Showing posts with label Is. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Is. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
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.
Abiogenesis
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.
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.
Abiogenesis
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.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
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."
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."
Sunday, August 1, 2010
A prospect for our souls
The Bible teaches that Hell is a place of undying suffering and torment where those who are not saved will dwell for eternity. It is described as an unquenchable lake of fire. Those in Hell are entirely separated from God and have absolutely no hope.
As children, we are often taught that good people go to Heaven and bad people are sent to Hell. This is a vast misconception. The truth of the matter is, we all deserve to go to Hell. Due to original sin, everyone is guilty and therefore will naturally sin.
There is only one way to go to Heaven, which is to believe that Jesus is our saviour and to accept his forgiveness. This may seem simple although, to truthfully accept this forgiveness, we must be truthfully regretful of all of our sins, and have a complete and inclusive intention to live our lives according to the way in which the Bible teaches us.
There is only one way to go to Heaven, which is to believe that Jesus is our saviour and to accept his forgiveness. This may seem simple although, to truthfully accept this forgiveness, we must be truthfully regretful of all of our sins, and have a complete and inclusive intention to live our lives according to the way in which the Bible teaches us.
This means, we can not take advantage of forgiveness by sinning as often as we like thinking that we can easily be forgiven.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Abortion - It's not our right
In society, there are two main stands on the ethics of abortion. Pro-life, and pro-choice. Pro-life being completely against abortion no matter the circumstances and pro-choice being the belief that it should be the mothers right to choose whether to keep the child, or to kill it.
Murder is defined as; ‘the unlawful and intentional killing of another human being’. Logic tells us that abortion is murder. An abortion is completely intentional, and it is obviously killing, however many pro-abortionists argue that the child inside the womb is in fact not a human being.
Murder is defined as; ‘the unlawful and intentional killing of another human being’. Logic tells us that abortion is murder. An abortion is completely intentional, and it is obviously killing, however many pro-abortionists argue that the child inside the womb is in fact not a human being.
Life begins at conception. From the moment that there is a union between a man and woman which causes fertilisation to occur, the living organism inside the woman is without a doubt, a human being. It is scientifically proven beyond doubt that the human embryo is biologically separate from its mother. After the sperm fertilizes the egg, an individual comes into existence. The embryo is genetically different to the mother. Humans can not conceive dogs or cats. The individual is defiantly human. Why should it be anyone’s right to determine whether an unborn child created by God should have a life or not. Some may argue that the mother should have this right however if that belief is followed, then we might as well say that our parents have the right to go back in time and choose to kill us before we were born. Of course, time travel is impossible; therefore we might as well make it easy for them, and allow our parents to have the right to kill us now. What is the difference?
Some may believe that it is better to kill a child then bring an unwanted or diseased/mutated child into the world. It may seem rational however regardless of the circumstances; no one has the right to make this choice. God created the child, however if something has gone terribly wrong in the pregnancy, God will still love the infant. We do not have any right to unlawfully kill a loved creation of God. If the mother and the father believe that they are not capable of raising the child, it is perfectly acceptable and moral put the child up for adoption.
Monday, July 26, 2010
The Mark of the Beast
Revelation 13:
All people were forced to put a mark on their right hand or forehead. Whether they were powerful or weak, rich or poor, free people or slaves, they all had to have his mark or else they couldn’t buy or sell anything. This mark stood for the name of the beast and for the number of its name. You need wisdom to understand the number of the beast! But if you are smart enough, you can figure this out. Its number is 666, and it stands for a person.
This extract from the Bible is one of the most read parts in modern times due to the tremendous relevance in the times that we live.
A human microchip implant is a device implanted in a human being containing a unique identification number that can be linked to an external database that contains personal identification, medical history and financial history. This microchip is typically implanted under the skin of the right hand. Studies have shown that in the future, it is extremely probable that all buying and selling will be done via the means of this chip; it will act as a scanable credit card which is permanently attached to the body. It would probably become impossible to buy or sell without it.
The microchip is currently used by many people across the world. It is produced and distributed by a company called VeriChip Corporation.
It is believed by many Christians that this chip is in fact, the Mark of the Beast. In current times, It is understandable to assume that the world as we know it is surely expected to end soon due to the clear evidence of prophecies throughout the Bible being fulfilled. The Bible says that during the end times, there will be earthquakes, pestilence and famines. There will be wars and rumors of wars. You may argue that there have been earthquakes for thousands of years; however, these statistics show a rapid increase:
The following statistics were taken from a national earthquake centre in the year of 2001. (All greater than or equal to 5.5 on the Richter Scale)
1800 – 1900 = 645 earthquakes in 100 years
1900 – 1994= 1845 earthquakes in 94 years
1994 – 2000 = 1163 earthquakes in 7 years
Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come.
This prophecy has been already fulfilled. The Bible has been translated into many languages, and due to the internet, television and radio, it can be communicated to anywhere in the world instantaneously.
It is defiantly evident that many biblical prophecies have occurred which supports all belief that we are in the end times. The microchip is certainly something that I WILL refuse to accept by ALL means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)