Response to Jacob M

This letter is a response to a person who recently asked me to view a video concerning the scientific proof of G-d.

For anyone interested in watching the video:



Greetings!

Since time is of constraint, I have chosen to reply via this post. Thank you very much for sharing this video with me.

The video link sent to me is one I've viewed prior, closer to its published date in 2013. However, I did review it again, minus the question and answer section.

The video in question discusses both the expansion and fine-tuning of the universe. The known expansion of the universe implies a beginning of time and this coupled with the various and specific constants of the universe may very well indicate a creator of the universe. These points do seem to be rather intriguing and may catalyze one to seek for more answers. However, most scientists will view this same information in an evolutionary paradigm. The conclusion is merely considered the result of confirmation bias. To which I say, that's okay.

For myself, I believe in having faith in G-d. If anyone should have the ability to "prove" G-d, our faith would cease to exist and this very faith is what is required for a relationship with G-d.

Heb 11:6 Without faith it is impossible to please him (G-d): for he that cometh to G-d must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. We need to please G-d and if we approach Him not in faith, we can't please Him. The importance of faith is that without faith, you can't please G-d.

Science certainly should not be ignored, but rather than trying to mold the idea of a creator together with science, I have found these ideas are merely heterogeneous, not homogeneous.They simply do not answer the same questions.

If you do not own a concordance, I would highly suggest getting one. You may have one located at the back of your Bible. The internet can work well but sometimes it can be rather limiting. Be sure to look up the passages that deal with "faith."

I have long left organized religion yet I have great respect for Christianity and do find it to be the most inclusive and benign. However, the brand of Christianity I speak of is early Christianity, what the early Christians taught just after Jesus. It is important to study world religions in order to understand history and the civilizations throughout the world. The United States is greatly influenced by Judeo-Christian values. These are the foundation of our court systems and our Constitution.

You may enjoy this video with Camile Paglia. She also touches upon Hitchens, which we only merely touched upon in our prior discussion.



Isaac Newton, the founder of Physics:



The following website I really enjoy, however I don't agree with everything they claim. The conspiracy stuff they publish is nonsensical yet, there are some great Bible studies here and one of my favorite concerns who the real first pope of Rome was. If you're up to the challenge, I warn it will take some time to get through but, here's the link.

I have previously written about the topic of hell; you can find these posts here and here.

I apologize for the long-winded response however, I did not want you to feel as though I have dismissed you. It is merely circumstantial that our time to discuss this is limited and this happens to be a topic of great interest for me.

Best of luck to you in the future and of course you now know where to find me now if you have any further questions or comments.

~Tuesday

No G-d For Democrats?

Democratic party heads rammed through the revised platform, which includes updated pro-Israel language and the mention of God, against the clear wishes of those voting at the convention in Charlotte.

Click here for source.



By the sound of this clip, it appears that the majority of the party was simply not interested with the idea of acknowledging G-d or Jerusalem. The democrat party gives the impression that they truly feel their ideas are far more advanced and more wise than those ideas set forth by previous leaders and generations. It must be nice to have such ignorant confidence.

How did these ideas get removed in the first place? When did this happen? It looks like it took place during the Obama administration.

This is the paragraph that was in the 2008 platform:

“We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-givenpotential.”

Now the words “God-given” have been removed. The paragraph has been restructured to say this: 

“We gather to reclaim the basic bargain that built the largest middle class and the most prosperous nation on Earth – the simple principle that in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.”

Source.

So what exactly is going on within the democrat party that they cannot agree on these very simple concepts? This entire episode is certainly not going to give party members confidence that their elected officials are representing them. Certainly disagreements occur within parties but the issue concerning G-d could create even larger divisions within the party.

Typical Technical Problems

Well, on Wednesday of last week, I fried my motherboard. Thanks to my friend Heather, I now have a temp laptop to work on. I have to say, I'm so blessed that I have a friend willing to lend me her extra laptop! That is truly the Lord watching out for me.

I still have scans to run and updates to finish but, I'm getting caught up on everything now.

People That Believe In G-d Are Scary

Or, so I've just been told!

Another liberal attacking Sarah Parlin because, she "believes in an invisible god."

I'm so addicted to Facebook! I get to meet and see all sorts of different people express the most absurd views.

This older Savage diatribe was posted and of course, being a huge Savage fan, I "liked" the post and made a comment to the effect that I agree with Savage.



Of course, in walks a liberal I have dealt with in the past. I guess after much time has passed, he feels as though he can beat me in an argument now. He basically said Sarah Palin was ignorant and it's not at all unreasonable for Matt Damon to express his concern. The exact quote:

Damon is jealous of Sarah Palin? Huh? No, he's scared of her ignorance and how close she became to the white house. Sounds pretty simple and doesn't need pyscho analysis.

In return, I asked him, point blank, what ignorance he was referring to? I reminded him that she was the governor of the state of Alaska and, that the person he voted for in the White House had practically NO experience doing anything other than organizing a few BBQ's.

His response?

You're seriously defending Sarah Palin? Besides, this wasn't a competition of who is more qualified. Strictly a assesment of Palin's scariness. You would vote for her? You've gotta just be playing devil's advocate or something. C'mon.

Do you notice how he has now changed his original point?  First, she was ignorant. Now, it's not about ignorance at all, it's all about being scary.

My response:

Yes, I like Sarah Palin. I'm not much of a "woman in politics" sort of person. I happen to find a great deal of wisdom in women NOT being in politics because, I find many of them vote strictly on how good a candidate looks. Especially amongst liberal women. Most of them haven't a clue as to what their candidate supports; they lack any knowledge of the issues and when you question them, they say, "I just can't talk about this with you!"

*eyeroll*

I do like Sarah Palin. I think she would have done a great job as vice president and, judging her by an interview that was cut up worse than a Freddy Kruger victim, is hardly a way to judge her and say she is "scary." How is she scary?

Why wouldn't I defend her? What's your point? 

So, at this point, I'm waiting to hear what it is that he finds so scary about Sarah Palin that wasn't scary about Barack Obama. I mean, his name alone is enough to give one concern, his ties to terrorists, communism, being a puppet for the far-left in this country, ect. No, none of THOSE things scared him but, Sarah Palin did?


Here's his highly thought out, quite telling response:


She clearly didn't have a grasp on reality. We didn't need another un-informed god freak who thinks an invisible man is telling her what to do near the white house. I mean you did watch her interviews right? You wouldn't defend her because she is a muppet, you're clearly more itelligent than she and I'm not sure why you'd want her as a reprasentative or person in charge. Or you're so wound up in your conservatism you can't make clear judgements.

Now, I could be rude and point out that the words are: puppet, intelligent, representative, and judgments respectively but, I'll ignore that because, it truly is trite. 

If you notice, I had already addressed the interviews in my previous post and how they were butchered in a biased way. I brought the interviews up immediately because, this is a TALKING point with liberals. This is what they get in their emails from Barber Boxer or, Nancy Pelosi or, some other left wing nut sending out bullet points for democraps to talk about. 

He was so eager to bring up the interviews, that he didn't even read my previous post. So, his answer was given to me in a round about way. He thinks she's scary because she is a "god freak." 


Let me just say, for a group of people who claim to be so tolerant, so accepting, so politically correct, they bow down to anyone that is a minority, they kiss ass with anyone that says they are a part of sexual deviant group, fine...but, wow do they show their utter nastiness when it comes to G-d. 

I, personally, have such a hard time hearing the words, "G-d d---," and "J---- C-----!" I cringe. I, also, if you notice do not even spell G-d's name out to show my respect for Him. This is not something I have to do. This is a choice I have made and I realize that not everyone does that; it doesn't bother me terribly when people spell His name out but, when people do not capitalize the word G-d, when referring to one True G-d, AND they are liberal and a part of the "PC movement" I DO get upset. Why am I, as a Christian in training, not afforded the same "sensitivity"? 


At the same time, I do get over this easily, because, I am not into PC crap. I just find it annoying how selective these folks are and, they flat out refuse to recognize this. 


So, I simply pointed out that there is nothing wrong with a belief in G-d. I had to repeat that the interviews with Palin were chopped up and biased. 


Bottom line, his point:


Other than, any political opinion you've ever said is really a moot point. Because you would base your vote only if he/she subscribes to the same invisible space god as you do.
Too bad. We need less god.

 This type of response just floors me.

Then, of course, he does what every atheist does:


So the bible is perfect and so you live by it? 

Let's attack the Bible because, you know, it was written by man. This is such an odd argument to me. I go by the KJV and yes, there are some flaws but, it's perfect in it's own right. The Bible was written in a way that it's translations were reviewed several times and scrutinized, a truly democratic way of translating the words. So, yes, I trust the Bible and, see it's wisdom.

The liberal however will spend about two-thirds of their argument attacking the Bible, saying it's stupid to believe in a book (that ironically has been protected all these years...I mean, what other books have survived that long?), that it was written by man so, it's just a flawed book and filled with out-dated ideas, ect. We've all heard these arguments before but, then, these same people want to put their whole lives from cradle-to-the grave in the hands of a government, ran by man????  I just don't get it at all.

You can't have it  both ways. Christians admit that the Bible has flaws to a degree. It is perfect in it's own right.We know man is flawed; that is exactly why we trust ourselves to make the best decisions for our lives. We also trust that others can make their own decisions for their lives. When you have the government making all your decision, that is not freedom and, you are putting your trust in another flawed man.

At least, most the atheists I know are actually conservative or, libertarian. That is at least consistent with their beliefs.

Yet, to this man, Christian conservatives are scary and, "don't have a grasp on reality."