Archive

Posts Tagged ‘coast to coast am’

Anti-fundamentalist George Noory Makes A Fool of Himself Again

November 17, 2012 Comments off

A snippet of a conversation from Coast to Coast AM tonight:

Betsey Lewis: I believe the Miracle of Fatima was a UFO mother ship.

George: I do too.

BL: You do?

George: (With the tone of someone clearly caught of guard): Yes, miracle or not if that were the sun coming down, I don’t care what, the sun would have burned everyone alive.

No, George wasn’t joking, he was caught off guard by Betsy (unintentionally) making another one of his careless agreements with guests, and I do mean CARE-less, meaning he didn’t care what was coming out of his mouth except to as he always does, sound friendly, wise and fill in air time till he got to the end of the show. His response was so strange that I’m not sure anymore if George is a conartist, as in makes up arbitrary lies or really believes angels or angelic events are really aliens. The comment besides being silly and childish, was also nonsensical: a miracle is supernatural, so if the sun were really brought down, obviously God could have prevented it from burning anyone, and had it come down the whole world would have known. If he did believe it was a UFO, why did he struggle to respond and make such a foolish response? Was it because she said “mothership” rather than simply a UFO? But if that is why, why didn’t he do the adult thing and say, “Well not a mothership, it might have been, but I have no way, sorry about that”?

George often agrees with guests including callers no matter what absurd thing they say. One example was a show in which a guest was on who claimed to be a former military person who was in contact with the Grays, aliens, and helped one escape. A caller called in with some nonsensical question or claim that Soviets had put secret spywear on American hard drives (which had nothing to do with the topic) and George replied to the caller with a strong emphatic agreement, and obviously hadn’t listen to the bizarre rant, and then asked the x-military guy, “What do you think?” And that x-military guy was making sense during the whole show, even if the story was fake, and wasn’t someone like Noory, sloppily winging it. George is one of the most unprofessional workers I’ve ever known in life, it’s no wonder he gets no prestigious worldly awards of any kind, like the Marconi or a Nobel for peace. The day he does will be a shameful day for the world, and I would bet would provoke God to move swiftly and furiously.

But he was caught off guard by this Betsy “Leaps of Logic New Ager” Lewis. George wasn’t joking either, he was giving a serious reply. This is how UNWISE this man is, that despite having been taught the Bible’s wisdom to be careful when listening and with your speech at a young age, and being surrounded with its wisdom and people everyday, that after decades and decades of being immersed in the world, having chosen to live life as a casual entertainment experience rather than a serious and precious gift given by God, still decides to behave and think like a child. Yes, George has the voice of an adult male, and can pull off some very witty replies, but those are rare moments, the rest of him is stunted and shallow.

Sometimes I wonder if George is a narcissist, as in truly mentally ill. He seems to have a “hankering for questions” as the Bible puts it, yet he’s a pandering liar who in my opinion cares more about money that truly knowing anything, or perhaps neither are mutually exclusive. I remember on the show he once asked someone, “Do you truly want to know (how they built the pyramids)” because he enjoyed the mystery and would no longer care if he found out, I think he was asking the narcissist Richard C. Hoagland.

Update 12-20-2012: A new bizarre phrase for agreement from George: George was doing open lines and a foreigner called in at the end and started talking about how aliens are coming from such and such planet and that it takes them 24 minutes to get to Earth, to which George replied, “That’s not bad at all.”

Signs Noory is a narcissist:

1) Conniving/cruel and immature: his enjoyment of wasting time and enjoying the mockery of fundamentalist Christians via J.C.’s mockery (the guest caller who seems to pretend to be a fundamentalist Christian without ever saying if he’s pretending to be a mentally ill and/or stupid one, or if that is how he thinks they all are, let alone admit to pretending at all,

2) Shallow: for example his repeatedly having on extremely shallow guests like “Glynnis Mccants, the numbers lady”, that stupid sun coming down and burning everyone comment and his fixation with John Titor), talks about his opinions often after having said he never gives his opinions because listeners don’t listen to the show to hear his, but the guests’ (wow, try saying guests’), uses something that is nearly a neologism, “dimensional” by misdefining (by the way he uses it) as apparently (to me at least) “Not regularly seen because they are from an unseeable dimension” (yet George never explains what he means by “dimensional”. He also repeatedly, and I mean repeatedly, says that “people these days are acting weird” and “strange”, but doesn’t say in what way,. or when they never were acting that way? And sometimes also pairs that with “people sense something is coming”, like another earthquake, a tsunami, a mass murder, another war, and that matters because? And who can’t figure out yet another disaster is coming?

3) Arbitrary: agrees that the universe was created, which would require an all powerful all knowing God, doesn’t believe in the Big Bang or evolution, yet readily reads mainstream scientology articles claiming such and such is billions (or millions) of years old, starting out stating it like this at times, “Scientists have discovered the bones of a 30 million year old” or “Scientists have found the oldest galaxy, 12 billion years old” as if it’s a fact that these scientists are right, never giving a disclaimer that what he reads he doesn’t necessarily believes

4) Vain: keeps injecting his worthless opinions, uses the cheap shot of condemning murderers and “pedophiles” in order to make himself look morally superior. When he says “pedophiles” he means “child molesters”, which shows more of his disingenuous concern for people, as that word simply means kid-lover or sexually attracted to kids”, and by condemning that all as being such, risks their lives, because there are many people who are also vain and self-righteous, who are willing to become a murderer (and George even stated his approval of murdering a pedophile) if they believe someone to be a pedophile. He also says he would never forgive someone who murdered someone of his own family, yet never sees it from the other side: would he forgive his own kin if they murdered someone else, who necessarily was the kin of someone else’s family? And such lack of an obvious thought shows again him to be arbitrary (picking his own family as important, but not someone else’s and not considering exceptions at all for forgiving a murderer) and shallow. If that doesn’t do it enough for you (and vanity is the key sign of a narcissist), perhaps you might remember hearing George, at least twice, saying he would not quit hosting Coast to Coast AM and would continue till he was dead. No doubt to me that would not help the national suicide rate in the long run, especially not hearing George shrink dumber over time, think slower, and talking with a raspy phlegmy voice, and seeing his prune face on the Coast homepage for the next (I hope not) 50 years. My guess is America won’t exist anymore by then anyways.

5) Hypocritical: George claims to be a Catholic, which whether he likes it or not is a type of Christian, a false one, but regardless, a Christian is supposed to forgive and love everyone (until perhaps Judgment Day, when all Christians would reach moral perfection and so would no longer be hypocritical in any way).

6) Lying and exaggerating: George repeatedly embellishes the reputation of the liar and narcissist Richard C. Hoagland, and it seems to me that he pretends that John Titor was time traveler, if he’s not pretending then he’s truly gullible and stupid (and being gullible) is another sign of narcissism). There is a clip on YouTube of George lying to a caller about being psychic.

7) Gullible: George, though not falling easily or at all for global warming, vaccines, world government aspirations, the belief that being a police officer or scientist makes you necessarily honest/good, does fall for the claim that Earth is millions and billions of years old without bothering to see if those dating methods are correct, although he did have on a few creationists, and one recently, and supported him a little at first, but when his guest Giorgio Tsoukolous said that it was crazy to believe the universe was 6,000 years old (which is short by about 500 years by the way) he agreed with him (once again his agreeing with whatever and his pandering). See sign 6 too.

8) Rambling ranting/talking over others often: This isn’t necessarily the sign of a narcissist I think, but if it’s there it is an additional piece of evidence. George sometimes talks over guests, but usually doesn’t, and when he does he immediately stops. As for ranting or rambling or both, this is the most difficult to find sign about George, because, though being vain, he does amazing to me, allow guests to go on and on. However he did publish a book, supposedly by himself, something about dead people, which I would bet contains plenty of ranting. This isn’t always a sign of a narcissist.

9) Hatred of criticism against oneself: George actually stated during his show that people shouldn’t criticize him if they dislike what he says.

10) Violent outbursts: I only know of one moment where George, unprofessionally, had not just a violent outburst, but to me, a cranky sounding one, in which he rebuked Richard C. Hoagland for not allowing Zubrin, another guest, to talk. It would have been mature if George had simply and gently said when Richard did it the first or second time, to stop, instead George allowed it to go on for a long while, which made him responsible in way for Richard’s rambling. It may be that George is able to control his anger well because he is wealthy, and is able to satisfy himself mostly from his wealth, and with millions of listeners is able to get the high he wants. The Bible makes it clear that people like George are violent inside however.

11) Hatred of work: George once asked someone how anyone could live on minimum wage and working long hours, the way he stated it he made it sound as if he couldn’t believe people could exist like that without starting a war or killing themselves or just dropping dead after living like that for a while. The appropriate mature response would have been to praise hard working people and condemn the rich who are stingy with their workers, and say that he wishes he could somehow help.

12) Stingy with the poor/detesting the poor: George once said he saw someone who seemed to be grieved over the amount of money they had to spend on gas, implying or describing them as struggling or poor I think, but gave no indication of having helped this person, despite himself being obviously wealthy. I remember this one because someone made this point on the Internet somewhere. It’s not hard to imagine that George hates most of his listeners, being that he pulls off obvious and boring deceptions almost every night with his show and by having put out a needless book about life after death, as if he were a scholar or expert on the subject, he isn’t, or even had good stories to listen to, but he doesn’t.

13) Narcissists often are in high up job positions because they use flattery and pandering to get there (which anyone can see/hear George does often).

14) Immature: There is a clip on YouTube of George lying to a caller about being psychic, his violent outburst, his obsession with John Titor, his having extremely shallow people as regular guests including J.C., his playing the UFO Phil song at the end of his shows, whic is a very horrid and immature-sounding song, not being professional by trying to follow up on guests with interesting and potentially ground-breaking stories let alone simply asking where the event being spoken of took place (which could also count as being arbitrary and lazy/hating work).

I’m not saying that George never tells the truth, is never mature, has never done a little or a lot of hard work, but as Jesus and anyone would say, liberal or conservative, slave or free, black or white, that when a person does these things regularly, they are these things. Not everyone is willing to point them out, for fear or retaliation or being wrong or out of hatred for God, but I have no problem with it, since I fear God more than men.

These are all the basic signs of a narcissist, and George fits them all well enough for me, so after having wondered for a long time, I now safely conclude he is a narcissist, and should be treated as one, meaning, someone to avoid listening to. Listening to narcissists can destroy appropriate pride, a healthy judgment of yourself, self-esteem I suppose you can call that, which leads to depression and violence and can even cause narcissism in youths.

“Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger” – James 1:19

“The tongue of the wise presents knowledge appropriately, but fools belch foolishness.” – Proverbs

Categories: George Noory, narcissistic personality disorder Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ian Punnet Insults Martyred Christians Everywhere

November 12, 2012 Leave a comment

Wow, false Christian and heretic Ian Punnet is a very evil moron: a soldier gave his personal experience and factually stated Muslims murder Christians often in the Middle East/Africa area, which is common knowledge, and the soldier also mentioned the verse that says to kill Christians and Jews where ever you find them and Ian then said that he didn’t know that to be true, said that the Quran calls the Jews and Christians the “people of the book” then kept talking over the soldier in a rambling fashion, and said it was the soldier’s opinion. Why does Ian always do this whenever someone tells him there are evil religions, and Ian then play casual friend to the world by saying there are only lunatic fringes?

Moron Ian, Ian the God-hating idiot: Muslims, ALL MUSLIMS, in general, repeat the line that the Bible has been corrupted, therefore modern Muslims believe that the Jews and Christians today who are “of the book” are of a corrupt version/versions of the Bible. On top of that idiot, the soldier was citing a verse, so of course there will regular be Muslims who practice it, and as any idiot, massive idiot who pays attention to the news, as every idiot liberal knows but you’re narcissist self MUSLIMS ARE KILLING CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS REGULARLY YOU MORON. HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW ABOUT SUDAN YOU IDIOT? How do you not know about the Copts being persecuted by Muslims regular in Egypt? How do you not know about Muslims in Saudi Arabia who will kill a Muslim who turns to Christ, or in Iran or in Pakistan? IF MUSLIMS ARE REGULARLY KILLING THEIR OWN DAUGHTERS, DAUGHTERS YOU MORON, AND THEIR WIVES FOR THE SMALLEST OFFENSES, POURING AND THROWING ACID ON THEIR FACES TO KILL OR HUMILIATE THEM NONSTOP FOREVER, HOW CAN YOU NOT CONSIDER THEY WOULD KILL THOSE WHO OPENLY OPPOSE THEIR ENTIRE RELIGION AND WHOM THEY ASSOCIATE AS PEOPLE TRYING TO DESTROY THEIR COUNTRY ON TOP OF THAT!? WHY ARE YOU SO OBLIVIOUS AND DUMB!? You should be executed you moron, for insulting all the tens of thousands of Christians both true and false who died without denying Christ!

AS YOU SAID IDIOT: YOU DON’T KNOW, WHY THEN MORON DID YOU SAY IT WAS THE SOLDIER’S OPINION, AND ON A VETERAN THEMED SHOW? DUMMY? YOU’RE AN EVIL IDIOT AND SHOULD GET OFF THEIR AIR FOR GOOD AND STOP PRETENDING TO BE A DEACON WHEN YOU’RE AN ARROGANT HERETIC WHO INSULTS CHRISTIANS EVERYWHERE! JUST BECAUSE YOU TALK CALM YO IDIOT DOESN’T MAKE YOU A GOOD PERSON. LIKE CHRIST SAID, OUTWARDLY YOU ARE A SHEEP, BUT INSIDE YOU ARE A WOLF!

Get off the air you fringe heretic! You make liberals look extremely stupid!

11-12-2012, 7:32 PM:

A few minutes ago, I just remembered having a strange dream, about 30 minutes ago I think (yes, I sleep during the middle of the day now as my depression is back from my psoriasis having flared up again). It was a short one, and I forget the first part for now, but after, I think, not sure, getting rejected by some girls, I was in a restaurant sitting down near its open oven, a raised square oven with no enclosure, and there was at least one person next to me. Someone put a small squat woman like a dwarf into the oven. I didn’t know what was going on at first, and didn’t even know I was in a restaurant (if you’d had a lot of dreams you know they seem to have a life of their own and seem to be made up as they progress). She didn’t talk as the heat began to make her hot. Someone then said to pour water on her to keep her from getting hot to keep the pain away she would be in (till she died). I poured a little water on her and blew on her face (to use the air to keep her cool), but she started to show she was uncomfortable, as if burning, so I just lifted her out. She wasn’t some beautiful woman at all. She looked a little Mexican, and a little like a troll, so I didn’t save her because I thought she was beautiful. Then a black woman came from around the cooking area I guess and went in through the entrance and said to me angrily, I guess something like, “Why did you take her out?” and I think she also said, “Now they people will have nothing to eat,” and I replied calmly and without fear, “She’s human.” I think then I yelled things at her, but I don’t know what, it may have been complete nonsense since I don’t remember saying anything specific, just an angry outburst.

Someone sitting next to me then said, quietly, “I learned they were human too.”

The interpretation of the dream:

I think “they” meant “pygmies”, like the ones in Africa, and that my anger at Ian Punnet, that false Christian leader who insulted the Christians in Africa and Mideast who die for their religion were represented in my dream by the oppressed pygmies, and the oven part was a reference to how one boy was set on fire by Muslims when he wouldn’t denounce Jesus as his God. The first and last part of my dream had something to do with women I was interested in, big surprise there. I got no where with them though, as usual. It wasn’t a useless dream to me, it let me know for myself that I wasn’t a fake, as I’d wondered before sleeping if I was angry at Ian merely for being a pathological liar about the Bible and religion in general, or really was concerned for the lives of anyone in general. Now I know.

Wikipedia’s article on the Persecution of Christians
<a href="http://voiceofthemartyrs.com“>News On Martyred Christians

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: https://eternian.wordpress.com/life, the link is also above my journal at all times.

Denise Siegal – Fraud Psychic

September 21, 2012 Leave a comment

I’m listening to Coast to Coast AM right, now, to Denise Siegal, a supposed skeptical psychic and an astrology. She confuses prophecy with being psychic. That says a lot about her level of knowledge, no offense. And afterwards, George Noory, a moron, just caught her on what he thought was her contradicting herself it seemed to me, when she said she thought and felt we’re on the verge of WW3 (that’s not a prediction if you hadn’t noticed), although it wasn’t because you can do both. AND UGH: WHO IN THEE HELL NEEDS TO BE PSYCHIC TO THINK OR FEEL WE ARE?! What a stereotypical fraud psychic. Then George said after some other exchanges: “I don’t care about your opinions,” as if to be funny or rather meaning, “I only want your predictions.” After some other words she said that she FELT again that there’d be another world war sometime in the next THIRTY YEARS. WOW, AGAIN, STEREOTYPICAL VAGUE “PSYCHIC”: GIVE A BROAD AMOUNT OF TIME FOR YOURSELF TO BE RIGHT OR WRONG. What a joke. And incredible that a person like this gets a long line of comments on her about me page while someone like me, who actually teaches logic and truth, and gives evidence for what I say, clear evidence, is ignored. She doesn’t even show a picture of herself on her about me page or homepage (maybe because she knows it would be a bad idea if she wanted to get a real job, if her face became well known for for her scam). It’s shameful that liberals cheer each other on while Christians, the true ones, are usually silent.

A Resonating Insight Into Negative New Age Positivity

March 17, 2012 2 comments

To Tina Fiorda and Tilde Cameron:

Hi, I’m a logician. I don’t like to waste time so I will go right to the point:

You made a false claim that God, because he “is love” wouldn’t punish. God isn’t literally love, if so, he’d not be God, he’d be an emotion, which makes no sense, because emotions aren’t alive, they are are response of living beings. Further, if God could only love, he wouldn’t have a free will, he’d be a slave to love so to speak (supposing there was such thing as living love that could be God at the same time, but he’s not. It’s too convenient and wishful thinking.

So, major error there. Also, it’s common knowledge you punish for two reason: justice and to teach, just as you said, to teach. Is God NOT teaching by causing pain? Or is he not teaching when he exercises justice? Using your logic, no one should punish, people should get away with crimes, no one should be restrained even. Your logic is one sided and biased too, because you’re saying God shouldn’t have the right to exercise his truly free will.

Your second error: You said he gave us free will. Free will doesn’t justify doing wrong, it’s not a free ticket to do wrong or to try and do whatever we want.

Third error: You said, in response to the Christian who corrected you with the Bible, that “we feel” such and such. Feeling is inferior to reasoning. It’s by following your feelings over reasoning that is the main reason for fights (not as others say in a vague way, “religion” as in, “being religious.”) Simple example: children fighting, bad marrying decisions, unprepared pregnancy, leading to endless baby-murders, divorces and wrecked lives.

Fourth error (though is the same as the third one): Does that “resonate” with you? You said that your message “resonates” with you. What does that mean? It’s a vague statement that explains nothing. You also said that spirits can also be positive and not negative, and asked, “Why must they only be negative”? However your question is a rhetoric fallacy: your question doesn’t prove that spirits communicating in a way forbidden by the Bible won’t always be negative.

Fifth error: You’re use of the word “negative” is also vague. It has multiple meanings that don’t match. Negative can mean, “Displeasing”, “not having messages or an attitude conveying happiness” or “being unthankful and/or having a fault-finding attitude out of hatred”. The first two aren’t necessarily bad, the third is, so these definitions are not all compatible. Your question therefore could not be understood, it was meaningless. If you hadn’t used that deliberately deceptive New Age term and instead used the biblical “evil”, you would have been understandable and not teaching and spreading confusion.

The Bible makes it clear that consulting a spirit will have negative consequences because God forbade it, and sin (going against his command/s) leads to punishment, or what you might vaguely call “negative consequences.” That is why you will always. if “a spirit” really is speaking to you, get a deceptive message over all (not that every single thing said is going to be a lie). It’s also not the same as a sin like theft, in which you may have a temporary “positive” as you might call it, result, like getting a bottle of aspirin and getting rid of a headache. A demon doesn’t do anything beneficial, nothing significantly beneficial, not usually at least. It’s intent is always to deceive or facilitate some deception, including just by being silent if that’s all it feels like doing or was told to do by Satan. A demon is not like a genie in a bottle. It’s like an angry tormented snake covered in sharp thorns that wants to relieve its pain and is willing to harm you if it thinks it can ease its pain by doing so.

Sixth error: You’re use of the word “spirit” is also deceptively vague. You’re purposely avoiding specifying angels and demons and attempting to make people think that you can also talk to dead humans. There is no evidence, with the exception of one debatable verse in the Bible, that humans, especially unforgiven ones, will communicate after dying.

Seventh error: You said God unconditionally loves. Who says that, and what is the evidence for that? The Bible certainly doesn’t teach that, and if it did, it would be a major contradiction using your interpretation. You’re picking and choosing which verses you want to believe, and simply going with what is convenient and sounds most pleasing to your ears.

Eighth error: You can’t create a reality and there is no such thing as more than one. That’s an incorrect usage of the word. The way in which you use it goes opposite of one of the only definitions, which is, “The state of the world as it really is rather than as you might want it to be.” So you’re midefining it, completely going against it, by saying there is more than one reality. The word has not been used that way till New Agers started misusing it. It’s a delusional use of the word and sets people up for a fall and can get people killed because you are teaching people that they can literally cause dangerous things to be safe just by wishing or that lies can be true just by wishing, like making child abuse a good thing that directly helps children, or driving on the wrong side of traffic something that will improve safety, or jumping off a cliff something that will be a positive experience that leads to enlightenment and immorality rather. It’s an extremely against common sense delusion. It could even cause children to become mentally ill if they were repeatedly taught to believe in imaginary things and told that they can wish things into reality or wish things away, like the sun, and are later traumatized into a permanent mentally deluded state when someone abuses them, by endlessly responding with delusional defenses like pretending that the abuse is good, and even becoming worse by becoming addicted to abuse. Your reality creating fallacy is actually one of the roots of all logical fallacies: denial of absolute truth or rather, that there are absolute lies. And to deny that leads to endless confusion and mistakes. Your claim that we can create realities therefore refutes your very claim, because I can, according to you, create a reality in which you are completely false (and yet that can’t be true either because you deny that there is anything that can be completely true), hence why I said your reality is unworkable. An analogy of your teaching would be if we lived in a completely red universe, yet you say, “The universe is blue, but not truly, really, it’s red, but not really; because we can see blue if we want too, because we have free will. Just imagine you’re seeing red only?” And of course you ignore the test: just check to see if anyone is able to see red only using something other than your feelings and imagination.

So, you’ve created a life-wrecking, false and contradictory reality if anything, one that isn’t loving as you repeatedly insisted during your interview by Noory. And your using vague words makes it harder for the ignorant, gullible and stupid to realize that.

I hope you appreciate my patience in using my “free will” and valuable time to correct your mistakes for the benefit of all. You can learn how to be saved via the salvation link above.

Categories: George Noory, New Age teachings Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New Ager Lori Tove and Her ”I Am America Map”

February 23, 2012 1 comment

Lori Tove with her was on Coast to Coast AM yesterday night, promoting her New Age life style and her I Am America Map. She said the ascended masters (demons) that she talks to and consults are always wrong about the dates (prophecies) they give for when disasters will happen, and was emphatic about that. She also claimed to have knowledge of what happened to Atlantis and how the people lived, from the ascended masters.

Why if they are always wrong about their prophecies (and repeatedly lying to her then), and therefore not trustworthy, does she promote her map that she drew up from them and claim to know what happened to Atlantis? This is just more obvious evidence that anti-fundamentalist New Agers are not good, immoral, hypocrites, deceivers and confused.

“Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving” – 1 Timothy 4:1-4

Hypocrite and False Scholar Jan Irvin Blinded By Shrooms

December 29, 2011 5 comments

Post link: http://shrooms.tk

On Coast to Coast Am is an annoyingly nasal and fake historical expert on Christianity named Jan Irvin (pronounced “Yan”). This person claims that behind Judaism and Christianity is nothing more than mushrooms, forget history, forget the accomplishments of Christians and Jews, thousands of years of work, whether or not they accomplished anything of value, forget about anything specific the Bible says, forget about if any of it makes sense or is useful for anything, like telling people not to lie, murder or be angry at each other in hypocrisy or judge one another in hypocrisy, just say, “It was the mushrooms, because it mentions the color red sometimes.” He claims that there’s very little evidence that Jesus was a historical person, as in a real person, and more evidence that he was a myth. Using that logic, his claim that mushrooms are behind Judaism and Christianity is also a myth, a lie, made up, because there is only very little tenuous highly subjective evidence that mushrooms are behind these religions. An example of one of his evidences is that Santa Claus is red, and that red presents are left under a Christmas tree, and no doubt I’d guess that Rudolph’s nose is red. Jan Irvin, you are an idiot. First, since when do Mushrooms grow in the winter!!!!!!? So much your for your expertise on mushrooms! Second, RED?! How about THE BLOOD OF CHRIST?! HELLO: “CHRIST-MAS”!? Or how about HOLLY BERRIES? ROUND HOLLY BERRIES! Guess where Holly berries come from genius? THE HOLLY TREE. I imagine if he saw white spots on a red-wrapped BOX under a Christmas tree he’d think “SHROOMS!”. No: squares aren’t shrooms, and white dots can be explained away as SNOW, and red as HOLLY BERRIES. He is truly stupid and arbitrary. That would mean that he’s also stereotyping and lumping, meaning calling all Catholics Christians and all Christians Catholics, showing that he is ignorant of the distinction between the different types of Christians. It’s a hypocritical oversight too since atheists arbitrarily trump up the differences while at the same time saying that all (fundamentalist) Christians are the same. He also brought up a supposedly hidden ancient comment that Jesus was born on the same day as other deities and therefore Christ was just a myth. Besides that making no more sense then saying, “People ate apples that day therefore apples are mythical,” this Jan obviously is nothing more than a shallow researcher, because if he looked up that argument he would have found this: http://web.archive.org/web/20111104005406/http://kingdavid8.com/Letters/LetterThousand.html

This Jan was also questioned on Coast by a guest caller asking him what he thought about the Shroud of Turin, and he said that the arguments made for it are “arbitrary” and “salacious”. LOL. A guy who argues that the color red, and shapes and a spurious single comment disproves Christianity talks about arbitrary and salacious? He also claimed that many shrouds appeared in Europe and that it’s been well debunked. HUH? Since when? He also claimed with a very annoyed tone that it’s merely “arguing the arbitrary” when people bring up “all these little questions” (DAMN THOSE PESKY LITTLE QUESTION ASKERS!) and that the “onus is on them” to prove these things, and that he can’t prove a negative (wrong) and yet said they need to “study logic”. Wow, what a hypocritical evidence-hater. A caller merely asked his opinion on it and he gets angry a few minutes later. And studying logic? He didn’t even know that it’s a fallacy that you can’t disprove a negative, and yet he himself ARBITRARILY thew up false arguments against the Shroud. What a hypocrite. When another caller brought up Josephus, he claimed that some flow of Josephus’ writing was, uh, unflowed? where Jesus is mentioned, and that if you remove it (oh wouldn’t he love to remove ANCIENT text? just like that supposedly hidden comment about Jesus being born on a day of other deities? Talk about arbitrary and hypocrisy!) that it would flow again. Oh but that’s not all of the arbitrary logic of Jan: During the above statements at some point he also made this nonsensical argument against the Shroud (and it shows how arbitrary he was being), “…unless you want to study the History Channel, and it’s credentials have been damaged by all the questionable stuff they’ve been putting out over the years” OH BUT NOT COAST TO COAST AM THE VERY SHOW YOU ARE SPEAKING ON? JAN: GIORGIO TSOUKALOUS HAS BEEN A REPEAT GUEST ON COAST TO COAST AM AND ENDORSED BY GEORGE NOORY, ART BELL AND GEORGE KNAPP, all of whom are hosts of the show. They’ve also had the other “UFO experts” on Coast BEFORE they were on the History Channel. And how is it a valid argument to merely say, “Oh they had some questionable stuff on there over the years.” BUT YOU’RE SILLY CLAIMS THAT CHRISTIANITY IS BASED ON SHROOMS ISN’T? SO THE HISTORY CHANNEL DOESN’T PUT OUT ANYTHING HISTORICALLY RELIABLE IN COMPARISON TO YOU!? SHUT UP!!!!!! THERE WAS AN GLOBAL WARMING SCAREMONGER ASTROLOGER FALSE PROPHET ON COAST JUST BEFORE YOU GOT ON! Can anyone give me a “WOW”!? Who in the world doesn’t know that Coast to Coast AM is a mouth for New Age babbling idiots and every arbitrary ranting parrot and ignorant out there? The History Channel is miles away from Coast to Coast AM! Though sadly the gap is closed a little by putting on Giorgio Tsoukalos, who claims that UFOs are what is behind the Bible. Now if Jan were more intelligent, he would have said, “Well UFOs look like mushroom because they are round and dome-shaped, so clearly the writers of the Bible were seeing mushrooms while high on mushrooms.” But instead he decided to get angry right away and shoot himself in the foot with an arbitrary argument. And as if YOU were more credible than Tsoukalos? TSOUKALOS IS LIGHT YEARS MORE CREDIBLE THAN YOU! At least he does come up with evidence for some of his theories, but you, asking, “Why are presents put under a Christmas tree,” think you are spurious with a stupid “proof” like that, that you should be taken seriously?! You’re either an arrogant liar or blind.

Oh but that’s not all: after giving a speech about the JFK assassination, he criticizes those who don’t think it’s a conspiracy for “not having critical judgment and not being able to see when someone is trying to deceive them.” Jan, “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

I have a question for you Jan: If Christianity was based on Shamanism and mushrooms, why does Christianity, all the way back to when it was supposedly “Judaism” (which is a myth that you perpetuate), why then does it forbid magic? Second: why did you laugh when a moron caller called in saying that he WAS going to make a religion (as if he knew the future) based on shrooms and listening to Jimmy Hendrix, Pink Floyd and the Beatles, and that he wasn’t going to include doctrine because it was creepy. You laughed and said “really” in agreement, but then after the host, Rob Simone mentioned recreational drug use, contradicted your arbitrary hatred by then saying that recreational drug usage, which you implied was bad, was bad because it was devoid of religion which it had been stripped of? As for “the owness” is on us, Jan, another question: the owness is also on you to prove your claim that Christianity is based on the visions of people who hate psychedelic mushrooms, and you haven’t come up with any except for a little of your opinions which you speak of as facts.

A few minutes later, still going on about the JFK assassination still 40 minutes away from the end of the show (wow: nothing more to say about the theory of Christianity and shrooms? Big surprise!” he said concerning someone’s conspiracy theory on JFK’s murder: “I would need more proof before I would settle on anything positive about that.” But with the most subjective evidence and nonsensical evidence you’ve decided that Christianity is just babble from people high on mushrooms, and that the Shroud of Turin is just a cloth that was made by lying it on someone’s body (lol, hence why it’s been controversial and repeatedly attempted to be shown to be not miraculous for decades?! HUH?)

Another question for you Jan: how are you credible when you advise people to have false visions (hallucinations) based on drugs? Can the truth be based on lies and imaginary things? How about using “critical thinking” and “studying logic” which you advise with your mouth but refuse to do yourself when it comes to the Bible and the usefulness of having hallucinations? Write after I asked that question I’ve now heard him say to a caller, “unless you have evidence coming in through your five senses you’re arguing the arbitrary”. And you have evidence coming in through all five of your senses that the Bible is false? You can smell that the Bible is false?! Are you high on shrooms? And no, arguing something without having evidence “coming in” through all five of your senses isn’t defined as “arbitrary”. Wow: as I was typing that previous sentence Jan mentioned “logical fallacies”. What in the world does Jan know about logical fallacies? You can’t make sense when arguing against the greatest most time-tested book in the world yet speak like you have knowledge of logical fallacies? What astounding arrogance. What a blasphemer. … Wow, now he said that if you read the work of some guy, who went line by line over the evidence for the historical Jesus, and, “If we remove the logical fallacies” that we’ll know the truth, which is that Jesus wasn’t real. Wow, stupid. So it’s logical to selective take the work of one obscure man, and say, “Therefore that’s evidence Jesus wasn’t real.” You can’t present any strong evidence of your own? No you can’t, hence why you have to weasel your way out of arguing against Jesus being real. It is you who are being ARBITRARY with your logic and your “proof”.

THE OWNESS IS ON YOU, not the other way around, because hundreds of millions of people who’ve died promoting real evidence for Christ and hundreds of millions more who are living who promote the same and more outnumber your “many” fake scholars. And this man you say who went through the proof for Christ by going through it “line by line” (and Christians don’t go through the Bible line by line, or arbitrary arguments from morons like you – I’ve been through 500 of them Jan, I wrote them down, no matter how stupid and grammatically nonsensical), Jan: the entire Bible is evidence for Christ, he endorsed it all, it’s not just “the gospels” as you seem to believe. You seem to believe it’s just the gospels and a few historical references to him: NO IT’S NOT. And you really think that one many can disprove thousands of years of scholars and the hundred thousand archeologists and theologians living today? The evidence is the entire Bible and all the historical references to him outside the Bible, and the archeological evidence, and the prophecies that have come true, and the experiences of all those who have been saved by him, and the miracles that still occur today. Haven’t you ever heard of “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”? For someone to say that one many going “line by line” through the evidence and having found evidence against it all, is utterly stupid and a plain lie. You have to know you are lying, and if not, you’re extremely ignorant and argue out of ignorance, which is what you say is, “arbitrary arguing.”

And Jan: the prophecies are clear, that the Old Testament spoke of him. Only someone stupid and deluded who after CAREFULLY examining the evidence for these prophecies would deny that they are true. And why wouldn’t you believe being that you believe in magic and religion? And you refer to “many” scholars who side with you: WHO? AND WHAT IS THEIR MAIN AND/OR SECONDARY FIELD OF STUDY? Who Jan? Carl Sagan? Julia Childs? Martha Stewart? Paris Hilton? Ted Turner? Bill Gates? Donald Trump? There are more scholars in opposition to yours, real scholars of Biblical archeology, real scholars of the Shroud of Turin, real theologians, who don’t get high on drugs as a main method of learning the truth, who stay in their right mind and don’t rely on false visions and hallucinations, yet you act like because you merely say “many” that that is proof enough. The Bible says not to be filled with wine, but with the Spirit, not “mushrooms”. The “owness” is on you, you “owe” us the proof that mere mushrooms are at the core of Christianity.

May God unblind him, remove his hypocrisy from him, and save him.

More Information:

The Shroud of Turin (This site is very extensive).
Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Volume 1: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith

Ian Punnet Heaps Up Another False Teacher on Coast to Coast AM

December 24, 2011 3 comments

Dr. Judith Orloff, a New Ager, who calls herself an intuitive and psychiatrist, is scheduled to be a guest on Coast to Coast AM tonight. Her website slogan is,

“You possess an intuitive intelligence so powerful it can
help you heal, relieve stress, and find emotional freedom”

Yet we still need Judith to tell us that and help us to use it, even though it’s powerful and we can already know things just by trying and without having to reason. Can someone give me a, “Making money off the gullible.”? And what is “intuitive intelligence”? Like all New Agers, Judith is using catchy New Age cliches. The usual are: evolve (that word copied off materialist and humanist evolutionists who also sometimes or often use the word in a vague way), healing, aura, vibration, vibrational, energy, lower energy, higher energy, higher self, lower self, negative, positive, light, love, abstract, emotional, intuition, inner self, spirit, spirituality, negative forces and positive forces. Such words and phrases are used in vague ways by New Agers, never described precisely, and that is because they are vague and abstract themselves, not thinking carefully and with precision, but carelessly and sloppily, and going with their vague feelings rather than precise and logical reasoning. They assumed that it’s a good thing to think in “abstract” ways rather than to be specific, and by doing so, are easily manipulated by Satan, who pushes and pulls at the hearts of those who are ignorant of and against God. Intuition in the way she most likely used it, means,

“direct perception of truth, fact, etc., SEPARATE from ANY reasoning process”. But when she said “intelligence” she committed a logical fallacy because the word can mean two different things in the way she used it. She wasn’t specific. It can mean, “capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and teaching” or ” a high mental ability” to do those things.

But, either way she’s saying a person has the ability to directly know the truth without reasoning using your mind (Satan would have everyone “think” this way, because by following your heart, you’re bound to fail and sin, because the heart as God says, is desperately wicked. And history shows how unreliable the human heart is for doing what is right and best.)

If however she specifically meant, “ability to know the truth apart from reasoning by a high mental ability to reason” she’d be contradicting herself, and that wouldn’t be surprising to me being that she’s a New Ager who thinks in abstract and vague ways rather than using careful reasoning.

On Facebook she contradicts herself again in a blurb under a picture of a person sitting on the edge of a pointed cliff. It says,

“My job as a psychiatrist is to help others find light in darkness. Don’t let the dark seduce you! The light is always there”

The contradiction is saying that the (bad) darkness has light in it that is good. How can darkness of light in it? That’s nonsensical. Further, if it’s bad how can it have good within it? If she meant, “goodness in a bad situation,” then why not just be specific and clear and say that then? If she meant, “good thoughts among your bad thoughts,” it would be pointless. So what if you have good thoughts among bad thoughts, thoughts of helping the poor among thoughts of murdering them, what about it? Is someone helped by simply saying, “You have thoughts of helping the poor, don’t think about the fact that you also feel like murdering them.” Is that how you help someone, by getting them to think about their “positive” thoughts and pretend they don’t have evil thoughts? Imagine trying to help a murderer or liar by saying, “Don’t think about the fact that you’re always lying/murdered 40 people, focus only on the good you’ve done.” Can a person become good by that, by not confessing their sins to God for forgiveness and repenting of them? To say to someone, “Deal with your evil impulses by thinking only about the good you’ve done,” is the same as saying, “Ignore your never-ending evil desires by thinking about doing honorable things or thinking about honorable things you’ve done, and by doing that, you’ll no longer have evil desires.” But what is the evidence of that? What’s the evidence that ignoring your guilt by thinking of doing good deeds or on your good deeds is healthy, will set you, “emotionally free” whatever that means, and will get rid of “the darkness” whatever that is? Vague, vague, vague, baseless, baseless, baseless! Her “therapy” and “counseling” is useful for turning someone into a psychopath, sociopath or narcissist if it were started early enough on someone, and faciliates the ones who are adults. To say, “It’s good to be emotionally free” is horrible. It’s like saying, “It’s good to do whatever you feel like doing, to be like a wild animal, and to have no self control.”

She described her “help” accurately by claiming that she was someone who could find light in the darkness; she thinks evil (negativity) can produce good, or has goodness (positivity) in it.

Update 10:48 PM: Judith just said “linear knowledge” to solve brain problems isn’t the only way. What does that mean? And then said that “just because something sounds right doesn’t mean it’s true.” But then a few words later contradicted by saying that if it doesn’t feel right it can’t be true. It’s a contradiction because a thing can sound right either based on how you feel, think or all three. It’s a perfect example of how New Agers don’t make sense because they use a word in a way that can have multiple meanings and in this case one of them contradicts her point.

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine.
Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great
number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
2 Timothy 4:3

Categories: New Age, the End Times Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

September 5, 2011 11 comments

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

‘Government Really Not Good at Keeping Secrets’ and Other Logical Fallacies of Skeptics

August 16, 2011 Leave a comment

For the second time this week I’ve heard the logical fallacy that the (US) government has no secrets because it’s not good at keeping secrets. If that isn’t circular reasoning than what is? I just heard it repeated again on Coast to Coast AM by Ronald L. Mallett. The show edition is described by the Coast site as,

Time Travel
Date: 08-15-11
Host: George Noory
Guests: Ronald L. Mallett, Lauren Weinstein

Physics Professor Ronald Mallett will discuss his breakthrough research on time travel, as well as share an update on the latest in theoretical physics.

Ronald was responding to a caller who asked if the government was hiding a secret program on time travel. Ronald then immediately contradicted himself by saying, “Whatever the human mind can think of, it can and will achieve.” In other words: “IF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT CONCEIVES OF A WAY TO KEEP SECRETS THEN IT WILL SUCCESSFULLY DO SO.” So, once again, a non-Christian, a Mainstreamer Cultist severely contradicts himself in a breath without even realizing it, and if he did realize it, he should have corrected himself, but failed and allowed others to be deceived. Some might ask, “What does that matter?” It matters because it helps people to be gullible and naive that they can believe whatever the government says, which is utter nonsense. The statement that the government is bad at keeping secrets is also nonsensical in that it contradicts itself, because it’s implying to opposite things: that the government can’t do anything in secret, and the opposite: when it does do something in secret it’s exposed right away. That is what people mean but are vague. Vague as in, how long can’t the government keep a secret? Ronald made it clear, “really bad” at it, so, not long. But what is the evidence that the government can’t do so? That’s also a logical fallacy because it’s the same as saying, “I know that the government can’t keep a secret for long because because it can only do so for a short time because it’s bad at keeping secrets” but saying so without evidence. Ronald is claiming he knows all the secrets and therefore knows all the secret departments of the military, all military secrets, that none have been kept for long, like a year? (vague), everything said in secret by every individual apart of the government, including the FBI, CIA and NSA, and that even when they classify something as above top secret and make UFOs more secret than the atomic bomb (which the military stated it did do), that he would know soon. So then, China and every other country with spies in America must know all the secrets of our government, because it has none, or accidentally reveals it soon after. So can Ronald tell us what the secret craft are that the military has? Can he tell us what happened at Area 51 for the past 40 years? Can he tell us what crashed at Roswell?: Which story out of three conflicting ones that the military gave is correct? What are the names of the many Area 51 workers that are flown and bussed in to Area 51? What are the launch codes for all the nuclear missiles of the USA and what are the names of the ones who possess the launch keys? Ronald’s claim is also logically fallacious and arrogant in another way: he’s negating that any non-government person, no citizen, can find out about the secrets, and only the government and military would in their incompetence or by accident, or that some spy would reveal it (but not a citizen who is spying on behalf of some government like China). In other words: us stupid citizens are stupid, only government and the military is smart and wise, just not smart and wise enough to keep secrets from us… uh wait, but us stupid citizens can’t find out about their secrets because we’re stupid… and there is yet another contradiction from the Royal Mainstream Scientist Ronald Mallett, wannabe time traveler, who’s motivation for going back in time, according to his self-proclaimed Skeptic self, to see his dad again. Can anyone say “shallow”? How much more needs to be pointed out about the Mainstream cult to show that they are very bad at logic in general, and that also effects their effectiveness in scientific research, and therefore can’t be trusted with their fundamental(ist) claims: There was a Big Bang billions of years ago, we evolved from some simple creatures that were created by lightning hitting chemicals (able to reproduce and think and sense what was around them), and that after billions of years, turned into (super complex and much more intelligent animals and super intelligent) humans, with many characteristics (that can’t be reasonably explained without resorting to God as having designed us), and that aliens can’t get here, because… well one guest evolutionist this or last year, on Coast to Coast AM said because it would be too coincidental. And it would be too coincidental that they showed up during this time of our evolution. But why? If there are trillions of planets with possible life and some aliens evolved to become intelligent much sooner then us, then why wouldn’t there be any chance of “just another planet out of trillions” being visited by some alien out of those trillions? Mainstream scientists truly are confused and forgetful of what they study, ever learning and never able to reach the truth. I think that if they would stop obsessing on money and selfish and shallow desires they wouldn’t be so “scatter-brained” and forgetful.

I’ve also been noticing, that recently (others would probably say often) Noory has been asking really stupid questions. During the show he asked Mallet if the time travel he was working on would be MENTAL or physical. What the Hell kind of question is that? George was asking “is your time travel device going to be metaphysical and use spiritual time travel”, because the mind is a spiritual thing, it’s not material. That’s a fact by the way, you materialists, because awareness for example, which you must have a mind for, is not a physical thing, just as actions and information are not physical things. But Ronald Mallett obviously was not talking about a spiritual device or one that manipulated the mind. I wonder if George prepares questions long before the show starts. It doesn’t seem he does, otherwise his questions wouldn’t be so dumb. But, at least God lets me use them to teach profound, deep and useful things.

There was also something else that Ronald implied which is typical of how Mainstreamers, and which shows how their morality leads to things like the 500+ million people killed by atheists (not all atheists obviously): when he said that humans can achieve anything they can think of, he was answering the same caller I mentioned earlier who brought up a stupid example for his question, which was that Suparman’s dad said that going back in time was forbidden and so asked Ronald if God ever forbade it (how about read the Bible and study religion idiot, and ask a religious person and not a materialist Mainstreamer?). Ronald, besides saying humans could do whatever they wanted to, said that if we weren’t meant to do something, then God wouldn’t allow it. That answer implies that if child molestation happens and anything that is obviously evil, it’s good or permitted by God, because we were able to do it. That besides being evil reasoning, is also a logical fallacy: if you aren’t doing something then it can be said you aren’t meant to do anything that you aren’t doing. So then it’s also contradictory. And Ronald was implying that to know if something is permitted by God, you should do it, and he surely meant that, because he also said in his answer, and I’m paraphrasing this part till I can listen again to what he said, that it was wrong to not learn and progress.

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. – Romans 8:28

Categories: Mainstream Science Cult, Skepticemia, Skepticism, skeptics Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Another Anti-Christian Ignorant On Coast to Coast AM

Post link: http://canadiancode.tk

The Coast to Coast guest idiot of the night tonight was Carmen Boulter, a former professor at the University of Calgary, who “will discuss evidence of levitation, and alchemy being used to construct the numerous pyramids in Egypt, as well as an update on how the current structure of civilization is not conducive to the empowerment of humans.” Can you tell that this is a over-generalizing moron from the last part? I hadn’t read that till just now and was getting ready to point out a statement that pretty much summed up the intelligence of this person. That statement, which she said on Coast to Coast tonight, was, “The Bible says women are whores and prostitutes.” Can anyone say super idiot? How about ignoramus? How about a disgrace of a fool? Not sure what that last part would mean but anyways, wow, dumb, stupid. People who reach adulthood who aren’t living in North Korea or some super impoverished place out in the desert are ignoramuses if they can’t see with their eyes or hear with their ears or read braille with their fingers the obvious and clear evidence that the Bible has given women more freedom and taken them out of greater oppression: http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html, Killing of infants on the rise in Pakistan,  Muslims Will Only Repay Half Of Damages to Acid-attacked Muslim, Cuz She’s  a Female

Professor of Canadianess Boulter also pointed out with a subtle tone of contempt when she made the stereotype over generalization claim that “Christians” defaced Egyptian statues, and praised (some goddess I’m guessing) that one or more were buried deep in the sand so that when it was found that you could still see the amazing colors (just forget that idolatry is a sign of ignorance and stupidity and has been a massive waste of time and money, and yet this idiot claims that no modern civilization today, not even the massively idolatrous Hindu and Catholic religions (which worship femininity) are conducive to being moral and technological advancement. So, damn the Christians (probably the twisted version of Mary-worshiping Catholics) who defaced idols worth NOTHING except to idolators and obsessives and reduce the most beneficially influential book of all time, thousands of years, best selling, most freely available, translated into the most language, as “says women are whores and prositutes, so bleah yeah pyramids this pyramids that feminine goddess of femininesses is cool. I sell a book on Pyramid Codes and was a professor in Canada at a University and am an expert in what is civizationally correct, and wowy wow Christians are no. Damn all the bazillions of Christianianians for hurting the goddess statues that I wanted to see the noses on and colorful colors of. Oh and so like my advice for you civilization structures of the world is to read my pyramid codes and watch me on history channel tell you about how the egypsums could magically using super tech carve quartz bowls and make awseome coffins and make giant pyramids that last really long in the dessert and to ignore the Christians with their whore book on how women are whores who defaced my statues, I mean the Egypsian statues, yeah, Egyptian, I didn’t really say mine, just a mental slip up. And so, what I was saying, was…” Professor of Pyramid Codes also pointed out that she believed that there was an ancient worldwide disaster that caused the world to lose its advanced technology, but God forbid Canadian girl mention that the Bible already mentions what it was and what led up to it, and why it happened and that every ancient civilization repeats various parts of the Flood of Noah and creation story, some much closer to the Bible then others. Spiritually blind Canadian girl apparently is ignorant that the Bible makes out various nations that disobey him and worship false gods as being like whores and prostitutes, that includes THE MEN and that women who obey God ARE PRAISED and exalted by God, and above men who do not. One famous examples in the Bible are the MARYs, Deborah, Jael, Jeptha’s daughter, the widow who gave all she had unlike her hypocritical male leaders the Pharisees, and the prayerful prophetess Anna. The Bible also says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you [the true church] are all one in Christ Jesus.” That’s a statement talking about the spiritual equality of all saved Christians, not physical. Obviously there are physical differences, including between people of the same race, and the Bible isn’t talking about that as some ignorants might thing.

Ironically, Miss Pretend Archeologist, or rather Bad Archeologist, didn’t mention the status of women in Egyptian, and for a know it all about ancient Egyptians, I would think she would, but no, she’s self-centered, anti-Christian, idol fanatic, and therefore shallow. Supposing she knew, she probably didn’t want to mention it because of her irrational anti-Christian hate, being that the Egyptian civilization, in certain ways, was what liberals like Pyramid Code Prof. would call Christian Extremism. Here’s what I’m talking about:

Marrige was a very important part af ancient Egyptian society. SOme people say it was almost a duty to get married. Compared to today’s world, Egyptian marriages were very different; husbands could marry more than one wife, and people of close relations (first cousins, brothers and sisters, ect.) could also wed one another. For the most part, however, incest was frowned upon, except in the royal family, where incest was used to safeguard the dynastic succession.

There was no age limit as to when people could be married, but generally a girl did not get married until she had begun to menstruate at about the age of 14. Some documents state that girls may have been married at the age of eight or nine, and a mummy of an eleven year-old wife has also been found. Marriage required no religious or legal ceremony. There were no special bridal clothes, no exchange of rings…

Pregnancy was very important to ancient Egyptian women. A fertile woman was a successful woman. By becoming pregnant, women gained the respect of society, approval from their husbands, and the admiration of their less-fortunate sisters and sterile friends. Men needed to prove their “manliness” by fathering as many children as the possibly could, and babies were seen as a reason for boasting. – Source, Cornell University, The Status of Women in Egyptian Society

*Carmen thinks to herself*: Goddess damn those damn Egypums for forcing the divine feminine women to be baby breeders and slaves who didn’t have control of their own bodies! Nah, just don’t mention that part. Damn men to imaginary Hell! I hope I sell more Pyramid Code books, I love being able to afford all the lobster I can eat, especially for my Canadian LGBT friends.

And really Carmen, you think a society that wasted its time making giant pyramids, obelisks and idols is better then one that uses its that labor instead to make shopping malls, apartments, condos, houses, parks, zoos or that spends its time donating and doing charity work, including for the thankless and enemies? Have you heard of any ancient civilization being charitable to another to please any God? Were the ancient Greeks and Romans like that? If so, how many times, which among them were like that to the poor, especially females? Oh and, churches, all church buildings are terrible, pyramids way better, right Carmen? Icky Christians! What good are those pyramids doing? They are monuments of what happens when you use your genius in vain. Where is the Egyptian civilization now Carmen? On Coast to Coast tonight you said over 1,300 years (why that number) moral decay happened which is why peoples’ minds were changed. Well how shallowly insightful. You might as well have said climate changes happens, which is why things change temperature and move. So, infanticide of female babies was moral, or attempting to exterminate Christians, or enslave others, or worship imaginary gods and wate your time carving them from stone and painting them when that time and money could be used to make real advances? Oh and where was the LGBT community of Egypt? I didn’t read anything about a man leaving his house to live with another man, or woman going to live with another woman. How bigoted and shortsighted those Egyptians were! And wow what pedos they were for allowing marriage at any age! Ew nasty dirty old people and nasty preteen bodies ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! So gross so gross so gross ew ew ew must thing about people my age must think about people my age and LGBT and the divine feminine and anti-Christian thoughts and pyramid codes electronics 123 electronics 123 brain overloading bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

What else. Oh, damn those Christians for defacing the colorful Egyptian idols, and enslaving the Israelites and forcing them in the Hellish heat to bake bricks one after another. Damn them for calling the Israelites lazy if they dare took a break under the watch of their idols and animal and sun gods and whatever gods, must whip them to keep them in line, ugh, stupid Israelite slaves, LAZY ISRAELITES! BAKE MORE BRICKS! OH, WHAT, YOU’RE RUNNING AWAY AFTER WE AGREED TO LET YOU GO FINALLY, LET’S CHASE THEM DOWN ANYWAYS AND BRING THEM BACK SO WE CAN SUBJUGATE THEM AGAIN! Oh wait, that was the slaver idolatrous baby-making-tyranny-state of the non-Israelite Egyptians, NOT “THE CHRISTIANS”. In conclusion, may God continue to bless Carmen the Canadian Truth-Defacer till she finally shows genuine thanks and love to the one and only true God.

Evolutionist Fantasies – Logical Fallacies Made by Evolutionists

June 19, 2011 4 comments

Post link: www.gaydna.tk

Yesterday, on Coast to Coast AM, “Ian Punnett was joined by psychology professor Douglas Kenrick for a discussion on how the primitive, animalistic underside of human nature, with its sexual fantasies and homicidal tendencies, has actually given rise to the most positive features of our race.” I listened to this show and found it interesting that this professor said that those who were exclusively homosexual were “a puzzle” to evolutionists, because it didn’t help to spread their genes. He made a one or two other nonsensical statements like this, which evolutionists often repeat, which is that “genes want to spread” / “copy themselves”. They do this so often without explaining further what they mean, that such insane-talk can be taken literally. Evolutionists literally believe that animals “desire to spread their genes”, as if that that is what they are thinking when they are “in heat” or trying to mate, and are literally “looking for a mate with good genes” or “the best genes”. It’s absolutely stupid to say such things. Animals obviously are not intelligent to think such things, and how much less would genes have thoughts and desires? And back to the homosexuality “puzzle” which he seemed to imply must have some usefulness; says who? Why would it have usefulness in evolution? Why can’t something be a non-useful trait in evolution? Douglas said himself that exclusive homosexuality is an irrational choice, and yet he insisted that it must have some usefulness that couldn’t be seen (a clear contradiction). Is he biased? Is he double-minded because he is pandering to the homosexuals “community” and the liberals that determine his pay or whether he gets paid or not? Why doesn’t he just say, “It’s an aberration that repeatedly gets eliminated like evolution, like a harmful genetic mutation”. He also said that, “It’s not like homosexuality is a choice”, which was evidence of his bias. Who says it’s not a choice and where is the evidence? There are homosexuals who have said that it is a choice. There are also former homosexuals. Sexual attraction is also something that develops over time; people’s tastes change. And who would argue that babies are born being sexually attracted to anything? Are babies also born in the act of theft? This claim that babies can be born gay and is why they are gay or bisexual seems to be tied in to the illogical belief and excuse that God made sinners. For example, it’s common for ignorant and confused people to blame God for themselves being corrupt, asking, “Why did God make people sinful?” or “Why did God make me gay?” That’s as nonsensical as asking, “Why did God ecreat me in the act of stealing a car?”; no one is created in the act of stealing, lying, murdering, having sexual thoughts or committing adultery, married to anyone, or born a “Jew” (“Jew” and “Jewish” are racial words which are often incorrectly used in place of “Judaism”) or Christian. And a side note: The “Free Will” Christians who often make these claims of God making them the way they are (in the act of doing something including lusting to do certain evil things) are contradicting their claim that they have a completely free will which God isn’t allowed to and doesn’t “mess with”.

Also, does evolution also have desires and want to perpetuate itself? Yet so called “scientists” like Professor Douglas and others who believe in evolution, especially evolution-scientists, keep making the clear logical fallacy of giving emotions to dna and genes, and another fallacy, which is giving animals (and they consider humans to also be animals) false motives. It’s also bizarre that they give animals and their “genes” and dna the same motives, as if the dna and genes that exist in the animal they are in have separate minds of their own and are not apart of one being (creature). Even if they are speaking figuratively, it is a bad form of teaching to repeatedly do this (as bad as the nonsensical cliches “science tells us” and “science says”) and not explain what you mean, and to keep doing that leads to the ones you saying it to, believing such fallacies and to their own hurt, leading them to Hell because of believing such stupid and illogical things. It may be that certain evolution-scientists used this stupid talk to make it easier for kids and “stupid people” to understand, and got into the bad habit of repeatedly explaining things this way, and/or that certain ones with bad intent, noticed that by saying “dna is programmed to replicate”, which some evolutionists will admit, gives the correct implication that it was intelligently programmed (because mindless things like evolution and so called “nature” do not program things, and obviously dna didn’t create or program itself), and in their hatred of God and the Bible, didn’t and don’t want anyone to know or believe the truth, which is that we were created by God and that the laws of universe, including our biology, were made by him.

Categories: creation science, creationism, evolution propaganda, Evolutionist Education, evolutionist morality, Intelligent Design vs Darwinian Evolution Theory Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Demons Pretending to Be Angels and the Free Will Heresy

June 14, 2011 13 comments

On Coast to Coast AM last night, George Noory had on “Doreen Virtue” which C2CAM says, “is a spiritual doctor of psychology and a fourth-generation metaphysician who works with the angelic, elemental, and ascended-master realms.” In other words, truthfully, “she communicates with demons which she has deluded herself into thinking are angels and so called ‘nature spirits'”. Doreen herself on the show acknowledged that demons can pretend to be angels and that people should not romance them for pleasure.

On the show, Doreen claimed that we must ask angels for help to get help from them, which reminded me of Mormons and other Free Will Christians, and suspected that that is why she said that, and then no surprise to me she confirmed it by saying that that was necessary or it would be a violation of our free will, however, she contradicted herself afterwards by saying that the only time they could help without our asking for it was “if it isn’t your time” (to die). It’s a contradiction because it implies that GOD’S WILL supersedes our own, and that isn’t compatible with the heretical “free will” nonsense teaching that I’ve been observing and learning about as I keep hearing the world talk about it. Basically, the world’s free will doctrine is that human free will is a sacred thing that must not be violated and that God won’t violate it (and many non-Christians believe that Earth aka Gaea and/or ‘Mother Nature’ also has a will of its/her own), yet, it’s a lie, and like so many lies, contradicts itself. Here is how it contradicts:

1) Wills are always in conflict everywhere, generally speaking, and depending on the personality of the ones who are not getting there way, it can lead to sin, crime, hateful arguing, rather than one side peacefully giving in to the other. So, to act like human’s wills can’t be violated as if it’s some physical law, is nonsense. It’s clearly observably wrong to claim our wills cannot be gone against successfully. Clearly not everyone’s will can be done as they want it to be done and there will always be unfilled will until there is perfect peace (which God says he will bring about, except in Hell). For the Free Will Christians who believe the Bible, who claim that God can’t go against our will, they are clearly wrong, since the Bible repeatedly claims God does that all the time. Some Christians try to brush that off with the ridiculous explanation that God isn’t really going against anyone’s will (how ridiculous!) when he punishes them, because they want to be punished. That is dumb, absolutely dumb. Sure, some people in bitterness say, “bring it on” or “I don’t care” but that’s because THEY DON’T KNOW THE WRATH in store for them. Like one proverb in the Bible says, “A servant cannot be corrected by mere words.” That (rebellious) servant can’t be corrected by mere talk because they aren’t feeling any pain and will especially dismiss warnings if they are feeling pleasure. It’s the same with a rebellious child or any person with a bad habit and who is having “a good time”: unless there is a painful negative consequence, emotionally or physically, they won’t stop. Further, why do so many people, when committing a crime, try to hide that they are committing a crime, or run when they think they are in danger of getting caught for that crime, or lie in court over whether they committed one or not? OBVIOUSLY, it’s because they don’t want to feel pain for what they did, not “BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE PUNISHED”. But in order to defend their backwards doctrine, that is how absurd and childish heretics must think: backwards, backwards to the point of embarrassing absurdity that even kids who aren’t brainwashed can recognize is obviously stupid and illogical reasoning that goes against what even stupid people know is stupid.

2) If God’s will is also sacred and cannot be violated, then how can everyone else’s will also be sacred and forbidden from being violated being that God’s will is often not the will of man or anything else? That is a clear contradiction. And it is obvious that if anyone’s will is going to always be done, it’s going to be the all-knowing all-powerful eternal Creator’s, not the created things that like ants compared to him. The Bible even says that God’s will is always done in Heaven, and has us pray that it will always be done on Earth, and even Jesus said to God, “…but your will (be done), not mine.” Doreen tried to dismiss the Bible and untrustworthy because, “it’s been rewritten many times,” the cliche attack of an ignoramus who doesn’t know or refuses to acknowledge that the Bible is backed up by many old copies of itself showing that it has been copied very accurately in all the places that matter most, and that there is no evidence of loss of text. Her logic is also wrong in what she implied, which was that many copies necessarily lead to errors. She also stupidly implied that God can’t preserve his own word. With such an unreliable God why does Doreen pretend to love and honor him and that he’s in control? If he can’t preserve his own word, his laws, his commands to love, then how can we? And why follow him if he can’t keep track of what he says or if we can’t? Again: contradictions. That is the lot of liars: lies and contradictions.

3) Why would there be an exception like Doreen claims, that “unless it’s “not your time” angels can’t help you”? Is it just because she said so? Because some angel supposedly told her so. And so what if one did? Can demons pretend to be angels? She herself said so, so then she cannot simply claim, “angels never lie.” And being that humans can repeatedly make the same mistakes and be deceived till death, for years, she can’t claim, especially as a religion-ignorant, which she clearly is, that she is undecievable, immune to be fooled, tricked. Further, some demons, not merely staying in one place and keeping to themselves, go out of there way to lie to humans and deceive them, and having lived for thousands of years, have mastered deception and know how humans react to all kinds of situations and suggestions. And how long has Doreen lived in comparison to such demons? She sure has not lived long enough to become a master of the truth, nor has she studied well enough as was indicated by her evil broadside attacks against Christians, like that they “blackmail” people into believing there religion and her illogical vague statement that “preaching fear” is negative energy (a meaningless statement) with the implication that that is bad. And guess what Doreen is doing by making those claims? According to her vague nonsense, she’s also “preaching fear”. It’s also a clear lie to claim as she did, that all Christians do is talk about fear. Truly she’s a lying ignoramus. Who doesn’t know that millions of Christians have said and still do, “God is love” or “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him will not perish, but have everlasting life” or “love your neighbor as yourself” or “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” or “love your enemies” and “bless those who curse you” and the most famous of all, “Do unto others as you would have them do to you,” all of which are verses from the Bible. Yet she slanders all Christians, including the children, as “preach”ers “of fear” and negativity. Clearly it’s Doreen who is the preacher of fear and negativity by mainly focusing on what she perceives are “negative” things about Christians and mainly finding fault with them, when clearly they have done much good and continue to do so (I’m talking about true Christians, but even Free Will ones do some good, though at the expense of the truth about how to get saved and to lead people away from true salvation, though not all realize they are misleading people).

4) Doreen Virtue also made clearly wrong claims, which is that angels can’t help you unless you ask for it: but as she herself would know, angels are always helping people without them asking for it, and some don’t even believe in angels when they are helped by them. Many people also don’t pray for the help of angels, but ask for God’s help, knowing that he uses angels to do things for him, yet Doreen says to pray to the angels. Why would you pray to the angels rather than God who is in control of them? If you want a coworker to be friendly to you or to help you who is in a different state, do you pray to the coworker or to God? But Doreen hates God, so refuses to go to him for help, but instead wants to worship what he created.

5) Concerning again Doreen’s claim that angels need our permission to help us, how can she say that when surely she hears stories all the time of people being helped by angels and not knowing they were angels or being helped without asking? That could be seen a deliberate deception or insanity for her to ignore what she repeatedly sees contradicts her “free will” belief, which is really about pride and a childish attitude of rebellion towards God. And if angels need our permission, then doesn’t God? Does God need our permission for anything? Obviously to say he does is stupid. That’s lying say that I need the permission of a toy I made, even a living one with a mind, to do anything to it, or that a parent needs the permission of the child to move it somewhere, teach it something, feed it something, give it a gift, love it or even talk to it (which leads to a paradox: how can you ask for permission to talk without first talking if not given permission to talk?) And if a parent doesn’t need its the permission of its children for anything but a few exceptions, how much less does God the creator and sustainer of all things need it? And consider the evil consequences of this free will logic, at least Doreen’s: Humans must ask each other for permission to help each other in all circumstances, including to save each others lives. Consider how many more people in the world would be ignorant, sad, injured and dead from such a law. But many people realize the evil of such bad logic, and have made “good Samaritan” type laws as are mentioned on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law. It’s noteworthy that Wikipedia however, doesn’t point out the origin of such laws: God’s word.

“Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions.” – Colossians 2:18

“the devil took [Yeshua] to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’” – Matthew 4:8-10

“I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.” – 2 Corinthians 11:12-14

“who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?” – Romans 9:20-21

Update: 6-16-2011

Yesterday, after having written the above (except Romans 9:20-21 which I added while adding this note), I finally realized the solution to what was a long and great mystery to me: “Is the human will and all wills “random” (because random would seem to be the result of ‘not controlled’, in other words, not a machine that is just programming or being moved around by God directly or indirectly), and is randomness necessary, and if random, how could God predict what would happen in the future correctly? And is a random will necessary for self-awareness and responsibility for the actions of the person who makes choices using their will?” God’s word had the answer all along. First of all, it makes it clear that God predestines everything (and the claim that God doesn’t predestine anyone to Hell is stupid). God doesn’t destine some things and others allow to be loose, random and free to do whatever. Second, there is no evidence that a will must be random in order for a person to be aware of themselves and that their choices and to be responsible for them.

“To humans belong the plans of the heart” – Proverbs 16:1

“A person’s steps are directed by Yahweh” – Proverbs 20:24

“In Yahweh’s hand the king’s heart is a stream of water that he channels toward all who please him.” – Proverbs 21:1

Categories: angels, Free Will, Logic and Religion, Logic Fallacies Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

11:11, Synchronicities and Evidence of Intelligent Design

March 20, 2011 1 comment

About two weeks ago I think, while looking up more information on Srinivasa Ramanujan, a super mathematical genius who shamed atheists and Hinduism by his belief in some sort of God and gods etc., and because by obeying the Hindu religion his life was cut short, probably the greatest Indian who ever lived next to Christian ones (which shames Hinduism in that they lost their best man). Well, I found some British radio show on him, and downloaded it, and learned of a mathematical law, which is that the number one shows up the most frequently out of all other numbers. Those with a large amount of understanding and a brain might think, “Shouldn’t all numbers how up equally as much as the other since the universe is just random?” But the answer, is, NO. First of all, the universe isn’t random, it always follows laws that God put in place, always follows them unless he intervenes or changes them. To say otherwise is to make a Randomness of the Gaps, and to claim that “randomness did it” (for those of you who don’t know what I mean, I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of those who believe in randomness who also mock Christians by pretending that they merely explain why anything is by claiming merely that, “God did it” and claim such a God is a God of the gaps (gaps meaning “gaps in Christian knowledge” implying that Christians are very ignorant in the context these idiots use it in).

ANYWAYS, concerning George Noory’s claim that people are always seeing 11:11 when they look at a clock, I don’t know if he is right, since people look at clocks all the time and don’t see that number. George is probably imagining this because it’s four ones in a row, which he thinks is weirder than other number patters. It’s as silly as attributing something special to the number 100 or the year 1111 or 2000 or 2111 or 2222. However, you would see the number 1 more often then other numbers, so, if you see it more often on clocks when you do look, that isn’t out of the ordinary. To me it’s another indication that God exists. The number one being the most common number reminds me of Fibonacci numbers and the  chirality phenomenon, which is a name for the right-sided characteristic which all molecules in the human body have (and God made it that way).

And the reason I made this post (had finished most of it yesterday) was because a Buddhist or fan of Buddha put 11:11 in the subject of his email to me, which, in a way, was perpetuating the natural frequency of the number, which ironically, got me to write about it.

After I was done with this post, which didn’t include the above sentence, or this one, I glanced at my viewership stats, and was astonished a little when I saw the stats for the most viewed “page”, and then looked farther down, and was astonished again. This is what I saw some minutes ago… (I just looked at the clock and it’s 11:16 PM):

Update 3/23/2011:

I forgot to show this pic yesterday, which I took after I woke up and looked at my stove clock for the first time that day:

The clock was an hour behind.

Galaxies beautifully arranged everywhere, but hardly an atheist will think

December 22, 2010 Leave a comment

On Coast to Coast AM tonight, at 10:24 P.M., Seth Shostak, of SETI, was asked by a logic-ignorant caller if whether or not it was a coincidence that during a solar eclipse it was a coincidence that the moon perfectly blocked out the sun (and asked some stupid questions), and Seth, an evolutionist and probably a Big Bang believer, said that he thought it was a coincidence. He didn’t say it was, I just realized, but that he didn’t think it was anything other than a coincidence. But when I listened to the caller bring up this fact, and knowing the other things about the universe and this planet and the solar system that make life possible here and possible all over the universe, knowing about the so called “fine tuning”, I was amazed, and knew it was no coincidence. The next caller was angry at Seth for not acknowledging that we were being visited by extraterrestrials, and brought up witnesses with high reputations for being honest and very intelligent, whom the caller said would be willing to sign affidavits. Seth gave an illogical and deceptive reply by saying that science wasn’t done by affidavits but by experiments. No Seth: science is not that simple; it doesn’t exist in a vaccuum. In science a hypothesis is made, like this: If intelligent life existed outside of Earth, and decided to visit various planets, and there is a great amount of intelligent life outside of Earth (and Seth emphatically implied that he believed there could be billions around the time that he was asked the question about the solar eclipse), and many of these living things were like humans, only able to survive by breathing in gas or liquid of a speficic type, needing protection from various temperatures and chemicals, and if space travel can be accomplished in various ways using ships with widely varying materials and energy sources, than we should see objects entering into our atmosphere from space which appear similar and very different to craft which we build, which show great speed and or manueverablity due to the aliens having enough intelligence to reach earth from great distances and who would logically want to creat a ship that can quickly avoid capture by enemies among themselves or among aliens, and to avoid collisions to be able to witness any amazing discoveries they make back to their own alien kind and bring back anything of value, or to trade with other aliens. Further, if any of these aliens appear to be non-human and not very similar to any life that is known to have existed on Earth since its beginning, than it would be further evidence that they were not from Earth, but outside of it. And to carry out an experiment to verify if such a thing were true, all one would have to have people watch the sky all over, and observe if there are any objects which appear to have superior speed and manuverability and a different shape than craft made by humans, and also to observe the outside of the atmosphere, and also to observe if anyone seese any beings which come out of these objects which appear to be non-human. Conveniently, people are often watching the sky and there are also cameras in human-made ships outside of the planet looking down upon it and away from it. And what are the results? There have been millions of people who have seen such craft that show superior speed and manueverablity to human-made ships (before we may have acquired alien technology and used it or copied it or both), and sometimes there are multiple witnesses to a craft, sometimes over one hundred, sometimes thousands. As for whether or not there have been two witnesses or more who have seen an extraterrestrial entering or leaving such craft, I don’t know, but there have been many people who saw aliens leaving or entering such craft, but with no second witness. There have also been two or more witnesses to an apparent alien or aliens (for example in Brazil (2) where a ship with some inside had crashed, and living occupants went out of it, with at least one was captured) There are also a few people who have regularly seen such a thing happen (which count as repeat experiments, and even if they were not intentional experiments, that would not invalidate what was seen and make the sighting invalid evidence).

How ironic that Seth and other God-deniers are blind to what is right in front of them, that even searching far out past this planet, they still see no sign of intelligence anywhere, not even when they see countless glorious galaxies containing countless glorious stars. Like God says of such people: they are always searching, but never coming to the truth.