Community | April 23, 2011 | 434 comments

Creationists Warn That Teaching Evolution Leads To "Homosexual Indoctrination"

Image
bundlebear
The Creation Studies Institute is warning members that, like the Nazis, gay-rights activists are using public schools to indoctrinate students. While many Religious Right groups have alleged that safe-school and anti-bullying programs lead to “homosexual indoctrination,” the Creationist Studies Institute claims that the “gay agenda” has taken over schools because schools have “fully embraced Darwinian Evolution.”

“Indeed, the rampant teaching of evolution in our schools that is effectively undermining belief in God and absolute moral standards is not only creating an atmosphere of ‘tolerance’ for homosexuality, but for just about anything,” writes Tom DeRosa, the organization’s founder and executive director, who adds: “Of course, in a purely evolutionary world, homosexuals would naturally be bred out of existence.” DeRosa goes on to compare homosexuality with polygamy and pedophilia, and asks members to purchase Focus on the Family’s Secure Daughters, Confident Sons booklet:

Those who hold godless ideologies have long understood that the best way to transform societies and change the way people traditionally think is by indoctrinating children from the earliest stages of education. In the last century, this methodology was effectively employed by those who held the atheistic ideologies of Nazism in Germany and Communism in countries such as the Soviet Union, where the state assumed total control of the educational system—even to the extent of turning children against parents. Of course, both of these worldviews fully embraced Darwinian evolution as a way to justify their actions and nullify the beliefs of their largely Christian populations. While U.S. federal government does not have that kind of authority in our school system (not yet, anyway), is it any wonder that those who lack a biblical worldview in our country, including those with a gay agenda, have seized upon our primary schools as the main vehicle of transforming our nation more to their liking?

In America, the adoption of evolution in our schools has paved the way for the introduction of the gay agenda. Those pushing it understand that nothing will more thoroughly and quickly undermine the traditional biblical foundations of our country than the normalization of homosexuality among our nation’s school children, regardless of their parents’ beliefs. Currently, under the banner of “tolerance” or “equal rights,” states like Massachusetts, New York, California, Wisconsin and Minnesota are actively implementing a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) curriculum in their public schools. But those behind the effort to legitimize LGBT lifestyles won’t be content until this kind of curricula is taught in all of our nation’s schools. So what is being taught, you might ask, that should concern those of us in the creationist community?

…

From the patriarchal days of Sodom and Gomorrah to the Law of Moses to the New Testament, God’s Word consistently declares that homosexuality is sin and warns of the condemnation it brings to the individuals who practice it and to societies that promote it. Indeed, the rampant teaching of evolution in our schools that is effectively undermining belief in God and absolute moral standards is not only creating an atmosphere of “tolerance” for homosexuality, but for just about anything. As the truism goes, “Without God, everything is permissible.” So, in reality, there’s nothing to prevent the same rationale being used today to justify homosexuality and homosexual marriage from being used tomorrow to sanction polygamy or pedophilia or… As one very honest evolutionist wrote a while back (a piece that quickly disappeared from public view), if evolution is true, then rape is a very valid and/or efficient way for a man to spread his genes. After all, why not? It’s the survival of the fittest. Of course, in a purely evolutionary world, homosexuals would naturally be bred out of existence, as well. But you won’t hear that from pro-evolution advocates.



http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/creationists-warn-teaching-evolution-leads...
  1. groups:
    Community,   Culture,   WTF,   US News,   10 more
  2. tags:
    Evolution,  Homosexuality,  Creationism,  Dumbass,  1 more
  3.     
    |

434 comments // Creationists Warn That Teaching Evolution Leads To "Homosexual Indoctrination"

  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  

    • Creationists obviously have no appreciation for how solid all our combined forensic sciences are, be it genetic orthologues confirming ancestral phylogenies which were once only indicated morphologically, by determining derived synapomorphies; or whether it is the several different kinds of radioactive decay rates which cross-confirm each other to produce the same consistent results once any variables are accounted for.
      Creationists may refuse to acknowledge geologic time scales, and cannot admit that any new organism might be unable to interbreed with the stock from whence it came because their sacred fables say they were “created each after their own kind”. But of course they can’t say what a “kind’ is either, because it’s impossible to identify any point in taxonomy where everything that ever lived isn’t evidently related to everything else. So they largely ignore phylogenetics altogether.
      Creationists have to deny macroevolution for the same reason they have to deny transitional species, not because these combined realities can only indicate an animal ancestry, but because either one alone proves that such is at least possible, and creationists are not permitted to admit even that.
      So creationists insist there must be some “definite boundary” blocking the evolution of new “kinds”. But they won’t say where or what that boundary is. If they were to find out that macroevolution was ever actually seen and proven to have happened for certain, their cultish faith would still forbid them to admit it. Instead they’d have to redefine their terms, to “move the goalposts” to some higher taxonomic level –but not so high as to have to admit where humans belong in the families of apes. The only time creationists will use the proper definition is when they are as-yet unaware of the fact that speciation has already been directly-observed and documented dozens of times –both in the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field.
      In fact, we’ve seen it so many times we’ve had to categorize recurrent types of macroevolution we’ve seen so often repeated.
      Once creationists find out about all this, their first reaction is to use the excuse that some newly evolved species of fruit fly or fish somehow still doesn’t count because it’s “still” a fly or it’s “still” a fish.
      The only reason creationists cling to these “micro” and “macro” distinctions is so they can have some excuse to accept “small scale” evolution, which they begrudgingly admit cannot be denied even with the greatest faith; while still denying “large scale” evolution where their exact parameter of “how large” must remain illusive to prevent it ever being disproved. Of course that means “large scale” evolution can mean whatever they want it to at that moment.

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  

    • Natural selection even mimics the experiments of human designers when new technologies emerge.
      For example, when men first achieved powered flight, there were myriad marvelously imaginative contraptions all at once collectively trying to set the standard for what airplanes should be. Eventually, they followed a more standardized pattern as many of the fancier designs were discontinued and more functional tried-and-true contrivances remained. Significant improvements occasionally appear, but there are no more wildly diverse variants like the pioneer planes built when aviation was new and less understood.
      The same sort of thing occurred when life moved up to the multicellular level in the late Vendian era, some 600 million years ago.
      Contrary to the claims of creationists, we do have evidence both in trace fossils and in the genome, as well as complete fossils of Pre-Cambrian precursors of later orders.
      The first multicellular animals had no skeletons or organs or sensory systems of any kind. Once primitive drafts of these began to develop, then over the course of the next 160 million years, the oceans went from being basically a sea of sponges and plankton to a virtual “explosion” of new forms even more dramatic than when they began to move onto land some 70 million years or so later.
      There were also more phyla to emerge in that era than we have left today. Many of the earlier ones were so bizarre that we can’t even make sense of them; they’re so alien to anything still around.
      Then, as with early designs of airplanes and automobiles, once other possibilities were explored, the more functional lines continued to diversify and less practical derivations of the early days thinned into extinction.
      In any environmental niche, there is a “perfect shape”, one especially efficient form which, once obtained, need not be substantially modified until the environment changes or the animal moves on to new circumstances.
      For example, the shape and job of the crocodile has been used by several extinct predecessors including ancient amphibians and the precursors of whales. The shark shape has also been employed by bony fish as well as ichthyosaurs and by dolphins, and even by a Mesozoic crocodile who moved on to the open ocean. And the role of ‘lion” has been played by everything from fossil marsupials to dinosaurs and giant half-mammalian “reptiles” who lived before the dinosaurs.
      So some styles can be preferred by conditions which allow them to become classic motifs.

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  

    • The word, “evolution” simply means “change over time.” But in the context of science, that word refers to an aspect of biology. Specifically, it is a process of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphological or physiological composition, which –when compiled over successive generations- can increase biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins. Or more simply, it is how life forms diversify via “descent with modification”.
      To put it another way, it is the method by which cats branched into so many different breeds within several distinct species in a half dozen genera.
      Deeper down, we’ve seen that new breeds of barnyard birds, domestic pets, livestock, corn, even bananas have to some degree been engineered by human intervention via artificial selection, and new sub-species have occurred in the wild via natural selection. In both cases, these stem from common ancestry, be that hundreds of breeds of dogs coming from one strain of wolves, or dozens of commercial bovines being derived from the now-extinct European Aurochs.
      According to Universities actually teaching this subject, microevolution is variation within species, and macroevolution is variation between species.
      The different breeds of dogs are an example of microevolution, while the different species of wolves and foxes, panthers and felines, horses and zebras, or llamas and camels –are all examples of macroevolution.
      What all these show is that even though a new species of perching bird (for example) is “still” a finch, it is now a different “kind” of finch, a distinct descendant species proving there is no “boundary” against macroevolution.

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  

    • The strategy of deliberately disguising the religious intent of intelligent design has been described by William Dembski in The Design Inference.
      In this work Dembski lists a god or an “alien life force” as two possible options for the identity of the designer; however, in his book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, Dembski states that “Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don’t have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ.”
      Dembski also stated, “ID is part of God’s general revelation [...] Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I’ve found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ”.
      Both Johnson and Dembski cite the Bible’s Gospel of John as the foundation of intelligent design.
      William Dembski states in his book Design Inference that the nature of the intelligent designer cannot be inferred from intelligent design and suggests that the designer, if one is even necessary for design inference, may or may not be “the God of Scripture.”
      In December 2007 Dembski told Focus on the Family, “I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.”
      At various times, leading proponents in the intelligent design movement have clearly expressed that they consider the Abrahamic God “Elohim” in his role as a creator God, to be the intelligent designer and denied that intelligent designer is God, depending on which audience they are addressing. One example is William Dembski, who on his blog in response to the question “Is the designer responsible for biological complexity God?” said “not necessarily” and “To ask who or what is the designer of a particular object is to ask for the immediate intelligent agent responsible for its design. The point is that God is able to work through derived or surrogate intelligences, which can be anything from angels to organizing principles embedded in nature.”
      Yet to the intelligent design movement’s conservative Christian constituents Dembski has said “intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces. This evidence is available to all apart from the special revelation of God in salvation history as recounted in Scripture. … Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. This gives intelligent design incredible traction as a tool for apologetics, opening up the God-question to individuals who think that science has buried God” and “Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.”
      Highlighting these mutually exclusive claims about the designer, Dembski, despite having said that the intelligent designer or designers could be any god or gods, or even space aliens, has also said that “intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces” and that “Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  

    • Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father of the ID movement has stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept:
      “Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.” — Phillip E. Johnson, American Family Radio, January 10, 2003
      “This isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science. It’s about religion and philosophy.” — Phillip E. Johnson, World Magazine, November 30, 1996
      “To talk of a purposeful or guided evolution is not to talk about evolution at all. That is slow creation. When you understand it that way, you realize that the Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end. It contradicts the idea that we are here because a creator brought about our existence for a purpose. That is the first thing I realized, and it carries tremendous meaning.” — Phillip Johnson
      “Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn’t true. It’s falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? When I preach from the Bible, as I often do at churches and on Sundays, I don’t start with Genesis. I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves.” — Phillip Johnson

      Phillip E. Johnson, ‘father’ of the intelligent design movement, states the movement’s goal is to “affirm the reality of God”.
      Phillip E. Johnson, largely regarded as the leader of the movement, positions himself as a “theistic realist” against “methodological naturalism” and intelligent design as the method through which God created life.
      Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having intelligent design recognized “as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message.”
      Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments which are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic creationism is a necessary first step for ultimately introducing the Christian concept of God as the designer.
      Johnson emphasizes “the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion” and that “after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact” only then can “biblical issues” be discussed.
      In the foreword to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science (2000) Johnson writes “The intelligent design movement starts with the recognition that ‘In the beginning was the Word.’ and ‘In the beginning God created.’ Establishing that point isn’t enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message.”
      Phillip E. Johnson stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept.
      Phillip E. Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments that are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic creationism is a necessary first step for ultimately reintroducing the Christian concept of God as the designer.
      Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having intelligent design identified “as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message”.
      Johnson emphasizes that “the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion”; “after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact [...] only then can ‘biblical issues’ be discussed”.

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  

    • Stephen C. Meyer, founder and leader of the intelligent design program of the Discovery Institute admitted on national television he believes that the designer is God.

      Recognizing the need for support, the institute affirms its Christian, evangelistic orientation: “Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to ‘popularize’ our ideas in the broader culture.”
      “To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” . . . “Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”– The Wedge Document, a 1999 Discovery Institute pamphlet.

    • 1 year ago
  • goodhart
    • 0
      goodhart  

    • Warning, people that live inside of small boxes should never try to think outside them, they may strain something >:-D

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • Image

    • Published in Volume 116, Issue 5 (May 1, 2006)
      J Clin Invest. 2006;116(5):1134–1138. doi:10.1172/JCI28449.
      Copyright © 2006, American Society for Clinical Investigation
      2 citations have been reported for this article.
      Science and Society
      Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action
      Alan D. Attie1, Elliot Sober2, Ronald L. Numbers3, Richard M. Amasino1, Beth Cox4, Terese Berceau5, Thomas Powell and Michael M. Cox1
      1Department of Biochemistry,
      2Department of Philosophy, and
      3Department of Medical History and Bioethics, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
      4Cox Law Office, Oregon, Wisconsin, USA.
      5Wisconsin State Legislature, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
      6Office of T. Berceau, Wisconsin State Legislature, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
      Address correspondence to: Alan Attie, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Department of Biochemistry, 433 Babcock Drive, Madison, Wisconsin 53706-1544, USA. Phone: (608) 262-1372; Fax: (608) 263-9609; E-mail: attie@biochem.wisc.edu .
      Published May 1, 2006
      We review here the current political landscape and our own efforts to address the attempts to undermine science education in Wisconsin. To mount an effective response, expertise in evolutionary biology and in the history of the public controversy is useful but not essential. However, entering the fray requires a minimal tool kit of information. Here, we summarize some of the scientific and legal history of this issue and list a series of actions that scientists can take to help facilitate good science education and an improved atmosphere for the scientific enterprise nationally. Finally, we provide some model legislation that has been introduced in Wisconsin to strengthen the teaching of science.

      http://www.jci.org/articles/view/28449/version/1

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
  • sugarlilly
  • Gravity_Man
    • 0
      Gravity_Man  

    • Well-l-l-l, I reckon there is ONE WAY to prove Jesus is a No-Show. You could press the red button and start Armageddon without him. Yep. Yepyepyepyepyepyep. That's about how the salt shaker crumbles. And if Jesus doesn't show, you guys reap a Bible Free World and ever'body else holy book free world, maybe even get that blasted Dalai Lama dude off the News.

      Wow, you might even recover some church land, church pews, church buildings and Church Gold, plus some many nifty red hats for Halloween!

      Good-Bye Mr. Pope Benedict. Sayonara. Bon Voyagey.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
  • goodhart
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  

    • Neil deGrasse Tyson on "Intelligent Design" at Beyond Belief
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weu7Rh6dYrM&feature=related
      Neil deGrasse Tyson's presentation titled "The Perimeter of Ignorance" at Beyond Belief 2006. Among other things, Tyson asserts that the religiosity of some of history's greatest scientists and their willingness to invoke the philosophy of intelligent design limited the scope of their inquiry into the natural world, to the detriment of scientific progress in general.

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  

    • Neil deGrasse Tyson stops a religious troll
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afGkv0IT4dU&feature=related
      At the end of the Q&A period after Tyson and Dawkins' magnificent presentation "The Poetry of Science", this douchebag troll (who refused to sit and insisted on getting his "question" out) tries to bait Dawkins/Tyson into a religious discussion with the mildly retarded question about what they would do when they're about to die with nothing to console themselves but their knowledge of science (implying that they're incomplete without the source of origin:god). Dawkins passed the opportunity for retort to Tyson, who answers in a fantastically poetic way.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
    • -1
      Gravity_Man  

    • Since "Creation" is in the topic you all might be interested ta know there's a movement afoot to take corporate ownership from the owners and give ownership to their employees. Even your own people plan their own Creation Epic.

      Or is that the Flood? Hey, everybody gets a big raise! I'll drink ta that! Bring it on! Obama. Obama. Obama. Change everyone will believe in then!!!

      The Domination of the CEO's this way comes [apart at the seams].

      Evolution!!! Dinosaurs are dead, sung to the Judy Garland song. The witch is dead, the wicked old witch is dead she's dead, the wicked witch is dead come on down.

    • 1 year ago
  • bike10
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
  • goodhart
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
  • BelieverInHumanRights
    • +2
      BelieverInHumanRights  

    • This is ridiculous and stupid. Teaching Evolution does not lead to Homosexual indoctrination. There is no homosexual indoctrination, just teaching about what is right, fair, and actually accurate.

    • 1 year ago
  • Jonathan_Lyons
    • +1
      Jonathan_Lyons  

    • Sad, hiding behind religious beliefs to hide one's bigotry.
      If these people knew anything about their own religions history, they'd know that early Judeo-Christian tradition bent genders of God and the first human being, an androgynous, genderless creature. Early such stories include God's wife, as well, who co-ruled with him.

    • 1 year ago
  • mikeO
  • eternal_springs
  • ThirdSection
    • +1
      ThirdSection  

    • I love it how whenever the far-right gets into a snit, they lash out at an easily marginalized group and the highly influential institutions it allegedly controls. I remember back when the Jews controlled the media and the banks, and now it's the Gays controlling the schools!

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
  • Gravity_Man
  • Gravity_Man
    • -7
      Gravity_Man  
    • Gravity_Man:

      Jesus made mud with his saliva that contained perfect stem cells for healing the blind man to normal eyesight, see John Chapter 9 for that. And if you read the account of Jesus raising Lazarus back from death you will see Jesus was shedding TEARS.

      Jesus was the equal of Adam but also Paul called Jesus the last Adam, meaning he was also qualified to have been Adam's son had Adam not sinned.

      Jesus is qualified to "pick up" being our father and will soon apply the value of his ransomed life sacrifice to mankind, the ones who believe, the ones who accept him as the new Adam.

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • +5
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • Gravity_Man:

      If god really is MY creator, (According to YOUR own illogical reasoning) Then EVERY male human being on the entire planet [approximately 4 BILLION of them] is god’s son. So how does that make ONE of them (First Century AD Hebrew Priest, Rabbi, Prophet and Exorcist; Jeshua of Nazareth) Her ONLY son?

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • +10
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • Gravity_Man:

      The Bible was very definitely written by men, and not superior men either; far from it!
      This is why so much of it can be shown to be historically and scientifically dead wrong about damned-near everything back-to-front.

      We’re talking about people who believe snakes and donkeys can talk ([Genesis 3; Numbers 22:1-35]),
      who believe in incantations ([Genesis 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14 ,20, 24, 29]),
      blood sacrifice ([Genesis 4:4 & 31:54; Leviticus 1:9 & 9:18; 2nd Kings 16:15; Ezekiel 39:17]),
      ritual spells ([Leviticus 14]),
      enchanted artifacts (1 Samuel 5: 6-9; Exodus 7:8-12; 1 Samuel 5:69, 6:19]),
      pyrotechnic potions ([Numbers 5:20-26]),
      astrology ([Genesis 1:14-15; Job 38:32; Isaiah 14:12-14; Luke 21:25; Matthew 12:32 & 28:20]),
      and the five elements of witchcraft ([Leviticus 14]).
      They thought that if you use a magic wand to sprinkle blood all over someone, it will cure them of leprosy.
      We’re talking about people who think that rabbits chew cud ([Leviticus 11:6]),
      and that bats are birds ([Deuteronomy 14:11-18; Leviticus 11:13-19]),
      and whales are fish (Jonah 1:17; Matthew 12:40]),
      and that Pi is a round number (1st Kings 7:23; 2nd Chronicles 4:2]).
      These folks believed that if you display striped patterns to a pregnant cow, it would bare striped calves (Genesis 30:37-43]).
      How could anyone say that who knows anything about genetics?
      Obviously the authors of this book didn’t.

      If the Bible had been written by a supreme being, then it wouldn’t contain the mistakes that it does.
      If it was written by a truly superior being, and meant to be read as a literal history, then the Bible wouldn’t contain anything that it does.

      As a moral guide, it utterly fails, because much of the original Hebrew scriptures were written by ignorant and bigoted savages who condoned and promoted animal cruelty ([Joshua 11:6; 2 Samuel 8:4]),
      incest ([Genesis 4, 9:1, 19:30-38, 20:11-12; 2 Samuel 13: 1-15]),
      slavery ([Numbers 31:31-35; Leviticus 25:44-45; Exodus 21:2-7; Ephesians 6:5; 1 Timothy 6:1-2]),
      abuse of slaves ([Exodus 21:7, 20-21; Luke 12:47-48]),
      spousal abuse ([Numbers 5:5-31; Deuteronomy 22:13-21, 28-29; 1 Peter 3:17]),
      child abuse (Genesis 22; Deuteronomy 21:18-21, 23:2; Proverbs 12:10, 20:30, 22:15, 23:13-14; Psalm 137:9]),
      child molestation ([Numbers 31:17-18]),
      abortion (Amos 1:13; 2 Kings: 15:16; Hosea 9:11-16, 13:16; Numbers 5:5-31]),
      ->MURDER: ([Exodus 2:12; Judges 9:5, 11:29-39, 14:19; 2 Samuel 18:15; 1 Kings 2:24-25, 29-34, 46, 9:27, 10:17; 2 Chronicles 21:4; Ezekiel 20:26]),
      and prejudice against race ([Exodus 23:23, 28; Numbers 21:35; Deuteronomy 3:6, 7:1; Matthew 15:22-28]),
      nationality ([Leviticus 25:46; Joshua 6:21-27; Matthew 11:21-24]),
      religion ([2 Kings 10:19-27]),
      sex ([Genesis 38:16-24; Judges 9:53-54, 19:22-29 & 21:10-12; Deuteronomy 21:10-14, 22:23-24, 28-29, 25:11-12; Zechariah 14:1-2; Leviticus 12:1-8, 14, 15:19-30, 18:19, 19:20, 21:9, 27:3-7; Numbers 1:2, 20:13-15, 30:3-16, 31:14-18]),
      and sexual orientation (Deuteronomy 22:5; Leviticus 18:22-23, 2-:13]).

      Why?
      To justify their own inhumanity by claiming to do the will of God.

      Bible has some shocking ‘family values’
      http://judgian12365.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/god-is-the-product-of-human-weaknes...

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • +9
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • Gravity_Man:

      The Book of Genesis says that Humans were created from dust; but it also states that people were made in Gods own image;
      Does this mean that god was made from dust as well; in which case you would be a fervent believer in Heavenly Dirt Mites?

      If, as is stated repeatedly throughout christian literature, God is infallible; then how could he have created a species of life (human beings) about whom so much is flawed?

    • 1 year ago
  • ampersand
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
  • mickyjon420
  • Gravity_Man
    • -7
      Gravity_Man  
    • Ian_Judge_Lord:

      How do you imagine you know my reasoning is illogical? Ya know, you go to great lengths to present yourself here on Current as being a very smart fellow, but then you present yourself as an all-knowing god type mindreader.

      You do not impress me. I have very good abilities in logic and reasoning according to all the school tests I ever took, and my IQ score results said that someone like me should be running a world corporation.

      I find you at times to be rather doorknob stupid. The Bible answers your questions about Jesus very easily. Too bad you found me in an illogical mood this morning. Do without.

    • 1 year ago
  • navider
  • Jake_Leonard
    • +7
      Jake_Leonard  
    • Gravity_Man:

      To be fair, Ian never said you were inherently illogical, or generally stupid. He said your points are illogical, but never attacked you. IQ, test scores, etc... aside, you bypassed every point he made, blatantly pointing to the bible, "It has all the answers! "-- when Ian just pointed out the exact inconsistencies thereof.

      As a third person observer to this conversation, it would benefit everyone more if you would actually point out how the bible "answers [his] questions about Jesus easily" rather than making it sound like you're essentially stalling, or only preserving your self esteem.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
    • -7
      Gravity_Man  
    • Jake_Leonard:

      #1, there's no rule I have to play by your rules. #2, Mr. Lord is quite capable of addressing me without your help. And #3, obviously if I don't defend my statements it means one of two things. Your choice.

    • 1 year ago
  • Jake_Leonard
    • +6
      Jake_Leonard  
    • Gravity_Man:

      "#2, Mr. Lord is quite capable of addressing me without your help."

      Isn't that between Ian, and I? Speaking of other people's rules I don't have to follow...

      In any case, do you what you want. I'm just pursuing a more constructive argumentative system where people actually gain something rather than throw red herrings, boast, and insult.

      For your third point, I was only telling you how it "sounded" to me; it's not that I necessarily believe it to be true, but some might. Take it or leave it.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
    • -6
      Gravity_Man  
    • Jake_Leonard:

      I'm quite content to stand by and watch you guys die at Armageddon. You choose the wrong goblet, go for it men. Grab the sack and run over the cliff. We don't need you on the other side, just others like us.

      That's called paradise. We get it. You lose it. Que sera.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
    • -5
      Gravity_Man  
    • Jake_Leonard:

      Point of fact is there's at least one scripture in the Bible that says we have to watch. I'd look it up for ya but I have more important things to do than preach to those happily sopping wine from the wrong goblet.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
  • Gravity_Man
    • -6
      Gravity_Man  
    • Jake_Leonard:

      You are fast becoming less worth than a tax write-off. You don't know nuthin' what's coming down the pike. I've had time being on disability, and holy spirit helping me, to see what's coming, and you jacklegs think you're smart.

      You're history.

    • 1 year ago
  • Bazinga
  • Gravity_Man
    • -4
      Gravity_Man  
    • Jake_Leonard:

      The Bible gives STRICT INSTRUCTIONS for me to not gloat over anyone's death, so I'm not, yet at the same time I would be remiss not to tell you, which I am also commanded to do.

      It's a fine line. If I spike you through the hoop enough you might actually decide to change your choice and try our goblet, because ours is running over and there's plenty for you.

      If you find the power to unweld your brainwashing enough to visit one of our Kingdom Halls in time.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
    • -4
      Gravity_Man  
    • Jake_Leonard:

      How many Sci-Fi movies has there been where they showed an alien wrapped around people's spines? How many science fiction shows on TV?

      The Anti-Christ told you through the movies & TV what they were doing. The reason they are so upfront is because they imagine they are the equal of Christ, even more Christ than Christ.

      They have told the world their plans. It is extremely IMPORTANT to them that when they look back over their shoulder from the future and view billions of human carcasses they caused, that they do not feel a bad conscience over your deaths.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
  • Gravity_Man
  • mikeO
  • Gravity_Man
  • Gravity_Man
  • mikeO
  • Gravity_Man
  • Gravity_Man
    • -4
      Gravity_Man  
    • mikeO:

      It comes with the territory.... Somehow I have to be truthful yet nice while telling everybody the gun's in their face and that thing behind them's a wall..

    • 1 year ago
  • Varex_Sythe
    • +2
      Varex_Sythe  
    • Gravity_Man:

      "And the Bible is impeccable (true and honest)."

      im·pec·ca·ble (m-pk-bl)
      adj.
      1. Having no flaws; perfect. See Synonyms at perfect.
      2. Incapable of sin or wrongdoing.

      The Bible on...
      War or Peace?

      EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

      ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

      Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

      JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

      JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

      Which first--beasts or man?

      GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
      GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

      GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
      GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

      How many stalls and horsemen?

      1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

      2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

      Is it folly to be wise or not?

      PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

      ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

      1CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

      The bat is not a bird

      LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
      LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
      LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
      LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
      LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
      LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
      LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

      DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
      DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
      DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
      DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
      DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
      DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
      DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
      DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

    • 1 year ago
  • Varex_Sythe
    • +4
      Varex_Sythe  
    • Gravity_Man:

      Fowl from waters or ground?

      GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
      GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

      GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

      Moses' personality

      NUM 12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth."

      NUM 31:14, 17, 18: "And Moses was wroth...And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves."

      Righteous live?

      PSA 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

      ISA 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

      Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?

      MAT 5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."

      LUK 6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."

      Jesus' last words

      MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

      LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

      JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

      Years of famine

      II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?

      I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;

      II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

      I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

      The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?

      In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. MAT 1:6-16 and LUK 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.

      God be seen?

      EXO 24:9,10; AMO 9:1; GEN 26:2; and JOH 14:9
      God CAN be seen:
      "And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
      "And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
      "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)

      God CANNOT be seen:
      "No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
      "And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
      "Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)

      CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:

      "I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

      "The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (JAS 5:11)
      "For his mercy endureth forever." (1CH 16:34)
      "The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (PSA 145:9)
      "God is love." (1JO 4:16)

      Tempts?

      "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (GEN 22:1)

      "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (JAS 1:13)

      Judas died how?

      "And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)

      "And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)

      Do you answer a fool?

      PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

      PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

      Judging

      1 Cor 2:15 "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV)

      1 Cor 4:5 "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."

      Etc... For something that is flawless, the Bible seems to have more contradictions and plot holes than Michael Crichton's book "State of Fear."

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
  • Varex_Sythe
  • Gravity_Man
  • Gravity_Man
  • Varex_Sythe
    • +2
      Varex_Sythe  
    • Gravity_Man:

      "#1, there's no rule I have to play by your rules."

      This is correct, there is no rule which states that you have to play by our rules. In much the same way, there is no rule that states an army has to plan their attack and defense around the physical properties and limitations of this plane of existence when fighting a battle. However, an army that ignores basic tactical ideology such as, "the high ground grants a basic advantage," or, "funneling the enemy into a bottle neck in order to reduce their advantage of overwhelming numbers," and adopts the simple stratagem of, "charge forth against larger forces whom are better armed with no plan," usually faces annihilation.

      In much the same way that a military force which ignores basic rules of combat faces certain doom despite their confidence in victory, your inability to actually form a coherent argument, and either ignoring the valid points that other people make while changing the subject to fit your own personal dementia, dooms you to fail at actually winning an argument.

      By the way, when SPECIFICALLY is the world going to end? The point of asking about specifics is that anyone can write a vague prophecy of the end of the world which will fit nearly any disaster or time frame. Getting it down to a specific day of a specific month of a specific year, that actually takes some kind of divine higher power.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
    • -3
      Gravity_Man  
    • Varex_Sythe:

      Prophecies aren't vague. You just failed the maze so far is all.

      Are you familiar with what a lake inversion is? When it turns cooler in the Fall eventually the surface water becomes colder than the water underneath, so one day (or night) they suddenly flip and do a switchout, like wrestling. Much like before when I was explaining my engines in depth explaining about the suddenness of a "state change", same difference.

      I actually expect Armageddon to happen very fast but we have not officially stated that. My being acquainted with engines doing state changes is not shared by the Watchtower Society, not to my knowledge. But I figure it like this, that once Jehovah decides NOW it will happen at NOW SPEED, not human speed.

      But for a few little wars here and there mankind has basically been free of what you call "World War" since 1945 or so. The United Nations was chartered on June 26 1945, for the purpose of stopping world wars, for 66 years come June. It rather looks like they have succeeded so the "lake water" is smooth.

      66 years as of the 6th month. Yeah. Those do look like 3 sixes.

      The UN is one of the symbolic beasts in Revelation, according to us for many decades now, but of course since we can't possibly be correct well hey I guess we're all wet. Okay everybody, false alert. Carry on. JW's are wrong.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
  • Gravity_Man
    • -3
      Gravity_Man  
    • Varex_Sythe:

      Hmm. I guess you're like most people in thinking Revelation could've been true many, many times before. Actually that's incorrect. If you but read Rev. 1 v 10 => "By inspiration I came to be in the Lord’s day," John was telling of visions that would only begin happening when mankind had entered into a time called "the Lord's day".

      It's actually a very simple thing, using the Bible, to know when that "day" began. We've been in that time since 1914. It's fun to learn about it though. It's also why the beasts in Revelation can be tagged in our time. Chapter 18 tells of the world's churches being destroyed for failing to tell the world Bible Truth. Another chapter tells about how the world's merchants would be running roughshod over mankind.... a reality of our day.

      Anyway, whether we're right or wrong it won't be very long now.

    • 1 year ago
  • Varex_Sythe
    • 0
      Varex_Sythe  
    • Gravity_Man:

      On one hand I am pretty sure I am not going to get a strait forward and simple answer, but on the other hand it is a very simple question. So I will repeat it and I'll even make it a little more detailed.

      When SPECIFICALLY is the world going to end according to the prophecies in the Bible?

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • Gravity_Man:

      According to the Pentateuch of the Torah,
      Jehovah [The Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient Monotheistic One God of the Prehistoric Ancient Hebrews] and His Wife Ishtar [The Ancient Canaanite Mother Goddess of Love, Fertility, and Maternity] created every and all forms of life that have ever lived on Earth, including the first pair of humans in the "Garden of Eden"; which, according to the Prehistoric Ancient Mesopotamian Creation Mythology, was located where, twelve thousand years ago, the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers converged with a third that is now only merely a bone-dry riverbed; but what is now the Island Nation of Bahrain off of the Peninsula of Qatar in the Persian Gulf; a tropical rainforest jungle that was swamped by rising sea levels at the end of the last great ice age ten thousand years ago.

      According to the Hebrew Book of Bereshit [Which the Christian's refer to as "Genesis"], the first of the Five Books of Moses [The Pentateuch]; in a story that was copied very nearly word-for-word verbatim from the Ancient Sumerian Mythological Epic Poem of the Mesopotamian Mythic Demigod Hero Gilgamesh; After Enki, the omnipresent father god of the Ancient Sumerians, erased all life, including all people, from the face of the Earth with a great mighty flood [most likely a highly dramatized interpretation of tales realting the rising seas at the end of the last Ice Age], covering even the Garden of Eden (the flooding of what is now the Persian Gulf) it was left to a man named "Utnapishtim" [In Hebrew: "Noach"] to repopulate the Earth with only his sons (Noah himself was the direct descendant of Adam and Eve, who were brother and sister [of the same father and mother, Jehovah and his wife Ishtar]).
      Therefore, every human being that has come after (the erroneous, arbitrary date of six thousand years meaning around about approximately 200 generations; but since the mega-flood actually occurred at the end of the last Great Ice Age, circa ten to twelve thousand years ago, the number would twice that) would all be cousins of one another, and every race, skin color, facial feature, and body proportion that presently exists within the Human Species would be the direct result of variation (Dare i say: Mutations?) on the forms of Utnapishtim's three sons [Being indigenous to what is now Bahrain and Qatar, their racial and ethnic features would very closely resemble the inhabitants of Abu Dubai in the United Emirates, and Persian Gulf country of Kuwait.]

      Change through time via a gradual process of incremental and subtle variations...
      ...The Old Testament Biblical Book of Genesis includes one amongst the most resounding endorsements of the foundational hypothesis of Darwinian evolution that is to be found anywhere in prehistoric ancient mythology, right up until, and including, modern contemporary fantastical fiction, Such as Star Wars or the Lord of the Rings.

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • Gravity_Man:

      The Mythology of Jeshua Ben Josef of Nazareth is ,as a matter of actual facts, an amalgamation of the myths of the Solar deities of the Classical Civilizations of the Ancient World: Attis of Phrygia (Greece, ~1200 BCE), Dionysus (Greece, ~500 BCE), Horus (Egypt, ~3,000 BCE), and Mithra (Persia, ~1200 BCE);
      The actual man named Jeshua Ben Josef of Nazareth; an Iconoclastic Hebrew Jewish Priest, Rabbi, and "Medicine Man" [Read: Exorcist] born in the town of Bethlehem in the Roman-Empire-occupied province of Judea, (in what is now Israel), in the Spring [March or April] of the Year 6 CE; never even once claimed himself to be anything more or less than what he was, and most certainly never proclaimed himself to be the "Only Begotten Son" of Jehovah, the Prehistoric Monotheistic God of the Ancient Hebrews.
      When the Mythology of Jeshua Ben Josef of Nazareth, as is the case with all mythologies surrounding solar deities of the Ancient world's classical Civilizations, states that he was the "Son of God"; this is, as a matter of actual facts, most likely merely nothing more than a relatively simple mistranslation; what it really actually means is "God of the Sun" or "Sun God" (Horus of Egypt and Mithras of Persia were, both of them, their respective Civilization's Gods of the Sun). One of the alternative nicknames for Jeshua Ben Josef of Nazareth, as granted in the mythology of the Christian New Testament Apostolic Gospels, is "The Light of the World".

      The Holiday that modern contemporary Christians Celebrate today as "Christmas" [the 25th of December] (which some Christians erroneously and entirely arbitrarily associate with the Birth of Jeshua Ben Josef of Nazareth in the year 0 CE, which historically occurred in the Spring [March or April,] of the year 6 CE) is, in fact the Ancient Roman Festival of Saturnalia, during which the Romans would hang evergreen boughs in their homes, and give one another wrapped gifts. Saturnalia was a celebration, following the winter Solstice on December 21st, of the Roman's own version of the Greek Sun God Helios, or Apollo, which they called "Sol Invictus" or "The Unconquerable Sun".
      The early Christians merely assimilated the Roman Solar Festival into their cult's practices, recognizing that in many of the classical civilizations of the ancient world, such as in ancient Egypt, the Solar deities were the most predominant of all the pantheon of pagan gods and goddesses, and in many cases (Such as the first-ever recorded monotheistic One god, Amun-Ra of Ancient Egypt (Circa 4,000 BCE [or 6,00 years ago, around about the time of the construction of the Great Pyramids of Giza]) Solar Deities were the chief gods worshipped, the kings of the ancient civilizations' pantheon.
      The first Christian cult wanted nothing more than to make their particular solar Demigod, whom they called "Jesus Christ" [Khristos, meaning "the Anointed One", is a Greek translation of the Hebrew word Masiah: "anointed"], the chief deity of the whole of the Classical Ancient Mediterranean known world. They did this, quite successfully throughout the first millennium CE, by assimilating the mythologies surrounding a various and myriad variety of ancient and prehistoric cultures into their own mythos, following closely in the footsteps of their progenitors, the Prehistoric Ancient Hebrews, who copied, very nearly word-for-word verbatim, the various creation mythologies and epic legends of the Ancient Mesopotamian Sumerians and Babylonians.
      Ever wonder where we get the image of God (Jahweh or Jehovah) as an elderly long-white-bearded man living in the clouds?
      Ever seen any images of the The King of the Greek Olympian Pantheon, Zeus (Jupiter to the Romans)?
      Because both Horus of Egypt and Mithras of Persia were both supposedly, according their respective mythologies, allegedly born on the 25th of December, to virgin mothers, the first Early Christians invented the legend/myth we now refer to as the "Nativity".
      The glaring and blatant inconsistencies and contradictions in the Myth of the birth of the "Christ" or "Messiah" (such as its telling of Shepherds grazing their flocks of sheep, ostensibly in the depth of the middle of the winter) are due in no small part to details of the actual real historical birth of Jesua Ben Josef of Nazareth bleeding through the layers of dogmatic doctrine and into the Mythology (the Magi, or "Wise Men", Astrologers and Alchemists from the University of Baghdad or the Library of Alexandria, who visited the young Jeshua Ben Josef, are referred to in the legend as the "Three Kings", when no account exist of their being three of them).
      The early childhood life story of the Christian Solar Demigod, and his Virgin Mother Mary, is copied, once more again very nearly word-for-word verbatim, from the life story of the Ancient Egyptian Sun God Horus and his Mother-Goddess Isis, including, but by no means limited to, the Solar deity's climactic duel with his arch-nemesis, the God of Darkness, Setesh, or Seth [Also called "Setan" or the "Beast" with horns and a forked tail]. Like Ishtar, the Canannite wife of of the Hebrew god Jahweh, Isis, too, was also the Goddess of Fertility and Maternity.

      SOL “Invictus”
      http://judgian12365.wordpress.com/2010/09/18/sol-invictus/

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • 0
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • Gravity_Man:

      We know what lies outside our atmosphere. And that proves that there is no water above where the firmament isn't ([Genesis 1:6-7]) and no windows to let it drain in -if there was either water or firmament there ([Genesis 7:11]).
      We know that night is not a veil to be spread over the missing firmament like a curtain ([Psalms 104:2]) or a tent ([Isaiah 40:22]).
      We also know that the stars are not made to stand in the span of this expanse ([Isaiah 48:13]) because they are not "high" in the firmament ([Job 22:12]); there is no firmament, and they are so far beyond our puny world that "height" is meaningless and inapplicable.
      They are much too far away to be blown out of place by any storm ([2 Esdras 15:34-35]) and they couldn't be taken "down" by anything at all.
      We've also proven that the illusive heavenly firmament has no foundations either ([2 Samuel 22:8]), and neither does the Earth ([Job 38:4-6]).
      There are no pillars ([1 Samuel 2:8]) holding the Earth above the deep ([Genesis 1:2]), because there is no deep.
      We also now know what lies outside our gravitational field. And that proves that you can't have any passage of days and nights without a sun ([Genesis 1:13-14]) to measure them against an Earth that constantly moves ([Psalms 104:5]).
      We also know that the sun cannot be made to set at noon ([Amos 8:9]), and that neither the sun nor the moon can be stopped in the sky ([Joshua 10:12-13]).
      We also now know what is beyond our solar system. And that proves that the stars can't fall from the sky ([Matthew 24:29]), and even if they did, we still couldn't stomp on them ([Daniel 8:10]) because they're each millions of miles around. Which makes it a bit silly to imagine a whole group of them having conscious minds, and ganging up in combat with a mere human being ([Judges 5:20]).
      We even know now what lies beyond our galaxy. And that proves that nothing or no one could ever "seal up the stars" ([Job 9:7]).
      We also know that the Earth with its fictitious firmament didn't predate the "lights in the heavens" by any amount of time ([Genesis 1:17-19]), and that the stars weren't "set" specifically to light the Earth; because the Earth is not at the center, -or the beginning- of the universe in any respect ([Genesis 1:1]).

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
    • 0
      Gravity_Man  
    • Varex_Sythe:

      #1 in our time and #2 very soon. I already told you that! Are you deaf or something? If you want a specific day and hour I can't give you what even Jesus does not have. Much as you have been falsely led to believe that Jesus and God are one and the same they are not. Only the Father knows.

      The pertinent information is what you already possess. It is found in Revelation Chapter 7 written there plain as day. A great crowd of people from all nations and tongues (Races too) are now coming together, and only that group has God's approval. In order to join our group and survive Armageddon you have to clean up your act (aka "don white robes").

      That's all we have. Feet dragging ~and tabling demands as you are doing~ will not have a good result.

      If you have questions I am not answering to your satisfaction that's OK because I don't know everything ANYWAY. Your recourse then is to pray to God and ask Him personally for better assistance. I do that all the time my own self and I get many answers that way, when He decides to give them out.

      Or, whew, take Door #2. hahahahahaha Like everybody else.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
  • madammarsh
  • madammarsh
  • madammarsh
  • Gravity_Man
  • mikeO
  • Gravity_Man
    • -2
      Gravity_Man  
    • mikeO:

      You sir are truly a breath of fresh air in this pigsty. You mean the "other place" that's just like here? haha There is no such place. Fire was used by Bible writers because it was the most totally-destructive force they knew of. People don't suffer forever=> they're dead forever.

      There can be only one.

      Who the hell has been feeding you so many lies? You must be stuffed. Whew. If you did just a tiny bit of reading you'd find out Jesus used the word Hades for the resurrection (where they're deep asleep as per Eccles. 9 vss 5 & 10) while a totally different word Gehenna for total burnout a gone gone. And further if you get into Revelation you'll read long about Chapter 20 Hades is done away with once everyone is resurrected => so once people reach Adamic perfection if they sin again they do the straight Gehenna, just as Adam & Eve did.

      Psst. You're helping me again watchyerback.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
    • 0
      Gravity_Man  
    • mikeO:

      It isn't as difficult as it sounds. People will be given a very fair period of time to learn the ropes when the Thousand Year reign of Christ Jesus begins, after Armageddon. God isn't wanting to KILL US. He wants us to live, helps us, aids us. When the New System starts uhm hmm, I shouldn't give away the surprise, wouldn't be right.

      There's still room in the boat. I wouldn't dilly-dally tho.

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
  • Varex_Sythe
    • 0
      Varex_Sythe  
    • Gravity_Man:

      Sorry for the late reply, just got my computer back from the shop... and now back to our show.

      Are you retarded, or do you not know the meaning of specific when applied to the concept of time?

      An example of a specific time is 12:34 PM on January 6th, 2012. "In our time and very soon," are not specific, they are general, and there is an amusing factor about people who claim that the world will end soon but will not or cannot give a specific time. That amusing factor is that eventually, statistics says that the world will end soon will be right because when the world does end, they're still spouting about how the world is going to end. Unfortunately, the people who are spouting the world will end soon right before the world ends are no more correct than people who spouted the exact same shit thousands of years ago.

      So let me restate, "In our time and very soon," is not specific. Given how "specific" you get, I would imagine if I asked you for the location of a specific store in New York City, you'd tell me it was in New York and say that those directions were specific enough.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
  • PoliticalAmazon
    • +8
      PoliticalAmazon  
    • Image

    • Actually, it is called a Biblical Worldview. There are different approaches to it. Here's an article on the Christian Reconstructionist approach to homeschooling, which definitely takes an Old Testament worldview for its materials:

      http://www.politicalamazon.com/fcf-homeschooling.html

      This is how it works: as a teacher, you only teach information and theories that agree with the Bible and glorify God and Jesus. If it conflicts with the Bible, you don't teach it, OR CHANGE THE FACTS TO FIT THE BIBLE.

      I've attended homeschooling conventions, and this is typical of what they teach in the Biblical Worldview and Homeschooling workshops.

      The group attending one of these workshops was told by the speaker--who sells a LOT of CDs and has many speaking engagements--that George Washington Carver went before the United Nations and, on bent knee, witnessed for Jesus Christ in front of the U.N. members.

      There's a problem with this...Carver died in 1943, and the U.N. was founded in 1945.

      Here's another example she gave for a "biblical worldview teaching experience" she gave:

      She was on a road-trip with her family, on vacation, and they stopped at the Oil Museum in Texas. (There are more than one in Texas, but she went to THE Oil Museum.)

      As they got closer to the museum, she started teaching the kids, saying how wonderful it was that Jesus made it possible for them to go on this vacation, to see the oil museum, and to even get their by car. This is because God made the earth, and the oil, and made life, including humans, and gave the MEN who invented the combustion engine and gasoline able to figure it out.

      Okay, that's a homeschooling primer on the biblical worldview. Any questions?

    • 1 year ago
  • PoliticalAmazon
  • mrtraffic
  • UtopianSky
    • +12
      UtopianSky  

    • Creationists Warn That Teaching Evolution Leads To "Homosexual Indoctrination"?

      You mean I can find some hot straight guy, start explaining Darwin to him, and just like that he's MINE!?!

      YIPPIE!!

      I'm taking my copy of "Origin of Species" to the Mall and start hunting!

    • 1 year ago
  • randallr01
  • Milieu
  • UtopianSky
    • +9
      UtopianSky  
    • Milieu:

      The Origin of Species
      Charles Darwin
      Preface

      WILL here give a brief sketch of the progress of opinion on the Origin of Species. Until recently the great majority of naturalists believed that species were immutable productions, and had been separately created. This view has been ably maintained by many authors. Some few naturalists, on the other hand, have believed that species undergo modification, and that the existing forms of life are the descendants by true generation of pre-existing forms. Passing over allusions to the subject in the classical writers ....

      ... tell me when you start feeling horny for man-meat. :)

    • 1 year ago
  • Ian_Judge_Lord
    • +7
      Ian_Judge_Lord  
    • UtopianSky:

      Don't forget that these people also believe that the so-called "secular civilization" or "secular society" ALSO leads inevitably, unavoidably, and inescapably to Homosexuality as well.
      So, by that logic, arguably and debatably the most flagrantly flaming gay paragraph ever written was:

      "Congress Shall Make No Law Respecting and Establishment of Religion, Nor Prohibiting the Free Exercise Thereof; Nor Abridging the Freedoms of Speech, or of the Press, or of the People Peaceably to Assemble, and to Petition Their Government for A Redress of Their Grievances."
      -First Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America, Written by Third President of the United States Thomas Jefferson and Fourth President of the United States James Madison; Ratified by the First United States Congress, 1789

    • 1 year ago
  • Milieu
  • Itsbatman_Durr
  • ZiggyStrange
  • ZiggyStrange
  • mickyjon420
  • mrtraffic
12345
1 - 100 of 434
more from Community:
from the community

top videos