Friday, March 11, 2011

postheadericon Don't worry, be happy!

Every person who you meet in life shares one single goal with you. Even though the concept of this goal seems simple, most people do not understand how to actually achieve it. This goal is happiness. This is much different to materialistic goals such as getting a job or buying a car. Those achievements are based on attaining something physical. Happiness is not physical, it is a state of being which allows you to reflect upon joyfulness.

I have a question for you: How would you describe the life of a happy person?
You probably can respond with a list on things, relationships or ideals which you do not have however would like to have. Alternitvly, you may imagine yourself without the common defects that burden you. If this is correct, you are being deceived by a common misconception. You have the mindset that if you remove your defects and achieve all your materialistic goals, then you will be happy. The problem with that mindset is, you will always have defects and you will always have materialistic goals. This may not seem like good news to you but please be assured that you have the capability of being the happiest person on this planet without changing a thing accept your mentality. Don't get me wrong, striving to change is a good thing and I encourage everyone to do it however, it is certainly not essential to being happy.

Let's take a look at the reason why you are not happy. If I had a thousand dollars at my disposal, I would calmly bet that your esteem is the issue. Esteem includes your self esteem as well as the way which others think of you. It is important to have good self esteem however everyone goes through periods in life of low self esteem.

The largest cause of low self esteem is appearance. Let me introdcuce some facts which I sincerely hope changes the way you think if you have a bad self image. 1) Most people believe that they are ugly. It is COMPLETLY normal. 2) Just about everyone is told by someone in their life that they are ugly. It usually takes dozens of positive compliments to repair the reduced self esteem this causes because people pay more attention to negative comments. 3) Confidence is more attractive than beauty. 4) Beauty does not result in happines.

People often ask "what is the seceret to happiness?" The seceret is appreciation. Next time you are hanging out with your friends or having dinner with your partener, take a moment to think about how good it is to have a relationship with that person. Think about all the good things you have and consider how lucky you are to be who you are. Stop thinking about how good it would be if...... Start thinking about the good rather than the bad. The only thing you need to change is your mindset.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011

postheadericon Proof of God.

When you face an issue with two different points of view, you can be sure that one is an absolute right and the other is an absolute wrong. To determine which point of view is right, it would make perfect sense to weigh up each argument to reach a rational conclusion. This sounds simple however this is the one capability that modern society does not appreciate.

Society prefers to follow the beliefs of those who sound more intelligent, assuming that intellectual people such as scientists or doctors are actually correct just because they wear a smart looking suit or a lab coat. How is it right for someone to base their beliefs on this without actually researching and understanding all possible points of view?

Whenever there is a major event that makes the headlines, the media fundamentally takes the information, data and statistics from sometimes completely unreliable sources to develop the story into something interesting that captures the audience’s attention. The problem is though, viewers are made to believe everything they are told and their way of thinking is manipulated.

The argument of whether or not God exists is ongoing, though most people tend to follow the media’s manipulative way of presenting information. Sometimes, the media are not even sure whether the information which they present is accurate. If you are an Atheist, ask yourself this; How do you know that what you believe is true? Is it because of the so called facts that you hear on the Discovery Channel? Or have you actually looked in depth into all points of view? If you are a Creationist, do you believe what you hear at church without thinking or have you also looked into all points of view to make your own decision?

I have personally researched both arguments and I have reached the conclusion that there cannot possibly be a creation without a creator. In this article, the facts that I have found are presented plainly in an easy way to understand without unexplained scientific jargon that people attach their beliefs to. These facts are not just assumptions or ideas based on what I have been told; I have studied the facts and I have discovered the truth about evolution, spontaneous development and many other ideas of a creation without a creator. Please do not write-off your own beliefs without researching these facts for yourself. Just as I have not taken the media for granted, you should not take me for granted. You should use your common sense to establish your opinion.

The Big Bang

The Big Bang is an attempt to try and explain what happened at the beginning of the universe. Studies in astronomy and physics have found beyond doubt that the universe had a beginning. This is known because when galaxies are observed over time, it can be seen that the universe is expanding. The way in which it expands suggests that all contents of the universe were originally in one spot.

The Big Bang is portrayed by the media to be a fact. This is not true, it is simply an idea. For something to be factual, it must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt with explicit evidence to support it. What the media does not tell you is that The Big Bang is one of many ideas about the beginning of the universe. There are hundreds of ideas about our origin and this empathizes how pathetic it is for someone to believe in the most popular one without even understanding it.

Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis stated that “people need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observation for Earth at the centre of the universe and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” George's statement does not suggest that the Earth is actually in the centre of the universe; it simply says that it is possible. When you read George's statement, you probably thought to yourself, “Don't be ridiculous, everyone knows the earth is not the centre of the universe. That was disproved years ago” but if you actually think about it, the only reason that you believe that it is not central is because you have been told to. Do you personally have the ability to look to the edge of every direction of the universe (edges which may or may not exist) and then make measurements to determine if Earth is central? Obviously you do not, so why do you believe the scientists when they cannot do this either yet they try to render a simple idea of Earth not being central into a fact. This is just one example of a simple idea that is believed by society because of the way the media portrays it.

The Big Bang Theory is not only doubted by people without scientific background, there are also many scientists that disagree on the idea based on research that they have personally done. They have been able to see for themselves many flaws in the theory. Physicist Robert Gentry from Oak Ridge National Laboratory in America claimed that the standard Big Bang Model is founded upon a faulty paradigm. (A paradigm being a word in science used to describe distinct concepts.) He claims that the theory is inconsistent with the experiential data.

A perfect example of inconsistency with experiential data is found within the world's largest experiment, The Large Hadron Collider (LHC). It is the world's largest particle accelerator and collider located about one hundred meters below the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva. Scientist use the LHC to try and determine how they believe the Big Bang actually occurred. The energy, density and temperature made available during the collisions are what scientists consider to be very close to the conditions at the beginning of the universe. The truth is though; nobody actually knows what those conditions were. Nobody was alive during the start of existence. The conditions that the scientists use are nothing but guesses based on wishful observations.

The Large Hadron Collider gets its name from the ability to collide Hadrons at extremely high speeds. A Hadron is a family of particles made of quarks (a quark being a fundamental particle with no substructure i.e. it is the smallest possible particle that cannot be rendered down to anything smaller.)

A quark is a theoretical substance because while assuming its existence allows a better physics theory, it has never been observed directly. Approximately six hundred million quarks supposedly collide every second during operation of the LHC. You would assume that if the collider functioned for a fraction of a second, there would be enough collisions to achieve a substantial result yet after years of operation; no results have been discovered to prove or even substantially support the idea of a Big Bang.

The lack of results from the Large Hadron Collider has sparked an absurd theory among scientists involved with the project. Holger Bech Nielsen from the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen suggests that the results of the LHC has formed in the future then gone back in time to sabotage its very own creation. This idea is linked to the concept of a man going back in time to kill his grandfather creating a paradox which does not allow his own existence. Other scientists support this theory by stating that this idea is theoretically valid because no known laws of physics prevent time travel.

The purpose of the LHC was to find evidence to support the Big Bang. Without this evidence, common sense would allow one to assume that the idea of the Big Bang is flawed. It is not just the lack of evidence that is sabotaging the theory, something which was highly expected has failed therefore it ought to be assumed that the reason it was unsuccessful was due to the scientists being wrong. This is a much more reasonable conclusion compared to the suggestion of time travel.

If you still have faith in The Big Bang, then please answer this: What caused it? Scientists claim that the only thing which existed before The Big Bang was infinite energy; this is believed to have turned into matter. So my second question is: How did the energy come into existence? Usually this question is answered with a question: How did God come into existence? The obvious answer is: He has always existed. This sounds absurd though the entire debate of whether or not God exists boils down to two possible outcomes. 1) An intelligent designer has always existed and created the universe for a reason. Or 2)The entire universe formed from nothing by itself.

The reason that people like the idea of randomness as an explanation for our existence is because the media portrays scientists to appear as though they have a good understanding of the concept and in turn, society follows science sheepishly. The truth is though, scientists cannot understand everything. Nobody can ever fully understand how something can possibly exist from nothing. We can only look at the evidence around us to make an assumption. To do this correctly, we must consider all evidence before making a judgment however this is made impossible due to the media’s controlled thinking that majority of us are subject to.

It is impossible to understand how God has “always existed” therefore people ignore this idea. Instead of trying to understand something which cannot be understood, try to understand it in this context: Imagine that God had created the world with every color accept red. Everything would seem normal to us based on our own experiences however, if God told someone to tell the world that there is in fact a new color, everyone would call that person a fool because it is easier for the world to understand what has already been experienced. If God were to reveal the color red, the entire world would see then understand.

As discussed earlier, the entire debate of whether or not God exists boils down to two possible outcomes. 1) An intelligent designer has always existed and created the universe for a reason. Or 2)The entire universe formed from nothing by itself. Society chooses to believe the second option because they cannot understand the first. If they tried to understand the first, they would have to accept that they are accountable for their sins hence they go for the second option which requires no effort.


For someone to believe in a Big Bang that spontaneously turned nothing into everything without the intercession of an intelligent designer, they would need a means of explaining how life formed from the matter which suddenly existed. Some scientists resort to the idea that once the planet Earth had formed, inorganic chemicals reacted with each other to form amino acids. It is believed that the amino acids organized themselves into proteins which formed organic molecules. This process is referred to as abiogenesis. Atheists believe that this idea functions as a way of explaining how existence is possible without the need of God's intercession. I laugh every time I hear this because if the atheists had actually paid attention to the Bible, it would be obvious that the theory simply cannot remove God from the equation. In Genesis, it states that God taken dust from the Earth to create Adam, the first man. This is indeed a great example of non organic matter becoming a living human. Despite this, the entire idea of abiogenesis is still fruitless, the point I want to make is that if it were plausible, it would by no means disprove our creator.

The issue with abiogenesis is that it doesn't seem to occur in modern times. If it supposedly happened billions of years ago, why aren't there new forms of life constantly developing today from the innumerable collections of organic matter that surrounds us? If the idea was valid, then common sense would tell you that it is a lot easier for life to form today than many years ago when the universe was young. The conditions are much more favorable today. This is known because of the obvious widespread life across our entire planet. The point is, if life is capable of forming from non-life without God, then why can this not be seen in modern times when the conditions are most supporting of this theory? The answer is simple. It doesn’t work today because it has never worked.

Just like the Big Bang, abiogenesis is just an idea, it is not a fact. The media portrays many things to be factual though this is not the case. Abiogenesis is actually not even a theory. A theory requires testing and observing though no one has ever been able to create life from non-living matter nor have they been able to discover an observable process.

As you have just read, it is believed that life had formed by chemicals reacting with each other to form amino acids, which had then organized themselves into proteins. This may sound somewhat plausible to someone who hears it from a scientist wearing a white lab coat on a documentary, however, what you didn't hear on the documentary is that every protein which makes up every living molecule in existence needs a complex and specific combination to form a single molecule. Each strand of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in existence also requires multiple molecules in a specific order (depending on the life form which the DNA represents). The question that chemical evolutionists do not like to answer is: How do amino acids know how to arrange themselves to form a single protein? DNA is scientifically proven to be the genetic instructions for life to develop. This includes instructions on how the amino acids are required to link together in their specific, unique and complex sequence in order to form protein. If amino acids formed in the ocean from chemical reactions and then formed into proteins which formed the molecules of DNA, then how did the DNA tell the amino acids which order to make the sequence for protein when the DNA did not yet exist? Remember DNA is made of molecules which are made of proteins which are made of amino acids and the DNA tells the amino acids how to form. This is only possible if there is already an external source of DNA such as the DNA found in a man's sperm or a woman's egg. This scientifically proves that life is required for life to form. If this sounds too complex for you to understand, let me put it simply. When two species mate, sperm fertilizes an egg which has specific chemicals needed to form amino acids. DNA from each mating species is used to tell the amino acids the specific combination that it is required to form into. This allows them to form and develop into protein. Basically, life cannot form without DNA and DNA comes from life.

Life cannot possibly form from non living matter.
Friday, December 10, 2010

postheadericon Murder Has Been Made Legally And Socially Acceptable

Thousands, perhaps millions of defenseless children are being aborted each year. It has become socially and legally acceptable across the world to kill your own child without reason and many people are fighting for this, arguing that it is wrong to stop this mass murder that has seen more human beings killed than the holocaust.

Those in favor of this disgusting act believe in the right to choose whether to bring a child into the world after the baby has been created in the mother’s womb.
Across the world, the laws vary however abortion has widely been made available from the first week of the pregnancy, right up to full term. In some abortion clinics, the pregnant woman receives a saline injection to burn the baby alive, and then the mother has an induced labor which forces her to give birth to her child. Sometimes, the baby is still alive after this process however the doctors dispose of the young life via suffocation or discarding the baby into a trash can where it slowly dies. These babies have been known to live for many hours in tremendous pain before they die. After this, the babies are issued both a birth and a death certificate.
How is this acceptable when it is so obvious that it is wrong?
Saturday, December 4, 2010

postheadericon Abortion Survivor

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

postheadericon Is It a Sin to Swear?

I am not going to answer this explicitly although, I ask that you comment and share your opinion.

Swearing is entirely unnecessary however in some contexts it is argued to be acceptable. It is obvious that If it is used in the context that degrades somebody than it is indisputably sinful.
If it is used in a dirty-minded manner than it is in fact a sin.

If you were to burn yourself and your immediate reaction was to drop a swear word, would it be sinful? Share your opinion in the comment box. What other contexts are/are not acceptable?

The following may be useful:

Ephesians 4:29 tells us, "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen."

First Peter 3:10 declares, "For, whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech."

James 3:9-12 summarizes the issue: "With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water."
Friday, October 1, 2010

postheadericon Christian Music is Truly Great

Over the past fifty years, music genres have changed extensively resulting in an intensifying enormity of mainstream preference. Christian music has also had a massive growth, especially over the last ten years and some of our much loved favorites are becoming more and more popular within a mainstream audience.

Bands such as Relient K and Thousand Foot Krutch appeal to a substantial audience ranging from dedicated Christians, to non-believers.

One remarkable resource which has participated in the expansion of popularity of Christian music is Christian Music Festivals. These festivals feature many artists from all Christian genres such as rock, hard rock , hip hop, worship, and punk just to name a few.

Easterfest is the largest Christian music festival in Australia. It is held annually in Toowoomba, Queensland during Easter. Previous lineups have included artists such as Disciple, Hawk Nelson, Newsboys, Superchick, Jars of Clay, Thousand Foot Krutch, Newworldson, Rebecca St James and many more.

The festival has expanded throughout Toowoomba City creating Easterfest’s side event “Easterfest City” This brings the streets alive with buskers and events such as public Wii Competitions. Even shop owners get involved to celebrate the Easter story.

Easterfest has without doubt proven itself as a remarkable event that will continue to entertain for many years to come.
Thursday, September 30, 2010

postheadericon December 21st 2012

The 21st of December 2012 is a date in which many people believe the world will end. It is the single most controversial prediction that dates back thousands of years and it is claimed that there is an amazing array of historical and even scientific proof that points to this date being doomsday. is loaded with believable articles that would turn many skeptics into believers although whoever is wise enough to take the evidence and so called proof with a grain of salt will agree with me when I say that this conspiracy is despicable.

The Bible unmistakably explains that no one whatsoever knows the date of the end of the world therefore this instantly allows anyone with common sense to right-off this date (although there is still a possibility, I very much doubt will occur). The Bible also states that the second-coming will be like a thief in the night.

I do believe that it is possible that a significant event could occur on this date, although I believe the most likely outcome will be a lot of media attention followed by everyone naturally waking up on the 22nd of December to a normal day.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010

postheadericon Atomic Bomb Survivors

At 8:15 am on the 6th of August 1945, The United States of America intentionally detonated an atomic bomb about 1,900 feet above the Japanese city of Hiroshima directly killing about 80,000 citizens. Thousands more were also killed over the following year due to radiation sickness.

At the centre point, the destruction from the blast was particularly severe (which is expected) however, a community of Jesuit Fathers who were living in a presbytery near the church and situated less than a mile from the point of detonation were left unharmed from the explosion. The whole of eight priests lived the rest of their lives with absolutely no symptoms of any form of radiation illness. The building in which the priests were inside stood standing whereas every other structure around it was completely destroyed.

Father Hubert Shiffer, one of the eight Jesuit survivors recounted the event during a Eucharistic Congress in 1976. He stated that he had just finished mass, and had sliced a grapefruit. Immediately after placing his spoon in the fruit, there was a flash of light. He said “Suddenly, a terrific explosion filled the air with one bursting thunderstroke. An invisible force lifted me from the chair, hurled me through the air, shook me, battered me, whirled me ‘round and round like a leaf in a gust of autumn wind.”. The priest stated that when he opened his eyes, all buildings in every direction were levelled to the ground.
Scientists told Schiffer that his body would soon deteriorate and doctors informed him that he would not live for long. The same outcome was also predicted for the other priests however, despite the odds, each of the eight Priests bodies contained no radiation and they did not suffer any symptoms.
Saturday, September 4, 2010

postheadericon Are you a good Christian?

Believing in God is not about just physical feelings that allow you to express thoughts about the existence of a creator. To actually believe, you must seek a physical and real relationship with God. There seems to be two types of Christians today. A Christian that regrets sin and has a constant motive to live free of sin (this type of Christian tends to always seek forgiveness after acknowledging a sin). The other type is the Christian who believes in the existence of the creator however may not have taken the step of developing and maintaining a relationship with him.

A great issue of today is that there is an increasingly expanding group of Christians who know too well that “all who believes shall be saved” and take this for granted. They often think that this means they can sin without guilt. The truth is, they misunderstand the meaning of belief. The fundamental way to believe is to have a relationship with God, and to live life with an absolute motive in a way in which God intends us to live our lives. By doing this, others will observe and respond to in a positive manner; this will be encouraging for others to live like this too. This does not mean we need to be perfect in order  to get into Heaven, it simply means that we all need the intention to live good lives, we should not use the fact that we are not perfect as an excuse to not have any intention of trying to live like Christ. Belief is not about acknowledging the existence; however it is the way that we live our lives to show our acknowledgment of the existence of God.
Monday, August 23, 2010

postheadericon Euthanasia: is it right or wrong?

Euthanasia derives from a Greek word meaning “good death”. It refers to the practice of ending one’s life in a manner which relieves pain and suffering.

To end pain and suffering sounds pleasant, hence we tell our minds that euthanasia is the best way out. Most of us will all feel a mutual agreement when I say that I would rather die than be permanently bound to a hospital bed, living the life of a vegetable. The idea of dying for most people is a scary concept although the idea of helplessly suffering is much more terrifying, however, euthanasia is an act of an immoral escape from a life that no human has the right to intentionally end.

The grass is greener on the other side. This statement is the principal motive behind euthanasia. The grass looks greener, because people think that what they want is better than what they have and in many cases they are very wrong. The principle of happiness is appreciating what you already have. When I was a child, the only thing that I wanted for Christmas was a radio. After two years of wanting this, I finally got one for my birthday. Twelve months later, I wanted a cassette player. I saved up al l my pocket money for six months and brought one. Soon I wanted a CD player, then a portable CD player, then an mp3 player, an IPod then an Iphone. No matter what I had, there was always something better and I was never satisfied with what I had. The truth is though, the way to get to the greener grass is to appreciate and be thankful for what you have. If you are deprived of good health, then appreciate your friends and family. By following this path, you will get to the green grass when the time is meant for you, not when you want it.

Legalising the deliberate killing of humans would in effect demoralize the very foundations of our laws and public morality. Furthermore, the use of euthanasia could evolve to become more and more unrestricted. Who’s to say that in twenty years the laws won’t be relaxed to an extent that any one, no matter the severity of their physical illness, could ask to be euthanized? Is it possible that euthanasia could be forced upon victims that cannot speak for themselves?

Similar things have happened with the issue of abortion. Once it was used only in times when the life of the mother was at risk, (which in itself is wrong) however, now abortion can be had on demand even if the baby is healthy and fully developed. According to the professionals, abortion is not forced upon anyone however any logical person will know perfectly well that the child has no choice in the matter. This is without a doubt force. Professionals also say euthanasia will not be forced however, it is not an issue of force; it is an issue of the potential of the rules becoming more and more accepting once the door is opened. You do not need to be opposed to abortion or euthanasia to appreciate how the laws have changed.
We live in a world with double standards. Abortion is legal and becoming more and more socially acceptable however, if an unborn child inside the womb of a woman that is driving to an abortion clinic was killed in a car accident with a drunken driver, the driver is considered a murderer and faces serious consequences despite the fact that the baby was due to be “legally murdered” just hours after the accident.

The Ten Commandments are not just ten good rules; they are a written covenant that guides today’s moral values. The Fifth Commandment states – “thou shall not kill”. It has been made entirely clear that no human on Earth has the right to decide when any other human is to die. By allowing euthanasia, people are trying to take up the role of God.
Genesis 9:6 states: "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God has He made man."  This is just one of many examples in the scriptures that concisely inform us of the way in which God intends humans to live. God’s love is greater than all suffering, and that by dying of a cross, Jesus has been through death for our sake. He did not take the easy way out.

Some may argue that euthanasia is a merciful act of grace and compassion. Those in agreement use these words to make the overall concept sound like an extremely remarkable act of kindness however by doing this, they miss the point. Euthanasia is killing. No human being on Earth has the right to do this. It should be the goal of every decent person to live a good life that leaves the next generation, in some way better off than the last. How can we achieve this when we jam ideas into the heads of our children that it is ok to take your grandmother to a hospital to be put down just as you would with a sick dog?  Don’t go away from this thought with a neutral opinion. You must decide where you stand.