How Much of a Theist or Atheist are You?

[GreenBean]

One time Atheist turned Agnostic turned 100% Theist. The Multiverse demands the existence of a supreme intelligence which is the sum total of all the knowledge, experience and wisdom that ever has existed, ever can exist or ever will exist. God has existed as each and every one of us and walked in our shoes he / it is omnipotent which requires an infinite number of experiences to attain. Key Word Time / infinity.

 

[james bond]

>>the reason you do not know is because the authors of your 4th century book did not take into consideration the Triumph of Good as the final outcome. rendering everything else in your book as irrelevant.<<

The reason we do not know is part of the evidence for God. He said he'll keep the beginning and end from us. That's in the Bible and science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book. For example, we know that the universe started at a single point. Yet, we do not know if time was ticking then. Most people think it wasn't and time started at that point. Everything else, we can discover for ourselves.

Of course, you get the book wrong. Consider that you do not read the book, nor interpret it correctly, but continue to bring it up or parts of it. Final judgment is not like insurance where you can just be covered for liability. You have to get the full coverage.

For s&g, tell us what you got from Triumph of God (or did you actually mean Good?), as the final outcome. This is a biblical prophecy, so why does it render everything else in the book as irrelevant? We also know what will happen if one studies it or ask the Bible scholars. However, we do not know when it will occur. 2060 is my guess. Maybe I'm motivated to it happening within our lifetimes because friends who seriously studied this think so and Nostradamus and Dr. Bruce has stuff on it. I'll try to post a video of the end with Bible scholars explanations once we heard your ending.

"For example, we know that the universe started at a single point."

No... we only know it expanded rapidly.

Atheists are usually wrong and in this case you are. I'm going with Stephen Hawking and what most atheists and Christian scientists agree on.

"I'm going with Stephen Hawking and what most atheists and Christian scientists agree on."

Then you would agree with me. All, not just most, scientists, including Stephen Hawking, agree that all we know for sure is that the universe exapnded quickly, not that it started as a single point. In fact, they all agree that a singularity was not necessary. You are misrepresenting Stephen Hawking and all the scientists of the world. You really need to go read up.

>>Then you would agree with me. All, not just most, scientists, including Stephen Hawking, agree that all we know for sure is that the universe exapnded quickly, not that it started as a single point. In fact, they all agree that a singularity was not necessary. You are misrepresenting Stephen Hawking and all the scientists of the world. You really need to go read up.<<

I usually don't like to quote wiki, but in this case I'll use the liberal website for ease of use.

The Big Bang theory, which states that the universe expanded from and was a singularity whose radius was zero, is widely accepted by physicists.

Cosmogony - Wikipedia.

From literally the EXACT same Wikipedia page (that you clearly did not read):

"Physicists are undecided whether this means the universe began from a singularity, or that current knowledge is insufficient to describe the universe at that time."

"It is debated 'how closely' models based on general relativity alone can be used to extrapolate toward the singularity—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch."


In exact agreement with what I said, and in contradiction to your claim.

I read and comprehended just fine. Not sure about you.

So you do not believe in singularity? And what I said was I was going by Stephen Hawking representing the atheist's side and what most atheist and Christian scientists agree upon. What do you have to back up your claim that the majority believe as you do?

How did the universe begin?
How did the universe begin?

 

[james bond]

>>the reason you do not know is because the authors of your 4th century book did not take into consideration the Triumph of Good as the final outcome. rendering everything else in your book as irrelevant.<<

The reason we do not know is part of the evidence for God. He said he'll keep the beginning and end from us. That's in the Bible and science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book. For example, we know that the universe started at a single point. Yet, we do not know if time was ticking then. Most people think it wasn't and time started at that point. Everything else, we can discover for ourselves.

Of course, you get the book wrong. Consider that you do not read the book, nor interpret it correctly, but continue to bring it up or parts of it. Final judgment is not like insurance where you can just be covered for liability. You have to get the full coverage.

For s&g, tell us what you got from Triumph of God (or did you actually mean Good?), as the final outcome. This is a biblical prophecy, so why does it render everything else in the book as irrelevant? We also know what will happen if one studies it or ask the Bible scholars. However, we do not know when it will occur. 2060 is my guess. Maybe I'm motivated to it happening within our lifetimes because friends who seriously studied this think so and Nostradamus and Dr. Bruce has stuff on it. I'll try to post a video of the end with Bible scholars explanations once we heard your ending.

"For example, we know that the universe started at a single point."

No... we only know it expanded rapidly.

Atheists are usually wrong and in this case you are. I'm going with Stephen Hawking and what most atheists and Christian scientists agree on.

"I'm going with Stephen Hawking and what most atheists and Christian scientists agree on."

Then you would agree with me. All, not just most, scientists, including Stephen Hawking, agree that all we know for sure is that the universe exapnded quickly, not that it started as a single point. In fact, they all agree that a singularity was not necessary. You are misrepresenting Stephen Hawking and all the scientists of the world. You really need to go read up.

>>Then you would agree with me. All, not just most, scientists, including Stephen Hawking, agree that all we know for sure is that the universe exapnded quickly, not that it started as a single point. In fact, they all agree that a singularity was not necessary. You are misrepresenting Stephen Hawking and all the scientists of the world. You really need to go read up.<<

I usually don't like to quote wiki, but in this case I'll use the liberal website for ease of use.

The Big Bang theory, which states that the universe expanded from and was a singularity whose radius was zero, is widely accepted by physicists.

Cosmogony - Wikipedia.

A decent discussion of the issue:

Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity?

"
I’ve talked over the years with many experts in “quantum gravity” [the poorly understood but required blend of Einstein’s gravity and quantum physics, a blend that will be needed to explain extreme gravitational phenomena] and I’ve never spoken to one who believed that the universe began with a real singularity. Why? Because

• the singularity arises from using Einstein’s equations for gravity
• but we know Einstein’s equations aren’t sufficient — they aren’t able to describe certain extreme gravitational phenomena.

Specifically, when the density and heat become extremely large, quantum physics of gravity becomes important. But Einstein’s equations ignore all these quantum effects. So we already know that in certain extreme conditions, Einstein’s equations simply don’t apply. How could we then use those very same equations to conclude there’s a singularity at the beginning of the universe?

We can’t...."

"....Yet all over the media and all over the web, we can find articles, including ones published just after this week’s cosmic announcement of new evidence in favor of inflation, that state with great confidence that in the Big Bang Theory the universe started from a singularity. So I’m honestly very confused. Who is still telling the media and the public that the universe really started with a singularity, or that the modern Big Bang Theory says that it does? I’ve never heard an expert physicist say that. And with good reason: when singularities and other infinities have turned up in our equations in the past, those singularities disappeared when our equations, or our understanding of how to use our equations, improved...."

"...The modern Big Bang Theory really starts after this period of ignorance, with a burst of inflation that creates a large expanding universe, and the end of inflation which allows for the creation of the heat of the Hot Big Bang. The equations for the theory, as it currently stands, can be used to make predictions even thoughwe don’t know the precise nature of our universe’s birth. Yes, a singularity often turns up in our equations when we extend them as far as they can go in the past; but a singularity of this sort is far from likely to be an aspect of nature, and instead should be interpreted as a sign of what we don’t yet understand."

Ha ha. Matt Strassler states, "The cause was a large amount of what is often called

• “dark energy” (but it’s not energy, it’s energy and negative pressure in the right combination) or
• the “cosmological constant” (Einstein’s [non]-blunder: but fortunately it wasn’t constant, or the universe would have inflated forever) or
• “dark smooth tension” (which is correct but it’s kind of clunky-sounding and not any clearer.)

No one has show dark energy or dark matter even exists.

Here's what creation scientists say about dark energy and dark matter:

"Dark energy is one of two concepts (the other is dark matter) that Big Bang cosmologists and astrophysicists have invented to explain the most serious differences to date between astronomical observations of an expanding universe and their own expectations. It is "the most popular way to explain recent observations that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate";[1] Astronomers and cosmologists have been speculating on the nature of this dark energy for ten years.
Contents

• 1 The problem
• 2 The solution from creation science
• 3 Evolutionist/uniformitarian view
  • 3.1 The dark energy concept
  • 3.2 Nature of dark energy
  • 3.3 Implications of dark energy
• 4 Criticisms of the dark energy concept
  • 4.1 Creationist criticism
  • 4.2 Secular criticism
  • 4.3 A Competing Secular Explanation
• 5 Proposed investigations
• 6 References
• 7 See also

The problem

In 1998, the Supernova Cosmology Project observed 42 Type Ia supernovae, most of these from the ground, in an effort to measure the rate of deceleration of the expansion of the universe.[2] (Type Ia supernovae are objects of easily discernible brightness and thus are favorite objects for standardization of redshift and hence of the speed of expansion.) These supernovae were actually much dimmer than expected, a finding that indicated an acceleration of expansion, not the deceleration that gravitational attraction would produce. A competing group, the High-Z Supernova Search Team, reported similar results from their observations of 14 other supernovae.[3] (The symbol z stands for redshift in this context.) The findings of an accelerated universe came as a profound surprise to all interested observers and commentators.[4] More recent surveys have shown that the discrepancy persists.[5][6]

In conclusion dark energy is not been observed nor reproduced in a lab.[7]"

 

[BreezeWood]

One time Atheist turned Agnostic turned 100% Theist. The Multiverse demands the existence of a supreme intelligence which is the sum total of all the knowledge, experience and wisdom that ever has existed, ever can exist or ever will exist. God has existed as each and every one of us and walked in our shoes he / it is omnipotent which requires an infinite number of experiences to attain. Key Word Time / infinity.

.

...that ever has existed, ever can exist or ever will exist.

God has existed as each and every one of us and walked in our shoes ...


from an atheist to a theist ... that's quite a leap (ever) it's not from a book is it. why supreme, you do not feel capable of being the same.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"For example, we know that the universe started at a single point."

No... we only know it expanded rapidly.

Atheists are usually wrong and in this case you are. I'm going with Stephen Hawking and what most atheists and Christian scientists agree on.

"I'm going with Stephen Hawking and what most atheists and Christian scientists agree on."

Then you would agree with me. All, not just most, scientists, including Stephen Hawking, agree that all we know for sure is that the universe exapnded quickly, not that it started as a single point. In fact, they all agree that a singularity was not necessary. You are misrepresenting Stephen Hawking and all the scientists of the world. You really need to go read up.

>>Then you would agree with me. All, not just most, scientists, including Stephen Hawking, agree that all we know for sure is that the universe exapnded quickly, not that it started as a single point. In fact, they all agree that a singularity was not necessary. You are misrepresenting Stephen Hawking and all the scientists of the world. You really need to go read up.<<

I usually don't like to quote wiki, but in this case I'll use the liberal website for ease of use.

The Big Bang theory, which states that the universe expanded from and was a singularity whose radius was zero, is widely accepted by physicists.

Cosmogony - Wikipedia.

From literally the EXACT same Wikipedia page (that you clearly did not read):

"Physicists are undecided whether this means the universe began from a singularity, or that current knowledge is insufficient to describe the universe at that time."

"It is debated 'how closely' models based on general relativity alone can be used to extrapolate toward the singularity—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch."


In exact agreement with what I said, and in contradiction to your claim.

I read and comprehended just fine. Not sure about you.

So you do not believe in singularity? And what I said was I was going by Stephen Hawking representing the atheist's side and what most atheist and Christian scientists agree upon. What do you have to back up your claim that the majority believe as you do?

How did the universe begin?
How did the universe begin?

You are not following. While scientists say the singularity is the rational extrapation of Einstein's equations backward in time, they know it is problematic to assert its existence on this basis, as those laws no longer would hold , past a certain point in time (traveling backwards). Scientists also cannot assert that a singularity was necessary.

So, physicists do not accept the belief in a singularity, though admit it may be the case that there was one.

It sesms to me that your main problem in comprehension here is not having a good grasp on how scientists describe what they know and do not know.

Dark matter and dark energy have not YET been shown to exist.

There is no such thing as a creation scientist. Haha, what is that, a Halloween costume?

 

[GreenBean]

One time Atheist turned Agnostic turned 100% Theist. The Multiverse demands the existence of a supreme intelligence which is the sum total of all the knowledge, experience and wisdom that ever has existed, ever can exist or ever will exist. God has existed as each and every one of us and walked in our shoes he / it is omnipotent which requires an infinite number of experiences to attain. Key Word Time / infinity.

.

...that ever has existed, ever can exist or ever will exist.

God has existed as each and every one of us and walked in our shoes ...


from an atheist to a theist ... that's quite a leap (ever) it's not from a book is it. why supreme, you do not feel capable of being the same.

Have no idea what you're trying to say - kindly collect your thoughts and recompose that message in a coherent manner - sorry not meaning to be insulting but really ?!

 

[BreezeWood]

One time Atheist turned Agnostic turned 100% Theist. The Multiverse demands the existence of a supreme intelligence which is the sum total of all the knowledge, experience and wisdom that ever has existed, ever can exist or ever will exist. God has existed as each and every one of us and walked in our shoes he / it is omnipotent which requires an infinite number of experiences to attain. Key Word Time / infinity.

.

...that ever has existed, ever can exist or ever will exist.

God has existed as each and every one of us and walked in our shoes ...


from an atheist to a theist ... that's quite a leap (ever) it's not from a book is it. why supreme, you do not feel capable of being the same.

Have no idea what you're trying to say - kindly collect your thoughts and recompose that message in a coherent manner - sorry not meaning to be insulting but really ?!

.

Have no idea what you're trying to say

from an atheist to a theist ... that's quite a leap (ever) it's not from a book is it. why supreme, you do not feel capable of being the same.

thinking for yourself may be the problem, try a remedial course in self awareness, it could help ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

One time Atheist turned Agnostic turned 100% Theist. The Multiverse demands the existence of a supreme intelligence which is the sum total of all the knowledge, experience and wisdom that ever has existed, ever can exist or ever will exist. God has existed as each and every one of us and walked in our shoes he / it is omnipotent which requires an infinite number of experiences to attain. Key Word Time / infinity.

.

...that ever has existed, ever can exist or ever will exist.

God has existed as each and every one of us and walked in our shoes ...


from an atheist to a theist ... that's quite a leap (ever) it's not from a book is it. why supreme, you do not feel capable of being the same.

Have no idea what you're trying to say - kindly collect your thoughts and recompose that message in a coherent manner - sorry not meaning to be insulting but really ?!

.

Have no idea what you're trying to say

from an atheist to a theist ... that's quite a leap (ever) it's not from a book is it. why supreme, you do not feel capable of being the same.

thinking for yourself may be the problem, try a remedial course in self awareness, it could help ...

Excuse you.... I have seen several perfectly articulate posters make the same complaint to you. Let's face it... your posts are often incoherent word salads, because you are a snake oil salesman, trying to package a turd as a Cadillac. So you think you beguile and regale people with your 20 point Scrabble words arranged into something barely resembling English, when this is just really a tactic of assuring your own ability able to wriggle out of any meaning anyone gleans from your ungrammar.

 

[BreezeWood]

One time Atheist turned Agnostic turned 100% Theist. The Multiverse demands the existence of a supreme intelligence which is the sum total of all the knowledge, experience and wisdom that ever has existed, ever can exist or ever will exist. God has existed as each and every one of us and walked in our shoes he / it is omnipotent which requires an infinite number of experiences to attain. Key Word Time / infinity.

.

...that ever has existed, ever can exist or ever will exist.

God has existed as each and every one of us and walked in our shoes ...


from an atheist to a theist ... that's quite a leap (ever) it's not from a book is it. why supreme, you do not feel capable of being the same.

Have no idea what you're trying to say - kindly collect your thoughts and recompose that message in a coherent manner - sorry not meaning to be insulting but really ?!

.

Have no idea what you're trying to say

from an atheist to a theist ... that's quite a leap (ever) it's not from a book is it. why supreme, you do not feel capable of being the same.

thinking for yourself may be the problem, try a remedial course in self awareness, it could help ...

Excuse you.... I have seen several perfectly articulate posters make the same complaint to you. Let's face it... your posts are often incoherent word salads, because you are a snake oil salesman, trying to package a turd as a Cadillac. So you think you beguile and regale people with your 20 point Scrabble words arranged into something barely resembling English, when this is just really a tactic of assuring your own ability able to wriggle out of any meaning anyone gleans from your ungrammar.

.
not in the least ...

The Multiverse demands the existence of a supreme intelligence which is the sum total of all the knowledge, experience and wisdom ...

my own sentiment expressed several times, no need to read a book ...

The Multiverse demands the existence of a supreme intelligence which is the sum total of all the knowledge, experience and wisdom that ever has existed, ever can exist or ever will exist.

I'm not a fatalist ... the Everlasting is just that, suffocation not allowed.



your one to speak, fort fun for who's a dead end what's your point -

 

[james bond]

Atheists are usually wrong and in this case you are. I'm going with Stephen Hawking and what most atheists and Christian scientists agree on.

"I'm going with Stephen Hawking and what most atheists and Christian scientists agree on."

Then you would agree with me. All, not just most, scientists, including Stephen Hawking, agree that all we know for sure is that the universe exapnded quickly, not that it started as a single point. In fact, they all agree that a singularity was not necessary. You are misrepresenting Stephen Hawking and all the scientists of the world. You really need to go read up.

>>Then you would agree with me. All, not just most, scientists, including Stephen Hawking, agree that all we know for sure is that the universe exapnded quickly, not that it started as a single point. In fact, they all agree that a singularity was not necessary. You are misrepresenting Stephen Hawking and all the scientists of the world. You really need to go read up.<<

I usually don't like to quote wiki, but in this case I'll use the liberal website for ease of use.

The Big Bang theory, which states that the universe expanded from and was a singularity whose radius was zero, is widely accepted by physicists.

Cosmogony - Wikipedia.

From literally the EXACT same Wikipedia page (that you clearly did not read):

"Physicists are undecided whether this means the universe began from a singularity, or that current knowledge is insufficient to describe the universe at that time."

"It is debated 'how closely' models based on general relativity alone can be used to extrapolate toward the singularity—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch."


In exact agreement with what I said, and in contradiction to your claim.

I read and comprehended just fine. Not sure about you.

So you do not believe in singularity? And what I said was I was going by Stephen Hawking representing the atheist's side and what most atheist and Christian scientists agree upon. What do you have to back up your claim that the majority believe as you do?

How did the universe begin?
How did the universe begin?

You are not following. While scientists say the singularity is the rational extrapation of Einstein's equations backward in time, they know it is problematic to assert its existence on this basis, as those laws no longer would hold , past a certain point in time (traveling backwards). Scientists also cannot assert that a singularity was necessary.

So, physicists do not accept the belief in a singularity, though admit it may be the case that there was one.

It sesms to me that your main problem in comprehension here is not having a good grasp on how scientists describe what they know and do not know.

Dark matter and dark energy have not YET been shown to exist.

There is no such thing as a creation scientist. Haha, what is that, a Halloween costume?

Ha ha ha ha. Science isn't my problem, but yours. Quit being a rube. We have many creation scientists and Christian scientists invented modern science.

Could it be that Satan has filled your mind with fake science from atheist scientists to steer you away from the truth? You are stuffed with it. I mean a single point means the universe had a beginning and is evidence for God. Yes, we are referring to Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity.

Honestly, the cr*p that atheist scientists come up with. Can you hear them screaming in misery 24/7?

Again, science will back up the universe started from a single point and had a beginning. Thus, God.

Take it from WLC instead of Degrasse. He knows the low down.

 

[james bond]

If there is one thing, I learned from Islam and that is to use the left hand for atheists. It is the hand to wash away the cr*p. If you had enough of atheist cr*p, then put up the left hand for them to stop.

The right hand is for the nourishment and to use for worshiping God. Take nourishment with the right.

The atheist prolly takes their nourishment with the left. This would explain a lot in my opinion.

 

[james bond]

Here's a perfectly good example of the lengths atheists and their scientists go through to disprove God. It's stupid AF. We all know the chicken came first or the oak tree before the acorn.

The Dinosaur Egg: That’s What Came Before the Chicken

 

[james bond]

More evidence for God. Supervolcano catastrophism happens rapidly.

Not a surprise for creation scientists and YEC
A Surprise From the Supervolcano Under Yellowstone

 

[BreezeWood]

More evidence for God. Supervolcano catastrophism happens rapidly.

Not a surprise for creation scientists and YEC
A Surprise From the Supervolcano Under Yellowstone

.

More evidence for God.

if so for the Almighty why do you continue to worship a forgery book that is detrimental to a Free Spirit and the Triumph as requested by the spoken religion of Antiquity ... I know the answer the same for centuries -

The atheist prolly takes their nourishment with the left. This would explain a lot in my opinion.

bond is a double agent ... 4th century against the 1st, slavery against freedom.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"I'm going with Stephen Hawking and what most atheists and Christian scientists agree on."

Then you would agree with me. All, not just most, scientists, including Stephen Hawking, agree that all we know for sure is that the universe exapnded quickly, not that it started as a single point. In fact, they all agree that a singularity was not necessary. You are misrepresenting Stephen Hawking and all the scientists of the world. You really need to go read up.

>>Then you would agree with me. All, not just most, scientists, including Stephen Hawking, agree that all we know for sure is that the universe exapnded quickly, not that it started as a single point. In fact, they all agree that a singularity was not necessary. You are misrepresenting Stephen Hawking and all the scientists of the world. You really need to go read up.<<

I usually don't like to quote wiki, but in this case I'll use the liberal website for ease of use.

The Big Bang theory, which states that the universe expanded from and was a singularity whose radius was zero, is widely accepted by physicists.

Cosmogony - Wikipedia.

From literally the EXACT same Wikipedia page (that you clearly did not read):

"Physicists are undecided whether this means the universe began from a singularity, or that current knowledge is insufficient to describe the universe at that time."

"It is debated 'how closely' models based on general relativity alone can be used to extrapolate toward the singularity—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch."


In exact agreement with what I said, and in contradiction to your claim.

I read and comprehended just fine. Not sure about you.

So you do not believe in singularity? And what I said was I was going by Stephen Hawking representing the atheist's side and what most atheist and Christian scientists agree upon. What do you have to back up your claim that the majority believe as you do?

How did the universe begin?
How did the universe begin?

You are not following. While scientists say the singularity is the rational extrapation of Einstein's equations backward in time, they know it is problematic to assert its existence on this basis, as those laws no longer would hold , past a certain point in time (traveling backwards). Scientists also cannot assert that a singularity was necessary.

So, physicists do not accept the belief in a singularity, though admit it may be the case that there was one.

It sesms to me that your main problem in comprehension here is not having a good grasp on how scientists describe what they know and do not know.

Dark matter and dark energy have not YET been shown to exist.

There is no such thing as a creation scientist. Haha, what is that, a Halloween costume?

Ha ha ha ha. Science isn't my problem, but yours. Quit being a rube. We have many creation scientists and Christian scientists invented modern science.

Could it be that Satan has filled your mind with fake science from atheist scientists to steer you away from the truth? You are stuffed with it. I mean a single point means the universe had a beginning and is evidence for God. Yes, we are referring to Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity.

Honestly, the cr*p that atheist scientists come up with. Can you hear them screaming in misery 24/7?

Again, science will back up the universe started from a single point and had a beginning. Thus, God.

Take it from WLC instead of Degrasse. He knows the low down.

I didn't say "science was your problem"....? What is wrong with you? No, there is no such thing as a "creation scientist", there are only scientists who happen to be creationists, which is like a scientist who also happens to be a gardener. get that weak attempt out of here.

The only "screaming" i hear is your own, as you bang your head against the wall yor whole life, wondering in hilarious ignorance why your impotent, ignorant rants have no bearing on any scientific topic, ever, anywhere.

Science does not back that up currently. I explained why. Stop name dropping, as you are misrepresenting those scientists. I don't think they would appreciate your lies about them and their life's work.

 

[james bond]

More evidence for God. Supervolcano catastrophism happens rapidly.

Not a surprise for creation scientists and YEC
A Surprise From the Supervolcano Under Yellowstone

.

More evidence for God.

if so for the Almighty why do you continue to worship a forgery book that is detrimental to a Free Spirit and the Triumph as requested by the spoken religion of Antiquity ... I know the answer the same for centuries -

The atheist prolly takes their nourishment with the left. This would explain a lot in my opinion.

View attachment 153748


bond is a double agent ... 4th century against the 1st, slavery against freedom.

>>if so for the Almighty why do you continue to worship a forgery book that is detrimental to a Free Spirit and the Triumph as requested by the spoken religion of Antiquity ... I know the answer the same for centuries -<<

First, a little faith goes a long way in discovering that God exists. Second, there is the scientific evidence such as what I mentioned. Third, I compared evolution and Genesis and found dinosaurs do not come from birds, the universe started to exist from a singularity, i.e. there was a cause and a single point, we didn't descend from a common ancestor ape (which is racist) and an adult chicken laid the first egg and an adult oak tree dropped the first acorn. Furthermore, no aliens have been found anywhere and we can't just go live on another planet or even the moon. The Grand Canyon was created very rapidly due to catastrophism instead of taking millions of years to form.

>>bond is a double agent ... 4th century against the 1st, slavery against freedom.<<

All it means is the Bible can't change while science and evolution keeps changing all the time. The universe wasn't eternal. It had a beginning. The science keeps discovering that the Bible is true, such as dinosaurs aren't 240 million years old. While Darwinism was responsible for scientific racism leading to Eugenics and the Holocaust and Planned Parenthood genocide. The survival of the fittest spouted by evolution, i.e. those best able to pass along their genes, is wrong. It's those who can adapt to change the best are the ones to survive, and lo and behold, the Bible teaches us about changing. Isn't it odd that evolution itself keeps changing, but isn't changing us for the better? While the Bible does not change, but yet it teaches us how to keep changing and managing change so we can continue existing until the end comes. Jesus taught us that the truth will set us free. This is the real freedom.

Change
What Does the Bible Say About Change?

Freedom
What Does the Bible Say About Freedom?

 

[BreezeWood]

More evidence for God. Supervolcano catastrophism happens rapidly.

Not a surprise for creation scientists and YEC
A Surprise From the Supervolcano Under Yellowstone

.

More evidence for God.

if so for the Almighty why do you continue to worship a forgery book that is detrimental to a Free Spirit and the Triumph as requested by the spoken religion of Antiquity ... I know the answer the same for centuries -

The atheist prolly takes their nourishment with the left. This would explain a lot in my opinion.

View attachment 153748


bond is a double agent ... 4th century against the 1st, slavery against freedom.

>>if so for the Almighty why do you continue to worship a forgery book that is detrimental to a Free Spirit and the Triumph as requested by the spoken religion of Antiquity ... I know the answer the same for centuries -<<

First, a little faith goes a long way in discovering that God exists. Second, there is the scientific evidence such as what I mentioned. Third, I compared evolution and Genesis and found dinosaurs do not come from birds, the universe started to exist from a singularity, i.e. there was a cause and a single point, we didn't descend from a common ancestor ape (which is racist) and an adult chicken laid the first egg and an adult oak tree dropped the first acorn. Furthermore, no aliens have been found anywhere and we can't just go live on another planet or even the moon. The Grand Canyon was created very rapidly due to catastrophism instead of taking millions of years to form.

>>bond is a double agent ... 4th century against the 1st, slavery against freedom.<<

All it means is the Bible can't change while science and evolution keeps changing all the time. The universe wasn't eternal. It had a beginning. The science keeps discovering that the Bible is true, such as dinosaurs aren't 240 million years old. While Darwinism was responsible for scientific racism leading to Eugenics and the Holocaust and Planned Parenthood genocide. The survival of the fittest spouted by evolution, i.e. those best able to pass along their genes, is wrong. It's those who can adapt to change the best are the ones to survive, and lo and behold, the Bible teaches us about changing. Isn't it odd that evolution itself keeps changing, but isn't changing us for the better? While the Bible does not change, but yet it teaches us how to keep changing and managing change so we can continue existing until the end comes. Jesus taught us that the truth will set us free. This is the real freedom.

Change
What Does the Bible Say About Change?

Freedom
What Does the Bible Say About Freedom?

.

First, a little faith goes a long way in discovering that God exists.

there is consensus, faith is required for a tangible result a state of purity attained by triumph. where an Almighty resides whether found or not, residence of the Everlasting. faith is hope for the disenfranchised, for bond it is a cudgel used over the head of the Free Spirit denying them their Spiritual freedom a false faith as a book of forgeries personifying their personal glorification not that of the Almighty.

While the Bible does not change, but yet it teaches us how to keep changing and managing change so we can continue existing until the end comes.

that is a lie their book was published 398 ad late 4th century as a political document they disguise as a religion its deep wisdom distorted by their selfishness and blind injustice as recorded from that time to the present.

bond disregards the forgeries of their book to continue their crusade against the 1st century events and those meanings as a Free Spirit that will for those people never be realized.

to what end, theirs or the Almighty's that is the true crusade.

 

[james bond]

More evidence for God. Supervolcano catastrophism happens rapidly.

Not a surprise for creation scientists and YEC
A Surprise From the Supervolcano Under Yellowstone

.

More evidence for God.

if so for the Almighty why do you continue to worship a forgery book that is detrimental to a Free Spirit and the Triumph as requested by the spoken religion of Antiquity ... I know the answer the same for centuries -

The atheist prolly takes their nourishment with the left. This would explain a lot in my opinion.

View attachment 153748


bond is a double agent ... 4th century against the 1st, slavery against freedom.

>>if so for the Almighty why do you continue to worship a forgery book that is detrimental to a Free Spirit and the Triumph as requested by the spoken religion of Antiquity ... I know the answer the same for centuries -<<

First, a little faith goes a long way in discovering that God exists. Second, there is the scientific evidence such as what I mentioned. Third, I compared evolution and Genesis and found dinosaurs do not come from birds, the universe started to exist from a singularity, i.e. there was a cause and a single point, we didn't descend from a common ancestor ape (which is racist) and an adult chicken laid the first egg and an adult oak tree dropped the first acorn. Furthermore, no aliens have been found anywhere and we can't just go live on another planet or even the moon. The Grand Canyon was created very rapidly due to catastrophism instead of taking millions of years to form.

>>bond is a double agent ... 4th century against the 1st, slavery against freedom.<<

All it means is the Bible can't change while science and evolution keeps changing all the time. The universe wasn't eternal. It had a beginning. The science keeps discovering that the Bible is true, such as dinosaurs aren't 240 million years old. While Darwinism was responsible for scientific racism leading to Eugenics and the Holocaust and Planned Parenthood genocide. The survival of the fittest spouted by evolution, i.e. those best able to pass along their genes, is wrong. It's those who can adapt to change the best are the ones to survive, and lo and behold, the Bible teaches us about changing. Isn't it odd that evolution itself keeps changing, but isn't changing us for the better? While the Bible does not change, but yet it teaches us how to keep changing and managing change so we can continue existing until the end comes. Jesus taught us that the truth will set us free. This is the real freedom.

Change
What Does the Bible Say About Change?

Freedom
What Does the Bible Say About Freedom?

.

First, a little faith goes a long way in discovering that God exists.

there is consensus, faith is required for a tangible result a state of purity attained by triumph. where an Almighty resides whether found or not, residence of the Everlasting. faith is hope for the disenfranchised, for bond it is a cudgel used over the head of the Free Spirit denying them their Spiritual freedom a false faith as a book of forgeries personifying their personal glorification not that of the Almighty.

While the Bible does not change, but yet it teaches us how to keep changing and managing change so we can continue existing until the end comes.

that is a lie their book was published 398 ad late 4th century as a political document they disguise as a religion its deep wisdom distorted by their selfishness and blind injustice as recorded from that time to the present.

View attachment 154099

bond disregards the forgeries of their book to continue their crusade against the 1st century events and those meanings as a Free Spirit that will for those people never be realized.

to what end, theirs or the Almighty's that is the true crusade.

I really think that Satan has fooled you into thinking like you do. Remember that he's a wily trickster and he persuaded Adam and Eve to disobey God's one rule to show they were loyal to God and worshiped his greatness. While I've said to all the atheists is that a little faith goes a long way in proving God exists. Maybe the lack of faith goes a long way in not believing God exists through the power of Satan. You question how could a snake talk, but it didn't talk. Satan was using the snake while he was the one talking. Isn't this similar to how Satan has convinced atheists to want proof of God first?

Look at this moron's reasoning.

The answer is in the Bible and has been prophecized.

 

[james bond]

Degrasse said something stupid, as usual. He said Jack from Titanic should have tried harder to live. He died freezing to death to save Rose (Kate Winslet). The world would be a better place if Degrasse froze.

This is what he said...
“Whether or not he could’ve been successful, I would’ve tried more than once. You try once. ‘Oh, this is not gonna work. I will just freeze to death in the water.’ No, excuse me. No!” the famed astrophysicist, 59, told the Huffington Post in an interview published Wednesday. “The survival instinct is way stronger than that in everybody, especially in that character. He’s a survivor, right? He gets through. He gets by.”

He added, “And I’ll tell you this, if that character was Matt Damon from ‘The Martian,’ he would’ve made an outboard motor and saved everybody. This is how science can help you!”

https://pagesix.com/2017/10/05/neil...rom-titanic-should-have-tried-harder-to-live/


"James Cameron was less than convinced, though. It had to happen in the script, he said, even if his scientific thesis was proven wrong.

"Actually, it's not a question of room, it's a question of buoyancy," Cameron told IGN recently. "When Jack puts Rose on the raft, then he tries to get on the raft. He's not an idiot, he doesn't want to die. And the raft sinks and kind of flips. So it's clear that there's only enough buoyancy available for one person. So he makes a decision to let her be that person instead of taking them both down.""

Titanic: James Cameron explains why Jack couldn't climb on the raft with Rose | Daily Mail Online

It still would be tough to get aboard the plank, so that it would not flip over, but it's possible if it weren't freezing conditions. It would take some tries and balance and a partner with better survival skills than Rose.

So, if Jack could have added some buoyancy to the wooden plank using Rose's life vest, then he could've been saved. There you go.

Thus, pick a fellow Christian woman who prolly has better survival skills and is willing to share in order for both to survive.

 

[james bond]

A bit strange (actually, a lot strange), but God had a message for sealybobo. For some reason, he wanted me to point him to his "worldliness."

The following comes from this story.

“The Pope said the Lord asks us be watchful in order not to enter into temptation. This is why a Christians have to be awake, watchful and careful like a sentinel. Jesus was not narrating a parable but was stating a truth, i.e when the unclean spirit comes out of a man, he roams about in abandoned places looking for refuge and not finding any, decides to return to where he came from, where the freed man lives. Hence the demon decides to bring in "seven other spirits worse than him.” Pope Francis emphasized the word “worse”, saying it has much force in the passage because the demons enter quietly.

“The devil slowly changes our criteria to lead us to worldliness. It camouflages our way of acting, which we hardly notice. And so, the man, freed from the demon, becomes a bad man, a man burdened by worldliness. And that's exactly what the devil wants – worldliness, the Pope stressed.”

Adding,

“It means stopping for a while to examine my life, whether I am a Christian, whether I educate my children, whether my life is Christian or worldly?” And one understands this, as Paul points out, by looking at Christ crucified. One understands where worldliness lies and is destroyed before the Lord's cross. The Crucifix saves us from the charms and seductions that lead us to worldliness.”

I can't find the original article anymore, but it's similar to the following link.
Pope Francis Warns of "Seduction of Worldliness"

I'm not sure how an article meant for Catholics relates to him nor I'm not sure how I even read an article on Pope Francis. He isn't my favorite Pope.

To me, I can get the gist of the Pope's message in that I shouldn't focus on politics and even sports (or other worldly matters) and forget about God. I wasn't there when God created the world, nor was I there when he destroyed the world. I shouldn't forget about God. I suppose it means that all of this happened in the past and it led to today and what happened to me today. I was able to meet with a friend and he gave me something I needed (which I wasn't expecting). It just happened similar to my prayers being answered. For that I am grateful to God.