Are We All Heretics?

Heretic - "A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma..." - American Heritage Dictionary

While going to College I noticed that I would often disagree with my Professor. I would ask questions posed as nicely as I could put them, but I found that if I disagreed with the textbook or the Professor, my grades were not going to be as good as they otherwise would be.

Now, don't get me wrong, I wound up with a 3.84 GPA with over 200 Credits when I graduated from College, but it was a struggle to keep my mouth shut on many occasion.

When I took Biology Class, I would ask questions about the origin of the species and the proverbial missing link and would find my question was responded to with anger, so I soon found that if I approached the professor after class things would go much smoother.

Witness the following from the Preface in the Book "Icons of Evolution":

" During my years as a physical science undergraduate and biology graduate student as University of California, Berkeley, I believed almost everything I read in my textbooks, I knew that the books contained a few misprints and minor factual errors, and I was skeptical of philosophical claims that went beyond the evidence, but I thought that most of what I was being taught was substantially true.

As I was finishing my Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology, however, I noticed that all of my textbooks dealing with evolutionary biology contained a blatant misrepresentation: Drawings of vertebrate embryos showing similarities that were supposed to be evidence for descent from a common ancestor. But as an embryologist I knew the drawings were false. Not only did they distort the embryos they purported to show, but they also omitted earlier stages in which the embryos look very different from each other."

I wonder if he ran into the same bias that I had found and that is...we should not challenge the established worldview unless we wanted to be labeled a heretic. The holy alliance of the "High Priests of Higher Education" will pound you into submission if you dare challenge their ego during classroom time where you might actually be able to stir some freethinking by your peers.

No wonder there is few, if any, other "Theories" being taught about evolution.

Thank God when I took Political Science my professor actually was teaching from a book that pointed out that since the definition of government was force, that it follows to reason that the true left-right political line should be drawn with "Force" being the correct axis and not the new definitions of Communistic thought on the Left and Fascism thought on the right.

He pointed out that all Authoritarian forms of government belonged on the left and only a Republic form of government belonged on the right since the amount of “Force” was the key to understanding governments and political thought.

He told me at the time there were forces in Academia at work to confuse the political landscape to inject Orwellian ideas of double speak into the arena. Things like “Right-wing Dictatorship” he correctly pointed out are an oxymoron when using the “Force” definition of government since a Dictatorship is a strong Authoritarian form of government.

It is amazing how I run into people who have graduate degrees and miss this simple important fact. Oh well, even the very elect are caught up in the lies propagated by the Godless Socialist thought that has taken a strong foot hold in Academia.

Sad, but there are huge difficulties to overcome to gain a truly free exchange of ideas in our Holy alliance of the "High Priests of Higher Education."

The Law, The Constitution and Freedom

I cringe every time I hear the phrase “There ought to be a Law.” Every time we pass a law, by definition we are restricting Freedom.

Much of the law we have comes from logical choices to restrict the way we mistreat our fellow humans. That is to say, Murder, Stealing, etc not only is founded in morals, but it is there to restrict human behavior so as to protect others from harm. Restricting Freedom to harm others is still Force.

This is why George Washington said that the definition of government is “Force.”
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

This is where we need to understand the purpose of the Constitution. The framers realized the importance of restricting government from being over intrusive so they set up a document that was meant to be founded upon correct principals. Truth and Principals never change, and the document was to be interpreted by Justices with that in mind. If it needed revising, then it should be so obvious that a Constitutional Amendment that requires a “Super Majority” to pass should only change it.

The framers recognized that if Justices ever saw their role as to make the Constitution a “Living Document” or a document that needed to “Evolve” or that its application needed to “Evolve”, then we would no longer have a country that was ruled by law and principals, but a country that was ruled by unaccountable Judges.

This is what is at stake in the appointment of a “Strict Constitutionalist” or also called a “Strict Constructionist” to the Supreme Court. Justice Steven Breyer on the Charlie Rose show tried to make both cases, i.e., that the document was only to evolve with constitutional amendments but that he thought the application of it’s principals should be applied by the Judges. He tried to say that the founders could not have envisioned the internet, automobiles, etc. He fails to realize that these modern advances don’t change principals, and if they need to be looked at, then it is the job of the Legislature to do the changing because it puts the power back in the hands of people who are accountable. His view is so wrong because it puts too much power in the hands of Nine people, and their “opinions” become law.

Justices that use International law pick and choose those international laws that fit their agenda. We left Europe to get away from governments that were not freedom friendly and we should only look to our document that truly protects freedom like no other countries laws can.

Why Doesn’t God or Jesus Show Himself?

My posts are usually about Freedom and Politics, but with a little Theism thrown in from time to time. Today I thought it was a good time for a little Theism since a lot of comments on other blogs have been about Religion, God or Intelligent Design.

Many ask the question, If there is a God, why doesn’t he just show himself and prove it? Some would answer that he has a few times. God showed himself to Moses on Mt. Sinai when he gave the Ten Commandments. Jesus showed himself when he was here approximately 2000 years ago, but generally he stays away. Why is this you might wonder?

It all has to do with us proving ourselves to be worthy of governing ourselves. To see which we will choose, right or wrong without having “proof” that God exists.

First let’s assume that there is Justice in the Universe. Next, if there is then let’s assume that we will receive more punishment for doing something we “know” is wrong than we would if we just “thought” it was wrong. Kind of like the difference between an accident and doing something on purpose, but the next level down.

If God came down and showed himself to us and we had “pure knowledge” of him, and not just “faith or belief” in him, then from that moment on we would be bound to only do the right thing because we would no longer be covered by the Atonement. We would not be able to say, “I didn’t know!”

We would not be able to have Jesus say “…..Father forgive them for they know not what they do…...” (Luke 23:34)

Where much is given, much is expected.

We are to go through life and prove ourselves that we will choose good over evil because we want to, and not because we “know for a fact” that we should always choose good.

It is by our faith that we can learn and progress to try to become as perfect as we can. Jesus commanded us to try to always choose the right. He said “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matt 5: 48 )

He wants us to do this on faith, not on knowledge. For with the greater light comes the greater sin. “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (James 4:17).

Theistic Evolution – Not Possible

Christians cannot believe in both Evolution and Creationism. If some do, they are compromising their principals, either consciously or without realizing it.

Paul, in speaking about the different species returning to their maker, said the following: “But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, and another of fishes, and another of birds.” ( 1 Cor. 15:38-39)

The problem of a fish or a bird becoming human is just as impossible as iron becoming gold.

We are in our maker’s image. The Law of Probability says that even if it were possible, it would take more time than the age of the earth to evolve from a fish that swam onto the shore and then through this leap of faith the fish grew legs, etc, etc, until it became a human being. Again this is saying even if it were possible, and I don't believe it is.

It is obvious that God wants to remain unrevealed. This means that we will never discover the truth about the beginning of human life until God again revels himself. However just as Jesus was rejected when he was on this earth approximately 2000 years ago, we would probably reject him if he came amongst us again today.

The Scriptures tell us that God created each species separately, each after its own kind. The Scriptures also tell us that Adam was the first man.

I am sure that some of what is presented in Evolution Theory has some basis, but not the overall Theory. There is no organic evolution.

If it is Science then this process should be demonstrable and it of course is not, therefore by the definition of Science if it cannot be predicted or repeated then it can only be speculated. This means it does not fit the rules of being Science.

However, the only real way to debate this subject is to use Science to inspect the claims and determine if indeed Science actually agrees with the claims.

This book Icons of Evolution actually deals with the subject without any religious references.

Here is just one of the many reviews from the above link:

“I must admit that reading this book was somewhat shocking. I had expected to see rehashed creationist arguments about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. On the contrary, nothing Wells says depends on creationist ideas. He has collected evidence from the mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific literature, and combined them into a compelling case against what we might call "textbook Darwinism." This might be a trivial accomplishment, since the record of high school and college textbooks is generally dismal. But his cumulative argument seems to me devastating to orthodox Neo-Darwinism, since it just is textbook Darwinism. Wells discusses the famous comparative vertebrate embryo diagrams-- which should be an embarrassment to any textbook author who includes them--the fallacious way homology is used for evidence of common ancestry, the collapse of the story of Peppered Moths, Darwin's finches, and many more pieces of the Darwinist lore. By the time I was finished, I had lost faith in almost everything I thought I knew about evolution. I now suspect that Darwin will soon join company with Marx and Freud.
I'm not sure what I believe at this point, but I can no longer buy the official story. I don't know if I agree with some of Wells' recommendations in his conclusion, but something clearly has to be done. Hysterical defenses of falsified "evidence" by Darwinian disciples at Talk.Origins and elsewhere convinces me that they didn't see this coming, and won't be able to deal with the actual facts involved.”

And yet another good review from the amazon.com link:

… “This is the first book I've read on evolution that actually uses "science" to examine the evidence for or against the theory. (I've read many on both sides of the fence) Science being evidence based. Wells certainly has the scientific credentials to do this and certainly more qualified than most of us to examine this evidence and make assertions based such evidence or lack thereof. The central theme of the book examines the main "Icons of Evolution" that the defenders of the theory call upon to show that evolution has been proven or at least demonstrated by the preponderance of the evidence. When someone asserts that evolution is a "fact" or has been "proven" they typically use one or more or all of these "Icons". They are briefly:

1. The Miller-Urey Experiment
2. Darwin's Tree of Life
3. Homology
4. Haekel's Embryos
5. Archaeopteryx
6. The Peppered Moths
7. Darwin's Finches
8. Four winged Fruit Flies
9. Fossil horses and their evolution
10. Ape to Man (the famous ascendancy drawing)

Wells scrutinizes these icons and pretty much explodes them all. The real fact here is that none of these icons support Darwin's theory - even the ones that aren't faked ( like the peppered moths or Haekel's Embryos). One example I can sum up refers to the origins of life and the Miller-Urey experiment; if we don't know what conditions existed, or what conditions are necessary, and can't reproduce the event in the laboratory, and can't show it to be statistically probable-why are we so very sure that it happened? Such evidence would not hold up in court, and sure won't satisfy the requirements for a science.”

There we have it. These reviews pretty much sum up my feelings based upon what I had already discovered myself. Of course I had not come up with near the evidence that Mr. Wells has, nor do I want to imply I have made any exhaustive study, but my conclusions are similar to those of the reviewers above.

Liberal “Values”

In the upcoming elections we are going to see Howard Dean push for “re-packaging” the image of the Democratic Party. It doesn’t matter to him that this new marketing scheme will not be truthful; it is all about marketing to win!

Not many years ago Abortion was very unpopular with a huge majority of Americans but after a new marketing firm repackaged “Abortion” into “Choice” it became much more palatable to many more people.

The Dems know that over 96% of Americans believe in God and over 80% attend church. They also believe the only reason that Kerry lost was because of the “value” voters.

Enter their new push to hoodwink the undecided voters that they also stand for values.

The problem is they don’t stand for real values, but entitlements repackaged into, “caring for the poor”, “free health insurance for all”, and a bunch of other “spend other peoples money” schemes that are made to “sound good.”

Their biggest vulnerability will be the fact that it is just more “Socialism” in sheep’s clothing.

Organizational Morality

What about the poor people?

If there were one thing that separates the left from the right in this country and is the single most defining issue, it would be the proper way to help the poor people.

There are an infinite number of things that could be done with taxes. Most of these could be under the heading of “It’s a good cause.”

Where we need to focus is on the single one thing that Satan has deceived a large number of people on this planet. Organizational Morality. Also known as Socialism.

This world is fast becoming almost an entirely Socialist World. Let’s examine the concept behind why Socialism is morally wrong.

If I rob a bank, is it wrong? If two people rob a bank, is it any less wrong? If a whole neighborhood robs a bank is it wrong? If a whole town votes to have the police rob a bank and give the money to the poor, is it still wrong? Satan has convinced people that if the government does it, then it must be moral.

This is the greatest lie that people have bought into. Government steals from it's citizens, it allows gambling, but says if you run a gambling establishment, then it is wrong, it prints more money than it should, (counterfiting), and it is all dismissed as moral because the government is doing it. We are the government! Why is it voting takes away the morality of the act?

This is the crux of Socialism and it’s immoral premise that the welfare of the poor is more important than morality. They reason that it is more important to vote for the government to be a taker so it can then be a provider than to do what is morally right.

Satan has convinced almost the entire world that government enforced welfare is morally right. Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is stealing, period.

Take (t³k) v. took (t‹k), tak·en (t³"k…n), tak·ing, takes. --tr. 1. To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially: a. To capture physically; seize. b. To seize with authority; confiscate. - American Heritage Dictionary

There are a lot of good liberal people out there who sincerely believe in the welfare state. They have been deceived and fail to admit it or they admit that it is wrong but continue to say it is the only answer. Meaning it may be morally wrong, but it is the only solution.

This is the basis for our stand of “doing the right thing” even if it seems like the wrong thing at the time. This country has millions of good-hearted people on both the left and the right that will not let people starve if they suddenly were off the welfare rolls.

If each town/city would have the poor sign up on a list posted through out the town/city seeking assistance, I guarantee that all of the churches would take that list and make it a charitable project to help the poor.

Helping people by taking (forcing $100.00 out of your paycheck), and then sending that $100.00 to Washington, so they can send $10.00 back to the state to help the poor, is not near as good as the $100.00 that would be freely given by charitable people so that the entire $100.00 gets to the people who really need it, instead of in some pencil pushers pocket in D.C.

But most of all, there is no way possible for the left to say that Socialism is morally right and still not know that they are being decieved. Their conscience will tell them if they listen to it.

This is the main battle between the right and the left. Is Socialism morally wrong? Only those decived would think it is. We need to pray for them.

A Nation of Used Cars

When I was growing up I had a very good family life. My father was a Major in the Army and my Mother was a stay-at-home Mom. I have a five-year older sister, and an eight-year younger brother.

My mother told me about the birds and the bees when the subject first came up. She said she waited until I was curious to tell me about it and that was the way and the when that God and nature had intended for it to be taught. If it is brought up sooner, then children will become curious before they were intended to be. They often are not able to handle the shock and will think about it more than they should.

The session was only about how babies were created, and that was that.

It wasn’t until I got into college that I really learned about the true morals of human sexuality. I was curious about why there seemed to be a double standard between men and women when it came to being sexually active.

I figured I had better read books that were written by people who cared about morality instead of caring about teaching for money. I figured you go to church to learn about God’s ways, but you go to public school to learn about man’s ways.

I found out that Women are special. They are given less sex drive, (in general), than men. Men were given much stronger sex drive, so that the men are in the role of chasing women by nature.

Men are kind of like Dogs; running around with their tongues hanging out saying things like…. “Feed me, play with me, entertain me, but most of all, please play with me!”

While women are like cats, just sitting around purring and saying things like…. “You don’t really expect me to come to you every time you call do you? And ”you can pet me if you want to, but if you don’t that’s alright too, because it really doesn’t make that much difference to me.”

So I learned that men were given much more latitude when it came to feeling sorry for them because of the “dog in them.” Women in some marriages even continue to forgive them for their adultery for they wrongly think that men have no control over their sex drive. Baloney, it’s kind of like smoking, people say they can’t stop, but what they are really saying is they like to smoke more than they want to stop. Men can wait until marriage, and after marriage they can stop the outside escapades. It just takes will power and morals.

Parents can't give them will power, so we better give them the understanding of values and morals. Teach them "why" to be moral.

I found out that what God had in mind was for everyone to have a new car as soon as they were ready to purchase one. This meant that when men were ready to get married what they really wanted deep down inside was a virgin. They wanted a brand new car, one that had never even been sat in before. Makes sense that if you are only supposed to have one for your lifetime, then it should be a new one.

God wanted women to have a new car also. But here is what usually happens. Boys have their libido telling them to test drive cars as often as they can. They know deep down inside that they are making a “Nation of Used Cars”, while all the time hoping to find a new car when they are finally ready to purchase one.

They reason that God can’t send everyone to hell, so they try to influence as many of their friends to go along with them as possible. People have a tendency to pull others down to their morality level because it makes them feel like it must be normal if so many are doing it.

But if you put a rotten apple in a barrel of good ones, the rotten one will usually turn some of the good ones bad until the keeper removes them, but if you put a good apple in a barrel of rotten ones, the rotten ones will easily turn the one good one bad. So, as the old saying goes, the company you keep is vital to your long-term happiness. Misery loves company.

Since Clinton has been in office, the age of young girls becoming active has dropped from 15 years old down to 12 years old. They have also reasoned they can be safer, from pregnancy and disease, by copying Monica Lewinski’s method, but instead are only safer from the pregnancy part. The disease’s can be just as dangerous as before. And they also fail to realize that they are being used by boys and men, all the while they are being laughed at for being so easily tricked into thinking that being a "used" car is desirable and makes them equal to men. Used is used, and they fail to see that often once the boy/man gets what he wants, then it is "see ya later, I don't want to marry someone that has such low morals because I won't be able to trust her after we are married."

Let’s try to recognize the things we should do to help our young children from being tempted to lower their morals.

First, let’s fight for optional sex education and try to keep the government from having our young children becoming exposed to it before they are ready for it. I have read somewhere that some schools want to introduce it as early as the second grade so as to help them know what to do if they are in an abusive home. Isn’t it funny how the parents are willingly giving up their responsibilities?

Yes, some parents are not good parents, but if you legislate for the exception, you often destroy the rule.

Second, let’s teach our children the importance of not falling for group pressure to lower their values and morals, by impressing them with how to handle peer pressure.

Third, have some very basic rules and don't give in to these "deal breakers."
1. Tell us where you are going, who you are with and when you are coming home.
2. No single dating until you are 18. Double dating starts at 16.
3. Junior high you must be home by 11 o'clock, high school by 1am. Nothing good happens after 1am at night and a ton of bad stuff does.
4. Bad deeds are given consequences, good ones are given rewards.

That's my list that I used. It seemed to work, and it came from some very good sources.

And finally lets insure that our children have a good understanding of why we are here on this earth, and what is expected of us from God.

In Defense of Religion - Intelligent Design

Preface:

While I am a Christian, I will not engage in proselyting for any particular religion, so please don’t ever ask me to get into which religion believes what or what religion I belong to, as I don’t think this forum is the proper place for that type of conversation.

I do not have a problem in defending Religion or Christianity in General.

Since there are over 1200 different Christian religions alone here in the U.S., then there are obviously many different positions that are taken by many different denominations. But if they call themselves Christian, then we can assume they agree on the most fundamental position and that is the existence of Jesus Christ.

Some Christian religions engage in “putting down” others views and calling them “cults” and even more hurtful names, so it again is important to talk in generalities so we don’t get into this non Christian activity. This country was founded upon religious tolerance and respect for others views.

However, I may mention what I have read from a few different religions as a way to stimulate thought or present an interesting point of view.

Big Bang. (Infinite Monkeys vs. Intelligent Design)

In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth. We now know that this event took place approximately 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 seconds (10 to the 18th power) ago.

On April 23, 1992, a group of scientists found proof that the universe was created by the Big Bang. This proof was that the universe was not static, but rather it was decelerating just as Einstein had predicted by his singularity equation, which had convinced Einstein that God exists.

It was so exciting a discovery it led the most famous and brilliant physicist Steven Hawking to exclaim “This is the discovery of the century, if not of all time”, and he is known for his understatements. It further led him to say that “we proved that time was created. We proved that time has a beginning.”

Until this discovery many scientists had believed it possible for the complexities of life to have spontaneously occurred by way of what some have called the “Infinite Monkeys” theorem. This theorem basically says, “An infinite number of monkeys typing for an infinite amount of time will produce a given text.” (Such as a novel or even the collective works of William Shakespeare.)

Well if time was not infinite as the Big Bang theory states, then there is not sufficient time for all of the “random events” necessary to sustain life to occur, i.e., Evolution.

Science also says that the “Law of Cause and Effect” states that for every effect there must be a cause. So, if Length, width, height, and time all were created at the Big Bang, then what or who was around to “cause” the Big Bang?

More and more scientists are concluding that there had to be something or someone outside the universe to cause this event, but if all exotic matter and all ordinary matter had a beginning, then who or what could have caused the Big Bang. The answer to this is in the only book that I have found that actually makes the claim that everything but God had a beginning, and that God caused the Big Bang, i.e., created the heaven and earth.

Organize/Make Earth:

There are some who speculate that when God organized the Earth he gathered parts from other worlds. Perhaps these worlds had skeletons that predated man. It would explain why some levels of earth are newer than some that are closer to the surface.

The dilemma of the age of the Earth continues to be a mystery. Many different postulates have been put forth to explain the questions that seem to indicate that the earth is older than the date the Bible says that Adam was created. I kind of like the idea above that the elements of the earth are older than Adam, because they came from other planets, but who knows? All I do know is that there is an answer to this question and we need to be patient about finding it out.

Adam & Eve:

According to the chronology of the Bible, Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden approximately 4000 B.C. or 6000 years ago.

When reading the Bible, it is important to understand the concept of the word translated as “Day.” In some places in the Bible it means literally 24 hours, in other places it means a “Year” and in other places it means “a thousand years” such as in this quote, “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” ( 2 Peter 3:8 )

I have read where some people say that when God was talking about the creation process; it was where each day was a thousand years.

They reason thusly: God told Adam, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Gen 2:17)

Now Adam lived to be 930 years old, so if he lived less than a thousand years, then he indeed did die in less than a day. But even with this possible view, it would mean that the earth is only approximately 6000 years older than Adam since he was created on the 6th day, unless you again consider the possibility that the earth was made up of components from other planets that were perhaps older than the earth.

And lastly, maybe we just won’t know until we have it explained to us by God.


One Religion - Others are offshoots:

One attack of religion is that man makes it up. If that is the case then God does not exist.

But if God does exist then one could easily speculate that if one single religion were given to man in the Garden of Eden, then all others would spring from that one. Perhaps as humans moved into different areas of the planet, they changed the dogmas of the one religion and it became something else. This might explain how the concept of “Reincarnation” is so similar to the concept of “Resurrection.”

The Hebrews were told about a Messiah coming to “save” them. They were told about two different times he was coming. They were told he would come first to fulfill the concept of the Sacrifice, and he would come again to be their “King” and rule the world. They focused upon only the one where he would be their King.

Christians believe in both and are looking forward to the “Second Coming.” So, in some regards it is one religion that has two different views of the coming of the Messiah.

The significance of the “Sacrifice” is lost on most people. Let us consider the seemingly contradiction between the concepts of “Justice” and “Mercy.”

If we rob a bank, Justice demands that the victim be made “whole.” Mercy says to forgive the person and not make them suffer. But if the robber gets off without any consequences, then Justice is foiled.

The “Sacrifice” makes it possible for both to occur. Jesus, who never committed a sin, pays the bank back the amount that was stolen. Or, in other words, the “pay back” serves Justice and then Mercy can be given since the proxy of the Sacrifice pays the debt of sin.

Cycle of Humility:

One thing the Bible tells us in many different stories is what has been called the “cycle of war” or the “cycle of humility.”

This is where the religious people have very little and are thus on their knees often to thank God for their existence.

Next God blesses these same people and they become wealthy and healthy.

Then finally because they think that they are well off and no longer need God’s help, they become what the bible calls “stiff necked”, meaning they no longer bow their heads in prayer, so God will allow the consequences of the effects of this move towards selfishness and egotism to occur.

This effect is the wars, plagues/viruses and other events that cause people to once again loose their possessions and their health to where they must once again bend their knees in prayer.

And then the cycle repeats.



Will it End:

There are some Christians that believe in what is called the “End Time” and others who don’t.

Some of those who believe that eventually Jesus will return believe that it will happen on the beginning of the “Seventh Day” or in other words the Seventh Thousandth year. They call this period of a thousand years, “Gods day of rest” or the “millennium.”

There you have it, a short synopsis of a generalization of many peoples worldview and why so many people believe in God.

Many Christians may differ on some of the points above, but in general we all believe in Creationism, God, and in Jesus Christ and I have presented a summation of what one of these worldviews might be.