Log in

No account? Create an account
Idiot Christian Glorifies the Free Will of Man Over God's
daniel knight

I was just listening to KKOB, where two sports hosts were promoting the legalization of prostitution, and a stupid stupid sicko Christian just called in to give false praise to God while babbling on and on about mankind's free will (G, let me guess, could you be a Arminian?) and how God will send people to Hell who disobey him, but ended his call with not condemnation of prostitution but saying he wouldn't judge anyone. HUH? YOU JUST SAID THOSE WHO DISOBEY GOD WILL GO TO HELL. OF COURSE YOU'RE JUDGING. But the hosts then praised the caller basically saying "wow" because he said he wouldn't judge anyone for doing "whatever" one of the host said. And one of the hosts ludicrously said "the problem with those type of calls..." (as in calls from fundamentalist Christians who try to convince people that their religion is right, not that Arminian one) is that "people have their own beliefs and you can't change their opinion". UM MORON, MASSIVE MORON, EVER HEARD OF AN X-CHRISTIAN? EVER HEARD OF A CONVERT? Are you so massively stupid that you think people are born religious and that people fall away or become another religion cuz no one was trying to persuade them? God you're stupid, and so was that sickening man-praise-seeking Arminian. Shut up about free will already, just shut up about it! YES WE HAVE FREE WILL WHAT IS YOUR POINT IF NO ONE IS TO JUDGE ANYONE FOR WHAT THEY DO? God, shut up and stop pretending to be wise noble know-it-alls! Sickening!

Yet More Evidence That Most Ghosts Are Demons
daniel knight
This morning on Coast to Coast AM a self-called skeptic (who uses a what I consider to be a misdefinition of the word, by using the misdefinitions in dictionaries), and who is a professional photographer, shared his testimony about his experiences with ghosts. He said that EVPs were the greatest evidence of ghosts (in his opinion) and I think vainly played down photographic evidence, no doubt to appear to be a true skeptic, and so showing that he was denying it's modern definition or rather true definition (which is a person who doubts anything extraordinary for no logical reason). About the EVPs he recorded, he said to George Noory the host, "They come to us in a tongue in cheek way... almost as if they we're mocking us." George then asked a few seconds later, something like, "Do you ever get EVPs that try to scare you?" Part of the guest's reply was that (at least one) EVP he recorded was, "Leave us alone" and he said that "it breaks my heart that they view us as intruders".

A while later, the guest talked about how he was trying to record EVPs at a cemetery, and found that he kept stepping on fire ant mounds. When he said, "Oh great, more fire ant mounts" (hardly a complaint), a "ghost" almost instantly replied, "Be nice." Hmmm: A human lightly shows his annoyance with FIRE ants which scar you and cause you great pain with their stings and possibly kill you if you're allergic to them or stay to long at a FIRE ant mount, and a "ghost" almost instantly shows it's annoyance at your annoyance at this? Is that a typical human response? And notice the FIRE ants were in a cemetery, a place associated with death? To me this is obviously a demon that considers the ants it's pets and loves them for tormenting humans, and loves them more for tormenting them when they try to honor or show their love for those who died; a sadistic demon that is so demented that even a weak slight at it's vicious pets instantly annoys it.

For those of you who aren't stupid kids, is it really that hard to figure out?

Update (2:04 A.M.): Just before C2C ended a caller said that while he was listening to the show in his car, he could hear a voice repeatedly asking him to turn something, I forget what, so he did, but then turned it back, and the voice repeatedly started using foul language at him and telling him to turn whatever again. The caller said he told his son and his son said to go back to the area he had heard the voice at and he told his son no. George and the guest then laughed about it.

Astrophysisist Says You Can Have "Spirituality" Without Religion
daniel knight
Astrophysicist and author Dr. Bernard Haisch (whom Ian Punnet called, "one of the smartest men in the world.") discussed last night and this morning, on Coast to Coast AM, his theory that the universe is a product of an intelligence or consciousness, and how this is supported by recent astrophysical findings, and to pitch his book on those topics, called "The God Theory." Ian, seemingly to Bernard's annoyance, asked him so good questions, revealing Haisch's heretical book to be near worthless.

Ian asked Haisch what he thought o karma, and Haisch implied that when we do bad things that we judge ourselves and so we determine the negative effects that happen to us and so after we die how we lived determines what we next reincarnate as. How convenient for those who are evil! And how obviously false. Since when do those who do evil in this life time get instantly punished? Even the ancient "obsolete" Bible written by supposedly unobservant ignorants says,

"When I think about this, I am terrified;
trembling seizes my body.

Why do the wicked live on,
growing old and increasing in power?

They see their children established around them,
their offspring before their eyes.

Their homes are safe and free from fear;
the rod of God is not upon them.

Their bulls never fail to breed;
their cows calve and do not miscarry.

They send forth their children as a flock;
their little ones dance about.

They sing to the music of tambourine and harp;
they make merry to the sound of the flute.

They spend their years in prosperity
and go down to the grave in peace.

Yet they say to God, 'Leave us alone!
We have no desire to know your ways.

Who is the Almighty, that we should serve him?
What would we gain by praying to him?'

But their prosperity is not in their own hands,
so I stand aloof from the counsel of the wicked.

Yet how often is the lamp of a
wicked [people] snuffed out?
How often does calamity come upon them,
the fate God allots in his anger?
Job 21:6-17"

And how many people are so stupid, so mentally darkened, that they don't know that this is an unfair world? Who doesn't think this is an unfair world? Who has never complained about corrupt leaders getting away with doing evil and dying in peace like Job complained about over 3000 thousand years ago? How many people don't know that humans in general are unjust and don't judge themselves perfectly but make exceptions for themselves? So how can Haisch say that we judge ourselves, in other words, that we give ourselves just punishment and correct rewards?

Ian also asked Haisch what he thought of a God who planned everything out, and Haisch said, "It doesn't appeal to me." Yet just now (1:08 A.M.) Ian said Haisch was "coming from a purely scientific view." Though some may tell me Haisch wasn't talking about his feelings, but had scientific reasons as to why it didn't appeal to him, I know that's wrong, since, that response is not an accepted as a scientific standard. For example, imagine a scientist, who is a Darwinist, says, "The scientific experiments we performed show that there is no such thing as randomness and that everything is preplanned, and follows physical laws. But that doesn't appeal to me. So I don't believe the results of the experiments."

Haisch also said, "In my view God doesn't interfere in the world. ... He creates boundries initially. ... That's the point of it."

Who cares what your view is? What matters is what is, reality. What matters is the evidence, the truth.

First caller: "Where does evil fit into this? ...do you feel there is an evil out there somewhere, that manipulates peoples' lives"

Haisch's response: "I really don't believe in any active evil force" ... "I think there is a being without any polarity, a perfect being."

The caller was referring to a being like Satan obviously, and Haisch, without any explanation as to why, said, "no". How insightful.

A little while later Haisch said, "Not because he doesn't care but because it would destroy his own plan to let things arise of it's own accord. ...to let things develop on their own."

Haisch is contradicting himself and saying things not based on evidence:

1) God is obviously perfectly wise and would know the outcome of anything based on how he set up the first laws and first thing or things in motion. So to say that God set the universe up to continue randomly makes no sense.

2) It makes even less sense since Haisch said God set up laws, and clearly these laws have remained, and according to scientists like Haisch, have, at least after the first explosion, stayed almost exactly the same or have stayed the same, as opposed to disappearing or changing due to randomness (unknowable changes due to lack of control by an intelligent being and it's inability to know the outcome of that control). So, if things were meant to happen randomly after God made the universe or set it's creation in motion to occur randomly, then his creating physical laws and making the explosion so precise that it ended up with our solar system and all the molecules in it in exactly the place he wanted would have been futile as as soon as he withdrew his control of the laws of the universe, it would have all started to come undone and returned back into a formless void.

3) Haisch claimed that God doesn't "interfere" in the universe because it would defeat the point of everything happening randomly. What is his evidence for that? None. Haisch is contradicting himself in two ways, and not making sense in a another way:

a) Haisch defines "interference" as God doing anything in the universe, because it would prevent the universe from being random. Therefore Haisch is (and obviously doesn't clearly realize it) that God knows the future and the consequences of all his actions, even the smallest action. If that is true, then God knew exactly what would happen by his "interference" in the beginning!

b) Even if Haisch defined interference as only being something God does to affect the universe after the first replicating life appeared on Earth, he still would be contradicting himself since Haisch already implied that God was not interfering with the universe while he controlled it up to the point of life appearing or beginning to replicate. So, Haisch is being arbitrary with his definitions, meaning, changing them so that God appeals to his feelings, what he wishes God to be.

Another caller asked Haisch if he believed in divine intervention (and though Haisch earlier said that he didn't as I've pointed out) Haisch, by saying this, has contradicted himself again:

1) By saying that he did believe God participated in the universe indirectly (because he believes that we share God's consciousness and manipulate reality with our consciousness - he said, "The universe is based on consciousness." earlier in the show), he is saying that God is participating in the universe. He even just now (at 1:50 A.M. about) said, "We are God."

2) What does it matter whether or not God participates directly or indirectly, it would still be "interference" according to one of Haisch's definitions (definitions which are not compatible). And using Haisch's logic, God could happily participate all he wanted by simply doing it indirectly by sending angels to do what he wanted, OR, CONTROLLING US INDIRECTLY WITHOUT USING ANGELS. So, Haisch's logic is contradictory as he said that God doesn't participate because it would be interference, yet says God does participate indirectly (at least he had meant that God does not manipulating things directly with his Spirit, like moving objects or energy around).

3) Haisch is also contradicting himself in that if we are God as he said, then God is interfering in this universe since we are acting in it and therefore preventing it from being random. Haisch even said that it's based on our consciousness, so it's design is based on what we want it to be. Haisch is illogical in his teachings upon God. He even said, after all this:

4) "I certainly haven't proven anything." Well he has, using false evidence, convinced at least one caller that called late into the show, and so, he couldn't even define the word "proof" right. Though someone may say, "Well he didn't think he'd prove anything to anyone," but if that is true, then why is trying to? Why did he write a book and make a website and come on the show to do so? He wasn't simply giving his opinions as much of what he said shows. If Haisch has said that he isn't trying to prove, trying to convince anyone of anything, then he's severely confused because he has shown that he is trying to prove things about God to himself and others.

Haisch's problem, or dilemma if you want to say, is his not understanding how God can having other beings like himself who are able to choose to do things if God controls everything or anything. Haisch doesn't understand that God can have self-aware beings who can choose and do choose, that we can be self-aware and choose to do things, and that God can still have his way by having everything turn out the way he wants, by his controlling our emotions, and INDIRECTLY directing our will by doing so. For example, when a donkey or duck is hungry, we humans can imprecisely get either of these animals to go after the food. God, being perfectly wise, is able to get us to go exactly where he wants, both physically, spiritually, and mentally, by precisely controlling whatever we feel, and our bodies and the matter and energy and spiritual things around us (but not our will). Since he can see into the future (or at least is able to calculate the exact outcome of all things by his actions upon them), knows exactly what will happen by any action he takes. If Haisch realizes that the mind of our spiritual head so to speak, is, has thoughts like it's heart does, but is influenced by the thoughts of it's heart, he would understand, I think, how God can have a universe with beings that choose, while still getting his way. So, what this all comes down to, his Haisch's misunderstanding of what the heart and will are, his misdefinitions of those words, including the words God, interference, and control.

What Haisch also doesn't understand is that the universe can't exist apart from God's control of it. The evidence for this, indirectly is what the Bible teaches, but it's also evidence based on what we can understand apart from the Bible: (I'm working on showing this evidence).

Also during the show, Ian Punnet said, "fundamentalism of any type often leads to violence" which is without evidence and a contradiction: Calvinists are fundamentalists who don't believe in harming anyone physically unless God commands them too. They believe in obeying Jesus when he said not to curse their enemies but to help them to survive or live well and to get eternal life if they can. They believe in doing that because of what Jesus said was the second greatest law: "Love your neighbor as yourself" and a similar one, "Love one another" which Jesus gave (meaning to show favoritism to other Christians with the same religion, which makes sense since who is closer to you then someone who loves the same God? And everyone instinctively knows to show favoritism to a family member first, (at least if that adult family member is peaceful to their help)).

Ian also contradicted himself by saying that in that fundamentalists "of any type" can also be people who believe that there is no absolute truths to believe and therefore would be against those who believe in truth or certain truths (like Calvinism, whether they believe Calvinism to be true or not; they would be against those claiming it is true). So, Ian was refuting his own statement and own religion, a religion in which the second greatest law, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is unimportant to Ian, and which denies the fact that Jesus called himself, "The Truth" and therefore was saying that everything he said was perfectly true. Ian, during the show, called himself, "an armchair theologian." How true. I hope his schizophrenia towards the Bible leaves him so that he supports it fully and consistently, rather than confusingly and hypocritically, for a show.

Millions of Anti-Fundamentalists Still Deny the Obvious
daniel knight
Tonight on Coast to Coast AM: Guest who is talking about voices he and others heard on his e.v.p. machine (after talking about a nuclear threat to the U.S.A. via Syria from North Korea "warning" he received on it): "some of the messages are so sinister sounding, almost becoming stereotypical... but it's undeniable and... they curse at you with the [the foulest of words(?)]"

Though the guest said this, neither George nor the guest mentioned demons at all, not that I remember, though it was obvious. Further, it's obvious to me that the "warning", especially since it had already come to pass, wasn't a warning, but the demon or demons boasting about what they hoped would happen.

It's very sickening and amazing to me that unless a demon says, "Hi, I'm a demon," the people who hear them and learn about the typical behavior of so called ghosts and now "shadow people" (and recently one called on C2C said one attacked her) can't accept the painfully obvious, that those beings are demons, and not dead humans, and not left over "residual" energy "echoes" of humans. And for you "skeptics" who think that people are just hearing things or making things up, HELLO, why would they always make up  in general, that these beings they hear are using foul language and saying hateful things and making malicious faces and acting insane? Yes, people like to be scared and like drama, but they love angelic-like beings too, they love happy stories, they love good news like, "All the Christians will die don't worry" or "All those fundies will become just like you!" Yet these beings, at least while not possessing anyone, never say anything like that to us. Some might argue, "Well that just shows they are not demons, just humans who are angry about being trapped on Earth, and don't say anything against Christians because they know it's not their fault that they are trapped" but that is easily refuted since mediums often say things misleading about Jesus, twisting his teachings, sometimes denying he was God's Son, and never teaching for example, Calvinist salvation doctrine despite the many varied teachings that come out of their mouths." That is a clear sign that whoever is controlling the body of the medium does not think well of Calvinists, as they keep avoiding talking about their doctrine, never mention them by any of their names, but only refer to Christians as a whole, as if they were all the same (and everyone who knows Christianity well knows they aren't). And what are the odds that of the millions of lingering spirits that are able to speak through people, that not a single one is able to distinguish a Calvinist from an Arminian type Christian, if they are all former humans and or some super intelligent wise alien? So not a single one can pick up on at least a subtle difference between the two, they can't pick up on that these are the two main groups of Christians that are at odds with each other? Yeah, right. Demons, demons that don't want you to know what Calvinists teach, because in their bitterness, these demons want to make as many humans suffer as they can with them in Hell, or rather, if they realize they can't change anyone's destiny, want to waste the lives of those who are to be saved as best they can, keeping them from being in a position where they can earn eternal treasure. To put it another way, demons want to keep eternal-Christians-to-be from having the ability to make eternal money.

Please, I'm begging you non-Christians, and atheists, stop denying the obvious. At least be silent instead of making up silly excuses to dismiss what you see and hear. Does a demon have to say, "Hi, I'm a demon, and here's an amazing miracle to prove it" to get you to admit the obvious? It's dumb. Enough already. You're just making yourselves look worse and worse the more you deny the obvious, what's the point? The true Christians will just ignore you for it, and then how will you pester them accept by forcing yourselves on them (and if you do that, then everyone will know that you're clearly the ones who are wrong and on your way to Hell).

Don't Take the Swine Flu Vaccine
daniel knight
"I'd rather talk about the swine flu. People are dying from it, it's getting out of control, did you know that?" - Michael Savage, 8/14/09. Thanks for spreading "Big Pharma's"  propaganda Mike. Here's the truth: book 1, book 2, a website.

More Stupidity On Coast to Coast A.M.?
daniel knight
"Climate change is very real. Global warming creates volitility. I feel it when I’m flying. The storms are more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes.” No, that's not from some guest on Coast to Coast AM. That's from Senator Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), as recorded in an interview with Detroit News in August 2009.

"I will make boys their officials;
mere children will govern them.
People will oppress each other—
man against man, neighbor against neighbor.
The young will rise up against the old,
the base against the honorable.

The look on their faces testifies against them;
they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it.
Woe to them!: They have brought disaster upon themselves.

 Tell the righteous it will be well with them,
for they will enjoy the fruit of their deeds.

Woe to the wicked! Disaster is upon them!
They will be paid back for what their hands have done.

Youths oppress my people,
women rule over them.
O my people, your guides lead you astray;
they turn you from the path.”
Isaiah 3:4-5, 9-12

False Prophecies In the Bible: Did the Apostle Paul Make Vague Prophecies?
daniel knight
Every now and then, like a few hours ago, I wonder about this prophecy, wondering how you could know if it came true, since it I thought it was vague and there was no way to accurately measure it against the usual past behavior of mankind:

I found others had thought the same thing here: http://answers.yahoo.com/my/profile;_ylt=As.c.hqLWgQ.d0i5DR3BmOHd7BR.;_ylv=3?show=jsM8F4bLaa

But those few hours ago I started thinking about how such seeming mistakes in the Bible were often shown not to be mistakes if the context was studied carefully. But without going to read the passage again I thought what might be some possible solutions, and one of them was that Paul was talking about what would be going on in the Christian group as a whole, Christian as in those who practiced obeying Christ in some way, or what they and some others believed to be obeying Christ, like washing the feet of others to express reverence for Christ and abstaining from drinking alcohol while acknowledging in some way or saying in some way that they are Christians every now and then, as opposed to those who simply called themselves Christians but clearly had no interest in obeying the Bible and didn't do so intentionally.

Well it turned out I was in part right (notice the second half of the second-to-last sentence:

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. - 2 Timothy 3:1-5

If Paul were merely speaking of the world in general, and Paul didn't display any regular stupidity as a Christian, then it would have made no sense for him to have mentioned "lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God" since everyone knows that the world (non-Christians in other words) do not love God. And for those who are Catholics who believe the world is mostly or at least half Christian because of them, well one: If Catholics are half or most of the world then they can't be true Christians since they don't fit the Bible's qualifications of what the size of the church would be, and two, the "world" knows that Catholics are hypocrites and have a problem with child-molestation in their church, and those are not indications of people who obey "Love one another" / Christ or as some would say, an indication of a "holy" group.

The argument that Paul was being vague when he spoke about disobedient children can also be shot down in that a child in the Bible, doesn't necessarily mean a kid, as in a kid younger than seven, who are known for being rebellious till they become more physically self-controlled (like gaining the ability to refrain from throwing fits whenever they are angry or sad). A strong obedience to parents has been the normal behavior of children/young adults/teens to their parents.

But another seeming problem or argument that could made is that the Bible already mentions that the church at that time was having problems, and Revelation mentions problem congregations as further evidence, yet, two thousand years about have past since then, so that would mean the last days have been for the past 2000 years, which of course seems absurd. An argument against this is that the problem churches and members of the church that the Bible mentions are few. There are about four if I remember right, specific false Christian people mentioned after Acts, and Paul mentioned that Christian women in Corinth were doing wrong by praying without their hair being covered, and a few false Christs were around, James mentioned the Jewish congregation he was speaking to had mistreated poor people among them, and a group of heretics known as Gnostics was mentioned by John, and then there was the corruption in seven churches that Christ mentioned in Revelation. That doesn't sound like an epidemic of false Christians.

Revelation further gives clues as to when the evil behavior of false Christians would be very visible in it's statements against what is clearly the Catholic Church (Revelation 17:9). The Catholic denomination seems to have begun within a year or two of 50 A.D. and Revelation seems to have been finished before 70 A.D. Being that it doesn't point out any Catholic person in particular and speaks about them mostly or entirely in the future tense, it was probably still a small denomination at that time, and so it couldn't be said that Paul's 2 Timothy 3:1-5 had been fulfilled yet.

Next there is a shocking appalling gap in which true Christians seemed to have entirely disappeared after John, who wrote Revelation, died, and in which the Catholic denomination nearly covered Europe (stopping about after October 31, 1517), which is when the Reformation / rebellion against Catholicism began. I've never heard of any "disobedient to parents" problem during the Catholic Domination (when true Christians were no where to be found). There are no historical records I could find in which Catholics mentioned having a mass problem with children being disobedient to their human parents, and can't find any either in reference to any ancient group of people (which is evidence that Paul's prophecy wasn't vague and speaking behavior that was typical of children during his time or in the past).

A way in which we could discover when any noteworthy mass rebelling against parents occurring is to look for a change in the usual behavior of older children towards their parents in records throughout time. If it occurred, naturally a word or phrase would be made to point out this new behavior to make it more convenient to talk about rather than "the epidemic of disobedience of older children towards their parents". One word used to speak of older children made in modern times is the word "teen". It is first known to have been used in 1673. This is what the historical records show concerning the history of Christians which would have had a major effect on the behavior of false Christians, including that of young adults, also called "teens", and later, pagans, and to a lesser degree, true Christians.

This rest of this topic became very long, so I've decided to continue this in a book. If you want to help me out with that buy some books, games, or rare palm seeds through my store links to the right of my journal entries.

And yesterday night, on Auguust 11 (I don't know why this journal entry is dated August 10th, it seems like it should say 11), George Noory once again revealed the stupid logic of pagans like himself, as did his boring guest who sounded like a so called "random caller":

Guest "Ghost hunter" John Kachuba said, "The third thing [possibility] is, is that they [ghosts] are real." George Noory replied, "And you have to make that assumption." John replied, "Right." Wrong: You don't have to make guesses based on no facts, no evidence and in deliberate ignorance of the evidence. Unless someone is tormenting you to make a baseless guess, you can't say, "you have to" or "I'm forced" and even then, ultimately, your will is under your own control.

Ian Punnet Seeks To Have a Bigger MIND
daniel knight
Tonight Ian Punnet just a little while ago said, "wasn't that great, David Sereda talking about how our natural electric field fluctuates around us" (or something almost exactly like that) and then, "...how big our minds actually get. ...we could be having thoughts, right now, that are basically bouncing off of Mars... and [David Sereda] had the math to prove it." What a stupid moron. The night before Ian, once again displaying what a false hypocritical teacher of the Bible he is again, mocked a Christian tarot card reader for saying that a homosexual man who consulted her would go to Hell, and said that the Bible no where says that homosexuals are going to Hell, and then tonight, before the above comments I quoted, seemed to try to weasel his way out of what he said by saying that he had said last night that "straight people aren't going to Hell anymore than homosexuals." He has no excuse for this attempt to weasel his way out as I had warned him during his show yesterday night, that he had lied, saying to him:

"The Bible doesn't mention that homosexuality is a sin anywhere" you said, talk about super ignorant:

"'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.'" - Leviticus 18:22

"'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.'" - Leviticus 20:13

From Romans 1:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles".

Once again you've been shown to be a false teacher. Stop pretending to be an expert on the Bible when you aren't. You thought the King James was a paraphrase, and taught that on Coast to Coast AM and by that showed you were an ignorant fool. Even the Wikipedia admins know that's false and those admins are often atheists and hard core liberal Christians.

No doubt your next move will be to find contrived explanations to get rid of these verses and come up with "alternative" interpretations which have no historical support, but which are clearly meant to suit the feelings of evil men like yourself. That you didn't know these verses were in the Bible, or that you are so evil that you wouldn't even mention their use, shows what a stupid evil ignorant and hypocrite you are.

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Didn't you know that Ian Punnet the false Christian?

"The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him." - Proverbs 18:17

The Bible is not your personal play toy, it is not for your private interpretation, it is not for you to twist, it is God's word, repent and treat it as such or stay condemned.

Jesus gave this parable, can you understand it Ian?:

"Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher. - Luke 6:39-40

You're not above God, you're not above his only begotten son Jesus, you're not above the prophets or the apostles, and you're not above me.

No big surprise to me Ian uses a blog that blocks the word "homo" blocking me from using that word. So, it's okay for him to use the word, but not me or anyone else? What gross stupidity.

Then, before babbling about the holy grail, Ian let a called called J.C. on, yet another false Christian, who ranted at Ian and Ian mocked him for his stupidity. What a hypocrite.

"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." - Matthew 7:2-5

Concerning David Sereda's nonsense about the power of human conciousness (David is so blind and confused and ignorant about spiritual matters, despite claiming to love all the religions of the world - which is a contradiction if he includes Hyper-Calvinism - that he to no end kept misusing the word "conciousness" in place of the word "will" while talking about it on Coast to Coast AM yesterday. Ian, no surprise to me, was giddy over Sereda's babble and Sereda's calling on the world to wish solar flares away with their combined "conciousness".

On Coast to Coast A.m. David said he believed that [the elitists?] in the U.S. government have conspired keep secret what human conciousness is capable of, and that animals were in direct contact with God because they were pure of heart (does that include snakes, scorpions, sharks, lions, tigers, and harmful parasites like ticks and fluke worms, and other animals that would like to eat you (unless trained not to do so of course)?

Here's a test for you human consciousness worshipers who believe that wishful thinking can cause what you want to happen to happen, especially if others are wishing the same thing with you: see if you millions of "just have faith" people can lift a grain of sand one micron into the air with your combined faith. When you accomplish that, maybe then you can give free abortions with your thoughts for the mothers you care oh so much for. You would murder babies for free with your mental powers wouldn't you? Oh and, when you have the chance, try wishing for the end of injustice, starvation, stupidity, and wishing for peace. I wonder why David and Ian didn't suggest wishing for that instead of no harmful solar flares? Typical pagans: their priorities are mess, a maddening jumble.

A "New" Stupid Religion Pretending to Be the Way to Truth: Secular Scientificism
daniel knight
Dr. David Eagleman on Coast to Coast AM just now presented his new Gnostic-like religion called Possibillians which he says he invented because neither atheists or any religion can be right because no one has all the facts about where we came from and there are over 2000 religions all claiming to have the truth. Right from the start he showed his ignorance by saying that as it is a nonsense argument to claim that "because two people claim to have the truth but their version of truth don't match, therefore neither can be right." Then he said that it made no sense to fight and die over stories written thousands of years ago when, he implied, people were ignorant (didn't know about quantum physics like we do now was one of his examples). What an insulting man: So all religious people do is spend their time fighting and dying? What an offensive ignorant. Learn the history of Christianity please rather than regurgitating insults and childish hateful attacks in your head. Further, who said it was wrong to fight and die for the truth? God didn't, he taught just the opposite. And who said Christians are brawling and murdering others to get them to believe them as you imply whether purposely or by accident? What a careless babbler.

On top of that, he nonsensically believes that by not believing anyone that he's not claiming to have the truth, but merely considering other possibilities. WRONG, because he repeatedly said or clearly implied that the religious and atheists were WRONG and that his way only would lead to the truth (so much for his "possibilities" cult).

He's claiming that his way leads to truth and peace when he claimed that mankind was very advanced in wisdom because we'd discovered the cure for Polio (obviously he doesn't listen to Coast to Coast AM or anyone else much and dotes on his feelings all day: Mankind made Polio an epidemic with the Polio vaccine, it wasn't cured by it) and other things he said we accomplished (not including the religious he implies).

After that he repeatedly implied God was "a man with a gray beard on a cloud". Where does it say that Dr. David Lie-Spreading Eagleman? No where you stupid myth-spreader.

A few minutes after that he said something almost exactly like, "The Sumerians invented glue a thousand years before the stories of God creating man by a puff of his breath were even written."

Clearly he should be called Dr. Ignorant, who argues in ignorance.

1) What the Hell does inventing glue before the stories of the Bible were written have to do with ALL of mankind being superior to the writers of the Bible?

2) The first part of the Bible was written BEFORE the Sumerians invented glue, so his point is false at it's base.

3) This Dr. of Ignorance is so unwise and morally blind he can't distinguish the difference between technological and various kinds of scientifically gained knowledge to moral wisdom and knowledge and understanding of God:

a) Just because someone knew how to mine for something or make a shovel or make glue before ANY STORY was written doesn't necessarily make them wiser IN ANY WAY than whoever wrote the story.

b) What does being able to make glue have to do with whether or not God created mankind with "a puff of his breath" as this Arrogant Ignorant calls it? DAVID THE MASSIVELY CONFUSED IGNORANT BABBLER: THE BIBLE IS NOT A TECHNOLOGICAL TEXT BOOK: IT'S A BOOK ABOUT WHERE ALL LIFE AND THE UNIVERSE CAME FROM, WHY WE WERE MADE, WHO THE ONE WHO CREATED IT ALL IS, WHO WE ARE, AND WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL IS. It was a pretty big clear hint at the beginning of the Bible when God told Adam and Eve they'd both die if they disobeyed him and when snakes lost the ability to fly for the most part due to their father/mother allowing Satan to possess it. Further, it does not say, "The Earth is flat and it rests on the back of a turtle and there's no such thing as science and no such thing as electricity." It's not an anti-scientific book, bother to read it and bother to learn Christian history, I made it very convenient for confused hyperactive babblers like yourself who hate to study to learn the truth and would rather stay dumb and hanker on questions all day: http://snipurl.com/bookshoppe

c) The Bible doesn't say God created mankind with a "puff of his breath". What a moron this man is: He creates (a supposedly) new religion and because he can't stand that anyone claims the truth, and yet doesn't examine what the claims are of the largest most influential religion in the world next to self-worship.

d) His glue argument isn't based on evidence, yet David Eagleman claims his alternative religion was created to be based on evidence: Who said that the those that wrote the stories of the Bible didn't know how to make glue or anything greater than glue? Arrogant assumer much David?

e) His argument illogically excludes the writers of the Bible as not being apart of mankind, but rather being lower than humans. Why is that David the Bigot Eagleman? Why don't the writers and believers of the Bible who were along side the Sumerians and other cultures count as being contributors? GOD WAS THE CREATOR OF THE FIRST HUMANS AND THE UNIVERSE, YET YOU BABBLE ABOUT INVENTORS OF GLUE BEING WISER THAN HIM? WHERE IN THE HELL DOES THE BIBLE CLAIM TO SIMPLY BE THE WRITINGS OF MERE MEN? NO, IT SAYS IT WAS WRITTEN BY GOD, AND NOT BASED ON ZERO EVIDENCE AS YOU CLAIM IN YOUR GROSS IGNORANCE, BUT BASED ON MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE. Just because you can't see God or didn't see him working through men and women to write and speak what he said doesn't mean it didn't happen anymore than just because you didn't see anyone else do anything in real time or existing means that they didn't exist or do anything.

f) The oldest story in the Bible is about 6000 years old, Adam's record, and it wasn't completed till about 4000 years past, being written over time, yet David in his gross ignorance stupidly implies the Bible was a book written all at once in a cave by people who knew nothing. What the Hell? The Bible isn't just a thick book that repeatedly says, "God is a man with a gray beard on a cloud who created man with a puff of his breath" you hyper idiot babbler. Bother to read it before bashing it and starting your own cult.

g) Two of his arguments against the Bible/Christianity contradict: On Coast to Coast AM David first started out saying that because we know more now the Bible is obsolete, then he argued that because the Sumerians knew how to make glue before the Bible was written (in other words knew more about technology than the writers of the Bible) that the Bible was useless. In other words, "The Bible is worthless because people knew how to make glue before it was written and then we found out about quantum physics and knew how to make even more things after it was written." Which is it David, and why would either argument make the Bible useless? David, ever heard of this expression?: "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." ? Think about this expression: "Damn God if he does, damn God if he doesn't." That's what you do and to his children.

h) Who in the Hell thinks, besides you, that knowing how to make glue, even if it's nearly worthless glue, is of far greater importance than a factual story on how man was created, even if the only factual information was a crude description indicating that God used his Spirit to do so? Clearly super blind self-feelings-obsessed super ignorants like yourself.

i) David contradicted himself in yet another way, and showed his bigotry: Why is knowing how to make glue superior to moral laws showing mankind how to have peace? Why does David teach that these commands of God are ignorance and only lead to fighting and death?:

Don't believe in false gods or worship them, don't make try to make yourself look good by lying about God's character, don't lie, steal, murder, commit adultery, fornicate, or covet, and honor your parents. Love each other, treat each other the way you would want to be treated so forgive your neighbor when he does wrong, teach and plainly correct each other with the truth, and love the true God with all your heart, which you can do by obeying all those laws.

Wow so evil those commands are David, those thousands of years old commands that the Sumerians didn't come up with in a row all at once ever in all their time making glue, right Doctor David I-Know-That-Only-May-Way-Is-Right-Because-I-Learned-A-Lot-About-Human-Brains Eagleman? Wrong.

4a) David also said, "If you're going to have spiritually, you might as well predicate it on what we already know to be true," and claimed that we know what is true from false by science and attributed this "way to truth" to "Russel and White". Um, insult machine, who said the writers of the Bible and those who believe it don't base what they believe on what they already know to be true?

b) Do you have any evidence that you are wiser than the God who wrote the Bible that your "truth" is superior to his? See David, you're new religion hasn't bypassed the arguments, you, in your ignorance and confusion and careless rush to judgment to show off your heart, your opinions, didn't realize you hadn't come up with ANY EVIDENCE AGAINST THE BIBLE, NONE. You merely mocked it. Obey this command of God to break free of your false truths:

c) David, in your hyper-active jumping over the facts, you're not making any progress: how are you showing everyone that you have the truth merely by saying, "science shows what is true s believe science!" How, if atheists and agnostics have repeatedly said that to Christians, is your doing so going to get them to believe "science"? Now can you see what an arrogant narcissist you are?

d) Who the Hell said your "science" is true? Who the Hell said, but ignorants like yourself, that quantum physics perfectly correctly explains how the universe works? Who the Hell said Christians don't use science to back up there beliefs? David, what is your evidence that what you believe and your cult believes about science is correct? The argument between Creationists Christians and Darwinists IS OVER C.C.'s CLAIMS THAT DARWINISTS TWIST SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND LIE ABOUT IT, so you merely saying in your childishness, "Well just believe science you dumb violent religious people who believe in gray bearded God on a cloud" is not helpful at all, shows you are practically ignorant as to what the details of the debate are, and they aren't meaningless details, and provokes violence as it is insulting. You're someone who walks into an argument doesn't pay attention and says, "Oh I know more than you both I'm smarter and wiser than you because I'm a scientist and I trust in science only unlike you." You deserve repeated kicks in the face for that David and to be thrown into a deep dark pit. Learn the facts, the details first, and stop being tossed around by your emotions concerning what the facts are, then you won't be a meddler.

e) Who said basing your religion on science leads to the truth? That doesn't even make sense because THERE ISN'T JUST ONE SCIENCE. What you have in mind Is the at first Christian scientific method later modified a little by anti-Christians to make it appear to be something of their own creation.

f) Who said the secular scientific method is the only way to know the truth about RELIGIOUS TRUTHS?

g) You contradicted yourself again David in that you already wrote off ALL RELIGIONS even atheism, yet you claim that believing findings obtained using the scientific method WILL LEAD TO KNOWING THE TRUTH ABOUT ALL RELIGIONS AND ATHEISM / REALITY. How can you be a "Possibillian" or open to the possibility that some religion or atheists are right if you've already written off both claiming that they both only lead to fighting and deaths?

h) If the secular scientific method were the only way to know the truth, then how did it ever come into being? Duh? God invented science, and taught it in the Bible, so it was from God, through Christians that it was introduced (read the story of Gideon carefully and see if you can find a scientific method taught in it). Science didn't lead to science, it was God's teachings that lead to it, it was his Word, the Bible, that lead to it and the instincts he programmed us with. Stop assuming things, stop presuming the Bible was written merely by men or women. Stop assuming that just because someone is ancient that it has no value or only entertainment value.

Oh wow, it's about 11:50 P.M. and David just repeated the myth that "left over Puritanical" views prevent psychoactive drug research, maybe he does listen to Coast to Coast now and then since that is what the ranting archeologist Graham Hancock said a few months ago on Coast to Coast. Disgusting Christian-bashers.

David hasn't come up with anything new, but rather named a philosophy repeatedly expressed by question-hankerers the Bible calls them. Many question-hankerers take joy in the wondering, the exploring, and thinking that that is the only way they can continue to have fun, they artificially extend their exploring by denying the truth, and so fulfill this saying in the Bible:

"Always learning but never coming to the truth."

They hate coming to the end of a movie or the end of a show series figuratively speaking, and in order to keep the fun going they want endless variations on the same theme or hoping for some totally new subject no one's ever thought of (though there clearly are no more) before to drama over.

What David's religion is is Scientific Secularism without the Darwinism, Non-Darwinist, Secular Scientific Agnostism, basically: Truth-Avoidance by claiming to be truth-following by only believing what can be known through non-creationist and non-Darwinist secular science.

How Untrustworthy Is the American Congress and Why Are They So Stubborn?
daniel knight
Why are America's highest leaders so evil? Why are they corrupt? (I leave out Ron Paul as evil  although he rejects creationism). Why are American's highest leaders so stubborn? Think about this: When someone repeatedly commits severe crimes thereby repeatedly degrading themselves, do they become more willing to do good, like admitting when they are wrong, or do they become more cold-hearted and stubborn to doing good? What evil things have Congress (and President Obama was once a senator) and the President repeatedly promoted which would qualify as a severe crime? They've said it is good for parents to murder defenseless children before those children have even been born in order to protect themselves from those children. To those who are not evil this is a sick teaching and a nonsensical one. Of course the "protection" refers to children who if their mothers allow them to be born risk dying in the process, but there is no excuse for those women who know that giving birth has its risks, and those that commit murder against their babies who know this are even more guilty then those who didn't realize they could die giving birth.

God does not permit murder or give men or women to kill their babies or kids to save their own lives. It's ironic that anti-Christians love to parade around the time when God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac, who not a baby, yet persecute Christians when the Christian preach against the murder of babies, and God didn't even have Abraham sacrifice Isaac, but was merely testing them both to see if they would obey him as they should. Meanwhile anti-Christians and false Christians constantly murder their own children and those that aren't theirs and think they are "good" and helping both those that they murder and the world. They imagine they are helping with silly excuses like, "We;re helping to keep population down," or "We're punishing the rapists" (yeah you're really punishing the rapists by murdering defenseless babies that they've abandoned and as if rapists go around to have kids instead of to satisfy their sexual desires - But I thought rape was an act of violence like Oprah and her supporters once said, not an act of procreation - can you make up your mind anti-Christians and fake Christians and stop making up contradictory excuses to murder babies?) or "We're helping those babies and kids to not have a miserable life". Yeah: let's all die before we're born or when we're facing a distressing situation so that we don't have to face anymore - so much for "grow up", "evolution", and "progress", clearly pro-abortionists are confused hypocrites who they say "grow up" and say or imply that evolution and "progress" is a good thing.

So, would people who have been committing murder of or who have committed murder of defenseless innocent babies or those promoting the murder of the defenseless to make themselves personally feel better and to make the parents feel better and who claim they are doing good by doing so, would they be likely and easily and suddenly with joy admit they have done extreme evil for their murder/s of babies or promoting them? No, they try to hide their shame and justify their crimes, their sins, their disobedience. They try to remain ignorant, hoping to achieve bliss, they try to blank their minds, they try to forget, they try to "meditate" on nothing hoping to achieve "nirvana", they try to avoid "the truth" of what they are really like, and to do so they naturally avoid the source of truth or deny His existence, but the truth cannot be aborted and thrown into a trash can and buried. It cannot be mocked. It will take revenge, revenge on liars.