lekh l'kha

I think that it has to do with to what extent Christians in any congregation, from "overseer" level down are determined to remain "in" but totally "set apart" from the world. The difficulty for Christ's churches down through the ages is, we live in a culture with a "zeitgeist" - a "spirit of the age"; and a culture with a paradigm; and a culture with a world-outlook. Not only do we grow up with it, we grow up in it, and the culture of the day affects the church. This situation becomes even more accented when the church is accepted by society as a part of society, and is free to meet, to teach, to proselytize ("proselytize" in the eyes of society). Persecution separates the real sheep from the others, and the sheep become truly "set apart". Jesus does not expect us to separate ourselves physically from the world around us - but He does command us to separate ourselves mentally, spiritually, and even socially (certain parties are not fit for saints to join). Instead, the church in general brings the society of the day with its zeitgeist and culture into the church - through its world-outlook, its music, its dress, its customs, its everything. Would Jesus walk into a church and feel comfortable while the kind of music played by some church-bands is being played? Would He ever have walked into a church where people were curtsying to statues and praying to dead saints? How many churches would Jesus walk into? The thing for the 7 churches is the same as the thing for today's churches - dead (no longer even preach the one and only true gospel), or lukewarm, or spiritually adulterous, venerating false prophets (the Jezebels of the day) and money. And it's always intimately linked with the extent to which individual Christians in individual congregations are prepared to "come out of the world and be separate". Anyway, that's my opinion.

Truth is always objective. It is not religious, personal or relativist. Just as the earth was always round, even though a few hundred years back millions believed it was flat, what we believe or don't believe doesn't change anything (and there are still some who believe the earth is flat). One could say, "O.K, you believe the earth is flat. That's your truth. I believe the earth is round. That's my truth. If your truth works for you, cool. But this is my truth, and it works for me." That reasoning might sound tolerant, but it's not logical. Truth is not relativist. Jesus said that if we have enough faith, we could move mountains. Did He mean that if I firmly believe Jupiter is the third rock from the sun it'll move there and earth will be bumped out of it's place? No. That's not what He meant. No matter what anyone believes or doesn't believe, it has no effect on the truth. Truth is not dependent on what anyone believes or doesn't believe. Truth is always objective. There is no such thing as personal truth, relative truth or even religious truth, because no matter what religion teaches about God, He is what and who He is, and nothing can change it. Is that my truth? No. It's God's truth. If you've never met your father, you will never know him until you meet him and get to know him for who and what he is. It's the same with truth. And it's the same with God, because God = truth. And truth is truth, whether we believe it or not. It's not relative, subjective or religious. But it is knowable.

Theory based upon theory based upon theory based upon theory.... Not even science believes it, as can be seen from what the scientists say about the beginning of time, space and matter. I could come up with a theory about anything - what point is there in musing about it though? Will it lead you to God? Will it lead you to a knowledge of the truth?

Amen, fez. Spirit = Breath It was the Breath of God that "blew the balloon of the universe up"

This reminds of the theory of "time dilation" that was forwarded by Dr. Gerald Schroeder who is a scientist out of Israel. He believes that the long history of the earth can be reconciled with the six days of creation by this theory. To put it simply he believes that the earth is roughly 15 billion years old from man's perspective, but only six days long from God's perspective. Not sure I really go along with that. I only mention it because what you posted reminds of it. Thanks, Shiloh. It might be the person I was thinking about, but I could only explain what I understood him to be saying, or at least the basics of it - if I even understood what he was saying

Another thing about all this is, where are the bones of all Lucy's relatives (she must have had quite a few, surely?) And where are the fossilized bones of all the in-between "Lucy" and human stage and the in-between ape and Lucy stage? Honestly, if man evolved from ape, then not only should there be, but there would be fossils and bones scattered in the soil of the earth all over the world, and a great deal more should have been found by now. The TOTAL lack of them stands out like a sore thumb...err, sorry...tooth... against all the claims natural scientists have made about "Lucy". In fact the lack of them stands out against all the ape-to-man evolution nonsense. When I read the information provided by natural scientists such as the info at http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/ , I can just feel my IQ points dropping as I read. Sounds like a lot of nutty monkey-business to me. Makes me wanna go out and find some bananas.

"Lucy's mandible also shows traits of both chimpanzees and modern humans as can be seen in the following image taken from Zihlman's coloring book. Apes' mandibles show parallel rows of molars as opposed to the wide U-shape of modern human. Lucy's dentition is a cross between ape and human in that the overall shape is apelike while the canine tooth size resembles that of modern humans. In the chimp's mandible, we see a space between its incisors and large canine, which does not occur in Australopithecus Afarensis females. Furthermore, we see a reduction of incisor and canine tooth size more in line with that of a modern human while the molars are closer to the chimps' in size. The canine, however, is large and asymmetric and projects slightly beyond the tooth row (Johanson, White 1979). It is believed that Lucy feasted mostly on fruits and fibrous materials, climbing trees occasionally for food (Tattersall 1996). However, the enamel is thicker on the Australopithecus afarensis molar than on either the chimpanzee or human (Zihlman 2000)." ( http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/ ) If you ask me, it doesn't matter how much theory a man or woman has studied and how many qualifications they have. When it comes to putting pieces of fossilized bones together, all it takes is human imagination. , and that human imagination will be greatly influenced by their pre-conceived beliefs regarding creation/evolution. I simply don't trust what natural history scientists tell us about the fossils and bones they find, whether or not they make false claims for the sake of sensationalism, name, and money. Even if they're honest, their knowledge of theory isn't going to be the only factor in what they decide about the bones they find - their human imagination and preconceived beliefs regarding evolution/creation will have a huge impact on what they tell us "ignoramouses". For all we know, "Lucy" is an extinct species of Ape.

Mine too - and her son

Why so much confrontation, martin? If your brother doesn't agree with your point of view, hey, you never know, maybe he's right

That's a brilliant analogy, abbershay Wow! I was struck by the fact that this article shows that scientists know that the big bang suddenly occurred, bringing time, space and matter into existence from nowhere and from nothing, yet they freely admit that they cannot explain why and still won't admit that this is what the Bible has said all along - that the heavens and the earth were created "in the beginning" of time, space and matter, and that 1 millionth of a second before this, there was nothing (except God). In fact, there wasn't even a millionth of a second before, because there was no time before. It just happened - in the beginning of time, space and matter. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen 1:1)

Quote: 'Time does not switch on in Hartle and Hawking's theory, it emerges continuously from space. There is no first moment at which time starts, but neither does it extend backwards for all eternity' unquote (From "The Day Time Began")

"THE DAY TIME BEGAN Don't ask me what came before the big bang,says physicist Paul Davies. Time and space only popped into existence at that instant, so the question doesn't apply. But what made it happen and where did the laws of physics come from? CAN science explain how the Universe began? Even suggestions to that effect have provoked an angry and passionate response from many quarters. Religious people tend to see the claim as a move to finally abolish God the Creator. Atheists are equally alarmed, because the notion of the Universe coming into being from nothing looks suspiciously like the creation, ex nihilo, of Christianity. The general sense of indignation was well expressed by writer Fay Weldon. " Who cares about half a second after the big bang," she railed in 1991 in a scathing newspaper attack on scientific cosmology. "What about the half a second before?" What indeed. The simple answer is that, in the standard picture of the cosmic origin, there was no such moment as "half a second before." To see why, we need to examine this standard picture in more detail. The first point to address is why anyone believes the Universe began at a finite moment in time. How do we know that it hasn't simply been around for ever? Most cosmologists reject this alternative because of the severe problem of the second law of thermodynamics. Applied to the Universe as a whole, this law states that the cosmos is on a one-way slide towards a state of maximum disorder, or entropy. Irreversible changes, such as the gradual consumption of fuel by the Sun and stars, ensure that the Universe must eventually "run down" and exhaust its supplies of useful energy. It follows that the Universe cannot have been drawing on this finite stock of useful energy for all eternity. 'The Universe cannot have been drawing on this finite stock of useful energy for all eternity' Body of evidence Direct evidence for a cosmic origin in a big bang comes from three observations. The first, and most direct, is that the Universe is still expanding today. The second is the existence of a pervasive heat radiation that is neatly explained as the fading afterglow of the primeval fire that accompanied the big bang. The third strand of evidence is the relative abundances of the chemical elements, which can be correctly accounted for in terms of nuclear processes in the hot dense phase that followed the big bang. But what caused the big bang to happen? Where is the centre of the explosion? Where is the edge of the Universe? Why didn't the big bang turn into a black hole? These are some of the questions that bemused members of the audience always ask whenever I lecture on this topic. Though they seem pertinent, they are in fact based on an entirely false picture of the big bang. To understand the correct picture, it is first necessary to have a clear idea of what the expansion of the Universe entails. Contrary to popular belief, it is not the explosive dispersal of galaxies from a common centre into the depths of a limitless void. The best way of viewing it is to imagine the space between the galaxies expanding or swelling. The idea that space can stretch, or be warped, is a central prediction of Einstein's general theory of relativity, and has been well enough tested by observation for all professional cosmologists to accept it. According to general relativity, space-time is not a static arena, but an aspect of the gravitational field. This field manifests itself as a warping, or curvature, of space-time geometry, and when it comes to the large scale structure of the Universe, such a warping occurs in the form of space being stretched with time. A helpful, albeit two-dimensional, analogy for the expanding Universe is a balloon with paper spots stuck to the surface. As the balloon is inflated, so the spots, which play the role of galaxies, move apart from each other. Note that it is the surface of the balloon, not the volume within, that represents the three-dimensional Universe. Now, imagine playing the cosmic movie backwards, so that the balloon shrinks rather than expands. If the balloon were perfectly spherical (and the rubber sheet infinitely thin), at a certain time in the past the entire balloon would shrivel to a speck. This is the beginning. Translated into statements about the real Universe, I am describing an origin in which space itself comes into existence at the big bang and expands from nothing to form a larger and larger volume. The matter and energy content of the Universe likewise originates at or near the beginning, and populates the Universe everywhere at all times. Again, I must stress that the speck from which space emerges is not located in anything. It is not an object surrounded by emptiness. It is the origin of space itself, infinitely compressed. Note that the speck does not sit there for an infinite duration. It appears instantaneously from nothing and immediately expands. If the big bang was the beginning of time itself, then any discussion about what happened before the big bang, or what caused it-in the usual sense of physical causation-is simply meaningless. Why should time suddenly "switch on"? What explanation can be given for such a singular event? Until recently, it seemed that any explanation of the initial "singularity" that marked the origin of time would have to lie beyond the scope of science. However, it all depends on what is meant by "explanation." All children have a good idea of the notion of cause and effect, and usually an explanation of an event entails finding something that caused it. It turns out, however, that there are physical events which do not have well-defined causes in the manner of the everyday world. These events belong to a weird branch of scientific inquiry called quantum physics. Mostly, quantum events occur at the atomic level; we don't experience them in daily life. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally. A typical quantum process is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all. You cannot predict these occurrences. All you can do is give the probability-there is a fifty-fifty chance that a given nucleus will decay in, say, one hour. This uncertainty is not simply a result of our ignorance of all the little forces and influences that try to make the nucleus decay; it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of quantum reality. The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity. It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event. Inevitably, scientists will not be content to leave it at that. We would like to flesh out the details of this profound concept. There is even a subject devoted to it, called quantum cosmology. Two famous quantum cosmologists, James Hartle and Stephen Hawking, came up with a clever idea that goes back to Einstein. Einstein not only found that space and time are part of the physical universe; he also found that they are linked in a very intimate way. In fact, space on its own and time on its own are no longer properly valid concepts. Instead, we must deal with a unified "space-time" continuum. Space has three dimensions, and time has one, so space-time is a four-dimensional continuum. In spite of the space-time linkage, however, space is space and time is time under almost all circumstances. Whatever space-time distortions gravitation may produce, they never turn space into time or time into space. An exception arises, though, when quantum effects are taken into account. That all-important intrinsic uncertainty that afflicts quantum systems can be applied to space-time, too. In this case, the uncertainty can, under special circumstances, affect the identities of space and time. For a very, very brief duration, it is possible for time and space to merge in identity, for time to become, so to speak, spacelike-just another dimension of space. The spatialization of time is not something abrupt; it is a continuous process. Viewed in reverse as the temporalization of (one dimension of) space, it implies that time can emerge out of space in a continuous process. (By continuous, I mean that the timelike quality of a dimension, as opposed to its spacelike quality, is not an all-or-nothing affair; there are shades in between. This vague statement can be made quite precise mathematically.) The essence of the Hartle-Hawking idea is that the big bang was not the abrupt switching on of time at some singular first moment, but the emergence of time from space in an ultrarapid but nevertheless continuous manner. On a human time scale, the big bang was very much a sudden, explosive origin of space, time, and matter. But look very, very closely at that first tiny fraction of a second and you find that there was no precise and sudden beginning at all. So here we have a theory of the origin of the universe that seems to say two contradictory things: First, time did not always exist; and second, there was no first moment of time. Such are the oddities of quantum physics. Even with these further details thrown in, many people feel cheated. They want to ask why these weird things happened, why there is a universe, and why this universe. Perhaps science cannot answer such questions. Science is good at telling us how, but not so good on the why. Maybe there isn't a why. To wonder why is very human, but perhaps there is no answer in human terms to such deep questions of existence. Or perhaps there is, but we are looking at the problem in the wrong way. Well, I didn't promise to provide the answers to life, the universe, and everything, but I have at least given a plausible answer to the question I started out with: What happened before the big bang? The answer is: Nothing." (End quote) Quote from: "What happened before the Big Bang, by Paul Davies: http://members.fortunecity.com/templarser/big-bang.html and "The Day Time Began", by Paul Davies: http://members.fortunecity.com/templarser/daybegan.html I know why it happened: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen 1:1) lekh

I was doing some research. Actually, I was trying to find the name of the Jewish Hebrew-Uni Prof, who developed a thesis which seeks to prove that since time-space is stretched/warped in an ever-expanding universe (and I'm putting into my own words what he said), the earth and the universe can be both old and young at the same time, since the universe is roughly 3.5 billion years old only according to our position in stretched/warped time-space (which is relative, since universal time-space is stretched/warped), and what may be 3.5 billion years in stretched/warped time-space may in reality be only around 10,000 years. But I didn't find it, because the article has been removed from the Jewish website which originally published it. Instead, I found the following articles somewhere else, written by another scientist, PAUL DAVIES. The things he said I find absolutely fascinating and eye-opening: This is copied and pasted from a web-site, the link to which I will give at the bottom of this article: "PAUL DAVIES is a theoretical physicist and professor of natural philosophy at the University of Adelaide. He has published over one hundred research papers in the fields of cosmology, gravitation, and quantum field theory, with particular emphasis on black holes and the origin of the universe. He is also interested in the nature of time, high-energy particle physics, the foundations of quantum mechanics, and the theory of complex systems. He runs a research group in quantum gravity which is currently investigating superstrings, cosmic strings, higher-dimensional black holes, and quantum cosmology. Davies is well known as an author, broadcaster, and public lecturer. He has written over twenty books, ranging from specialist textbooks to popular books for the general public. Among his better-known works are God and the New Physics; Superforce; The Cosmic Blueprint; and The Mind God. His most recent books are The Last Three Minutes and It's About Time. He was described by the Washington Times as "the best science writer on either side of the Atlantic." He likes to focus on the deep questions of existence, such as how the universe came into existence and how it will end, the nature of human consciousness, the possibility of time travel, the relationship between physics and biology, the status of the laws of physics, and the interface of science and religion." O.K. So there's the man's credentials. And here are some of the fascinating facts he talks about (next post):

Not a scientist, but perhaps I could clear things up a little. One reason you might be confused here is in using the word "chaos", after all what does this really mean? If we take a look at the particles in a frozen glass of water they should be nice and packed together, perhaps vibrating slightly but not actually going anywhere like this. Now we would usually say that this represents

I believe you're right about the former part, Fez. He holds all things together, and we know His name and His Son's name: "Who has gone up to Heaven and has come down? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in His garments? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son's name? Surely you know." (Pro 30:4) "And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist." (Col 1:17) "For in Him we live and move and have our being, as also certain of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring." (Act 17:28) If He was before all (created) things, then it must mean there was nothing except God, then there was contracted chaos, then a bang. And it will all return to chaos and nothingness if He doesn't hold it all together: "... who being the shining splendor of His glory, and the express image of His essence, and upholding all things by the word of His power, through Himself cleansing of our sins, He sat down on the right of the Majesty on high," (Heb 1:3) I want a scientist to explain to me how there is any order at all if the natural state of matter is chaos. There must be some super-natural force at work if the natural state is random and chaos. Show me what force is upholding all things and preventing everything from returning to its natural state, and I'll show you God. lekh.

This is all very interesting, even though trying to understand the language and terminology used by some is at times worse than a new Christian or non-Christian trying to work out what is meant by Christians when they say things such as pre-mill, a-mill, post-mill, pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib, Calvinistic, Augustinian, etc, etc As someone who has no idea of scientific facts, I have a question though: Whatever happened to "the natural state of matter is random" (or was it "the natural state of matter is chaotic)? (And I don't think whoever said it was talking about the human brain, either). How does this fit into the picture of having any order at all in the universe? Then I also want to ask, (because I read about a scientist at Israel's Hebrew University bringing out the following theory): If time slows down relative to the distance from the "epicenter" of the big bang (as science says it does), and if matter and the universe spread out and expanded at a certain rate from the epicenter, but that rate of expansion slowed relative to the distance from the epicenter, then does this not mean that relative to our position in our galaxy, the universe is x billion years old, but moving closer to the epicenter of the big bang where time moves faster and the rate of expansion is faster, the universe is much younger? This scientist made some calculations and came up with the theory? that if the age of the universe were measured at the "epicenter" (I can't remember the word he used) of the big bang, the universe would be around 6,000 years old, but measured from our position relative to the epicenter, it's x billion years old (whatever it is according to science, I don't remember, 'cause I'm not old enough!). lekh

Hey, Chelsea7. Here's what I think of the part of the video wherein they say that America arranged its own 9/11: Rubbish! Reason: I watched the original video claiming this, too, and the steel "drum-wheels" (or whatever they called it in the video) that were found on the ground at the Pentagon crash site, which they said were the wheels that electric cables or something were delivered in (because according to them there had been renovations undertaken of that section of the Pentagon), I recognized immediately to be the rims of Boeing wheels - I worked for 10 years on the apron (loading area) of an airport, and I know what Boeing rims look like, and what size they are. Here's what I think of the New World Order conspiracy: You'll never find the light by groping around in the darkness - the light is the Word of God and conspiracy-theories are a bottomless pit - no-one will ever get to the bottom of them to find out how much (if any) truth is in them. The Bible tells us that everyone will eventually be forced to receive a mark and that no-one will be able to buy or sell without the mark. I personally take this up literally, and believe that technology will be used to achieve this. But the Bible doesn't tell us the names of the people, organizations and countries that will be involved in bringing this about, or how it will be brought about. Conspiracies have been around since the fall of Adam, anyway - ask Cain I don't like it when I hear about the eradication of individual freedoms, but I don't see how anyone's going to stop "them" from carrying out "their" plans when we're not really sure who "they" are or what "their" plans are, and we have to grope around trying to find the bottom of the bottomless pit in conspiracy-theories in order to find out whose lying and whose telling the truth. God has in any case told us in the Bible what's going to come at the end of the age - so I'd rather stick to the light of the Word of God than fret about videos claiming that King Kong, Donald Duck and Minny Mouse are in cahoots and are planning to take over the world and bring us all into slavery. I know I've had a lot to say in this thread about this, and I apologize. It's just that I know how these conspiracy-theory videos are used by America's enemies to spread anti-U.S propaganda. I won't say another word, promise

D'oh! Yes, thank-you. I'm careful about prophecy, too. I admire how you explained things, though. That was good! Thanks. I just watched a few more parts of that video, and I heard the claim "the New World Order is really just the Anglo-Saxon World Order" and something was said about "the Anglo-Saxon Empire" now being incorporated into America instead of into Britain. NOW I understand why the Muslims in my country have been phoning into talk-show radio stations and running down "the evil Anglo-Saxon race" and the U.S.A, and asserting that it's "the Anglo-Saxon race" who are responsible for all the world's woes. You see, the world's problems are never caused by the wars and acts of terrorism started by fundamentalist Muslims and based on Islamic theology. No. The world's problems are caused by the evil plans of the Anglo-Saxon race and their drive for a new (Anglo-Saxon) World Order. The world's problems are never caused by the evils of ideologies such as communism, or by the power-hungry, corrupt dictators in Africa who are prepared to kill to get to the top and to kill in order to stay there, and couldn't care less if all the citizens in their countries who fall outside the ruling elite (and their families) starve to death. No. The world's problems are caused by the evils of the Anglo-Saxon race and their drive for a new (Anglo-Saxon) World Order. This is exactly what I've heard coming out of the mouths of Muslims on talk-show radio in my country, and I wondered where they were getting this new "evil Anglo-Saxon race" thing from. Turns out they got it from the same place they got their "America arranged it's own 9/11 in order to have an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq". These people who produce videos like this are making the world hate YOU, not your government. Forget about the fact that America was called "the great Satan" by the Iranian regime from the early 80's onward, and that the Iranian revolution sparked a world-wide Islamic revival that was accompanied by more and more attacks on American institutions, embassies etc, until the big attack on American soil in 2001, which was the reason the American government decided that it was time to try to get the Middle East out of the hands of fundamentalist Islamic terrorists and dictators. So the Bush administration underestimated the power of Islamic religious zeal and they failed to accomplish what they set out to accomplish - so what? At least they had the guts to try. I remember 5 years ago already how Christian and non-Christian economists alike were warning in magazine articles and on the internet that the way people were buying on debt was going to cause the bubble to burst eventually - and the bubble did burst. Why are we so shocked that the debt-bubble burst? The problem with videos like this is that they make a lot of assumptions and distribute a lot of misinformation, and ascribe a lot of motives and plans and schemes to powerful people, without providing evidence that would stand up in a court of law. At least we all know that our politicians lie to us. But we now live in an age where we just don't know anymore whose doing the deceiving. Makes you think: "But evil men and seducers will go forward to worse, deceiving and being deceived." (2Ti 3:13) We know we're not living in the Kingdom of Christ because of all the deception going on - but who says that the people who produce those videos aren't part of the deception? Come, Lord Jesus!

You mean the iron legs, nebula! (I know you know that, just saying ) Maybe we can find the answer in history: The two legs of iron represent the Roman Empire, and the Roman Empire split into Eastern (Byzantine) and Western halves in the 4th century. The Eastern (Byzantine) and Eastern Orthodox part of the Roman Empire was eventually completely taken over by Islam, but the Muslim armies did this gradually from the early 7th century onward, through invasions of more and more of the Eastern Empire's territory, until the Byzantine Empire had been completely overrun by Islam and replaced by the Ottoman-Turk (Islamic) Empire. The "Christian" Crusades came about when (finally) even the Capital of the former great Byzantine Empire (Constantinople, now Istanbul) came under threat of succumbing to Islamic invasion: The Byzantine Emperor asked the Pope for help, and the Crusades began. Muslims never mention the fact that it was the Islamic Crusades against the Byzantine Empire which sparked the "Christian" Crusades in the first place. The Ottoman-Turk Empire was defeated in the first world war, and its territory fell into the hands of Britain, who then handed it over to the rulers of the modern Middle-Eastern states we now know as Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and (falsely as) "Palestine". (I don't remember if Iran was also part of the Ottoman-Turk Empire). The Arab League was formed sometime later. Since the end of WWII, the E.U has signed many social, cultural, political, and even some military agreements with the Arab League nations, in an attempt to form a trade-block with the Arab-League nations as a counterweight to American power. They're "mixing with the seed of men, but not adhering to one another" (which is exactly what Daniel says about the meaning of the iron/clay mixture in the feet). The three animal symbols which are used to represent the beast of Revelation 13 (the one that rises from the sea) are the same three that Daniel used in Daniel 7 to represent the former empires of Greece, Medo-Persia and Babylon. Those empires incorporated what today is Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Turkey and Greece. With the exception of Greece, these nations are what we now know as the Islamic Middle-East. I believe it all fits with history. The two feet can only be the two former halves of the Roman Empire - the Middle-East and the E.U. Five of the 10 final "kings" are on one foot, and five on another. I don't know if that means anything? I could be so completely wrong about all that. And I get really worried about opening my mouth about prophecy, because I've seen too many unnecessary and ugly fights break out between brothers about it. Whether we're wrong or right about our understanding of Biblical prophecy is not going to make the slightest difference to what's going to happen. I personally will be watching everything President Obama does and says, and especially any agreements he makes with Muslim nations. But I won't be assigning any last-days role to any politician until he's made his own role apparent by his actions. I'm going to have to get hold of that video so that I can watch the whole thing

I don't know if the President of any country (not even the United States) has the power over the presidents of all other countries (including those whose ideologies are at odds with his own), to knowingly and deliberately introduce global policies and a global program specifically aimed at subjecting whole populations to slavery. I don't believe that the leaders of the E.U for example, are aware that the choices they make today might be paving the way for the rise of the antichrist. They do what they do in ignorance of the eventual outcome. The same goes for Obama. Human leaders do things, plan things and implement decisions while not having the foresight (or enough foresight) to know what those decisions are going to lead to. The war ultimately is a spiritual war being fought by the forces of darkness against God. I don't actually believe that our human governments know what Satan's plan is (and he does have a plan), nor are our human presidents willingly cooperating with him. They all think that what they're doing is good and right, not realizing that often (if not most of the time) they're a tool in the hands of the god of this world, their thinking influenced by the god of this world because through their rejection of God and His one and only true gospel, their minds are blinded. But they don't realize that. They think that what they do is good and right. So when they make decisions which will eventually lead to the rise of the antichrist, they do so in ignorance, not deliberately. But God is ultimately in control of all history, and will use the plans, schemes and decisions of man to bring His own plans to fruition, thus thwarting Satan's plan. I think that conspiracy-theorists also ignore or down-play the popular vote. Obama is the President of the United States because most Americans wanted him in that office. In South Africa, we now have a president who was charged by the National Prosecuting Authority with a whole list of crimes including fraud, corruption, accepting bribes when he was a government minister and when he was the deputy President, and tax evasion. He was fired as the deputy president, but managed to keep stalling the court case against him, and the charges were eventually dropped by the National Prosecuting Authority on a minor trumped-up technicality because the whole case was threatening the outbreak of a civil war, because 67% of South Africans support the man. And that's why he's our president today - the general elections took place in April of this year. And that's why Obama's the president of the U.S.A - not because of his real and/or alleged links with the illuminati and the Bilderbergers and the freemasons and the what-not. As a non-American I think he's dangerous for Americans because he seems to think America can appease it's enemies into becoming it's friends. But that's just my own opinion. But conspiracy theorists provided and placed a major anti-America propaganda tool in the hands of the world's Muslims in all parts of the world, including my own country: The videos produced by Americans claiming 9/11 was an inside job and orchestrated by the Bush administration to provide an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, has been used to the fullest by Muslims to spread anti-American propaganda and hatred. Nearly every Imam has made sure every Muslim has a copy, and nearly every Muslim encourages non-Muslims to watch it. And since some Americans themselves are gullible enough to believe such trash, what do you think people in other parts of the world will believe? Conspiracy-theorists can bring, and have already brought a great amount of damage to the United States and to the image non-Americans have of America. I just think we need to bear all these things in mind before we listen to the claims of conspiracy-theorists. lekh

I can't download the Obama Deception video Please can't someone give me a very basic summary of claims are made by the video? What does the ObamaDeception entail? You can PM me if you like, or post it up here. I'm very interested indeed. Just the main points (although you can give as much info about the video as you like, I'd still be interested). Lekh

http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1026381 South Africa has had an identity-number system for decades. It's a long number, the first 6 digits of which is your date and place of birth, and the last three of which contains information about your race, marital status, etc. Without an I.D number and bar-coded I.D book, South Africans can do nothing - you can't get a job, can't open a bank account (or any account), can't get a driver's license, can't register as a tax-payer, can't vote, can't do anything. Trouble is, South Africa has already become notorious for identity-theft. Many have wanted to get married, only to discover they're already married (on electronic paper), or wanted to draw unemployment benefits, only to discover they had been doing so for the past 6 months, or wanted to apply for a state pension, only to discover they're already dead, and their life insurance policy paid out to their "beneficiaries". You couldn't of course, get a cell-phone account with a cell phone company on a contract basis without your I.D number, residential and postal address, etc. That means that as long as everyone who has a cell-phone contract has his phone on him wherever he goes, the authorities will be able to know all his movements and pinpoint his position at any given time. And nobody in South Africa leaves their cell phones lying around in the car or anywhere else, because all South Africans know that if you leave your cell phone lying around, it'll be gone by the time you get back to it, and your car window will be smashed. 95-98% of all South Africans over the age of 18 own and use a cell-phone - even the poorest of the poor, since it's their only means of communicating with distant relatives, and few poor people have land-line telephones. But tomorrow July 1st, 2009, the South African Parliament will be passing a law that will give 18 months for every cell phone owner, whether he/she is on a pre-paid (pay-as-you-go) or a contract basis, to present their bar-coded I.D books to the cell phone company or their agents, and to register their names and addresses. Failure to do so within 18 months will result in the deactivation of your sim-card. No new sim-card may be sold from July 1st, 2009, without a bar-coded I.D being presented and the necessary details being taken, including names and physical address. The government says it's necessary in the fight against South Africa's extremely high crime rate, since it is possible to pinpoint the exact location of anyone carrying a cellphone using a triangular system (the cell-phone antenae in South Africa are placed in strategic positions so that wherever you are with your cell-phone, you are in a triangle between three cell-phone antenae. And since many criminals use their cell-phones to plan their thing, deals etc with one another, the government has found this step necessary. So within 18 months from July 1st, 2009, it will be legally possible for the South African government to monitor the the daily movements and pinpoint the exact location of 95-98% of South Africa's adult population, as long as they have their cell phones on them. It's always been easy for the authorities to know where a S.A citizen stays, since even if you've moved without notifying homeland affairs, they can get it from the banks, the revenue services, the traffic authorities (since it's required to renew your driver's license every 5 years and your car kicense every year), or any store where you have an account. With your I.D number they can do anything. Think about it - how difficult is it to steal someone else's identity - walk up the street and stick your hand in someone's mailbox - you then already have their name and address. All you have to do is to redouble your efforts to find out their I.D number. Then pay a bank teller a nice sum of money to give you the I.D number of their account holder, if you noticed a letter from the bank in the mailbox. Or pay someone at the traffic authorities a nice sum of money if you pulled a car-license renewal notice out of the mailbox. This is why fraud and identity theft are already such a major problem in South Africa. So now the criminals will be doing their deals using sim-cards registered on your name. South Africa legalized abortion years ago already, and last year a law was passed permitting any girl from 12 years old and over to be allowed to walk into any abortion clinic and have an abortion without the knowledge or consent of her parents or anyone else. Gay marriages were legalized in South Africa long, long before Obama was even heard of in America. I'm starting to feel as though South Africa is being used as the guinea pig for what's coming to the rest of the world.

And I think that's very well said

I debate with Christians a lot. I'm used to stalemates. Good, and by the tone of what you said, you go round and round in circles just for fun. I regard that as stupidity. So after this final reply to you, I'm outta this thread. ...OK, see, people do this all the time. It's called "admitting you're wrong". Nobody likes doing it, but (generally speaking) we still do it anyway when we've been shown that we are. This is not a catch-22. I've been around for too long and known too many people who fought against what they knew to be true, and who did exactly what I mentioned above, only to eventually at a time of crisis own up to it, and then later admit that they knew it was true all along, even though for years they would throw the same arguments you are throwing up in these posts of yours in this thread. Well...not really. This was incorporated into my own catch-22 statement. OK, we have to receive the Holy Spirit's testimony in order to believe. Fine. But we have to believe in order to get the testimony. But in order to believe, we need the testimony. But in order to get the testimony we have to believe. But in order to believe... See what I'm getting at? No. Wesley taught that. Calvin taught something else. Personally, I don't care who taught what - because I know that the Spirit of God had to testify to my human spirit before I could believe - I did not have to believe in order to receive the conviction and testimony of God - He gave both to me while I was still in unbelief. It is God who produced the faith in Me, and still produces it (it never stops, as long as I do not deliberately turn away from Him or push Him away). Without the constant and consistent presence and witness and comfort and guidance and conviction and rebuke and inspiration of the Spirit of Christ, I know I would fall away from believing in Him. It is all of His mercy, every single day of my life. That is my experience, and I don't care which Christian big-shot taught what about it. I'm outta this thread now. Have fun terrorizing some other Christian while you're having fun going round and round in circles arguing with him, Thracious. You get your kick out of it, if that's what your kick is. lekh

I'm going to answer your second question first: Believe there's an equal comparison between the two groups, if you want to: The one group had seen something, they were convinced they had seen it, and they were prepared to die for their testimony to what they had seen - not to kill for it. The other group are convinced of something they have not seen, and are prepared to kill for it, even if they must die in the process of killing for it. I'm not going to argue this point with you any further - you make up your mind about it. I don't agree with your implication, so if you stick to it, we're stale-mated on that issue. Here's the catch 22 of the non-believer: If he believes that there is sufficient evidence of the resurrection and yet (for whatever reason - and there are many reasons why people would do this) he does not want to believe in the resurrection, then either he must accept the resurrection even if he doesn't want to, or he must deny that there is sufficient evidence, even though his logic tells him there is sufficient evidence. It is up to the individual to decide for himself whether or not there is sufficient evidence of the resurrection, and let each man be a free man. But I notice that you did not comment on my insistence that ultimately, it is the Holy Spirit of God Himself who gives God's testimony to the resurrection of Jesus. Perhaps you've done that out of respect, because you don't believe what I said about it, perhaps not, I don't know. If you've been quiet out of respect, then thank you. Nevertheless, I personally feel (from previous experience in these sorts of threads) that if you and I go on much further about the issue of evidence for the resurrection, we'll be arguing the same points over and over again, and going round and round in circles. In some Christian forums, you'll find people doing just that for fun. But to me, going round and round in circles and not getting anywhere is no fun, it's stupidity. But that doesn't mean that I'm denying you the opportunity of bringing a fresh argument or that I won't necessarily answer you - it only means that I'm asking you to please not be one of those non-believers who argues and argues round and round in circles with Christians in Christian internet forums just for fun. Once two opposing viewpoints have reached a stalemate with no room to budge, there's no point in continuing to win the game (not that I think this is a game, believe me, I don't). lekh