need to point out the hypocrisy of your church in venerating Mother Teresa, or electing one corrupt Pope after another? The abortion rates? The rapes? And that other evil you all know is a problem?

But the arbitrary Catholic defense to that is, “Everybody sins dupe de dupe.” Oh yes, you’re right, “no biggie”, “everyone does it,” “But Dad, Johnny Calvin also put his hands in the cookie jars, so look at him not us, and just keep letting us sin.” And you sure can’t speak of Protestants as a single entity, because as you yourselves say of us, “Oh you Protestants are evil terrible horrible, ur the evil doers!” Because as you yourselves say, “They are divided into so many Churches! They can’t all have the Holy Spirit!” Yes, you’re right, they can’t all, and you are included among the division, or did you forget the Protestants DIVIDED from you? Once again: Arbitrary Arguing. And so, answer your own question, judge for yourselves, if not all can have the Holy Spirit, then who does? Maybe instead of repeatedly looking in the mirror and make vain repetitions to convince yourselves that it’s you who have it, like narcissists, maybe examine the deeds of other churches, maybe consider the true Church doesn’t go by a single name, like a business corporation, some magic name that makes you saved, some magical club name, but that they can be KNOWN BY THEIR FRUITS, their deeds, not “A NAME.”

I’ve read Robert Sungenis’ argument on the “Petra/Petros” argument too, and found his argument nonsensical and contradictory. James White does too: http://vintage.aomin.org/Epitetaute.html

And one last thing, the Bible forbids logomachy (arguing over words), which is what you Catholics are doing when you strive over petra and petros, and put into question the trustworthiness of Scripture like Muslims and Mormons do, when you pretend there is another translation that justifies you. “Trust me,” said Joseph Smith, “Put you’re trust in me when I tell you that God chose me and that I speak his will and that these golden plates I translated and am hiding under this cloth really are under this cloth. And look at me, am I not beautiful, loving, and well spoken? And therefore I tell you the Bible has been corrupted and would support me if we had the originals and if those prophets weren’t so sinful and rebellious, unlike me. Trust my revision and divine interpretations of it, or else, you can’t be apart of the true church and you are going to Hell and you will never have the Spirit. Keep my covenants.” “Trust us,” said the Muslims, “Trust that Christianity is wrong because you’re Bible has been altered. It doesn’t preserve God’s word accurately, our Quran is superior, it’s better than the original. The original Bible would have supported what we say if there was a perfect copy. Those Jewish prophets couldn’t be trusted with the pen the Bible says. The real prophets were Muslims, Abraham wasn’t even Jewish.” And like them, you beg the world to believe in your invisible contradictory evidence too. You too are a cult, whose religion centers around mere men, and like Mormons, gods, gods you pretend to merely venerate. Like the Pharisees, the leaders of the Catholics withhold the knowledge of the keys to the kingdom of Heaven and give them false keys instead, your tradition, tradition that negates the word of God.

I’m chosen by grace, not by works, and the faith I have that saved me wasn’t of me, but of God. And remember: God’s will be done, on Earth, AS IT ALWAYS IS, in Heaven.

Related Information:

Was the New Testament Originally Written in Greek or Aramaic? Aramaic Primacy Refuted

Rocks and Stones

Is the Church Built on Petra or Petros?

On What “rock”?

A Letter Concerning the Sacred Name Movement

Problems Facing Aramaic Primacy Claims

Exploding the Aramaic Myth: An Investigation of Aramaic Primacy and the real language of Messiah

Myths About the Original Language of the New Testament

Atheists Do Worse Than Eating Babies: Response to Darrel the Atheist

Darrel, an atheist said,

“If someone is insulted by my using a label that attributes two nice adjectives to myself, to bad. Want insulting? See “I am a member of the one true religion.” (“Jehovah’s Witness”, “Church of Christ” etc.)” (source)

Me: “etc” meaning what? What does “etc” include Darrel? Why would someone who believes they have the absolute truth be “ABSOLUTELY insulting” Darrel? So if someone believes they have the truth they should always qualify it with, “But I could be wrong and you could be the one with the absolute truth, oh Darrel the atheist.” What with your double standards and insanity? So if math teachers say, “10 X 100 = 1000” they are insulting for stating it as a fact? Or far more complex equations that are flawless?

And in response to Darrel’s, “Considering most people associate it with eating babies, yes, it’s pretty bad.”

Do you know what a strawman is? Who thinks atheists eats babies? How is that not insulting to say to those who disapprove of atheism or think that they are wicked? And hypocrite, they might as well eat babies: forcing abortions on the Chinese, aborting babies every day (that includes atheist Buddhists) WITHOUT ANESTHETIZING THE BABIES, and brutally murdering them.That’s not including the 500 million killed in the past 110 years by atheist leaders and those that went along with their “progress” and “evolution” or the atheists that supported the DDT ban and who continue to spread myths about DDT and all kinds of other lies that rob people of their health, wealth and life.

And Don the atheist, whom Darrel was replying to, said at the bottom of his blog (pretending that they were how theists would respond to being told that the person they are talking to is an atheist):

# They do not believe in God.
# Outrageous! How can this be! I’ve never met someone who didn’t believe in God before.

Don what Christian (not living in desperate poverty or far from a city who lacks an education) has never met an atheist or been informed that there are many of them? Oh the two-year old ones right unfunny, genius joker? Ever heard of the Internet either? Oh yeah no one ever meets an atheist on the Internet… So I shouldn’t think atheists are very dumb (at times), because? Though up until I read that part this post was unusually insightful for one made by an atheist. I found it by typing in that I thought the term freethinker stupid and insulting to Christians.

It’s thoughtless truth-careless hypocritical answers like yours Darrel, one that over looks the gross immorality of atheists over their blooming in the past 110 years, and which is in our faces every day, that many people consider atheists baby-eaters. You’re worse than that: you cut them up mercilessly and trash them or promote taking advantage of them even after that by trying to use their pieces murdered of them for the benefit of sick people psychos like yourselves, who defend all that evil. You are the ones who deserve to be cut up with anesthesia and trashed in Hell forever. Like it or not Darrel, absolute truth doesn’t agree with your lies, and it isn’t a sin to say that you know and understand God and that he loves you and that God doesn’t approve of “whatever” or only Darrel’s absolute truth, only Darrel’s fundamentalist, only what atheists believe is true. Just because atheists are offended, doesn’t mean the ones who offended should change their behavior beliefs or words, or now is “offense” the standard for truth, what offends atheists? Aren’t you blind and arrogant? Who made you God or our gods? How is it you don’t see design anywhere? Since you don’t see the obvious, it’s obvious you will have trouble seeing your own hypocrisy either.

The Last Days

Like many others, I continue thinking about how long it will be before the AntiChrist shows up, because after his 7 year terror, the world will finally, mostly, have peace. The Bible teaches things will get worse in the last days. Though things may have gotten better in that God raised up millions to be saved, and saved them, at the same time it could be said things were getting worse, because the world has been deliberately fighting against whatever true evidence came up for the true religion, and not just that, but in certain ways, became more rebellious. For example, many atheists arose and murdered hundreds of millions, and many people with so called “anti-social” personality disorders have appeared, and because of Satan blinding the minds of the world, instead of a decrease in mental disorders, there is an increase. Anti-social people are like viruses, who, by their actions spread their bad behavior. And as the world gets worse, decent and righteous Christians will get more worn down, more drained of money, and the churches of the fake ones will also fall apart under the strain and be out to save themselves by evil means, and that will like putting fuel on the fire. Crime/lawlessness will get worse and worse, and stuffing people in jail or prison will also make things worse, because it will increase bitterness and put more money into the hands of corrupt police and corruptions officers and the jail owners. And more children will be left without good parenting. I think like computer chips doubling in power every few years, so the wickedness of the world also doubles every few years. At some point, it will get so bad, that the governmental systems of the world will begin disintegrating. Because of that, there will be even more rulers. Because there won’t be enough money for large governments, and because of the mistrust people will have of them, they will want something simpler, kings, dictators or generals. And many will prefer anarchy because of having no more trust in any kind of government authority. During this breakdown, production of technology will slow rapidly, and there will be even more poor. Eventually, bullets and guns will become rare, and knives, swords, spears, staffs and clubs will take their place. The rich of the world will probably be living in glorious high tech cities, and because many of them will be narcissists, they will not try to help the poor outside of their cities, but be happy to ignore them for some supposed good cause. They will either actually believe that their cause is just, like depopulating the world to save it from global warming, or pollution, or babies being born miserable because of poverty, or will instead be deliberately crushing the poor and “common people” for pleasure. The breakdown will also be due to the Bible being ignored, because it is the best book to heed for self-control and progressing. There are no comparable alternatives to the Bible. And once preaching of the Bible becomes rare, the world will have reverted back to the way it was during ancient times, but in a worse way, because many hundreds of millions among the world, will know right from wrong, meaning, the commandments, but will ignore them and do as they please instead. God will also harden the hearts of the Gentiles/world, so that few to none will be saved till he returns. Any young children growing up at this time will probably have very little knowledge of the Bible. And when those children grow up and hear Christians pointing out to them that the AntiChrist has come to power in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, one of them being that evidence for the world leader being the AntiChrist is that his name adds up to make 666, will be laughed at as desperate conspiracy theorists of religion near extinction.

My best guess is that from today there is twenty to forty years left before this age ends. And that is well within my life time, not some convenient climate change geek or new age prophet’s “in 100 TO 1000 years from now the world will be on fire [and I promise I care! so have sex with and worship my nerd self all you beautiful women!]” prophecy.

There’s another reason that I think there’s only a few decades left: there exists information regarding how to create energy sources greater than a typical nuclear power plant, greater than the planned fusion reactors, and the ancient knowledge of how to levitate objects. If someone discovers how to levitate objects, meaning neutralize the effect of gravity on them, it would cause a panic of the ruling rich of the world, who would fear that they could be toppled with such knowledge. They would in my opinion try to accelerate the collapse of the world economy and try even harder to vacuum in the wealth around them. The Vatican would be one of those vacuums from Hell. I have more insight into what would happen, but I’ll save that for later.

Stargate Universe, Second Critique

Note: there’s a little spoiler info in this review:

I finally got done watching the so far last episodes of Stargate Universe and the actors did an excellent job completing the rest of the episodes. It was unfortunate that the claims of cancellation and the really bad episodes in between were coloring how I was watching the last episodes, putting me in error-looking mode, which killed a lot of the enjoyment I think. It was too odd, yet clever how they managed to squeeze in the dead hotties for one more episode, but unsatisfying as to how it was resolved, and the explanation for how the dead scientist in the computer was done away with was an obvious after-thought, poorly executed by a one-liner from Rush. What should have happened was, instead, him doing it for the episode, meaning cutting the dead guy off in that show, rather than, “you missed that significant part, now just watch the rest of the show.”

I think the show ended well though, it was a clear loser, but cleverly ended so that it was like a short story rather than a churn mill for whatever could be dreamed up and rehashed till the audience got burned out on the characters. I thought the other Stargate Series characters were also mostly annoying and shallow, way more shallow now that I think about it that the SGU ones, so, they were superior characters, and the acting was better, even if they were given bad story lines to act out. The time travel part was confusing though, why wasn’t Rush shown getting into the shuttle to escape? And then there was some myteryishness thrown in by making it seem as if Rush might be lying. It was as if the show was being made up without pre-planning or being changed all the sudden, and coming up against a deadline maybe so that they had to skip parts that obviously should have been shown. For now it’s left to the imagination as to how it would have ended, to storybook writers and someone willing to come up with the money to finish it off. I think it would be worth the investment for a spectacular third series, carefully planned so that logical errors and oversights are eliminated. I just hope there is no more evolution garbage thrown in, like was done in the V remake, which came out nonsensically and was evidence as to how poorly people understand the evolution propaganda they listen to. And please, no more ascended masters garbage if a season three is made. Oh: that city made by the family of the crew was awesome. If only there really were such a city on Earth as that, now that would be a place to live.