Oprah protege Dr Phil accused of “pathologising” LGBT people Tweet Email 25th August 2009, 1:11 PM Back to article Post your comment × Cancel reply Your comment Name Email (not published) 1 + 5 = Reader comments Chester 25 Aug 2009, 1:38pm hopefully this homophobe will be another who’s lost like all homophobes should I don’t like him Report 0 Reply Ernest 25 Aug 2009, 2:00pm I always found Dr. Phil to be very open minded & progressive on gay issues. He stated that being gay is not a choice & you’re born that way. Report 0 Reply Hank 25 Aug 2009, 4:38pm Hw had, “”One show called “Teen Experimenting With Bisexuality?” has this description: “Did your teenager recently tell you he/she is bisexual? Maybe you caught them engaging in same sex activity? Are you torn with how to react? “Do you feel that what your teenager is doing is just a phase? “Or maybe you feel like girls kissing girls is the new teenage fad? Do you feel strongly opinionated on the subject?” These are all legitimate questions that parents would have in these situtations — so what’s wrong with addressing these with various opinions? Where’s your tolerance of major topics — or do you just prefer to censor topics that you find offensive? Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 25 Aug 2009, 5:11pm Hi Hank: This is probably the only gay site in the world that doesn’t cut you off at the knees, so behave yourself or we will ‘report you to the Moderator’ and we will have every trace of your homohobic and moronic rantings eradicated from this thread. Free speech vs hate-mongering and incitement to violence against gays, you know. We’se cibilized. Report 0 Reply Peter Fuchs 25 Aug 2009, 5:17pm Anyone who is lucky enough to have had a brilliant therapist cannot help but see how poor Dr. Phil is. He is fast food. His show is meaningless; the people on it are de facto victims. Report 0 Reply Alan 25 Aug 2009, 5:49pm Whilst I am loath to admit it, part of me agrees with Hanks (4) comments. Personal experience has shown that these are questions that parents sometimes ask, or are situations that they sometimes have to react to. The problem comes when they fly off in the good old fundy principle of demonising any of the mentioned activities, rejecting their progeny, consigning them to hate filled, ex-gay ministries or taking other courses of action that can lead to harmful behaviours, potentially suicide, in the young person. I often wonder if God, or whatever you want to call him, her or it, would want somebody to make a comment that sees a person harming themselves. Personally I cannot see it, but am open to any suggestions otherwise. Report 0 Reply Abi1975 25 Aug 2009, 5:54pm So ‘Dr’ Phil is not a Dr at all! So it should be just the Phil show. In the UK we would have his balls on a plate for a violation of the trade and descriptions act and impersonating a Dr. Report 0 Reply Brian Burton 25 Aug 2009, 6:50pm Hank, We all know who you are and what your ajender is. You are an oily rag to be dicarded and placed in the dumpster where you truly belong. Be like Speedy-Gonzalus and adios hombre! Report 0 Reply Stuart Neyton 25 Aug 2009, 6:51pm “so what’s wrong with addressing these with various opinions?” I agree they need to be adressed but not with *various opinions*. That will just confuse parents who may accept irrational ideas. The word “opinion” makes me sceptical to the entire purpose of the show. Report 0 Reply Hank 25 Aug 2009, 7:55pm Hey Jean-Paul, what did I say to make you comment: “This is probably the only gay site in the world that doesn’t cut you off at the knees, so behave yourself or we will ‘report you to the Moderator’ and we will have every trace of your homohobic and moronic rantings eradicated from this thread.” There are many questions about homosexuality, sexual identity, sexual experimentation that have not be totally answered, so these types of questions are open for debate. So don’t be so critical when someone questions your sexual preferences. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 25 Aug 2009, 7:56pm “The word “opinion” makes me sceptical to the entire purpose of the show.” -SN(9) Sounds fair to me. Fact is, Phil is not a Ph.D and has made a fortune passing himself off as one, with Oprah backing him up. This reminds me of a business enterprise similar to the RCC! Ha. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 25 Aug 2009, 7:59pm Hank: Put a sock in it. I’ll be as critical as I want to be, and I come by it quite honestly, having learned how to be a perfect asshole from you! And I will cut you off at the knees, you moron. Report 0 Reply Iris 25 Aug 2009, 8:32pm Hank: “There are many questions about homosexuality, sexual identity,sexual experimentation that have not be totally answered,so these types of questions are open for debate. So don’t be so critical when someone questions your sexual preferences.” Teenagers who are LGBT don’t need people questioning them or insinuating that there must be something wrong with them or it’s ‘just a phase’. If the parents of such teens have concerns or seek knowledge, that’s their problem not their child’s. While I see what you’re saying to a certain extent, I feel that discussing someone’s feelings – whether gay or straight – is patronising, and can sometimes give the impression that the person being discussed is lacking in some way. Would you be happy with a show where people were invited to give their opinions on questions such as: Did your teenager recently tell you he/she is dating a black person? Maybe you caught them engaging in sexual activity? Are you torn with how to react? Or maybe you feel like white people kissing black people is the new teenage fad? Do you feel strongly opinionated on the subject?” Now I’m sure many people do, indeed, have strong (racist) opinions on the subject, but I don’t think their opinions should be validated by being given an airing on TV. Likewise, I know from experience that there’s a lot of homophobic views in some areas of the US. These people need education not encouragement. Report 0 Reply Thomas, Florida, USA 25 Aug 2009, 8:46pm The fact that “Dr” Phil had someone on his show from the American Family Association is all anyone needs to know about this charlatans agenda. The AFA is a right wing, anti gay association involved in politics all in the name of Jesus. “Dr” Phil has been disgraced before and continues to disgrace himself. His show is geared towards ignorant simpletons. Welcome to America. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 25 Aug 2009, 9:01pm Thomas, Florida, USA: Welcome to PinkNews. Please stick around. There’a a place and a need for you here. You are priceless. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 25 Aug 2009, 9:05pm Hank: Don’t flatter yourself; I don’t even read what you say. I’ve read you often enough to know that just the sight of your name makes me nauseous. Barf all over you, and go to hell. Now. Report 0 Reply Brian Burton 25 Aug 2009, 10:01pm Hank the Wank, Take the hint you slimy turd. Put an egg in your shoe and beat-it! Report 0 Reply JoFi 26 Aug 2009, 1:20am Wait… Dr Phil does in fact have a PhD in Psychology , which makes him a doctor. A medical doctor would make him a Psychiatrist. Report 0 Reply Brenton 26 Aug 2009, 4:25am Like the Abba song, this man is all about,”Money, Money, Money” Dont watch him amd dont buy his stuff! Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 26 Aug 2009, 6:11am JoFi: Evidence, please. Report 0 Reply Brian Burton 26 Aug 2009, 6:41am Dr, Phil…..A politically correct Jerry Springer? Report 0 Reply Iris 26 Aug 2009, 8:17am According to Wikipedia, Dr Phil does have a PhD in Psychology, but…unusual subject matter for a thesis – “a Ph.D in clinical psychology in 1979 at the University of North Texas, where his dissertation was titled “Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Psychological Intervention.” After run-ins with several faculty members,” McGraw was guided through the doctoral program by Frank Lawlis, Ph.D., who later became the primary contributing psychologist for the Dr. Phil television show.” Wiki also says “Appearing on the Today Show in January 2008, McGraw said that he has made it “very clear” that his current work does not involve the practice of psychology. He also said that he had “retired from psychology.”According to the Today Show, the California Board of Psychology determined in 2002 that he did not require a license because his show involves “entertainment,” rather than psychology.” So it’s entertainment and he can say what he likes, eh? Wiki also maintains he was involved in weight loss products (he’s a man of many talents ;) ) but faced a Federal Trade Commission investigation and a lawsuit from people who claimed his product didn’t work as described. I agree with Brenton, Comment 19. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 26 Aug 2009, 1:16pm Thanks Iris: Wanna share my tuna fish sandwich?! Report 0 Reply Iris 26 Aug 2009, 1:36pm Naughty! :p Report 0 Reply Charlene 26 Aug 2009, 1:49pm Dr Phil is a slippery little sucker. I saw an episode when he had that bloke who held a conference in London about ‘curing homosexuality’ & a Mum of a trans child – she ripped him to shreds – ‘Dr’ Phil’s face was a picture! Report 0 Reply Hank 26 Aug 2009, 3:48pm Hey Iris….glad to hear from you again. I have some comments to reply later today and we’ll take it from there OK? Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 26 Aug 2009, 4:32pm OK, we’ll make a picnic of it. I’ll see if I can round up a few…waht do you call us …sodomites. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 26 Aug 2009, 4:42pm Hank doesn’t throw his garbage away – he makes it into PinkNews comments. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 26 Aug 2009, 4:51pm A Bit of Wisdom from Hank’s Religious Background: To predict the sex of a baby: Suspend a wedding band held by a piece of thread over the palm of the pregnant girl. If the ring swings in an oval or circular motion the baby will be a girl. If the ring swings in a straight line the baby will be a boy. Report 0 Reply Brian Burton 26 Aug 2009, 5:20pm Oh No! not that Idiot Hank the Wank again although we have to realise Hank is suffering from mental aberations and should not be allowed out. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 26 Aug 2009, 5:59pm Babies are not born hating or fearing gay people; they grow up learning from people around them to hate or fear. Report 0 Reply Iris 26 Aug 2009, 9:50pm Ok, Hank. I’d be particularly interested in your response to my comment above, particularly as the Bible has previously been used to argue against interracial marriage (yes, I know we’ve talked about that before, but I’d like to know why some parts of the Bible can be seen as wrong/out of date but others not – how do you decide, and WHO decides?) Report 0 Reply Jenny 26 Aug 2009, 10:15pm Dr, Phil was really bad on trans earlier on – his show has been airing for years. I complained about one where he advised some mothers whose small children weren’t conforming to gender stereotypes to deprive them of the means to do amything but conform (in effect reparative therapy), when all he had to go on was telephone talk with the mothers and he had never seen or talked to the children, who were the “patients”. That was completely agains the ethics code of the main US psychology body, but he wasn’t a member of that so they could do nothing. There he was, practising clinical pediatric psychology on network television with no ethics control! But now, apparently wiser, he plays neutral with opposing “experts”, and has even pulled repeats when a case has been made that the resulting show was, less than helpful. Most of the language being objected to is standard fare when drumming up participants or viewers. So the question has to be whether getting subjects discussed on a popular show, where useful information gets aired (such as the evidence presented by the mother of a transsexual child), although some opposite stuff gets aired too, is, in balance, a benefit? Remembering a time when there was just silence, everywhere, and knowing how much total ignorance there still is around, I think it is a benefit, and that these campaigners are a bit late, and a bit mistaken. Report 0 Reply Will 27 Aug 2009, 6:23pm “I have some comments to reply later today and we’ll take it from there OK?” Maybe you can answer where the fossil record fits into your “6000 year old earth”. Try start small, Hank, as small is how you think. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 27 Aug 2009, 7:43pm My comments are being deleted. Need I say more??? Report 0 Reply Iris 27 Aug 2009, 8:16pm Hank – where did you go? :( If you want to give your opinion then I’m listening. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 28 Aug 2009, 12:10am He reported my last comment, the one that touched a nerve, to the moderator, had it removed, and vanished. Clever, innit. Report 0 Reply xrk9854 28 Aug 2009, 9:25am Dr Phil may have a PhD, but he is an UNLICENSED hack! He is NOT licensed to practice in his state. Also the man is a serious transphobe. I was so happy when the mother of that trans child ripped him and that nut job who was pushing reparative therapy for kids. Report 0 Reply Hank 28 Aug 2009, 3:26pm Hey Iris….very sorry for the delay — had a computer problem that needed professional help — seems to be OK and will write either Friday night or Sat. Again sorry, but I definitely will respond ASAP. Hank Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 28 Aug 2009, 6:47pm Hank: I really would like to know you better. Really. For starters: You can select one person from history and ask them a question to which they must give a thruthful reply. Whom would you select, and what question would you ask? Feel free to ask me anything you like, OK. Report 0 Reply Tigra 07 29 Aug 2009, 12:55pm “Jean-Paul Bentham” you’re being a bit harsh towards “Hank” there I was asked a lot of those questions by my family when they discovered i was gay, we still don’t talk about it but thats beside the point. At the end of the day Dr Phil is an educational program, his advice is worth squat really, for people like him they just make everything a disorder or an illness. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 29 Aug 2009, 6:36pm OK, I’l give you the benefit of the doubt, Tigra 07, but tell me this. How often have you been attacked by Hank? The truth now. Report 0 Reply Iris 29 Aug 2009, 7:43pm Hank #39. Ok – no problem :) Hope your computer’s sorted now. I look forward to your response. Report 0 Reply Hank 30 Aug 2009, 12:37am Hi Iris: (And to all)…. I’ll start answering all the other questions pointed towards me – and I’m happy to hear them all – truly. I do want to make this a sensible discussion, even with our disagreements. You said, “If your teenager recently told you he/she is dating a black person? Maybe you caught them engaging in sexual activity? Are you torn with how to react? Or maybe you feel like white people kissing black people is the new teenage fad? Do you feel strongly opinionated on the subject?” (Of course I’d be very disappointed with her sexual activity, regardless if it was with a white or black man. If I would have been a good Christian example, she’d have a strong foundation for doing things that would make her happier and not be the cause of eventual problems) First, most people forget that Jesus was not Caucasian – He wasn’t anywhere near being a white skin person – he was dark skinned – nobody knows how dark He was, so today’s religious people continue to draw paintings of Him as a very handsome man with all kinds of Caucasian features. From all my reading, He was a very common looking man, no distinctive features that made Him stand out physically, though I do believe He was energetic and quite strong from His working with His hands and all the walking He did, and that He lived outdoors most of the time. So course I can’t be biased towards Caucasians, because I’d be prejudiced against how Jesus looked. I’m not sure why your question about how I feel about whites and blacks dating, kissing, etc. In the apartment complex where I live, about 30% of the people are black skinned and I have have contacts with many of them daily – I respect them and they respect me and we get along OK. So I don’t have any racist prejudices with any race. But I am favorably biased, or prejudiced towards people who are “believers” such as myself and that would be my strongest criterion for whoever my daughters married. – both of who are now married to “believers.” Iris, regarding my comment: “There are many questions about homosexuality, sexual identity, sexual experimentation that have not be totally answered, so these types of questions are open for debate. So don’t be so critical when someone questions your sexual preferences. My belief for the above comment comes from the below readings I’ve done: For the past 25 years, efforts by pro-homosexual groups, have been forthcoming to show that homosexuality is strongly determined by genes or fetal hormonal factors, which would advance their claim that gays are an unjustly discriminated minority “just like blacks or hispanics” and would further communicate to those struggling with sexual identity into the trap of thinking that they “must be” gay: that they cannot change…it’s no use trying, so just sit back and accept the gay lifestyle. The claim that homosexuality is biologically determined is a theory that as of 1993 was focused on 3 so-called “scientific” endeavors. They are the Simon LeVay study of brain structure, the Bailey-Pillard study of twins, and the National Cancer Institute “gay gene” study. All of theses studies were closely examined and no serious scientists suggest that a simple cause-effect relationship applies and it’s been generally accepted that that there’s a biological basis to the theory – only gay activists and biased educators continue to promote the biological theory. Iris…How do you reconcile the findings that many qualified psychiatrists, psychologists, and counselors who work with patients who have a homosexual problem often see that many patients have backgrounds that include a combination of developmental factors of such things as : gender identity problems; a sudden rejection from a parent; early childhood sexual molestation; a melancholy temperament; negative childhood associates and peer pressure; early pornographic addiction; pregnancy hormonal imbalances, and possibly many other factors that haven’t been identified as yet due to the complexity of the mind/brain workings as it deals with one’s sexual orientation. I’m very skeptical of gay claims and the reports and recommendations of the APA, which I’ll further discuss in another comment. Pardon any mistakes, I’m having trouble with my comment page Report 0 Reply Hank 30 Aug 2009, 4:22am Hey Will, you asked, “Maybe you can answer where the fossil record fits into your “6000 year old earth”. Try start small, Hank, as small is how you think.” Below is one sample on one page of dozens/hundreds of sites dealing with your question — I’m not going to get into something that would take years of reading thousands of these sites and individual reports. Right now, I’m not concerned with the earth’s age, fossils, dinosarus, evolution and of any Biblical explanations of events discussed in the Bible. The Age of the Earth The Earth is accepted by scientists to be around 4.5 billion years old. But how do they know the Earth is this old? Some of the lines of evidence for an ancient Earth are presented. The Geological Time Scale Few discussions in geology or evolution can occur without reference to geologic time. In this article, the standard time scale used by geologists is depicted and described. See also Niel Brandt’s Evolutionary and Geological Timelines. Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale Radiometric dating and stratigraphic principles are combined to establish the conventional geological time scale. Scientists apply these principles to date rocks, which can then be used to assign ages to fossils. Changing Views of the History of the Earth How did we go from thinking Earth was a young planet to the realization that it is ancient, with a four and a half billion year history? Isochron Dating Methods The isochron radiometric dating technique (and related ones) is widely used in isotope geology, and does not fall prey to many common creationist criticisms of radiometric dating. This essay introduces the technique and shows why it is so reliable. An Evaluation of the ICR Grand Canyon Research Project This essay discusses the ICR’s Grand Canyon Dating Project, as proposed and executed by the ICR’s Steve Austin. Austin has obtained some bad Rb-Sr isochron dates, although there are several serious questions regarding his methodology. Geochronology according to creationist John Woodmorappe John Woodmorappe has examined numerous studies of radiometric dating in the scientific literature and concludes that radiometric dating techniques are invalid. This essay, however, raises serious questions about Woodmorappe’s methods. How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments? A Close Look at Dr. Hovind’s List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims A detailed debunking of the young-earth arguments used by Kent Hovind and other young-earth creationists. Age of the Earth: Debate between Chris Stassen and Bob Bales This document is the result of an attempted “formal” Usenet debate, with orderly turns between speakers, length limits, and a predetermined topic (the age of the earth). The participants were Bob Bales and Chris Stassen, both high-profile talk.origins participants at the time of the debate. The Decay of c-decay Light arriving from galaxies billions of light years away attests to the ancient age of the universe. Some young-earth creationists have tried to explain this evidence away by claiming that the speed of light has changed substantially. Creation Science and the Earth’s Magnetic Field Creationists have long argued that the earth’s magnetic field proves that the earth cannot be more than 10000 years old. This article looks in great detail at the argument and thoroughly debunks it. Meteorite Dust and the Age of the Earth It is argued that both the Earth and Moon should be covered with a great layer of space dust if the Earth were as old as the standard models imply. As usual, creationists base their argument on faulty data and unwarranted extrapolations. The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System One of the common arguments made in support of a young Earth is that the Earth-moon system could not be billions of years old. This article examines the physics of the system and shows why the creationists are wrong. Polonium Halo FAQs Scientists examine the claim that creationist Robert Gentry’s polonium haloes are evidence for a young earth. The evidence suggests that Gentry’s argument is mistaken. The Solar FAQ: Solar Neutrinos and Other Solar Oddities Nuclear fusion is the only process reasonably capable of powering the sun, and one product of this fusion is invisible particles called ‘neutrinos’. But why don’t we observe as many solar neutrinos as theory would predict? Debunking Gentry’s “New Redshift Interpretation” Cosmology Young-earth creationist Robert Gentry has offered a theory to replace the standard Big Bang cosmological model of the universe, but his model is flawed by a number of deficiencies, errors and inconsistencies. Dating with Icecores A discussion of the methods for determining the ages of ancient ice cores. Ice cores found in Antarctica date back about 160,000 years, presenting somewhat of a problem for young-earth creationists and catastrophists. Various Interpretations of Genesis Genesis can be interpreted in such a way that it does not conflict with scientific fact. This short article describes a few of the more common such interpretations. Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young Earth Creationism Young-earth creationists are occasionally heard to claim that, if the universe is as old as mainstream science holds it is, we should see far more supernova remnants – the cinders of exploded stars – than we actually do. This article discusses supernova physics at length and explains why these claims are faulty. Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits Some creationists have claimed that anomalous amounts of radioactive carbon-14 in ancient coal deposits indicates that standard dating techniques, and by extension possibly the geologic timescale, are flawed. This essay explains the real reason C-14 is found in coal. Dino-blood and the Young Earth Answers in Genesis claims that paleontologist Mary Schweitzer found “obvious, fresh-looking blood cells” and traces of blood protein hemoglobin in a Tyrannosaurus rex bone. It further claims that this demonstrates that the dinosaur could not have lived millions of years ago. This essay documents that all these claims are absolutely false. They are the result of selective quoting and misrepresentation of popular science articles. Also see Dino Blood Redux on dinosaur blood vessels and cells and Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths on osteocalcin claims. Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion “Dates”: Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data Young-Earth creationists consider the helium diffusion studies of D. Russell Humphreys and others to be one of their greatest achievements in arguing for a 6,000 year old Earth. A geologist shows that these studies are extensively flawed and include: serious miscalculations in their data, sampling the wrong rock type, failing to eliminate possible contamination, using equations that are based on invalid assumptions and relying on questionable data. How Old is the Earth: A Response to “Scientific” Creationism A classic and often-referenced 1984 paper by G. Brent Dalrymple. The paper contains short but accurate expositions of radiometric dating methods and discussions of creationist criticisms and attempts to date the Earth as young. It includes material difficult to find elsewhere, such as the discussion of mixing isochrons and the effect of neutron-capture reactions. Evidence for the Big Bang This article covers the evidence which leads cosmologists to believe the Big Bang happened, deals with common objections to the theory, and discusses alternative models and questions that still remain to be answered. Determining Distances to Astronomical Objects Astronomers can measure distances to objects in the universe whose light took thousands, millions, or even billions of years for their light to reach us. This has obvious implications for those who believe the universe is under ten thousand years old. This article explains how scientists measure distances to various types of astronomical objects and how young-earth creationists deal with large astronomical distances. My salvation is not dependent on the age of the earth — it’s dependent on my acceptance of Jesus Christ, not any “scientific information that’s continually debated. Report 0 Reply Hank 30 Aug 2009, 4:55am To anyone and to all: I just read an article listed below: I’d like to get your reactions to it all. I haven’t read the full report but I’m going to try to see a copy. It deals with the question of efforts to “curing homosexual orientation”, The American Psychological Association just released a 138 page report disparaging religious efforts to “cure” homosexual orientation – their strongest criticism on religious groups that claim homosexual acts are sinful and that gay tendencies can be cured. I found some interesting and dubious parts of this article for both sides of the issue. Some of which you’ll agree with and some you’ll disagree with. . APA’s report stated, “There’s a growing body of evidence that sexual stigma, shown as prejudice or discrimination directed at non-heterosexual orientations and identities, is a major source of stress for sexual minorities.” The report’s findings were approved by a 125-4 vote this week by the APA’s governing council in advance of its annual meeting this weekend in Toronto. It touched on an issue that has long consumed public figures in the religious world, ranging from former Colorado megachurch pastor Ted Haggard, who in November 2006 lost his job after he admitted to soliciting sex from a male prostitute, to New Hampshire Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson, the world’s first openly gay bishop, who tried changing his orientation in his 20s. The report named members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews as examples of devout people battling same-sex attractions. Most of the people studied were well-educated white men who had tried psychotherapy, support groups and other religious methods in their efforts to change their sexuality. The paper focused on such Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE), also known as reparative therapy. “Some individuals perceived they had benefited from SOCE,” the report said, and believed “that it helped them live in a manner consistent with their faith.” But “individuals who failed to change sexual orientation, while believing they should have changed with such efforts, described their experiences as a significant cause of emotional and spiritual distress and negative self-image,” it added. Moreover, “there is no research” showing that providing SOCE to children and adolescents “has an impact on adult sexual orientation,” the report said. The report was compiled by a six-member task force that admitted to a built-in bias that “same-sex sexual attractions, behavior and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality and are not indicators of either mental or developmental disorders.” The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) said the task force was stacked with gay or gay-friendly activists who would naturally conclude that reparative therapy does not work. “No APA member who offers reorientation therapy was allowed to join the task force,” said David Pruden, NARTH vice president. “In fact, one can make the case that every member of the task force can be classified as an activist. They selected and interpreted studies that fit within their innate and immutable view.” Task force Chairwoman Judith Glassgold, a New Jersey psychologist, is on the board of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychology, NARTH said, and was president of Division 44, APA’s gay caucus, in 2003-2004. Committee member Jack Drescher is a public gay activist. Another committee member, Roger Worthington, a chief diversity officer with the University of Missouri/Columbia, has been cited by gay groups for his advocacy on their behalf. Clinton Anderson, an APA spokesman, did not deny NARTH’s charges. “I think that we had a very open process where we put out a call for nominations,” he said. “We evaluated the nominees based on their qualifications. I don’t feel we have any apologies to make for how we appointed that task force.” When asked whether the APA was recommending gay people change churches instead of sexual practices, “much of the approach to this issue has been unbalanced in making religion more of an important issue in peoples’ lives than their sexual orientation,” he said. “From a scientific perspective, both are important. We know people do change religion in their lives and that option is open if it serves their best wellbeing.” Regent University psychologist Mark Yarhouse disagreed, saying it is “implausible” to expect people to change their church or religion. He and Stanton Jones of Wheaton College near Chicago are releasing their own report Friday at the APA meeting showing how more than half of 61 participants in programs affiliated with the ex-gay group Exodus International either became heterosexual or managed to embrace celibacy. “Our data suggests a percentage of people showed a statistically significant and meaningful change in their same-sex attractions,” Mr. Yarhouse said. He called the APA report “evenhanded,” adding that it at least addressed religious concerns. Exodus International President Alan Chambers, who describes himself as a married man who “overcame unwanted same-sex attraction,” spoke similarly, calling the report “a positive step.” “Simply respecting someone’s faith is a huge leap in the right direction,” Mr. Chambers told the Associated Press. “But I’d go further. Don’t deny the possibility that someone’s feelings might change.” The Rev. Mario Bergner, a former gay activist and now an Episcopal priest operating the Boston-based Redeemed Lives ministry for people with “unwanted same-sex attractions,” said the report ignored groundbreaking work on the topic by Princeton University professor Jeffrey Satinover and Columbia University professor Robert Spitzer. In 2003, Mr. Spitzer announced his research showed homosexuals could change their orientation. from its list of disorders that require treatment in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Dr. Spitzer was one of the authoritative voices pushing for its removal,” Mr. Bergner said. “Second, 30 years later, he changed his mind after meeting many people like me, who have come out of homosexuality and found freedom and satisfaction in heterosexual marriage. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 30 Aug 2009, 1:50pm Hank (44): “So don’t be so critical when someone questions your sexual preferences” “Don’t” do this, and “Don’t” do that, and “Don’t” do this, and “Don’t” do that….what’s with the imperatives!!!? “Don’t” tell us what we can or cannot think. “DON’T”…indeed! Up yours! By the way, thanks for ignoring my efforts to be freindly in 40: “I really would like to know you better. Really. For starters: You can select one person from history and ask them a question to which they must give a thruthful reply. Whom would you select, and what question would you ask?” Perhaps being friendly with gays is not in your agenda? So buzz off, then. Report 0 Reply Brian Burton 30 Aug 2009, 9:19pm Hank, It’s you! You ‘One Flew Over The Cockoo’s nest character. How is your receptive ass? (being well filled I hope) Did you learn your ‘Trade’in a state pen. or somewhare? Hank darling, read James, chapter 1 verses 19 to 27, It might throw some light on the big problem you have now! Report 0 Reply Iris 30 Aug 2009, 11:05pm Hank, thank you for responding. You said: “Iris…How do you reconcile the findings that many qualified psychiatrists, psychologists, and counselors who work with patients who have a homosexual problem often see that many patients have backgrounds that include a combination of developmental factors of such things as : gender identity problems; a sudden rejection from a parent; early childhood sexual molestation; a melancholy temperament; negative childhood associates and peer pressure; early pornographic addiction; pregnancy hormonal imbalances, and possibly many other factors that haven’t been identified as yet due to the complexity of the mind/brain workings as it deals with one’s sexual orientation.” Well, maybe America’s different, but I’ve never met LGBT people suffering from any of those problems you’ve listed… The only problem that I know of that could require LGBT people to seek counselling is a lack of acceptance from family or society in general. I’m sure you’re not racist and I wasn’t implying you were in any way. My point was that the Bible has been used to justify the ban on interracial marriage – WRONGLY. It’s also been used to call people who belived that the Earth revolved around the Sun rather than vice versa heretics – WRONGLY. No-one would try to use the Bible in that way now – nor would they use it to advocate slavery, nor to insist that women marry their rapists, nor to advocate the stoning of disobedient children – and I could go on… The Bible – whether or not God exists and whether or not the Bible is his/her/their word – has been wilfully and viciously used by human beings to justify the persecution of other human beings. In America in particular (and I’m not being anti-American – my girlfriend’s American), I feel that some evangelists/preachers have far more interest in power than religion. They have set themselves up as divine messengers, taking advantage of the weak, the gullible and the emotionally troubled. Maybe a belief in god brings people comfort, but I think you should differentiate between what you believe to be god and the self-interested, money-making garbage spouted by some ‘religious’ people. A few questions for you. You implied that you used to be gay and that you were unhappy with this, yes? So: 1) Why were you unhappy being gay? Had you been raised in a relgious family from birth and thus felt troubled by your homosexuality? OR did you ‘find god’ as an adult and then start to see your life as a gay man in a different way? 2) You say you’d prefer your daughters to marry believers, but how would you react if one of them told you she was in love with a woman? Report 0 Reply Hank 31 Aug 2009, 12:39am Hey Jean Paul, you said, “Don’t” do this, and “Don’t” do that, and “Don’t” do this, and “Don’t” do that….what’s with the imperatives!!!? “Don’t” tell us what we can or cannot think. “DON’T”…indeed” Iris, I’ll answer you soon. Hank I don’t know what you’re talking about — in my #44, I never used the word “don’t” so I have no idea what your complaint is all about. Please be specific. Regarding my #1 person and question of course had to be Jesus Christ because of all the material I’ve read about His life, principles, and teachings. Also I would also love to talk with Satan — since these two are the epitome of good and evil. I know you don’t believe in Jesus and maybe not of Satan also. With Jesus, I’d ask Him something like, “Can You let me try to understand your mind as you thought about creating the universe, the earth and mankind because to me these are unbelievably beyond the human thinking.” About Satan, I’d ask “What made you think that you could challenge God Himself. Could you not realize that He actually created you and since He was the creator, you where a secondary creation and could not be greater than Him?” I’d say Satan made the most stupid decision that could be made. Report 0 Reply Hank 31 Aug 2009, 2:27am Hey Iris, Regarding your, “Well, maybe America’s different, but I’ve never met LGBT people suffering from any of those problems you’ve listed… The only problem that I know of that could require LGBT people to seek counselling is a lack of acceptance from family or society in general.” I know only 2 openly homosexuals so I have to depend on findings by qualified expert’s findings and statements such as listed below. On the Origins of Homosexuality: Is a Person “Born that Way”? The best overall summary of most respected researchers is that homosexuality (like most other psychological conditions) is due to a combination of social, biological, and psychological factors. (1) Byne, a psychiatrist with a doctorate in biology, and Parsons (1993) carefully analyzed all the major biological studies of homosexuality. They found none that definitively supported a biological theory of causation. –W. Byne and B. Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised.” Archives of General Psychiatry 50, no.3.) (2) From psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.: “Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is…neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences…postnatal environment (such as parent, sibling and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development.” –J. Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (1996). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. (3) When “gay gene” researcher Hamer was asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology, he himself replied, “Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors…not negate the psychosocial factors.” –”Gay Genes, Revisited: Doubts arise over research on the biology of homosexuality,” Scientific American, November 1995, P. 26. (4) Also from Dean Hamer, the “gay gene” researcher: “Genes are hardware…the data of life’s experiences are processed through the sexual software into the circuits of identity. I suspect the sexual software is a mixture of both genes and environment, in much the same way the software of a computer is a mixture of what’s installed at the factory and what’s added by the user.” —P. Copeland and D. Hamer (1994) The Science of Desire. New York: Simon and Schuster. (5) Psychiatrists Friedman and Downey state that “a biopsychosocial model” best fits our knowledge of causation, with various combinations of temperament and environmental events leading to homosexuality. They say: “Despite recent neurobiological findings suggesting homosexuality is genetically-biologically determined, credible evidence is lacking for a biological model of homosexuality.” –R. Friedman, M.D. and J. Downey, M.D., Journal of Neuropsychiatry, vol. 5, No. 2, Spring l993. (6) From sociologist Steven Goldberg, Ph.D.: “Virtually all of the evidence argues against there being a determinative physiological causal factor and I know of no researcher who believes that such a determinative factor exists…such factors play a predisposing, not a determinative role…I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors.” Goldberg adds: “Gay criticism has not addressed the classic family configuration”; it has merely “asserted away the considerable evidence” for the existence of family factors. Studies which attempt to disprove the existence of the classic family pattern in homosexuality are “convincing only to those with a need to believe.” –S. Goldberg (1994) When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. 7) An article on genes and behavior in Science magazine says: …the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple “violence genes” and intelligence genes” touted in the popular press. Indeed, renewed appreciation of environmental factors is one of the chief effects of the increased belief in genetics’ effects on behavior. The same data that show the effects of genes also point to the enormous influence of non-genetic factors. –C. Mann, “Genes and behavior,” Science 264:1687 (1994), pp. 1686-1689. 8) Among Jeffrey Satinover’s conclusions in “The Gay Gene”: (1) There is a genetic component to homosexuality, but “component” is just a loose way of indicating genetic associations and linkages. “Linkage” and “association” do not mean “causation.” (2) There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is genetic–and none of the research itself claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public. —Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, p.8. 9. The American Psychological Association says: “Various theories have proposed differing sources for sexual orientation…However, many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors.” –From “Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality” 10) Says brain researcher Dr. Simon LeVay: “At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role. “In 1988, PFLAG member Tinkle Hake surveyed a number of well-known figures in the field about their views on homosexuality. She asked: ‘Many observers believe that a person’s sexual orientation is determined by one of more of the following factors: genetic, hormonal, psychological, or social. Based on today’s state-of-the-art-science, what is your opinion?’ “The answers included the following: ‘all of the above in concert’ (Alan Bell), ‘all of these variables’ (Richard Green), ‘multiple factors’ (Gilbert Herdt), ‘a combination of all the factors named’ (Evelyn Hooker), ‘all of these factors’ (Judd Marmor), ‘a combination of causes’ (Richard Pillard), ‘possibly genetic and hormonal, but juvenile sexual rehearsal play is particularly important’ (John Money), and ‘genetic and hormonal factors, and perhaps also some early childhood experiences’ (James Weinrich).” (Page 273) –Simon LeVay (1996), in Queer Science, published by MIT Press. 11) P-FLAG (“Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays”) offers a booklet on the biological research into the origins of homosexuality. Prepared with the assistance of Dr. Clinton Anderson of the American Psychological Association, this 1995 publication is entitled, “Why Ask Why? Addressing the Research on Homosexuality and Biology.” This pamphlet says: “To date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual orientation. At best, researchers believe that there may be a genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers to date…sexuality, like every other behavior, is undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factors.” I realize many other professionals state that homosexuality is genetically/biologically determined, so you can see the controversy continues and until a “homosexual gene” is found, I have to go along with the mutitple factor theory causing homosexuality. Iris you asked, “A few questions for you. You implied that you used to be gay and that you were unhappy with this, yes? So: 1) Why were you unhappy being gay? Had you been raised in a relgious family from birth and thus felt troubled by your homosexuality? OR did you ‘find god’ as an adult and then start to see your life as a gay man in a different way? I don’t know where I ever said anything to imply I used to be gay — no truth to that — I dated many women before I got married, and dated more after my divorce, so I can’t relate to any homosexual feelings. 2) You say you’d prefer your daughters to marry believers, but how would you react if one of them told you she was in love with a woman I would do whatever I can to get proper counseling to understand what’s going on in her life and to see what I could do to have her examine her behavior. Of course, if she continued her lesbian lifestyle, I’d love her without making her life miserable by being critical of her lifestyle. Report 0 Reply Hank 31 Aug 2009, 3:27am Hey Brian, you mentioned James, probably V.26, “If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless.” That’s a great verse that more “religious people” should follow because there are many false believers and teachers and they cause much confusion and problems in the church. I study and read the Holy Bible 2-3 hours daily and listen to various fundamental teachers/preachers so I follow the Holy Scripture and know my shortcomings, but I keep learning and gain Christian strength and truth. I still state the truth whether you accept it or reject it. The Christian truth is the truth of God, through Jesus Christ the Living Word. This truth is our weapon against lies and falsehood. Through it we can discern and decipher truth from lies within and without. Hebrews 4:12 goes on to prove this point: “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” So examine your heart to know yourself Brian. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 31 Aug 2009, 5:01am Time for your medecine, Mr. Bonaparte…I mean Hank. Report 0 Reply John M.J. 31 Aug 2009, 5:03am Hank does rely on his experts, doesn’t he? Let’s take a look at them, shall we? Well, let’s take a look at just one of them for the moment in order to save boring you all to death – let’s look at Jeffrey Satinover. Jeffrey Burke Satinover is undoubtedly brilliant and accomplished. He is a graduate of MIT, Harvard, Yale and of the prestigious and respected University of Texas. But Satinover has one fatal weakness – he brings his somewhat wacky and controversial religious beliefs into his scientific studies. Just for example he believes in the existence of coded messages buried in the various texts of the Bible – although, to be fair, he does say in his book, “Cracking the Bible Code” (William Morrow & Co, 1996, that such messages cannot be used to predict the future – but it’s plain to see that Jeffrey Satinover, just like all the other so-called experts on homosexuality whom Hank quotes, starts from the premise that homosexuality is ‘wrong’ or an ‘illness’ or ‘religiously forbidden’ and merely sets out to prove his own prejudices. Obviously, that is not the scientific method but merely psuedoscience – mere opinion masquerading as ‘research’ and ‘findings’. The famous clinical psychologist Dr. Douglas Haldeman has identified conversion therapy as a pseudoscience. (Dr. Haldeman is a Counseling Psychologist in Seattle, Washington, who maintains a full-time psychotherapy practice. Much of Dr. Haldeman’s professional life is spent outside the office as a lecturer/consultant, organizational worker, and author. He serves on the Board of the American Psychological Association Insurance Trust, the Board for the Advancement of Psychology in the Public Interest, and is the Diversity Officer of the Washington State Psychological Association. Dr. Haldeman comments frequently in the media on a variety of issues related to professional psychology and social policy. He has written numerous articles and chapters on the ethical and competent treatment of lesbian, gay and bisexual clients in psychotherapy, and is a nationally recognized expert in men’s issues. Dr. Haldeman received the John D. Black Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Practice of Counselling Psychology, in recognition of his contributions to competent and ethical treatment. His years of clinical work, along together with his numerous publications and presentations worldwide, were cited as the basis for this prestigious award.) Now, let me give you two quotes from Dr. Haldeman: Such is the current situation with the burgeoning anti-gay therapy industry exemplified by so-called “reparative therapy” conferences such as “Love Won Out”. “Love Won Out”, I wonder – over what? And according to whom? What did the conquerors gain, and what losses did the vanquished suffer? According to the conference’s website, this discourse on the victory of “love” was offered by a coalition of religious anti-gay activists, mental health professionals working outside the limits of accepted practice in their respective disciplines, and suspect “ex-gay” testimonials that mislead the public – and the often fragile and confused individuals and families struggling to deal with a son or daughter’s sexual orientation. Conferences such as this are but one source of distorted information about sexual orientation and the normative life experiences of lesbian, gay and bisexual people. The world of ex-gay religious ministries is proliferating under the guidance of pastoral counselors, mental health counselors, and just those who may not be adequately trained, but are interested in delving into the complex landscape of a frightened, guilt-ridden individual’s sexual orientation. There are many options for those interested in the subject of so-called “reparative therapy”, or as it is referred to in a professional context, sexual orientation conversion therapy. The latter designation is, of course, more cumbersome, but is a more accurate reflection of the attempted activities in question. To let “reparative” therapy stand unchallenged as a title, to say nothing of the psychological legitimacy of these often questionable and harmful treatments, is to buy into the notion that, in terms of sexual orientation, there is something to be “repaired”. and: “I have a lifelong respect for the deep and invaluable place that religious identity and expression have in the lives of many people, straight or gay. But I say to you that we cannot allow social science to be compromised by religious doctrine when it is contrary to the established and accepted scientific knowledge that serves as the basis for our policies.” Almost all the other experts whom Hank quotes as rebutting the science which suggests that homosexuality is inherent, just like heterosexuality in other words, suffer from the same failing that Jeffrey Satinover exhibits – they start from the premise that homosexuality is somehow, and in some sense, wrong and then seek to prove that point (often in deeply dishonest and scientifically flawed ways). Note, however, that such shenanigans by Hank’s selected academics with respect to homosexuality does not mean that Hank’s quoted experts are not brilliant and outstanding in other fields of research into which they not tempted to drag their preconceived, religiously based, ideas about sexual morality. The people whom Hank quotes are often, but not always, very accomplished academics in other fields of study whom our society could not do without. Apart from the assertions of some Christians like Hank – but not Christians like me – can anyone tell me just why, how and in what respects homosexuality is wrong, that is to say leaving aside any religious argument? You see that is what Hank and his so-called experts cannot do – they can’t leave the religious argument out of the research and that’s what makes their research in this field, but only in this field I must stress, deeply flawed and laughed out of court in reputable scientific circles. What is more, they research homosexuality not human sexuality: they look only at homosexuality as being different from the ‘correct’ norm of heterosexuality and they never ask themselves the big question, the interesting question – what causes some people to be heterosexual, others to be homosexual, yet others to be somewhere in between and some few others to be completely uninterested in any form of sex at all (and yes, that last is a known and identified human condition). Because of their religious or moral beliefs people like Hank and the ‘experts’ he assembled to justify his position, start from the very position that they want to prove – that there is something ‘wrong’ about being homosexual. They merely set out to prove their own prejudices about homosexuality and they ignore and vilify any evidence and any researcher who gainsays them. The religious biases of Hank’s quoted ‘experts’ are plain for all to see with just a little research and often – just like Jeffrey Burke Satinover – they are the darlings of the Republican Party’s right wing precisely because their flawed ‘researches’ and ‘findings’ confirm the visceral hatreds and fundamentalist Christian beliefs which that section of society holds. What Hank doesn’t tell you is that Jeffrey Burke Satinover’s article in the Journal of Human Sexuality has been widely discredited by his peers and castigated as being deeply flawed, prejudiced and non-scientific by most other scientists working in the field of human sexuality. His so-called ‘findings’ about homosexuality have been, quite simply, laughed out of play and, anyway, are not supported by other researchers and cannot be reproduced by other workers in the field. I hope that the foregoing helps to put Hank and his ‘experts’ into some context! If you want me to, but I warn you that it would be boring for you as well as for me, I can deconstruct Hank’s other experts and their outlandish religious beliefs – beliefs which they obviously share with Hank himself – and beliefs which form the start points for their ‘researches’ into homosexuality. Hank isn’t quoting science: he’s merely quoting prejudice dressed up in science’s clothes. Report 0 Reply John M.J. 31 Aug 2009, 6:39am Of course, the question that Hank doesn’t ask, or answer, because he cannot because of his unique religious prejudices and false beliefs about Christianity – he’s NOT a Christian, he’s a Biblical literalist (he superstitiously believes in the magical efficacy of an ancient book) – is just why there are so many heterosexual breeders in the human population today when they are not needed and their unrestrained propagation of our species is forcing us all into a potentially disastrous position vis-a-vis the environment and food supplies. No, Hank can’t ask that question because, for him, heterosexuality and its causes are the norm, despite being potentially disastrous for all of us. For him it’s about being able to insert your member into a woman, and enjoying that process, and to hang with the consequences for the future of mankind. He is unable (because he has mentally castrated his ratiocinative powers by accepting some erroneous magical belief in an ancient set of texts rather than in Christian stewardship and a rational belief in God such as most of us Gay Christians at this site demonstrate and believe in) to accept that we have to ask ourselves what drives the creation of our various sexualities. For him there is only one correct sexual orientation – the apparent fact that it is the very orientation that drives our calamitous increase in our numbers simply never enters his head. He starts from the premise that heterosexuality is the norm instead of asking himself what the sexual norm ought to be for an intelligent species. He assumes, on no other basis but his own magical interpretation of our deeply flawed Biblical texts, that his views about the correctness of heterosexuality and the wrongness of homosexuality are the only possible views. That’s not science, that’s not research, that’s not objective investigation of the facts – that’s just superstitious belief disguised in, cloaked in, the language of objective discovery and investigation. Hank can’t think because his brain has been addled by a willing, wilful acceptance of superstitious belief in a deeply flawed text which many scholars are still arguing about and debating over. Hank, of course, knows that his Bible is correct! Hank, of course, knows that God has told him that his Bible is correct. Hank, of course, knows, because God told him so, that his interpretation of that Bible is correct. Hank’s pathology is obvious – don’t fall for it! He’s a believer in the ages old circular argument – I believe in the Bible because the Bible tells me that I must so believe. His methodology, right from the start, is deeply flawed and full of his own superstitious, magical beliefs. He wilfully and fundamentally misinterprets Biblical passages, he wilfully and deliberately sets up the Bible as some fundamental authority – which it isn’t, the Church is, as he would know if he had taken the time to educate himself in and about the history and teachings of mainstream Christianity, and he cavalierly disregards the scientific principle of objective research in order to further his own petty, magical and unsustainable prejudices supported by his own inane and erroneous beliefs in the certainty of the correctness of his ancient Book. He believes that Book to be correct on no better evidence than his own belief that the Book is correct and that his own interpretation of it must be correct. As I said at the start of this comment – this Hank person is NOT a Christian, he’s a superstitious Biblical literalist who believes in the magical properties of the Book of our Faith. He has no belief in the redemptive power of Christ and no belief in God – he simply believes in the Bible and his own interpretation of that Book. If the Spirit truly moved him then he couldn’t write the drivel that he does at this site for his own words would shame him into silence and his intolerance and lack of understanding of God’s love would shut him up. Of course, we all know, just look at the language, that this Hank character is just David Skinner in another guise – a new guise adopted having taken advice from his mentors at Exodus and other places. This character is straight from the play list and just as idiotic and under-educated as the Skinner persona was – and is, for he’ll surely be back! Report 0 Reply Brian Burton 31 Aug 2009, 7:43am Hank, You are a bloated egotist who thinks you have God’s ear, therefor, we must do as you say and not as you do. Well, self-exalted one. Do not expect to be exalted in heaven… You are an enemy of God and God’s teaching. Even though you say you accept Jesus Christ, it dose not make you any better than myself, a Gay Christian. Your one aim in life is to hurt and insult the Gay army who is marching (a lot of us) in the light of God. You are not even capable of agreeing to disagree. I told you some time ago that I felt you were the ‘Evil One’ and I still hold firmly with that belief. You only practice hatred. That we all see. You wallow in your own self-glorification. ‘Know Thyself’ has never been your forte. Be thyself, that is the secret of Christ. Your supreme vice is your shallowness and where for goodness sake is your love in all this?….Love is fed by the imagination, by which we become wiser than we know, better than we feel, greater than we are; by which we can see life as a whole…Only what is good can feed Love…Anything can feed hate! Report 0 Reply Iris 31 Aug 2009, 10:38am Hank, I refer you to John.M.J’s excellent comments above.I’d heard of Satinover too – I actually read some of his stuff. The word I’d use is wacky/clever. Wacky because what he writes is obviously loopy, but clever because he wraps it up in honeyed language and knows there’s a market for it amongst the insecure who feel better by believing that there’s somebody worse than them in the world. THEY need the counselling not LGBT people. Sorry – I did genuinely think you were ‘ex-gay’ – my mistake. I am glad that you’d still love your daughter if she was a lesbian though. :) But – you haven’t replied to my comment above about things in the Bible that were believed to be correct, but aren’t now – slavery, stoning, the Earth being fixed in space… Please do answer those and explain how, if you believe in the literal word of the Bible, it’s OK to now disbelieve those things. Report 0 Reply Brian Burton 31 Aug 2009, 12:24pm Hank, The nature of Jesus was that he loved the ignorant. But, he could not stand stupid people. Especially the educated and those made stupid by education. You think you hold the key of knollage, you don’t really know how to use it. And you do not want others to have it or use it either. Gay suffering in the past was no mystery, it was really a revilation and this is spurring us on our way to total victory over educated and uneducated Bigotry. Report 0 Reply Brian Burton 31 Aug 2009, 2:17pm Iris dear, I don’t think you will get a streaght answer from Hank…Him speak with fork tongue! One positive thing we learn from the Hanks of this world is how their Bigotry affects their (what should be normal) way of conversation. Hank called Gay men sodomites. The ignorant ones (whom Jesus loves) asked what a sodomite is? To live in Florida and sip cool guinness under a palm tree could mean our Hank is rich. Now, I know a story of a ‘rich man and the eye of a needle’- (I’m sure you have heard that story Iris?) I don’t give Hank much hope of…well I wont say ‘The Keys Of The Kingdom’…thats God’s will, and not for me to say! There is no such thing as moral or immorality, you are either a good person or a bad person in my opinion. Poor Hank would like to think he is good but alas, his outreaching hand is no less than a tallon, ready to tear at ones throat given the chance. Only those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things as in Gay life, are the cultivated. Romanticism never dies with us, even in great age and we find the young’s opinions facinating. Hanks opinions will wither on the vine (If I may put it that way) but, your opinions Iris, your love for others will endure. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 31 Aug 2009, 5:52pm Hi Hank: Thanks for answering my question: “You can select one person from history and ask them a question to which they must give a thruthful reply. Whom would you select, and what question would you ask?” So you would like to have a conversation with Jesus and Satan. Interesting, of course. In the spirit of mutual understanding, I would have answered: “I would like to speak to my deceased father and ask him where he put the brand new battery-operated jigsaw I loaned him when he was building a birdhouse two weeks before we found him dead in his rocking chair by the view window.” Well, it was a nice jigsaw, and I can’t afford to be buying tools all the time. I strongly suspect my older brother took it out of Dad’s shop when I wasn’t looking. M-m-m. Typical, but I can’t prove it…his wife would be down my throat if I asked him about it. Sigh…things I do. Help me, Dr. Phil! Report 0 Reply Tara 31 Aug 2009, 6:50pm “I still state the truth whether you accept it or reject it.” No, Hank, that is a fallacy. You perpetuate lies in the name of God, that’s very different. Lies about literal interpretations, YOUR interpretations, and lies about those you like to persecute. Persecution is anything by Christian. In fact, you’ve unable to move from selective peace meal bible reading, and the more you “keep learning” the further it seems you come from teachings of Jesus. Sad really. Now, explain to me, Hank, the “truth” about the fossil record. Report 0 Reply Will 31 Aug 2009, 7:01pm Hank: “and dated more after my divorce” Divorce? Wow, you’re going to hell mate. Nothing can save you now. Jesus himself said divorce was a sin. Don’t sick too much to your own teachings, do you Hank? Luke 16 18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”. And do not the commandments say “Thou shall not commit adultery”? And you have the cheek to come in here and start to condemn homosexuality. Quite the hypocrite. Like all religious types. Report 0 Reply Will 31 Aug 2009, 7:04pm Tara dear, you’re wasting your time, he never answers that one. I’ve asked before, and I remember you (and many, many others) asking that same question. Forget it, the fossil record ids a huge mountain of annoying truth among the grains of sand that are the lies of his 6000 year old earth. Report 0 Reply Hank 31 Aug 2009, 7:09pm Hey John M, you have some great comments/questions that I’ll answer — but not all on one comment as it would be too lenghty. You said, “Hank does rely on his experts, doesn’t he? Let’s take a look at them, shall we? Well, let’s take a look at just one of them for the moment in order to save boring you all to death – let’s look at Jeffrey Satinover> I’ll write more soon about your other questions…also Iris I will get to you soon. Much coming at me all at once, but they’re all welcome. Hank OK Santinover might have some far out ideas, etc. with which I might not agree, but we have to realize that not all MD’s, psychiatrists, psycholgists, counselors, etc. are all that qualified, whether they be Christian or secular with their mindset, do you agree? As in every field of “experts” there are some who are much more qualified than others. And so my question, which I cannot find an answer to, is how many APA members are homosexuals or biased towards a very liberal lifestyle, such as not considering adultery as a fault in one’s moral or “trustworthiness” in a relationship with a partner. Also,do they think pornography adds a positive or negative quality to viewing women as sexual pleasure objects or deminish their value? Is rape truly a heinous act or don’t women really like to have “rough sex” and where “no” really doesn’t mean “no?” as many of the legal cases seem to favor men over the women’s victim status? Where has truly right and wrong gone with the liberal minded judges and laws today? Where is right and wrong, truth and lie, good and bad today? The world is getting sicker every day and people are being brain-washed to accept it without thinking of the long-term consequences that we’ll face because of it. I see in today the last stage of the Age of Barbarism as the Barbarians have breached our gates and have infiltrated our society and have conquered power, money and have initiated the last stage of uninhibited sexual behavior — adultery, fornication, homosexuality, child abuse, pornography, bestiality, transexuality and every other sexual perversion as being acceptable in today’s culture — everything that the Holy Bible said would happen as mankind reached its depraved fulfillment. The homosexual agenda has education — or “re-education” high on its list of priorities. People ned to change their thinking about homosexuality, especially Chrisitan people. Conservative Christians appeal to certain key scriptures in both the Old and New Testament –such as Sodom and Comorrah…Paul’s indictment of homosexuality in Romans 1, and his promise that the grace of God has and can change gays as found in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Homosexual revisonists attack traditiona interpretations of these and other Scriptures and seek to show the alleged fallacy of such interpreations. Rather than attacking Scripture they make it seem that they are upholding Scripture, but attacking biased and erroneous interpreations of Scripture. John, how you rationalize, 1 Cor. 9-11 “Or do you not know that the righteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decirver, nwither fornicators, not idolaters, not adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor theives, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inheret the kingdom of God And such were some of you, but you were washed, nand were sabctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord of Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of God” Report 0 Reply Hank 31 Aug 2009, 7:30pm Hey John, you said, “The famous clinical psychologist Dr. Douglas Haldeman has identified conversion therapy as a pseudoscience. (Dr. Haldeman is a Counseling Psychologist in Seattle, Washington, who maintains a full-time psychotherapy practice” OK John, you show your man to be qualified to deal with homosexual problems in today’s society and culture. Now, how does he view the culture, society and historical events of 2,000 years ago when Jesus Christ did things your Dr. Haldeman can’t begin to comprehend. Has he gone through historical research and refuted all these cures, healings, supernatural, unscientific, marvelous treatments, etc. were done by Jesus, as listed below: Miracles of Jesus: Turning water into wine (John 2:1-11) Healing of a nobleman’s son (John 4:46-54) Delivering a man in the synagogue from demonic spirits (Mark 1:21-28; Luke 4:31-37) Healing Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38-39; Matthew 8:14-15) The first of two nets of fish and the calling of His first disciples (Luke 5:1-11) Cleansing a leper (Mark 1:40-45; Matthew 8:1-4) Healing a paralytic (Mark 2:1-12; Matthew 9:2-8; Luke 5:17-26) Healing of the man at Bethesda (John 5:1-15) Healing a man with a withered hand (Luke 6:6-11; Matthew 12:9-13; Mark 3:1-5) Healing the Centurion’s servant (Luke 7: 1-10; Matthew 8:5-13) Raising the widow’s son (Luke 7:11-16) Casting out a dumb and blind spirit (Luke 11:14-26; Matthew 12:22-32; Mark 3:22-30) Calming a storm (Mark 4:35-41; Matthew 8:18-27; Luke 8:22-25) Healing a man possessed by demons at Gadara (Mark 5:1-20; Matthew 8:28; Luke 8:26) Healing a woman with an issue of blood (Mark 5:25-34; Matthew 9:18-26; Luke 8:40-56) Raising Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:21-43) Healing of two blind men (Matthew 9:27-31 Casting out a spirit (Matthew 9:32-34) Feeding 5,000 with five loaves and two fish (John 6:1-14; Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:32-44; Luke 9:10-17) Walking on water (Matthew 14:22-33; John 6:15-21; Mark 6:45-52) Delivering the Syrophoenician’s daughter (Matthew 15:21-28) Healing a deaf and dumb man (Mark 7:31-37) Feeding another 4,000-plus (Mark 8:1-10; Matthew 15:32) Healing the blind man of Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26) Casting demons out of a lunatic boy (Mark 9:14-29; Matthew 17:14-21; Luke 9:37-42) Pulling a coin from the mouth of a fish (Matthew 17:24-27) Healing a man born blind (John 9:1-41) Healing a woman with an 18-year infirmity (Luke 13:10-17) Healing a man with dropsy (or edema) (Luke 14:1-6) Raising Lazarus (John 11:1-46) Cleansing of ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19) Healing blind Bartimeaus (Mark 10:46-52) Cursing the fig tree (Mark 11:12-26) Healing of Malchus’ ear (Luke 22:49-51) A second net of fish (John 21:1-12) If one believes in the power of Jesus Christ, all things are possible, even giving up the powers of the homosexuality. Report 0 Reply Iris 31 Aug 2009, 8:47pm Hank said: “I see in today the last stage of the Age of Barbarism as the Barbarians have breached our gates and have infiltrated our society and have conquered power, money and have initiated the last stage of uninhibited sexual behavior — adultery….” But doesn’t divorce count as adultery, as pointed out by Will above? Report 0 Reply Hank 31 Aug 2009, 8:54pm Hey Will, you said, “Don’t stick too much to your own teachings, do you Hank? Luke 16 18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”. Before you start doing cartwheels and shouting to heaven, know what and who you’re condeming. I’m divorced but not remarried, so I’m not commiting adultery, fornication or any other of the practices you probably are doing. So calm down. When I got married and then divorced, I was not a Christian and didn’t know any better, but since then I’ve changed my nature 100% and would act differently in a marriage. Also, look at Matthew 5:31-32: Adultery the only valid grounds for divorce: By the first century CE, the law of divorce based on Deuteronomy 24:1 was being interpreted in many ways: the Shammai school taught that a man could only divorce his wife if she committed adultery; the Hillel school taught that the man could divorce her if he found anything disagreeable in her. Jesus here is making his views known; he agrees with the Shammai interpretation. He says that a wife’s adultery is the only valid grounds for divorce. If a man divorces his wife for any other reason, then: He is forcing her to commit adultery with another man, presumably because she would have to seek the protection of another man. If she marries another man, he is committing adultery. Since I’m unmarried, I am not living a sinful life, so that’s not a problem to me now that I’m a Christian. Report 0 Reply Hank 31 Aug 2009, 9:33pm To all: I get tired of hearing so many pagans, heathens and atheists throwing around parts of the Holy Bible trying to justify their sinful life. But also, there’s much false teaching going on in today’s churches and one of the most overlooked, avoided, and denied attribute of God is His hatred of evil people. Nobody is preaching that message – all they talk about is God’s “love for you.” True Christians shouldn’t be deceived. Hatred of evil is a righteous attribute of God. Acceptance or accommodation of evil is an unrighteous attribute of Satan. One common phrase in Christian circles is the “unconditional love” of God. False-teaching pastors tell unrepentant, unbelieving evil people that God loves them unconditionally. People with a prison ministry often tell inmates on death row that God loves them. People tell convicted rapists that God loves them. People tell homosexuals and lesbians that God loves them. They say that God hates the sin but loves the sinner. These statements are all false doctrines not supported by Scripture. You cannot understand the awesome love, grace, mercy, and holiness of God while rejecting His jealousy, wrath, anger, hatred, and justice. God’s love is absolutely conditional as clearly stated in the Bible. Hebrews 9:22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission. Hebrews 11:6 But without faith [it] [is] impossible to please [Him], for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and [that] He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. God required the shedding of Jesus’ blood for the remission of mankind’s sin. God did not just willy-nilly forgive mankind as suggested in the blasphemous false doctrine of “unconditional love.” God requires faith in Him and faith in His Son. God’s love is very conditional. The awesome number of humanitarian projects of the atheists are worthless to God without faith in Him. A person cannot please God with good works, righteous living, and giving to the poor without faith in Him. God requires faith. God hates the generous humanitarian who is an atheist. God loves mankind, not the individual sinner. Yet, while we were yet sinners God provided a way for us to have eternal life with Him. God requires faith. Loving an evil person is an offense to God and a sinful act. Hating an evil person is a righteous act. You will hate evil people if you are a child of God, but you are a child of the Evil One if you love evil people. James 4:4 shows the seriousness of being cozy with worldly people. This is New Testament doctrine and is as severe as any found in the Old Testament. God does not change His attributes. James 4:4 Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. 5 Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, “The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously”? 6 But He gives more grace. Therefore He says: “God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.” 7 Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. 8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse [your] hands, [you] sinners; and purify [your] hearts, [you] double-minded. 9 Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and [your] joy to gloom. 10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up. So if you think you can turn God’s Word around to make you think you’re getting away living a sinful life – you’ll eventually find out on Judgment Day that you had a choice in your life but you preferred to do it your own way, and now you’ll reap your punishment. Report 0 Reply Hank 31 Aug 2009, 10:39pm Hey Tara, you said, “In fact, you’ve unable to move from selective peace meal bible reading, and the more you “keep learning” the further it seems you come from teachings of Jesus.” OK Tara, since I’m so far from the teachings of Jesus, I’d appreciate your telling me what those teachings are that I’m so far away from. Now don’t just pick select passages out of the Bible, but show me where I’m TOTALLY wrong. Report 0 Reply Hank 31 Aug 2009, 10:50pm Hey Iris, you said, “But doesn’t divorce count as adultery, as pointed out by Will above? ” No Iris, as I quoted above Jesus forgives divorce though He hates it and if you ask for forgiveness, you are forgiven. Also if you’ve committed adultery, and stop it and ask for forgiveness, you’re forgiven for that sin/transgression, as long as you don’t continue doing it. Divorce can be a one-time sin but if continuing to do adultery is in your heart it’s part of your evil nature and God will not let you continue sinning, asking for fogiveness, sinning, ask for forgiveness, etc. Like an abortion, if the woman asks for forgiveness for the abortion, God will forgive her, but if she continues having abortions, God will not be mocked by an unsincere heart. There’s a wide difference between divorce and adultery — and it’s the intent of your heart that counts. Report 0 Reply Iris 31 Aug 2009, 11:00pm Hank: “So if you think you can turn God’s Word around to make you think you’re getting away living a sinful life – you’ll eventually find out on Judgment Day that you had a choice in your life but you preferred to do it your own way, and now you’ll reap your punishment. ” But the Pope did that, didn’t he? Didn’t he finally concede that the Earth DID revolve around the Sun? So he went against the word of the Bible which clearly says that the Earth’s fixed in position. And what about all those people who refuse to stone their disobedient children? They’re trying to turn God’s word round too? And the anti-slavery movement? Why did they ignore God’s word? Report 0 Reply Hank 1 Sep 2009, 2:07am Iris, I’m not a Biblical scholar, so I’ve copied the following which I believe covers all of your questions fairly well. If you don’t get all you want, the best I can tell you is if you study the Scriptures and read certain qualified modern-day preachers, you’ll find more detailed answers. About the various laws in the Old and New Testaments, the gentiles weren’t asked to hold every law that was given in the Old Testament. For example on the Apostle’s Convent (Acts 15:6-31) (52 AD) a question was settled whether the gentiles needed to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses (Acts 15:5). The question therefore arises which parts of the Old Testament are eternal and which parts of it were for a specific people, a specific time and/or place. The four categories of laws holds the answers to your questions when we divide the laws into their appropriate categories: 1. Those given to ALL people: the moral law, 2. Those given to the COUNTRY of Israel: the civil law, and 3. Those given to the Old Testament CHURCH as typifying Christ: the ceremonial law. 4. Those given to the church of ALL TIMES. 5. The Law of Moses regulated almost every aspect of life in Old Testament times. But with the coming of Christ, God established a new covenant of faith and love with mankind. Christians are not required to follow the Old Testament rules about crimes and punishments, warfare, slavery, diet, circumcision, sacrifice, feast days, Sabbath observance, ritual cleanness, etc. However, the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus and His apostles call for even greater self-discipline than those of the Old Testament. The Law of Moses In Biblical times, the Law of Moses (also called Old Testament Law, Mosaic Law, or just The Law) regulated almost every aspect of Jewish life. The Ten Commandments and many other laws defined matters of morals, religious practice and government. It regulated the army, criminal justice, commerce, property rights, slavery, sexual relations, marriage and social interactions. It required circumcision for males, blood sacrifices, and Sabbath observance. It provided for the welfare of widows, orphans, the poor, foreigners and domestic animals. Ceremonial rules divided animals into “clean” and “unclean” categories. Clean animals could be eaten; unclean animals could not. Teachings of Jesus By the time of Jesus, the great moral principles God had given to Moses in the Ten Commandments had been turned into hundreds of ceremonial rules. People thought they were living holy lives if they just obeyed all those rules. But many people found enough “loopholes” to obey all the rules and still live wicked and greedy lives (Matthew 23:23-28). Jesus said that was not at all what God had intended. Jesus did not abolish the moral and ethical laws that had been in effect from the time of Moses (Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 16:16-17). He affirmed and expanded upon those principles, but He said obedience must be from the heart (attitudes and intentions) rather than just technical observance of the letter of the law (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-42, 43-44, etc.). Jesus and His disciples did not observe the strict Jewish rules against doing any work on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-14, Mark 2:23-28, 3:1-6, Luke 6:1-11, 13:10-17, 14:1-6, John 5:1-18). In contrast to the “clean” and “unclean rules,” Jesus said no food can defile a person. It is bad attitudes and actions that can make a person unholy (Matthew 15:1-20, Mark 7:1-23). Council of Jerusalem The first Christians came from among the Jews, and they continued to observe the Law of Moses as well as their new Christian faith. But as more and more Gentiles (non-Jews) converted to Christianity, there were disputes about whether or not these Gentile Christians must observe the Law. Issues of circumcision and diet were especially troublesome. In about the year 49 A.D., Peter, Paul, Barnabas, James and other Christian leaders met in Jerusalem to settle the issue (Acts 15:1-29). It was agreed that no conditions should be imposed on the Gentile converts except faith in Christ. However, the council recommended that Gentile Christians abstain from certain things that were particularly offensive to their Jewish brethren – food sacrificed to idols, blood, meat of strangled animals and sexual immorality (Acts 15:29). The New Covenant With the coming of Christ, God has established a new covenant with mankind (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25, Hebrews 8:8-13, 9:11-15) that supersedes the Old Testament Law. Jesus and His apostles gave us a radically new understanding of the true intent of the Old Testament Law; they brought a new era of the rule of love for all people and spiritual truth instead of rule by law (Luke 10:25-28, John 13:34-35, Ephesians 2:14-18). Conclusion The teachings of Jesus, the Council of Jerusalem, and other New Testament teachings (John 1:16-17, Acts 13:39, Romans 2:25-29, 8:1-4, 1 Corinthians 9:19-21, Galatians 2:15-16, Ephesians 2:15) make it clear that Christians are not required to follow the Old Testament rules about crimes and punishments, warfare, slavery, diet, circumcision, sacrifice, feast days, Sabbath observance, ritual cleanness, etc. Christians still look to the Old Testament scripture for moral and spiritual guidance (2 Timothy 3:16-17). But when there seems to be a conflict between Old Testament laws and New Testament principles, we must follow the New Testament because it represents the most recent and most perfect revelation from God (Hebrews 8:13, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, Galatians 2:15-20). However, freedom from the Old Testament Law is not a license for Christians to relax their moral standards. The moral and ethical teachings of Jesus and His apostles call for even greater self-discipline than those of the Old Testament Also, I don’t care what the Pope did or does — he holds no Biblical meaning to me. Report 0 Reply Hank 1 Sep 2009, 2:10am Hey Brian…when you say, … “There is no such thing as moral or immorality, you are either a good person or a bad person in my opinion. Only those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things as in Gay life, are the cultivated. Romanticism never dies with us, even in great age and we find the young’s opinions facinating. Hanks opinions will wither on the vine (If I may put it that way) but, your opinions Iris, your love for others will endure.” Brian, you’re a perfect example of the unblief of a haughty spirit, or pride that the Bible talks about. As the Bible states, I’m sure your life is filled with some of the following: Covetousness — a turning away from God to find satisfaction in things. Impatience — turning away from God to find satisfaction in your own swift plan of action. Lust – turning away from God to find satisfaction in sex. Bitterness — turning away from God to find satisfaction in retaliation. James 4:6-8 “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble,” so Brian you better watch your back. Report 0 Reply Pumpkin Pie 1 Sep 2009, 2:39am What is this, a Bible club? No-one cares, Hank. None of this stuff relevant to our lives. Has he gone through historical research and refuted all these cures, healings, supernatural, unscientific, marvelous treatments, etc. were done by Jesus, as listed below: You have no proof any of these things actually happened. They’re about as believable and fact-based as the crackpot theories and practices of Satinover, Nicolosi and all your other ex-gay buddies. ALL your comments are like this: biased and lacking in any sound empirical evidence. They’re not really worth responding to individually. I just picked one I found particularly funny as an example. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 1 Sep 2009, 3:06am Hank: Don’t you just love to see your name on this thread? The whole world is readingevery word you’re writing. Ain’t this fun! You said: “I get tired of hearing so many pagans, heathens and atheists throwing around parts of the Holy Bible trying to justify their sinful life.” Take a break, then. I suggest Geology 101 would help clear up your mind and make living among real people a wee bit more pleasant. But you don’t have to take my advice, just like you wouldn’t listen to your ex-wife when she tried to help you to be a real human being engaged in a real relationship with a real woman. But and but, if you cannot find in yourself the humility to follow the simple and friendly logic of Mr. John M.J., even when he has proven time and time again that he has your best interest at heart, then maybe we should all take a break ‘cos I’m pretty tired of listening to you too. Report 0 Reply John M.J. 1 Sep 2009, 5:57am So now we know positively that Hank is a Biblical literalist. He believes his Bible – a compilation of often mistranslated and dubious sources arrived at by such people as St. Jerome, who doubted his own competence to undertake the task of compiling the New Testament when it was allotted to him because he couldn’t make up his mind just which of the source manuscripts that he could find might be correct. Hank is also sublimely unaware that almost all Christians and Jews regard the Bible as inspired by God yet written by a variety of imperfect men over thousands of years – men whose own individual biases are often represented in the texts. Some others, like Hank, who identify themselves as Bible-believing Christians, regard both the New and Old Testament as the undiluted Word of God, spoken by God and written down in its perfect form by humans. Still others – one of the views that Hank has obviously attempted unsuccessfully to embrace – hold the Biblical infallibility perspective, that the Bible is free from error in spiritual but not scientific matters. Most Bible scholars, but not Hank (who, anyway, is not a Bible scholar nor skilled in, nor educated in, the science of Biblical recension) claim that discussions about the Bible must put it into its context within church history and then into the context of contemporary culture. But what is this Bible in which Hank puts his misplaced trust, instead of trusting in God, the Christ and the Spirit who still moves and in the teachings of the mainstream Churches? It’s nothing more than a collection of highly dubious translations of autographic texts which do not appear to have survived the passage of time. Very, very few of the original texts upon which the Western Bible is based have survived and even where they have, they have survived as second, third, fourth…tenth… twentieth hand copies of the original. What is more Hank obviously knows absolutely nothing about the huge problems of translating Ancient Hebrew and Ancient New Testament Greek into any modern language, including English and American English. Let’s look at, as I have previously posted – and just for example – the Gospel of Matthew. For a start off the Gospel of Matthew was written at least one hundred years after Christ’s Ascension which would have made Matthew impossibly old at the time it was written. Secondly, that Gospel is not written by one person but by at least four people and, despite tradition, it is not the first Gospel but is more likely to be the third Gospel written. Thirdly, it was not originally written in Hebrew and then translated but was originally written in Greek and translated back and forth into various of the ancient languages (which gave rise to the idea of The Gospel of The Hebrews) and the version which we use is a heavily bowdlerised version with many spurious additions. Fourthly, using modern scientific methods we can apply the tools of recension to Matthew’s Gospel and detect at least three, probably four, precursor documents from which the authors of that Gospel selectively quote. Then there is the problem of the translation of individual verses. New Testament Greek is not easy and the problem is further compounded by our ancestors’ love of word play and their need, at a time when Christianity was illegal, to deliberately obfuscate meaning so that only the existing faithful could understand what was written. Even the early Church did not believe that the Apostle Matthew was the author of the Gospel which bears his name; indeed, St. Jerome did not believe that and went to great lengths to try to justify his inclusion of this Gospel in the Canon; and we can see, quite clearly, in the writings of Epiphanius the confusion which existed about this Gospel at the very beginnings of our Faith. Tellingly, not one, not one single one, of the Fathers of the early Church asserted that Matthew wrote the eponymous Gospel in question; neither did any of them assert absolutely that it (Matthew) is a valid Gospel. Neither Jerome, nor any single one of the Fathers of the Church ever asserted that the Bible contained literal truth, literal incident or literal word – or The Literal Word, for that matter – nor that the Bible should be read as anything other than aide memoire by the faithful: a mere collection of stories and sayings which may or may not be literally true but which they believed in some sense managed to encapsulate Christ’s great message of love. Yet Hank throws Biblical quotes into the fray as if they are some sort of clinchers – as if they have some spurious validity in front of which we must all give way – and he does so without even knowing if they are true and accurate quotes! Many of the verses, the majority of the verses, in Matthew stand out linguistically as having been written into this Gospel at a much later date and, therefore, probably have no real validity as a report of the words that Christ actually spoke or the deeds which He did. Indeed, the actual words supposedly used by Christ are couched in the Greek vernacular of a period much later than the rest of that Gospel and would appear to have been added in to it about one hundred and fifty years after the rest of the text was compiled. Yes, yes, I know that arguably similar words appear in both Luke and Mark but they too have been tampered with in exactly the same way and are equally as suspect as Matthew is. When will Hank ever learn that one cannot just chuck Scripture around in indiscriminate fashion and expect, demand, as he does, that it will clinch the argument and prove one to be correct. Rational argument demands a much more reasoned approach than he appears to be capable of – it also demands some intellectual rigour which he does not, obviously, possess: deeply immersed, as he seems to be, in error, and mired, as he obviously is, in soul destroying heretical beliefs. Exactly the same problems as I have outlined above for Matthew exist for the rest of the New Testament and for large parts of the Old Testament too. Do you want me to go on or have you all had quite enough! Report 0 Reply John M.J. 1 Sep 2009, 5:59am Now, as to the almost exhaustive list of miracles that Hank so kindly, and so pointlessly, provided. Not one of those miracles is exclusive to Jesus and not one of them but cannot be found in pre-Christian and non-Jewish sources. Some of them date back to the earliest human writings which we can currently decipher – the changing of water into wine myth, for example, dates back to at least one thousand years before monotheistic Judaism and is common, so it would appear, to all of the ancient middle-eastern precursor civilisations (as does, co-incidentally, the Flood Story, replete, in many ancient cultures, with a fantastical Ark and an impossible saving of animal pairs which go on to re-populate the world). The feeding of the ‘five-thousand’ and the cleansing of the lepers stories are both Ancient Egyptian myths dating from the very dawn of that Nile valley civilisation – a dawn which vastly pre-dates monotheistic Judaism and the emergence of Christianity. These tales, and many others like them, were current and powerful throughout the middle-eastern and Mediterranean world for hundreds, if not thousands, of years before monotheistic Judaism and Christianity emerged from that spiritual soup of swirling peoples and beliefs. All peoples ascribed some, or all, of such tales to either their divinities or their most powerful personages and Christ did not escape that accretion. One has to understand the mind-set of the peoples of the ancient world – they were not deliberately lying: they knew these myths as stories but the vast bulk of them could not read and write and knew them only as oral traditions. It was obvious to them, generation by generation, that these powerful stories must and should be assigned, if they were true, to the currently powerful, or fashionable, human being or divinity. They had no idea just how old, or how new, any of the stories might be so they assigned them, in their loyalty (coerced or otherwise) to the most influential force around at the time. Christ was highly influential and appears to have preached a gospel of unconditional love and forgiveness and salvation through honest charity – despite what Hank asserts – as is evidenced by the Early Church’s teachings (Hank, in his denial of God’s love is merely attempting to re-assert the rule based approach to religion that the Pharisees allegedly indulged in (though he doesn’t know that or see that because he is blinded by his Satan inspired belief in Biblical literalism). It’s interesting to note at this point, that the ancient Babylonians also had a son of God myth which pre-dates the Christian version by some two and a half thousand years – a myth which after they formulated it, incidentally, made it’s way throughout the middle eastern world and seems to have been incorporated into early many-god Judaism as prophecy as well as finding its way into practically every ancient religion. This Babylonian myth is about Enlil, (his name means lord of the wind) and he was the Babylonian god of the spirit. He was the god of justice, he could both punish and reward. He was the enforcer of all celestial decisions he was the intermediary and mediator between his father and the human beings on earth. The parallels between our Christian belief and this ancient tale are most striking. Many of the Fathers of the Church were highly concerned about the superstitious belief in miracles which they knew to be stories from an earlier age. Clement of Rome, he who wrote ‘1 Clement’ that Jerome cavalierly left out of the Canon of the New Testament whilst accepting some obviously fraudulent so-called Petrine letters, inveighed against just such superstitious and nonsensical beliefs as those held by Hank. Theophorus, Patriarch of Antioch was likewise concerned by the rise of literalism and fundamentalism in the Church under his control. Polycarp of Smyrna, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, the Cappadocian Fathers – Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, Peter of Sebaste and Gregory of Nyssa, and Maximus the Confessor and Irenaeus of Lyons all castigate and revile Hank’s take on Christianity – not one of the early fathers of the Church, many of whom studied under the Apostles or their directly authorised decendant teachers endorsed Hank’s takes on Christianity and most certainly did not endorse Hank’s worship of, and exaltation of, what they knew to be highly suspect texts long before the Bible was even compiled from those texts. Hank’s reliance on the Bible, and his pathetically immature attempts to castigate and vilify gay people with it, has absolutely no basis at all in Christianity as it was understood in the first century AD (AD please note, not ‘CE’ as Hank, in his ignorance of Christian terminology, has it). Hank, of course, chooses to set himself up, in his wilful and simplistic pride and hubris, against those who knew the Apostles and their followers. He, as is always the case with Biblical literalists like him, knows better than those who knew, who talked with, walked with, the very first followers of Christ. The problems with the Bible as a literal source, as Hank would want you believe that it is, just keep on being compounded in whatever direction one chooses to look. All the evidence which we have that the Bible is actually some real representation of Christian history and experience is given the lie to by the existence of numerous, widely differing versions of that Book as proclaimed by the ancient mainstream Churches which have survived to the present day. The Maronite Church, The Coptic Church, The Armenian Church, The Jamesian Church, The Chaldean Church, The Orthodox Churches, the mainstream Latin-rite Churches of the west, The Aethiopian Church – they all have different versions of the Bible and they all suspect that there is much wrong with their texts and that their texts do not reflect the facts: that their texts, quite simply put, are garbled and not understandable without much learning and application and selected as part of the Canon by people who were deeply ignorant of the source documents in any case. Report 0 Reply Will 1 Sep 2009, 6:59am “I’m divorced but not remarried, so I’m not commiting adultery, fornication or any other of the practices you probably are doing. So calm down.” I’m quite calm, no need to get upset over your sin. Did you not take an oath before the eyes of god, and promise “wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”? Seems like you broke that. You said you were dating. Why would you date unless you wish to begin another relationship? You’ve been seen to be a liar before, why would nay of us believe you now. You’ve broken the ten commandments. “but since then I’ve changed my nature 100% and would act differently in a marriage.” and “Also if you’ve committed adultery, and stop it and ask for forgiveness, you’re forgiven for that sin/transgression, as long as you don’t continue doing it.” oh, classic! Simply CLASSIC! So basically, its okay because you’ve used the contradiction of the bible to your advantage and now are “forgiven”. What a load of b*llox! Great cop out! But it doesn’t work that way, does it Hank? If you were truly following the word of god, as per the bible, you would make amends and reform your marriage. How convenient for you to twist the bible to suit your own needs, eh, Hank? And how typical. No surprise really, nearly all religious people tend to pick and chose the selective passages they will enforces. Its the symptom of a weak mind. How dare you purport to judge us, when you yourself can’t follow your own teachings. Get used to this term, Hank: Hypocrite. Report 0 Reply Brian Burton 1 Sep 2009, 7:32am Epistles to the Children of Pink, from those feverishly looking for Utopia on the map of Life. Ofcorse, there is no such place ye scribes of slander and folly. Now, There was Christians before Christ and for that I’m greatful. Hank lives in the shifting, shadowy image of his own stupidity. Therefore, let Hank peer at us through his warped vision for when we look at him we see precicley nothing. All the Bible quoting in the world is of no importance, only the Spitit alone is important. God’s secret remains a secret, to look on the face of God, you have to be pure in heart. The imagination of man is limitless, but, the gift of prophecy is given to all those who do not know what is going to happen to themselves. Report 0 Reply Iris 1 Sep 2009, 9:53am Hank: “I get tired of hearing so many pagans, heathens and atheists throwing around parts of the Holy Bible trying to justify their sinful life. But also, there’s much false teaching going on in today’s churches and one of the most overlooked, avoided, and denied attribute of God is His hatred of evil people. Nobody is preaching that message – all they talk about is God’s “love for you.” True Christians shouldn’t be deceived. Hatred of evil is a righteous attribute of God. Acceptance or accommodation of evil is an unrighteous attribute of Satan.” Ignoring the possibility of the existence of god – I don’t see your point. God hates evil people? Ok – but what right does that give you to decide who or what is evil? Are you suggesting that if you find an appropriate bit in the Bible to justify your hate, then it’s ‘good’ to hate people? Thank you for answering my question about the bits of the Bible now ignored. You quote Acts and the section about sexual immorality – what’s that, then? I presume you’re taking it to me HOMOsexuality, but it could equally well mean anything we choose within reason. Let me say again, immorality is NOT related to sexuality. In addition, as it was argued by biblical scholars of the time, it could also mean miscegenation – interracial marriage. Indeed, what about the Curse of Ham? Wasn’t that the reason why black people were persecuted – as ‘justified’ by the Bible? White supremacists still exist, but no-one with any decency gives credence to the views. Likewise, anyone who seeks to look in the Bible for ‘proof’ that one group of humans is ‘bad’ deserves to be treated with the same contempt. You also said: “Christians still look to the Old Testament scripture for moral and spiritual guidance (2 Timothy 3:16-17). But when there seems to be a conflict between Old Testament laws and New Testament principles, we must follow the New Testament because it represents the most recent and most perfect revelation from God (Hebrews 8:13, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, Galatians 2:15-20).” So the NT ‘trumps’ the OT? NOWHERE in the NT does Jesus condemn homosexuality. Indeed, he is perfectly understanding of sexual difference in Matthew 19:10-12, where he talks about eunuchs ‘born that way’. Read Matthew 8:5-13 where Jesus not only heals the ‘pais’ of a centurion, but praises him as an example of faith. Don’t bother telling me that ‘pais’ doesn’t mean male lover here – I might not know much about the bible, but I have a degree in Classics and that word in that context is almost CERTAINLY referring to the male lover of the centurion. Does Jesus turn him away? Does he take the opportunity this provides to stress how ‘wrong’ homosexuality is? NO. You finish: “Also, I don’t care what the Pope did or does — he holds no Biblical meaning to me.” Oh dear, Hank… That’s a very bad thing to say, according to my RC friends. Will it condemn you to hell? Or will your disbelief in the gods of other religions mean you won’t be saved? Even if god exists, how do you know that by following the bible, you’re ‘on the right track’? And wouldn’t you like to re-marry? Is it just your faith stopping you going for a loving marriage? Lots of points there, but do respond to them. :) Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 1 Sep 2009, 11:12am Absolute nectar here this morning! Picture it: The Oprah Winfrey Show – panel discussion – Hank, David Skinner, Monkeychops and Thing-a-ma-jig on one side – John M.J., Will, AdrianT and Iris an the other. Topic: Wrestling with Questions that Challenge the Church. Report 0 Reply Hank 1 Sep 2009, 8:15pm Hey John M J — before we get to your list of what man thinks about God’s Word as they try to understand/interpret ancient writings regarding His Holy Bible, we have to get to more basic information about what kind of God you and I are talking about. Unless we are have the same God for our belief system, any discussion we have will be futile and non-productive. Let’s start with your telling me how you answer the below so we can see if we can get further into any discussion once we have things in agreement. 1. God can create, prevent and allow anything and everything. 2. God’s Spirit can enter into man under certain conditions. 3. God created Satan who is the most powerful created entity. 4. There are Shared and Unshared Attributes of God: (Unshared attributes = “Incommunicable” attributes: Those characteristics of God that are unique to him, and are not also characteristics of His creatures.) These include: Self-existence; “Solitariness”; Independence; Unity; Trinity; Sovereignty; Unchangeableness; Infinity; Omnipresence; Omnipotence; Omniscience. (Shared attributes = “Communicable” attributes: The attributes that we share by being made in God’s image.) These include: Spirituality; Knowledge; Wisdom; Truthfulness; Holiness; Love; Mercy; Wrath; Will; Freedom; Beauty; I’d like know we’re “on the same page” about God before looking at your comments and my reponse. Report 0 Reply Will 1 Sep 2009, 8:30pm Good one Hank, conveniently ignore that your a divorcee, and hence against the teaching of your own religious dogma… Jesus himself condemned your kind. Head in the sand, that’ll free up your conscience, won’t it? Report 0 Reply Hank 1 Sep 2009, 9:01pm Hey Iris, you say, “. God hates evil people? Ok – but what right does that give you to decide who or what is evil? Are you suggesting that if you find an appropriate bit in the Bible to justify your hate, then it’s ‘good’ to hate people?” The Bible is filled with what God considers good or evil, right or wrong, sin and righteousness. I don’t pick and choose verses — I read the entire section that applies to whatever topic is being studied. How can you not see the list of what God, Jesus, the prophets, the apostles have to say what is right, wrong, evil, good, and all other judgments of what man doee? In his own power, man can say good is bad, and bad is good, to justify his own actions, but God will condem him for that. You also say, “Read Matthew 8:5-13 where Jesus not only heals the ‘pais’ of a centurion, but praises him as an example of faith. Don’t bother telling me that ‘pais’ doesn’t mean male lover here – I might not know much about the bible, but I have a degree in Classics and that word in that context is almost CERTAINLY referring to the male lover of the centurion.” Iris, I disagree and don’t know where you got your definition. I’m looking on page 673 of The New Strong’s Complete Dictionary of Bible Words, an the Greek Dictionary says, “pais….(paheece), a boy or a girl…a child…spec. a slave or servant (espc. a minister to a king; and by eminence to God): child, maid (en) (man), servant, son, young man. Iris, you say, ” NOWHERE in the NT does Jesus condemn homosexuality. Indeed, he is perfectly understanding of sexual difference in Matthew 19:10-12, where he talks about eunuchs ‘born that way’ Just because Jesus doesn’t condem something in the Bible, it doesn’t mean that he condones it — it’s illogical to say that if He didn’t speak against it, He inferred that it was OK. He spoke much against adultery and fornication because those were probably much greater sins being done than was homosexuality, is one possible explanation, but there are many things Jesus never spoke about (I’m not sure, but did he ever speak about pornography and suicide?) There are only fractions of what Jesus taught/preached in His 3 years of His ministry, and one can certainly presume that He said much more than what’s attributed to Him in the New Testament. I’m sure there would be many volumes of writings if all His words were copied. But we’ll have to settle for what we have. Also, nowhere does Jesus hint/imply/suggest that homosexual love is acceptable. In fact He is adamant in talking about a man and woman, a husband and wife when talking about acceptable relationships. Some of which are below: First, note that Jesus affirms Old Testament standards of marriage by twice quoting them as truth. Those who dismiss the Old Testament should be careful. Jesus treats the Old Testament as truth. This, of course, is where we find the Ten Commandments as well. Second, Jesus states that the whole notion of marriage has its roots in Creation. Hence the authentic definition is as old as humanity itself. “from the beginning of creation” — the starting point for marriage Third, Jesus’ first quote includes the observation that God made two distinct halves of humanity — “male and female”. It presumes that He made two halves for a good reason. Indeed, in Genesis 2:18 the reason is given: And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” In Genesis 2:20-23, it continues: “And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.” “And Adam said: ‘This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.’”We see clearly that this is only one man and one woman. There are no others. Fourth, quoting Genesis 2:24 “therefore” and translated by Jesus as “for this reason”, we see the purpose and framework of marriage proposed and instituted. Fifth, the marriage covenant is stated: “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh — a man to a wife, a man to a woman. In fact, in the original biblical language of Greek, the word translated “wife” can also be translated “woman”!! See the context again in Genesis 2:18-24, as it confirms the identity of the wife as a woman.Sixth, the man and woman are seen by God as a single unit — “two shall become one flesh”. This has spiritual significance as well as physical significance. Out of the male-female relationship comes a product of both. It is natural. It mirrors the oneness desired by God with mankind. It cannot be duplicated in some other form because no other form has the same significance to God. It is not what man has joined together, but “what God has joined together” Report 0 Reply Hank 1 Sep 2009, 9:37pm Hey Will, you said, “You said you were dating. Why would you date unless you wish to begin another relationship? You’ve been seen to be a liar before, why would nay of us believe you now. You’ve broken the ten commandments. …”but since then I’ve changed my nature 100% and would act differently in a marriage.” and “Also if you’ve committed adultery, and stop it and ask for forgiveness, you’re forgiven for that sin/transgression, as long as you don’t continue doing it.” oh, classic! Simply CLASSIC! So basically, its okay because you’ve used the contradiction of the bible to your advantage and now are “forgiven”. What a load of b*llox! Great cop out! But it doesn’t work that way, does it Hank? If you were truly following the word of god, as per the bible, you would make amends and reform your marriage. Will, if you would look at the Holy Bible you’d see what God has offered to sinful mankind (includes me). Throughout the Bible, He’s permitted those of us who are truly repentant, admit to our sins, and ask for God’s forgiveness, He does forgive us, just as is shown throughout His dealings with Israel — it’s shown as redemptive history and describes God’s work in salvation. It is about His sovereign action in saving His people, in glorifying Himself through building His church and bringing all history to a great consummation. The facts and meaning of redemptive history can be known with assurance, for we see it plainly revealed in the Scriptures, and we see it in God’s faithful hand preserving His church through all time and to the end of time. So I’m a redeemed sinner, justified through God’s grace — so I’m in this world but not of this world, which you cannot uderstand, which is due to your lostness of your soul. But it’s never too late Will Jesus does not want anyone to perish and serve an eternal hell. Report 0 Reply Iris 1 Sep 2009, 9:42pm Excuse the very quick reply, Hank – I’m just about to go out. You said: Iris, I disagree and don’t know where you got your definition. I’m looking on page 673 of The New Strong’s Complete Dictionary of Bible Words, an the Greek Dictionary says…” I got my definition from reading Ancient Greek texts and from my (extremely learned) lecturer. He sad that the word ‘pais’ was used to refer to a male lover. Yes, it means ‘boy’ too, but it’s the context that shows it’s meaning in Matthew is ‘lover’. I suppose just as we might say “She’s my girl” to mean that a woman’s your girlfriend rather than your daughter, which would be the literal meaning. I would also add that it wasn’t that uncommon for centurions to have young male lovers at that time. Hank: There are only fractions of what Jesus taught/preached in His 3 years of His ministry, and one can certainly presume that He said much more than what’s attributed to Him in the New Testament. I’m sure there would be many volumes of writings if all His words were copied. But we’ll have to settle for what we have.” Exactly, Hank. And who’s to say that Jesus didn’t expand on homosexuality in a positive way in any ‘lost’ books of his writing? The reason I argue with you is because I don’t for one moment believe that Jesus thought a loving homosexual relationship was bad. I would believe that if I was straight too. It’s not about me, it’s about the principle, and I find it offensive (no insult meant to you) when people try to make out that one group of human beings are worth less than another – that includes women, LGBT people, the disabled, people of other races – whatever. Report 0 Reply Iris 1 Sep 2009, 9:44pm Ohm, and I could label any one of those groups ‘evil’ or ‘sinners’ or ‘immoral’ then use the Bible to ‘prove’ I was right – just like people have done throughout the ages. Report 0 Reply Iris 1 Sep 2009, 9:45pm *Oh – rushing! :D Report 0 Reply Lezabella 1 Sep 2009, 11:10pm Hi Hank, I don’t think I have ever spoken to you on here before, but here it goes: It seems to me that many people pick and choose what they want from The Bible, as Iris previously stated, The Bible and Chrsitians, used to believe the Earth was in a fixed position; now we know for a fact it is not. Hence, regarding homosexuality, perhaps people take the writings to mean what THEY want it to mean, depite interpretations and citations proving otherwise? Maybe people interperet The Bible to excuse and re-enforce their own prejudices? What I mean is, who picks and chooses what is still OK in The Bible today and why? Report 0 Reply Hank 2 Sep 2009, 1:28am Hi Iris.I really don’t enjoy clashing with you about the homosexual lifestyle because I feel you’re a nice lady and I don’t have negative feelings toward you or LGBT as a group. But with LGBT being such high profile in their dealings in politics, religion and society they’ve stirred up many things and I like being challenged with new ideas and viewpoints. Because I’m intense in my religious involvement, I feel that I need to defend my belief system and unfortunately that is why I stay on this site. I also believe the LGBT movement has greater implications than most people realize, which ties in with a New World Order objective that’s been in process for over 50 years and involves our entire society — also has significant influence on mainstream Christianity. I also believe all this is involved with the Barbarians stirring things up in their final push. Very interesting and definitely a challenge to people with an open mind. Report 0 Reply Hank 2 Sep 2009, 1:39am Hey Lizabella: Welcome to the comments. The only way I can explain it to you is you have to be a serious reader of the Bible, even if you don’t believe it, you have to take things in context, which can mean reading about what it says, and check out even what Bible scholars have to say in expanding the topics. You can read/study both sides of each issue – pro and con — and then arrive at your answer. But it takes a great deal of effort and study to know you have arrived at a good, strong answer for yourself. I read anti-Christian sites to see what they’re saying — keeps my mind active and I enjoy the challenges Report 0 Reply Hank 2 Sep 2009, 2:12am Hey Iris, you say, ” got my definition from reading Ancient Greek texts and from my (extremely learned) lecturer. He sad that the word ‘pais’ was used to refer to a male lover. Yes, it means ‘boy’ too, but it’s the context that shows it’s meaning in Matthew is ‘lover’. I suppose just as we might say “She’s my girl” to mean that a woman’s your girlfriend rather than your daughter, which would be the literal meaning. I would also add that it wasn’t that uncommon for centurions to have young male lovers at that time. I read Chpt. 7 and 8 and cannot see how you can see any sort of reference that pais means male lover — something has to build up to preparing us something so surprising, so I cannot agree with you or your lecturer. I need more definite evidence, not just supposition — that can lead to trouble. Report 0 Reply Will 2 Sep 2009, 6:54am “So I’m a redeemed sinner, justified through God’s grace” Very convenient, isn’t it Hank? Did Jesus not say, he who is without sin cast the first stone…. you seem eager to cast stones. Well, I am not a sinner. Being gay is not a sin. I am the way god made me, and Jesus himself said “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Well, you persecute gays, don’t you? Another sin. Jesus never mentioned gays as sinners. But he did mention divorce. As a follower of Jesus, you think you’d be less vocal about your sin (and breaking the ten commandments), and in the judgement of others, wouldn’t you? Personally, I couldn’t give a rats arse, you probably fail at a lot of things in life, you marriage is but one of them. Its why you’re in here spouting your tired crap. I’m just astonished at you levels of hypocrisy, and how you seem eager to advertise this weakness in your flawed character to those who are above you intellectually. Typically religious, Hank…. twist the truth to suit your own needs, and condemn others to make you one less bit the degenerate you truly are. Iris, don’t bother with Hank. He’s done this before….. he leads you on a merry dance with the front that he’ll debate religion with you, and even give you an olive branch or two, then he shows his true colours:- all gays are paedophiles, and gays should be stamped out to “protect the children”. He believe in the 6000 year old earth (without any proof) and all the literal interpretations of the bible (not on divorce obviously, that up for interpretation, it seems), and has a very twisted and unhealthy view on what’s right and wrong. And more than likely he’s ex-gay, as he supports that nonsense with some fever. You’re wasting you time debating with this low life, he’s not here to debate, he’s here to insult and abuse. Report 0 Reply John M.J. 2 Sep 2009, 7:08am So Hank is a believer in the ridiculous conspiracy theory of the idea that there is a group of people dedicated to overthrowing the existing state of things and establishing a ‘New World Order’ (his comment at 90, above). Let me explain that concept just a little bit in order to indicate to you thereby, I hope, just how much of a nutcase Hank really is. In conspiracy theory the term ‘New World Order’ (as Hank uses it) refers to the advent of a cryptocratic or totalitarian one-world government. The common theme in conspiracy theories about a ‘New World Order’ is that a powerful and secretive group of globalists (sometimes, apparently and depending upon the particular patholgies of the formulating individual, led by ‘Zionists’ seeking Jewish domination of the planet) is plotting to eventually rule the world by forming a world government which would replace sovereign states like the USA and the UK (and all the other sovereign states) with a global government which, they posit, would be, by its very nature and existence, anti-Christian. Significant occurrences in politics and finance are assumed by people like Hank to be caused by an extremely influential group of people operating through many different organisations and such events are aimed, according to people like Hank, at helping to establish a global government run by this group of secretive ‘masters’ (‘lizard people’ anybody?). Numerous historical, and current, incidents are viewed by Hank, and others like him, as steps in an on-going plot to achieve world domination by this mythical and fantastically secretive and select group . New World Order conspiracy theories are generally limited to two societal groups – the militantly anti-government right and some Christian fundamentalists concerned with end-time emergence of the, superstitiously believed in by Biblical literalists, Antichrist – people just like Hank in fact. Most Social Scientists warn that this development (belief in this idiotic conspiracy theory) could fuel individual acts of terrorism and could have devastating effects on Western political life if it’s allowed to continue unchallenged. In Hank’s small and idiotic and limited world of heretical and erroneous Biblical literalism the emergence of LGBT people struggling for civil rights and civil recognitions in our societies is not an indication of the success of democratic politics and real Christian values but is, rather, for him and the others who believe as he does, an indication that the mythical shady cabal which he, and others just like him, posit as a reality, is having a great success and destroying Western values as they establish their precursor position before they take power over the whole globe. Hank and his friends see the emergence of civil movements such as the many and various LGBT advocacy groups all over the world as being financed and led by some imagined, and uniquely powerful and wealthy, group of people who are using such groups in order to destabilise governments by undermining traditional moral teachings and, thereby, making it easier for this imagined group of powerful people to assume control of our planet. Frankly, Hank is, in my opinion, a nutcase with precious little grasp on reality. Many conspiracy theorists just like him, especially those associated with the militia movement in the USA and the UK, advance the idea that the ‘New World Order’ will be implemented by martial law after a dramatic take over of the State by some sort of ‘secret team’, using, apparently, black helicopters, in the United States, and in other sovereign states, in order to bring about a world government controlled by the United Nations and enforced by United Nations ‘peacekeeping’ forces. Some of them have become convinced that a far more serious terrorist incident than 9/11 will be responsible for triggering the process that will lead to such a World Government and will complete the transition to a police state wherein the destruction of Christianity will be completed. They are extremely fearful that the passing of any gun control legislation in the USA, and in other Sovereign States, will be later followed by the abolition of personal gun ownership, and that the refugee camps of emergency management agencies such as F.E.M.A. in the USA will be used for the internment of suspected subversives. Many conspiracy theorists who believe, as Hank does, in the ‘New World Order’ conspiracy theory, believe that it (global government by an existing elite as the ‘New World Order’ apparently wants) will be created by the intelligence services of our various countries which they believe lie at the heart of something that they call the ‘surveillance-industrial complex’, often called by them ‘Big Brother’, through the use of Social Security numbers in the USA and the bar-coding of retail goods with Universal Product Code markings in the rest of the world. Some consumer privacy advocates, such as Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre, who warn of how corporations and governments plan to track every move of consumers and citizens through such mechanisms, have become religious conspiracy theorists who associate barcodes, and so-called spychips as they term them, with the Number of the Beast mentioned in the Book of Revelations. We should note at this point that the eminently rational and sensible Boston University professor Richard Landes, who specialises in the history of apocalypticism, and who was co-founder and director of the Center for Millennial Studies at Boston University, argues that new technologies, such as the Internet, and new social ideas and ways of thinking (such as rights for LGBT people) often trigger alarm among millenarians and conspiracy theory dupes like Hank, and that even the introduction of Gutenberg’s printing press in 1436 caused waves of apocalyptic thinking, just like the wavelet exhibited by Hank, at this site and on this thread, to wash over society. This, of course, is an argument that I can’t win against Hank’s ridiculous, fundamentalist, conspiracist certainties. For people like Hank, believers in the ‘New World Order’ conspiracy theory, the very fact that I have argued against him and his ridiculous ideas indicates that I must belong the elite or to its second or third order of operatives – or that I am a willing dupe of such operatives, as he obviously believes that most of us at this site are. Judge him for yourself! Is there a ‘New World Order’ conspiracy by some elite that I’m a member of, or a willing dupe of, bent on World Domination and the destruction of civilisation as we know it, or is Hank an idiot believer in non-existent conspiracies (maybe even in flying saucers and little green men from Mars). Who knows? Decide for yourself! Report 0 Reply Will 2 Sep 2009, 7:14am “So Hank is a believer in the ridiculous conspiracy theory of the idea that there is a group of people dedicated to overthrowing the existing state of things and establishing a ‘New World Order’” John M.J., is this really a surprise? He believes in demons causing “mischief” around him, and a 6,000 year old earth. Religion and paranoia go hand in hand… not to mention stupidity. Its no surprise that this man has descended into the realms of conspiracy theory. Religion itself is a conspiracy theory. Report 0 Reply Iris 2 Sep 2009, 11:49am Hank: “I read Chpt. 7 and 8 and cannot see how you can see any sort of reference that pais means male lover — something has to build up to preparing us something so surprising, so I cannot agree with you or your lecturer. I need more definite evidence, not just supposition — that can lead to trouble. ” You need to read it in Greek. I don’t have a Greek Bible in front of me, but, as I remember, various words are used for slaves, but only this man is called a ‘pais’ to distinguish him from the other slaves who are only slaves not the centurion’s lover. Ancient Greek is a beautiful language – not easy, but quite lyrical, and the word ‘pais’ is used in that context to signify that the man in question is more than just a simple slave. You talk about building up to “something so surprising” but it’s NOT surprising. Homosexual relationships were common in Ancient Greece and Rome. It was not at all ‘surprising’ for a centurion to have a male lover amongst his servants – nor to see any homosexual relationship in Ancient Greece and Rome. It was normal. No-one made a fuss about it because it wasn’t an issue. Report 0 Reply Iris 2 Sep 2009, 11:53am “I also believe the LGBT movement has greater implications than most people realize, which ties in with a New World Order objective that’s been in process for over 50 years and involves our entire society — also has significant influence on mainstream Christianity.” Everyone’s entitled to their beliefs, Hank – but that just…gobsmacked me… I’m astounded you could believe that… (John M.J – thank you for your explanation. I would have been lost without that, as all I knew was the basics, not how there was a link to religion. The only people I’ve met who’ve hinted that they believe that are young men who have absolutely no religious beliefs at all.) Report 0 Reply Will 2 Sep 2009, 1:14pm Okay, I admit it Hank. Its true. Only a few people have ever figured it out. Well done. We’re all part of the global movement to change the politician landscape of the world. The LGBT movement, of which we here are all a part of, has been, quite successfully, undetermined the morality of Christian countries since the 1960′s. In conjunction with our brethren, the Illuminati and the Freemasons, we are changing laws around the world to destroy the family and family values. Soon, homosexuals will take the children for ourselves, and straight, Christian god-fearing families like you will be only cattle to provide children for our gay families. And we are close to overthrowing the Christian governments of the world. Surely you can already see that the E.U. is nothing more then a LGBT branch of our new government? We know who you are Hank, and are monitoring your computer right now, and for some time. We will be monitoring you and your kind very closely in the future, using the secular tools of science and computers, and when the New World Order takes its rightful place in charge of world affairs, we will wipe your kind out. We will prevail. Already its too late for you and your church. We are everywhere. ALL HAIL ME! RULER OF THE 4TH QUADRANT OF THE PLANET QUEERTOPIA. BOW BEFORE ME! HAIL ME! HAIL ME! HAIL ME! Report 0 Reply Hank 2 Sep 2009, 5:20pm To John, Will, Iris: I think you all have a limited focus and understanding of what I’m saying about the New World Order. That’s simply a new phrase used in my entire meaning of the Age of Barbarism. I’m looking at the movement at it applies to civilization in total — starting with Amam and Eve as they used their free will to defy God, and to Cain killing Abel which was an outward barbaric act. Don’t forget MAN HATES GOD and his ultimate purpose and desire is to get rid of God and make man a god. The ancient Barbarians, showed themselves in the the Fall of the Roman Empire, in the Dark Ages, and in the Age of Enlightenment, and continuing in today’s corrupt and depraved societies — man has always worshipped war, violence, domination of man, doing man’s own thing in in his own power — hating any type of religion that made God above man. Barabianism is indeed a part of human nature and will always want to dominiate man’s existence. And today we’re in the later stages of Barbarism, showing itself in hedonism, culminating in all sorts of sexual pleasures and behavior. Our culture exemplifies sex to its utmost — nothing is done without emphasizing sex — in television, internet pornography, sex slavery, advertising, divorce, adultery, child sex abuse, prision homosexuality, — you name it and sex is involved in it to give pleasure to mankind. If you don’t think the Barbarians have taken over, you’ve not on this planet. I do believe that the homosexual agenda and its movement will become stronger in time and will have a greater influence on societies worldwide. The traditonal family and its values will diminish to be extinct in most cases. Fundamental morality and ethics will all but disappear and trust, truth and honor will be a thing of the past. Not that the LGBT will be the total cause of it all collapsing, but you are being used by those who are leading the Barbarians. But I’m not worried, because it’s all been foretold in the final chapter– Revelation — it’s fantastic reading! Sleep well all. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 2 Sep 2009, 5:27pm “So Hank is a believer in the ridiculous conspiracy theory of the idea that there is a group of people dedicated to overthrowing the existing state of things and establishing a ‘New World Order’ (his comment at 90, above).” -John M.J. (94) “This, of course, is an argument that I can’t win against Hank’s ridiculous, fundamentalist, conspiracist certainties. For people like Hank, believers in the ‘New World Order’ conspiracy theory, the very fact that I have argued against him and his ridiculous ideas indicates that I must belong the elite or to its second or third order of operatives – or that I am a willing dupe of such operatives, as he obviously believes that most of us at this site are.” -John M.J.(94) Gee, Hank, you tink big tots. Report 0 Reply Hank 2 Sep 2009, 7:19pm To all again. Please comment if you like I’d like to elaborate on the Barbarians destroying our nation. Here’s a partial list of my choice of leading Barbarians in recent years. – their world views are combinations taken from Secular Humanism, Cosmic Humanism(Ne Age), Islam, Postmodernism and Communism/Marxism. All of these belief systems bring on destruction, despair, mass murder, and chaos. My nominees (briefly described) are: Karl Marx –an atheist and secular humanist, he wrote the Communist manifesto with friend Friedrich Engels. Marx didn’t believe in life after death, only in the natural or material world and valued people only for what they could do for the state. He hated the free market and capitalism, and because he was a lazy slob he wanted others to take care of him. Marx largely lived off Friedrich Engels, who drew his income from the family business. As a hypocrite, Marx hated capitalism yet lived off the fruits of capitalism. Marx was a first-class reprobate that out of his 6 children, 3 died of starvation while infants, while2 others committed suicide. Marx was a social parasite who hated the traditional family and put himself ahead of everyone else in every situation. John Dewey – known as the father of modern American education, was also a signer of the Humanist Manifesto I, and a founding member of the ACLU. He was the leading force behind bringing the “Frankfort School” to America – which promoted the worldview of Friedrich Nietzsche and promoted Marxism in every area of America with the underlying goal of destroying Christianity. One of his famous quotes was “There is no God and no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props or traditional religion…There is no room for fixed, natural law, or permanent moral absolutes.” John Maynard Keynes – known for Keynesian economics which is recognized by its love of debt, hatred of savings and a commitment to an idea that caused the Great Depression to be much deeper and longer than was necessary. Keynes was a Fabian Socialist and worked to promote Socialism through evolution instead of revolution. Included in his system with a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. Like many other Barbarians, Keynes pronounced Christianity an enemy force, Keynes was characterized by his male sweetheart, Lytton Strachey, as a “liberal and a sodomite, an atheist and a statistician.: His particular depravity was the sexual abuse of little boys.” Charles Darwin – in his book Descent of Man, embraces eugenics, which he euphemistically called “survival of the fittest.” Eugenicists, as defined by Dr. George Grant, are “the practitioners of an odd pseudo-science who sincerely believe that if human civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the radically inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be eliminated.” Hitler and Margaret Sanger embraced Darwin’s world view, which has led to the death of millions. Darwin stated, “If various checks…DO NOT PREVENT THE RECKLESS, THE VICIOUS AND OTHERWISE INFERIOR MEMBERS OF SOCIETY from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of man, then the nation will retrograde, as has occurred too often in history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. Alfred Kinsey was perhaps the most perverted in this list. He was a follower of Darwinism. His book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, rather than being a scientific study, was sexual propaganda that sought to convince Americans that all sex was equal regardless of whether it was between people of the same sex, the opposite sex, or adults with children. Eventual research revealed that Kinsey was a homosexual. Kiinsey’s “research” included collecting data from adult men who had sexual relations with children. He also documented the sexual molestation of children ranging in age from 4 months to teenagers. Kinsey’s goal was the normalization of homosexuality, bisexuality and pedophilia. The others on my list are: Friedrich Nietzch , who declared “God is dead,” Soon after he wrote his book, “The Antichrist,” he went insane and spent the next 10 years out of his mind., Aldous Huxley wrote “Brave New World,” promoted rewriting history to discredit nationalism, and promote globalism…encourage loyalty to peers and teachers, not family and churches, and condition students to serve a “greater whole based on feelings and experience, not facts and reason. He spent his last years experimenting with mind-altering drugs in attempt to find some kind of esoteric or hidden truth. Report 0 Reply Will 2 Sep 2009, 7:25pm Hank, all the last bit was just a unfounded, unsubstantiated and irrelevant load of nonsense. You make no point, just cut and paste a load of silly references form NARTH (or some other paranoid source of untruths), which are, as I can see, mostly incorrect and fabricated lies to fit your delusion. There’s noting real about any of the above. You’re deeply disturbed, and very, very misinformed. You’re wife made a wise choice to get away from you…. smart woman. Report 0 Reply Will 2 Sep 2009, 7:30pm “But I’m not worried, because it’s all been foretold in the final chapter– Revelation — it’s fantastic reading!” Ever think of removing yourself from society for the safety of those around you? This last statement shows a very disturbed mind, racked with paranoid delusions. I really won’t be surprised when I see you in the newspaper after the police take you out for going on a shooting rampage in your local MacDonalds with a rifle. Report 0 Reply Iris 2 Sep 2009, 8:29pm Hank: “Barabianism is indeed a part of human nature and will always want to dominiate man’s existence. And today we’re in the later stages of Barbarism, showing itself in hedonism, culminating in all sorts of sexual pleasures and behavior. Our culture exemplifies sex to its utmost — nothing is done without emphasizing sex — in television, internet pornography, sex slavery, advertising, divorce, adultery, child sex abuse, prision homosexuality, — you name it and sex is involved in it to give pleasure to mankind. If you don’t think the Barbarians have taken over, you’ve not on this planet.” While I agree that there is SOMETIMES an over-use of sex in advertising, I don’t think that people today are more ‘barbarian’ than people in the past. (And I was surprised you put divorce in that list…) Let me say this again. LGBT people are NOT interested in anything other than fair treatment. We don’t seek to take over the world, we don’t seek to make everyone gay – even if that were possible, which it most definitely isn’t – and we aren’t being led by some leader, or used to further a New World Order. Look, Hank – I’m a teacher, I’ve never committed any crimes, I’ve never been in any trouble, and I lead a quiet, harmless life. No-one’s using me or any other LGBT people. We’re far too disparate a group for that. You said: “I do believe that the homosexual agenda and its movement will become stronger in time and will have a greater influence on societies worldwide. The traditonal family and its values will diminish to be extinct in most cases. Fundamental morality and ethics will all but disappear and trust, truth and honor will be a thing of the past. Not that the LGBT will be the total cause of it all collapsing, but you are being used by those who are leading the Barbarians. ” Once again – there is NO homosexual agenda. Moreover, we can’t influence societies that much because the percentage of LGBT people remains pretty constant no matter how ‘visible’ they are in society. Believe me, I can’t turn any one lesbian! (Although, I could mention people that I wished were :D ) If LGBT people wre given full and equal rights in every single country in the world nothing would happen – except the world would be a fairer place. Heterosexual people’s lives would continue just as they were, the world would continue just as it was. The ‘traditional family’, by which I presume you mean one man, one woman, will NOT be affected by LGBT rights. No-one’s going to ‘turn gay’, no LGBT people are going to interfere in your life – why would we want to? The ‘traditional’ family will continue to exist alongside new families. The values that you talk about do NOT belong exclusively to traditional families – any family unit can have those. And any family – traditional or not – can be ‘bad’. What proof do you have for your idea that morality and ethics will disappear? That’s just wild talk. Please understand that the vast majority of LGBT people are decent people and have strong morals and ethical values. Two questions, Hank – please answer: 1) Christianity is obviously very big in your life – you’ve said as much above and many times before, but which church do you belong to? What denomination are you? 2) Where/how did you first get these New World Order ideas? Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 2 Sep 2009, 8:46pm Will’s right. Hank is a threat to society. And I suspect he is using opiates of some kind. Gee, it’s all I can do to wonder where my battery operated jigsaw went, and Hank wants to speak to Jesus and Satan. He is also a threat to himself. Two different worlds; we live in two different worlds. Report 0 Reply Iris 2 Sep 2009, 9:21pm Still pondering what you said, Hank. Sorry,I thought of some more questions: 3) Why LGBT people? Why are these mysterious NWO leaders using us? Why not women? Sports stars? Bank workers? Christians….? 4) Why would a ‘world government’ mean that Christianity was destroyed? Isn’t religion a useful ‘opium’ to distract people from what the global leaders are doing? 5) Do you really think that there’s a link between what it says in Revelations and the idea of a New World Order? How so? (and please answer all my questions – don’t get distracted by just that one :) ) Report 0 Reply Pumpkin Pie 3 Sep 2009, 12:32am Tut-tut, Hank. John went to all that trouble giving us this fascinating historical information (which pretty much destroyed your “argument”) and you ignored it all! Charles Darwin – in his book Descent of Man, embraces eugenics Wrong. First, science gives us the facts, it doesn’t say what we should DO with those facts. Second, Darwin was an ethical man who believed in doing the right thing instead of the “efficient” thing, and he certainly didn’t think humans could or should control evolution. Eugenics is the artificial “guiding” of evolution by an intelligent agent. Sound familiar? It is, essentially, intelligent design. Eugenics is what happens when psychotic fundamentalists (be they theist or atheist) mis-use scientific knowledge for their own twisted agendas. Sound familiar? It should do: ex-gay therapy falls into this category, too. Kinsey’s goal was the normalization of homosexuality, bisexuality and pedophilia. Prove it. Report 0 Reply John M.J. 3 Sep 2009, 7:18am Oh dear, poor old Hank! Forever the undereducated victim, the willing dupe of the fascists whom he slavishly and unthinkingy, for he incapable of independent thought, follows. At Comment 101 he said that Karl Marx …was a lazy slob he wanted others to take care of him. [sic} Marx largely lived off Friedrich Engels, who drew his income from the family business. As a hypocrite, Marx hated capitalism yet lived off the fruits of capitalism. No, absolutely untrue and a bastardised version of history which is unsupported by the facts. It is true that Engels supported him in his early years but in reality Marx supported himself in various ways and lived a reasonably prosperous life in Kentish Town in London without Engel’s support for most of his adult, married life. He fathered seven children, not six, and those of them who died did so by succumbing to the prevalent untreatable diseases of the day – it would not have mattered how wealthy Marx was, he could not have saved his children from death for the knowledge about the conditions they died from was not present in the science of medicine at the time of their deaths. To attribute their deaths to Marx’s politics is simply a calumny of the first order and completely ignores the history of medicine. Then Hank is never one to let the facts stand in the way of a thorough going hatred, is he? Let me say quite plainly, at this point, that I am NOT a Marxist. I, just like many others at this site, can plainly see the philosophical errors in his arguments and that he was writing at a time when capitalism was completely unregulated and the concepts of social good and social profit had yet to be formulated as values. It can, of course, be argued that Marx made the first real philosophical contributions to quantifying those values – without necessarily embracing the rest of his thoughts as valid. Hank is also in deep error about John Dewey. Dewey was not a Nietschian, but a Hegelian philosopher deeply imbued with the principles formulated by Leibnitz – he was a Pragmatist and an Instrumentalist just like John Sanders Pierce – as is evidenced by Dewey’s first two books. What worries Hank (and leads him to lie about Dewey), naturally, is that Dewey rejected the physiological psychology of Wundt, which primitive school of thought is so beloved by fundamentalists like Hank for it underpins their small and medieval world. It’s difficult for people like Hank to see Dewey, the father of Functional Psychology, as anything other than a radical destroyer of their limited world because he advanced theories which disturbed that world, and its imagined and fantastical seemingly orderly world-view, immensely. Hank also lies about John Maynard Keynes. He does so, of course, because he is wilfully committed to the economic ideas of Milton Friedman – those ideas of free and unfettered capitalism which gave rise to the Chilean economic disaster under the dictator Pinochet, the disastrous economic policies of Thatcherite Britain – which set our development back by thirty years – and the ridiculous economic policies followed under President Reagan which have given rise to the current depression in economic activity – and the stupid belief in unregulated capitalism that characterises all people such as Hank. Hank fails to observe, as many others do, that Keynesian economics actually shortened the depression – as Friedman admitted in his later years – and maintains, idiotically, that Keynesian economics actually lengthened the depression caused by the stock-market collapse of 1929 when there is absolutely no valid evidence to support that position. In 1921 Keynes fell in love with Lydia Lopokova, a well-known Russian ballerina. They married in 1925. Their union was by all accounts happy, though childless – Lydia became pregnant in 1927 but miscarried and Keynes spent much time helping her to prolong her succesful career to help her to compensate for the lack of children in their union – they tried for children many times but were always disappointed. Keynes built up a significant collection of fine art, including notable works by Paul Cézanne, Edgar Degas, Amadeo Modigliani, Georges Braque, Picasso and Georges-Pierre Seurat. He enjoyed collecting books: for example, he collected and protected many of Isaac Newton’s papers. He was interested in literature in general and drama in particular and financially supported the Cambridge Arts Theatre. Once again Hank lies about a major figure from history. There is no evidence, apart from the fabrications spewed forth by Hank and his supporters, that Keynes ever interferred with children in a sexual way or had any sexual interests in children. Virginia Woolf’s biographer tells an anecdote on how Virginia Woolf, Keynes and T. S. Eliot would discuss things at dinner parties. Once, at the end of a dinner party, a disturbance reminded Keynes of his ‘theme’, and he remarked that the youth had no religion save Communism and this was worse than nothing. Marxism, Keynes asserted, was founded upon nothing better than a misunderstanding of Ricardo, and given time, he, Keynes, would deal thoroughly with the Marxists and other economists, to solve the economic problems their theories threatened to cause. In 1931 Keynes went on to write the following on Marx’s work: How can I accept the Communist doctrine, which sets up as its bible, above and beyond criticism, an obsolete textbook which I know not only to be scientifically erroneous but without interest or application to the modern world? How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia, who with all their faults, are the quality of life and surely carry the seeds of all human achievement? Even if we need a religion, how can we find it in the turbid rubbish of the red bookshop? It is hard for an educated, decent, intelligent son of Western Europe to find his ideals here, unless he has first suffered some strange and horrid process of conversion which has changed all his values. Hank’s view of Keynes is deeply flawed and illogical and, in essence, is a lie promulgated by him and his strange cohorts. Report 0 Reply John M.J. 3 Sep 2009, 7:19am Now let us look at Hank’s version (at Comment 101) of what Darwin wrote. It’s deeply dishonest, for Hank neglects to add the final sentence from that Darwinian paragraph – preferring, once again, to blatantly lie about the whole quote and to misinform and deliberately mislead. The final sentence is: Judging from all that we know of men and the lower animals, there has always been sufficient variability in the intellectual and moral faculties, for their steady advancement through natural selection. In other words Charles Darwin was simply setting up a straw man in order to knock it down but people like Hank quite simply refuse to see or accept that. He, Darwin, did not believe that the course of human intelligence would always be retrograde but that sufficient variability existed so that it would always improve. Phew, what an idiot Hank really is! I suggest, also, that Hank’s petty insult of calling that great work by Mr. Darwin ‘The Descent of Man’ indicates quite clearly just what a limited intelligence we are dealing with here. Puerile insult is frequently the mark of the maladjusted mind such as his is. Now, let us turn our attention to Kinsey, as Hank next does in his comment at 101. There is absolutely no evidence that Kinsey was a paedophile – nor was he, as Hank asserts, a pedophile (an American foot-fetishist, mayhap?). Kinsey married Clara Bracken McMillen in 1921. They had four children together and none of the three surviving children, nor any other children whom Kinsey ever had contact with, has ever reported inaproppiate sexual contact. The unsupported by evidence idea that Kinsey might have been a paedophile came about because he interviewed paedophiles in order to garner data for the Kinsey Reports. Most of the attention in this regard has centered upon Tables 30-34 of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, which report observations of orgasms in over three hundred female and male children between the ages of five months and fourteen years. Former and current directors of The Kinsey Institute confirmed that some of the information was gathered from nine (yes, just nine) paedophiles and that Kinsey chose not to report those paedophiles to the authorities, balancing what Kinsey saw as the need for their anonymity against the likelihood that their crimes would continue. That may have been a wrong judgement but it most categorically does NOT prove that Kinsey was a paedophile. If it proves anything at all then it merely proves that Kinsey was not adept at judging what might outrage society if it found out that he had interviewed people whom it would see as criminals – but that’s true of quite a number of scientific investigators even today. How does a scientist gather data if he he, or she, is required to report ones subjects to the legal authorities – it’s a fine balancing act! Hank is, in his usual fashion at Comment 101, simply being the most stupid person at this thread and merely demonstrating his own deeply engrained immoral prejudices. He lies deliberately and wilfully and he attempts to twist history and facts to suit his own heretical purposes and his own pathetic needs. Report 0 Reply Lezabella 3 Sep 2009, 3:28pm The ‘New World Order’, or massive globalism and centralisation of world power stems from groups such as The Bilderberg Group (a group of elites such as CEOs, Presidents and royalty who meet once a year in private). That’s what Hank has referred to. I’ve read about it. It’s mainly large corporations and banks consolidating their power via market crashes and hostile takeovers. Large pharmacutical corporations are involved too. ‘New World Order’ is the name given to it. Their supposed aim is to create a European state, (EU), a North American Union (U.S, Canada and Mexico-they already have a currency ready called the ‘Amero), an African Union and a South Pacific Union. After this these ‘states’ will be answerable to a World Government. The Bilderbergers, namely Henry Kissenger, have pretty much admitted this is their goal. Some of it is poppycock, but some of it has happened and is happening. However, Hank, and Christian people who know about it also think that feminism and gay rights are involved in this conspiracy aswell in an effort to destroy the nuclear family for de-population. New World Order conspiracists think feminism’s true aim was to unsurp the male role and make female-male roles the same so as to destabilise gender relations. They think gay rights was about the same thing. I personally don’t believe this, however one cannot deny that The Bilderberg Group exists or that their aims are world government (with a banking elite at the top) as they have admitted it themselves: “Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.” “It cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change its perceptions.” “NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement i.e Canada, Mexico and the U.S] represents the single most creative step towards a New World Order.” Henry Kissenger, Bilderberg meeting 1992/3. “This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long – We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.” David Rockefeller, Bilderberg meeting. There are tons and tons of information regarding this but one has to ascertain which parts are true or false; and which groups are using it as an excuse to advance their own misogynism and homophobia. Report 0 Reply Hank 3 Sep 2009, 4:16pm Hey Lezabella….thanks for your comments. You’re one of the few who has any sort of open mind regarding worldwide events and their meaning to our future. I’ll comment on your message shortly as I have to leave now. About John…I have comments to your messages also when I return and disagree with some of your opinions. Everyone be well Hank Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 3 Sep 2009, 4:22pm Hank: Welcome to mainstream thinking. You heard it first on PinkNews, the greatest gay newspaper in the world!!! Now, I wonder where my brand new battery-operated jigsaw is. Report 0 Reply Hank 3 Sep 2009, 7:18pm To all…very interesting reading about a different aspect of the Barbarian agenda – this taken from an Assoc. Press release. If you people think you have “free will” and can plan your own future, you are livingin a dream world. Secret billionaire club June 4, 2009 “What’s with the secret squirrel business? Some of America’s billionaires (now, what would it be like to be a billionaire!) have been meeting secretly. They are not plotting a secret new world government. They have been meeting to discuss how their combined humongous wealth could be used to curb global population and improve health and education. I’m all for the latter, not so sure I like the sound of rich dudes thinking they have the right or power to control population numbers. Smacks of that dark bit of history – eugenics – and we know what the Nazis did with eugenics. So the likes of Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffet, George Soros, David Rockefeller Jr, Ted Turner and Michael Bloomberg (is he a billionaire?) are known as the Good Club. They gathered at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist, on May 5 in Manhattan, US and even some aides didn’t know the real purpose of the meeting, being told their boss was off to a security briefing (Oprah goes to security briefings?). I guess over some top notch champagne and caviar they had a friendly chat and at some point Bill Gates dropped the clanger – that he wants to cap the world’s population at 8.3 billion people. So whilst these “philanthropists” will no doubt throw millions at schools and better health care, I’m wondering how they’re thinking of “curbing the population”. And I’m sure that Ted Turner would have trumped Gates by outlining his plans – bringing the world’s population down to two billion through a global voluntary one-child policy (guess his plans wouldn’t run to himself as he has five kids). Perhaps they even discussed Henry Kissinger’s secret 1974 “food control genocide” plan (a covert plan to reduce population growth through birth control, war and famine). Possibly, Gates even mentioned that his dad, William H Gates Sr is a board member of Planned Parenthood and a quick search of the American Eugenics Society Records shows Bill’s dad crops up in their records. And no doubt David Rockfellers Jr confessed that his own dad, John D. Rockefeller, bankrolled the eugenics programme in Nazi Germany through the Kaiser Wilhelm institute. We know the planet cannot sustain a projected world population of 9 billion by 2050. And I’m sure the Good Club discussed many initiatives around health and education that would benefit Third World countries but when you delve into the backgrounds of some of the gathered few and note the link to eugenics, a feeling of uneasiness occurs. The eugenics movement has never really gone away; it’s simply moved into a new era and has converged with concerns over the sustainability of our planet and global population. Some interesting quotes: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal”. Ted Turner, CNN founder & UN supporter – quoted in the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June 1996 “Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically & psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable”. Sir Julian Huxley, first director general of UNESCO (1946-1948) “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels”. Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund – quoted in “Are You Ready For Our New Age Future?” Insiders Report, American Policy Center, December 1995 “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it”. Jacques Cousteau “The world has a cancer and that cancer is man”. Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation. “…The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size”. Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb. pp 130-131. There is even a suggestion that the Human Genome Programme is eugenics in disguise – that the genetic code can be altered to produce designer babies and that ultimately our world will consist of GenRich and GenPoor (those who can afford to have their DNA tinkered with and those who can’t – the latter being referred to as naturals or God children and who may form a future class of lowly-paid service workers or labourers. This of course was depicted in the movie Gattaca). This secret billionaire club business …. talks of trying to shrink the world. As though they, due to their humongous combined wealth, believe they have some sort of moral imperative to decide the world’s population numbers. It’s like the recent Australian Government announcement that should swine flu hit us, then half the population (10 million) will be inoculated – which half would that be? Who makes the decision as to who gets the jab and who doesn’t and on what basis? Something to think about if you have an open mind and are fairly intelligent. Report 0 Reply Iris 3 Sep 2009, 7:53pm Globalisation, dodgy dealings by politicians and the wealthy, major companies and institutions pushing towards goals that benefit them – yep, most people would agree that there’s a lot that we, the general public, aren’t told, BUT that isn’t the full extent of the New World Order thinking, is it? And, in my opinion, if you’re talking about the things I’ve mentioned, calling it NWO is just asking for trouble. NWO is barcodes containing the ‘number of the beast’, illuminati, lizards, etc, etc. Hank, you’ve mentioned ‘barbarians’ and linked the NWO with Revelations – most people I know who believe in this NWO are far, far from religious. To my mind, it can mean anything you want it to, depending on your interests (or prejudices). So perhaps you could elaborate on what exactly this NWO means to you, Hank, and why you believe it relates to the book of Revelations. I asked some questions above which I hope you’ll be able to answer too. I’ll be open about what I think: I believe that globalisation is potentially bad, that politicians and large companies can act in ways that are deplorable, and that sometimes the public are fed versions of events that are far from the real truth. HOWEVER, I don’t believe in lizard people,a Fourth Reich, alien infiltrators, sinister barcodes with 666 in – or, indeed, any link to the Bible at all. Basically, I think that’s all utter crap, and that’s why I prefer to use the term ‘globalisation’ to separate the former from the latter. Here’s a Wiki link if anyone’s interested in the NWO stuff: hXXp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory) and a quote from there: “Prior to the early 1990s, New World Order conspiracism was limited to two subcultures, primarily the militantly antigovernment right, and secondarily Christian fundamentalists concerned with end-time emergence of the Antichrist. Social critics, such as political scientist Michael Barkun, have expressed concern that paranoid conspiracy theories about a New World Order have now not only been embraced by the far left but have seeped into popular culture, thereby inaugurating an unrivaled period of millenarian activity in the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. They warn that this development may not only fuel lone-wolf terrorism but have devastating effects on American political life, such as producerist demagogy influencing elections as well as domestic and foreign policy.” Report 0 Reply Hank 3 Sep 2009, 8:52pm Hey John, I did a little checking and came up with this misiformation you gave about Keynes sex life. I think if I did more checking I’d find out much more. I’ll also comment on Kinsey’s sex life soon — much worse than Keynes. I don’t think you’re doing much checking before making comments. From Wikipedia Keynes’s early romantic and sexual relationships were almost exclusively with men.1.  Attitudes in the Bloomsbury Group, in which Keynes was avidly involved, were relaxed about homosexuality. One of his great loves was the artist Duncan Grant, whom he met in 1908, and he was also involved with the writer Lytton Strachey. In 1921 he fell “very much in love” with Lydia Lopokova, a well-known Russian ballerina, and one of the stars of Serge Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes. They married in 1925, leading to the widely repeated couplet of unknown authorship: “Oh what a marriage of beauty and brains. The fair Lopokova and John Maynard Keynes”. Their union was by all accounts happy, though childless – Lydia became pregnant in 1927 but miscarried. Keynes spent much time aiding her to prolong her career to help compensate for the lack of children. ^ 1. a b c “The man who made us all Keynesians”. The New York Times. 1986-05-11. http://www.nytimes.cm/books/98/12/06/specials/skidelsky-keynes.html. Retrieved 2008-05-20. Leo Reynolds/Flickr Evan Zimroth has been researching the life of J.M. Keynes and deciphering the great man’s sex diaries. One is easy (a lot of Duncan Grant). The other uses a code which, if nothing else, helps break the ice at parties … Special to MORE INTELLIGENT LIFE Last week at a drinks event at the Oxford and Cambridge Club on Pall Mall, I had the good fortune to chat about Israel with an eminent professor of ecclesiastical history. His family had always been pro-Israel, he assured me, but now, sadly…things are different. So we had the usual dust-up. Champagne in hand, I jumped in headlong and called him an anti-Semite and he (ditto) countered with the speech that begins “You Americans always …” After the skirmish, though, it turned out that we share a sceptical view of Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, me for the good Archbishop’s positions on Israel and my ecclesiastical friend for Williams’ support of the Church’s official position on homosexuality. “Rowan,” he said with evident familiarity, or maybe irony, “doesn’t care for my partner.” Aha. “I’d like to ask you something about John Maynard Keynes,” I said. “Keynes kept these sex diaries …” . Keynes was never a closeted homosexual, although his colleagues at Bretton Woods in 1945 didn’t always realise it, perhaps because at those conferences he was accompanied by the Russian ballerina Lydia Lopokova, his wife of twenty years. By then he was the eminent economist and statesman, and possibly no longer on the prowl. In earlier days, though, from 1901 to 1915 when he was mostly a 20-something, he cruised constantly and kept two sex diaries of his success. Luckily Keynes was a pack-rat, so we have both of these documents, among a mass of J.M. Keynes memorabilia housed in the modern archives at King’s College, Cambridge, (They are reproduced in “Maynard Keynes: An Economist’s Biography”, by D. E. Moggridge, albeit in an appendix labelled “A Key for the Prurient.”) Where there’s smoke there’s usually fire. Report 0 Reply Lezabella 3 Sep 2009, 9:21pm “I don’t believe in lizard people,a Fourth Reich, alien infiltrators, sinister barcodes with 666 in – or, indeed, any link to the Bible at all. Basically, I think that’s all utter crap” As do I Iris. People who speak of ‘lizard people’ etc are disinformation agents. The rest of it though- dodgy dealings and globalisation is proably true. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 3 Sep 2009, 11:30pm There is an up-side to all this, innit: we now know what Hank reallyy stands for; it is no longer the ‘corker” it once was. Thanks to Iris and John M.J., Wiil, Adrian, Lezaballa; hell, even Pumpkin Pie has joined the party! Report 0 Reply John M.J. 4 Sep 2009, 7:17am The problem with Hank, at 115 and in his other comments, is that he takes it as a given that if one is gay or lesbian, trans-gendered or a straight supporter of sexual rights, bi-sexual or liberal heterosexual, then all of ones other thoughts, reasonings and academic attainments and insights must be wrong simply by virtue of one having the wrong, as he sees it, attitude towards any sexuality which differs from his erroneous Biblical beliefs about human sexuality. As far as he is concerned, if you have the ‘wrong’ attitude about human sexuality – you see loving plurality where he sees hate-filled, Satan inspired difference – then anything else which you say must be wrong and sinful. For him it is not remotely possible that a homosexual, a lesbian, a trans-gendered person, or even a paedophile, could possibly have a correct and valid thought about anything. The very fact that an individual may have a take on his or her own sexuality different from Hank’s narrow and limited view of he world, is anathema to Hank and automatically renders all of such a person’s thoughts invalid – for Hank and his followers, that is. For him there is only one correct version of human sexuality and, for him, anyone who admits to having a different sexuality from his perceived norm must automatically be suspect in everything else which they say or write. His comments on this thread demonstrate quite clearly his utter contempt for the opinions of LGBT people and his words, delivered with such Olympian certainty, amply demonstrate his magisterial arrogance and his incredible ignorance of the real, everyday world in which we LGBT people have to live. Having been caught out in superstition he’s now trying, with desperate attempts, to backtrack about the contents of his original comments, to revert to the position of Christian Rationalism but neglects, entirely and deliberately, to tell you all that Professor Moggridge, University of Toronto, is a supporter of Keynesian economic theory and a well respected author on the theories propounded (and advanced and refined) by Keynes and an academic enemy, in a limited way, of Harry Johnson’s ideas. Instead, he lies and attempts to subvert Professor Moggridge’s writings to his own limited, small, world-view. Professor Moggridge did indeed support some of Harry Johnson’s views but Johnson, himself, denied the Friedmanesque view of economics and the disagreement between him and Moggridge was more about the Chicago School’s tendency to fault data rather than theory. Instead Hank claims that Professor Moggridge supports his ideas – something so far removed from the truth that even the most disinterested in economic theory amongst us at this site must surely balk, the swallowing of such deceit as advanced by him, if we allow ourselves to indulge in it, is, quite simply, a lie. Frankly, Hank is an idiot, sub-standard analyst of economic theory and his attempts to castigate people and their opinions and findings, economists and scientists in other disciplines, as having no validity simple because such scientist are gay – or a member of some other sexuality – is a ridiculous argument. Who cares what sexuality Keynes, Kinsey, Darwin, or any other scientist enjoyed – what is important is whether or not their findings can be replicated. The fact that they can be, that they are, replicated time after time is what annoys Hank and causes him to yell at us that we should not be researching in these fields for the very act of research is against his ‘God’ and his, Hank’s, ‘belief set’. For Hank, there is nothing to research or find out about – there is, for him, only his own limited and narrow minded ‘truth’ about sexuality and anyone who dares to challenge that ‘truth’ must, automatically, belong to a religiously invalid sexuality. It’s a wonderful circular argument but it doesn’t hold water – his argument runs thusly: you challenge me about sexuality therefore you must belong to one of my suspect sexualities and, because you must so belong then your findings about human sexuality must be wrong and nothing that you say can have any validity because you belong to such a group. Hank’s position is so intellectually dishonest that it beggars belief! What is more, because he believes that our various LGBT sexualities renders any of our thoughts completely invalid then the way to demonstrate that such thoughts must be invalid is to demonstrate that those whose opinions differ from his (Darwin et al and ours) must be gay (or paedophile, of course) thus completing his ‘closed loop’ mentality. It’s the most simple of arguments in the world – because you’re not like me then you must be wrong: because you’re wrong then you are not like me so I can hate you. Hank’s views are just simplistic nonsense not worthy of our attention. By the way, thanks for your comments about my comments Iris and Lezbella. Much appreciated and, as usual, your comments were apposite, pungent and cogent. It’s good to know that two vocal and intelligent people such as you are fighting the good fight and that you, and others, have been doing so long before I found this site. Hit the idiots where it hurts, friends (I hope). I’ve enjoyed reading both of you at many of the other threads on this site and I’ve always found you both to be worth reading. Report 0 Reply Will 4 Sep 2009, 8:10am I’m sorry, but folks, Hank has taking a jump off the deep end here. We’re having a conversation with someone who is obviously suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, and possible delusions of persecution. Its like reading the diary of a madman. Report 0 Reply Hank 4 Sep 2009, 1:26pm Hey John,, when you say,”The problem with Hank, at 115 and in his other comments, is that he takes it as a given that if one is gay or lesbian, trans-gendered or a straight supporter of sexual rights, bi-sexual or liberal heterosexual, then all of ones other thoughts, reasonings and academic attainments and insights must be wrong simply by virtue of one having the wrong, as he sees it, attitude towards any sexuality….” You are totally wrong in your assumptiomn because most of the greatest “sins” and evilk doings in history have probably been done by heterosexual leaders. I want to elaborate on this very shortly by it’ll have to take place is 6-10 hours from now as I have to leave until then. Your are looking at my worldview in a very limited way, which I’ll explain in detail later. You’re way off base as trying to understand my approach and your bias is distorting my basic view. So hold on for enlightment about what I’m trying to get across about the worldwide barbarian movement. Report 0 Reply Will 4 Sep 2009, 1:50pm “worldwide barbarian movement”???????? Sweet jesus, get some professional help man. You’re suffering from a mental illness for heavens sake. There’s no enlightenment from you, the simple relality is that you’re the space cadet that screams obscenities and rapture related threats at passing traffic while wearing a tin foil hat. Report 0 Reply Hank 4 Sep 2009, 6:45pm Hey Will ….your “brilliant “ response included …worldwide barbarian movement”???????? Sweet jesus, get some professional help man. You’re suffering from a mental illness for heavens sake. There’s no enlightenment from you, the simple relality is that you’re the space cadet that screams obscenities and rapture related threats at passing traffic while wearing a tin foil hat.” Will, I’m not sure if you’re stupid or just ignorant about complex ideas when you make such comments. If you’d think about what I’m trying to say, you’d think before you respond and sound like a fool. What I’m saying has nothing to do with UFOs, lizard people, etc. I see a One World geopolitical agenda that I view as part of a large conspiracy to subjugate humankind under spiritual and secular authority At the center of the origin and history of the current One World agenda of the “New World Order” (NWO), are numerous rational conspiracy-like theories which include a rogue’s gallery of self-serving politicians, military leaders, and global wealth owners – the world’s “Power Elite”. While certain individuals may be the visible and easy targets for a barrage of well-deserved criticism, the primary focus are much greater forces standing behind them in the shadows. Whether we realize it or not, we all become, willingly or unwillingly, participants of this emerging global reality. So if you’ll try to open your mind to a broader view of the barbarian movement you’ll see that our world and society is indeed being influenced by barbarism…and not as you seem to believe that we as mankind are evolving into a more gentle, peaceful, tame, cultured, refined, intelligent, well-mannered and more civilized people – you in fact are the one suffering mental illness and are quite ignorant about reality. I have an elaborate explanation of the barbaric movement and will pass it on to those who are more intelligent than Will. Report 0 Reply George 4 Sep 2009, 10:59pm “I see a One World geopolitical agenda that I view as part of a large conspiracy to subjugate humankind under spiritual and secular authority” Oh, yes, well now THAT’S totally different, isn’t it? No, you’re right, that’s not paranoid delusions at all. It not like you need any proof, do you Hank? Just like the 6000 year old earth and the existence of demons don’t need proof to fuel the fires of lunacy that fester in that under developed organ you call a brain, eh? I used to think you were just a stupid and misguided religious buffoon, but NOW I see I was way off the mark… you’re not just stupid, you’re a mentally sick individual. When someone like you, Hank, someone without an education and an obviously deeply unstable mind, calls someone like me a fool, a man with two science degrees and far more informed about world affairs than you (not to mention I’ve managed to keep a long term loving and stable relationship beyond that failed marriage you had) its just means I’m right in what I have said, and you know I’m right. Clearly I’ve hit a nerve of truth. I suspect you’ve already been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic or bipolar, but don’t like to be reminded of it. Rant on, dear boy, your psychotic rants do littler other than amuse me somewhat. Now I do pity you. Report 0 Reply Will 4 Sep 2009, 11:01pm Folks, (other than Hank) that last comment was from me…. I entered my second name by accident. Report 0 Reply Hank 5 Sep 2009, 1:11am Hey Will, you said, “I used to think you were just a stupid and misguided religious buffoon, but NOW I see I was way off the mark… you’re not just stupid, you’re a mentally sick individual. When someone like you, Hank, someone without an education and an obviously deeply unstable mind, calls someone like me a fool, a man with two science degrees ….“ Hey Will, I found some quotes that I would apply to you and your 2 degrees. (Hope the make you smile a bit) These happen to be from Albert Einstein: Information is not knowledge; The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination. We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us. (REMEMBER THIS ONE WILL) Aristotle said: It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. (Something I believe you’re not capable to doing!) So Will… don’t let your 2 degrees go to your head and let you keep saying foolish things. Enjoy your 2 degrees! Hank Report 0 Reply John M.J. 5 Sep 2009, 9:48am There are always, of course, the degrees of separation from God. Hank, demonstrates, most copiously, such separation. Oh, and by the way, just what are Hank’s credentials? I presume that he has some – you know, a degree or two (perhaps a Masters or a Ph. D. from some good University?) Perhaps he does, indeed, have some understanding of ancient Hebrew, some knowledge of New Testament Greek, some undertanding of, or learning about, the recension of our Bible or the archaeology of the Word and the ancient world. Exactly what, and from where, I wonder, is he qualified in and from institution? Before he seeks, before he dares, to minister at this site, then he must reveal such things. That Hank cannot do so betrays his own spurious voyeurism. He is merely living his life, vicariously, through us who have the courage to be what he cannot be – openly happy, openly gay and contentented, Christian gay people – and, of course, those of you who are not Christian but who are equally as fulfilled and happy as I am and who, by your very welcome presence, worry Hank even more than I do by mine. You see, it’s difficult for Hank to accept, to understand, that there are gay people who are happy to accept Christ and follow Him in accepting their love but its even more difficult for Hank to accept that some of us don’t even acknowledge that he has a point worthy of being addressed – that some us have no Christian belief at all and cannot be influenced by Christianity – I’m so glad that those of you who don’t believe are here and commenting for you help in the struggle against fools like Hank so deeply. Beliece it or not, proper Christian belief, not literal Biblical fundamentalism like Hank’s belief, has much more in common with the reasoned position of aetheism than it does with Hanks superstitious and magical so-called Christianity. Hank almost makes me ashamed to be a gay Christian – actually, a Christian period. His hatreds and his obssesions, his errors of faith and his simplistic arguments, his lack of knowledge and his lack of linguistic skills, shame me to such an extent that I wish that I had reported him to the moderator of this site at the very beginning of this thread, for such an undereducated person has no natural right to comment at such a site as this. Such a closed mind, a mind that simply cannot debate or accept difference, has no right to occupy our time. Report 0 Reply Will 5 Sep 2009, 12:35pm “Enjoy your 2 degrees!” Don;t be ridiculous, Hank, I didn’t “enjoy” them, I earned them. “Aristotle said: It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. (Something I believe you’re not capable to doing!)” I do not accept, or listen to, the rantings of a deranged madman like you Hank, no more then I would seek rational or wisdom from the inmates of a psychiatric ward. Hank, you all but admitted that you are suffering from a mental condition, I do not feel any need to apply logic to your basket case arguments. You are, as I’ve already said, a deranged fool, in the very literal sense. Enjoy your schizophrenia. Report 0 Reply Iris 5 Sep 2009, 9:31pm Hank! Please answer my questions! Some of them only require a very short answer – eg what denomination you belong to. Others allow you to expand on what you believe tobe the link between the NWO and Revelations – so do answer. Maybe the short/quick ones first? Report 0 Reply Iris 5 Sep 2009, 9:32pm *to be (sorry) Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 6 Sep 2009, 12:19am Hank(122): If you refuse to share your wisdom about the Barbarian Movement with a mind as well developed as Will’s, I suggest you get in touch with the pope and other catholic intellectuals who can rise to your level, thereby saving Will from having to stoop to conquer. In the meantime, try screwing a lightbulb in your ear. Report 0 Reply Will 6 Sep 2009, 9:52am Yes, Hank, answer Iris’s questions. If she’s taken the time to engage with you, you could at least show the same decorum…. take some Ritalin if you feel it helps. Folks, I think I stumbled into a little dark place of truth here, given Hanks reaction…. I have no doubt now he has already been diagnosed with some psychosis,and he doesn’t like to be reminded of it,not least by us “degenerate homosexuals”. Will, at least we’re not crazy! Sheesh! Report 0 Reply Hank 6 Sep 2009, 11:44am Hey Iris….sorry for the delay in answering your comments. I’ll definitely get to them — hopefully on Sunday. My “excuse” is that it’s been we have such great weather lately that I’ve spent most of my time outside and not inside my apartment at the computer — whenever it does rain, which keeps me inside, is when I am forced to do some of my writing. I’m an outdoor person, but I have copied your comments and am putting something together as you’re one of the very few people that has any meaningful questions Iris, so bear with me. Report 0 Reply Hank 7 Sep 2009, 3:22am Hey Iris….I’m answering your questions one at a time….it’s getting too involved to give at one time. 4) Why would a ‘world government’ mean that Christianity was destroyed? Isn’t religion a useful ‘opium’ to distract people from what the global leaders are doing? I believe that the Age of Enlightenment” was the greatest impetus for the barbarians and a “world government movement ” where it took advantage to diminish God and Christianity and to make man its god. Though barbarians cannot “destroy” religious beliefs totally, they can “accept” a god who is not truly involved in daily functions so when Deism came out of the Enlightenment mankind was presented with 2 choices when “looking” at God and creation and saw that God’s characteristic was defined either as: transcendence or immanence A transcendent God is one who is beyond perception, independent of the universe, and wholly “other” when compared to us. An immanent God, is one which exists within — within us, within the universe, etc. — and, hence, very much a part of our existence. The idea of God being transcendent is very common when it comes to the mystical traditions within various religions. Mystics who seek a union or at least contact with God are seeking a transcendent God — a God so totally “other” and so totally different from what we normally experience that a special mode of experience and perception is required. And this is what the barbarian movement and NWO continues to promote to the masses in its spiritual and secular propoganda. It’s creating a new god in exchange for a Christian God and the masses are buying into it. Report 0 Reply Will 7 Sep 2009, 6:54am “And this is what the barbarian movement and NWO continues to promote to the masses in its spiritual and secular propoganda. It’s creating a new god in exchange for a Christian God and the masses are buying into it.” LOL! Oh, please, this is turning into a comedy sketch. Any proof of these wild and paranoid statements, eh, Hank? You don’t seem too keen on proof, do you? Show me articles, or studies, where you gained this marvellous insight into this “world wide conspiracy”. And why do you not answer the rest of Iris’s questions? Probably time for those meds, eh? They make the voices go away, at least for a short time, don’t they? Report 0 Reply Iris 7 Sep 2009, 11:11am “Hey Iris….I’m answering your questions one at a time…” No problem, Hank. I won’t comment on your answers until you’ve answered my questions so as to not muddle things, but I just wanted to let you know that I’m still listening and here. Thank you for your first answer. Report 0 Reply Hank 7 Sep 2009, 1:12pm Hey Will….you seem to have much to comment about. I’m very curious…what’s your purpose of living? I truly would like to know what you see as your goal for being alive? I’m serious. If you tell me, I’ll be happy to tell you my purpose. Hey…. go along with this…could turn out to be very enlightening for us both. Report 0 Reply Hank 7 Sep 2009, 1:23pm Hey Iris….glad you have patience. Some of this is taking more time than I thought, but it’s fun, so I’ll be writing about how the book of Revelation (no “s” on the end, which many add to it)…. Whether people believe in Revelation or not, there’s much to be examined from an historical view, and not just mythical ramblings. We celebrated our Labor Day so I was outside most of the weekend. Report 0 Reply Hank 7 Sep 2009, 1:33pm Hey John, Jean Paul….you don’t seem to go along with my barbarian movement views. Do you look upon mankind heading for a better world instead? How would you intepret the following: “Author and educator James Martin, fouonder of the Institute for Science and Civilization at the Univ. of Oxford, soberly warns us: ‘At the start of the 21st century, humankind finds itself on anon-sustainable course — a course that unless it is changed will lead to catstrophes of awesome consequences. This could be humanity’s last century, or could be the century in which civilzation sets sail towards a far more spectatular future.’ ” (The Meaning of the 21st Century, 2007, preface) Unfortunately I don’t see mankind as waking up to the downward dirction it’s heading. Report 0 Reply Will 7 Sep 2009, 5:34pm Hank, let me ask you first, what’s the purpose of you being on a gay site? Report 0 Reply Hank 7 Sep 2009, 6:52pm Hey Will…good question and I’ll get back to you shortly. Also, does that mean you’ll answer my question as to why you get up every morning to “do what you think is the reason you live?” Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 7 Sep 2009, 7:08pm Hank, Hank(138): You are starting to sound like Dr. Phil now. Can I see your doctoral degree, please? And which in church do you worship? Report 0 Reply Will 7 Sep 2009, 10:24pm Hank, I will gladly answer your questions, when you explain (i) What are you doing here? (ii) What is your explanation for the fossil record? (iii) What religious denomination do you belong to. When you, as a “visitor” to a gay site, answer those questions, then you are in a position to demand answers. Report 0 Reply Hank 8 Sep 2009, 1:05pm Hold on everybody – I haven’t ignored your questions, just have enjoyed my Labor Day to its fullest and not been inside very much. But I do have some worthwhile comments I’m working on for you all that will be worth the delay. And I do enjoy all this as it’s challenging so just hang in there! Report 0 Reply Hank 8 Sep 2009, 8:58pm Hey all…before I get to my comments pertinent to our page, I saw this comment on a different topic on pinknews, and would like to know your response to this. It’s an interesting view on the sexuality issue and seems to need clarification as to homosexual and gay differentiation in his comment. Matt said, ” I say “homosexual” rather than gay activities, since most cruisers are mainly straight men, married men, men who hide the part of their sexuality that gets denigrated, even in the posts above (Pertaining to a different topic as I mentioned). Report 0 Reply Hank 9 Sep 2009, 12:54am Iris, you asked, “5) Do you really think that there’s a link between what it says in Revelations and the idea of a New World Order? How so? Hey Iris…while the Book of Revelation doesn’t use the word barbarian as an underlying force in controlling mankind, one can “read between the lines and interpret the symbolism’ and see that there’s different descriptions for the barbarian force. To give Revelation’s mysterious symbols significance we need serious deep reading and understanding of messages throughout the Bible as to what the “image” of the Beast as well as the mysteruous “number of his name -666″ is. This is where it’s necessary let the Bible interpret itself and not let conjecture and speculation be the prime explanation. And from examining experts and scholars who’ve spent their lifetime reading, researching and commenting on Revelation, I’ve found an explanation that goes along with earlier writings of the Bible. Students of the Bible see that the Roman Empire is the Beast described by John in Revelation 13 and Revelation 17, the “mark” is a brand of mark of the Roman Empire. The “image” of the Beast must be something modeled or patterened after the Roman Empire. Also, Revelation 13 mentions a second “beast” with an earthly, not heavenly, origin. It outwardly masquerades as Christian, seeking to be identified with Christ, but receives its power from the devil and insists that all give their allegiance and loyalty to the Holy Roman Empire. – which is the Church of Rome. The pope is both a religious leader and a civil head of state. This church-state union is the forerunner of end-time events, where the culmination of the barbarian and NWO movement takes mankind. We don’t have to project something “new” about this “world order”. It’ s simply the latest manifestation of an historic social and political culture of darkness originating in the very soul of humanity itself – a pervasive spiritual condition – prior to its incarnation as an oppressive system of totalitarian governance and the pope and Roman Catholic Church is this force incarnate. Not pointing out any apparent differences in religious belief and political ideology, all of our self-centered and materialistic motivations and the violent, hateful, and morally bankrupt behavior which we demonstrate so prominently every day is merely a reflection of the rule of darkness in our lives. We may not admit it, but this “world order” reflects who we are, by our very nature. Prophetic literature from every corner of the earth predicts a cataclysmic “End Time” similar in tenor to the biblical prophecy that foresees a one world theocratic dictator (“The Antichrist”) who rises to the pinnacle of popularity and world domination just before the fall of civilization as we know it. Before that happens, the biblical worldview points out that will be many “anti-christs” and false prophets, as well as world rulers guided by cosmic forces of darkness, which continue to infiltrate our social, political and religious life unendingly exercising an evil spiritual influence over humankind. I don’t view it as some evil conspiracy monster that must be identified and overthrown through traditional political activism. It goes far beyond that. The spiritual power of possessiveness and self-centeredness and avoidance of meaningful relationship, whether geopolitically or in our individual lives, is the real story here. If you look at history we see that it’s still that old familiar chess game being played by the world’s wealth owners where we, the uninitiated, are counted as expendable pawns. Class distinctions, nationality, political loyalties, religious belief, are insignificant. Due to the very nature of wealth accumulation and domination, the familiar biblical passage that states, “The love of money is the root of all sorts of evil” defines one of the central operative principles of the One World agenda. Here’s a brief description of the macro-economic system that’s enabled a global Power Elite to achieve total geopolitical domination. “The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland; a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank…sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in any country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world…The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups.” – Carroll Quigley, Ph.D. Excerpt from “Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time” To see the evil (barbarian) power of this plan we can see it in the history of banking and wealth ownership in contemporary history. Around the American Revolution era when the central European powers in flux that an ambitious Mayer Amschel Rothschild, perhaps the “Founding Father” of International Banking, seized upon the principle that real power lies not in holding a visible ranking position in one government but in controlling the wealth of all governments. So let’s name Rothschild as a member of the barbarian movement. Iris, I’ve taken bits of information from numerous sites and put it together to give credibility to how the barbarian movement can be seen in the Book of Revelation — this is the way I see and believe it If there’s some parts that don’t seem to fit in, it’s because I had to a great deal of research and reading to get my information and I did much of my writing late at night and didn’t give it the extra rereading that I could have. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 9 Sep 2009, 4:28am What a crock! John M.J. has it right in his post 126 when speaking about Hank: ‘Such a closed mind, a mind that simply cannot debate or accept difference, has no right to occupy our time.’ We ain’t interested in what you have to say Hank mainly because you ain’t interested in what we have to say. You claim to be right; I claim to be searching: that’s the difference between a fundamentalist and an open mind. Report 0 Reply Will 9 Sep 2009, 9:20am “I’ve taken bits of information from numerous sites and put it together to give credibility to how the barbarian movement can be seen in the Book of Revelation” And how is your theory of impending “the end of days” any better than the millions of similar theories all through time? Here’s a few examples of “end of days” “interpretations” that were also nonsense and didn’t come to pass (obviously!!!) - After the Six Day War in 1967, and the Yom Kippur War in 1973, it seemed plausible to many Fundamentalist Christians in the 1970s that Middle East turmoil may well be leading up to the fulfilment of various Bible prophecies and to the Battle of Armageddon. - The inception of the Bahá’í Faith coincides with Millerite prophesy pointing to the year 1844. With respect to particular expectations of the end times, it has been argued that the Battle of Armageddon has already passed - In 1843, William Miller made the first of several predictions that the world would end in only a few months. As his predictions did not come true (referred to as the Great Disappointment), followers of Miller went on to found separate churches, the most successful of which is the Seventh-day Adventist Church. - Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the last days began in 1914 with the events surrounding the outbreak of World War I and the Spanish Influenza in 1918. - Drawing from theology and astrology, German prophet Johann Jacob Zimmerman determined that the world would end in the fall of 1694. Zimmerman gathered a group of pilgrims and made plans to go to America to welcome Jesus back to Earth. However, he died in February of that year, on the very day of departure. - Pierre Jurieu, a Camisard prophet, predicted that Judgement Day would occur in 1689. The Camisards were Huguenots of the Languedoc region of southern France. - Arnold of Vilanova, a Joachite, wrote in his work De Tempore Adventu Antichristi that the Antichrist was to come in 1378. And this is bit a TINY FRACTION of such so called predications. I actual fact Hank, Occam’s Razor applies here…. these theories come for a very fearful, or often disturbed mind. Nothing you have said lends any credibility to your “theory” at all! Where is the proof you promised us? You just have a meandering rant in lieu of hard facts…. evidence, please. Here’s an idea, instead of putting this wasted hateful energy into persecution and lunatic visions of armageddon, as you do often, what not join a green group to help save the earth. At least then you’ll be doing something constructive. Report 0 Reply Will 9 Sep 2009, 9:30am So, Hank, I propose an alternative reason for your theories:- Paranoid Schizophrenia. Let me explain why (evidence, so to speak)…. The clinical use of the term ‘Paranoia’ has been used to describe delusions where the affected person believes they are being persecuted. Paranoia is a thought process characterized by excessive anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. An important feature of paranoid thinking is its centrality: that the paranoid person perceives themselves as central figures in an experienced scenario which may be either dangerous (persecutory) or self-exalting (grandiose) and interprets events which have no reference to them in reality as directed at or about them. This sounds very like you, Hank, doesn’t it? Like you believe “homosexuals” to be persecuting the Christians, or that you have something to fear from homosexuality. Paranoia is often associated with psychotic illnesses, sometimes schizophrenia, although attenuated features may be present in other conditions such as delusional parasitosis that the person is on a special quest or has been chosen by God (or another deity); that the person has had thoughts inserted or removed from conscious thought; or that the person’s actions are being controlled by an external force. Does this sound familiar at all Hank? I think you fit the bill as a classic paranoid schizophrenic. The evidence from your posts are glaringly obvious. In all seriousness, “debate” aside, you should seek help for this, counselling and medication can raise the quality of your life immensely. Report 0 Reply Will 9 Sep 2009, 9:50am Oh, and Hank, my last comment is not intended to offend, but to give you some serious advice. You need to recognise you have a serious metal health condition before you can get help, but the benefits to your quality of life will be enormous of you do. Report 0 Reply Hank 9 Sep 2009, 11:26am Hey Will, you asked, “And how is your theory of impending “the end of days” any better than the millions of similar theories all through time? Here’s a few examples of “end of days” “interpretations” that were also nonsense and didn’t come to pass (obviously!!!)” Of course all of your examples are nonsense because they were said by false teachers/sages/prophets, etc., and that will continue. If you read the Bible more closely and read the writings of scholars and experts in eschatology you’ll see the truth and not be deceived by all the nonsense floating around. Here’s what you should be paying attention to: “And as Jesus sat upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and the end of the world?’ Matthew 24:3 God’s people are still asking the same questions today. Then Jesus laid out a time plan we are to look for to know the sign of His coming, and the end of the world (age). “And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in My name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.” Matthew 24:3-8 We are living in the day when we are witnessing all the things Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24. All we hear of today is wars and rumors of war; every kind of war imaginable all over the world – - – nation against nation – - – and kingdom against kingdom. Nobody can say with any degree of certainty when Jesus is coming again, because He said clearly that even the angels in heaven do not know that day (Mark 13:32). No man knows that day, and the Son of God, when He was on the Earth, did not know either. This knowledge, the Lord Jesus said, was strictly reserved for the Father. We can see certain signs, or clues, that His coming is approaching (Matt. 24:3; Luke 21:7). Jesus said there would be wars and rumors of wars, revolutions, widespread famine, disease, and earthquakes in many different places (Matt. 24:6, 7; Luke 21:10, 11). There would be an increase of lawlessness and anarchy, and finally an appearance of the Antichrist (II Thess. 2:3, 4). Along with the ‘man of sin’ will come what is called an apostasy, or a falling away. Many of the believing people will grow cold in their faith (Matt. 24:12). There will be persecution of Christians and a time of general trouble. All these things are already happening with increasing frequency. I see all this fitting in with an increase in the NWO and the growing power of the barbarian movement. Will, do you see our world/civilization getting better and better instead of deteriorating? If so, I’d like get your examples of why you believe it so. Report 0 Reply Iris 9 Sep 2009, 12:34pm Hank 145 – thanks for that answer. I’m looking forward to the rest of your answers. But as it’s taking some time, let me just make some points before I forget: “Students of the Bible see that the Roman Empire is the Beast described by John in Revelation 13 and Revelation 17, the “mark” is a brand of mark of the Roman Empire. The “image” of the Beast must be something modeled or patterened after the Roman Empire.” That may be true, but surely that’s a reflection of its time? The worry about the Roman Empire could quite easily have been a worry about Nazi Germany if Revelation was written at a different time. Moreover, wasn’t the Second Coming predicted to be in the first or second century AD (can’t remember which one – sorry) and so the Roman Empire would fit with that idea – WHICH NEVER CAME ABOUT. You talk about the ‘mark’ of the Roman Empire – what precisely was that? What was the ‘mark’ of the Roman Empire?? Also, your fellow NWO enthusiasts will disagree with you as many believe that the ‘mark’ is the barcode we have today. “There will be persecution of Christians and a time of general trouble. All these things are already happening with increasing frequency.” No, Christians were persecuted FAR more in Roman times. People – Christian or not – will always be ‘persecuted’ in various areas of the world where they are seen as different. The examples of persecution that people like the Christian Legal Centre report on today are absolutely trivial and pathetic in the main. Of course our civilsation has got better. World hunger is being reduced, water is being brought to the developing world, people have a longer life expectancy, infant mortality is being reduced, medicine is progressing allowing people to lead longer and better lives, education and knowledge has improved. If you’re talking morality, well then, we no longer burn women as witches, we don’t keep black people as slaves (even though the Bible says that’s OK), we have laws that might not be perfect, but which are largely in tune with general morality and contribute to a safer society than centuries ago. Comment on that if you wish when you’ve answered the other questions – no rush to do so now. :) Report 0 Reply Will 9 Sep 2009, 2:11pm “I see all this fitting in with an increase in the NWO and the growing power of the barbarian movement.” Again, you’ve just quoted the bible with no substance or relevance to your theory. No proof. No evidence. Just a random “everything is going to pot” remark in lieu of proof. Do you think that during the Black Death, people also thought he same, and yet we’re still here…. curious. “We can see certain signs, or clues, that His coming is approaching”, “There will be persecution of Christians and a time of general trouble. All these things are already happening with increasing frequency.” Really? Increased frequency? Since when? In fact, more wars happened in the past in frequency, look at the World Wars last century alone, and western countries are experiencing an unparalleled ears of prosperity and peace. And did wars just start recently? No, they have been going on for millennia… mostly caused by people like you who have delusions of grandeur, or engaged in slaughter “in the name of god”. Your argument is what’s called a “house of cards”, a few biblical quotes with a few out of context shreds of so called evidence woven together into a web of conjecture, loose associations, and assumption. Your theory of “end of days” could be assigned to any era of time or history, based on your so called proof. “Of course all of your examples are nonsense because they were said by false teachers/sages/prophets, etc.” This is ludicrous. These people were as “christian” as you, or believed the EXACT same thing as you, and used the SAME biblical references. They were wrong too. They were more than likely suffering from a mental condition too. Again, it comes back to your state of mind. It is indeed troubled, are are you incapable of seeing that? You should really consider my advice on getting help for your mental cstate. Your rantings have become more and more febrile, lacking any proof other then your paranoid biblical quotes and web is conspiracy, and with each post I am more convinced that we’re talking to a mad man. You’re already living in your own hell, Hank. Not us. Report 0 Reply Hank 9 Sep 2009, 5:45pm Hey Iris, Will, I’d like to see your figures of persecution of Christians to dispute the following — you may deny these figures but until you can produce your figures, these will stand as most recent. I’ll comment on your other points shortly. “Go on, rack, torture, grind us to powder: our numbers increase in proportion as you mow us down. The blood of Christians is their harvest seed.” -Tertullian (Ca. 200 A.D.) In the past 100 years (during the 20th Century) 26,000,000 Christians were killed for their faith (martyred). This is more than the combined total of all previous centuries. It does not count the untold numbers who were persecuted in other ways, imprisoned, tortured, and even enslaved. These things are all still going on right now, and in certain countries are worse than they have ever been. “Open Doors” 2009 World Watch List of the Top Ten Worst Persecutors of Christians by Country: 1.North Korea 2. Saudi Arabia 3. Iran 4.Afghanistan 5. Somalia 6. Maldives 7. Yemen 8. Laos 9.Eritrea 10.Uzbekistan SANTA ANA, Calif. (Feb. 3, 2009) – The oppressive, isolated country of North Korea headed by dictator Kim Jong Il retains its grip as the worst persecutor of Christians in the world. According to Open Doors’ 2009 World Watch List, “ North Korea is ranked No. 1 for the seventh year in a row. Christians are persecuted constantly under the communist government, which denies human rights to its citizens. The Wahhabi kingdom of “Saudi Arabia is No. 2 and Iran No. 3. Both countries are ruled by Shariah law. The World Watch List is compiled based on the results of a thorough questionnaire consisting of 50 questions covering various aspects of religious freedom. A point value is assigned depending on how each question is answered. The total number of points per country determines its position on the World Watch List of countries that are the worst persecutors of Christians. An estimated 100 million Christians worldwide suffer interrogation, arrest and even death for their faith in Christ, with millions more facing discrimination and alienation. Open Doors supports and strengthens believers in the world’s most difficult areas through Bible and Christian literature distribution, leadership training and assistance, Christian community development, prayer and presence ministry and advocacy on behalf of suffering believers. © Copyright 2008 Open Doors USA Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 10 Sep 2009, 12:21am Hey Hank, you’ve been at it for quite a while now. Why don’t you join up with some of your choice friends from church and plan an outing for a few days, or maybe a whole week; and leave your computer under the bed. You would be amazed at how much good can come out of removing yourself from everyday worries and activities that pass as the unfolding of our lives. Who knows, you might fall in love and start a whole new life filled with laughter and good humour. Nobody is asked to carry the world on his shoulders, you know. For your own good, take a break. We will be here when you come back, I promise. Report 0 Reply Hank 10 Sep 2009, 12:52am Hey Jean Paul….I truly enjoy the challenge of answering all the comments. They get me to research new sites, books, etc. for the latest info. It makes me brush up on my worldview about religion, society, human behavor, as well as a couple other topics. I’ve got a couple of detailed comments to make later. Everyone sleep well. Report 0 Reply John M.J. 10 Sep 2009, 5:38am Hank said, at Comment 133: I believe that the Age of Enlightenment was the greatest impetus for the barbarians… I don’t think that I have ever read anything so completely ridiculous and so completely lacking of any reality in my entire life as that short phrase is. The Enlightenment gave us the very concept of human rights as embodied in The Bill of Rights in the USA and in the Marquis de Lafayette’s great document Declaration des droits de l’Homme et du citoyen, which led to the very rights and freedoms which we who dwell in the free western societies today enjoy. The Enlightenment gave us the ideas which we live by today – the centrality of the concepts of democracy, freedom of the individual and freedom to reason to conclusions supported by objective proof. I await with bated breath Hank’s weird and wonderful explanation as to why we should ascribe those values to his fictional, notional barbarians who, according to him (and him alone), actually embody the Enlightenment. Even the Marquis de Montesquieu (1688-1755), an acknowledged Enlightenment thinker, recognised, despite being a nobleman and a member of the French judicial establishment of the time, the need for checks and balances in government. The great Voltaire himself, the most well known of the Enlightenment thinkers, fought for freedom of the press – one of the cornerstones of our modern democracies and one that we currently enjoy when posting at this site – and was imprisoned on several occasions (three, if I remember aright) for so doing. L’Encyclopedie edited by Denis Diderot (1713-1784) railed against superstition and advanced the concept of individual human liberty. Ordinary working men and women, as well as aristocrats and members of the then emerging scientific class, wrote the articles contained within it – articles on unfair taxes, on the economic bases of good government, on the evils of the slave trade, on the Rights of Man, on Art in the service of freedom, and on the cruelty of the then prevailing criminal laws. And yes, I do mean to include the forgotten history of women at this point – even the great Voltaire had to be taught about Science and the Scientific Method and his teacher was a woman: no less a personage than the wonderful Madame du Chatelet. Even Madame de Pompadour, Louis XV’s mistress, was a supporter of L’Encyclopedie and Louis himself, the highly intelligent but indecisive successor to le roi soleil, authorised its publication and sale. The problem for Hank, and others like him, is that the Enlightenment thinkers, and the thinkers towards the end of that age, in the period within that Age that came to be known in its own right as ‘The Age of Reason’, realised the value of discovering truth through observation of God’s real world rather than through the study of suspect authoritative sources, such as the Bible. This insight overthrew the centuries-old medieval superstitious view of the physical world and the concept, so long prevalent, that the very antiquity of an idea, or indeed of a law, a privilege, or a form of government, could be seen as a guarantee of its worth and it replaced that static idea, and that static and erroneous interpretation of the Bible, with the concept of enquiry and rational, evidence-based proof. Reason dictated, enlightenment (and the Enlightenment) dictated, that simply because the Bible said that something was so, and must be so, was no longer enough – a position, any position on any subject had to be justified and proved objectively. Hank doesn’t like that idea – he hankers (the pun is intended, for it’s irresistible) after superstitious certainty as embodied in a literal, medieval, reading of our ancient Christian text – much as some of the undereducated believers in Islam today in places like rural Afghanistan and remote Saudi Arabia hanker after some literal truth in the Koran. Perhaps we would all be happier, as Hank seems to assert, if we had not followed Kant’s proposal for a motto for the Enlightenment – sapere aude (dare to know) – but what he, Hank, overlooks, in his usual intellectually dishonest and superficial fashion is that we would, had we neglected to follow the path laid out for us by the Enlightenment thinkers, still be living in monarchical tyrannies, in disease ridden squalor, in medieval superstition. We would still be living in superstitious societies wherein every event was perceived to be the result of the actions of external beings – either the intervention of angels or of demons. Science would not have advanced, democracy would never have been born, and the very idea of freedom for the individual would never have emerged from the superstitious fog of the medieval mindset. That is the fog, the romantic mist, that Hank lives in and wants all of us to live in as well. He sees pre-Enlightenment times as the Age of Certainty, the Age of Belief and the Age of Happiness. Those are delusional beliefs – just some ofthe many delusions that Hank suffers from – for such a time never existed. In reality pre-Enlightenment times were nasty, disease ridden, periodically famine inducing, tyrannical, superstitious, violent, Church and Monarchy dominated, barely civilised, brutish times. The Enlightenment and its thinkers helped to usher in the golden age in which we now live (not immediately, but slowly as the value and worth of the thoughts born in that age gained traction amongst the rulers as well as the ruled) – the Age of Equality and Technology and Health and Stability and Charity Through Collective Effort; The Age of Tolerance and Good Government! Democracy was born anew in the Enlightenment – does Hank, I wonder, want to see democracy consigned to the dustbin in favour of some other method of government – theocracy, perhaps? If so, just which Church would provide the theocrats – his? Why not mine? Does Hank want to reset the world to pre-Enlightenment times? Does he want to go back to the dirt and misery, the disease and superstition, the violence and stupidity, the pettiness and ugly jealousies of government, that characterise pre-Enlightenment times? By his statement at 133 – I believe that the Age of Enlightenment was the greatest impetus for the barbarians… – Hank reveals himself for what he really is. He is a Christian Fundamentalist and a Biblical Literalist with a huge and romantic, but completely irrational and unrealistic, yearning for a fictional medieval world that never existed except in his own febrile imaginings. He hates LGBT people because our existence, our assertion of our presence, disturbs his colossally delusional and romantic view of the past and the present. We don’t fit into what he wants to see the world as being so we must be wrong. The Enlightenment doesn’t fit his delusion that once there existed some perfect Christian age so the Enlightenment must have been a wrong set of ideas because it destroyed his imagined perfect time. Hank is nothing more than the usual, sub-psychotic, delusional Fundamentalist Christian lunatic – mostly harmless, but he shouldn’t be allowed out without his carer! Report 0 Reply Will 10 Sep 2009, 6:40am Hank (1) You are not answering the questions put to you. Is your attention span that short? Or is there another reason? Perhaps you can’t answer the questions, or perhaps, as I said above “an important feature of paranoid thinking is its centrality: that the paranoid person perceives themselves as central figures in an experienced scenario which may be either dangerous (persecutory) or self-exalting (grandiose) and interprets events which have no reference to them in reality as directed at or about them.” Seems to me like you can’t actually stop talking about your self persecution. Again, a classic symptom of your condition. (2) Open Doors is a christian movement, and their figures have no scientific backing. I checked out your “research”, and like all that NARTH nonsense you produce, its unfounded, and had no (or dubious) data behind it! Its pure guess work! So THIS is your proof?!?!?!? And from this you concluded the end of the world??????? Quite an active imagination there, don’t we? So far, you have produced zero evidence of any thing you have said. This means (a) you’re a liar, or much more likely (b) you’re suffering form paranoid delusions (as per my post above) and proof is irrelevant to your case. I rest my case. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 10 Sep 2009, 4:28pm Hey Hank: You said: ‘Hey Jean Paul….I truly enjoy the challenge of answering all the comments.’ I know that, Hank, and I also know that your life would be meaningless without us. For your own good, put the laptop under the bed and socialize with the good people from your church. Who knows, maybe love waits for you just around the corner; and eveyone deserve a bit of love before dropping dead, right. I know what you’re going to say, dear heart, you have become quite as predictable. But please think about getting some support from your church…you do belong to a church, right? Report 0 Reply Hank 10 Sep 2009, 5:29pm Hey Will, when you say, “(2) Open Doors is a christian movement, and their figures have no scientific backing” OK…then please give me “your figures for Christian persecution worldwide.” — please– and let me see your site for validation. Report 0 Reply Hank 10 Sep 2009, 5:35pm Hey Jean Paul, when you say, “you do belong to a church, right?” I’ll first ask you, did Jesus Christ belong to a church? No? Yes? Which one? Well, I belong to His Church — I’ll let you figure out which one that is. Report 0 Reply Hank 10 Sep 2009, 5:39pm Hey John — very detailed comment/questions/opinions, etc. on the Enlightenment — it’ll take some extra time to give you my reply, so have patience. Report 0 Reply Iris 10 Sep 2009, 8:44pm Hi Hank. Just re-posting my questions for you. They were so far back I thought it’d make it easier for you to answer (you’ve already answered 4 and 5 – thank you again for that): 1) Christianity is obviously very big in your life – you’ve said as much above and many times before, but which church do you belong to? What denomination are you? 2) Where/how did you first get these New World Order ideas? 3) Why LGBT people? Why are these mysterious NWO leaders using us? Why not women? Sports stars? Bank workers? Christians….? Report 0 Reply Hank 10 Sep 2009, 10:18pm Hi Iris….thanks for the reminder — sorry for the delay, but the other comments sometime take priority, but I’ll answer you tonight. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 10 Sep 2009, 11:16pm Hey Hank (160): You said: ‘Hey Jean Paul, when you say, “you do belong to a church, right?” I’ll first ask you, did Jesus Christ belong to a church?’ C’mon! What do you call a guy who answers a question with a question? So, let me take a wild guess. No church on earth is worthy of you. And since you hang around us so much, we are the closest thing you have to a church; you are the self-appointed minister, we are the lost sheep who need to be saved in spite of ourselves. Or are we your teachers, your educators? The overhead is so cheap, you don’t need to pass the collection basket around, and acording to you we have nothing but our blind souls to offer to what’s-her-name…oh yea, god. Yep, talk about marching to the sound of your own drummer. Also, I believe you worship this technology. You are addicted to the Internet, aren’t you? You couldn’t pass 24 hours without clicking here and clicking there, like a god on Mount Olympus whose knowledge is as limitless as the airwaves. There is a life besides this technology, you know, and it is anything but boring. But you don’t believe that, do you, simply because I said it and not you. Let me know when you’ve laid your first egg. Report 0 Reply Hank 11 Sep 2009, 12:09am Hey Will….your comments included “And how is your theory of impending “the end of days” any better than the millions of similar theories all through time? Here’s a few examples of “end of days” “interpretations” that were also nonsense and didn’t come to pass (obviously!!!) I said, “Of course all of your examples are nonsense because they were said by false teachers/sages/prophets, etc., and that will continue. If you read the Bible more closely and read the writings of scholars and experts in eschatology you’ll see the truth and not be deceived by all the nonsense floating around. See what Jesus says about people who make prophecies that don’t happen. WHY DON’T YOU READ EVERYTHING THE BIBLE SAYS THAT APPLIES TO YOUR FALSE COMMENTS – THE BIBLE SAYS IT ALL – NOT FALSE TEACHERS WHO TRY TO CALL THEMSELVES “CHRISTIANS.” “And as Jesus sat upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and the end of the world?’ Matthew 24:3 (PLEASE NOTE THESE WORDS!!!) Simply, only God the Father knows when it will be — Jesus doesn’t even know. Jesus told His disciples: “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” “Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with the hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.” “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.” (Matthew 24:36, 40 & 42) (VERY POWERFUL STATEMENT ABOUT FALSE PROPHETS – WHICH INCLUDES PEOPLE ON YOUR LIST OF “(OF-CALLED CHRISTIANS.”) The law is not silent about false prophets and how to deal with them. The law is not silent when a false prophet comes along. God’s law says that he is to be put to death. We have here serious opposition! How could the law be opposed any stronger than that? In the law of God, exposure, opposition, and destruction are reserved for those who speak falsely in the name of God. 1. But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, “How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?” – when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 1 John 4:1-6 says,Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error The law is not silent about false prophets and how to deal with them. The law is not silent when a false prophet comes along. God’s law says that he is to be put to death. We have here serious opposition! How could the law be opposed any stronger than that? In the law of God, exposure, opposition, and destruction are reserved for those who speak falsely in the name of God. There are different classifications of signs which point to Jesus’ coming -NOT WHAT INDIVIDUALS SAY ABOUT IT. 1. The first classification of signs are signs within the church on earth. Those signs are: a. The coming of false Christs, false prophets and teachers, who are little antichrists, Matthew 24:4 And answering, Jesus said to them, “Watch out that no one deceives you. Matthew 24:11 And many false prophets will arise and will deceive many. b. The rise of false religions and churches and sects Matthew 24:4 And answering, Jesus said to them, “Watch out that no one deceives you. Matthew 24:11 And many false prophets will arise and will deceive many. After reading the above – you must admit your list of “end time interpretations/ predictions” is worthless. Report 0 Reply Hank 11 Sep 2009, 12:33am Hey Jean Paul, you said, “C’mon! What do you call a guy who answers a question with a question?” I’m just following the example of how Jesus handled such a question as the example below. If it’s good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me, even if it’s not good enough for pagans, priests, elders amd scribes. Luke 20:1 On one of the days while He was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes with the elders confronted Him, 1. Matthew 21:23 When He entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to Him while He was teaching, and said, “By what authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this authority?” Mark 11:28 …and began saying to Him, “By what authority are You doing these things, or who gave You this authority to do these things?” Mark 11:29 And Jesus said to them, “I will ask you one question, and you answer Me, and then I will tell you by what authority I do these things. How about that for a “cool” way to respond to unbelievers? Report 0 Reply Hank 11 Sep 2009, 1:16am Hey Jean Paul, you said, “You are addicted to the Internet, aren’t you?” Indeed I am. I spend much of my spare time on some of my favorite sites such as: blueletterbible.org ligonier.org borntowin.net hisremnant.org thruthebible.org preceptaustin.org I can listen to teachers/preachers throughout the day or night. It’s a continuing Biblical education inside my home. Report 0 Reply AdrianT 11 Sep 2009, 2:45am I had no idea this discussion had been taking place. Unbelievable nonsense. The people who really do try to set up a new world order are / were raving theocratic extremists like the thankfully deceased, unraptured Falwell, Don Wildmon, James Dobson, Alan Sears, Tim LaHaye and his crackpot wife Beverley… aided by Fox ‘News’. Your comments on Charles Darwin, Hank, show that you have no concept of what evolution is about at all, and that you’d rather be brainwashed by fanatical preachers. What would Christianity be like if it had power – just read through Hank’s posts! A reminder of why we need to keep relgion in check: it belongs inside people’s minds or churches, nowhere else. Just as well Christianity is in terminal decline in the developed world. Report 0 Reply Hank 11 Sep 2009, 3:01am Hey Iris…I got interested in the NWO topic 5-6 years ago from reading various sites, books, magazines, etc. I don’t think most on this site are interested, so can I suggest that you look at: endtimepilgrim.org/nwo It’ll give you much of what I believe is a good picture of NWO. There are many good sites with more details. The site opens with this statement:The proof of the coming of a New World Order has already been abundantly documented in a plethora of holy, religious, nationalistic, and secular sources’. The coming of the New World Order was announced by President George Bush Sr. He heralded the coming New World Order twice his speech he gave during the Desert Storm campaign in in March of 1991. (I’ve never seen indications by Bush that he’s a true Christian) I follow Protestant beliefs, don’t belong to any denomination but attend various strong fundamental Christian churches. I’ll get your question about GLBT issue — that’s a bit more involved and I’m still organizing it. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 11 Sep 2009, 3:46am Hey Hank (166): Real cool, man. Except you ain’t anything like Jesus, and this here ain’t no Temple. As for your comment at 169, I don’t believe you you are part of any church. And I repeat: ‘So, let me take a wild guess. No church on earth is worthy of you. And since you hang around us so much, we are the closest thing you have to a church; you are the self-appointed minister, we are the lost sheep who need to be saved in spite of ourselves.’ And you know what you can do with your favourite websites, eh. Don’t you just love all this attention? Do you dream about us, Hank? C’mon, the truth now…you do love us, don’t you? You can’t get enough of us, can you? And since you spend so much time on the Net because you have admitted being addicted to it, I’d be interested to know what kind of squalor you’re living in? When was the last time you cleaned out your fridge? did your laundry? mopped the floor? washed the dishes? Your ‘Office’ must be a didsaster area cause you take forever to answer a simple question, prefering instead to answer a question with a question as a means of putting things off, that’s all. ‘I follow Protestant beliefs, don’t belong to any denomination but attend various strong fundamental Christian churches.’ You don’t ‘follow’ anything but your nose. Report 0 Reply John M.J. 11 Sep 2009, 5:56am You will all note, I have no doubt, that at Comment 165 our ‘beloved’ poster Hank – somewhere a village is short of an idiot – uses the Bible as proof for his ridiculous assertions without proving the truth of the Bible. Hank has been told repeatedly, by many people at this site and in simple words which even he must understand, that merely asserting his own, often erroneous, interpretation of some Biblical verse or another does not constitute proof that his viewpoint on a subject is correct. I demand, as I’m sure that most of you do too, reasoned, scientific proof of any assertion born from Hank’s incredibly silly and unsupportable interpretations of Biblical texts. When recensing the Bible any scholar, but not Hank who is manifestly not a scholar, needs to know about several things. First amongst those things is the writing style of the times in which any particular part of the Bible was written and compiled. – and Hank knows nothing at all about how ancient authors viewed the art of writing or what feelings they aimed to induce in their readers. Secondly one has to know, as Hank does not, the ambiguities of the ancient languages out of which the modern English text of the Bible was translated. One has to know all of the possible meanings of the ancient words in their own languages – and Hank doesn’t know them, as he has copiously demonstrated – and one has to choose very carefully just which meaning one chooses to emphasise or attempts to convey. Thirdly, one has to know and thoroughly understand the cultural milieu of the times in which any verse that one chooses to quote was written. One has to read widely amongst other authors of the same period and one has to attempt to gain a feel for the culture of the time, for the hyperbole and acceptable exaggerations, or minimisations, of the time. That is something that Hank has not done, and will not do. Fourthly, and most importantly, one has to realise, as Hank does not, and cannot, do that modern English – the modern English into which our Bible is translated – is almost two-thousand years, or more in most cases, removed from the original languages of Biblical composition. Our modern English can convey an approximate word for word translation, accepting the caveats I have previously outlined, but it cannot convey, carry, the original cultural meaning and ancient sense of those words for we who speak, read and write modern English port a different – hugely different – intellectual baggage from the many and varied writers of that Sacred Text (just think how the jokes and hidden meanings in the Chaucerian original texts are so difficult for so many of us to understand today unless we study the times in which they were written and compare Chaucer’s writings to our recorded history and to the scribblings of other authors of the same period) .Even the academically sub-standard Hank brings to his supposedly literal and pure readings of our badly translated Biblical texts a sub-conscious cultural baggage which colours his readings of those texts in ways which the original authors of his chosen texts may never have intended. However, Hank chooses to ignore the difficulties of translation and intended meaning and prefers to believe that the modern English translations of the Bible which he reads are literally true according to his own received cultural norms. He sees the translated Biblical text through his own contemporary cultural awareness instead of viewing it through the culture of the times in which its various parts were written. That is simply singularly stupid. A Biblical author writing, say, two thousand years ago will write in the style, the manner, of his or her age and will employ, naturally, references to his or her own cultural prejudices Fifthly, Hank believes, as he has demonstrated often at this thread, that the Bible is literally true – that it is the dictated Word of God. Well, what nonsense that is. No ancient mainstream Church advances that as a serious viewpoint and no ancient mainstream Church ever has done so. All of the mainstream ancient Churches cleave to the view that Bible reveals something of the mind of God as filtered through the minds of fallible and absolutely free men and women – the implication being, of course, that the Word can be, and probably is, contaminated by the personal prejudices of the writers. Hank can’t accept that! He is looking for, indeed he believes in, some absolutist, erroneous, Biblical and rule-based Christianity which is, quite simply, at odds with ancient mainstream Christianity, in that weird American way which we so often encounter at this site amongst so- called Christians like him. The problem that Hank has, which is so easily identifiable, is that he thinks that he is a Christian but in reality he is a superstitious pagan – he doesn’t believe in God or in Christ or in The Spirit which moves and quickens us: he believes in the Bible. He has raised up some superstitious belief in mere cardboard and paper in place of God. He is naught but, in his own terms, a Pharisee – a rule driven, erroneous Biblical literalist without spirituality and without the comprehension of God’s, the Christ’s and the Spirit’s true message of Love and Universality as embodied in, and practised by, the ancient mainstream Churches and the ancient, traditional Christian belief strands. That’s my point – Hank claims to be a Christian, as I so claim, perhaps wrongly, for myself, but he is not, I believe, a Christian! He is a superstitious Bible believer, not a Christian. No one who believes as he does, and as he has demonstrated, is a Christian. He, and all the others like him, is, and are, just pagans with a superstitious belief in some text or other – he, and they, elevates a highly suspect text above the teachings of Mother Church (Father Church!?) – and he, and they, disallows the continuing operation of the real living Spirit in this changing world. For people like Hank the entire moral compass of our world was set two thousand years ago – long before our new era of God-given scientific understanding and scientific exploration changed our world-view and forced us to re-evaluate our ideas about life and the meaning of life – the meaning not the value, please note. Hank is… just a superstitious pagan who believes in some magical book. His is a world of magic and spells and incantations drawn from his erroneous belief in some badly translated and equally as badly interpreted and translated book. Hank’s world is all smoke and mirrors, cardboard and paper, slight scholarship and superstitious belief. For him, and all the others just like him, magical belief in some form of words, some set of incantations, is all that operates. For Hank, it’s all just some magic, some spell. I thank God for the rest of you rational LGBT people who keep this Christian gay person grounded in reality. Report 0 Reply Will 11 Sep 2009, 6:51am “OK…then please give me “your figures for Christian persecution worldwide.” — please– and let me see your site for validation.” Er, why would I have to do that? Its your point to make, not mine. You figures are unscientific and pure guess work to back up the agenda of a fanatical religious organisation. If your figures are a load of lying crap, your point is null and void. Noting to do with me doing for “research for you”. How ridiculous. “See what Jesus says about people who make prophecies that don’t happen.” You mean like you, Hank? Making false prophecies? I’m sure Jesus is fairly pissed off with you then. “After reading the above – you must admit your list of “end time interpretations/ predictions” is worthless.” No, after hearing your insane comments, its your “end time interpretations/predictions” are worthless. And again, no proof. Zero. Just a few non related bible quotes. Even you must see the stupidity of your statements Hank, given the only thing you have done is proven yourself a “false profit” by your own biblical quotes!!! You use lies and false data to back up your claims. You elude questions. (Are you incapable of answering even the most rudimentary questions?) You haven’t put forward one shred of evidence for your wild comments. Not one! In fact, all I see are the demented scribblings of a mad man with delusions of grandeur and self importance. And again I say to you, why don’t you go get help for your persecution complex? This isn’t a debate, Hank, its a clinical insight into the dementia of a mad man. I can only assume you are quite old, and perhaps fear and loneliness are contributing factors to your dementia. You can be cured Hank, but first, you need to see that medical attention I so often mention on your shell like ears. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 11 Sep 2009, 3:36pm Just as I’m sure that John M.J. has convinced our international readership that Hank is indeed a superstitious pagan, not a Christain, so am I sure that Will does have Hank’s best interest at heart by telling him in no uncertain terms that he needs medical help. Regardless of his age, it is never too latefor Hank to find a loving Christian community and to benefit from our tremendous health care system. Hank, the money that you are giving to the NWO could be better spent bringing pure drinking water to the destitute populations of Africa. Report 0 Reply Hank 11 Sep 2009, 5:57pm Hey Jean Paul, you said “Hank, the money that you are giving to the NWO could be better spent bringing pure drinking water to the destitute populations of Africa”. I regularly contribute to various Christian Missions….and I can’t understand your saying that I’m giving to the NWO. Haven’t you read my comments — that the NWO is a devious entity that I’ve been denigrating as being a part of the barbarian movement? read my comments more carefully. Report 0 Reply Hank 11 Sep 2009, 6:09pm Hey Will…you say, “…. Your figures are unscientific and pure guess work” OK….how do you know that for a fact? Or are you merely expressing your uneducated opinion. Anyone can deny…but you have not disproven anything — your comments are worthless, personal criticisms without any credible verification. Do you actually deny that Christians are being persecuted? If so, how did you arrive at your opinion? You have opinions without any facts to back it up. I don’t know if you’re stupid, but you make stupid comments — so in the future quote me facts, not opinions because it makes you sound very foolish. Report 0 Reply Iris 11 Sep 2009, 8:17pm Hank, Comment 169 – Thank you for answering 2 more of my questions – clearly and succinctly too. I’ll look at that NWO site you mentioned over the weekend. Thank you for giving me something to look at to understand where you’re coming from. Thank you too for explaining about the churches you attend, and that you don’t belong to a particular denomination. I was just interested as you obviously have strong religious ideas. I’m trying not to ask any more questions and distract you! :D I’m looking forward to your answer about LGBT people when you have time over the next few days, and then maybe I can make any points that may occur to me when I’ve looked at the NWO site you recommended. Report 0 Reply Hank 11 Sep 2009, 9:30pm Hey Will, you say, “See what Jesus says about people who make prophecies that don’t happen.” You mean like you, Hank? Making false prophecies? I’m sure Jesus is fairly pissed off with you then. “After reading the above – you must admit your list of “end time interpretations/ predictions” is worthless.” No, after hearing your insane comments, its your “end time interpretations/predictions” are worthless. And again, no proof. Zero. Just a few non related bible quotes. Even you must see the stupidity of your statements Hank, given the only thing you have done is proven yourself a “false profit” by your own biblical quotes!!! Show me where I made any type of prediction/prophecy/etc about end times. I never made a personal statement….I ALWAYS quoted Scripture, either from the OT of NT…using the words of prophets themselves or from Jesus. No TRUE, KNOWLEDGBLE CHRISTIAN would ever make any sort of prediction of the end times. (Only false teachers/preachers do so)! All we can say are the “signs” are getting more obvious and all you have to do is read the Bible to understand what they mean. Report 0 Reply Hank 11 Sep 2009, 9:35pm Yo Adrian….glad to hear from you again. You said, “Your comments on Charles Darwin, Hank, show that you have no concept of what evolution is about at all, and that you’d rather be brainwashed by fanatical preachers” Have patience as I have a comment about Darwin to clarify my where he fits in with the barbarian movement — will be fodder for argument/discussion/etc. Hope you’ve been doing OK. Report 0 Reply AdrianT 11 Sep 2009, 11:36pm Oh really Hank…. look, Darwin had nothing to do with eugenics! Survival of the ‘fittest’ has a much wider meaning – it arises ‘bottom up’, not artificailly ‘top down’. ‘Fittest’ for apes, including humans, means those who are most likelt to reciprocate godwill. I suggest reading ‘Darwin’s Dangerous Idea’ by Daniel Dennett for a proper understanding of Evolution. We would not have got to Mount Sinai if we did not know not to steal, lie and murder. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 12 Sep 2009, 12:11am Hey Hank, We are your world; we are your church; without us, you’d be all alone with nothing but the entire solar system circulating in your brain. Boring! Don’t you just love all this attention? Do you dream about us, Hank? C’mon, the truth now…you do love us, don’t you? You can’t get enough of us, can you? But surely you realize that you’re barking up the wrong tree when you try to suck up to AdrianT, and I quote: ‘Hope you’ve been doing OK.’ Yea, yea, I’m sure your heart is pumping purple poney piss for AdrianT!! Report 0 Reply Hank 12 Sep 2009, 1:09am Yo Adrian…thanks for the book suggestion. My library has a copy of the book and DVD, and I’ve requested it — should get it in 4-5 days. But in the meantime, I’ll pose a comment and see if it floats. Report 0 Reply Hank 12 Sep 2009, 1:45am Hey Jean Paul, you never responded to my question “I regularly contribute to various Christian Missions….and I can’t understand your saying that I’m giving to the NWO. Haven’t you read my comments — that the NWO is a devious entity that I’ve been denigrating as being a part of the barbarian movement? read my comments more carefully Report 0 Reply Hank 12 Sep 2009, 2:22am Hey John, you claimed, “The problem that Hank has, which is so easily identifiable, is that he thinks that he is a Christian but in reality he is a superstitious pagan – he doesn’t believe in God or in Christ or in The Spirit which moves and quickens us: he believes in the Bible.” I don’t know how you can state something so ridiculous like that. You probably don’t know any real Christians. I’m a “born again” Christian and that means, I’ve received much more than many so-called Christians who are simply Bible readers but not Jesus followers in the deepest sense. I believe God’s Holy Spirit in us, as Christians, is our greatest gift from God. When we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit we receive the gift and the giver, because the gift is the giver. The Holy Spirit is our unity with God, our source of communication from God, and the guarantee that we are His children: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs; heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together”. (Rom 8:14-17 The Holy Spirit is promised to those who receive Jesus Christ as savior. “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:38-39) Having the Holy Spirit indwelling in me, I have the following promises to be with me: 1. The Holy Spirit shall remain with you forever 2. The Holy Spirit gives you wisdom 3. The Holy Spirit gives you understanding 4. The Holy Spirit gives you counsel 5. The Holy Spirit gives you power (faith) 6. The Holy Spirit gives you knowledge 7. The Holy Spirit gives you delight in the fear of the Lord “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; that you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body,” Cor. 6:19-20). So don’t try to tell me who I am, when you have no idea of what being “born again” means to a true Christian. I feel sorry that you’re so spiritually deceived. Report 0 Reply John M.J. 12 Sep 2009, 6:35am Hank states, at Comment 183, that he is a “born again” Christian… That’s really the crux of the problem with Hank. He uses, quite wrongly and in deep error, the phrase ‘born again’ as a translation of the New Testament Greek words genneo anothen which actually mean, in the contexts that they are used in, in both the Gospel of the Apostle John chapter 3, verse 5 and in First Peter chapter 1, verse 23, to mean “born from above”. Throughout recorded Christian history the mainstream Churches – Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Jamesian, Armenian, Aethiopian and all the others and so on – have believed from their very foundations the teaching of the Apostles about this phrase (a teaching which Hank obviously rejects) and that teaching is that the act of Baptism is the genneo anothen, ‘born from above’, of any individual no matter at what age it is performed. The role of the Godparents who all, collectively, swear upon the Blessed Sacrament to train and support the Baptised person, and the role of the witnessing congregation of the faithful foregathered for the Baptism who are also similarly sworn and who are the Christian ‘support group’ for the Godparents, is, and both roles are, crucial and at the very centre of Baptism, genneo anothen, ‘born from above’, as the Apostles taught. Genneo anothen,‘born from above’, does not port the meaning and cannot, by any stretch of the imagination no matter how much Hank magically wishes it, carry the idea of being ‘born again’ in the way that Hank thinks that it does. Simply put, Hank is in heresy here. The Apostles taught to their various Churches a quite different tradition of genneo anothen, ‘born from above’, from Hank’s non-Christian and deeply heretical belief, and magical belief, about those verses. Now, just to explain the concept a little and to put the acts of Jesus and His Holy Words into context – at least as far as we proper mainstream Christians know about either of them and believe them to be accurate with what scholarship and knowledge that we have today (and with the benefits of the teachings of the Apostles which are not immediately available to Hank as the heretic that he so obviously is), let us consider the verses in Luke 3: 15–17 and 21–22, in Matthew 3: 13–17, in Mark 1: 4–11 and in John 1: 29–34. It’s quite plain, when one reads the original New Testament Greek verses, that the concept of The Christ’s Baptism at the hands of St. John the Baptist in the Jordan river is quite clear in the original New Testament Greek – it is genneo anothen, ‘born from above’ – that valid Baptism confers spiritual birth into God and the Christ and the Spirit – the mysterious Trinity of God. No other Baptism, no other false ‘rebirth’ or ‘being born again’ (as Hank would have it) is necessary or valid. Hank’s insistence that he is ‘born again’ marks him out as the heretic which he so obviously is – the disturber of the faithful, the denier of God’s Universal Love, the believer in magic and a mere instrument for the incantation of Biblical verses in superstitious ways. Hank merely seeks, as a follower, which he so obviously is, of Satan – the Destroyer of Faith – to introduce a new and invalid Sacrament into Christian belief (just as one would expect from a follower of the Evil One) – he seeks, he strives in his deep and duplicitous evil, to introduce the idea of being ‘born again’, an erroneous, hysterical and heretical belief, as being equal to the Seven Sacraments which all the mainstream Apostolic Churches accept and acknowledge from their historical and Apostolic teachings as being valid (though not necessarily are all of the Seven Sacraments all of the Mysteries of Faith, it must said). Hank, quite simply put, is a Satan worshipping heretic. His false, but gentle and evil seemingly apophatical belief in a new and different ‘sacrament’, his erroneous belief in ‘being born again’ that is, is nothing more than a desperate attempt by him and his kind to destroy Christianity and to subvert Christian love to the service of the Evil One. Hank, and his Satan inspired beliefs, is, and are, the problem. Make no mistake, dear reader, about it. Hank does not represent, hopefully he can never represent, mainstream Christianity. He is a Devil worshipper, a denier of Synaxis – a follower of the One who confuses and bamboozles and attempts to mislead. He follows Satan and Evil and he believes, if his words are truly his words, in some new and spurious sacrament which he seeks to introduce into our belief – he wants us to believe that we can be ‘born again’ – because, according to him, that is what his Holy Text, the Bible, says. Well, the Bible simply doesn’t say that. Like most others of his kind he lies, and he dissembles, and he misrepresents the Holy Text for his own ends – and his ends are neither honourable nor decent nor valid. Hank doesn’t lie deliberately and with malice – well, perhaps there might be some little malice in his lies but he is only human – but he lies with wilful intent. He knows that he is lying but he doesn’t know how to stop. He can’t help himself for Satan has caught his Soul. He can’t help himself – he is so wrapt in evil that he can’t get out. Pray for him for if ever a soul needed our prayers then Hank is the one who most certainly does. He is so bound up in evil and hatred that we must, we truly must, pray for him and pray very hard for God to release him from Satan’s grasp. Report 0 Reply AdrianT 12 Sep 2009, 9:26am Both John (‘hank is a devil worshipper’) and Hank (‘I’m filled with the Holy Spirit’) make claims they ultimately cannot prove. Pray for Hank? I’ll do no such thing: I’m clearly going to have to think for both of you instead. :-) Report 0 Reply AdrianT 12 Sep 2009, 9:29am MUSICAL INTERLUDE FOR THE PAIR OF YOU – classic 1992 hit from Genesis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugZq9hiuCJo Report 0 Reply Iris 12 Sep 2009, 12:48pm *laughing* I hadn’t seen that before, Adrian :D Although when I clicked that link I must admit I was expecting to see Peter Gabriel!! Report 0 Reply Iris 12 Sep 2009, 12:51pm I can’t help it – Genesis always means the band rather than the book to me. Hank – I presume it’s the other way round for you? But – relevant question – what is your opinion of TV evangelists? Report 0 Reply Hank 12 Sep 2009, 4:23pm Hey Iris, your question” what is your opinion of TV evangelists? I think 98% of them are somewhere between dangerous and worthless. Most devout followers are too lazy to do their own serious Bible reading, researching, studying to find their meaning in being a Christian. Really understanding who Jesus Christ is takes much effort mentally, intellectually to find Him and to find your own meaning to be a follower of Jesus. But once you get into it all, serious Bible study becomes fun as well as fulfilling. There are so many fantastic sites with exceptional teachers/preachers who have studied the Bible for 50 years+ and have deep insight into understanding the Scriptures. And they’re free and you can study them at your own leisure and pace. The internet has positively changed my involvement in Christianity. Iris, I’ll get to discussing “our” comment/topic soon. But as you can see I’m getting questions/criticisms all over the place, which I enjoy — makes me do more serious intropection and research on my belief system — the only problem is that my time seems to be too limited. I do have a life away from my computer. Living in South Florida gives me the best outdoor/sunny/fishing/ opportunity all year long. Enjoy your day Iris. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 12 Sep 2009, 7:14pm Hank (182): Regarding your question, do I or don’t I…I’ll let you figure it out. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 12 Sep 2009, 7:26pm AdrianT: Jee-zuuz! Aw loves it!! haha! Report 0 Reply Will 12 Sep 2009, 11:20pm “Having the Holy Spirit indwelling in me” Ergo, I’m deeply delusional. And Hank, I have rationality and intelligence dwelling in me. But thankfully I don’t have a chemical imbalance in my mind like you obviously do. Your lack of answers to direct questions only proves you;re a liar with no ability to back up your outlandish claims. You were given a change, you blew it. Now you nothing but a rambling nut, the kind that needs sever medical and psychiatric attention. The kind that usually shouts in the middle of streets with a placard on your back about the “end of days”, a figure of ridicule and pity, but mostly elicits the “ignore the madman, don’t make eye contact” reaction. Sad really. Report 0 Reply John M.J. 13 Sep 2009, 4:57am Adrian T at Comment 186/ Excellent link – haven’t laughed so much in ages. I guess that really does sum up both me and Hank, although I do hope in slightly different ways! My apologies to you for not thinking, in mine at 184, of those who have no belief. You are quite correct, I freely admit, to chastise me. I did not – in my keenness to demonstrate Hank’s heresies – remember the non-believer as I should have. Do indeeed and please, think for both of us but do indeed, at least acquit me of believing in religious supremacy for I merely try to reclaim my gentle, traditional faith from the hands of the idiot, heretical fundamentalists like Hank. From a mainstream Christian point of view – in a long and evolving Apostolic tradition – Hank is an heretic who simply finds any old excuse that he can to hate difference. From my point of view within a mainstream Church (Anglican, in my case) Hank misrepresents Christianity and denies love and loving relationships. Anyway, thanks for the link. It was apposite and gave me big chuckles. Like Iris at 187 I rather expected Peter Gabriel! We are children of our time, aren’t we? Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 13 Sep 2009, 8:04am Will (192): You said: ‘But thankfully I don’t have a chemical imbalance in my mind like you obviously do.’ That is not only true, it’s pretty close to what I would call a charitable attitude on your part. Good on you! Report 0 Reply AdrianT 13 Sep 2009, 9:37am ;-) OK John I see your logic; I give you the benefit of the doubt :-) I think Peter Gabriel left the band in 1975! These youngsters don’t know they are born, and I can assure you there is nothing like air guitaring to ABACAB in your underwear on a sunday morning. this may end in divorce…. Report 0 Reply Will 13 Sep 2009, 4:24pm “That is not only true, it’s pretty close to what I would call a charitable attitude on your part. Good on you!” The sum total of my diplomatic skill. I just feel bad calling people fruitcakes when they have a genuine medical condition like Hank clearly does. :) Report 0 Reply Hank 13 Sep 2009, 5:29pm Hey John, in #184, you said: “Hank, quite simply put, is a Satan worshipping heretic….. Hank, and his Satan inspired beliefs, is, and are, the problem…. …Make no mistake, dear reader, about it. Hank does not represent, hopefully he can never represent, mainstream Christianity. He is a Devil worshipper, a denier of Synaxis – a follower of the One who confuses and bamboozles and attempts to mislead. He follows Satan and Evil …. he wants us to believe that we can be ‘born again’ – because, according to him, that is what his Holy Text, the Bible, says. Well, the Bible simply doesn’t say that.” MY REPLY: Hey John, since YOU ALSO believe that Satan exists, please tell me how you know he exists? Where did he come from?..what is his purpose (against God and against man?)….how does he do his work? Since you call me a devil worshipper, I have to know what kind of devil I seem love, follow and worship….so please tell me “about my leader.” I believe you are included in the following Scriptural passages: 2 Thessalonians 2:9-15 We must love and embrace TRUTH, or God Himself will send us a “strong delusion” that will cause us to believe a lie and perish for having not loved and embraced TRUTH. 2 Corinthians 11:10-15 False prophets can appear as ministers of light. This is why it is so important for us to be able to “try” the spirits whether they be of God, in order to know what is genuine and what is counterfeit. Ephesians 4:4-15 There is ONE Lord, ONE faith and ONE baptism. We are to be anchored, rooted and grounded in the Word of God. Here is yet another admonition for us not be carried away by everything that comes along. But rather, “try” the spirits. Matthew 7:13-27 Jesus gives a solemn warning concerning false prophets who will appear as sheep, but are really wolves on the inside (an EXTREMELY important point to realize). As sure as there is a genuine, there is a counterfeit! False prophets will produce a fruit, which will allow us to be able to recognize them. Verses 24-27 go on to explain that those who hear and do the sayings of Jesus (which was the WORD of the Apostles) would be like the man who built his house upon a rock. But, any who hear and do not build upon this rock would be like the man who built his house on sand. Which house endured the storm? The one built upon the rock, or course! John you also, said,… “he wants us to believe that we can be ‘born again’ – because, according to him, that is what his Holy Text, the Bible, says. Well, the Bible simply doesn’t say that.” OK then John…how do you reply to these:. As Jesus talked with Nicodemus, He said “…Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, You must be born again….” (John 3:3-7). Matthew 3:11 “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.” St. John 3:5 “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto the, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Acts 1:4-5 “And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith He, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” Seems like you’re overlooking the need and power of being “born again” and of the Holy Spirit becoming part of us as children of God. Report 0 Reply Will 13 Sep 2009, 9:21pm “Seems like you’re overlooking the need and power of being “born again” and of the Holy Spirit becoming part of us as children of God.” No, I don’t think John is, actually. Its delusional to think you know the will of god, Hank, and to tell another that you are some how privy to his wished and thoughts is just downright insane. And you inability to answer direct questioning, and only relay on biblical quotes for some lunatic “end of days” scenario based on your “personal research” is screaming examples of your medical needs. Unfortunately, when you ask “about my leader”, you “leader” in so much as what drives you to say these things, is not god, its a pathological breakdown of the mind caused by a combination of both brain vulnerabilities (either inherited or acquired) and life events. No doubt your divorce was a major catalyst for this condition. Perhaps you recent brush with lung cancer? Or stress caused by the social stigma you experienced as an albino. All of these thinks you have admitted to, all possible factors. I’m guessing Schizophrenia, because of the symptoms you show, but you should really talk to a doctor. Schizophrenia:- Schizophrenia is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a mental disorder characterized by impairments in the perception or expression of reality and by significant social or occupational dysfunction. A person experiencing schizophrenia is typically characterized as demonstrating disorganized thought and language, and as experiencing delusions or hallucinations. Familiar? Its what you’ve been doing all along on this thread and others. Report 0 Reply Hank 14 Sep 2009, 1:31pm Hey Will, when you say, No, I don’t think John is, actually. Its delusional to think you know the will of god, Hank, and to tell another that you are some how privy to his wished and thoughts is just downright insane.” “…think you know the will of god, Hank, and to tell another that you are some how privy to his wished and thoughts is just downright insane.” Everyone who will read and study the Bible can know “the will of God”. …and to His wishes and thoughts….simply by reading what Jesus Christ said about God the Father…it’s all laid out clearly i but a person has to work at it. And as for being insane, being deceived and deluded that there is no God is a form of insanity…so do some introspection and you’ll see that your thinking is a form of unreality…you have denied a part of man’s thinking that started when man could first think abstractly and realized that something more than himself held answers to life. Report 0 Reply Will 14 Sep 2009, 3:04pm “Everyone who will read and study the Bible can know “the will of God”. …and to His wishes and thoughts….simply by reading what Jesus Christ said about God the Father…it’s all laid out clearly i but a person has to work at it.” So, god is a contradictory idiot? He must be if the bible is his “word”. God likes slavery then? He encourages incest? He smites people with all the rational of a tantrum throwing brat? The reason the bible “needs work” is BECAUSE its so bloody contradictory. This is not the word of a god, but simple fables to guide a less aware, superstitious and less enlightened people… its disturbing there are people who still think like this. People like you. Do you think the creator of the universe is so lacking in imagination and ability that a fairy story book, constantly re-edited by countless Christian synods over the millennia, is his vehicle for “his word”? The very idea is simply preposterous. “and realized that something more than himself held answers to life.” Yes, I understand that. Welcome to the world of Science. Not an “unreality” as you claim, but THE reality. A world you have but a paltry grasp of, and your mind cannot understand. However, you wont you get “reality” from an archaic book that is full of pointless and contradictory stories. And you won’t see any wonder in persecution of your fellow man, or worrying who is a sinner or not. And the bible is finite, non-changing, and a tool to oppress others and make you feel better, and in your damaged mind, you can’t see beyond it. You grasp of the world is limited to Adam & Eve being literal (the biggest example of stupidity I’ve yet to see) and other child bedtime stories, but your reason cannot break down the contradictions of these stories, so you chose to ignore the bits that do not fit your bigotry, or accept the pure literal meaning. Your search for truth is a very, very short one. As I said, I pity you enormously. You have no idea of the world around you. And you are in need of medical help, Hank, of that I am 100% sure. Report 0 Reply AdrianT 14 Sep 2009, 3:58pm Will old chap, I think you need another joint ;-) Penn & Teller had some interesting things to say about the Bible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RV46fsmx6E Still, Hank, how do you know the Bible is the word of God? What reference do you have, outside the Bible? (I think we’ve had this conversation before….) Report 0 Reply Iris 14 Sep 2009, 4:57pm Hank: “…you have denied a part of man’s thinking that started when man could first think abstractly and realized that something more than himself held answers to life. ” That comment reminded me of the idea expressed in this book (replace the ‘XX’ with ‘tt’): hXXp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology) Quote from Wiki: “According to Jaynes, ancient people in the bicameral state would experience the world in a manner that has similarities to that of a modern-day schizophrenic. Rather than making conscious evaluations in novel or unexpected situations, the person would hallucinate a voice or “god” giving admonitory advice or commands, and obey these voices without question; one would not be at all conscious of one’s own thought processes per se.” What’s your opinion on that, Hank? The idea that gods were created by the minds of human beings. (and I am looking at that NWO site – got tonsillitis so not feeling very bright at the moment) Report 0 Reply Hank 14 Sep 2009, 7:11pm Yo Adrian, you asked, “Still, Hank, how do you know the Bible is the word of God? What reference do you have, outside the Bible? (I think we’ve had this conversation before” Hey Adrian, here is just one reference to my belief of proof of the Holy Bible. Since I have to depend on scholarly findings from experts who’ve done this type of research for many decades, you can see the entire article of complete details, facts, research, etc. by looking at: :http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q9_historical_proof_bible.htm In the meantime I’ll quote a few facts from, their site – it’s filled with too much for me to show here but very interesting and a challenging presentation for historical proof. I’m quoting: “Before we start let’s consider what it is we are looking for. The Bible is essentially a religious history. Even those who wrote the Bible made it clear it was not a secular history, even though secular events are referred to. It is a book about God and his relationship with man. That cannot be proven or dis-proven logically. It is a spiritual matter. However, people and events mentioned in the Bible might be found in the historical writings of other nearby countries and in the historical records of the Israelite nations other than the Bible. “The earliest records of the Israelites were written on papyrus, rather than clay tablets that were used by other cultures at that time. Many of those papyri have been destroyed. “There is little proof of the use of slaves in Egypt or of the Exodus, of the conquering of the Canaanites by the Israelites or of King David’s reign. But absence of proof is not proof of absence. It only takes one find to change that picture. “For example, until 1993 there was no proof of the existence of King David or even of Israel as a nation prior to Solomon. Then in 1993 archeologists found proof of King David’s existence outside the Bible. At an ancient mound called Tel Dan, in the north of Israel, words carved into a chunk of basalt were translated as “House of David” and “King of Israel” proving that he was more than just a legend. “In 1990 Frank Yurco, an Egyptologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, used hieroglyphic clues from a monolith known as the Merneptah Stele to identify figures in a Luxor wall relief as ancient Israelites. The stele itself, dated to 1207 B.C. celebrates a military victory by the Pharaoh Merneptah. “Israel is laid waste” it reads. This lets us know the Israelites were a separate people more than 3,000 years ago. “Now let’s look at the era from Solomon to around 400 BC where the Old Testament ends. The Smithsonian Department of Anthropology has this to say about the Bible. “Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated.” “R.D. Wilson who wrote “A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament” pointed out that the names of 29 Kings from ten nations (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon and more) are mentioned not only in the Bible but are also found on monuments of their own time. Every single name is transliterated in the Old Testament exactly as it appears on the archaeological artifact – syllable for syllable, consonant for consonant. The chronological order of the kings is correct. “John M. Lundquist writes “A significant example of the contribution ancient inscriptions have made to our understanding of the Old Testament is the Moabite Stone, also known as the Mesha Inscription…discusses the King of Israel, about 849 B.C, (good details follow here) “This ends the biblical account of Mesha, and if it weren’t for the discovery of the Moabite Stone in 1868 by a German missionary, the story would have ended there. “The fact that Israel’s neighbors viewed their gods in the same light as Israel viewed the Lord, and the fact that certain biblical customs should also be found among some of these neighbors, should in no way disturb anyone. Perhaps the Moabites and others borrowed these customs from the Israelites, or, more probably, since the Moabites are descendants from Abraham’s nephew Lot through the latter’s daughter (see Gen. 19:37), there would be much in the way of religion and culture that they would share in common. “The following information is taken from a site dedicated to discoveries made by archaeologists working in and around present day Jerusalem. Ostraca (inscribed potsherds) Over 100 ostraca inscribed in biblical Hebrew (in paleo-Hebrew script) were found in the citadel of Arad. This is the largest and richest collection of inscriptions from the biblical period ever discovered in Israel. The letters are from all periods of the citadel’s existence, but most date to the last decades of the kingdom of Judah. Finally let’s look at Jesus. What evidence do we have the he existed? The Roman historian Tacitus writing between 115-117 A.D. had this to say: “They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh-not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home.” From his Annals, xv. 44. Here is a pagan historian, hostile to Christianity, who had access to records about what happened to Jesus Christ. Mention of Jesus can also be found in Jewish Rabbinical writings from what is known as the Tannaitic period, between 70-200 A.D. In Sanhedrin 43a it says: “Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, ‘He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whoever has anything to say in his defence, let him come and declare it.’ As nothing was brought forward in his defence, he was hanged on Passover Eve.” That there is any mention of Jesus at all is unususal. As far as the Roman world was concerned, Jesus was a nobody who live in an insignificant province, sentenced to death by a minor procurator. To conclude, there is plenty of historical proof that the Bible is accurate. In fact, it is one of the most accurate books known concerning the history of the ancient nations in and around Israel” Report 0 Reply Hank 14 Sep 2009, 7:27pm Hey Adrian, you asked, “Still, Hank, how do you know the Bible is the word of God? What reference do you have, outside the Bible? (I think we’ve had this conversation before” I’m sorry I misunderstood your question and my above comment refers to more to the proof and historicity of the Bible, not about being the Word of God….sorry…will get back to you on that. Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 14 Sep 2009, 9:10pm Will(200) & AdrianT(210): Youse guys are outdoing yourselves with every comment you make. Penn & Teller: how succinct! har har har!! Report 0 Reply Hank 14 Sep 2009, 9:29pm Hey Will…, you defined the following: Schizophrenia:- Schizophrenia is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a mental disorder characterized by impairments in the perception or expression of reality and by significant social or occupational dysfunction. A person experiencing schizophrenia is typically characterized as demonstrating disorganized thought and language, and as experiencing delusions or hallucinations. Good for you – you can read and understand more than I gave you credit for, at least in some areas of communication. I’m surprised that you’re so perceptive in psychoanalytic detection of hidden meaning in my written comments. Where’d you receive your degree? To begin with, you’re leaving out the ingredient of mysticism in human thinking and behavior –, not that I ever thought of it as being a part of my Christianity. But after doing some research I’ve found some of the below that’s worth consideration. And I’ll use some quotes to further my thinking about mysticism. ‘Many modern-day Christians, are afraid of words like “meditation,” “mystic,” and “mysticism” as they bring confusing thoughts and meanings. But after deeper study I see that mysticism can fit in easily and give deep meaning to Christianity if we use mysticism to mean the spirituality of the direct experience of God. I’ll be quoting directly because the writing fully explains some issues as good and even better than I can simply by rephrasing things. “The direct experience of God is a kind of knowing, which goes beyond intellectual understanding. It is not a matter of “belief.” It is marked by love and joy, but it is not “emotional experience.” To describe what it is, we must use metaphors—the marriage of the soul to Christ…the death of the “old man” and birth of the “new man…” being the “body of Christ.” (WHEN YOU’RE “BORN AGAIN” THIS HAPPENS TO YOU) “Jesus proclaimed “I and the Father are one,” (Jn. 10.30) showing the world what the union of God and man can be. Christian mysticism is about nothing else but this transforming union. “Christ is the sole end of Christian mysticism. Whereas all Christians have Christ…call on Christ…and can (or should) know Christ, the goal for the Christian mystic is to become Christ—to become as fully permeated with God as Christ is, thus becoming like him, fully human, and by the grace of God, also fully divine. In Christian teaching this doctrine is known by various names—theosis, divinization, deification, and transforming union. (THE UNSAVED PERSON CANNOT FATHOM THIS RELATIONSHIP). “A common misconception about mysticism is that it’s about “mystical experiences,” and there are many volumes on such experiences in religious literature. But true mysticism is not focused on “experiences” (which come and go) but with the lasting experience of God, leading to the transformation of the believer into union with God. (VERY IMPORTANT IN MY LIFE!) Let’s go a bit further Will…with my comments and your psychoanalytic interpretation of them. The nature of schizophrenia, and other forms of psychosis has been looked at and some experts from all fields of inquiry have examined the relationship between psychosis and the mystical, or religious, experience, trying to find the similarities and differences between the experiences. They seem to agree on a “working definition” of mystical experience where: “the following characteristics emerged repeatedly as each author attempts to define mystical experience: experience of unity, intense affective experience, time/space distortion, noetic quality, ineffability, and a sense of holiness or sacredness.” “During the early 1900′s, William James wrote about the idea of a spectrum – or continuum – of mystical states of consciousness ranging from the non-religious to the most religiously profound (James, 1985). Beginning with the “simplest” sort of mystical experience, James notes the strong sense of significance and knowledge associated with the experience, its “noetic” quality. It is one of four qualities that James uses to define mystical states of consciousness. “Ineffable” is another characteristic which marks an experience as mystical; the experience defies expression. Due to its subjective nature, the experience is much like states of feeling. James asserts that these two qualities “entitle any state to be called mystical” (p.302). However, there are other qualities usually associated with the experience. He explains that the experiences are generally transient. Fading quickly, it is hard to recall the quality of the experience in memory; they remain just out of reach. But, some memory content always remains, and this can be used to “modify the inner life of the subject between the time of their recurrence” (p.303). “When having a mystical experience, however, individuals do not seem to actively process the information. Instead it is a passive experience – James’ fourth characteristic mark. Even though people actively study and/or practice techniques to produce mystical states of consciousness, once occurring, the experience seems to happen without their will. “Andrew Greeley (1974) expresses with great emotion that the underlying message of the mystics’ accounts is that “love” is at the core of the universe (p.79). Accompanying the mystical experience is often extreme joy, or exultation. Mystics often describe feeling so wonderful, that they later conclude it was the working of a higher force. Sometimes the experience is so emotionally overwhelming that it completely alters the individual’s lifestyle. “For other individuals, the experience occurs spontaneously, in seemingly any situation, with religious or non-religious connotations. Andrew Greeley, a priest and author, is one of many scholars who have conducted a “census” survey to determine what portion of the US population report having had a mystical experience. His preliminary finding show that a substantial percent have had the experience. (Hey Will, I guess there’s a lot of us “schiz’s” in this world! ) “He notes that they range from mild to intense, rare to frequent. Greeley defines the experience as “something like Maslow’s peak-experience, that is, a feeling of intense unity with the universe and of one’s place within that unity” (p.12). He stresses that mystics describe the experience as more of an experience of cognition than of feeling; the mystic comes to know something previously unknown.(HEY WILL, I BELIEVE THAT ’S WHERE I SEE MYSELF) “Universality of the mystical experience is addressed Robert Ornstein (1977). He explains that all individuals have access to knowledge beyond the intellectual sort, knowledge that is often ignored in our culture.(WILL, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO EXPERIENCE GOD IF YOU WANT IT HARD ENOUGH) “Ornstein supplies many example of this knowledge – creative wisdom and insight from dreams, body temperature patterns, chemical reactions on a cellular level, and he postulates there are many forms of information we are as yet oblivious to. He asserts that we are equipped with the “tools” to access both the realms of rationality and intuition. Ornstein presents a chronicle of the definition of consciousness throughout history. He stresses the dialectic of theories, which tend to describe two polar facets of consciousness, the rational and intuitive modes of operation. He suggests we follow a lesson found cross-culturally: the most effective mode of operation appears to be one that synthesizes the two ways of engaging the world.” Will, doesn’t all this give good “food for thought and discussion?”. Maybe I’m more mystic than schizophrenic (You think?”) Report 0 Reply Jean-Paul Bentham 15 Sep 2009, 12:34am Hank (174): You say: ‘I regularly contribute to various Christian Missions.’ Are you bragging or complaining? If the Christian Missions have done any good in Africa…evidence please. Report 0 Reply Hank 15 Sep 2009, 12:56am Hey Jean Paul, you say in 174 Hank, the money that you are giving to the NWO could be better spent bringing pure drinking water to the destitute populations of Africa. And I replied I regularly contribute to various Christian Missions.’ I wasn’t bragging, I denied your implying I give money to NWO, who in my opinion are a negative force in society. (Why do you think I give to the NWO anyway? I donate to missions in India and Romania as well as in the USA. Why do ask if I’m complaining — stupid question. Report 0 Reply Will 15 Sep 2009, 6:51am LOL! So NOW you trying to convince me that your schizophrenia is not schizophrenia, but mysticism….?!?!? Oh, right. Silly me. You’re not suffering from a mental illness, no, you’re “mystical”. Sweet f*****g jesus, that’s the best one yet! Classic! Thank you for making me laugh out loud so early in the morning! “Good for you – you can read and understand more than I gave you credit for, at least in some areas of communication. I’m surprised that you’re so perceptive in psychoanalytic detection of hidden meaning in my written comments. Where’d you receive your degree?” My degrees are real enough, I assure you. Quite more than you have, and more than enough to see what you are suffering from. And again this mention of schizophrenia angers you so much more then normal. I’ve hit a nerve, haven’t I? You have already been diagnosed with schizophrenia, haven’t you? You know somewhere deep down I’m right. “Will, doesn’t all this give good “food for thought and discussion?”. Maybe I’m more mystic than schizophrenic (You think?”)” No. I am certain you’re schizophrenic, or suffering from a similar mental condition. Paranoid schizophrenic to be exact. And, again, no, nothing you have said there constitutes any proof of anything…. just a random selection of quotes to somehow prove to me that you’re not insane but “mystical”…. what a joke. You failed. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Surely you realise that you behaviours (inability to focus on one thing, lack of ability to answer questions, believe in paranoid conspiracies, belief in literal god, belief in persecution, airing your weird behaviour on a gay site) are abnormal? You’re about as mystical as an cow dung, Hank. “Hey Will, I guess there’s a lot of us “schiz’s” in this world!” Indeed. 0.6% of the population. That’s a lot, isn’t it? Well done. You’re part of a community. “To conclude, there is plenty of historical proof that the Bible is accurate.” So? Historically some of the events did happen. Are you saying that because some</b of the events happens, therefore logically all the events happened? And this is your logic for Adam & Eve being literal?!?!?! Ha! I rest my case:- Nuts. Look up “argumentum ad ignorantiam”, and you’ll see what you have stumbled badly with this stillness. Report 0 Reply Iris 15 Sep 2009, 11:06am Hank: “But after deeper study I see that mysticism can fit in easily and give deep meaning to Christianity if we use mysticism to mean the spirituality of the direct experience of God” I don’t get that, Hank. I appreciate that some people experience mystic/spiritual feelings but there’s no proof that these feeling come from any god or gods. Read my link on Bicameralism above. Also, mystical experiences have been linked with things such as temporal lobe epilepsy and hypoglycaemia – ie they appear after some kind of brain ‘malfunction’. Just because someone experiences ‘a feeling of god’ doesn’t mean that god exists. Report 0 Reply Hank 15 Sep 2009, 4:45pm Just a brief reply to your entire comment, to which I’ll reply shortly..but…. Hey Will, when you say, ” And again this mention of schizophrenia angers you so much more then normal. I’ve hit a nerve, haven’t I? You have already been diagnosed with schizophrenia, haven’t you? You know somewhere deep down I’m right.” Wrong…I self-diagnose myself as a psychopathic serial murderer who has delusions of being a reincarnation of Genghis Khan and will again rule over much of the world and destroy the NWO. There you have it…your diagnosis of schizophrenia didn’t even begin to touch the surface. Go back and get another degree! Report 0 Reply Hank 15 Sep 2009, 4:57pm Hey Will, I quoted, “ Andrew Greeley, a priest and author, is one of many scholars who have conducted a “census” survey to determine what portion of the US population report having had a mystical experience. His preliminary finding show that a “SUSTANTIAL PERCENT” have had the experience. (Hey Will, I guess there’s a lot of us “schiz’s” in this world! ) YET YOU SAY, ‘Indeed. 0.6% of the population. That’s a lot, isn’t it? Well done. You’re part of a community” Since when does 0.6% relate to “substantial percent” — what kind of statistics are you referring to? Substantial is defined as “considerable…ample…large…etc. and your equating it with 0.6% is unreal…perhaps you’re having some form of schizophrenic/delusional thinking…(yes?) Report 0 Reply Will 15 Sep 2009, 5:27pm WOW!!!! This is real sore point with you, eh? Two words, Hank: Nail. Head. Looks like I have the answer I need, thanks. I’d suggest Risperidone. Or even Clozapine. But do see a qualified doctor first, don’t just take the word of a random internet person…. they’re are a lot of nutters on this site that think they know the “truth” when in fact they’re psychiatrically mentally ill, so they could be advising you all sorts of nonsense to back up their religious stigmas. Go talk to a doctor now Hank, he’ll make you all better…. …although if Iris is right, and not me, and you do indeed have temporal lobe epilepsy, then you’re rightly f****d. Oh, and you’ll be glad to hear I actually am doing another degree, a Masters Degree this time. I’m just too clever really. You stick to your delusions, demons, new world order paranoia of persecution and god visions, and I’ll keep to my affluent, happy, and psychiatrically stable life, eh? There’s a good boy. Report 0 Reply Will 15 Sep 2009, 5:37pm “Since when does 0.6% relate to “substantial percent” — what kind of statistics are you referring to?” 0.6% ≈ 41m people world wide. Big number. Lots of people. Many schitzo’s like you. There, was that easy for you? And what statistics are you referring to when you say the earth is 6,000 years old, or when you dismiss the fossil record as “imaginary”? Oh, that’s right. None. Maybe you should “go back and get your first degree”. What a positively ridiculous person you are. Always guaranteed to make me laugh, Hank, I’ll give you that. Kinda like a clown. But then again, schizophrenic albino lung cancer survivors with delusions of the divinity are entitled to their place in the world too I suppose. Report 0 Reply Hank 15 Sep 2009, 8:53pm Hey Will, the quote was…. a “census” survey to determine what portion of the US population report having had a mystical experience. His preliminary finding show that a “SUSTANTIAL PERCENT” have had the experience. DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT HE WAS INDICATING? Maybe your delusional state is fogging your judgement (Yes?) Will, you’re sound foolish because you are talking about numbers of people, while the survey talked about percent — a huge difference in meaning. A substantial percentage would be perhaps 33%, not 0.6% and would be in the neighborhood of 100 million of us. Can’t you differentiate between the two categories? Again, you better get a more advanced degree to fully understand statistics and its extrapolation. I’ve got more to say about your comments later. Report 0 Reply Hank 15 Sep 2009, 10:42pm Hey Will, you can try to use your stupid “argumentum ad ignorantiam” all you want to denegrate Christianity and label it as menatl illness. But I’d like to see you criticixe the advancements of the Christian thinkers listed and their work towards the advancement of mankind. While I’m certainly not in their category, I do share their belief in the Holy Bible and in living a life following the principles it gives us. If these men are basically schizophrenic, then the world needs more schizophrenic Christian intellectuals and scientists. George Stokes (1819–1903) A minister’s son, he wrote a book on Natural Theology. He was also one of the Presidents of the Royal Society and made contributions to Fluid dynamics. ] George Salmon (1819 – 1904) He won the Copley Medal for his mathematical works. In theology his book An Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament was widely read and he wrote rebuttals to John Henry Newman tracts. Henry Baker Tristram (1822-1906) A founding member of the British Ornithologists’ Union. His publications included The Natural History of the Bible (1867) and The Fauna and Flora of Palestine (1884). University of Durham Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) He gave a famous address to the Christian Evidence Society. In science he won the Copley Medal, the Royal Medal, and was important in Thermodynamics. Institute of Physics and his own article. Pierre Duhem (1861–1916) He worked on Thermodynamic potentials and wrote histories advocating that the Roman Catholic Church helped advance science. McTutor and Scientist and Catholic: Pierre Duhem by Stanley Jaki Georg Cantor (1845–1918) Lutheran who wrote on religious topics and had an interest in Medieval theology. Revolutionized the mathematical notion of infinity by drawing on St. Augustine’s City of God. IUPUI Dmitri Egorov (1869–1931) Russian mathematician who made significant contributions to the broader areas of differential geometry. He was an Imiaslavie who defended religion during the Soviet era. In 1930 the Soviets arrested and imprisoned him as a “religious sectarian.” He died of a hunger strike in protest. John Ambrose Fleming (1849 – 1945) In science he is noted for the Right-hand rule and work on vacuum tubes, hence the picture of a Fleming valve. He also won the Hughes Medal. In religious activities he was President of the Victoria Institute, involved in the Creation Science Movement, and preached at St Martin-in-the-Fields. IEEE biography University College London Edward Arthur Milne (1896-1950) A British astrophysicist and mathematicians who proposed the Milne model and had a Moon crater named for him. In addition he won several awards one of which, the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, is pictured. His last book was Modern Cosmology and the Christian Idea of God. Robert Millikan (1868–1953) The second son of Reverend Silas Franklin Millikan, he wrote about the reconciliation of science and religion in books like Evolution in Science and Religion. He won the 1923 Nobel Prize in Physics. Nobel Biography ] Georges Lemaître (1894-1966) Roman Catholic priest who first proposed the Big Bang theory. Catholic Education Resource Center David Lack (1910-1973) Director of the Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology and convert who wrote Evolutionary Theory and Christian Belief in 1957. As he is in part known for his study of the genus Euplectes a Black-winged Red Bishop Carlos Chagas Filho (1910-2000) A neuroscientist from Rio de Janeiro who headed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences for 16 years. He studied the Shroud of Turin and his “the Origin of the Universe”, “the Origin of Life”, and “the Origin of Man” involved an understanding between Catholicism and Science. Brazilian Academy of Sciences Sir Robert Boyd (1922-2004) A pioneer in British space science who was Vice President of the Royal Astronomical Society. He lectured on faith being a founder of the “Research Scientists’ Christian Fellowship” and an important member of its predecessor Christians in Science. (1912-2007) German nuclear physicist who is the co-discoverer of the Bethe-Weizsäcker formula. His The Relevance of Science: Creation and Cosmogony concerned Christian and moral impacts of science. He headed the Max Planck Society from 1970 to 1980. After that he retired to be a Christian pacifist. ASA Stanley Jaki (1924-2009) Benedictine priest and Distinguished Professor of Physics at Seton Hall University, New Jersey, who won a Templeton Prize and advocates the idea modern science could only have arisen in a Christian society. As suggested this section concerns significant Christian thinkers in science who are alive today. Those who lead organizations of Christians in science or who write works concerning how Christians of today respond to science. Interest in this has increased in recent decades due to continued controversies and recognition from awards like the Templeton Prize. Name Image Reason for inclusion Sources Charles Hard Townes (born 1915) In 1964 he won the Nobel Prize in Physics and in 1966 he wrote The Convergence of Science and Religion. Freeman Dyson (born 1923) He has won the Lorentz Medal, the Max Planck Medal, and the Lewis Thomas Prize. He also ranked 25th in The 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll. He has won the Templeton Prize and delivered one of the Gifford Lectures. Allan Sandage (born 1926) An astronomer of Jewish ancestry who converted to Christianity late in life. He wrote the article A Scientist Reflects on Religious Belief and made discoveries concerning the Cigar Galaxy which is pictured. The religion essay, astronomy article and Bruce Medalist page, (born 1930) Mennonite astronomer who went to Goshen College and Harvard. An old picture of Goshen is shown. Mr. Gingerich has written about people of faith in science history. Space.com and Cambridge Christians in Science. R. J. Berry (born 1934) He is a former president of both the Linnean Society of London and the Christians in Science group. He also wrote God and the Biologist: Personal Exploration of Science and Faith (Apollos 1996) ISBN 0-85111-446-6 As he taught at University College London for over 20 years. Michal Heller (born 1936) He is a Catholic priest, a member of the Pontifical Academy of Theology, a founding member of the International Society for Science and Religion.’ He also is a mathematical physicist who has written articles on relativistic physics and Noncommutative geometry. His cross-disciplinary book Creative Tension: Essays on Science and Religion came out in 2003. For this work he won a Templeton Prize. He teaches at Kraków, hence the picture of a Basilica from the city. Templeton Foundation, Journal of Mathematical Physics, and ISSR ] Eric Priest (born 1943) An authority on Solar Magnetohydrodynamics who won the George Ellery Hale Prize among others. He has spoken on Christianity and Science at the University of St Andrews and is a member of the Faraday Institute. He is also interested in prayer, meditation, and Christian psychology. Faraday Institute and Eric Priest’s website Henry F. Schaefer, III (born 1944) He wrote Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence? ISBN 0-9742975-0-X and is a signatory of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. He was awarded the American Chemical Society Award in Pure Chemistry in 1979. University of Georgia Athens Robert T. Bakker (born 1945) Paleontologist who was a figure in the “dinosaur Renaissance” and known for the theory some dinosaurs were Warm-blooded. He is also a Pentecostal preacher who advocates theistic evolution and has written on religion. (born 1950) He is the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute. He has also written on religious matters in articles and in Faith and the Human Genome he states the importance to him of “the literal and historical Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, which is the cornerstone of what I believe.” He wrote the book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. ASA and Genome.gov John D. Barrow (born 1952) An English cosmologist who did notable writing on the implications of the Anthropic principle. He is a United Reformed Church member and Christian deist. He won the Templeton Prize in 2006. He once held the position of Gresham Professor of Astronomy, John Lennox Mathematician and Pastoral adviser. His works include the mathematical The Theory of Infinite Soluble Groups and the religion-oriented God’s Undertaker – Has Science buried God? He has also debated religion with Richard Dawkins. He teaches at Oxford.. The list is endless, but you get the idea, I hope! Report 0 Reply Hank 16 Sep 2009, 12:00am Hey Iris, you said, I don’t get that, Hank. I appreciate that some people experience mystic/spiritual feelings but there’s no proof that these feeling come from any god or gods. Read my link on Bicameralism above. Iris, I checked it out, and it looks like it falls into the same category as a book I have, “Who’s Who In Mythology” by Alexander Murray, who states, “classical mythology has also given us an insight into the way that Western man first tried to understand himself and the world in which he lived.” It covers “The Creation of the World” “Deities of the Highest Order,” “inferior Deities” and “Demigods or Heroes.” He creates a very entertaining picture with characters like Pheidias, Hoome, Sophocles, Socrates, Plato, Herodotus, Thucydides, Archimedes and Euclid, is all very fun reading, but where and how he did his research and got all the writings to base his work on is never revealed — but he writes well. I don’t see any difference in credibility in the above as I do in the 1976 work The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, Julian Jaynes that you mentioned. ( From his article…I quote… “Jaynes’s hypothesis remains controversial and has lacked discussion by mainstream academics.” ) There’s no credible facts to make either one or the books worth much to think about and have a person create one’s own personal belief system. Iris, you also say, “Also, mystical experiences have been linked with things such as temporal lobe epilepsy and hypoglycaemia – ie they appear after some kind of brain ‘malfunction’. Just because someone experiences ‘a feeling of god’ doesn’t mean that god exists.” ( I agree Iris, but great Christian thinkers are rational beings who feel this mystical connection that they can relate to God, that God does in fact care about them and will give them guidance to live a life that beings glory to God and lets man do good to his fellow man. I don’t see anything that woud indicate a form of mental illness in these men) Let’s look at today’s intellectual production of provable work put out by such people I listed in my above comment (not some fanciful supposition extracted from questionable (“facts?) of 2-3,000 years ago). These Christians are not mentally ill….they don’t hear voices, etc. but they do believe in the Holy Bible and they attribute their talent and intellectual gifts to God and in return produce good works for the betterment of all mankind (not only Christians)… and to civilization….and that’s the bottom line. Report 0 Reply Will 16 Sep 2009, 7:06am “Again, you better get a more advanced degree to fully understand statistics and its extrapolation” Sorry, I don’t take lectures in science and mathematics from people who believe the earth is 6,0000 years old. But let me explain, as to a child, in medical prevalence (whcih is what I am referring to here), 0.6% is a very big percentage, when you consider that almost 1 on 100 are suffering form the same medical illness you are. Compare, for example, to the world wide prevalence for lung cancer, the most common form of cancer, is statistically likely to affect 0.02%, or 1 in 5000. So, again, I suggest YOU educate yourself. It demeans both of us for me to prove you wrong all the time. “Hey Will, you can try to use your stupid “argumentum ad ignorantiam” all you want to denegrate Christianity and label it as menatl illness.” No, I said you have schizophrenia. And given your umpteenth time trying to convince me you’re “mystical” and not mad, only reinforces that diagnosis. Most religious people do not suffer intense paranoia and NWO persecution complex like you. That’s a symptom of a medical condition, not “Christianity”. Not to mention you clearly suffer form a form learning difficulty. People who believe in a 6,000 year old earth are quite frankly suffering from a form of retardation. Oh, and listing off a few nutters who have questionable scientific research, only weakens your already tenuous grasp on the facts. Lets have a look at just ONE of these, shall we? Henry F. Schaefer, III:- In 2008, he presented a lecture titled ‘Big Bang, Stephen Hawking and God’ at the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay. It promoted Intelligent Design which also implied the futility of belief systems other than Christianity as the way to God. Not very scientific at all, is it? Schaefer is often cited as an example of the Discovery Institute inflating the academic credentials and affiliations of prominent intelligent design advocates. A clear example of the fact that you can cheat the education system and still be an idiot. This man did some good work in his earlier years, but lost the plot later on. None really takes him seriously when it comes to his work on “intelligent design”, sorry. He produced absolutely no scientific proof of his “theories”, just conjecture in taking out of context examples of the universe, and used them as proof of a god simple becuase there was no better explanation!!! Again, this man and his “research” is the very definition of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Ironic these people are always from USA…. what the hell is wrong with their edcuation system anyway? His work is generally deemed utter rubbish, except for the desperate like you who cling to straws to validate their own stupidity. Next time you quote science to someone of my credentials, be sure to actually get to my level. So far, all I see is ion you Hank, is one very desperate and very mentally disturbed individual trying to get validation from people that are better then him. Sorry, but that’s the reality here. Again, Methinks the lady doth protest too much, and again, I am laughing. Report 0 Reply John M.J. 16 Sep 2009, 7:17am Hank wrote, at 199, Everyone who will read and study the Bible can know “the will of God”. …and to His wishes and thoughts….simply by reading what Jesus Christ said about God the Father…it’s all laid out clearly… That, precisely, is Hank’s heresy – and it’s a huge heresy and wrongness of belief against which the Church universal has fought for many centuries (and for which belief Hank will have to answer) – his heretical and Devil inspired belief and his separation from God. One cannot know God through study of the Bible one can only know God, in Christian mainstream teaching, through following the ancient teachings of the Church universal. The Bible is not the sum and total of the teachings of the Church: it is merely, at the most, the historical underpinnings of Church teachings (if it’s even that!) Hank’s wilful and Devil inspired disregard for, and of, mainstream Christian teachings – his superstitious beliefs in some magical efficacy of Bible verses – mark him out for what he actually is: a believer in magic and incantations. Some literalists belief that the Bible – an invention of our Church meant to historically justify our position – is somehow absolutely true and sets Hank apart from rational thinking Christians such as me, and others here. I have to say that Hank’s wilful and complete disregard of everything that he has been told by me, and other scholars who have taken the time to post here, is symptomatic of his mindset and of his complete inability to argue cogently. Hank’s utter contempt of, and woeful ignorance of, the original texts and languages of the Bible merely serve to demonstrate the depth of his ignorance about, and the depth of his reviling for, any form of learning. What I find most distressing about Hank is that he will keep on quoting Bible verses as if they are, in some sense, literally true and valid. The truth is that Bible verses only have validity when measured against Church teachings. When his interpretations of the Bible verses conflict with Church teachings, as they often do, then the Bible is, despite his reliance upon it, wrong and misinterpreted for him. The Spirit which lives and moves we Christians still, is our guide – it is the Spirit that moves us that is our guide, not the dead hand, the very dead Calvin inspired, Biblical literalism as practiced by Hank and those who follow his way – the dead hand of literal belief without recourse to learning and recension that must guide us; instead, we must be guided by love. We modern Christians don’t follow his, Hank’s, spurious and unnecessary Biblical literalism which merely reveals his paucity of intellect and his ability to hate. Hank has managed to persuade himself that his hate is actually love. That’s not surprising – that’s what most so-called Christians of his ilk do! He is incapable of seeing love – of seeing the operative love of God in all relationships. We are merely wasting our time here with Hank. He has no love, no operative love; just erroneous, devil driven rules, I’m leaving. Meet you all elsewhere! Report 0 Reply Hank 16 Sep 2009, 10:16am Hey John, when you say, “The Spirit which lives and moves we Christians still, is our guide” I don’t know what your Church universal represents. Who is Jesus Christ and what is your definition and examples of sin as is written about in the Holy Bible? You also say, “Most religious people do not suffer intense paranoia and NWO persecution complex like you” No, because the average Christian continues to live in disobedience to God and is not filled with the Spirit for 2 reasons: 1.A lack of knowledge 2.Unbelief Once you experience your spiritual birth, you have the power to go on growing toward maturity in Christ. And yet, the average person, such as you, lacks the understanding how to live by faith, and consequently lives on a spiritual roller coaster, rising and falling from one emotional experience to another. You appear to be a Worldly, Carnal Christian: In 1 Corinthians 3, Paul describes a worldly, carnal believer as one who acts like a non-Christian. Although the worldly believer has received Christ (maybe you), you also have allowed your Flesh nature to reclaim the throne through sin. God may still have possession of you person, and Christ may still in be in your life, but you have fallen into sin in one or more areas of your life. Since you haven’t yielded to the True God, you are a worldly believer and are a miserable, deceived person — even more miserable than the non-Christian. You’re in a period of stunted spiritual growth because you aren’t confessing and repenting of your sins, and Satan has succeeded in influencing and controlling you through the Flesh, so I can understand your confused thinking that your universal church as done to you. Report 0 Reply Hank 16 Sep 2009, 10:30am Hey Will, you say, ” But let me explain, as to a child, in medical prevalence (whcih is what I am referring to here), 0.6% is a very big percentage” You can’t be selective in how you define a percent or a number in a specific area. The dictionary says, “percent: per hundred; in, to, or for every hundred; a hundreth part.” So your “medical prevalence” is meaningless when talking about a non-medical issues as was discussed as…. a “census” survey to determine what portion of the US population report having had a mystical experience.” So your 0.6 is still a faction of 1% as it applies to the “census” because “his preliminary finding show that a “SUSTANTIAL PERCENT” have had the experience…” Report 0 Reply Hank 16 Sep 2009, 10:53am Hey Will….so nice of you to be so selective when discussiing Henry Schaefer, but you didn’t quite give enough of his accomplishments to show his overall intelligence….such as: Henry “Fritz” Schaefer III is a computational and theoretical chemist. He is the author of a large number of scientific publications, and was the 6th most cited chemist from 1981 to 1997  and the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Chemistry at the University of Georgia. Schaefer is also a prominent proponent of intelligent design. He is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, the hub of the intelligent design movement, and the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, and a signer of the Discovery Institute’s anti-evolution letter, A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism Research within his area involves the use of computational hardware and theoretical methods to solve problems in molecular quantum mechanics. His contributions to the field of quantum chemistry include a paper challenging, on theoretical grounds, the geometry of triplet methylene as assigned by Nobel Prize-winning experimentalist Gerhard Herzberg; the development of the Z-vector method simplifying certain calculations of correlated systems; and a wide body of work undertaken in his research group on the geometries, properties, and reactions of chemical systems using highly accurate ab initio quantum chemical techniques. Many of these papers have predicted, or forced a reinterpretation of, experimental results. He is the author of more than 1,200 scientific publications, the majority appearing in the Journal of Chemical Physics or the Journal of the American Chemical Society So now that he’s broadened his area of concern to include Creationism, he’s all of a sudden been taken over by mental illness (Yes?). By the way, how about the over 30 names I offered…how many of those accomplishments are due to them “being nut cases” because they believe in God? You people are so paranoid and deluded that you can’t see anything that’s “outside of your limited, science-only” world. Report 0 Reply Will 16 Sep 2009, 12:42pm “You can’t be selective in how you define a percent or a number in a specific area” You’re being pedantic. Another symptom of schizophrenia, by the way. Perhaps OCD? Who knows what mess you mind in is at this stage. “So now that he’s broadened his area of concern to include Creationism, he’s all of a sudden been taken over by mental illness” Didn’t say that, did I? No. I quote myself “I said you have schizophrenia. And given your umpteenth time trying to convince me you’re “mystical” and not mad, only reinforces that diagnosis.” “By the way, how about the over 30 names I offered…how many of those accomplishments are due to them “being nut cases” because they believe in God?” Nope. Again, you chose to use lies in lieu of reading what I said. These people have tried to disprove science with bible quotes. This is nonsense. Intelligent design has ZERO proof behind it. Its a belief system, not science. Ergo, your statement that Henry Schaefer III is a Fellow of the Discovery Institutes Centre for Science and Culture actually means nothing in the slightest, other than to desperate people like you, sorry. But understand this, nothing you have said proves anything other then you need help, and the line “you people are so paranoid and deluded that you can’t see anything that’s “outside of your limited, science-only” world” only shows your lack of understanding of science and how its easily science destroys your fragile delusions, and for you living in a trapped damaged mind must find this unbearable. I seek proof and reason. You are unable to provide any. I will not validate your sickness. Now, your turn: – why can’t you explain the fossil record? You will dodge this again, as you dodge questions that you perceive to damage your fragile and paranoid world view. A classic symptom of diseases like autism or schizophrenia. I cam only assume your social isolation caused by your recent illnesses, your divorce, and being born an albino contributed to a downward spiral to where you are now. Your not preaching here, you’re showing us all who tragic the human experience can be. Pity is all you elicit from us. Report 0 Reply Will 17 Sep 2009, 6:34am “Now, your turn: – why can’t you explain the fossil record?” Ah, what’s wrong Hank, can’t answer the question? Is it too hard for you? Carbon dating is the problem isn’t it? Feckin fossil record messing up your world order, curse them! Don’t be ashamed you can’t answer it, avolition is a classic symptom of people who suffer from schizophrenia. Report 0 Reply John M.J. 17 Sep 2009, 7:26am Hank, yet again compounds his heresy at 220, and moves further away from God by so doing. He insists, in his questions to me and in his use of yet more Biblical quotes, that the Bible is the centre of Christian Faith and the fount of all truth. That is untrue – the Church made the Bible, not the other way around! The truth of Christianity is in the teachings of the Catholic Churches – the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, the Anglican Church, the Aethiopian Church, the Armenian Church, the Chaldean Church, the Maronite Church, the Melchite Church, the Ruthenian Church, the Georgian Catholic Church, the Hungarian Greek Catholic Church, the Jamesian Church of Jerusalem (founded by Christ’s brother), the Thomine Church of India (founded by the Apostle, and Saint, Thomas) and on and on and on the list goes for Church after Church, for Apostolic Foundation after Apostolic Foundation, they all deny and utterly condemn Hank’s Biblical literalism and dependency as the rank and stinking heresy that it is. They all teach – hundreds of large and small Churches founded by, or offshoots of, the great Apostolic tradition handed down to us modern Christians – that Christ was the God of Love and forgiveness incarnate: the Great God of love made flesh for a while, which is why all we Catholic and Orthodox (despite our differences) call ourselves The Church Universal. The fact that Hank doesn’t know about that term, or the meaning of it, doesn’t have any comprehension of that fact, is a major indication of his wilful ignorance and Devil inspired Biblical literalism. Now, I can’t help but notice that Hank – inspired by the Evil One whom he follows – couldn’t help himself, as usual, but quote some spurious Scripture – 1st. Corinthians, v. 3 – and completely mistranslates the original text and wilfully misunderstands the import of that entire Pauline letter in order to further advance the cause of his true Master and, quite frankly, that disgusts me as it must disgust and repel all other true Christians. Paul’s letters to the Corinthian Church, which he founded, cannot be reduced, as Hank seeks to do, to individual verses interpreted in Hank’s evil and duplicitous ways but must be read as a whole. Firstly, Corinthians is just a letter to his Church at Corinth urging the faithful to purify their beliefs and to cast out what St. Paul sees as their remnants of Paganism. He castigates the role of women in the Corinthian Church – in direct opposition to other Church fathers such as Saints Tertulian, Jerome and Augustine – and commands women to be silent (and that’s in direct contravention of Christ’s life and teachings). Secondly, the verse which Hank quotes merely indicates that St. Paul had some reason to believe that some members of his Corinthian Church were backsliding into worldly paganism and that quarrels and jealousy were erupting amongst the faithful – that they were acting like ‘mere men’ not like ‘Christian souls’. Once again, Hank, in wilful heresy and severe error, compounds his wickedness by deliberately mistranslating and misinterpreting our Scripture and by trying to extend the meaning of that Scripture way beyond what its actual words can support or permit. The sheer evil of this man Hank, his willingness to lie and to dissemble and then to say that he does so for God is just staggering. I’ve never met such evil and such a willing surrender to the dark Lord before in my entire life. Such wickedness as Hank demonstrates simply appals me! Now, let’s have the full translation of 1st. Corinthians, v. 3 set into its context of the verses which surround it, shall we? For the full translation demonstrates, in all its glory, just how duplicitous, evil, and corrupting of the faithful Hank really is. Just by how much Hank will lie for his evil Master and corrupt even the Bible in order to get his own way. 1.Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly – mere infants in Christ. 2.I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3.You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4.For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men? 5.What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe — as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6.I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7.So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8.The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9.For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building. 10.By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11.For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12.If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13.His work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. 14.If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15.If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. 16.Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? 17.If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple. As, I’m sure, you can plainly see, Hank’s exegesis of those words is completely erroneous – faulty, peculiar and wilfully evil – born from his own imaginings, and his exegesis is sinful and wicked and is no part of Holy Mother Church’s teachings. Hank is one of the legion sent from below to disturb the faithful and the teachings of the Church Universal of All the Ages. Ignore him as you would all the others born to evil. He is a small soul born to hate and to serve the dark Lord. I doubt that he can be reclaimed to the Light. Report 0 Reply Will 17 Sep 2009, 2:40pm Hank must have gone and taken his Clozapine, so now he’s bored with the questions. The road to hell is paved with mad intentions, it seems… Report 0 Reply Iris 17 Sep 2009, 3:29pm Hi Hank – are you still there? I had a long look at the NWO site you mentioned. What a huge amount of detail there is on there! :o I read most of it (can’t say that I read every word) but I still didn’t find any irrefutable ‘proof’. Is there a particular section you’d recommend? Report 0 Reply Hank 17 Sep 2009, 4:26pm Hey Gang….I’m back with some more comments coming soon. Yesterday was a perfect day — sunny 90 degrees, the ocean very comfortble — everything was to tempting for me not to be inside at a computer. Today is again just perfect outside, but I do have comments to come later today. Will force myself to stay in this afternoon/evening. Will answer all, and Iris, hope you’re feeling better. Are there any signs of the flu bug hitting in your area? So far we have very few cases in S. Florida. I personally think the flu epidemic prediction is a lot of nonsense involving politics and money to be made by the drug companies. Any comments on this topic? Report 0 Reply Hank 17 Sep 2009, 5:09pm Hey John….I have much to comment about your comment, but will take more time than I have now. About the RC church –will give my critical view in detail soon I looked on the RC site, and some others. I note that you have 10,000 Saints, with only a few listed below: Patron Saints of Causes Patron Saints of Causes – The term ‘Saints’ is used in Christian religions to describe a person who is perceived of being an example of great holiness and virtue and considered capable of interceding with God on behalf of a person who prayed to them. A person who has died and has been declared a saint by canonization. The Roman Catholic Church has an official process for creating saints. 1. Patron Saints of Causes Abandoned children – St. Jerome Adopted children – St. William AIDS – St. Roque Alcoholism – St. Monica Amputees – St. Anthony Animals – St. Francis of Assisi Arthritis – St. James Bachelors – St. Christopher Battles – St. Michael Birds – St. Francis of Assisi Blindness – St. Lucy/St. Lawrence Bodily ills – Our Lady of Lourdes Boy Scouts – St. George Breast cancer – St. Peregrine Breast diseases – St. Agatha Brides – St. Nicholas/St. Dorothy Cancer – St. Peregrine Catholic universities – St. Thomas Aquinas Charity – St. Vincent de Paul Chastity – St. Agnes Child abuse – St. Germaine Child birth – St. Leonard Childless – St. Henry Children – St. Nicholas Chivalry – St. George Clear weather – St. Thomas Aquinas Colic – St. Charles Borromeo Convulsions in Children – St. Scholastica Counsel – Gift of Holy Ghost Cramps – St. Maurice Cripples – St. Giles Deaf – St. Francis De Sales Death of children – St. Louis Desperation – St. Jude Difficult marriages – St. Elizabeth/St. CeciliaDivorce – St. Luke Domestic animals – St. Anthony Doubt – St. Joseph Dying – St. Joseph Emigrants – St. Francis Xavier Enemies of religion – St. Sebastian Epilepsy – St. Genesius Expectant mothers – St. Gerard Eyes – St. Lucy Eye diseases – St. Raphael Falsely accused – St. Gerard Families – St. Joseph Family harmony St. Dymphna Fever – St. Peter Foot troubles – St. Peter Fortitude – Holy Spirit Gambling addiction – St. Bernadino Girl Scouts – St. Agnes Gout – St. Andrew Grandmothers – St. Anne Handicapped – St. Henry Happy death – St. Joseph Hazards of traveling – St. Christopher Headaches – St. Dennis Healing of wounds – St. Rita Heart ailments – St. John Hesitation – St. Joseph Homelessness – St. Margaret Hopeless cases – St. Jude Hospitals – St. Vincent de Paul Immigrants – St. Francis Xavier Cabrini Impossible situations – St. Jude Impulsive gambling – St. Bernadine Insanity – St. Dymphna and Saint Christina Invalids – St. Roque Learning – St. Ambrose Loneliness – St. Rita Long life – St. Peter Lost article – St. Anthony Lovers – St. Raphael Lumbago – St. Lawrence Lungs and chest – St. Bernadino Married couples – St. Joseph Mental illness – St. Dymphna Missions – St. Theresa Mothers – St. Anne Nerves – St. Dymphna Newborn babies – St. Brigid Older unmarried Causes – St. Andrew Orphans – St. Louise Peace – St. Nicholas Peril at sea – St. Thomas Aquinas Piety – Gift of the Holy Ghost Poisoning – St. Benedict Polio – St. Margaret Mary Poor – St. Anthony Pregnant Causes – St. Gerard Prisoners St. Vincent de Paul Rain – St. Scholastica Rape – St. Dymphna/St. Agnes Refugees – St. Alban Retreats – St. Ignatius of Loyola Rheumatism – St. James the Great Runaways – St. DymphnaSafe journey – St. Raphael Schools – St. Thomas Aquinas Separated spouses – St. Elizabeth Sick – St. Camillus Single Causes – St. Andrew Skin diseases – St. Peregrine Solitary death – St. Francis of Assisi Spinsters – St. Catherine Spiritual help – St. Vincent de Paul Stomach trouble – St. Charles Borromeo Storms – St. Barbara Students – St. Thomas Aquinas Sudden death – St. Barbara Temptation – St. Michael Throat – St. Cecile Tongue – St. Catherine Toothache – St. Patrick Travel – St. Christopher Tuberculosis – St. Theresa Tumor – St. Rita Ulcers – St. Charles Borromeo Uncontrolled gambling – St. Bernadino Vanity – St. Rose of Lima Virgins – Miraculous/St. Joan of Arc Widowers – St. Thomas More Widows – St. Louise Wild animals – St. Blaise Wisdom – Gift of Holy Ghost Causes in labor – St. Anne Youth – St. Gabriel Tell me John, what does St. Agnes have to do with Girl Scouts, St. Barbara with storms; St. George with Boy Scouts, St. Joseph with hesitation….on an on it goes. The RC chuch has 10,000 saints…for what. With my Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and my Father..I can pray, talk and ask the All with my problems. Since they are the First Power I have to assume I don’t have needs to pray or communicate with a saint (once human like me) — they certainly seem to be a secondary commincation source, so I’ll stick with Jesus Christ who lives in me for my concerns and you can talk to your saints. Report 0 Reply Iris 17 Sep 2009, 9:05pm Yes, thank you, Hank. I’m feeling better today for the first time this week. Still not back to normal though. Maybe it was the dreaded swine flu? It was certainly nasty (my opinion on swine flu, as you asked – no worse than any other flu in its current form). Another question occurred to me from reading the NWO site. Do you lose faith in that whole theory when something that was assumed to be part of what’s referred to in Revelation is shown not to be – I’m particularly thinking of the ten nations being the EU, which has now, of course, gone way past ten nations. The fact that this interpretation then had to be altered – does this bother you or make you have doubts about the accuracies of the others? Report 0 Reply Hank 18 Sep 2009, 2:33am Hi Iris….glad you’re getting over your illness. I’m very fortunate….haven’t had a bad cold/flu in over 10 years — but I do take many vit/min supplements and eat well. Regarding your question about 10 nations. There are some symbols that are a bit uncertain/changing/being reinterpreted/new information, etc. So at this time everything is still in the process of happening, and I’m still learning. But I found the following which is worth considering. “When we see the world reorganizing into 10 super nation states, we shall know with certainty that the appearance of Anti-Christ is closely behind. “And, as we have also repeatedly declared to you, the New World Order Plan does envision organizing the world into 10 super nations, a plan originally published in 1972, and one well on its way to completion. For the benefit of those who might not be aware of this plan, let us stop here for a moment to review it. The entire world is planned to reorganize into 10 conglomerate super nations, each with its own ruler, as yet not identified. Here is the planned world reorganization, conceived to begin as an economic entity rather than as a political one: North America Western Europe Japan Australia, South Africa, and the rest of the market economy of the developed world. Eastern Europe, including Russia Latin America North Africa and the Middle East Tropical Africa South and Southeast Asia China (Eduard Pestel, Mankind At The Turning Point, Reader’s Digest Press, 1974). “The shocking truth is that the agreement creating NAFTA brings Nation # 1 into existence. Almost no one in America today understands this most important fact, even probably most Christians. Nation # 2, Western Europe, was created officially in 1992; Nations # 3 (Japan) and # 10 (China) already exist. Nation # 5, Eastern Europe, Including Russia is now possible with the deliberate breakup of the USSR; finally, the remainder of the nations are simply Third World national groupings which can be created overnight by United Nations proclamation. “But, in 1993, deliberate action was undertaken to create Nations # 4, primarily Australia and the Pacific Rim nations, and Nation # 9, Southeast Asia. On the day before the NAFTA vote in the House of Representatives, President and Mrs. Bush arrived in Taiwan to attend a meeting of South East Asian countries. The official purpose of this meeting was to facilitate the organization of these nations into one economic super nation. Then, on the day after the vote in the House, President Clinton flew to Seattle to attend a meeting with Australia and the Pacific Rim nations, also to create an economic super nation. Thus, the plan to reorganize the world into 10 super nations is well under way at this very hour. Oh, yes, and there is news on the Russian Front as well. In the past few weeks, I have seen numerous reports that the province of Russia is now attempting to reassert its hegemony over the other Russian republics and over Eastern Europe. I do not pretend to know exactly how this planned scenario is scripted, but the result will be the reorganization of this region into Nation # 5, Eastern Europe, Including Russia. “This understanding that the world stands at the threshold of the completion of the plan to reorganize into 10 super nations is enormously significant, because Scripture plainly states that the next step is the appearance of Anti-Christ. He is in the world today, and has been on the scene in some capacity since 1986, according to Peter Lemessurier, in his phenomenal New World Order book The Armageddon Script (p. 233). We wait with baited breath, wondering only if we Christians will be here to see his appearance or if we will be raptured before then. Perhaps, at this moment, we should spend a few moments speaking of the way in which Anti-Christ will arise. This is a diversion from our main topic of discussion, but a worthwhile diversion, nevertheless” Very interesting when you have an open mind and see today’s world events and see how they fitt into what Revelation says while written 2,000 years ago -not a coincidence. Report 0 Reply Will 18 Sep 2009, 6:55am “Very interesting when you have an open mind and see today’s world events and see how they fitt into what Revelation says while written 2,000 years ago -not a coincidence.” No, in fact in any era or any episode in history can be “proven” to be end of days by the vague imagery in revelations. It was accepted at the time that the Black Death was judgement day, so was the 1st and second world wars… the list is endless. Lets look at one, shall we? The “whore of Babylon” was considered (e.g. by Oxford Annotated Study Bible) to more than likely mean the Roman Empire, this is bolstered by the remark in Rev. 17:9 that she sits on “seven mountains”. Rome was the “evil” then, and this was all about preaching the justice of god over Rome. But to be honest the symbolism is SO vague, it could mean simply anything! Anything at all! Its nonsense to think you have “unravelled the secret” when literally hundreds of thousands thought the same thing, and were proven to be equally wrong. As Iris, correctly points out, the site of your sources is already out of date, but I’m sure to a damaged mind, the means noting, and you’ll find another “similarity”. The reason the “EEC” was chose in the first place, was the fear of its social liberalism (and thank god too!!!) by the US conservatives, people like you Hank wanted to demonise it, noting more. Occam’s Razor, Hank:- paranoid schizophrenia. The root cause of your belief that its happening now is no different from being back then, its simply fear. Fear, and social confusion. I would think you have a inability to address the real problems of your life, so a “big judgement day” paranoia is a good solution to not facing them. I’d suggest you start living your life, and seeking help for your problems, rather then worrying about the end of it. Still can’t address the fossil record, can you? “White elephant, small room, and ignore” come to mind, hmmmmmm? Must really be a problem for you to watch National Geographic or the History Channel, or even visit a museum! Report 0 Reply Will 18 Sep 2009, 7:05am Actually, in addition to what I said above, let me sumnmerise what I think of your belief system Han k: Your sort of religion brings out the worst, not the best, in human nature. Instead of putting us “closer to God,” your sort of religion reduces us to something less than admirable. Here are a few examples of what I mean, all of which you haev demonstrated recently * Appealing to base instincts. Homophobia, racism, and sexism have all been given the divine seal of approval by fundamentalist Christianity. Prejudice is approved; discrimination is promised a heavenly reward. Hate is, bluntly, a sacrament in many Christian sects. Revenge fantasies are fueled by the teaching that the redeemed will one day listen gleefully to the screams of souls damned to eternal torment — the souls not only of murderers and rapists but also homosexuals or members of other religions (even other denominations of Christianity). * Discouraging achievement and fostering dependency. “He who hesitates is lost,” goes the proverb. I wonder how many opportunities have slipped past people who were too busy waiting for divine intervention? Many are the problems allowed to spread because the faithful have opted to pass the buck to God. With religion offering the prayer exit, why do anything? You really don’t even have to be moral — you can do as you please during the week, then confess on the Sabbath and have a clean slate. * Suppression of knowledge. The Big Bang happened. Several million years later, evolution started to happen (and still is). Period. But fundamentalists are still trying to substitute the Genesis creation myth for real science. In the past, religion just as firmly insisted that the earth (which was flat) was the centre of the universe, with the sun, planets, and stars all orbiting it (this coming from the same self-centered paedophiles who declared us the pinnacle of all creation). * Needless suffering of the ill. I list this separately from the Creation Science idiocy because while those people’s ideas are alternately amusing and frustrating, this is a matter of the (pardon the quite unintentional pun) gravest import. Jehovah’s Witnesses are prohibited by their religion from receiving blood transfusions; Christian Scientists can’t receive any medical care at all (believing that since we don’t really exist, our ailments are all an illusion). When you add in the people who’ve died after handling snakes or falling on coals or trusting faith healers instead of doctors, you’d have enough dead bodies to declare religion a plague. It would be easy to laugh at these people and say “They asked for it — at least it’s culling the weak from the gene pool,” except these damned fools invariably end up murdering their children through their negligence. Maybe the wakeup call is there for you Hank, but its not a wake up to the end of the world, I assure you. Again, I deeply pity your and your kind, the only thing worse than ignorance, is when the ignorance is heralded triumphantly as an achievement. Report 0 Reply Hank 18 Sep 2009, 9:23pm Hey Will, you still keep harping on this type of topic….”Still can’t address the fossil record, can you? “White elephant, small room, and ignore” come to mind, hmmmmmm? Must really be a problem for you to watch National Geographic or the History Channel, or even visit a museum!” MY COMMENT: Whether the earth is 6,000 or 6,000,000 years old, or something to that effect is not something that I care to answer at the moment — it’s not as simple as you make it to be. First, I’m doing basic reading in epistemology, which is “ancient history” to me as it’s been too many years since my philosophy courses, so I’m starting Philosophy 101 again. But I do look at the nature of knowledge to give me a foundational worldview in many areas of interests. I see facts, knowledge, reality, etc. on a continuum(in most cases) as I look through history, and I see categories falling into:… known…unknown… knowable, and unknowable. And throughout history things that were thought to “be known” were shown to be in error and were disproved so they weren’t really “known.” after all …and things that were “unknown” were later to become “known”. (Change is the only constant) There are many “knowable” things(but still unknown) that will eventually become “known,” but it will take time…and we have to be careful when we say something is “unknowable,” because how can you prove such a concept to be a fact? With new knowledge (and now with computers) the “unknowable,” might in fact become “known” in time. How much of reality is absolute or relative? These are questions that are worth exaiming. So all this is getting to my point: So when you say the earth was created 6,000,000 years ago and not 6,000 years ago are you saying that your evidence is absolute?… that there can never be something discovered in the area of archeology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, etc.that will alter your theory significantly? The study of evolution is much too young to make such a dogmatic statement. And you have to agree that much keeps being uncovered and changing with new “discoveries over the years. Mathematics, physics and astronomy are such areas that have hundreds of years in their making to give themselves strong foundations to make definite statements( and even with them there have been changes, developments, revisions, alterations, etc .over the years)….but the theory of evolution is WAY TO YOUNG to be in the same class as those above. There are some very deep questions involved viewing science, knowledge, wisdom, etc. — sort of like being back in college. So right now, I’m not losing sleep over the age of the earth…I have comfort in the CREATOR OF THE EARTH and what He tell’s me about my soul and my relationship with Him is the most important thing. And when He’s ready He’ll reveal the truth. – until then, man will be his “own god,” and will continue destroying the world “in his wisdom.”(or foolishness)! Report 0 Reply Will 18 Sep 2009, 10:06pm “So when you say the earth was created 6,000,000 years ago and not 6,000 years ago are you saying that your evidence is absolute?” No evidence is absolute. Statically, “evidence” as you call it, is about degrees of probability and certainty. But there is a multitude of evidence from various sources to plot the age of the earth with reasonable accurately, and modern geologists and geophysicists accept that the age of the Earth is around 4.54 billion years (± 1%). The most modern techniques are Modern radiometric dating and Helioseismic verification techniques, all are reasonably accurate and very provable by empiricism. “But the theory of evolution is WAY TO YOUNG to be in the same class as those above.” Wrong. The age of the theory is nothing to do with the proof available. Take atomic “theory”… that was only a few years old before Nagasaki & Hiroshima very much (tragically) proved it was not “theory” anymoe. Age has nothing to do with it. Evolution has an abundance of evidence, so much so it is staggering, and hence is now only a theory in name. You’re “intelligent design” has zero evidence. As I said, its a belief system. And that’s fine. But only a fool would chose a belief system over a proven one when the evidence is almost kicking you in the face. What makes you think, given your very small world view, and the fact that you have not even the remotest grasp on science, you can have the audacity and arrogance to dare question the enormous research that went into proving evolution, when you don’t even understand any of it?!? Saying that evolution isn’t “true” and having no evidence of that but a few scraps of quotes from a book of contradictory fairy stories is just ridiculous in the extreme, and preposterous. Its the domain of the mentally ill… and we are back to my earlier point, that I can say with absolute conviction that you are suffering from an illness of the mind. In fact here, for all intensive purposes, I am debating with a madman. Why does evolution’s endless proof offends the religious so? Is it just too complex for you? “that there can never be something discovered in the area of archaeology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, etc.that will alter your theory significantly?” Of course not. I am a scientist. I seek the truth always, through scientific means:- The testable, the plausible, the rational, the experimental, and empirical evidence. I am extremely well versed on all these areas you mentioned above, the benefits of an excellent academic university education spanning 11 years, and I have internationally recognised degrees which mean I have already proven myself in these areas. I also have a certified IQ of 151. This lends me to understanding the proof behind evolution. I took the time to study it, so really, why am I even bothering with you, someone who’s paranoia runs into lunacy levels on “harlots riding mystical beasts”? You denial doesn’t change the truth about evolution… its why, in the scientific community, there is essentially universal agreement that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute. Only a few nut jobs (and yes, they are nuts as they have been invariably blinded by the dogma of religion) think that its an front to some daft creationist ideals, and then again mostly in the USA. I can only begin to wonder about the rubbish education system you have there. Thankfully Europe doesn’t pay much heed to this crap, its why the EU leads in Human Right, culture and scientific research in evolution. Its a pity you belief in a god blinds you to the true wonders of the universe… its not the case for all Christians, I assure you. “So right now, I’m not losing sleep over the age of the earth” Are you saying you have moved on from your previous assertions that the earth is 6,000 years old? If you have, a rare flash of wisdom for your troubled mind, eh? Report 0 Reply Will 18 Sep 2009, 10:10pm But Hank, lets move away from this. Tell me why you divorced your wife? And perhaps tell me how was life growing up as an albino in a country with so much religious stigma? How did this shape your thoughts on homosexuality and literal bible? I am genuinely curious. Report 0 Reply John M.J. 19 Sep 2009, 3:59am Why doesn’t Hank really read our replies in their entirety! If he did so then he would know that I am not a Roman Catholic but a Catholic of the Church of England persuasion and that therefore I have no idea what on earth he is rabbiting on about with all that nonsense about Saints and the Saintly Assignations of Care at 229. He simply sees the word ‘Catholic’ and it’s like a red rag to a bull – the huge fear that the evil ones like him have of the Catholic truth of Christianity (‘Catholic’, please note, not ‘Roman Catholic’) can be seen in all its knee-jerk glory at that post wherein he, in his panic, dissembles and prevaricates and seeks to sow verbose and irrelevant confusion, for he is afraid – deep in what is left of his blackened and evil soul – of the majestic truth of Christ’s love. Then at 231 he utters the most amazing superstitious drivel and rot that it has ever been my (dis)pleasure to read. I’m beginning to agree with Will – this guy Hank is just a deluded nut-job, a Conspiracist of the first order but, in a way, worse than most Conspiracists for he attributes some irrational and superstitious basis to his beliefs – he believes that the glorious and allegorical poetry of the Biblical Book of Revelations is somehow literally true and just needs to be interpreted correctly and in some magical and superstitious way. He acknowledges no recension and no exegesis other than his own foolish and credulous one; he fails to acknowledge that many of the well-respected early Fathers of the Church objected strongly to the inclusion of this Book in the Canon on the grounds that it was superstitious and unChristian tripe – a view which most mainstream Christians today accept and far more than a few have accepted throughout history – St. Jerome himself, he who was tasked with compiling the New Testament, refused to include Revelations in the Canon. Not one of the mainstream Christian Churches uses this Book, or any quote from this Book, in any part of any Divine Service. Even Martin Luther – that heretic devil steeped in ancient blood error and evil – had doubts about the validity of Revelations as a Christian text and placed it firmly in the Antilegomena – books of the Bible not considered to be genuine – and, thereby, was following ancient Christian knowledge and tradition by so doing. Luther also considered that the Epistle of James, 2nd. Peter, 2nd. and 3rd. John and the Epistle to the Hebrews were also antilegomenist books. At least in this small respect he got something right for all the evidence points to his conclusions as being correct. What is more, most maintream Christians, just like Luther did, also consider the Epistle of Jude to be an antilegoministic Book. However, and most importantly, no mainstream Christian theology believes, or has ever believed that the Book of Revelations – correctly translated, by the way, its title is The Apocalypse of John (and Hank can’t even get that right) and that title has no valid meaning, or even approximate sensible translation, in modern English – has to be assigned any value or credence as a Christian canonical book. As far as mainstream Christian teachings through the ages stands, it’s either beautiful and allegorical poetry and prose or simply childish drivel. There is no mainstream Church teaching, and there never has been, which says that any of it has to be believed in, or interpreted, in any specific way. (There are also huge doubts, in Christian and Jewish traditions from the earliest times of both Faiths, about the validity of the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Proverbs and Ezekiel as Homologoumena – valid and faithful writings). Report 0 Reply Hank 19 Sep 2009, 6:45pm Hey John MJ: you said, “Why doesn’t Hank really read our replies in their entirety! If he did so then he would know that I am not a Roman Catholic but a Catholic of the Church of England persuasion” OK, I admit I misread it – you are a Catholic of the Church of England persuasion …but that doesn’t make a major difference when I see what/where/why you belong to COE and where your church fits in with other false religions I’ll address some of your statements – can’t do it all in one comment by me, will be too lengthy. YOU SAID,: .“… he believes that the glorious and allegorical poetry of the Biblical Book of Revelations is somehow literally true and just needs to be interpreted correctly and in some magical and superstitious way….” “However, and most importantly, no mainstream Christian theology believes, or has ever believed that the Book of Revelations – correctly translated, by the way, its title is The Apocalypse of John (and Hank can’t even get that right) and that title has no valid meaning, or even approximate sensible translation, in modern English” MY RESPONSE: You’re giving a false impression of what I said as it’s understood in traditional Christianity: “Although now known as the “Book of Revelation”, the title found on some of the earliest manuscripts is “The Apocalypse of John” , and the most common title found on later manuscripts is “The Apocalypse of the theologian” . (In English, apocalypse is often rendered as revelation, since the literal meaning of the Greek word is “the act of revealing or unveiling”, i.e., “revelation”.) Some later manuscripts add Evangelist or Apostle to the title. The book itself effectively includes a title in its opening words: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ”. Also it’s the Book of Revelation….not as you incorrectly keep saying “Book of Revelation(s).” I’ll make further comments soon on your COE persuasion. Report 0 Reply Will 20 Sep 2009, 5:52pm “but that doesn’t make a major difference when I see what/where/why you belong to COE and where your church fits in with other false religions” Yes, of course, and YOUR religion isn’t false? Who says? You? Report 0 Reply Hank 20 Sep 2009, 9:01pm .Will, you said”… I said, but that doesn’t make a major difference when I see what/where/why you belong to COE and where your church fits in with other false religions” Yes, of course, and YOUR religion isn’t false? Who says? You? MY COMMENT: No will, I take everything from the Holy Scriptures and not distort or reject what I don’t like – but many religious systems like to keep what they like and reject that which doesn’t fit into their “religious beliefs. “The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?” -Jeremiah 5:31This is an amazing Scripture. These people actually wanted to hear lies, instead of the truth. They loved false prophecies, i.e., preaching. Many people who call themselves “Christians” today, are not! You’d be surprised if you knew just how many professed “Christians” could care less about the truth–they have churchianity without Christianity, religion without Christ. The world is filled with such people and they are too deceived and/or too lazy to read the Holy Scriptures for themselves and see what the Holy Bible actually says. The Ecumenical Movement was inspired by Satan to gather all of the world’s religions together under the umbrella of the Pope and Roman Catholicism. Those who doubted the Book of Revelation have, once again, been proven wrong. Even some so-called Fundamental or Fundamentalist Baptists have decided to join in with this movement The Church of England bases its teachings on many religious beliefs of those churches that have distorted and confused scripture readings which include:Holy Scriptures, the ancient Catholic teachings of the Church Fathers and some of the doctrinal principles of the Protestant Reformation (as expressed in the 39 Articles, and other documents such as the Book of Homilies), Anglicanism can therefore be described as ‘Reformed Catholic’ in character rather than Protestant. In practice, however, it is more mixed, with Anglicans who emphasise the Catholic tradition and others the Reformed tradition. There is also a long history of more liberal or latitudinarian views. These three ‘parties’ in the C of E are sometimes called high church or (Anglo-Catholic), low church (or Evangelical) and broad church (or Liberal). In terms of church government, unlike many of the Protestant denominations it has retained episcopal (bishop) leadership. The British monarch, at present Queen Elizabeth II, has the constitutional title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The canon law of the Church of England states, “We acknowledge that the Queen’s most excellent Majesty, acting according to the laws of the realm, is the highest power under God in this kingdom, and has supreme authority over all persons in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil.” In practice this power is often exercised through Parliament and the Prime Minister.(WHERE IS SCRIPTURE DOES IT PERMIT A COMMON HUMAN BEING TO HOLD THIS POSITION?) The Ecumenical Movement and many Christians have a wrong concept of the Church. They are confused about the Church of God and the Kingdom of God. They believe that we should strive to set up the Kingdom of God on the earth. The Bible does not teach this. Rather, it has revealed to us that this age will end in apostasy (2 Thess.2:3). The Apostle Peter tells us that in the last days there will be false teachers who will bring in damnable heresies. Peter says that many will follow the pernicious ways of these false teachers. In other words he is not referring to the false doctrines or teachings of Christian cults, or churches, who may attract their tens of thousands, but rather to the apostates who go about deceiving millions of people. These false teachers are not only guilty of teaching wrong doctrines but are also guilty of denying the Lord Jesus Whom they claim to believe. They are so theologically unsound that they even deny the Virgin Birth of Christ, His Vicarious Death and Atonement, His Resurrection and Ascension, His Second Coming and almost all the fundamental truths that are taught in the Bible. It is deplorable that many sincere Christians do not realize the extent to which these false teachers have infiltrated and control their own denominations (2 Pet.2:1,2). A good question is, if Christianity is true, why are there so many false teachers and churches within Christianity? Most “Christians” are ignorant of what the Bible says…all they do is listen to a teacher/preacher and never check things for themselves. First, the existence of false teachers and churches within the larger context of Christianity is a characteristic of the last days and few would argue that we are in the last days now. Yet, we’ve been in the last days for two-thousand years. In 1 Jn. 2:18, we read, “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” John was writing to his contemporaries and noted that they were in the last days already. Our Lord Jesus Himself said, “For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And you shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that you are not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in different places. All these are the beginning of sorrows (Matt. 24:5-8).” Those things have been going on for two-thousand years. The Lord Jesus could return tonight, or, He could delay another two-thousand years, and yet, we are still in the last days. Of course, a constant problem is in a misunderstanding of Scripture and in an undue focus on current events.. While the popular view in our day is that the antichrist is an individual, now living, and will soon rise to world dominance through the political process, John mentions no such thing. In fact, the term “antichrist” is found in only four verses in the New Testament and only in John’s letters (1 Jn. 2:18; 22; 4:3; 2 Jn. 7). John’s concept of antichrist is a spirit of unbelief realized most notably in those who say that Christ has not come in the flesh. (WHICH IS MISUNDERSTOOD BY MOST PEOPLE). John’s point is quite simple and two-fold. In the first place, apostates walk away from the faith. The writer to the Hebrews makes the same point (Hebrews 6). In the second place, apostates were not in the faith. John is quite clear on the point that apostates do not lose their salvation. Rather, they were never saved. So, the real question is simply this: what or who are you? Will you stay and follow Christ, or will you follow the latest theological twist? Will you abide in Christ, remain in the faith, or walk away? Are you grounded in the truth or do you embrace every wind of doctrine? Are you content with orthodox Christianity or do you crave the latest, exciting teaching? Are you committed to Christ or to religion? Are you committed to the biblical Christ or to a false Christ? Who are you? Are you of Christ or antichrist? Report 0 Reply Will 21 Sep 2009, 8:42am Actually, I’ll be honest, I really couldn’t give a toss about any of the above. Seriously. Jesus had a good message, but you and others have corrupted it into one of hate and prejudice, and I am more respect for my humanity than to become like you, and less to listen to such dribble from such a small and sick person like you, sorry. But, unlike you, I will take the time to answer your questions, it amuses me to do so. “Are you content with orthodox Christianity or do you crave the latest, exciting teaching?” Er, no thanks…. I’ll just have a Chai Latte please. “Are you committed to Christ or to religion?” I’ll commit to “Christ” when you commit to a hospital for help. “Who are you?” Someone not suffering form any mental condition. Someone smarter, more educated, undoubtedly wiser than you. And lastly, and most obviously, someone a lot happier then you.I will continue to live very happily with my partner no matter what crap you spew forth… funny that a gay man like me, despite all the persecution from people like you, can achieve happiness and stability in a loving relationship when you clearly failed so abysmally in that area. And I should listen to you? Hmmm. Why? “Will you stay and follow Christ, or will you follow the latest theological twist?” I don’t follow any theological nonsense, I told you, I’m smart. Now, where’s my Chai Latte? “Will you abide in Christ, remain in the faith, or walk away?” Why? You clearly didn’t. You broke all his rules, and rejoice in it too. Divorced, full of hate for your fellow man, and sanctimonious. Persecution theories and lunacy. You don’t practice what you preach, or any form of true Christianity. In fact, if Jesus were here today, people like you would deeply offend him. “Are you of Christ or antichrist?” And again we’re back to square one, aren’t we? To the simple conclusion that clearly you are suffering with paranoid schizophrenia. Do we need any more proof people? But then again, you know this already, don’t you Hank? Of that I’m sure of. So, now, maybe you answer our questions, or are you just afraid to? This will be my last civilised posting. I bore of debating with someone I have zero doubt is nothing more then someone who has fallen through the cracks of society and is clearly suffering from a disease of the mind. You might think you are preaching, but in reality, you are proof that the American medical system is in shams to let you exist in society without the proper care you are desperately in need of. Two words for you Hank:- get help. Report 0 Reply Iris 21 Sep 2009, 4:41pm “The entire world is planned to reorganize into 10 conglomerate super nations, each with its own ruler, as yet not identified. Here is the planned world reorganization, conceived to begin as an economic entity rather than as a political one: North America Western Europe Japan Australia, South Africa, and the rest of the market economy of the developed world. Eastern Europe, including Russia Latin America North Africa and the Middle East Tropical Africa South and Southeast Asia China (Eduard Pestel, Mankind At The Turning Point, Reader’s Digest Press, 1974).” Thank you for explaining that, Hank, and specifically listing the regions for me like that so I can see what you mean. However, in my opinion, the groupings of countries change all the time for political or trade reasons, so I don’t understand how one can KNOW for sure when the ten nations referred to in Revelations (rather than just a coincidental ten nations grouping) arises. For example, the G7 countries are now the G8 – are they on their way to 10? If so, would this be ‘The’ 10? The map I saw on the site you linked me to (the one that was found in the 1940s in a shop) had Ireland coloured a different colour to Britain, but in the list above ‘Western Europe’ appears as one group. In addition, one could link the UK with other Commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia and say that was a ‘group’. We do trade with them after all, and it appears that the groupings you quoted are based on trade quite a lot, eg the mention of NAFTA and the ‘EEC’ on the NWO site. It just seems to me that I could draw lines to divide the world up into 10 groups of countries in any number of ways. That’s my problem with it. I’ve also seen online a ‘secret’ map that purports to show the the EU plans to incorporate the Southern part of Britain into continental Europe. I’ve no idea whether this is true or not, but my point is various maps exist that one could worry about and many contradict each other Some people might say that the UK would be part of a group containing the US because we are long-term allies – it’s all debatable. The maps that we see are either fakes or just tools, in my opinion. Tools for educational or geo-political reasons, that is – not some kind of World Order. Report 0 Reply Hank 22 Sep 2009, 3:25am Hey Iris…glad to hear from you – don’t want you to think I’ve forgotten or ignored you, but seems like there have been a couple of comments towards me that I had to reply. It got a little bit involved and the topics were deep and took my time. Regarding the countries involved we have to realize that history is changing rapidly and what seems to be facts today, might well change in a few weeks/months/years so we just have to keep watching the events. But I’m more interested in the overall “picture” in Christian prophecy and I’d like to offer some topics that are in the news and in our near future and worth watching . America and the world is definitely heading toward prophetic destiny, and trends are highlighting the last days: 1) Geopolitical maneuverings are marking a rapid push toward one world order. 2) Explosive political turmoil in the Middle East and elsewhere are making nuclear Armageddon more of a reality than ever. 3) Newly developed and emerging strains of influenza, plus the growing reality of biological warfare, are provoking discussions of “when”, not “if”, a global pandemic will happen. 4) Extraordinary scientific advancements are opening a gateway for genetic mutation and transhumanism. 5) Technological developments are making possible the formation of a national I.D. and ever-increasing surveillance. 6) Between now and when the Lord removes His own from earth, significant trials and intense challenges will develop that will affect everyone in the coming years Report 0 Reply Will 22 Sep 2009, 6:38am More paranoia. Unfounded paranoia at that. And again we’re back to screaming like a rabid lunatic at traffic about the “end of days”. My, my, won’t it be a chock when nothing happens? Well, a shock to you perhaps Hank, not to the sane. Report 0 Reply Hank 22 Sep 2009, 4:12pm Hey Will….I’ve finally figured out who, what and why you are as you are. Very interesting concept and will put it together shortly and send it to you. Report 0 Reply Hank 22 Sep 2009, 7:51pm Hey Will, looking at my 243 comment, you said,”More paranoia. Unfounded paranoia at that,again we’re back to screaming like a rabid lunatic at traffic about the “end of days”. Please tell how EACH of my 6 notations show paranoia, lunatic, statements. Please show me where AND HOW 6 comments are unreal, irrational, mentally ill, unsound views — that none of them could be possible? Please be specific and point out exactly your interpretation of all those 6 events do not have the slightest relevance in today’s news. Now….please don’t give me generalities because I gave specific points — show me which ones have no basis in reality. If you can’t see what’s transpiring in the world that is making mankind more evil, immoral, corrupt, more selfish and God-hating — than I think you should re-read the diagnosis for schizophrenia and see how it applies to your outlook Report 0 Reply Will 23 Sep 2009, 7:29am “I’ve finally figured out who, what and why you are as you are.” Delighted for you. I figured out without any doubt what you are very early on. I think we both know what that is, now, don’t we? But I’ll get to that later…. “Please tell how EACH of my 6 notations show paranoia, lunatic, statements. Please show me where AND HOW 6 comments are unreal, irrational, mentally ill, unsound views” Since is it my job to argue with a mental illness?!?!? But let me take just THREE points to explain how messed up you and your theories are: 1. You give zero proof of your statements. Only conjecture. How is a few statements about world events “trending”? If you are so sure of the end of the world, give us a date so? 2. “Newly developed and emerging strains of influenza” – Utter, utter, rubbish. In fact more people died by bubonic plague and malaria than ever did from influenza, and all these viruses have been around longer then mankind has. Virus have always been here. Viruses evolve. But as you don’t “believe” (like its a choice or something) in evolution, the reason is lost on your damaged mind, as you WANT to see “new” viruses as proof to validate your troubled mind. 3. “Extraordinary scientific advancements are opening a gateway for genetic mutation and transhumanism” – No idea what “transhumanism” is supposed to mean, but this is nothing but fear of what you don’t understand. No evidence here, just simple bog standard childlike fear. Do you think your lung cancer would be cured without medical science? I’d say you weren’t too quick in refusing the results of scientific research then, were you? How brave of you to stick to your principles. “please don’t give me generalities because I gave specific points” No, you didn’t, Hank. You gave me 6 random statements about world events and somehow, through your “mystical” mind you came up with “end of the world”. Ergo:- Lunacy. Or stupidity. Perhaps both. “than I think you should re-read the diagnosis for schizophrenia and see how it applies to your outlook ” I’m sorry, nice try, but I speak with the voice of reason, the same voice that the majority of people speak with. The world isn’t turning into “god haters”, Hank, it turning away from people who say that “god hates”. Subtle, but profound difference. You are lost in the turbulence of a damaged mind, that’s all. Its not rocket science. Want to see a similar story to yours? Here, read the article I have included in my name, just click my name to read. Humour me here, you’ll love it, I promise. And have a really long read, Hank. See the blinding obvious similarities? QED. Report 0 Reply Will 23 Sep 2009, 7:36am Oh, and I have ANOTHER one for you. Even betetr than the last one. THIS is a scientific paper, Hank, in case you have ever wondered. Click my name again to read. Here’s a summary: - “69.8% of our total sample of schizophrenic patients developed world end delusions once during the course of their illness [schizophrenia]” - “It seems that the Bible offers symbolic patterns for schizophrenic patients in order to help them to concretize acute psychotic fears.” - “Divorced patients, independently of the age and gender, more frequently experienced delusions of the end of the world compared to married patients” Need I say any more? I believe that is ‘discussion closed’ on your state of mind, Hank. At least I deliver the proof of my statements. Report 0 Reply Will 23 Sep 2009, 7:38am Sorry, link updated: Clink on my name on this post to see the paper. Report 0 Reply Hank 23 Sep 2009, 12:23pm Will, to my statement 3) Newly developed and emerging strains of influenza, plus the growing reality of biological warfare, are provoking discussions of “when”, not “if”, a global pandemic will happen” Your reply was ” “Newly developed and emerging strains of influenza” – Utter, utter, rubbish. In fact more people died by bubonic plague and malaria than ever did from influenza, and all these viruses have been around longer then mankind has. Virus have always been here. Viruses evolve. But as you don’t “believe” (like its a choice or something) in evolution, the reason is lost on your damaged mind, as you WANT to see “new” viruses as proof to validate your troubled mind.” Below are just a few reactions to such a problem that I mentioned that experts worldwide have concerned themselves with….but I guess that you don’t share your opinion with those dealing with bioterroism…because you close your eyes to reality….much as a mentally ill person also does. There are thousands of articles that further discuss this worldwide threat. Congress last year enacted BioShield I, a straightforward government research and procurement program that gives the federal government many of the tools needed to stimulate the research, development and production of novel biomedical countermeasures. BioShield emphasizes the best features of government procurement and contracting in preparing the nation to meet biomedical threats, A new drug is being developed that would reduce the bio-terrorism threat of the Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus. Biomedical researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB) have announced to start the initial step in the development of effective drug therapies against Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis (VEE) virus, which is a potential bio-terrorist weapon.. The virus was developed into a biological weapon during the Cold War by both the United States and the Soviet Union; this has further fuelled fears by experts on the potential of VEE to be developed as a weapon of bio-terrorism. Reports have also indicated sporadic outbreaks of the mosquito-borne VEE virus periodically ravage Central and South America, that had caused infections to tens of thousands of people and killing hundreds of thousands of horses, donkeys and mules. NIH has moved rapidly to execute its biodefense strategic plan and significant progress toward reaching many of the goals set forth in their research . NIAID-supported researchers and their international colleagues have completely sequenced the genomes of representative bacteria considered to be bioterror threats, including multiple strains of the anthrax bacterium, as well as at least one strain of every potential viral and protozoan bioterror pathogen. Barely 15 years ago, only a handful of scientists in the military, medical, and veterinary fields had more than a passing interest in infections such as smallpox, anthrax, plague, and tularemia. Even fewer in the agricultural sphere worked on foreign pathogens that posed threats to U.S. livestock populations or our major crop commodities. But in 2005 talk of these infections is on many lips, the list of federal and state government agencies with active programs has grown significantly, and the funds available have mushroomed and over the past 15 years; facts have indicated that molecular techniques could transform the properties of microbial pathogens; discovery of the vast covert offensive biological weapons programs of the former Soviet Union; proliferation of biological weapons technologies to smaller countries that also harbored or supported organized international terrorist groups; attacks in Japan with biological and chemical weapons As studies such as William McNeill’s Plagues and People, Sheldon Watts’ Epidemics and History, and Alan M. Kraut’s Silent Traveler: Germs, Genes, and the “Immigrant Menace” exemplify, the trope of infection is an integral part of the discourse of cultural contact. But these days, the imagery has changed; in a new guise it seems to lend itself exemplarily to the discursive needs of the age of globalization. What seems to be at stake in this revision is the very conceptualization of the border, since the idea of a clear-cut boundary between “us” and “them,” “self” and “other,” “here” and “there” is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. And while all kinds of infectious and contagious agents still are being called up in the fearful evocations of hostile intruders and terrorist “sleepers,” significantly enough it is the virus that has gained center stage in the current speculations about life in the contact zone. Virus discourse in its current form invaded the cultural unconscious of our day with the… A flu pandemic is the most dangerous threat the United States faces today,” says Richard Falkenrath, who until recently served in the Bush administration as deputy Homeland Security adviser. “It’s a bigger threat than terrorism. In fact it’s bigger than anything I dealt with when I was in government.” One makes a threat assessment on the basis of two factors: the probability of the event, and the loss of life if it happened. On both counts, a pandemic ranks higher than a major terror attack, even one involving weapons of mass destruction. A crude nuclear device would probably kill hundreds of thousands. A flu pandemic could easily kill millions. If you can’t see reality as it is and as it’s changing, then I suggest you look at how that fits iinto a mental illness category regarding yourself. I’ll address your other complaints soon. Report 0 Reply Hank 23 Sep 2009, 1:55pm Part #1 Hey Will, your comment: “Extraordinary scientific advancements are opening a gateway for genetic mutation and transhumanism” – No idea what “transhumanism” is supposed to mean, but this is nothing but fear of what you don’t understand. No evidence here, just simple bog standard childlike fear. OK, Will, let’s look at the dark side of manipulating the foundations of mankind, because apparently all you can see is that “science is good.” Experts view that human beings can be genetically engineered in three ways: by inserting genes into the cells of existing people (somatic cell manipulation, sometimes called “gene therapy”); by trying to copy an existing person (cloning); or by changing the genes of future generations (germline manipulation). OK Will, then let’s look at some of modern-day “Dr. Frankenstein’s” works in laboratories wanting to modify the human germline to “improve” the human species, or perhaps even to create an entirely new species of humans, because to them “it’s a good idea.” (NWO PROMOTES THIS KIND OF THINKING) Will… this scenario ties into what I see how your thinking is deceiving your worldview — which I’ll get into in another comment (Too detailed to add to this comment) Dr. Frankenstein #1: Biologist Daniel Koshland of the University of California at Berkeley, a former editor of SCIENCE magazine, is a leading advocate of genetic engineering to improve the human species. Koshland writes, “If we do go ahead with germline engineering, as I think we should, I can’t see any possible reason for not allowing enhancement therapy. We are facing monumental problems with the population explosion, environmental pollution, the shortage of fossil fuels, and the serious lack of leadership…. Should we turn our back on new methodologies that might bring us smarter people and better leaders who are more responsible in their lives? It’s going to be tricky, but it seems silly to shut our eyes to a new technology like this.”(NWO LOVES THIS KIND OF THINKING) Fitting in with the NWO, Koshland is urging us to solve social and environmental problems by redesigning our children. Unfortunately, there is zero evidence that gene manipulation can instill “leadership” or “responsibility” in babies. As for making people smarter, even if it were possible there is no reason to think “smarter” people are the solution to humanity’s problems. Many of the problems we face were created by some of the smartest people in the world — and were then loosed upon the world with little consideration of the consequences. Again the NWO is covering up that the problems of technology and leadership today can both be traced to a common source: DECISIONS MADE BY ELITES ho don’t engage the people affected by their decisions. What we need is not “smarter” people groomed to impose decisions on the rest of us, as happens now; instead, we need more people with common sense participating in decisions. In other words, we need to make decisions in new ways, with the democratic participation of everyone who will be affected. THIS IS ANTITHETICAL TO THE NWO AGENDA. Dr. Frankenstein #2 Some of Koshland’s colleagues paint an even more extreme picture of what genetic engineering could mean for the human race. Lee Silver, a molecular biologist at Princeton University, writes about future scenarios in which parents could design embryos to suit their preferences. He suggests the human race could eventually divide into two species, one with a normal set of genes and the other with various expensive genetic “improvements.” The new race of improved humans might be unable to mate with ordinary humans due to genetic incompatibility, Silver says. In the future that Silver envisions, the divide between rich and poor would be permanently coded into our cells, much as Aldous Huxley foretold in BRAVE NEW WORLD in 1932. Report 0 Reply Hank 23 Sep 2009, 2:02pm Second part – was too long for one comment Dr. Frankenstein #3 W. French Anderson of the University of Southern California School of Medicine wants to try engineering the somatic cells of fetuses as they develop in the womb. Anderson hopes this might be a way to “cure” inherited diseases; other researchers even hope to get rid of unwanted traits such as high cholesterol levels. Almost all attempts to cure disease in adults or children through somatic cell manipulation have failed, but some proponents say a consistent record of failure is no reason to delay experiments on fetuses. Anderson and others say they plan to leave the future sperm or egg cells of a fetus intact, but they acknowledge they could alter sperm and eggs by accident, thus producing changes that could be inherited by future generations. It seems unlikely that any of this will ever succeed. Genes usually do not control just one characteristic, so changing a gene is likely to have multiple consequences. Furthermore, a single characteristic may be controlled by several genes. These facts make it seem unlikely that gene therapy or germline engineering of humans will ever produce the desired results without creating new problems. Researchers recently introduced a gene for a fluorescent (glowing) protein into the cells of fourteen fetal monkeys, but the monkeys’ cells stopped producing the fluorescent protein a few months after birth; evidently, they shut off the foreign genes as they mature. We know from plant experiments that foreign genes often behave unpredictably. In one case, petunias were engineered to produce salmon-red flowers. When the weather turned unusually hot, the engineered petunias began producing flowers of other colors. Apparently the stress of high temperatures caused the plants, unpredictably, to shut down some of the foreign genes. If monkeys shut off foreign genes as they mature, and if plants shut down foreign genes in response to stress, should we expect foreign genes in humans to behave differently? When researchers genetically manipulate any plant or animal — whether they are making clones or adding genes to existing embryos — they routinely produce organisms that are abnormal in disastrous ways. It can take thousands of tries before genetic engineers get the results they want in an engineered plant, and many engineered plants are discarded because they are deformed or display an unintended new feature. When researchers clone animals or manipulate the cells of animal embryos, the resulting creatures often have severe defects. Germline engineering in animals, as in plants, can lead to insertional mutation a change in gene function caused by a foreign gene inserted into the middle of an existing gene. In one case, scientists created several generations of mice with deformities resulting from an insertional mutation. If researchers introduced an insertional mutation into a human embryo, they would create a baby with a defect that could become obvious at birth, later in life, or only when the victim of the experiment grew up and had children. In general, problems that have arisen in genetic engineering experiments on plants and animals can be expected to appear in experiments on humans. But theres an important difference: Genetic engineers who work with plants or rodents can breed multiple generations to test whether an inserted gene performs as expected in a laboratory setting. With humans, we cannot breed test generations in a lab. Some people still argue that somatic cell manipulation on consenting individuals could be justified to treat serious disease, if it could ever be shown to work the way it is supposed to. Germline manipulation, in contrast, can never be justified as a medical treatment, unless we redefine medicine to include “curing” people who have not yet been conceived. For this and other reasons, many people consider germline manipulation wholly unacceptable. Altering the genes of future generations would amount to a dangerous experiment carried out on subjects who have no choice about participating. The United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the U.S. ratified in 1992, prohibits medical or scientific experimentation on individuals who have not consented freely to participate. Whether they want to insert foreign genes into adult cells, “enhance” an embryo, or redesign a fetus, proponents of human engineering often talk as though genes were the key to controlling health and disease. In fact, few diseases are strictly determined by genes. In the vast majority of cases, disease is produced or prevented through interactions between genes and our social and physical environments. For example, certain genetic mutations may increase the likelihood of breast cancer, but women with these mutations will not necessarily develop breast cancer. Furthermore, 90% of women who do develop breast cancer do not have a family history of the disease and therefore probably did not develop it because of a gene. Focusing on the genetic elements of sickness and health diverts attention away from the social and environmental causes of disease and makes it easy to blame preventable illnesses on “bad genes.” If our goal is healthier, smarter, or otherwise “improved” future generations, there are obvious ways to achieve that goal, such as protecting pregnant women and their babies from toxic exposures and making sure all women have opportunities for good nutrition and health care during pregnancy. Will….if you can’t see where all this can fit into prophecy….you truly are blinded and deceived by the barbarian movement’s propaganda.