Bugs

Why are we humans, considered by "Evolutionists", to be barely more than bugs?

It appears that in their thoughts, we truly are not ranking any higher than just another type of animal.

And rather, we are seen as animals that are completely out of order, destroying the planet and needing the vast majority of us to be eradicated in order to save the world.

These "scientists" seem to have this survival of the fittest perspective, and their propaganda machinery is in full swing to convince the masses of thier evolution "truth" that used to be only a theory.

One might ask "why?", what could possibly be the beneficial yield for their efforts? What is their "end game"?

They are reaching for a world population limit of 500 million.

(Google - "Georgia Guidestones" and see Wikipedia entry for these intentions)

(Notice propaganda de-sensitization movie "The Day The Earth Stood Still")

If they are going to arrive at this "500 million" goal they would have to somehow reduce the world's populace by at least 85 per cent.

The next question is, how are these bits of information related?

If the value of human life is reduced to perhaps less than that of cattle, then the cancerous un-wanted peoples can be surgically removed for the sake of the health of that which remains.

Say for instance, you have a world population that is reported to be 95 per cent destructive to their own living space.

Then you have the controlling 0.5 per cent mobilize the military to destroy the 85 per cent that is your goal number... the remaining 10 per cent is easily controlled and conditioned to be docile and less destructive to the environment.

The remnant would be an acceptable "working class", fit to serve the "Big Dogs"! Zero population growth is then within reach and the world in general, (according to them) would be a better place for all to live in.

But first, the value of "human" life must be de-valued. It can not be considered any more precious than other animal life forms.

Once these philosophies are embraced... at least by the military powers of the world, then the less acceptable sectors of society can be done away with.

These "unsavory qualifiers" for targeted groups are merely a ploy... they will attempt to "get the ball rolling" with societies most hated sectors first. But ultimatley, little by little, everyone's group will be included in the holocaust.

Remember the 85 per cent goal.

Presently our culture is being bombarded with a huge variety of hate propaganda, including hate for the haters.

Hate for the gays, hate for the homophobes, hate for the religious, hate for the atheist, hate for the colored, for the whites the blacks, and the Jews, everyone is in fear and hatred, or so it seems!

All this is useful to those who want to radically reduce the population of the planet! They are counting on mutual fear and hatred, because they think that few will object when it is the other group that is being exterminated!

My wife, goes daily to chat rooms where the category is "spiritual and religious". There, it seems to be an ongoing slugfest of atheists harassing the "religious nut-cases" trying to show them how demented they are.

The reason I bring this up is that the common opinion most of them hold is how much the Christian hates them in their current non-christian condition.

Now, certainly they have a lot of other opinions that are equally off target, but the thing that impresses me is that they think we are all bigots who want them dead or saved.

If you read the mean spirited comments of these in the chat rooms you quickly conclude that a lot of them wish us Christians dead or "enlightened".

These types of fears and hates are common from sector to sector, and not just with atheists and christians.

All this serves the ones who really want us dead, because they are certain that the Christian will not defend the atheistic gay and vice versa.

Well the powers pulling the strings are wrong! Here is one christian at least that will defend the atheist gay with my life and my prayers. And I will pray for, and love the enemy who seeks my death... they are not bugs.

all related blogs

Primordial Gazette
http://primordialgazette.blogspot.com/
oozenews@gmail.com

Page 50
http://page50.blogspot.com/
pagefifty@gmail.com

Copper Rings in Crystal’s Skies
http://copperrings.blogspot.com/
copperrings@gmail.com

Errant Controls
http://errantcontrols.blogspot.com/
errantcontrols@gmail.com

Marshall Zildjian
http://countynod.blogspot.com/
countynod@gmail.com

The Verbose (wordy) Passage

I read a paragraph from C.S. Lewis that busted my chops bad. The quote from the book "The Grand Miracle" is included below... but the manner in which I got popped, happened in kind of a round about way, the explanation follows the quote.

From "The Grand Miracle" paragraph on Apologetics...
"To conclude... you must translate every bit of your theology into the vernacular. This is very troublesome and it means you can say very little in half an hour, but it is essential. It is also of the greatest service to your own thought. I have come to the conviction that if you cannot translate your thoughts into the uneducated language, then your thoughts were confused. Power to translate is the test of having really understood one's own meaning. A passage from some theological work for translation into the vernacular ought to be a compulsory paper in every ordination examination."

Of course when I read this I immediately thought of the atheist wannabe scientist, who quotes the real scientists (atheist or otherwise) who's words are beyond them (as they are beyond me).

Then of course my criticism overflowed on to the (atheistic) scientist themselves, that use the kind of lingo that most people (like me) have to look up to understand.

This all comes on the heels of reading comments on a blog where those who posted on the blog were mostly atheistic, educated, and very wordy.

I remember thinking that, if a similar format were to be used in my blog I would wish the best minds to want to contribute their two cents, but I would also have them use simpler language that everyone could grasp.

So when I read the C.S. Lewis thing I thought AHA! I will use this quote and let his comment put these Mensa maniacs into a mindset that will end up making the whole exchange fit in, where anybody could understand it.

My directions were well intended. I wanted to leave behind the insult trading that goes on between atheists and believers in "spiritual" chat rooms, with the remedy being more than less educated contributions. And I wished to have everything made easy to grasp, with the "Lewis" remedy, this seemed certain.

I was really rockin and rollin with these lines of thought (its always the other guy right?) and then I remembered how much lately I have had to re-write my own efforts and... busted!

Anyway I will broaden out these thoughts and put them on my blogs, (primordialgazette.blogspace.com and the debate blog as soon as its available) ...as an encouragement to keep all the dialogue respectful and simpler for everyone to enjoy.

Evangelize the Christian

Statistics vary, depending on who is giving them and what point they are trying to make, and from where they draw their numbers.

Example; 70% of Americans state they are Christians. Following that as a statistic with a call to devotion being the point.

For Christian leadership with a more legalistic approach, the focus of the stats may mean the discouraging and minimizing of the value of that percentage.

The legalist Preacher may declare, "They say they are Christians because they go to church every Easter? Please!" Or... "They live in their wordly behavior but claim Christianity..."

These and much more (we have all heard them before) are used to indicate that they (those wordly ones) are not really Christians, and/or a method employed, to keep conformity of behavior among the ranks.

On the other hand if the perspective is more from the area of grace, the 70% value may be the launch site of efforts to encourage the wordly ones in that 70% with the abundant grace available that makes their lives more abundant.

When I discuss faith with someone who is obviously in the "wordly lifestyle", I have no intention of discouraging them in the realm of their behavior. This, according to my understanding is counter productive and is the job of the Holy Spirit, my prideful flesh would more likely just mess it up.

Rather, I feel instructed to listen to (testimony / christianese) them talk about their faith experiences, and I am excited to hear what God is doing with them. This sometimes includes God's correction of their behavior, but this is them telling me about it not the other way around!

It never seems to fail. I have never seen it fail... that when I get excited about their relations with God (such as it may be) they are more excited! They have encouragement to go deeper into that unknown (for them) territory.

I tell them how dearly God loves them and encourage them to talk to God (pray/christianese) for he is a friend that is closer to them than any friend could be. I encourage them to find a modern language new testament and not to be afraid to let God speak to them through it.

It is more than noteworthy to mention that when Jesus happened upon the tax collector Zacchaeous up a Sycamore tree, that He did not chastise him for his lifestyle but rather said that he would eat at his house that day.

True enough the sinner repented at the complaints of those around Jesus, but this was after he already knew that Jesus had accepted him as he was.

Trust this fact, Brothers and Sisters... God is faithful and BIG enough to correct the lives of His chosen and sometimes he uses his other children to help with this. But more often what happens, is we try to complete in the flesh that which was begun in the Spirit.

This grace approach is not perfect as some of those that are lost will abuse it, just as the legal approach is not perfect it hinders some from coming at all.

But His grace is my comfort zone and that is the approach I must use.

Be an Ambassador for Christ. Evangelize the nominal Christian with God's Good News!

Feedback from Marvin & Jim, on the "Megalomaniacal Buffoon" posting

Marvin T.

I just had one bit of info I wanted to add to your comment about Bush lying to the American people and the international community about weapons of mass destruction.
Here’s some quotes that I believe are relevant.
Keep in mind he was only in office for 7 months at the time 9/11 happened.
So all of his intelligence reports on Iraq and Afghanistan came from previous administrations.
See below….

Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 22:24:00 -0700

*Subject:* Weapons of Mass Destruction

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
*- President Clinton, **Feb. 4, 1998**
*
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
*- President Clinton, **Feb. 17, 1998*

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
-* Madeline Albright, **Feb 18, 1998**
*
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983." S
-* Sandy Berger, **Clinton** National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
*
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."
-* Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle,
John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998*

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and
he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-* Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), **Dec. 16, 1998**
*
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- *Madeline Albright, **Clinton** Secretary of State, **Nov. 10, 1999*

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless
using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range
missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
*- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others, **December 5, 2001**
*
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
*- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), **Sept. 19, 2002**
*
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
*- Al Gore, **Sept. 23, 2002**
*
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam
is in power."
*- Al Gore, **Sept. 23, 2002*

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
*- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), **Sept. 27, 2002**
*
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-* Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002*

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because
I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-* Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
*
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
- *Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), **Oct 10, 2002**
*
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do" Rep.
*- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
*
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
*- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), **Oct 10, 2002**
*
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
*- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
*
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is is calculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real ..."
*- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003*



James M.

I'd like to raise a couple of points on your essay that were raised that I believe are false conclusions.


1. There is a false impression in this country that we have a two party democratic system.

This is nonsense. What we have is an illusion of democracy, where we have Two Parties that actually represent the same philosophy.

In The USSR, they had elections also, it's just that all the candidates were communists.

We have a system where two candidates run for office that share the same goals, all the other "parties" are simply ignored by the media, who are also part of the illusion.

That's why no matter who is elected nothing ever changes.

In your essay on the Religious Right and so-called conservatives. This movement was used to marginalize real conservatives, by using rhetoric that energizes them into voting and believing that they matter, only to get fatigued and tune out once years go by and their so-called conservative representatives end up selling them out; a la George Bush.

The Elite always use the same three steps forward, two steps back approach in reaching their goals. They control the media, so they can use constant propaganda for support and to belittle the few opponents they come across.

2. The Founding Fathers, were not Christian for the most part. They we're heavily influenced by the Masonic revolution in France, which was against Christianity and Monarchy.

It is common knowledge that a lot of the Founders, notable Jefferson, hated Christianity. He actually constructed his own Bible, taking out all the miracles of our Lord.
In the writings of the Masons of that time their strategy against Christianity; was to support a multiplicity of protestant Sects, that contradict each other, in order to dilute and confuse the common man, until he finally gives up on Religion, and embraces secular humanism.

In conclusion, our Constitution is a Masonic document built not on Christian, but on Humanistic (Satanic) principles. We are now reaping what was sowed.

For a truly Christian society, study the Middle Ages of Christendom. We can still see the fruits of that civilization today in the beautiful Architecture, music, books, and the Liturgies that grew out of that period.

God Bless:
Jim M