Will God punish Canada and those nations who are trying to divide Israel into two nations?

[ExFlyer]

26 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

It is not lack of education but lack of knowledge and idiocy.

90 million out of the 339 million you pulled out of your hat is the population of Iran. If you have a brain in your head even the size of a peanut you would know this f*cking regime is at war with the nation of Iran and Iranians being shot or beaten to death by Islamic republic regime and daily executions of opponents. I don't know where the other 239 million come from. Is that the houtis in Yemen and Hezbollah and Hamas? They are hardly a million..

I am not calling for any race or nation to be rooted out but the regime and the terrorists to be rooted out. You don't even know the meaning of racist you accuse me of.

Will you say elimination of Nazi Germany was racist and genocide.? There is no limit to idiocy, is there?

"Multiple countries use "Islamic Republic" as part of their official name. The total population for all countries using that title is approximately 338.4 million people, based on the latest available estimates for each nation. "   Google it.

Yes, what the Nazis did in WW2 was racist and genocide. It is exactly what you want to do except to even more people than the Nazis exterminated.

What you post harbours on hate posts.  As I said "The cancerous organism is people like you that espouse wiping out entire population". You are just a racist dick!!

[suds]

On 9/25/2025 at 9:32 PM, eyeball said:

There is virtually nowhere on the planet that Cesar's word is not law and it even extends out into space.

'Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's'.  So, what in your opinion are the things that are God's? Just to be clear, I'm not a fan of theocracies anymore than a tyrant holding absolute power. In their infinite wisdom, the framers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence spell out certain unalienable rights (endowed by their Creator) as being Life, Liberty,  the Pursuit of Happiness, and that all men are created equal. It's the duty of government to protect these rights. It's not quite as clear in our Canadian Constitution, but there is a clause that says 'Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the Supremacy of God and Rule of Law.' When it comes to unalienable rights that no man or government can take away from you, spelling things out clearly is not a threat. It's governments that use their arbitrary powers to remove rights that are the threat.

[CITIZEN_2015]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

"Multiple countries use "Islamic Republic" as part of their official name. The total population for all countries using that title is approximately 338.4 million people, based on the latest available estimates for each nation. "   Google it.

Yes, what the Nazis did in WW2 was racist and genocide. It is exactly what you want to do except to even more people than the Nazis exterminated.

What you post harbours on hate posts.  As I said "The cancerous organism is people like you that espouse wiping out entire population". You are just a racist dick!!

You are a total and complete idi*t. It was clear that I was referring to the Islamic Republic of Iran which is the only regime ay war with Israel as recent as 3 months ago and is developing nuclear weapons and is a threat to the West and just today European sanctions applied to the regime because the refuse to give up developing nuclear weapons. This regime is also at war with the nation of Iran who are trying to get rid of this islamic fascists. All my posts have been on Islamic republic of Iran. Why should i give a f*ck about islamic republic of Afghanistan.  You are a leftist dick!!.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Theocratic thinking has no place in government. When a country’s leader starts acting as if God is telling him to do stuff and that anyone who disagrees with him is a blasphemer, the results are invariably disastrous because there’s no possibility of rational discussion or error control. The catastrophes of Iran and Hamas should be evidence enough for anybody. Religion must be a strictly personal matter that stays in the home and places of worship. 

Edited September 27, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[blackbird]

33 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Theocratic thinking has no place in government. When a country’s leader starts acting as if God is telling him to do stuff and that anyone who disagrees with him is a blasphemer, the results are invariably disastrous because there’s no possibility of rational discussion or error control. The catastrophes of Iran and Hamas should be evidence enough for anybody. Religion must be a strictly personal matter that stays in the home and places of worship. 

That's not how it works in reality because everyone has their beliefs regardless what they profess publicly.

Everyone has beliefs that affect how they think about political issues.  Atheists and agnostics are for example more like to support euthanasia (assisted suicide that uses the smokescreen of MAID and freedom of choice).

Same with abortion or killing of pre-born babies.  They pretend it is just freedom of choice and completely ignore the fact they are killing human beings.

Edited September 28, 2025 by blackbird

[SpankyMcFarland]

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That's not how it works in reality because everyone has their beliefs regardless what they profess publicly.

PM Carney for instance is a very devout Roman Catholic.  He even holds a high position in the Vatican, although he doesn't talk about it or talk about his beliefs in his position as PM or as a MP.

Many politicians belong to the Catholic church and a few belong to other churches.

They don't talk about their religious beliefs, but they still hold certain beliefs.  Atheists also hold certain beliefs.

Everyone has beliefs that affect how they think about political issues.  

You like to pretend that everyone can be non-religious in political office but that is a deception.  The only thing that happens is people don't talk about their religious beliefs but their beliefs still guide and affect their political beliefs in some ways.  That is just the reality of being human.

Their beliefs are their business. The dividing line is when those beliefs are invoked to justify policies - I’m right because God appointed me and he’s telling me to do this, that and the other. If God’s will becomes an argument in itself then a country is in trouble. 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Their beliefs are their business. The dividing line is when those beliefs are invoked to justify policies - I’m right because God appointed me and he’s telling me to do this, that and the other. If God’s will becomes an argument in itself then a country is in trouble. 

I haven't heard anyone say I'm right because God appointed me.  That would be a foolish way of speaking to begin with.  Nobody does that.   But if you are talking issues that are based upon the historic Judeo-Christian beliefs such as the ten commandments or teachings in the Bible, I think it is reasonable to make reference to that.

A good example would be kids being groomed in LGBTQ or trans gender ideology in schools.  It is proper to oppose that on the basis of it being against our historic Judeo-Christian culture and belief system.  The Judeo-Christian beliefs are supported by the Bible and that teaches there are only two genders, male and female.   That is what provides a stable family structure for kids to grow up in also.   It teaches the correct relationship is a married man and wife as the proper family structure.  The fact is now the family structure as God created it is under attack by the so-called progressives.  Unless you can produce some good reasons why you argue one way, you lose.  

Do you believe in the traditional family structure and only two genders?  What would be your reasons.  

Edited September 28, 2025 by blackbird

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Theocratic thinking has no place in government.

What is "theocratic thinking"?   Are you saying Christian beliefs have no place in government or society?  If so  I think you are dead wrong.  Historically it is Christian beliefs that brought us respect for human rights and an end to slavery.  Laws against murder, stealing, and the right to own private property are all things that came from historic Christian beliefs such as the ten commandments in the Old Testament.  Your terminology does not really explain it because theocratic thinking could refer to any false religion as well, such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. and not just Christian theology.  One needs to be more precise.  There is nothing wrong with Christian thinking in society, government, or anywhere.  That is what opposes evil and stands for what is right.  It is hugely important.  The difference between right and wrong is at stake here.

The Quebec government has been making a huge mistake in the past sixty years or so.  They are trying to create a so-called "secular society" by banning any outward forms of religion.  The problem is Quebec has never been a completely free society.  In trying to ban any outward forms of religion, the government becomes at kind of authoritarian human rights denier and ends up crushing personal religious freedoms.  This will not end well for Quebec.  Once a government starts down that path, there is no end and people will start losing all kinds of freedoms.  Government thinks they are a kind of god and then believe they can and should do anything.

Edited September 28, 2025 by blackbird

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, suds said:

'Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's'.  So, what in your opinion are the things that are God's? Just to be clear, I'm not a fan of theocracies anymore than a tyrant holding absolute power.

Full disclosure, I'm a dedicated atheist.

3 hours ago, suds said:

It's governments that use their arbitrary powers to remove rights that are the threat.

In our case I think the government sometimes conflates it's arbitrary powers with the supremacy of God thingy and I think theists are okay with that.

I'd rather Canada be founded on the supremacy of science and we put scientists in charge of much of our government.

Under the watchful eye of secular lefties of course.

Edited September 28, 2025 by eyeball

[blackbird]

14 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'd rather Canada be founded on the supremacy of science and we put scientists in charge of much of our government.

The majority of scientists falsely believe in evolution.  The reason is because that is the way they have been taught and most have not been taught anything else.  The school and university curriculums are decided by agnostic or atheist theory of evolution believers.

Yet you can't explain where everything came from and where the complex structures in cells, biology, and physical laws of the universe came from.  Scientists, if they are being honest, will even admit they can't explain it.

Edited September 28, 2025 by blackbird

[eyeball]

36 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The majority of scientists falsely believe in evolution.  The reason is because that is the way they have been taught and most have not been taught anything else. 

The majority of politicians claim they believe in God.  The reason is because there are still so many religious voters who need to be stroked to ignore at election time.

38 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Yet you can't explain where everything came from and where the complex structures in cells, biology, and physical laws of the universe came from.  Scientists, if they are being honest, will even admit they can't explain it.

Scientists can explain just about everything right back to the first few seconds of our cosmos existence.

There's still room for God in the first second or two I suppose but scientists haven't seen a single thing between now and then that suggests there's been any god or supernatural stuff going on in all that time.

Nothing...Nada...Zilch 

[blackbird]

33 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The majority of politicians claim they believe in God.  The reason is because there are still so many religious voters who need to be stroked to ignore at election time.

 I never heard politicians saying on the news that they believe in God.  Maybe you are guessing on that.

[blackbird]

47 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Scientists can explain just about everything right back to the first few seconds of our cosmos existence.

I think most scientists would disagree with your claim about explaining just about everything.

I would suggest you get two books by scientists who refute the theory of evolution.   A theory is not a proven fact either.

One book is called "Refuting Evolution" by Jonathan Sarfati,  Ph.D.    I think you may be able to read some of this material on the website creation.com

Another book called "Vital Questions" by Philip Stott.   He was a mathematician but is also a scientist with great knowledge on the subject of creation versus evolution and related subjects.

He has a lot of information on the subject at the following website:

Philip Stott: General Science: Table of Contents | Reformation International College

 

Edited September 28, 2025 by blackbird

[blackbird]

51 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The majority of politicians claim they believe in God.  The reason is because there are still so many religious voters who need to be stroked to ignore at election time.

Scientists can explain just about everything right back to the first few seconds of our cosmos existence.

There's still room for God in the first second or two I suppose but scientists haven't seen a single thing between now and then that suggests there's been any god or supernatural stuff going on in all that time.

Nothing...Nada...Zilch 

Many scientists would disagree with you.

quote

Evolution has played such a major role in shaping modern society that it is essential for every member of our culture to understand the theory, the evidence for it, and its implications. It is more difficult than one might first expect to discover exactly what the theory of evolution says. One reason is that it has changed drastically over the relatively brief period that it has been the ruling paradigm of Western thought. Changes are not usually broadcast to the general public. (See Arthur S. Lodge's search for a definition.)

When the theory first became popular, following Charles Darwin’s proposal of natural selection as the means to drive the process, it was a simple and very appealing hypothesis. Life was rather simple in those days. Algae, amoebae and such humble creatures were blobs of protoplasm which Darwin postulated might have just happened in some warm little pond by the chance coming together of chemicals. It was rather easy to imagine that a few relatively simple changes in this protoplasm could lead to developmental change, and that natural selection would ensure that better adaptation would be preserved. Changes which led to worse adaptation would die out as poorly adapted creatures would perish in the struggle for existence and fail to leave offspring with their inferior design.

The idea of natural processes bringing complex life forms from simple ones, which themselves came from dead matter, logically leads to the idea of all things having arisen by chance through purely natural processes. This way of looking at the world is reflected in the definition given in Evolution and Genetics by Julian Huxley, one of the most influential evolutionists of all time :-

"Evolution, in the extended sense, can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution - a single process of self transformation."

For many years this was the accepted view. It is still the view put forward in popular literature, the media and school text-books.

But in "scientific circles" it has become an embarrassment. It contradicts the best established law in the whole of science. The Law in question is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In language easily understood this law guarantees that any physical system subject only to natural processes follows a downward path to ever lower levels of energy, it becomes more disorganized - it suffers decay.

For many years supporters of the theory attempted to overlook the contradiction between evolution’s requirement (self transformation to ever higher levels of organization), and the Second Law’s exactly opposite requirement, by claiming that the Second Law applies only to "closed systems" in which no energy enters from outside. Few now try to support this discredited position, (see, for example, The Mystery of Life's Origins) and changes in the definition of evolution itself have been brought in to address the problem.

Another difficulty for the theory has come from microbiology. As scientists have learned how to examine life in ever greater detail, Darwin’s picture of organisms consisting of a few simple chemicals has given way to one of mind-boggling complexity even in the most humble of creatures. The lowly E coli bacterium possesses not only miniature electric motors of outstanding efficiency, but also the apparatus to build, repair, maintain and operate them - as well as the electricity-generating system to power them.

As it has become possible to calculate the probabilities of evolution’s mechanisms producing evolution’s supposed results, ever growing numbers of scientists have become convinced that there are problems which the theory is unable to cope with. Many are now seriously considering intelligent design as an alternative.

As the founder of the "cult" of evolution, Charles Darwin and his magnum opus, the Origin of Species are presented for study.

A more modern text, an Introduction to Evolutionary Biology by Chris Colby shows the enormous change which has taken place in evolutionary thinking in the last century. My annotations are rather full and attempt to show what I see to be the weakness of much of modern evolutionary thinking. I recommend this annotated work as showing the case for and against the modern theory.

The antipathy between evolution and Christianity is sometimes denied. This idea is examined in "Creation, Evolution and the Christian" . The weakness of evolution as a "scientifically" defensible position and the truth that it is largely a religious question is very ably presented by Philip Johnson, professor of law at the University of California, Berkley.

Johnson's position deserves some explanation. The "scientific" press is a tightly controlled unit which does not allow any neutral discussion of evolution, the time scale or Einstein. Any paper questioning orthodoxy, or submitted by a scientist known to be skeptical of orthodoxy, is simply denied publication. Any scientist questioning the orthodoxy is ostracized and outcast. Scientists are then able to set up a vicious circle to exclude debate. Such questions could only be seriously considered if they were discussed in the reputable journals. Any attempt to bring such discussion to the journals is prevented by editorial policy. The situation was brought into the spotlight in the chapter "The Scientific Mafia" in "Velikovski Reconsidered." A recent example can be seen in Persecution of Richard Sternberg.

Philip Johnson is a highly respected professor of law. The secular humanist watchdogs apparently anticipated no danger from this field. They did not, apparently, set up a similar exclusion principle for lawyers. Johnson was able to question Darwinism by comparing the strength of the evidence put forward to support it with that required by a court of law - without the weight of his entire profession descending to crush and stifle him.

His position is expressed very simply in an interview with Citizen Magazine. Johnson's examination of the stand of influential liberal Reformed Christian scientists can be seen in "The Hostage Takers." The internet has many of his articles examples being "What is Darwinism," a well reasoned account of what evolution really is - a philosophical necessity of atheism. "The Church of Darwin" is a look at Darwinists aims for education. "Shouting Heresy in the Temple of Darwin" and "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning" reinforce his analysis of the way Darwinists operate. Johnson has been involved in may debates -on the subject. An example ("How Did We Get Here?" with Kenneth Miller) reproduced here is typical. Many more of his contributions on the subject can be found on the Internet.

A major contribution to the question of the credibility of evolution was Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box," in which he drew attention to many marvelous micro-biological systems which exhibit what he termed "irreducible complexity." The importance of irreducible complexity is that Darwin had stated that if any case could be brought forward where development could not have been achieved by small successive advances, then his theory would be disproved. Irreducible systems provide that disproof. Evolutionists have fought irreducible complexity fiercely, but many scientists have become convinced that intelligent design is an undeniable feature of living organisms, and a strong "Intelligent Design" group has emerged. Many articles by Behe and the Design group can be found on the internet. Behe explains his stand in Evidence for Intelligent Design. One of his colleagues, William Dembski's "Still Spinning" illustrates the tricky tactics of the opponents of design and how they can be dealt with.

Non-biologists have increasingly entered the evolutionary arena. Examples are given from well know mathematician, and philosopher David Berlinski, ("The Deniable Darwin" and "Keeping an Eye on Darwin" ). Physicist Lee Spetner in A Scientific Critique of Evolution demonstrates an important point for anyone wanting to enter the arena. The claims of the evolutionist are expounded with intimidating authority, and a superior knowledge of the scientific literature is needed to show up their fatuous claims for what they are. Despite the evolutionist's bluster and the total commitment of the scientific establishment to supporting it, I believe most would concede that evolution is in its weakest and most unconvincing state for many years. (See for example, Atheism In Decline Everywhere)

However weak or strong the orthodox evolutionist's position may appear to be though, it would be unwise to be swayed simply by the strongest "scientific" argument. As can be seen by contrasting Darwin and Colby, "science" changes its mind - sometimes very quickly. Whichever side is considered to have the strongest arguments today may find itself discomfited by new arguments tomorrow. The Word of God though remains the same for ever. God is true though all men be liars.

Links on this page and in this section:

01 Arthur S. Lodge's Search for a Definition
02 The Mystery of Life's Origins
03 Charles Darwin Biography
04 HOME: Origin of Species: Intro 1  2  3  4  5  6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
05 Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
06 Creation, Evolution and the Christian
07 Persecution of Richard Sternberg
08 Darwinists Squirm / Philip Johnson in Citizen Magazine
09 Comparing Hostage Takers: Fundamentalism and Scientism
10 What is Darwinism?
11 The Church of Darwin
12 How Did We Get Here?
13 Shouting Heresy in the Temple of Darwin
14 Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning
15 Evidence for Intelligent Design
16 Still Spinning Just Fine
17 The Deniable Darwin
18 Keeping an Eye on Evolution
19 A Scientific Critique of Evolution
20 Atheism In Decline Everywhere

Other related articles:

30 Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? David Buckna
31 Pseudogenes: Are They Non-Functional? Pierre Jerlström
32 Unseating Naturalism: Recent Insights from Developmental Biology, Jonathan Wells

 

 

Links to sites dealing with evolution :

Revolution against Evolution | True.Origin Archive

Answers in Genesis | Center for Scientific Creation

Access Research Network (ARN) | Design Inference

Charles Darwin -- The Truth? | Amazing Discoveries

Arthur S. Lodge's page on Evolution  | Biblical Creation Society

Creation Research Society | California Institute of Omniology

Lambert Dolphin's Library | Creation Compass

Creation Perspective

Studies in Evolution - Reformation International Schools

Edited September 28, 2025 by blackbird

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Scientists can explain just about everything right back to the first few seconds of our cosmos existence.

Actually this article explains scientists are embarrassed by the claims of evolution.  Many of them apparently now reject the theory.

"But in "scientific circles" it has become an embarrassment. It contradicts the best established law in the whole of science. The Law in question is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In language easily understood this law guarantees that any physical system subject only to natural processes follows a downward path to ever lower levels of energy, it becomes more disorganized - it suffers decay."

Studies in Evolution - Reformation International Schools

This is why the Big Bang theory has also fallen into disfavour with many.

An explosion such as a Big Bang does not create order;  it creates disorder.

The universe with all the laws of physics is a precise thing.  Everything operates in the universe according to precise laws of physics.   Where did those laws of physics come from.  Where did the precise atoms and molecules, protons, electrons, and neutrons come from?  That is a very important question.  I doubt there is any scientist on earth who has the answer to that one.

Edited September 28, 2025 by blackbird

[SpankyMcFarland]

Quote

But in "scientific circles" it has become an embarrassment. It contradicts the best established law in the whole of science. The Law in question is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In language easily understood this law guarantees that any physical system subject only to natural processes follows a downward path to ever lower levels of energy, it becomes more disorganized - it suffers decay.

For many years supporters of the theory attempted to overlook the contradiction between evolution’s requirement (self transformation to ever higher levels of organization), and the Second Law’s exactly opposite requirement, by claiming that the Second Law applies only to "closed systems" in which no energy enters from outside. Few now try to support this discredited position, (see, for example, The Mystery of Life's Origins) and changes in the definition of evolution itself have been brought in to address the problem.

Lower levels of ‘useful’ energy. Entropy increases but energy is conserved. 

Evolution does not require ever higher levels of organization. If conditions on this earth favour bacteria again that’s what we will get. 

Our planet is in a universe. That’s the system it’s in. Isolated apparent decreases in entropy don’t mean a thing. 
 

 

 

 

[blackbird]

On 9/23/2025 at 12:16 PM, herbie said:

You're living in a world controlled by humans,

Sorry but your humanism ideology is a lie of Satan.  Humanism is one of Satan's biggest lies and is exposed and refuted by the Holy Scripture, the King James Bible 1611.  Humanism is a road to hell.

 

Edited September 28, 2025 by blackbird

[blackbird]

19 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Theocratic thinking has no place in government.

I know exactly where you are coming from.  I will explain it concisely so you will hopefully understand.

There is Bible believing Christianity and there are many other false religions in the world.

One of the false belief systems is called humanism.  There are religious humanists who advocate and push their ideology of humanism throughout the public educational system with the aid of such teachings as the theory of evolution.

The book Refuting Evolution say this on page 20:

1.  Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

2.  Humanism believes that Man is a part of nature and has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

   This is exactly what evolution teaches.  Many humanist leaders are quite open about using the public schools to proselytize their faith.  This might surprise some parents who think the schools are supposed to be free of religious indoctrination....."

So you appear to be a supporter of humanism.  Humanists like yourself say keep theological thinking (i.e. Christianity or Bible beliefs out of government, out of public schools), and restrict it to private.  But you are quite agreeable to humanist ideology being spread through government, schools, and society.  That makes you a religious humanist of some sort.  This is the religion of those who claim they are atheists.  They see humans as kind of gods and believe everything should be based on humanist (man-centered) ideas or beliefs.  They put their complete trust in humans as having the answers to everything.  Any supernatural Bible belief system is anathema to them. 

Humanism definitely has a strong anti-God or anti-Christian bias.  Always remember that humanism is a religion to many people, although they would never admit to that.

Edited September 28, 2025 by blackbird

[ExFlyer]

14 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

You are a total and complete idi*t. It was clear that I was referring to the Islamic Republic of Iran which is the only regime ay war with Israel as recent as 3 months ago and is developing nuclear weapons and is a threat to the West and just today European sanctions applied to the regime because the refuse to give up developing nuclear weapons. This regime is also at war with the nation of Iran who are trying to get rid of this islamic fascists. All my posts have been on Islamic republic of Iran. Why should i give a f*ck about islamic republic of Afghanistan.  You are a leftist dick!!.

Very little of what you post is "clear" LOL
I responded to what you wrote, not what you think you wrote

I gave you facts based on what you posted and called you out on your racism and your demand for genocide..that is "clear" LOL

Edited September 28, 2025 by ExFlyer

[herbie]

7 hours ago, blackbird said:

Humanism is one of Satan's biggest lies and is exposed and refuted by the Holy Scripture,

Gods (and Satan) are redundant entities. Books are meant to guide you not rule over you, the allegories are tales of possibility not threats.

Take away the fun and concentrate on the absurd = "fundamental"

[blackbird]

22 minutes ago, herbie said:

Gods (and Satan) are redundant entities. Books are meant to guide you not rule over you, the allegories are tales of possibility not threats.

Does Satan rule you?  How do you know?

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Does Satan rule you?  How do you know?

The fact so many people still nonsensically worry about this sort of shit bodes badly for the survival of our species.

As with COVID, stupidity is probably extinctions favourite vector.

[Gaétan]

The Book Of Sophia from Jesus Christ:

"The Lord of the Universe is not called 'Father', but 'Forefather', the beginning of those that will appear, but he (the Lord) is the beginningless Forefather. Seeing himself within himself in a mirror, he appeared resembling himself, but his likeness appeared as Divine Self-Father, and <as> Confronter over the Confronted ones, First Existent Unbegotten Father. He is indeed of equal age <with> the Light that is before him, but he is not equal to him in power.

[blackbird]

53 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The fact so many people still nonsensically worry about this sort of shit bodes badly for the survival of our species.

As with COVID, stupidity is probably extinctions favourite vector.

A book I am reading at the moment, War on the Saints, Chap. One, called a Biblical survey of Satanic Deception talks about how people in Christian churches are often deceived by Satan and his demons.

If believers, i.e. Christians are so easily deceived, one can only wonder how easily Satan deceives non-believers.  Billions of people in the world are under great deception.  That explains why the world is in the mess it is in. The fact that you would say what you said proves you are really under great deception and don't even know it or acknowledge it.

The book starts off "Truth of every kind makes free. while lies bind up in bonds.  Ignorance also binds up, because it gives ground to Satan.  Man's ignorance is a primary and essential condition for deception by evil spirits. "  Ignorance is a result of lack of knowledge of God's revelation to man, in English, the King James Bible (1611). 

 If you don't understand that since the first couple on earth, Adam and Eve, disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit and as a result they fell out of the good relationship they had with God.  They and all their descendants received a corrupt, fallen nature because we are part of their family.  We inherited the fallen nature. 

They listened to the serpent (Satan) and were deceived.  That is the condition of mankind now.  The world is in a corrupt, fallen condition because of man's first sin against God.  That was passed down to all of us.  That problem is exacerbated by the fact mankind with the fallen nature often does not believe what they are told about their condition and the fact they are being deceived by Satan and demonic spirits under his command.  Demons are able to put thoughts in their mind such as what you said in order to keep you under his control and prevent you from knowing the truth.  

In this case, one requires a degree of humility and willingness to acknowledge one doesn't have all the answers or knowledge.  One needs to keep an open mind to what God has said in his word.  That is the only possible way of being delivered from the powers of darkness.

Edited September 28, 2025 by blackbird

[blackbird]

A Christian program on TV at the moment is talking about The Destructive Lies of Evolution.

The # 1 lie is that man is just another animal.

TWTV.org/Evolution