Archive for October, 2012

A Letter to Eben Alexander, on his NDE experience

October 31, 2012 5 comments

I am to the point person, one, because I’m in chronic pain, two, I don’t like wasting time, not that I risk rudeness. But this is what I want you to know, I’m a scholar, 20 years long, in theology, that is, the study of morality. That exceeds what you were talking about on Coast, and no doubt your book: feelings. You have given the same kind if description of your NDE, as you yourself acknowledged others have given of theirs (which would include how their philosophy of life was affected, including God).

Things you have apparently not considered, or at least seriously, apparently because you weren’t aware of it, at least not well:

Scripture teaches that Satan can affect memory, by suppressing it, thereby “blinding” a person, and implies he can also affect our emotions, hardening our hearts (making us stubborn), and reincarnation, if the Bible is true, which I and millions of others have studied sincerely, with fervent prayer, to God, to understand clearly and correctly, if that book which claims to be his word is true, than reincarnation is clear evidence that Satan can create false memories so real, that the person thinks they are true. Consider that seriously, not lightly.

Second: you have clearly dismissed in your bias based on your experience, and your way of life, that those who have experienced Hell are people whose testimony are not worth time considering. That is clearly biased. Consider Angie Fenimore’s experience then.

You said that you were told while in your coma and in this paradisaical place you described, that you were there to learn. You didn’t say necessarily to learn everything at once at that place or everything there at all. So now that you’ve “returned” consider that you were meant to learn about your experience from those who are here, including me, including from the Bible, and that your experience was a verification of the Bible. You yourself said that your dad was not there. Then where was he? If he wasn’t in Heaven with you, where was he? Someone might argue, “He was on a special mission” and/or “And it may have been a test to see if Eben would turn against God”. But what kind of test is that? But if on a special mission why didn’t even the lowest of the angels or humans that had passed on say, “You’re dad’s okay,” or “too busy to say ‘hi'”? And as for a test, that would be one weak and odd test, that just because you didn’t see your dad during a Heavenly or Heaven-like visit, to see if you’d hate God over that or not, and while or remembering the feeling of supernatural love and seeing glorious sights. Rather, as Eben sensed, it was like glaring error of some sort. And consider, what being is known for getting love wrong and using shallow attempts to deceive through strong emotions, through passion? The one and only, Satan. Demons are known for not getting human psychology right when it comes to being good, understanding and loving towards them, but rather, being just the opposite, and arbitrary. That would explain why some demon or Satan overlooked something so obvious as to show Eben his dad well and happy, or even tell him, “You’re dad decided to reject God, so he won’t be with you forever, but don’t be angry at God for this, lest the same happen to you, or lest you be punished for a while.” And perhaps Satan or whatever demon was working with him didn’t add that on, because, as is the case for some demons it seems, like when they encountered Jesus, they fear the thought of punishment, or, whoever it was deceiving Eben was afraid that that message would be too close to fundamentalist Christianity, which is the true religion. Perhaps they chose not even to try the “obey God or you will go to Hell” line, either due to being tired of that misleading message (as a message of how to be saved/forgiven it is) or were afraid Eben which his high intelligence, might figure out that that message was misleading and realize the true way with some study of the situation, and instead wanted to lead him down some sort of New Age reincarnation path in the end. It seems more plausible to me however that the demon either forgot about family for the moment, or perhaps was expending so much energy creating the false illusion that it had no mental energy or power left to create anything further at the moment, like a fake image of his dad, and perhaps no other demons were around to help out because angels or God was directly preventing any further deception. Regardless, it was still a test, a test to see if Eben would continue to seek the truth, or make an assumption: that God was the one communicating with him, and not something with potentially evil intent using positive feelings to blind Eben and mask the evil intent. People try and deceive each other like this all the time. Something else to note is New Agers never, in my many years of studying them, ever consider that an “ascended master” type human or some alien being of that type, would even be evil, or turn evil, or like in the Star Wars world, master supernatural powers and use them for evil rather than gaining them through good deeds or at least without any intention of hurting anyone. To me that is just another evidence that there really is a Satan who is supernaturally blinding the world in various ways (though not every single person) so that they don’t think of obvious things like that. There are evil humans, even evil people know that, even a so called nihilist might admit that though denying evil exists, and if spirits can exist, why wouldn’t there be an evil spirit? Why would simply being a spirit automatically make it good? And if humans have a good spirit, wouldn’t they all be good if that were so, or struggling to do so? Yet clearly, far from all humans desire to do good, but are only bent on doing evil.

Perhaps you will know at least where he will go from reading the rest of this letter to you and others who believe the version of God you believe in:

Feelings alone are not any kind of teaching that is specific on what is right or wrong, anymore than nature is, with few exceptions. There is the instinct, and conscience, and minor things that can be learned from observation, common things, like that it is natural for a woman to wear her hair long, to have hair on her head at the very least, which helps make it easy to identify she is a female, and which helps to attract males, in order to procreate. However notice how I had to explain that, it is not self explanatory. The same is true concerning right from wrong, morals, as well as right and wrong methods in order to accomplish goals not directly related to morality, like how to walk through a door. No amount of “amazing love” can teach you how to open, and walk through a door. No amount of anger can either, or curiosity. It can motivate you, and that’s the point in part, but love doesn’t say, “Walk through this door” that is rather a subjective interpretation. Now also I will tell you I am a scholar of philosophy, specifically the most important part: informal logic. Both informal logic and theology, specifically morals and God, are the most important sciences, or systems of knowledge. Without either there can be no understanding of truth, of true from false, determining what love is or hate. You seem to have become puffed up to some degree based on your NDE. It is similar to how the Bible talks about those who have become puffed up because they saw an angel or angels. The same is true for many things, UFOs, bigfoot (there is more than one type, just as with monkeys), seeing a famous singer at a concert, and so on. They are tests from God, to see, as he said in the Old Testament, if you will follow things other than him.

In your talk you gave an illogical description of Hell, calling it an imperfection. However there is no basis for calling it that. You called it that as you yourself said, because you experience great love, that is nonsensical: great love doesn’t define what Hell is or describe it as an imperfection. That is a baseless subjective claim, an opinion. Great love, nor love period, cannot speak words. Some people wrongly take the Bible out of context and say, “God is love” to refute any claim that God would ever harm anyone or get angry. But clearly God is not an emotion, but as you said, has thoughts, and knows everything. It is also illogical to exclude verses which do not elicit the emotion of love in you. Is it wrong for God to be angry at evil? Why, if so? If it isn’t, why then can he not be angry at an evil person, someone who is evil? You made another error concerning that:

You said, “We have free will” but did not explain yourself, so then committed the fallacy called “Begging the Question.” Free will is not a justification for doing evil, nor is learning. God still holds those who do wrong accountable for what they do wrong, morally, regardless of whether or not they were meant to learn a lesson. The same applies for those he forgives. Punishing a person or being angry at them for doing wrong does not negate “learning” anything, whether by those observing that which was wrong, or by those who did wrong, nor does having a free will make everything “not evil, but just learning”. That is clearly not true when abusing a child, murdering, and doing any evil act that is not in retaliation against anyone for a wrong, but for there mere pleasure of it, as psychopaths are known to do.

Furthermore, you, unlike me, clearly don’t know anything about psychology, specifically anti-social personality disorders. You claim that God wouldn’t make imperfect things, and he doesn’t, but how then do you suggest, you an imperfect person who believed what was false about God, even that he didn’t exist, what would you suggest to the all knowing God with unfathomable love do to deal with permanently mentally warped people, warped in an evil way? As Scripture says, “The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers.” Will a being that can be described as love and truth itself, subject itself to the endless evil thoughts of a narcissist or psychopath, or a hateful-filled arrogant person who has grown to be twisted at old age and is set in their ways forever? Remember you said we have a free will, and therefore isn’t God allowed to allow a person to remain permanently evil, or to become as bad as Satan is described, a person who has dedicated himself to doing everything wrong, whenever he feels like it, if he can do so? So then, again: will God be with such people, will he let them stand next to the good forever? Will he reward Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mohammed, and other mass murderers and anyone who is hateful, with “Paradise”? Will he have a child stand forever next to the one who raped and abused her brutally, repeatedly till she died before becoming twelve? Will God have them be in the same Paradise together, or have that evil one next to anyone who is good? As God said, “Don’t be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”

Now how can an evil person, someone who has lived their life like Satan: doing as the felt rather than searching for the truth and goodness with all their heart, who reject the command of love:

“Do to others as you would have them do to you,” and to Christians, “Love one another as I have loved you.”? I explained it here:, the link is also above my journal at all times.

A Letter to Dr. Jason Braithwaite

October 29, 2012 Leave a comment

To Dr. Braithwaite (and Fortean author Nick Redfern),

I study logical fallacies, not sure if that is your field since you say you’re a lecturer in cog psych as opposed to philosophy. I also study theology and psychology, specifically anti-social personality disorders, I teach those subjects too. I noticed in what seems to be an old version of your Seven Fallacies of Thought article you saying that science it he most openminded of knowledge systems. There’s a problem with that statement, which perhaps you realized and so removed, but in case it for some reason was still there and wasn’t being found I’ll explain why (and this is also meant for Nick Redfern whom I listened to on Coast to Coast AM, listened to him say that we should always be open to things that are contrary to what we believe):

It’s a fallacy to think you should be open minded to anything, it’s related to the fallacy that there is no absolute truth, that you can never reach truth and so should never commit to a belief being 100% true. In fact mainstream science is logically fallacious (and you saying that demonstrated partly why) because the philosophy of it (which is only exposed when its proponents are caught in an error despite using “science”) is that “we’re still learning” aka “still improving” in other words always endlessly learning and “correcting when needed” which is a bait and switch phrase for, “you can never have the absolute truth but must keep searching” aka “be open minded”. Now suppose that is just a bad fall back mainstream scientists make and that MAINSTREAM science (which is illogically referred to them as simply, “science” (no offense)), and that really it’s not about being open minded to no end, but, as its proponents say, about hypothesizing, experimenting, verifying (and adding to the knowledge of science), that may be so, but the problem is they inject their own bias and additional philosophy into it, hence, making it so called, “Mainstream” (in other words “mainstream” has come to mean,

“Belief that science cannot verify the existence of God, that the big bang is true, abiogenesis (whatever it may be) is true, Darwinian evolution specifically is true (not other evolution theories even if they don’t rely on a god or God or alien), that relativity is true and anyone who says they are not is not a true scientist or is less trustworthy than an ms scientist and is illogical or ignorant of the facts or delusional.”

It’s a well known fact among the world that that is what mainstreamers believe, or at least state openly in various ways so as to shield themselves from attack and persecution from their “peers” or those who believe things contrary to that biased philosophy.

So, it’s wrong in that many of its members at the very least, deny absolute truth when caught in mistakes, and for the other reasons I stated, and those other reasons are wrong for various obvious reasons which I won’t explain, because they are obvious or can be easily looked up (I made it easier by making a portal for that at experiments that contradict the claims that the universe is older than 6,500 years, living fossils, data that contradicts the big bang, contradictions in relativity, biblical prophecy (which is verifiable scientifically as is archeology and psychology, the whole bible is scientifically verifiable in various ways as are the whole of facts of archeology and psychology, though they may not be a single book or a few similar versions as the Bible is conveniently).

As you probably already know, but in case don’t, or forget, you shouldn’t be open to anything, but only that which is in agreement with the facts, with truth, and with what is logical. So if someone says, “Be open minded that 2+2=4 is false” it’s not something to consider, and for me, if someone says, “Be open to (MAINSTREAM) science being superior to any other way of obtaining knowledge of what is true or false real and not real, I automatically know that is false, because it’s a bait and switch: mainstreamers are the ones who usually say that, and they mean MAINSTREAM science, not simply “science” and make another bait and switch fallacy by confusing the meaning of the word science even further, by meaning both “the method” and “the field of knowledge obtained by science” which are two entirely different things. The method has nothing to do with “You can’t prove God with science”, and even the field of science itself has no say on that, it’s just an accumulation of knowledge put together in some way. It’s not some single book magically kept one way by some mainstreamer or mainstreamers so that there are no other science-based knowledge that says, “God has been shown to exist by various characteristics of the universe, for example the instinctive knowledge of living things is knowledge that can be deduced through thought experiments showing that such knowledge must have been deliberately created rather than by chance (etc)…”.

A person’s mind should only be open to a thing being true (meaning, willing to consider a thing as being true) if they don’t have any knowledge which is plainly true that contradicts that thing being true. For example is someone said, “Be open to an all powerful, all knowing, perfectly logical, loving and vengeful being called ‘Yahweh’ and who is also called ‘God’, exists,” to someone who has no clear facts that an all powerful, all knowing, perfectly logical, loving and vengeful being, ‘God’ exists.

If we are not closed-minded to that which is clearly false, then we would be opening ourselves to the endless learning of the same things over and over again, no matter how simple and obvious or vexing, like “one plus one equals two” or that “deliberate abuse of and murdering little kids is immoral/not good/evil” or some particular crime that was plainly a crime because everyone saw the act committed (and yet the criminal repeatedly appeals to everyone to “have an open mind that he really didn’t commit a crime and that the crime was just an illusion, and that the blood that was spilled on the ground was fake, and that no one died and was buried, and that all the witnesses and investigators are imagining things, and the photos and videos even are false). If that is true, then there really is no point in going to get water to quench your thirst, because your thirst could be just as false as true, and water just as much existing as not; life would be a confusing mess and the pursuit of anything all like trying to accomplish something in a dream: futile.


A Red Head, “Your backwards views are older than the dinosaurs”

October 22, 2012 12 comments

The red haired woman (please pray for her salvation) with the pro-gay marriage post with the poster is a typical another naive and gullible liberal no doubt to me. Such people are alienated from truth, and logic, and follow their feelings over reason, like the animals they believe themselves to be. There is evidence for evolution, none. Second, Earth is only 6,500 years old, and the evidence for that is endless, that includes archeological evidence, with atheists usually ignore, because it is so obvious and not something that can be argued away logically. This is also why the statement on the poster makes no sense and is worth less than the cardboard scrap it was written on:

1) Fallacy: older that something else or that is older doesn’t mean useless or wrong.

2) Contradiction: Marriage is very old, why then are gays trying to get married if “backwards” and “older than the dinosaurs” makes something obsolete? Dinosaurs still exist. Dinosaurs wouldn’t be obsolete or useless merely because they no longer exist. It’s very stupid and immature to say that because something is very old or no longer exists (like animals that go extinct) that they are no longer useful. A second contradiction is that using this woman’s argument, gay marriage will eventually be “as old as the dinosaurs”.

3) Fallacy: EVERY ANIMAL is as old as dinosaurs, since all animals have been in existence since the beginning. How in the world do people not notice so called “living fossils”? Trees are just as old as dinosaurs.

4) Fallacy: The argument begs the question, it makes no point in other words: What does it matter if it’s older than the dinosaurs? So is Earth, and the point is? The argument makes just as much sense as saying, “Your argument is a new thing.” But if it was, “Your argument is new, it is not tried and true like traditional marriage, which is has withstood thousands of years as being a good thing.” That would be making a point, but again, not, “Trees are older than the dinosaurs,” or “Being honest and not murdering or stealing are older than the dinosaurs,” and so on.

5) Fallacy: the argument is a double non sequitur: what do dinosaurs and THEIR AGE have to do with gay marriage? Two nonsensical arguments in one.

The people who support gay marriage clearly are very stupid, immoral, ignorant, hypocritical and illogical and therefore are blind to their own faults and is why they can’t be trusted to give you facts and are a waste of time arguing with. I even met one that boasted of her being a living contradiction. Save yourself the pain and time of arguing with such people when they want to argue, and just print this page out and give it to them.