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

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Part 3 - My Response to an Atheist Essay!

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “GOD-IS-NO-WHERE & GOD-IS-NOW-HERE” is only a matter of PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE! 



Just because WE don't see it, feel it or witness it personally is NO PROOF that something doesn't exist, this is the problem with perspective, its different with everyone. Therefore PROOF is seen as many different things, so we should NOT look at evidence through our limited perspective or life experience. If we did this in a court room, no justice could ever result for anyone, the evidence MUST STAND ALONE AS IT IS and be looked at WITHOUT PREJUDICE !

BACK TO THE ESSAY

“The second of which is I do not find the state of the world in accordance with an idea of a loving and merciful higher power. Then of course there is the factor that the basis of this essay shall be about; I do not find the Biblical God fit for worship. Over the course of this essay there will be some times when I will speak as if I believe in the Bible, when in fact I do not.”

A.) THE STATE OF THE WORLD:




This I assume refers to the SORRY STATE THAT MAN { With God’s HELP } HAS PUT THE WORLD IN SINCE HIS INTRODUCTION INTO GOD’S CREATION, WARS, FAMINE, HATRED, RELIGION. 

The issue here is that she has purposely left out God's justice and judgment as it would plainly explain the world as it is. Nowhere does the Bible teach anything as she says it does, God requires what any parent requires of their children, payment for wrongdoing in kind. 

Yes God loves us but at the same time requires us to obey the rules set down in nature and the bible. If those rules are broken then we must pay the payment in this life for breaking natural laws and payment in the next for breaking spiritual laws.

  YES, I SAID RELIGION BETTER KNOWN AS HYPOCRISY IN PRACTICE!


Hypocrisy means:
 
Simulation; a feigning to be what one is not; or dissimulation, a concealment of one’s real character or motives. More generally, hypocrisy is simulation, or the assuming of a false appearance of virtue or religion; a deceitful show of a good character, in morals or religion; a counterfeiting of religion.

This is the MAIN REASON for the existence of Atheism in our world today, I believe that for every hypocrite there are hundred’s of NEW ATHEIST’S BORN! Religion created by man for man with the INTENT OF REFORMING OUR BEHAVIOR WITHOUT GOD'S DIRECT HELP! But religion without God won't work because of How we were made!





The foolishness of a few so-called “Christian’s” who thought it O.K. to pretend to be one thing while “LIVING ANOTHER WAY” has “Evolved into the most profound hypocrisy of all” an excuse to live WITHOUT THE DESIGNER OF CREATION!

BEHOLD THE HYPOCRISY WITHIN ALL OF US INCLUDING ATHEIST’S, INBREED IN OUR D.N.A. AND PASSED DOWN THROUGH OUR BLOODLINES.

We want to do the right thing but do not want to do it the way its been set up to do it, that is the problem with man-made religion in the first place. There is no excuse for our behavior, EXCEPT that we have predetermined seeds planted in us that will sprout in various degrees, one or many depending on the individual, acting like a straight Jacket in our lives.



 These 'Seeds' are not dormant they are 'Working' behind the scenes in every human life to kill, steal and destroy, sin brings with it destruction and death, that's why God wanted us to know AS HE DID not as our own experience!

Galatians 5:19-21

” Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”


This is what makes MAN do the ugly things he does both to himself and to nature. ATHEIST’S DO ALL THESE THINGS AS WELL BECAUSE the nature of SIN within is the cause of all the world’s problems. Atheists can't blame the real problem and still believe there is no God, so they do the next best thing and twist the issue to blame a non-existent God. Has it once dawned on them that if God's not there to blame according to their teaching, then Humanism is to blame in their reality, once they get what they really want........A WORLD WITHOUT ANY GODS OR RELIGION!


Her problem is a SELF-CREATED one, because of her own “preconceived ideas” about the God she thinks we believe in and how he SHOULD ACT as she see’s it.

If a person who OPENLY IS DEFIANT TO THE GOD OF THE BIBLE, reads the bible, they WILL NOT READ IT AS WE WOULD, so they cannot be honest or truthful in their interpretations. Their own limited knowledge of the things of God and God himself stands in their way of seeing the world as it really is!








THIS IS A “PRECONCEIVED RESPONSE” rooted deep in the soul which can only be uprooted by an “INVASION OF PURE TRUTH” that breaks through the hardness of mental blocks that have been either self-taught or generationally instilled!


The problem of “Evil in the world” is a real issue and to properly understand it is the KEY to understanding OUR purpose in the plan of God. First we MUST understand that “Evil” is never to be understood in the OLD MIDDLE AGE DOGMAS of the false churches created to purposely confuse mankind about God!

B.) “THE IDEA OF A LOVING & MERCIFUL FATHER”


ONCE YOU UNDERSTAND WHY GOD DOES THINGS THE WAY HE DOES, THEN ALL THOSE IMPOSSIBLE OUTCOMES ARE NO LONGER IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND!

Here is more of her essay:

” I plan to examine the Bible with critical inquiry. This essay will not be based upon scientific facts and how they disprove the Bible. It shall be an application of my emotions regarding compassion, love, mercy, patience, and justice. 

I hope to explain more clearly why the God depicted in the Bible violates my idea of a moral being. This shall be done over a series of topics. Each pointing out how Jehovah is undeserving of my worship. I will utilize Biblical verses to support my claim as well as what I consider to be logical reasoning.”

You will notice that she is BASING THIS CRITICAL INQUIRY ON EMOTIONAL IDEALS,THEREFORE NEGATING HER RESULTS BECAUSE OF A COMPLETE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOD’S PURPOSE IN DOING THINGS THE WAY HE DID THEM!

She is using what she THINKS SHE WOULD DO IN GOD’S PLACE TO JUDGE HIS ACTIONS. The problem here is obvious, human emotions are both weak and limited because they were never meant to GUIDE US in the long term, only in the short term!

Is this fair?

No!

It is common for all of us to do it BUT IT IS A VERY LIMITED WAY TO JUDGE ANY SUBJECT because our knowledge of the subject goes ONLY AS FAR AS OUR EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENTS TO IT, what I call a “Preconceived Idea”!

It’s like a “SCRATCHED RECORD” we replay what we KNOW HAS OR WILL HAPPEN AGAIN AND AGAIN NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE EVIDENCE IS TO THE CONTRARY!

If we deem God “EVIL”then we cannot believe past our “IDEA that God is bad, even when the evidence is exactly the opposite.

It is always funny that the Atheist will use the very things that God has in FAR more abundance than they do { Love, Grace, Mercy, Fairness, Righteousness, Kindness ect. } to disprove his ability to rule, SHE SAYS SHE WILL BE Capable of judging with accuracy; conforming to exact rules of propriety AT LEAST THAT’S WHAT THE WORD “CRITICAL” MEANS, I make NO SUCH CLAIM BECAUSE IT IS “IMPOSSIBLE TO DO SO, WHEN YOUR MIND IS ALREADY MADE UP CONCERNING WHAT YOU BELIEVE you forfeit the very propriety and accuracy you claim to have.


The only way to TRULY JUDGE THE BIBLE IS TO BE “COMPLETELY FREE OF ALL EMOTIONAL BAGGAGE” IN CONNECTION TO THESE SUBJECTS! 

SO I ASK YOU IN ALL HONESTY…. CAN YOU OR ANYONE GET IN LINE FOR JUDGING GOD?




Unless you can look at the evidence with a purely “LOGICAL MIND” without NEGATIVE emotions of any kind then you “Atheist OR Christian” cannot judge what God did or does…..PERIOD!

It is NOT what I or you consider to be LOGICAL WITH OUR SHIFTING EMOTIONAL OUTBURSTS THAT SHOULD BE USED TO JUDGE EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST GOD’S ACTIONS BUT ONLY PURE LOGICAL DEDUCTION ALONE!

I am NOT saying that we cannot have emotional attachments to the subject God knows I do, what I am saying is that we cannot begin to be “Logical” if emotion takes the place of understanding.” 

The last blog I gave you “PROVED FROM SCIENCE THAT THERE IS THE PLAUSIBLE RIGHT TO BELIEVE THAT GOD DOES EXIST, WITHOUT ANY EMOTIONAL OUTBURST ATTACHED TO IT CAN YOU HONESTLY DENY THAT EVIDENCE?


If you can, then your battle is not with God but LOGICAL DEDUCTION ITSELF.

PROOF MEANS THIS:

In law and logic, that degree of evidence which convinces the mind of the certainty of truth of fact, and produces belief. Proof is derived from personal knowledge, or from the testimony of others, or from conclusive reasoning. 

Proof differs from demonstration which is what Atheist’s present constantly AS EVIDENCE, which is applicable only to those truths of which the contrary is inconceivable.

A PROOF PRODUCES Firmness of mind; stability not to be shaken; as a mind or virtue that is proof against the arts of seduction and the assaults of temptation. Let’s face facts……

Atheist’s have NEVER, THAT’S RIGHT NEVER PRESENTED “EVIDENCE IN PROOF” THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST…WHY?

Because they can’t find any…so they do what comes naturally, ATTACK GOD’S CHARACTER INSTEAD.

Its almost “FUNNY” TO WATCH THE “NO-GODS” ATTACK THE CHARACTER OF SOMEONE WHO IS’NT THERE.

Now let’s look at this behavior LOGICALLY-HOW CAN ANYONE ATTACK SOMEONE IF THEY DO NOT EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND CAN THAT “character information gathered to DISPROVE the existance of God REALLY BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST HIS EXISTENCE- TALK ABOUT “CIRCULAR REASONING”

{ God does not exist because of his bad character revealed in HIS WORD- THIS IS DENIAL OF THE FACTS NOT PROOF HE ISN’T THERE. }


THIS STINKS OF IT WITH EVERY FALSE ARGUMENT PRESENTED. 


Another question,WHY DON’T ATHEIST’S EVER USE THE SAME REASONING AGAINST OTHER RELIGIONS JUST AS BRUTALLY AS THEY SEEM TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY?

There are a MULTITUDE OF GODS THROUGHOUT HISTORY THAT ARE FAR “WORSE” & MAKE THE OLD TESTAMENT LOOK LIKE A PICNIC IN COMPARISION,WHY NOT “ATTACK THEM? 

The God of scripture SEEMS TO BE the ONLY GOD that warrents their anger,and THAT ALONE MAKES THEIR AURGUMENTS INVALID! IT PROVES THAT OUR GOD IS POWERFUL & ALL OTHERS ARE NOT,OR THEY WOULD ALL BE EQUALLY ATTACKED & MALINED! 


THEREFORE I PRESENT BEFORE YOU THAT IT IS THE A-THEIST { THE TRUE BLUE there is NO God person } AND NOT GOD THAT DOES NOT EXIST!












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.