Meta_Agape

Yeah, I kind of expected a few of them to be critiqued, especially Einstein. Anyway don't be dismayed, there are a lot more traiditional Ph.D. types out there these days than the media acknowledges, I wonder why, because the media is all monopoly controlled! But that is another story altogether... http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

I've been through hard relationships as well. Have been cheated on two times each in 3 long term relationships. You have to come to accept that he is not the one for you and that God has someone else for you. Suicide is also not the answer, if you succeeded in that you would also be cutting short your testimony and ministry! That would be a shame, we have no idea what each new day will bring, what new people, new experiences and people who we may be able to bring to the knowledge of Christ. If we put ourselves first before Christ then that is seemingly irrelevant in our mind at the time. So the question is who do we put first, ourselves or Christ? Also all true joy comes from God and not from either the things of this world or the people in it, the book of Ecclesiastes is a testament to that. I highly recommend you read this study of Ecclesiastes http://www.raystedman.org/old-testament/ecclesiastes it has helped me a lot in the past and continues to, Ecclesiastes is one of my personal absolute favorite books of the Bible. When you feel this way, this sadness about this man, who are you really turning to and looking upon for joy, this mortal, sinful man, or... God? It's worth consideration. Well, I feel for you, we are all human. Hopefully the study on Ecclesiastes I provided will prove helpful for you to grow spiritually and move beyond the sufferings of the world and find true joy in God. I hope for me too as well, in all reality it is a struggle and a choice every single day for all of us. Not only are you suffering but everyone else suffers as well, we all have that in common! That, is for sure... May we all find peace and joy in God, that is the only real way and place to look for true everlasting peace and joy. Some times perhaps these types of phrases can seem overused to the point of being cliche, but I hope that this link I provided may help you to discover the deeper meaning of that phrase "finding true everlasting peace and joy in God" to intimately understand, know and feel the deep implications of the phrase, now that is to go beyond the mere cliche of the phrase and truly possess it inside ones spirit in a personal closeness to God beyond the temporary world that is like a leaf blowing away in the wind. Again, the struggle is really a day to day one and one I must often remind myself of as well... Anyway, hope this all helped some, peace & hope you feel better!

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible. Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism) Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled! Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts. Rene Descartes (1596-1650) Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began publishing a theological work, Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most influential theological work, the Pensées ("Thoughts"), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous concept from Pensées was Pascal's Wager. Pascal's last words were, "May God never abandon me." Isaac Newton (1642-1727) In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." Robert Boyle (1791-1867) One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era. Michael Faraday (1791-1867) Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution. William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907) Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating). Max Planck (1858-1947) Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!" Albert Einstein (1879-1955) Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

Pretty cool, heres what I came to at the end of my first click through: The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything. While this proof is valid, no one needs this proof. The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him. Romans 1 vs. 18 - 21 says: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. God does not send people to Hell for denying what they do not know, but for sin against the God that they do know. Funny, I just Quoted Romans 1:20 in my last post hahah. Anyway, cool find, bookmarked. Peace.

I'd agree with you about the Occam's Razor thing Robby. On your other statement of: "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". "From what I've seen, that is the most convincing argument I've seen for atheism." I'm afraid I have to vehemently disagree and assert that everything in the entire universe in one way or another is direct evidence of a creator and points back to him: http://shadowsofmessiah.blogspot.com/ Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Interesting post Sculelos and good points Joe. To Robby: Fossil record Evolution is all about constant change, whether gradual or in leaps. Consider a cloud in the sky: it is constantly changing shape due to natural forces. It might look like, say, a rabbit now, and a few minutes later appear to be, say, a horse. In between, the whole mass is shifting about. In a few more minutes it may look like a bird. The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction". That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name. If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing. The whole process is random trial and error, without direction. So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction. It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts. Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day. He wrote in his book On the Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past. Since Darwin's day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture. The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found. There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true. In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish. In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish. That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that evolution never happened. Evolutionists always point to Archaeopteryx as the great example of a transitional creature, appearing to be part dinosaur and part bird. However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths. Most people know "the stereotypical ideal of Archaeopteryx as a physiologically modern bird with a long tail and teeth". Research now "shows incontrovertibly that these animals were very primitive". "Archaeopteryx was simply a feathered and presumably volant [flying] dinosaur. Theories regarding the subsequent steps that led to the modern avian condition need to be reevaluated." --Erickson, Gregory, et al. October 2009. Was Dinosaurian Physiology Inherited by Birds? Reconciling Slow Growth in Archaeopteryx. PLoS ONE, Vol. 4, Issue 10, e7390. "Archaeopteryx has long been considered the iconic first bird." "The first Archaeopteryx skeleton was found in Germany about the same time Darwin's Origin of Species was published. This was a fortuituously-timed discovery: because the fossil combined bird-like (feathers and a wishbone) and reptilian (teeth, three fingers on hands, and a long bony tail) traits, it helped convince many about the veracity of evolutionary theory." "Ten skeletons and an isolated feather have been found." "Archaeopteryx is the poster child for evolution." But "bird features like feathers and wishbones have recently been found in many non-avian dinosaurs". "Microscopic imaging of bone structure... shows that this famously feathered fossil grew much slower than living birds and more like non-avian dinosaurs." "Living birds mature very quickly and grow really, really fast", researchers say. "Dinosaurs had a very different metabolism from today's birds. It would take years for individuals to mature, and we found evidence for this same pattern in Archaeopteryx and its closest relatives". "The team outlines a growth curve that indicates that Archaeopteryx reached adult size in about 970 days, that none of the known Archaeopteryx specimens are adults (confirming previous speculation), and that adult Archaeopteryx were probably the size of a raven, much larger than previously thought." "We now know that the transition into true birds -- physiologically and metabolically -- happened well after Archaeopteryx." --October 2009. Archaeopteryx Lacked Rapid Bone Growth, the Hallmark of Birds. American Museum of Natural History, funded science online news release. Now, lets skip the salad and get to the meat & potatos. Violating the law The theory of Evolution violates two laws of science. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) says that things which start out concentrated together spread out over time. If you heat one room in a house, then open the door to that room, eventually the temperature in the whole house evens out (reaches equilibrium). Knowing how far this evening-out has progressed at any point in time tells you the entropy. Entropy can measure the loss of a system's ability to do work. Entropy is also a measure of disorder, and that is where evolution theory hits an impenetrable wall. Natural processes proceed in only one direction, toward equilibrium and disorder. Things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized. We can overcome this by making a machine and adding energy, but the Second Law prevents such a machine from assembling spontaneously from raw materials. The Law of Biogenesis was established by Louis Pasteur three years after Darwin's book was published, and simply says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but chemicals never fall together and life appears. Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the false impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that, including the famous 1953 Miller/Urey experiment where all they got were clumps of amino acids. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter. For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory that violates two laws of science is in big trouble. When confronted with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, evolutionists usually use two tricks to try to escape. The first is to state that "it only applies to closed systems, and biological creatures are open systems, so it doesn't affect evolution" (they actually intend to say isolated, not closed, but we know what they mean). The fact is that the Second Law applies to all systems, open or closed, and to all actions and chemical reactions, from molecules to galaxies. The words "except for..." are not in this universal law. A thermodynamics system is simply any part of the universe we want to study. If we are doing an experiment in a bottle, the inside of the bottle is our system and the bottle itself is the "walls" of the system. There are only 3 kinds of systems: if no energy or matter can pass through the walls, it is an isolated system; if energy can pass through but matter cannot, it is a closed system; if both energy and matter can pass through the walls, it is an open system. Now, it is true that the laws of thermodynamics and entropy are defined in terms of isolated systems, because that is the simplest way to express them. However, experts who write textbooks on the subject are quick to say that isolated systems do not occur in nature. For practical applications, a procedure called the Legendre Transform mathematically converts entropy to a variable called Gibbs free energy that is useful for working with real-world systems. Most natural systems are open, but it is convenient to model them as closed. For example, even though a bacterium is an open system, modeling it as a closed system makes it easier to understand chemical reactions in it.2,8 You are an open system. You eat food (which comes from outside yourself) and your body survives and grows. Evolutionists believe that all we need is an open system with sufficient energy flowing into it for evolution to succeed. If that were so, you could just stand right behind a jet engine as the aircraft prepares for takeoff, absorb that blast of energy, and evolve to a higher life form. In reality, of course, you would be incinerated because absorbing energy without a mechanism to convert it to a useful form and employ it is destructive or useless. The mechanism must be very specific. Sticking food in your ear will not work; it must go into your mouth and through the digestive system. And the mechanism must be in place and functioning first, before energy is added, or the energy is wasted. The "closed system" ploy is just an attempt to avoid dealing with the Second Law because the Law prohibits any functioning biological mechanism from falling together by pure chance, without assistance or plan, using only the properties of matter. The second trick they use is to say that "when you freeze water, the disordered molecules become beautifully ordered ice crystals or snowflakes. If water can bypass the Second Law and organize its molecules by a natural process, why not the chemicals of life?" At room temperature, water molecules are bouncing off each other and you have water. When you take away heat and they freeze, water molecules stick to each other with weak molecular bonds, forming ice crystals and snowflakes because of the shape of the H2O molecule. The same thing happens if you put a bunch of weak magnets in a jar and shake it. The magnets bounce around. When you stop, the magnets stick together. They are at a lower energy level. There is order, yet no complexity - just a simple repetitive structure that does not do anything. The Second Law is not bypassed or violated. But guess what. Amino acid molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resist combining at any temperature. To combine, they need the help of mechanisms in a living cell or a biochemist in an organic chemistry laboratory.17 It means that nothing happens in the primeval soup, the pond of chemicals where evolutionists believe life began. DNA is made of only right-handed versions of nucleotides, while proteins are made of only left-handed versions of amino acids. Yet any random chemical reaction that produced nucleotides or amino acids would make an equal mix of left and right-handed versions of each. Even if the thousands of nucleotides needed to form a DNA molecule, or the hundreds of amino acids needed to form a protein molecule were able to combine from the mix, they would be a jumble of left and right-handed versions that could not function at all. This is the problem of "chirality", and evolutionists have never been able to solve it. Ilya Prigogene coauthored a paper in 1972 that says in an open "system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals... Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures."33 Prigogene won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977 for research on dissipative structures, such as tornados, for contributions to nonequilibrium thermodynamics, and for bridging the gap between biology and other sciences. Evolutionists wrongly claim he won for showing how thermodynamics could explain the formation of organized systems, from fluctuations in chaos, that lead to the origin of life. They thought he was their hero. Over thirty years later, nothing has come of it. There is no escape from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It prohibits the spontaneous origin of life and macroevolution. The Bottom Line Evolutionists assume evolution is true, then write endlessly about when and where it happened, rates and lineages, etc. But if macroevolution is physically impossible in the real world, and it is, then all the rest is fantasy. There are only two possibilities. Either every part of every living thing arose by random chance, or an intelligence designed them. It is now clear that the theory of evolution's only mechanism for building new parts and creatures, mutation-natural selection, is totally, utterly, pathetically inadequate. In spite of overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution is dead wrong, many are not ready to throw in the towel. They desperately hope that some natural process will be found that causes things to fall together into organized complexity. These are people of great faith. And they are so afraid of connecting God with science that, like the Japanese Army of World War II, they would rather die than surrender. Unfortunately, the staunchest defenders sit in places of esteem and authority as professors, scientists, and editors, and have the full faith of the news media. The public is naturally in awe of their prestige. But once the facts are understood it becomes obvious that the theory of evolution is long overdue for the trash can, and to perpetuate it is fraud. Perhaps it made sense for what was known when On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, but not today. Many scientists are with us The only tactic left to evolutionists is to ridicule their critics as simpletons who don't understand how their pet theory really works. Here is a link to a roster of hundreds of professionals whose advanced academic degrees certify that they thoroughly understand evolution theory. They also have the courage to defy the high priests of academia by voluntarily adding their names to a skeptics list against Darwinism. Source: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html 20 page list of Ph.D. holding skeptics of evolution: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660 From: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ Extra: http://www.godandscience.org/ and http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/ Apologetics: http://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonableFaithOrg Peace.

Oh yeah I agree totally. Especially amongst believers. Who has a bigger spiritual bullseye on themselves other than a believer? No one, divide and conquer, that is a lot of the strategy.

Isaiah 1:18 KJV King James Version Come now , and let us reason together , saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. It's too bad that more Christian's don't take that verse to heart. No wonder so often I see fellowships in shambles and many non-believers automatically view Christian's as Pharisee's & hypocrites and aren't interested in listening to what they have to say. I suppose the emotions & personal bias oft tend to trump the spirit of this verse. It's a good one to remember.

A fantastic, modern cover of Beethoven's classic:

It's not even just at Church but so many people now seem to compulsively fiddle with their phones no matter where they are or what they're doing. It's irritating some times when your trying to talk to someone and they just randomly start fiddling with their phone lol.

The State of Dull Fascination We are all subject to a strange dull fascination, stuck in the state of dull fascination. Our attention is attached to dull things, transfixed by dull things, enthralled by dull things, glued to dull things. This is pretty much de rigueur. It is what’s required of us – it’s how we’re ‘supposed to be’ and although we may not always be exactly happy to oblige (and might do our share of complaining) oblige we do all the same… We hypnotize ourselves with dull things, obsess over dull things, and completely preoccupy ourselves with dull things to the exclusion of anything else. The result of this therefore is that we end up thinking that we live in a world which is essentially ‘dull and tedious’. And the second result of this state of affairs is that we don’t actually realize that it’s so very dull and tedious because it’s normal to us, because it’s all we know. We think that everything is supposed to be like this – in the same way that Truman Burbank (the hero of the film The Truman Show) thinks that the stage-managed world he lives is ‘how things should be’… This is therefore nothing short of a full-on, no-holds-barred conspiracy – a conspiracy of the tedious against everything that’s not tedious, a conspiracy of the routine against the new, a conspiracy of the standardized against the unique, a conspiracy of wretched pestilential pedantic small-mindedness against the ecstasy of freedom, the ecstasy of illimitable consciousness." There can hardly be any doubt that such a conspiracy is in place – on the one hand poets and mystics testify to the truth that this ecstasy exists, and on the other hand we can readily observe that just about the whole human race is excluded from this oceanic feeling, terminally estranged from the endless depth and astonishing profundity of this uncreated or uncontrived reality. If you did see someone who wasn’t a stranger to this tremendous inner freedom and delight then surely it wouldn’t be hard to see it in them – after all, happiness and joy communicates itself just as surely as misery and pain does! In the end, all we can ever do is communicate our inner state; all we can ever do is communicate to others either our misery or our joy, either our pain or our happiness… So the question is, if this marvellous inner freedom exists then why would we conspire to keep ourselves ignorant of it? Why would we pretend that reality is so much crappier than it actually is? Why has the truth become so taboo, so unmentionable? Why in the name of all that is perverse would we insist so much on enslaving ourselves? We have worked so hard to build a wall of dull, routine nonsense and toxic banality around ourselves (excluding thereby all sight of anything better) but what possible motivation could there be to contrive such a state of affairs? Just what exactly is going on? When we’re socialized at home, when we’re ‘educated’ at school, we are trained to accept a hugely diminished version of reality, an extraordinarily narrowed and stilted version of what is true. In fact it’s so extremely diminished, so fantastically narrowed and stilted that it isn’t ‘a version’ of reality at all – it is a fabrication! It’s an analogue of the real, it’s an arbitrary game we have been compelled to learn and play under the false premise that ‘this is what life is all about’. And those who taught us to play this game were similarly taught (or ‘programmed’) themselves, so that no one really knows what’s happening, nor stands much of chance of breaking free from it all. It’s all pretty much a done deal; it’s all pretty much a foregone conclusion. As Terence McKenna says, ‘Culture is not your friend’ (Quoted at end of article.) But why do things have to be this way? In his book On the Psychology of the Unconscious Carl Jung writes – Where love rules, there is no will to power, and where power predominates, love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other. This is most observable in families and relationships – where love is absent in that spider’s web of relationships known as ‘the family’ then everything is about manipulation and guilt. As any psychotherapist will tell you – when a parent does not truly love his or her child then they will deny them their freedom to be themselves, and make them into nothing more than extensions of themselves. Similarly, if I am in a relationship with you and I don’t love you, then instead of love comes controlling. I don’t know how to love and I make up for this inability of mine by controlling everything about you. I see you not as a person in your own right but my own property, an extension of myself. The expression of my ‘will to power’ is therefore to determine everything about you, and in the process eradicate anything about you that is truly yours. By having power over you I am annihilating you, and creating a shadow in its place – a shadow which is a reflection of myself. The same principle holds true for the ‘big pattern of relationships’ which is the society, nation, or state – in the absence of love there is nothing but controlling, nothing but the demand for conformity, and the inevitable result of this ‘conformity’ is (as Jung says elsewhere) the extinguishing of the genuine individual. And in place of the genuine individual, what we have left instead is ‘the shadow’ which is no more than the reflection of what the social system thinks we ought to be…. So one way to explain the unhappy state of affairs that we collectively find ourselves in is to say that it is because of the absence of love. As Jung says, we only have ‘the will to power’ (which is the same thing as ‘the need to control’) and in order to have control or power over people it is necessary to trap them, to deny them their freedom. After all, who can control a free person? If power is to be exercised then the first thing to do is make people unfree, make them lacking in something that only you can provide, so that they will become dependent on you, and this is exactly what the social system does to us. Instead of allowing us to be who we really are, it provides us with a false, ‘socially-conditioned’ identity that can only be maintained by what the system has to offer us – which essentially comes down to status and wealth. On the one hand we can offset the unconscious sense of inner impoverishment that comes about as a result of being ‘narrowly identified with the socially-constructed identity’ by buying stuff, which gives us a temporary feeling of gratification, and on the other hand we can compensate for our inner lack of freedom by being granted status in society – and the ability to exercise power over the less ‘successful’ members of society that comes with it! Everyone wants to be on top of the dung heap instead of at the bottom of it, and in this way the dynamics which create the system are put in place. After all, if we don’t join in the competitive struggle to succeed within the established system, then we’re inevitably going to end up at the bottom of the pile and who wants that? The world we are compelled to live in as a result of being snared by the system is however a very restricted and impoverished one. It ‘s a world that is made up – as we have said – entirely of dull things, dull things that we are obliged to fix our attention on if we are to stand any chance at winning at the game. The game itself is frightfully, horrendously dull – the game itself is hollow, pointless, lacking in any genuine content. The game equals ‘the state of dull fascination with two-dimensional external images’ – and this is the state of being we are required to be in, so that the system we have created for ourselves may continue to exist… We have been provided with a world that is made up of hollow promises and empty threats – a false world that is based on restrictions. This world is all we know, all we’re allowed to know, and so seems that we have no choice but to ‘get on with it’. Engaging with this world (and all the dull things it has to offer) renders us empty inside and unable to love, and in the absence of the ability to love all we can do to make ourselves feel better is try our best to exercise control over things and power over other people. Enforcing conformity in each other is how we get to involuntarily communicate our unhappiness, our inner impoverishment, and so in this way the system gets to perpetuate itself… By Nick Williams (Original text emphasis', none added) Source: http://csglobe.com/the-state-of-dull-fascination/ Culture is not your friend “What civilization is, is 7 billion people trying to make themselves happy by standing on each other’s shoulders and kicking each other’s teeth in. It’s not a pleasant situation. And yet, you can stand back and look at this planet and see that we have the money, the power, the medical understanding, the scientific know-how, the love, and the community to produce a kind of human paradise. But we are led by the least among us: the least intelligent, the least noble, the least visionary. We are led by the least among us and we do not fight back against the dehumanizing values that are handed down as control icons. Culture is not your friend. It is not your friend. It insults you. It disempowers you. It uses and abuses you. The culture is a perversion. It fetishizes objects, creates consumer mania, it preaches endless forms of false happiness, endless forms of false understanding in the form of squirrelly religions and silly cults. It invites people to diminish themselves and dehumanize themselves by behaving like machines; meme processors of memes passed down from Madison Avenue and Hollywood.” - Terence McKenna

Funny & true good points. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjtKZO8Nu3Y

I'm at work right now so I'll have to go over this when I get home. Skimming through I'm glad someone pointed out that refuting evolution=intelligent design is a logical fallacy. This is all nothing new to me and I was waiting for someone to say that because now I'd like to introduce you to Kalam's Argument (Macro) & DNA (Micro) more on that later

Everything you'll ever need to debunk & refute the bogus theory of evolution: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html And yep, besides all of the other numerous problems with it, It's curtains when it comes to the law of biogenesis

What Happens to Christians Who Commit Suicide? Do They Go To Heaven or Hell? by Rich Deem Introduction Do Christians who kill themselves go to heaven or hell? This is a difficult question to answer, not because the answer is difficult, but because Christians who are looking for the answer are probably contemplating suicide. If this is you, I want to warn you that it is not God's will that you commit suicide. Suicides in the Bible King Saul's Suicide There are a few examples of successful suicides in the Bible. Coming to mind is Samson, who killed himself and his Philistine captors who were mocking him.1 In this instance, Samson's prayer to God for strength in his last act seemed to be answered by God. However, the Philistines who he also killed were evil people. Another example is King Saul and his armor-bearer, who killed themselves as they were being overrun by the Philistines.2 A third example was Ahithophel, who hanged himself when it was clear that his advice to Absalom was not heeded, and that he would likely be killed by David as a traitor.3 Another example is Zimri, who usurped the throne in Israel for seven days, before Israel's army marched against him and he intentionally set the citadel on fire and died in the flames.4 Probably the most famous example was Judas, who after he had betrayed Jesus tried to give back the 30 pieces of silver, then went out and hanged himself.5 Other people contemplated suicide, such as the unbelievers in Revelation, who were suffering the wrath of God.6 Another was the Philippian jailor, who considered killing himself when he saw all the doors of the prison open.7 However, Paul, one of the prisoners, encouraged him not to kill himself. Instead of committing suicide, the jailor became a Christian and was baptized that night.8 Another famous example occurred when the Satan tempted Jesus to throw himself off the temple wall, so that God would send an angel to save Him.9 Jesus refused. Then there was Job's wife, who after Job had suffered numerous catastrophes at the hand of Satan was encouraged to "curse God and die."10 Job refused the evil suggestion of his wife. What is clear from all these examples is that suicide in the Bible was usually the result of evil men realizing what was in store for them as a result of their evil. In other instances, people were encouraged not to kill themselves or chose not to do so on their own, as being the better choice. So, it is clear that suicide is never encouraged in the Bible. Bible and suicide Although the issue of suicide is not directly addressed in the Bible, it does fall under the commandments of God - specifically, "you shall not murder."11 The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase, "Do not put anyone to death without cause." The Hebrew word used here is ratsach,12 which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context). Since suicide is the intentional, premeditated murder of an individual, it would also be banned by the commandment. According to the Bible, murder (or suicide) is prohibited because humans are made in the image of God: "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man. (Genesis 9:6) Therefore, according to the Bible, the only One who has the right to decide when we die is the Creator Himself. The Bible also says God has ordained the days of our lives.13 So, suicide specifically violates the will of God in a person's life. Suicide and heaven/hell Contrary to what many people believe, going to heaven is not determined by weighing one's good deed vs. bad deeds. Salvation in the Bible is based upon belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior: that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; (Romans 10:9) This kind of belief is not just an academic endeavor, since the demons "believe," but are condemned.14 The difference is that the demons believe and rebel against God whereas a true believer believes and follows Jesus as Lord.15 Salvation, and access to heaven is based upon the grace of God16 as a free gift to those who believe.17 So, how do good and evil deeds fit into salvation and heaven vs. hell? Those who do not believe are condemned based upon the evil deeds they had committed during their lives.18 In fact, the righteous deeds performed by those individuals during their lives will not even be remembered by God.19 For the believer, the opposite situation exists. All his bad deeds are forgiven20 and forgotten by God21 and he is judged on the basis of his good deeds.22 So, a Christian who commits suicide is limiting his reward in heaven by cutting his life short. Suicide cuts short the good works that God has prepared for us to accomplish: For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. (Ephesians 2:10) Objections Some Christians have objected to this paper and cite 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 as evidence that those who commit suicide will be excluded from heaven: Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are. (1 Corinthians 3:16-17) There are a lot of warnings about Christians being the temple of the Holy Spirit. Because the Spirit lives in us, we are not to join God's temple with idolatry or sexual immorality (e.g., a prostitute) Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; (1 Corinthians 6:18-19) Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." (2 Corinthians 6:14-16) You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose: "He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us"? (James 4:4-5) The Greek word phtheirō translated "destroy" in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 has alternative meanings, including "to corrupt" or "to defile."23 Given the verses cited above and the allusion to holiness, this meaning makes more sense than "destroy." Even so, the destruction of the body by God does not necessarily mean that a person will lose their salvation. God could remove that person from earth to prevent them from falling further into corruption. Here is what Paul said of a sinning believer: When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 5:4-5) So, even though a Christian commits a sin, that act cannot result in God reneging on His promise of salvation based upon faith. In other words, a true believer can never lose his salvation (see Once Saved Always Saved? Eternal Security of the Believer). Conclusion In conclusion, a true Christian who commits suicide will enter heaven. Being a true Christian means that one believes in Jesus Christ as Lord. Going up for an alter-call at some point in one's life without true belief does not make one a true Christian. However, a Christian should not want to thwart God's purposes by shortening his natural life through suicide. The Christian is to be propelled by love for one another,24 which cannot be expressed by killing one's self. At the natural end of one's life, we will be looking forward to the words of the Master: "His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!' (Matthew 25:23) Source: http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/christians_who_kill_themselves.html