Clickbank Products

Was Jesus invented through ancient myths?

THINK THIS ARGUMENT WORKS? WELL..NOT REALLY!!

Where in the World?

PROOF OF THE REAL MOUNT SINAI IN ARABIA!

The Bible bends all natural laws and rules because it is a supernatural book.
It cannot POSSIBLY be understood by a natural mind focused upon natural understanding. That is what Nicodemus discovered when he came to Christ trying to understand, with a natural mind, supernatural events and teachings.

Because scientists being naturally skeptical, have minds trapped in the box of the five physical senses they cannot focus therefore on the supernatural aspects to understand the biblical 'Birdseye view' of God, who sees things from OUTSIDE time and space, the box that we as finite are limited within .

There was a reason why Jesus said you must be born again. It is a SPIRITUAL rebirth [Both of Mind and Spirit] that is needed to release the hidden evidence of things we cannot witness from inside this physical 'BOX' universe.

I KNOW from personal experience that the Bible is true but I cannot convince you, you must find the truth yourself. THAT'S HOW LIFE WORKS!

Spend less time developing your skeptical natural mind and THAT'S WHAT YOUR DOING, and more time focusing on what Christ taught and you will discover as I have, the truth. You can only interpret the Universe through the shaded lens of your own understanding!
There was an error in this gadget

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Part 3 -The Doorway to Belief: How FAITH Opens the Proof of God!

Those who HATE or at the very Least dislike Jesus and his Church, do so FIRST of all because We as believers do not live up to our words or his Word, but that aside they would HATE him for the simple reason of "The Obedience Question" attached to the "Good News" of the Bible. 

Under all the "fake anger" and questions of our motives that we, as believers are not allowed to answer because our evidence is not good enough, there is that simple problem at the core of every argument they make, they do not like obedience to God, that is the real issue, no matter what is said against the Bible or God!

Let's not kid ourselves here, say what you will, that is the single most hated thing to mankind,..... "FIX the world's troubles, take away our problems of Hunger, Sickness and Poverty but do not with all that, require US to OBEY God in return. Its my life, leave me alone and let me do as I please!" 

ALL THE ARGUMENTS IN THE WORLD CANNOT HIDE THAT FACT!

STATEMENTS LIKE THIS ONE ARE AN EXAMPLE OF THE LEVEL OF HATE.

"Always remember, faith is the tool of deceivers and the abode (house) of folly and error. Its sole purpose is to keep good people from seeking the truth and understanding wisdom. Would the creator of all knowledge and wisdom insist that you remain ignorant by simply believing what you have been told by obviously duplicitous religious founders and leaders?"
WHILE I AGREE THAT RELIGION IS FILLED WITH THESE KINDS OF PEOPLE AS IS ATHEISM, THIS STATEMENT IS IN ITSELF DUPLICITOUS IN NATURE AND REQUIRES US TO BELIEVE THAT GOD DOESN'T AND DOES EXIST IN THE SAME STATEMENT! How would one know how the God of Wisdom and Knowledge would act if he doesn't exist? 
The Bible is God's wisdom and KNOWLEDGE BUT it's is said to be mythological and spurious at the core so the question is a straw argument MEANT TO STIR EMOTION NOT ANSWER A QUESTION or PROVE ANYTHING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER!

God's kind of Faith as defined in Hebrews 11:1 CANNOT in any way be used to perform these acts only the normal everyday faith of man is a tool to do evil, that should be obvious to anyone who studies the word of God seriously but some do not study to learn, they look to find fault and this is intellectual dishonesty bold and obvious. 

It is humanism that has failed to prove its purpose, BECAUSE whenever it has held sway in any nation around the world DESPOTISM and heartbreak rule the day JUST AS with false Religion, SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE, THEY BOTH DERIVE POWER FROM SELFISHNESS NOT TRUE FAITH?

I do not disrespect you or what you believe, but you think its o.k. to disrespect me and my God, WHY? Because your thinking about God makes my belief a Myth to be trodden upon and disrespected, but your beliefs are to be respected and followed simply because mine are mythical to you? That at its face is garbage, because my evidence HAS NEVER been disproved, simply DISMISSED out of hand which only proves that in a battle of ideas you LOOSE!

I do not ask that you believe me, I only ask for a fair hearing in regard to God and creation's proof FOUND ONLY BY FAITH ALONE! Are you so afraid I'm right that you resort to insult's and false statements about faith, that says volumes about the insecurity of your belief's and that goes for Christians as well, civility should rule the day not fighting each other over nothing solid.

Let's continue with my analysis:

"They require belief in logical contradictions. Virgin births, we now know, are possible, but the technology for the implantation of fertilized eggs did not exist two thousand years ago." 

This is a weird remark, given the fact the bible says Mary WAS a virgin literally but this fact did not stop God from CREATING a child in her womb, something very LOGICAL for an all powerful God don't you think? The Miracle was not that she was a virgin but that she gave birth to God's own Word made flesh!

This is just an attempt to set up a false premise and destroy the premise by the "time setting" being off from modern times, as if ONLY man could perform this act. The problem is that Man must use God's creation (The Sperm) to implant life, God DID NOT, HE USED HIS WORD (The Seed) IMPLANTED and made FLESH, Mary was simply the vessel of Obedience!

"The belief in the Virgin birth entails the belief that God miraculously impregnated Mary with Himself. Such a belief defies experience but not logic. The Virgin birth is conceivable (to make a bad pun), unlike the Trinity. "

It only defies HIS experience not the experiences of New Testament people so the issue created here, doesn't hold water if one examines the evidence from scripture on the birth of Christ.
Likewise the Trinity Doctrine is said to be of Pagan Origin SIMPLY to make it easier to dismiss out of hand RATHER than subject oneself to proper biblical analysis WHICH WOULD MEAN ACTUALLY STUDYING THE BIBLE AS TRUTH instead of using it to beat up the concept of God! 


You will notice that he BEGINS this by calling ANYTHING we believe a 'Logical Contradiction' or We say that a statement, or set of statements is logically consistent when it involves no logical contradiction.  A logical contradiction is the conjunction of a statement S and it's denial not-S.   In logic, it is a fundamental law- the law of non contradiction- that a statement and its denial can not both be true at the same time. 

WITH THIS DEFINED AS OUR LOT, WE ARE AT THE BACK OF THE BUS BEFORE WE SPEAK, BUT IS IT SO, BECAUSE HE SAYS SO? 

I say the Christian Faith is the MOST Logical concept of all and Atheism the most Non-Logical concept of all. BUT that is a matter of my experience perspective because I have received the PROOF needed to know God personally they HAVE NOT! 

The Trinity is JUST as conceivable as any other biblical doctrine but because they cannot understand it, it becomes INCONCEIVABLE regardless of the evidence presented, to the Atheist, if we cannot FULLY explain it and prove it to them, it's not so! The problem with this line of reasoning is it is a two edged sword and they must explain FULLY why Evolution cannot be proved as well, even if they say they don't have too.

READ THE FOLLOWING:

"The Trinity of the Godhead IS NOT PAGAN , TAKE IT FROM AN EX-PAGAN! Wrapping your mind around who God really is!"

 
"All arguments regarding these articles of faith are quite distinct from Rachel's argument. "

"To defend these articles of faith, the best one can hope for is to show that they cannot be shown to be false. However, the consequence of arguing that logical contradictions may nevertheless be true, seems undesirable."

THE BEST WE CAN HOPE FOR....really? Creation BEST fits all scientific methods while evolution has failed miserably for decades to meet the full investigative skills of the Scientist but predisposed people refuse to see the facts and keep up the deceptive double standard! 

The Intelligent design of God: What's the beef with a purposeful Creation?

Again he says: "the consequence of arguing that logical contradictions may nevertheless be true, seems undesirable. " ASSUMING that they are Logical Contradictions, this is a total Straw-Man diversion, the Christian Faith is NOT a Logical Contradiction at all, it's doctrines are HIDDEN from the understanding of a darkened mind ON PURPOSE.

You must seek truth by FAITH ALONE, all you will get otherwise is surface revelation which will explain little about God, thus your left with religious fill in the blank dogmas that make little sense!

"Such a defense requires the abandonment of the very logical principles required to make any argument and is therefore self-annihilating. "

According to his misguided preconceived notion about Christian belief, but once one is opened to understanding it from the perspective of the Faith of God they are the MOST Logical of Principles, after all we are dealing with the Spiritual Realm not the Physical Realm. 

This alone places the debate under a different "observation Technique" altogether for the Scientist. If the person testing FAITH is unsaved then his conclusions will not be correct unless observed from the standpoint of the spiritual PERSON OF FAITH, that is only Logical. You wouldn't want a blind person telling you about a sunset if they have never seen one, as you should want someone who understands God to explain him not a hypocrite WHO HATE THE CONCEPT OF GOD!

What if I wanted to test Atheism as to its validity, would I get any results testing its principles UNDER CHRISTIAN CONDITIONS? 

Of Course not, I would have to test it under unbelieving conditions or my results are tainted, and neither can Atheists study Christianity under the assumption of Atheistic thinking, that pollutes the results. 

It defies Logic to think that Atheists make the rules up concerning God and his creation before proper investigation is ever done, and then claim a non-bias with a smile! If an Atheist TRULY wants to find the PROOF of God they must do it as a believer for their results to be revealed. Faith from God cannot be revealed to a dark heart that refuses to see truth as it is, "The God Kind Of Faith" opens into light what is now hidden by darkness!

The insurmountable Evidence of a creative act is everywhere while the made-up version of beginnings has the stage in Schools. This is the sole reason they fear COMPARATIVE TEACHING OF BOTH THEORY'S in school, because once the Truth is out the children will see the hypocrisy and cover-up.

You CANNOT possibly believe that OUR limited human minds could ever get the entire scope of God without HIS EYES of understanding opening our hearts and minds, that's what the New Birth was for, to bring us from Darkness to Light. 

"The fact that arguments such as Rachel's and those defending articles of religious faith are not empirical or resolvable by scientific methods hardly makes them equally matters of faith."

 What is Empirical research? 

"It is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct observation or experience. It is used to answer empirical questions, which must be precisely defined and answerable with data-theory regarding the topic under investigation. Based on this theory some statements, or hypotheses, will be proposed. 

From these hypotheses predictions about specific events are derived. 

These predictions can then be tested with a suitable experiment. Depending on the outcomes of the experiment, the theory on which the hypotheses and predictions were based will be supported or no."

There is no reason to believe that the Doctrines of the Bible cannot be looked at by Science ONCE Faith has been released in the Human Heart a Scientist can then look properly at the Subject at hand no longer blinded by self imposed restrictions. 

God created our ability to reason so it is only Logical that he requires us to use it. Reason however must be tempered with Faith Proof and Common Sense to arrive at the proper conclusion...UNBIASED.
 
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge AS REQUIRED, but Evolutionists have never corrected their glaring errors in text books...WHY?.

Atheism's Fall:The Demise of the Deniers of the Faith!

 


To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. This is not done with the concept of God at all, they do not examine

A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses, this was and is done by Creationists but their Data is ignored by unprofessional scientists of Evolution simply because it doesn't support their personal beliefs. 
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do you account for them?
 
 We both are acting on Faith but the Church of Jesus has God's Proof contained in what they act on, Atheist's are acting on mere assumptions about God, but nonetheless trusting in a future answer in science, or somewhere that will fill in the gaps and Missing Links for them. IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

The “Missing Links” Of Evolution by
Richard Massey

How is that different from SIMPLE faith? It isn't, it's word play, redefining the obvious so it appears to be something else. A tactic used to dismiss and reshape the issue to appear one sided. But the facts involved once looked at from a PURELY SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT cannot be denied for long!


The Logic of God 

In Search of God: The Language and Logic of Belief (Philosophy) 

The Philosophy Of The Spirit - A Study Of The Spiritual Nature Of Man And The Presence Of God, With A Supplementary Essay On The Logic Of Hegel (The Sacred Books) 

Logic and the Nature of God (Library of Philosophy and Religion) 

Man's vision of God and the logic of theism 

God Is Not Equal to Zero 

Strugglebook: A Logical Search for the Truth of GOD 

The Nature of Consciousness : The Structure of Reality: Theory of Everything Equation Revealed : Scientific Verification and Proof of Logic God Is 


"Mathematical Logic and the Philosophy of God and Man" 


A land born in a day;: Or, Irrefutable proof that the Holy Bible is the inspired word of God and offers the only way to eternal life


Proof That The Bible Is The Word Of God


God According to God: A Physicist Proves We've Been Wrong About God All Along


How Do We Know the Bible Is True (Contender's Bible Study Series)


 How Do We Know The Bible Is True?

Evidence the Bible is True 

Cracking The Prophetic Code 

Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't 

Is the Bible True . . . Really? 

10 Conclusive Proofs That God Exists And The Bible Is True 

Is the Bible True?: How Modern Debates and Discoveries Affirm the Essence of the Scriptures 







No comments:

Post a Comment

Please, if you are a skeptic, DO NOT swear or name call, if you cannot be civil then your comment will not be seen. If your evidence is that weak, then my point is made before you comment!

Popular Posts

About Me

My photo

Before you look at the links below know this about me, I do not know everything about anything, I know only what God has revealed to me.

Proving God exists CANNOT be done for the person who is not open to hearing and seeing the evidence as God sees it. Faith is the KEY to releasing all the evidence contained in creation, in man's heart and his mind. Without FAITH no one can ever please God so to throw away faith as unimportant destroys our receptivity to the evidence!

I was a hypocrite, a sinner and a fool, sometimes even as a believer but as long as God is in control I'm forgiven and healed of every form of human shortcoming. Nothing can stand before the evidence contained in Faith.....NOTHING!


LEARN MORE ABOUT ME AND MY MINISTRY HERE!

http://hopefromdispair.blogspot.com/

http://skepticalofskepticism.blogspot.com/

http://truthinprophecy.blogspot.com/

http://affiliatesgoldenchest.blogspot.com/

http://endwashingtonwaste.blogspot.com/

http://alltheusefulidiots.blogspot.com/
WebRep
Overall rating
 

It Stands Unrefuted by Scientists ANYWHERE!


The following reports are in one of three formats. To view the ones in PDF format, use
Adobe Acrobat Reader. To view the ones in RTF format, you may use MS Word.

Reports Dealing with Radiohalos

  1. Gentry, R.V. 1968. "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos." Science 160, 1228. HTML PDF
  2. Gentry, R.V. 1970. "Giant Radioactive Halos: Indicators of Unknown Alpha-Radioactivity?" Science 169, 670. HTML PDF
  3. Gentry, R.V. 1971. "Radiohalos: Some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radioactivity." Science 173, 727. PDF
  4. Gentry, R.V. 1973. "Radioactive Halos." Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23, 347. PDF
  5. Gentry, R.V. 1974. "Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Science 184, 62. HTML PDF
  6. Gentry, R.V. 1975. Response to J.H. Fremlin's Comments on "Spectacle Halos." Nature 258, 269.
  7. Gentry, R.V. 1977. "Mystery of the Radiohalos." Research Communications NETWORK, Breakthrough Report, February 10, 1977. HTML PDF
  8. Gentry, R.V. 1978a. "Are Any Unusual Radiohalos Evidence for SHE?" International Symposium on Superheavy Elements, Lubbock, Texas. New York: Pergamon Press. PDF
  9. Gentry, R.V. 1978b. "Implications on Unknown Radioactivity of Giant and Dwarf Haloes in Scandinavian Rocks." Nature 274, 457. HTML PDF
  10. Gentry, R.V. 1978c. "Reinvestigation of the α Activity of Conway Granite." Nature 273, 217. HTML PDF
  11. Gentry, R.V. 1979. "Time: Measured Responses." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 60, 474. PDF RTF
  12. Gentry, R.V. 1980. "Polonium Halos." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 61, 514. HTML PDF
  13. Gentry, R.V. 1982. Letters. Physics Today 35, No. 10, 13.
  14. Gentry, R.V. 1983a. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 4, 3.
  15. Gentry, R.V. 1983b. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 11, 124.
  16. Gentry, R.V. 1984a. "Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science 1, 38. HTML PDF
  17. Gentry, R.V. 1984c. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 4, 108.
  18. Gentry, R.V. 1984d. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 12, 92.
  19. Gentry, R.V. 1987a. "Radioactive Halos: Implications for Creation." Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II, 89. HTML
  20. Gentry, R.V. 1998. "Fingerprints of Creation." Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12, 287. HTML
  21. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1973. "Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Pb Isotope Ratios and Search for Isomer Precursors in Polonium Radiohalos." Nature 244, 282. HTML PDF
  22. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1974. "'Spectacle' Array of Po-210 Halo Radiocentres in Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical Enigma." Nature 252, 564. HTML PDF
  23. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1976a. "Radiohalos and Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification." Science 194, 315. HTML PDF

Reports Dealing with Helium and Lead Retention in Zircons

  1. Gentry, R.V. 1984b. "Lead Retention in Zircons" (Technical Comment). Science 223, 835.
  2. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982a. "Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Science 216, 296. HTML PDF
  3. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982b. "Differential Helium Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Geophysical Research Letters 9, 1129. HTML PDF

Reports Dealing with Astronomy and Cosmology

  1. Gentry, R. V. 1997. "A New Redshift Interpretation." Modern Physics Letters A, Vol. 12, No. 37, 2919. (This paper was also posted in 1998 on the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: astro-ph/9806280.) HTML PDF
  2. Gentry, R. V. 1998. "The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: gr-gc/9806061. HTML PDF
  3. Gentry, R. V. 1998. "The New Redshift Interpretation Affirmed." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: physics/9810051. HTML PDF
  4. Gentry, R. V. 2003. "Discovery of a Major Contradiction in Big Bang Cosmology Points to the New Cosmic Center Universe Model." CERN Preprint, Ext-2003-021. HTML PDF
  5. Gentry, R. V. 2003. "New Cosmic Center Universe Model Matches Eight of Big Bang's Major Predictions Without the F-L Paradigm." CERN Preprint, Ext-2003-022. PDF
  6. Gentry, R. V. 2004. "Collapse of Big Bang Cosmology and the Emergence of the New Cosmic Center Model of the Universe." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 56, 4. HTML PDF

The first three astronomy and cosmology papers may also be obtained by going to the the web sites of either Los Alamos National Laboratory or arXiv.org. arXiv.org is currently adminstered by Cornell University.

NOTE: For more information about the Big Bang's fatal flaws and "The Great 21st Century Scientific Watergate," please check out our sister site, www.orionfdn.org.

1987 Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences

  • Our open letter of March 24, 1987, to Dr. Frank Press, president of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Press claimed that "evidence for creationism" has been scientifically invalidated, though he well knew this has not been the case for the polonium-halo evidence. Our letter once again requests him and other evolutionists to publicly explain how the polonium-halo evidence for creation has indeed been invalidated, this time on April 13 at the University of Tennessee. We suggest that Dr. Stephen Gould be the first one to speak on behalf of the academy, given his strong language denouncing the term, "creation science." HTML GIF

  • Our Knoxville Sentinel ad on April 12, 1987, announcing our presentation on the evening of the 13th at the University of Tennessee. Included in the ad was a copy of the above open letter to Dr. Press. HTML GIF

  • A press release from the Society for Creation Science, announcing the reading of Dr. Press's written reply that evening, April 13, 1987, at the University of Tennessee. HTML GIF

Year 2000 Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences
  • Our letter of March 22, 2000, to Dr. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Alberts claimed that evidence for special creation has been experimentally falsified.

  • This letter requests the Academy to publicly explain at Wichita State University on March 30, 2000, why it has chosen to reject the published evidence for the Genesis creation, evidence which after more than twenty-five years still stands unrefuted in the open scientific literature. HTML

Did you know that scientific evidence abounds to support the biblical accounts of creation and the flood?

Were you aware that reports outlining this evidence passed peer review, and were published in the open scientific literature?

Have you heard that, decades later, this evidence still stands unrefuted by the scientific community?






Watch a real debate about God right here!

Professors Richard Dawkins and John Lennox go head-to-head once again for another remarkable match of intellect.
This time, the same two Oxford Professors who debated in Birmingham's 'God Delusion' Debate are at it again on their home turf at the site of the famed 1860 Evolution debate between Huxley and Wilberforce.