by Colin Denny Donoghue
[revised July 28th, 2017]
There is truth to the idea that beliefs create our reality, for better or worse; thankfully the modern vegan movement is strongly challenging a common and long-standing belief that has definitely had effects for the worse. This belief, that the murder and enslavement of animals by humans is a beneficial and necessary element to our existence on the Earth, is a lie. The domestication & exploitation of animals is actually a leading cause of health and environmental damage today. If you're already a vegan you are probably already aware of this, but something you may not have considered is whether humans have also been domesticated, and whether this domestication has been the other root cause of massive violence, suffering and destruction in our world. In this short essay I'm going to share a radical perspective on how the false beliefs on the benefits of animal domestication relate to the belief in the goodness of a human social-system, which I will argue equates to a system of human domestication, that is just as unprincipled and destructive as animal domestication has been.
The foundational ethic of veganism is that violence and slavery are bad. Simple and true. Yet many people would say that concerning animal domestication, confinement and murder, this violence and slavery is not really violence and slavery, because it is “necessary and natural behavior;” “we are simply acting out our natural part as omnivores in this ecosystem.” A seemingly rational perspective at first, if you're unfamiliar with certain facts, like: a) eating animal products is not necessary for optimum health, b) human physiology and instinct match that of an herbivore, and c) this activity is certainly not harmonious with the rest of Nature, being a leading cause of desertification, deforestation and climate change. And so, truth be told, that seemingly rational perspective is actually ignorant and uncaring nonsense. The massive violence toward and enslavement of animals for food and beverage products is completely unjustifiable and unethical. The same goes for animal testing, the fur and leather industries, etc.. i.e. for all animal products and exploitation. All of it isn't necessary for human survival or betterment, yet many still try to justify this human behavior operating on the belief that it is “a necessary evil.” The interesting thing I'd like to point out is that is the exact same belief that is used to defend and uphold human domestication. One often hears of how governance is “a necessary evil,” and that social-systems may be very faulty, but things would be worse without them (the fear thy neighbor doctrine). We are indoctrinated with the belief that being domesticated is for our own good, and that being forced to pay taxes is not really force, but a service by “superior authorities” (to use the language of the false apostle of Jesus, Saul of Tarsus, who has instilled this belief in billions of people who believe his words come directly from the Creator). Hence most people believe having to earn money for survival rather than live naturally is not really enslavement, but a “natural and necessary part of human existence.” Just like with anti-veganism argumentation, we are told there are valid exceptions to the baseline moral rule against aggression and involuntary servitude. But is that belief really true? An informed vegan knows it isn't true concerning the treatment of other species by humans--could it also be true concerning human-to-human relations? To find the answer lets return to the animal realm and look at what makes up the phenomenon of animal domestication.
Domesticated animals are animals whose wild ancestors were taken from their natural habitat and forcibly made (through trapping, confinement, beatings and breeding) to change their wild characteristics for domesticated ones whereby they become dependent on humans (humans now deemed their “owners”), for various human uses (like companionship, hunting wild animals, or sources of meat and milk); in this process these animals mostly lose their ability to survive in the wild. It's defined as the process wherein humans “tame” animals or “cultivate them for human use.” So with this in mind, consider: Have we been tamed into consumers rather than producers? Are we being cultivated for the use and profit of someone else? Have we been made dependent on others who “own” us? Another way to contemplate this is: Would you consider yourself a free human on the Earth? Can you do things natural to humans, like forage for food, plant seeds, build a shelter, etc., without other humans putting demands on you? Perhaps some of you would respond with something like: “Well, I have a small garden in my backyard, I went on a foraging walk through the woods last weekend with some friends, and I built a great tree house for my kids.” Well, if that is the case, that's great, you're living better than many people nowadays; but to prove my point, let's say such a fortunate person that responded in this way is actually typical of most humans on the planet. And let's complete this lucky ultra-green personality by having them also be able to walk to work, get their food from farmer's markets, and buy organic fair-trade clothing and various other nice natural products at an upscale natural supermarket. Again, this is economically not a possibility for most people in the world, but what I'm getting at is that even the ideal of what we can achieve in modern industrial society is still compromised, the person is still unable to live a truly independent and natural life wherein they could have all those good things for free, produced in natural (and autonomous) homestead communities. Lets look a bit deeper into this imaginary “ideal” person's life. That garden they mentioned, can they grow enough food for their family to live off of? Can they just do natural homesteading work and enjoy other creative and spiritual pursuits with the rest of their free time? Unless they are a millionaire, they'd probably respond with something like: “Well, no, I have to go to work of course to pay the mortgage, property taxes, school for my kids, utilities and hospital bills and so on, and that doesn’t leave me much time to do gardening, artwork, or communing with Nature and the Creator.” And that foraging walk, could they have foraged enough to provide meals for their family as people did centuries ago? Or is that wilderness area under threat of (or already) contaminated and lessened in size by government-backed corporatization/industrialization? Since natural areas have been mostly decimated by such action, wild foraging nowadays for most people is symbolic, something neat to do, but no longer a viable way of survival (veganic homesteading however, is still viable). And that tree house, will their children be able to renovate it for their own children? One might reply, “Well that depends on whether we still live here, we may have to sell the country house and move to an apartment in the city actually, since my partner just got laid-off at work.”
Many other examples of the compromised-by-domestication-life could be given, but they all point to the same conclusion: we are not truly free and natural humans while subject to the demands of social-systems (mainly land & water costs, and property taxes), we are forced to have a relationship with money rather than the Earth and each other in a pure way, i.e. we have been domesticated. The effects of this have been and continue to be very destructive, just as with animal domestication, and so both should be brought to an end (ideally through voluntary communities of sovereign veganic homesteads). Another parallel to consider: dogs & cats get all kinds of illnesses and attract fleas & ticks so much because Nature is rejecting them as a foreign body, like an ecological immune system. Could we being seeing the same with domesticated humans who have lost their proper ecological role here on Earth?
Some may find the call to end human domestication “too extreme,” or “too different from tradition.” But aren't those the same principle-lacking common rebuttals to the call for veganism? Aren't the principled reasons for ending both human and animal domestication exactly the same?
Both forms of domestication are based on violence, slavery, and the false beliefs that “It is necessary for the greater good that this control and domination exists.” The truth is both forms of domestication constitute an abusive relationship that cannot be rationally justified. Both disrupt ecological, social and personal balance; both cause toxic environments and toxic relationships; both need to end. The way that can be achieved is for people to claim their natural birthright of their fair share of water and land (about two arable acres per individual or small family), and establish sovereign veganic homesteads, making up voluntary vegan anarchist (a.k.a. veganarchist) communities.
Maybe you still have hopes of really principled/saintly/benevolent/angelic government that will bring peace, justice and ecological harmony to the world. If so, I understand, I used to think that way too; but I was mistaken back then, and so are you now if you're thinking that way. If you observe and analyze our reality (and all of history) more carefully and objectively, the truth is inescapable: social-systems have been a complete disaster for humanity, usually based on the lie of “representation.” True representative governance is actually an impossibility, you can only represent yourself in reality; governments always force the will of a few (who tend to be the power and wealth-crazed) on the masses. Furthermore, nations-states, on top of all the destruction they visibly bring (war, for example) are by their very existence unprincipled; they forcibly disconnect us from the Earth which is our birthright as humans, irrespective of whatever country we are told we were born into (because of some lines drawn on a map one day by politicians). Nation-states are truly nothing more than human farms, operating under the guise of “advanced civilization.” What good exists within them (like wonderful Arts from different cultures) exist despite of them, not because of them (in fact cultural diversity is decreasing globally for more of a corporate/globalist mono-culture spread by social-systems).
So coming full circle, we can see that animal domestication, which is the vehicle for the most massive violence most humans participate in, was an unprincipled mistake by humanity, and until they end that practice it is unlikely they will escape their own domestication. Until humans acknowledge the domination they condone and participate in, (namely the exploitation and violence towards animals that's unnecessary and unjustifiable), it is unlikely that they will recognize and resist the same towards themselves. Domestication was founded on unethical actions, and so it keeps producing karmic disturbances, and will never stop doing so. The solution is clear: end the breeding and increase the utilization of domestic animal sanctuaries. Animal sanctuaries are a win-win; they get the disturbances out of our homes, neighborhoods and communities, while giving the animal a more enjoyable place to be than on the street or in a city animal shelter. Likewise the means to end our own domestication/slavery is also clear: sovereign veganic homesteads, making up voluntary gift-economy communities.
Unnatural and unprincipled social norms based on violence and slavery (towards other humans and animals) is what's really “too extreme,” and all you have to do is note all the destructive and disturbing everyday events in the world happening now, and throughout “civilized” history, to see the truth of that. The modern “liberal” compromise with our own domestication, deemed by many as the most reasonable perspective to have, is just as intellectually and morally flawed as the majority's current view on the compromise of “humane” domestication and slaughter of animals. The “at least it's not Hitler” political stance and “veganish” lifestyle both demonstrate lacking human intelligence and morality, not the advanced and well-educated perspective those adherents believe they have. Is occasional rape, murder or slavery ever okay? News-flash: It never is. Veganarchism will be the moral baseline for humanity if it ever can wake up from the delusion, no doubt planted by the Devil himself, that there are “necessary evils” in the world. You don't actually have to support and participate in slavery and murder; a “crazy extremist” idea, I know, I know... Might as well forget about all this and just go and see another new movie (<cough> entertainment vehicle for propaganda <cough>) right? It's not like morality actually matters, or that you can make any difference anyway right?
Friday, July 7, 2017
Monday, May 1, 2017
"Jesus turned first to his disciples and warned them, 'Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees--their hypocrisy. The time is coming when everything that is covered up will be revealed, and all that is secret will be made known to all.'" (Luke 12:1-2)
"When Paul saw that some of them were Sadducees and others were Pharisees, he shouted in the council, 'Brothers, I'm a Pharisee and a descendant of Pharisees!'" (Acts 23:6)
[updated July 1st, 2017]
This post will discuss the problems with the Biblical writings of the man called Paul, whose original name was Saul of Tarsus. The more I research, observe the effects of, and contemplate his writings, the more I find that Paul was indeed a false apostle (i.e. not a true follower of Jesus), who has very badly misled Christians for centuries. In fact I see now that he was a master propagandist, he has managed to mislead billions of people over centuries with ideas that are so detrimental to one's well-being and the well-being of the world, that they actually deserve to be called satanic. I'm speaking of namely the ideas of "Inherited Sin," "Easy Grace," and Blood-sacrifice Atonement; these will be discussed in more depth below. These toxic ideas have become central in the minds of most Christians, and so, very unfortunately, these religious people believing in and following these toxic ideas have gone very far from the true Way that was taught by Jesus and the prophets, in fact they have joined Paul in opposing that true Way. Most of the Christians I meet in fact have their entire spiritual life centered in the teachings of Paul, the most critical things for salvation all corrupted by those teachings. They don't see just how toxic those teachings are, and so they never support or have real revolutionary change in their lives.
The following books, videos and websites listed below present this evidence, and I will share more of my own perspective as well on why rejecting Paul's doctrines is such an important issue that needs much more clarity in the world, so that we can no longer be "loving and practicing lies" that prevent us from aligning with the will of the perfectly good Creator, and His/Her (?) representative, the man usually called by the name Jesus Christ. (Speaking of the name Jesus Christ, his original name is said to be Yehoshua, or Joshua in modern language, and I have heard in-depth explanation that the original pronunciation was Ya-how-a-shy. The point of not using the name Jesus Christ is that it's important to give some effort to use his real name out of respect for him, rather than a title that has other associations.)
Before I discuss the writings of Saul further, it's first necessary to address the issue of the Bible being perfect, a.k.a. "Biblical inerrancy," the idea that everything in the Bible is "the Word of God," i.e. it's all accurate and inspired wisdom direct from the Creator, somehow avoiding any corruption or distortion through the centuries. This must be dealt with first, because if you believe in Biblical inerrancy, you're never going to analyze the writings of Saul objectively. Saul apparently anticipated this dynamic, and so he is also the one that said "all Scripture is inspired of God," of course meaning including his own writings; this is self-supporting propaganda, like a social-system that gives us the "givens" of needing to pay other humans to live on this planet, and needing "authorities" to keep us safe, to enable and justify their existence. Whenever I point out the faults of Saul's writings to Christians, they usually point me to Saul's writing in 2 Timothy 3:16 wherein he says everything he says comes directly from God, as if that is a rational defense of his writings! It's like saying "Well, it doesn't matter if he said things that are blasphemous, satanic or against the teachings of Yehoshua, because he also said everything he says is inspired of God, so it must actually somehow be good, so let me change the meaning of those toxic teachings so that it fits his own claim of purity." Beyond the illegitimacy of Biblical inerrancy being based on this dumbfoundingly amoral and unintelligent "Saul said so" rationale, this idea that everything in the Bible, which is available in hundreds of different versions, in hundreds of different languages, is the perfect teaching of the Creator, is irrational in multiple other respects as well, one being those hundreds of different versions, with no rational means by which to determine/declare which is the most, or only, correct one. Another irrational element is that it ignores all of the history of the Bible, it ignores what Scripture was accepted by the Church, which was rejected, and why. And in fact, it is a form of idol-worship, making a book written by men equal to the Most High. Yes there is crucial wisdom still in the Bible that was certainly inspired by the Creator, but it is also certain that not all of it is true wisdom, and that other Scripture, like The Gospel of the Ebionites, contains crucial truth worthy of study as well. (By the way, "The Ebionites rejected the epistles of Paul of Tarsus, whom they regarded as an apostate from the Law.") If you really believe in the perfect goodness of our Creator, and in the constant attacks by The Devil/Satan, to think that the Bible would somehow remain completely free from corruption is also not rational; of course it would be attacked/distorted/corrupted, because it did (and still does) contain crucial truth about our Creator, Yehoshua, ourselves, and the path to liberation from Satan's bondage. Many believe, including myself, that the prophets and Yehoshua knew this corruption was going to happen; this may be in fact in large part why Yehoshua taught so much in parables, to preserve crucial wisdom for the future generations from "the lying pen of the scribes" (Jeremiah 8:8).
Additionally repeatedly calling the Bible "the Word of God" distorts the truth about what/who that Word really is (Yehoshua, the "Word that became flesh," and the Holy Spirit). Also the New Testament of course didn't exist at the time of Yehoshua, he never gave his stamp of approval to any translation. Again, to think the most popular/official version of Scriptures has always been perfect and forever would be, just because, of all people, Saul of Tarsus said so, is irrational and a form of idol-worship. The Bible is definitely worth daily study, but certain things Saul said in particular are so clearly false (e.g. all governments come from God and slaves obeying their masters are doing God's will!), and against what Yehoshua taught (e.g. as shown in part in the below image collection), that you really have to be in denial to ignore all of it, and many Christians are in denial because of their false beliefs, namely the false beliefs that a) the Bible is the completely perfect message from the Creator, and/or b) we can't discern what is true and what isn't within it, if some part isn't true then the whole Bible is worthless.
Problems with Saul's Teachings
Saul gave some key toxic teachings that have become fundamental to Christianity, all of which were not what Yehoshua taught, and are actually the opposite of what he taught. In addition to the doctrines I'm about to expound on, Saul was also very pro-statism and pro-carnism, and, in case you never noticed, government and the violence of humans toward animals are, and have always been, the top sources of violence and slavery in the world. Most of you reading this probably don't see the truth of this veganarchist philosophy yet though because of indoctrination/conditioning, which is perhaps the biggest indicator that the world is indeed mostly misled by the Devil, since advocating the end of all unnecessary slavery and violence, which is what veganarchism is fundamentally, should be a baseline morality for humanity, but in this backwards lie-believing world/society it's called "dangerous extremism." Likewise in classic propagandist fashion, Saul actually calls the call to abstain from the murder of animals "a doctrine of demons," which is the exact opposite of the truth and is an example of projection, i.e. he his projecting his own behavior onto others, which is something toxic personalities always do. It is in fact his teachings, like that you can't stop sinning, and that unnecessary murder and slavery are fine, that are the true doctrines of demons. The Devil wants us to keep sinning and supporting sin, and that's exactly what Saul's propaganda supports. Paul gives blanket endorsement to all governments of the world, saying that they all come from God, which is absurd and blasphemous. If you are still believing in the "representation" and "overall goodness" of social-systems, and the "necessity" of consuming animal products, feel free to ignore this element like most people do, and move on to the following other points about Saul's teaching below.
What's important with this concerning Saul for me is that the more I analyze the teachings of Saul, the more evil I realize they are, in fact I can't imagine how they could be more evil, in that they impart maximum harm in content, and scope, through deceptiveness. And what makes it so deceptive? Like with any well-crafted propaganda, it uses the method of combining really crucial truth alongside very destructive lies, the former being the bait that gets you to swallow the hook of the latter. I myself had a hard time seeing and accepting the truth about Saul because of the crucial truth he did say, particularly in verses like Ephesians 5:10-11, 15-17 and 2 Timothy 1:7, which are crucial truths by themselves. But again one must remember the fundamental method of propaganda, and so such wonderful verses of crucial truth should be expected by someone who is also delivering extremely destructive lies to humanity, lies so destructive that the overall effect is evil, just as a hook ultimately kills the fish, even though the bait was good. Additionally it is just irrational and unintelligent to ignore lies because they happen to be on the same page as truth. So that all said, let's get into those very toxic lies Saul pushed on believers:
- Saul said: We are irremediably imperfect because of "inherited sin" from Adam & Eve; this is also known as the "total depravity" doctrine, i.e. the idea that there is nothing good in you, you are actually a terrible being at your core. Here is what Saul said exactly: "For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful
nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it
out" (Romans 7:18). I could write a whole book on just how toxic and evil this idea alone is; I hope to get the main important points across clearly to you here. This toxic idea is usually adopted by Pauline Christians with the sentiment that it is good because "it keeps us humble," i.e. avoiding pride by very regularly saying and praying that we're imperfect. And they do often mention this, it's practically a mantra for them, included in almost every prayer! This toxic and blasphemous idea corrupts the prayer, again, one very toxic idea, just like a toxic poison, can cause more harm than good, even when it is just a small percentage of the content overall. Yes it's true that pride is not good, but you don't have to believe in some irreparable genetic and moral flaw in order to not be prideful, an idea that, I hope you don't ignore, is actually satanic poison to your mind. And this poison has spread beyond Pauline Christians, it's become a belief for believers and non-believers alike, the latter often repeating the similar mantras "I'm only human" and "Nobody's perfect," the implication being the same, that humans are inherently flawed.
Secondly, Yehoshua called us to be perfect like our heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48), and so to say we can't do that is blasphemy against Yehoshua, and the Creator who directed him, who, don't forget, made us in His image (Genesis 1:27). Yehoshua came to set the captives of sin free, through teaching them the way out of that bondage, namely the Greatest Commandments. Any person that tells you that you can't become free from sin is in direct opposition to Yehoshua, whether they realize it or not. This idea of "inherent imperfection," that there is "nothing good in us," that "our inherent nature is sinful," is blasphemous too because it suggests that the Creator created evil (just as the Old Testament often seems to say, due to the same name, YHWH, being used both for the Creator and for Satan), which is a completely satanic idea; remember Satan was the accuser of God from the very beginning, accusing Him of doing evil when He had not done so. (Which is the same behavior of toxic/possessed people to this day, who slander good people while supporting bad people). Saul/Paul's teaching of "inherited sin," which most Christians translate to the extremely self-destructive belief that there is something fundamentally wrong with them, completely contradicts that we were made in the image of the perfectly good Creator. Inherited-sin doctrine is false and blasphemous, saying that each baby is inherently flawed, that the Creator is making evil in the world, and that the Creator is unjust, putting the blame on children for the sins of their parents. (This is also plainly refuted in Ezekiel 18:20). And since who we are is fundamentally a Holy Spirit made in God's image, inherited-sin doctrine is blasphemy against this Holy Spirit, and Jesus said that was an unforgivable sin (Matthew 12:31 & Mark 3:29). We can see the truth of that being "unforgivable" in that when we are believing in the lie of inherited-sin we can never follow the Greatest Commandments and align with God's will and grace fully, because we don't believe we can do it (as Saul/Paul also taught wrongly, the Commandments are just there to show our imperfection that we can't overcome). Inherited-sin doctrine sabotages (and ignores) Jesus' call to be perfect whereby we can receive the Creator's full forgiveness and grace. Those who believe the lie that they can't stop sinning never will stop sinning, because of that belief/self-fulfilling prophecy; hence Saul can say other good and true things alongside this critically destructive lie, but the overall effect is evil, the overall effect is sabotaging your salvation. While we are still "loving and practicing the lie" (Revelation 22:15) of inherited-sin, we are kept "outside the gates."
Thirdly, to believe this lie about ourselves is against healthy self-love, which is integral to the Greatest Commandments of Yehoshua. And the self-love of the Greatest Commandments is absolutely necessary to fulfill the Creator's calling for us, to fulfill His opportunities of grace (Kairos Moments) given to all of us, because those Divine opportunities require courage and boldness from us (Hebrews 4:16, Matthew 14:27 & Mark 6:50); and guess who tends to always lack courage and boldness? Those that believe the lie that there is something fundamentally wrong with them, just as Saul taught them; therefore believing in Saul's teaching completely sabotages the Creator's grace, and the Devil must certainly be very happy with that.
Additionally this doctrine is just clearly false and irrational on a common-sense basis: If you can follow the Greatest Commandments perfectly for 10 minutes, than why not for 1 hour? And if for 1 hour, why not 5 hours? One whole day? When I bring this point up to Pauline Christians they have no real response, and just usually revert back to why pride is a bad thing. The clear falsity and irrationality of "inherited sin/irreparable defect" is apparent too whenever we look at a newborn infant, their inherent innocence and goodness is clear as day; it is only with time, and the abuse and lies that usually come with it here in Satan's world, that that innocence and goodness is lost and corrupted.
- Saul said: Our sins are wiped clean by the blood-sacrifice of the death of Yehoshua; this is known as the doctrine of "atonement." This doctrine is completely immoral and against everything Yehoshua stood for. Yehoshua came to do away with the animal sacrifices at the temple, explaining that they were worthless for the purpose of forgiving sins, in fact being more of a satanic practice than anything the Creator ever wanted. Many scholars and believers, including myself, believe that the original law given to Moses did not include animal sacrifice, but it was allowed for by Moses because the people were so resistant to simply leaving the animals alone! So this blood-sacrifice of Yehoshua, as "the perfect payment" for our sins, in a cosmic "legal proceeding" (as some Pauline Christians describe it), is not only against what the will of the Creator is, it's against what Yehoshua taught as well, which is that it is obedience to the Commandments that brings us salvation, not murdering animals, or the murder of himself. Of course it would be correct to say that Yehoshua sacrificed his life for us in that he accepted persecution and death as the Father's will for the betterment of humanity, but that doesn't mean that his blood canceled out our sins. He sacrificed his own life to show others the way of salvation, his torture and murder not being the means of salvation itself. There's a big difference there, a difference that "easy grace" doctrine lovers of course ignore.
- Saul said: We simply need to proclaim faith, rather than follow the Commandments; this is known as the doctrine of "justification." This doctrine says that we are "justified for all [wicked] things," simply by belief in Yehoshua, i.e. that we are not guilty for the sins we commit because of the blood-sacrifice atonement of Yehoshua's death. "Oh sure, do your best to do good," say the Pauline Christians, "but it's not crucial, because you can't obey the commandments perfectly anyway, because of the inherited sin Paul says we have. You just have to proclaim your faith in Jesus and his coming Kingdom." And of course millions of people have run with this idea, avoiding Yehoshua's call to be perfect and "sin no more" (John 5:14, 8:11). Pauline Christians ignore a lot of Scripture that contradicts this "easy grace" theology, another example being 1 John 3:6, that says "Whoever abides in Him does not sin; whoever sins has neither seen Him nor know Him." The call to perfect adherence to the Greatest Commandments is put aside, Saul even saying it's impossible and "a curse," which is again making Yehoshua out to be a false teacher!
Here's a typical example of what modern Christians say on the matter:
"In fact, it’s impossible to keep all the commandments all the time. None of us is perfect, and each one of us ‘sins’ (we go against God’s wishes). Paul says that what the commandments do is tell us that we have sinned: “because no one can be made right with God by following the law. The law only shows us our sin.” (Romans 3:20)"
Yet this is devilish misdirection of humanity. The truth is the opposite: "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3). John shows himself to be a true disciple of Yehoshua, while Saul completely opposes and contradicts Yehoshua. This faith-without-works-is-sufficient doctrine is actually a form of moral-relativism, and moral relativism is arguably the #1 psychological problem in the world, being behind justifications and rationalizations for all kinds of immoral behavior, now, and throughout history. Many consider it the true "original sin" that led to the "fall of humanity," this idea that strict obedience to the moral code that is inseparable from God's will is unnecessary. So this doctrine promoted by Saul has actually been serving Satan and massive suffering for centuries! No small thing!Of lesser importance but worth mentioning here too is that Jesus had no problem offending people by speaking crucial and blunt truth, but Saul said we should change our behavior depending on whether it would offend the other person or not, he promoted moral-relativism in that way too.
Here are more contradictions between what Yehoshua and Saul taught:
All of the rationalizations I hear in defense of Saul never really make sense, they end up ignoring what he actually said and putting some other meaning on his words; they try to change it into something more rational, moral and true, just as I heard people doing in defense of Mark Passio's toxic propagandistic teachings (as I explained in my last post). For example when I point to a clearly false and blasphemous verse like wherein Saul said all governments come from God, Pauline Christians say "Paul didn't really mean that (destructive lie), what he meant was..." and then change the wording and meaning until it is much more reasonable, and then I say "Well that's reasonable, but that's not what Paul said!" Or when I ask why he admittedly lied to others when spreading the so-called gospel, they reply "He said that to attract more people to the Gospel," as if destructive lies are ever a good way of spreading crucial truth! Pauline Christians tell me I don't understand Saul's teaching, yet the truth is it is they that don't understand what he was doing, having been heavily indoctrinated to ignore the truth that is right in front of them. They ignore the toxic doctrines of Saul because they believe in him 100%, because their church says to, and because they believe the modern Bible is 100% accurate truth. As I pointed out in my previous post, if you don't understand how satanic propaganda works, i.e. saying some crucial truths (e.g. "For the Spirit which God has given us is not a spirit of cowardice, but one of strength and of love and of sound judgment."), and then mixing in some very detrimental lies (e.g. Inherited Sin, Divine Politicians and Blood-Sacrifice Atonement), then you will remain too naive to see the truth.
- Douglas Del Tonto
- Jesus vs. Paul: Christianity's Greatest Lies Exposed by J.D. Sheppard
Thursday, September 8, 2016
“We'll find out who is the real revolutionary; I don't want my people to be tricked...”
~ Bob Marley, from his song “Zimbabwe”
"False messiahs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders to lead astray, if possible, even the elect."
~ Matthew 24:24
(last updated April 7th, 2017)
What does a modern-day ex-satanist turned into "revolutionary" (Mark Passio) and an ancient ex-Christian-bounty-hunter turned into "apostle" (Paul of the Bible) have in common? Both, I believe, never really left their pastimes as they appeared to, both I believe are actually false prophets of the same fundamental deceptive mold; I will explain why here, starting with Mr. Passio.
Some of you may be familiar with the work of Mark Passio, and perhaps even because of me recommending his podcasts and presentations in the past. His latest presentation however, at the 4th Free Your Mind Conference, I definitely don't recommend. The main topic of the presentation is "Neo-Feminism," but, as I will explain, that issue was just used as a vehicle to transmit some other very toxic ideas. At first I was hesitant to fully acknowledge what became apparent in that presentation, but now, after watching both parts of it and contemplating such major, ridiculous and destructive flaws, flaws that are contrary to everything he supposedly stands for, I feel a responsibility to point out what apparently many others are overlooking (but understandably so, since what has occurred is very deceptive). Mark claims to be an ex-satanist and ex-statist, but content in this presentation clearly supports both satanism and statism, clear that is if you have ears to hear it and eyes to see it, not blinded by admiration for his previous good work. That previous good work I now see was just a set-up for this latest garbage, just the "bait" to lead many good-hearted people to this toxic "switch." I do not say this lightly on a whim or a guess, I am 100% certain that this latest presentation is statist/satanic propaganda, because the content is undeniably so, when looked at objectively and nontangentially. I know what it's like to be slandered without cause and so never want to do the same to anyone else; as I will demonstrate, that's definitely not what I'm doing here, what I'm doing is just pointing out the truth of what he actually said and showed in his presentation.
My posted comment on the youtube page to Part 1 of the presentation was almost immediately attacked by "trolls" that totally ignored my points, repeatedly, even after I kept pointing out they were ignoring my points. They also engaged in other classic toxic behavior, like projection of one's own negative qualities onto another person, in this case their negative qualities onto me. A follow-up supporter troll even came to congratulate the other troll on how well he did in debating me, which is absurd, since I clearly pointed out the lies, irrationality and immorality of the comments, repeatedly; my points were never actually refuted, and they were never actually even acknowledged, undoubtedly because there is no good counter-argument to them, so from their perspective it's better to distract others from them by attacking me personally. So here's Part 1 if you want to see this propagandistic presentation for yourself, or you can just read on to my first comment on it here:
"Some very good content here on the divide & conquer strategies of the ruling class, but the presentation is corrupted by some major flaws:
1) Mark said we are the authors of our genetic code, which is very close to saying that we're the Creator, which, ironically, is a satanic mindset/desire. Yes I know the epi-genetic context in which he said that, but without clarifying the huge difference between having an influence on our genes and being the AUTHOR of them, he is actually playing into an anti-God tenant of satanism. (He used all-caps just like that in his presentation to emphasize our "authorship" of the human body). Speaking of God...
2) Mark makes no mention of God whatsoever, and also misleadingly says that the supposed Anunaki are the creators of humanity, not clarifying whether we were first created by God and then had our genetics messed with by some other beings, who were also created by God. So, more anti-God content, i.e. satanism, by this supposedly anti-satanism speaker.
3) Mark discounts the possibility that Satan is an actual intelligent spiritual being that directly influences human consciousness, by stating that most satanists don't believe in Satan as a spiritual being. First of all, what poll of satanists is this assertion based on? Secondly, by not even giving mention of the possibility that Satan is a wholly-evil spiritual being that actually exists (I and many others, from Christian to satanist, believe he definitely does), Mark is actually serving the Devil, since the “greatest trick the Devil ever pulled is convincing people he doesn't exist.” And why would Satan want help in pulling such a trick? Obviously because he can then more easily do his work, without being recognized and rejected. So some pro-Satan content to add to the anti-God content, making for a hat-trick of satanic propaganda.
Promoting anarchism [and other good things in his previous work] is good, but if you are actually supporting the root of the evil, “the spiritual hosts of wickedness in high places,” then what good is it really? Striking at the branches of evil, but not the root, doesn't actually serve humanity. Whether these blunders, like naming his rock band "The Founders" after the statist/slave-master/dark-occultist “Founding Fathers,” is innocent or not, I don't know. What I do know is that this combining of crucial truth with disempowering lies (to make the lies more “digestible”), as found in this presentation, is exactly the form real propaganda takes, coincidence or not.
Things actually got worse in Part 2, wherein he amazingly said that we need to think like psychopaths/pedophiles/satanists in order to resist them, and that every parent should read the Satanic Bible and the Satanic Witch books if they care about their children! Thinking like a psychopath/pedophile/satanist is absolutely not necessary in order to reject the craziness and evil of that mindset properly, this idea that it's necessary is itself satanic! The last thing you want to do is entertain such thoughts in your mind, to do so is serving the Devil, not resisting him! It's inviting evil into your mind and heart, and the results can be disastrous, mentally and spiritually. Reading these Satanic texts, as he strongly encourages us all to do, is, like all toxic ideas, a combination of irrationality, falsehood, and immorality; to think you will somehow be more effective in fighting evil in the world by reading satanic literature is complete nonsense; all you need to know is what evil is so you can reject it, you don't need to participate in it and get into the disgusting details of the mindset in order to do that; in fact delving into disgusting details, especially to the point of identifying with the perspective, does the opposite, it just disturbs your mind, making you a less effective revolutionary for the Good. His supposed "solution" to the problem of the "battle of the sexes," a battle that only exists because of disturbed minds, is to read Satanic texts and to even think from the perspective of a psychopath, which will result in disturbing your mind, so, his "solution" is actually just serving more of the problem, in classic propagandist fashion. This is made evident too by other comments people made on the video saying things like "Yes, women do that!" etc., which shows the presentation wasn't encouraging reconciliation, but just further discord. So when the content of his presentation actually furthers discord in the minds of those watching it, and furthers the very problems that the presenter is supposedly against, we have big red flags for propaganda in operation.
Also in part 2 he says there is no such thing as human nature, and we're just "programmable beings;" this is false and actually satanic as well (satanists don't believe in the inherent goodness of humans). The truth is we are made in the image of God with a godly conscience, that is covered up by behavior corrupted by belief in various lies that sabotage our natural loving nature. Mark makes children out to be mere androids that need programming, for the good or the bad, before they demonstrate either. Yet children certainly have a good nature before being "programmed" to be good or bad. He goes nowhere near the crucial truth that it is belief in various lies that corrupts our behavior, behavior that would otherwise be naturally good, because human nature is good; and so, here he just delivers another subliminal satanic message to those watching his presentation.
And as for his supposed support of anarchism/freedom, he put an image of Mel Gibson as "The Patriot" holding the colonial flag on the slide on "good parenting," and referred to himself as a real American patriot in his presentation as well; do I even need to explain why that's a ridiculously statist thing for a so-called anarchist to do and say? He finishes with more statist perspective talking about one "American" (himself) talking to another "American" about why the hoodie he was wearing, with a picture of a snake on it that he says symbolizes defending "our" country, is actually legit... statism is not legit, something Mark actually said in his previous podcasts/presentations, but now completely contradicts; there is no half-way with this, someone can rationalize his patriotism anyway they like, but that doesn't change it from being statist/toxic.
Again, like with Part 1, these are not at all minor flaws, they're majorly misleading and destructive flaws that actually support division of the sexes, statism/patriotism, and satanism for God's sake! This is exactly what thoughts/ideas from the Devil always do (as you can verify for yourself if you pay attention): the exact opposite of the good they try and convince you they will do.
If you ignore all my points here and just focus on the good parts in his presentation and from his previous work, you're ignoring how propaganda is formulated and works (toxic lies sandwiched in with truth). I won't be surprised if my comments on Part 2 get "trolled" in like fashion to my Part 1 comments, but hopefully some decent people reading this will see the validity of my points, and not let this "ex" satanist mislead them and their loved ones.
Like with my previous Front-Line Thought post on the false prophet of the "wise alien" with his statist/satanic message to mankind, Mark Passio follows suit as another false prophet, following the same short Devil's playbook that he's apparently a slave to. Speaking of that short playbook that gets used over and over, very interestingly to me as I was evaluating the work of Passio I was doing the same with the "Apostle" Paul, and more and more I realized how similar they were:
- Both were active in anti-Christ activity (Passio being a Satanist, and Paul being a Roman bounty-hunter/persecutor of Christians) prior to their "change of heart."
- Both then began to share extremely crucial truths, but also extremely destructive/misleading lies (e.g. "Satan doesn't exist" with Passio, and "Inherited Sin" with Paul) that override their truth telling, making their overall influence evil. Remember, anti-Christs are prophesized to deceive many, and the only way they could do that is if they speak truth along with their lies.
- Both talk about themselves a lot, even though they claim to be humble servants of truth and righteousness. Egoic thinking seems to be unavoidable for those wrapped up in doing evil, and both stand out as loving to talk about themselves (Passio in interviews, Paul in his letters).
- Both avoid discussing the teachings of Jesus directly, which also just so happens to be a prophesied defining characteristic of Antichrists.
"'You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.'"
"'Vengeance is Mine, and retribution, In due time their foot will slip; For the day of their calamity is near, And the impending things are hastening upon them.'"
(Leviticus 19:18 & Deuteronomy 32:35)Peace.
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
foo figh•ter; n.: unidentified flying object (UFO)
[updated September 7th, 2016]
Did a UFO really did crash in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947, and the technology has since been reversed engineered? Or was that just a psy-op to prepare the public for an even grander later psy-op?
Following several mass deceptions concerning terrorism, could there be another even bigger engineered crisis/deception, similar to the "War of The Worlds" book/movie? Could UFO's (that are really top secret military aircraft, possibly reverse engineered from real UFO's) appear and shoot powerful lasers (that the military already admits they have), and then the solution to this global crisis will be a global government, in keeping with the aforementioned ever persistent fascist agenda? Or will they come as "saviors," that will facilitate a fascist/communist restructuring of society "for our own good?"
Here's a very interesting quote attributed to Henry Kissinger (former U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, as well as the G.W. Bush Administration's first choice to direct the 9/11 Commission, a position later rejected for concern that it would be perceived as a conflict of interest):
"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’s 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."
And these from Ronald Reagan:
"... when you stop to think that we're all God's children, wherever we may live in the world, I couldn't help but say to him, just think how easy his task and mine might be in these meetings that we held if suddenly there was a threat to this world from some other species from another planet outside in the universe. We'd forget all the little local differences that we have between our countries and we would find out once and for all that we really are all human beings here on this earth together."
- White House transcript of "Remarks of the President to Fallston High School Students and Faculty," December 4, 1985
"In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world."
- Speech to the United Nations General Assembly, 42nd General Assembly, September 21, 1987
Keeping all this in mind, I find it very curious that lately there has been more talk of an imminent "revelation" of aliens visiting the Earth, for example, this "transmission" from the "humans are free" (we're definitely not currently free) website--> http://humansarefree.com/2014/10/alien-message-to-mankind-do-you-wish.html
The important take-away from that post is the statement that "our destiny is fraternity." Fraternity is just a code word for collectivism/communism, i.e. the complete elimination of the sovereignty of the individual.
And what exactly does "the safeguarding of fraternal equilibrium" mean? Control, no doubt. The "aliens" say "making a decision by yourself, as an individual, is your right as well as your responsibility," but then they also say that whether they will come or not (to take their "hand-hold over the Earth") is a matter of a collective decision; this is contradictory, irrational and immoral. There is no such thing as a collective decision unless it is a consensus, and they are not talking about consensus at all, saying just a few is all that is really needed. What about the minority (or majority) that won't want their "hand-hold," whatever that turns out to be? (again, undoubtedly control, which "they" claim to be against.) No mention of God in that "transmission" either, though they claim to be of a "higher" sort; this subliminal anti-God content gives credence to those that believe these aliens are actually the fallen angels/demons the Bible speaks of.
Yes, yes I know there are many billions of galaxies out there, so it seems probable that there is life out there somewhere. But before you think you're smarter than me, because you're making an assumption and I'm not (assuming is never smart btw), and/or that I'm just some "reactionary extremist" (or whatever similar label that might pop into your mind), keep these FACTS in mind:
- There really are rich/powerful people that want a "New World Order," and are even pretty open about it sometimes.
- Some other humanoid life-form has never been confirmed; sure there's lots of people who have seen UFO's (including me, 3 times), and people who have even testified to meeting them in friendly or very unfriendly encounters, but this doesn't actually prove that aliens exist. They could be humans (i.e. NWO engineers) with advanced costumes & tech posing as aliens, or they could even be extra-dimensional beings (a.k.a. demons) posing as aliens.
- There has been a lot of information coming at the public in the past 65 years or so (in news media, books, radio/TV/movies "entertainment," etc.) about the "reality" of aliens, and at an increasing rate in recent years, and public conditioning/manipulation/deception certainly does actually go on, a lot, so skepticism about all this unusual activity is definitely rational.
Overall my 2 cents is: I wouldn't bite an "alien" line, whether it came in friend or foe form. If anything like what's described in the above-shared "channeled transmission" does come to pass, I think it's most likely just the "elites" looking to bring in their New World Order via a grand deception, like 9/11/o1, but bigger. And of course they would ostracize those that don't buy it as "ignorant Christians set in their beliefs," etc., but that would just be more b.s.; there are really good reasons to doubt any alien revelation, and there is really good wisdom in the Bible too by the way, the warning of false prophets (e.g. "wise aliens") who can deceive many being an example of it (Mark 13:22).
Ultimately I believe, based on a lot of research and contemplation, the key is this: if anyone ("alien" or human) offering a global "solution" isn't talking about sovereign veganic homesteads as an option for everyone, i.e. the ability to live free, naturally and nonviolently, then it's just another collectivist scheme/deception that doesn't really benefit mankind, animals or the Earth.
Never assume, to do so is to be believing the lie that you know something that you really don't, and lies are of the devil, who is here only to kill and destroy (John 10:10).
Focus on la paz, la libertad, la verdad, y el amor!
Focus on la paz, la libertad, la verdad, y el amor!
Here's another new article, also possibly for the purpose of mentally preparing the public for the coming fake revelation:
p.p.s. Some more perspective on this topic:
Sunday, August 2, 2015
"The attempt to explain the origin of life solely from chemical constituents is effectively dead now. Naturalism cannot answer the fundamental problem of how to get from matter and energy to biological function without the infusion of information from an intelligence. Information is not something derived from material properties; in a sense, it transcends matter and energy. Naturalistic theories that rely solely on matter and energy are not going to be able to account for information. Only intelligence can. I think that realization is going to progressively dawn on more and more people, especially younger scientists who have grown up in the age of information technology. ... Information is the hallmark of mind. And purely from the evidence of genetics and biology, we can infer the existence of a mind that's far greater than our own--a conscious, purposeful, rational, intelligent designer who's amazingly creative. There's no getting around it."
~ Professor Stephen C. Meyer, Director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture
“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups."
~ Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.
[updated July 28th, 2017]
by Colin Denny Donoghue
The mainstream acceptance of Darwinian Evolution Theory as a fact, namely the theory that all life descended from single-cell organisms (which came into existence without any intelligence to give the needed complex genetic information), one species turning into another species (despite this never being observed), demonstrates the power of forceful persuasion. If a false idea is pushed on people repeatedly from "experts," and any questioning of the idea is forcefully slandered and rejected outright, trying to intimidate people to accept their view, many people will be intimidated, and are then less likely to do their own research and discover that the idea being pushed is false. This is exactly what you find with those pushing Darwinian Evolution, they often resort to name-calling/slander, ignore the evidence that macro-evolution (i.e. one species becoming another species) doesn't actually happen, and try to frame the debate as "Science vs. God" (as if those that believe in God are necessarily anti-science, when they're not). But if you get passed that manipulation and misinformation (on Wikipedia, social-media, popular magazines, in State-issued textbooks, etc.) and take a close look at the evidence refuting the so-called "proof" of Darwinian Evolution, you can find a lot of technical scientific literature, and common sense, showing that basic tenets of this theory don't fit with reality, despite all the heated assertions of those pushing it on humanity; the fact of the matter is that Darwinian Evolution Theory flunks the science test. The following is a brief summary of the main problems with this theory:
- No real fossil evidence of transitional forms between species/kinds
at all; "Lucy" and other so-called "evidence" of a transitional species
is laughable in quality and has been thoroughly refuted, as the videos
and listed books below, along with many other sources, show. Whether
pointing to an ancient bird fossil and saying it's "half reptile"
without scientific basis (plus a useful/good reptilian leg mutating,
becoming less useful, while slowly becoming a good wing over
generations, doesn't help their survival chances by the way!), or
pointing to parts of a verified ape species and saying they're human, it's all just a mess of so-called evidence
that has been scientifically disproved time and
time again; every supposed "transitional fossil" turns out not to be so
when you look deeper into it (getting passed all the misinformation).
If there were really all these transitional species, there should be
massive numbers of examples of them (since the process of gradual
evolution supposedly happens over millions of years), but the Darwinian
evolutionists can only point to artist renditions and things like a
single tooth of "Nebraska Man" (that turned out to be from a pig!),
"Java Man" (that turned out to be a human), etc. This is probably why those pushing Darwinian Evolution tend not to
talk for long about specific fossil evidence of transitional
species from one kind of animal to another, or if they do it's pointing at more monkey, ape or human skulls. Speaking
of this commonly encountered tactic of avoidance of undisputed scientific evidence,
interestingly in the 2015 "Mistakes and Hoaxes" issue of Popular
Science magazine they have two separate articles on bunk evolutionary
science: the first on the "Piltdown Man," declared as another "missing
link" but turned out to be a hoax, and the second article on how the idea that
man evolved from apes doesn't actually hold up to the evidence. Admitting these
facts is very good, yet, for no scientific reason, they still insist
there is a "common ancestor" between humans and apes, even though they
cite no specific evidence for one! They just say there is, and that's
it. That's not real science. This heavily
slanted irrationality is typical of false belief, rather than of evidence
or experience taking precedence with one's claims about reality. They
refuse to let go of the evolutionary theory which has been proven bunk
over and over, and side-step the reality, referencing nothing in
particular, and apparently hope no one will notice! This same exact
thing is found in the HBO documentary Questioning Darwin,
in which they speak of "infinite evidence" for macroevolution, but then don't get into the
details of any! Again they just expect you to believe the "experts."
This "science" documentary, just like the very misleading PBS TV Series Evolution, completely ignores all the scientists that reject Darwinian Evolution as unscientific. Also showing its scientifically hollow core, it is filled with long tangents on the
romanticized life of Darwin, plus a few cherry-picked Christians that believe in an absolute
literal interpretation of everything in the Bible; the makers of this documentary
(like current Wikipedia writers) were clearly trying to discredit the idea of Intelligent Design (and Christianity), but, to
anyone with some basic awareness of the issue, obviously failed, just as the PBS series failed, though both will sadly probably still work as effective propaganda on many. It
appears the alternative possibility of Intelligent Design is so
unacceptable to these evolutionary theory propagators that they will
continue to twist (or just declare!) so-called facts to fit an
evolution/atheist world-view so that design appears "disproved," even
after it has been admitted in mainstream publications that it's their own previous claims on evolution
that are the only thing that has been proven false.
National Geographic magazine (the same magazine that recently had a perverse cover photo of a boy dressed as a girl, pushing the transgender "revolution") had a cover story titled "Was Darwin Wrong?," and ridiculously highlighted the bulldog as proof that he wasn't! A bulldog is still a dog! It's not a new species!
- Related to the above problem of lacking fossil evidence for gradual progressive change in life-forms going from one species to another, there is no satisfactory explanation/evidence for how Darwinian Evolution mechanisms could have facilitated the "Cambrian Explosion," otherwise known as "Darwin's Dilemma." The fossil record of the immense number of new species suddenly appearing on Earth directly contradicts Darwin's "tree of life" hypothesis; there is not a slow gradual progression from simple to more complex life forms as his theory claimed.
- Other evolution theorists posit "cladogenesis" (i.e. one species jumping to/"branching out" to be another kind of animal without transition) as an alternative to the problem of lack of evidence for transitional species, but they also deliver no solid evidence/observation/explanation for their idea; in fact all that has been observed is the extinction of many species over time, not new ones popping up from older ones via physical birthing; therefore this other aspect of evolutionary theory is also not scientific at all, and it also contradicts the very definition of evolutionary theory! These evolutionists now say evolution occurs suddenly without transition (hence the "genesis," no irony using that term huh?), but that's exactly the opposite of what the theory has been proposing: gradual changes in species that result in a whole new species!
- Evolutionists claim that so-called "micro-evolution" leads to "macro-evolution" (i.e. Darwinian Evolution of one kind into another), but again this is just speculation without confirmed observation. The common claim by evolutionary theorists that "from one-celled organisms evolved all life on earth" is a baseless statement (no authoritative specific evidence, only circumstantial); that's not good science!
- Changes within a species has been observed (like the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, or change in coat-color of beach mice), but not a mutation that causes one species to become more complex, let alone another kind of animal. There has been no observation or evidence of mutation creating a new kind of animal (despite great efforts, especially with many generations of fruit flies), and yet this is given as the main means of evolution! Mutations have only been observed to recombine already existing information, or to result in a loss of information (a.k.a. genetic entropy); it doesn't add new information to the genome that would account for molecules-to-man evolution; the mutation-creates-greater-complexity-of-life theory is scientifically baseless. Also the amazing automatic DNA self-repair process stands in stark opposition to the mutation-to-new-species process, Evolutionists just discount the former as unimportant when it clearly is very important. And even with this amazing self-repair process of DNA that counters "beneficial mutation," what has been observed is genetic entropy, i.e. more and more non-beneficial mutations, which follows the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The consistent observation is that the human genome has been degrading over time, not evolving into superior form. Mutation is overwhelming destructive, not constructive.
- Chromosome-count change doesn't lead to macro-evolution, it results in an animal no longer being able to reproduce.
- No scientific explanation for the immense complexity of DNA (or the brain, etc., of all of the incredible life-forms found on Earth) occurring via random mutations. To say the immense complexity that comprises all the life-forms of such awe-inspiring beauty and functionality could come into existence simply via mutation, random chance and time is baseless irrationality (basically equivalent to saying a whirlwind in a junkyard could produce a fully functioning and polished Ferrari, if the whirlwind just had enough time!)... it's evidence-less theory, that also goes against the Second Law of Thermodynamics (we observe material things decay over time when left to themselves, they don't become more ordered). To posit that the amazingly functional biological complexity found on Earth (like humans) happened by Darwinian processes alone, without Intelligent Design of life-forms or of the supposed Darwinian life-making process, is accepting probabilities that are so astronomically low as to be impossible for all practical purposes. For example, based on the observed complexity of DNA, in order for that to exist by chance as it is in its fully functional and amazing form in even "simple" organisms, it's been calculated that we're talking about something like a chance of 1 in 10-to-the-600th power (1 followed by 600 zeros), a number so ridiculously large it's well beyond any comprehension, or relevance. Good science always rejects impossible probabilities, yet Darwinian Evolution proponents give a pass on this requirement, to blindly support their bunk theory. And regardless, on top of this mathematical implausibility, the idea of DNA manifesting randomly contradicts what scientists have observed and discovered about DNA:
- There is no evidence that DNA can exist without already existing DNA to create it; all observation shows no DNA manifestation from existing material substances. Evolutionists propose "abiogenesis" happens, i.e. "the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter," yet once again they can provide zero observational evidence for this ever occurring! Both DNA replication and correct reading of its code require information, information in enzymes that are precisely specified by the DNA itself; absolutely no by-chance creation of DNA by something of lesser complexity has ever been observed. The Law of Biogenesis states that no life can come from non-living matter, and this is for good reason, it is an observational fact that is in complete opposition to their abiogenesis theory.
- Natural selection is not a macro-evolutionary process, there is always a genetic barrier that prevents someone from breeding dogs into cats (or any other species). Darwinists utilize an insufficient natural process to try to remedy the problem of macro-evolution's impossible probability. The impossible remains impossible over time, yet they want you to believe some unobserved biological magic happens just because of the passing of a lot of time.
- One very common (and very bunk) claim made by Darwinisits is that similarity between some life-forms is proof of a common ancestor. Shared DNA is not proof of speciation (i.e. one species becoming another species). An analogy: Shared lego building blocks between lego creations doesn't prove that one lego creation can transform into another lego creation. A Darwinian scientist once used photos of similar cars (corvettes) in back-to-back model-years to supposedly demonstrate how macro-evolution happens, forgetting that each car was designed and made my intelligent beings! His "science" was bunk, just as is that which says my ancestors include bananas. Humans share about 50% of their DNA with bananas, but that doesn't prove that humans and bananas have a common ancestry, it only proves that they share some of the same building material. (And by the way the claim that humans and chimpanzees have DNA that is 98% similar has been shown to be false, the number is about 70%.) Since having the majority of the same DNA building blocks is not sufficient to prove macro-evolution or explain how exactly organs, etc. would drastically change from one form to another, evolutionists resort to simple drawings they make up to try and deceive the public and/or rationalize their bunk theory. And when there are not similar enough looking species to line up next to each other in illustrations, those illustrations are often doctored in ways that there is no fossil evidence for whatsoever (putting in webbed feet, making Neanderthals (who were ancient humans) look more like apes, etc.). For the ape-to-human-connection they we able to convince many people because there are many extinct monkey and ape species they could point to, and fill in the gaps with "Lucy" etc.. This is their more convincing (while still very false) macro-evolution story, but then with animals like elephants or trilobites they have little to nothing to offer in their story-telling, so they usually don't talk about the latter. Again, some similar genetics or body structures does not demonstrate common ancestry, but just some common building materials and at times somewhat similar bodies. Returning to the example of similar cars (all of which were designed and created by an intelligent being), putting them side-by-side to prove that one morphed into the other is not "science," it's just a story that can seem plausible; lies often can seem plausible to people, but if they look and think more carefully they will discover that they are lies.
- Inference of intelligence (i.e. of Intelligent Design) from biological/physical evidence is valid science, to claim that scientific evidence can never indicate the operation of an intelligent being, is clearly false, e.g. scientists have been listening to signals in space for many years hoping to find some signs of intelligent extraterrestrial life. Inference of intelligence is also of course key to archeology and forensic science.
- The problem of "irreducible complexity," i.e. if you backtrack one step in the supposed evolutionary process of an organism, like say remove one of the components of the flagellum (a whip like appendage that moves around to propel a bacteria, spun by a precise biological motor), it wouldn't work at all, so the species would be at an extreme disadvantage, e.g. not being able to move. In Darwin's book The Origin of Species, in the "Difficulties on Theory" chapter, Darwin said: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." And that's exactly what has been demonstrated by the flagellum, along with other biological components (see also book references below for even more details). Also speaking of the origin of life-forms, the clearest and most important example of irreducible complexity is the origin of life, which Darwinists have given no solid explanation for whatsoever, theorizing that it possibly involved "amino acids piggy-backing on crystals" and/or "advanced aliens"! Even "basic" proteins are actually of such a complexity that expecting them to form without design also doesn't hold up to analysis. How the initial building blocks of life actually turned into complex cellular life is completely unaccounted for, they just give unscientific ideas like that, or the classic "lightning strikes in a primordial soup could do it," even though this has never been observed or produced in a laboratory.
- Darwinian Theory has no solid explanation for consciousness, free will, or conscience. Speaking of consciousness, use your own to ponder this question: How could dead matter evolve into consciousness? And related to this, where did our conscience come from? And where did free will come from if there is no free will among atoms, etc. which always unwaveringly obey physical laws? Darwinian Evolution Theory, and the ultra-materialist anti-spiritual perspective that goes along with it, seems to be even against the obvious fact of our own consciousness and free will, by saying that we're governed simply by chemical processes and survival instincts.
When someone never admits real mistakes and they just keep coming up with additional irrational explanations to defend their ever-changing position, that's a clear indicator that false beliefs are what's really driving their ideas, not the scientific method. Evolutionists seem to care more about steering away from anything that might indicate Intelligent Design is at play (because of their atheism belief) than they care about discovering what the facts of life really are. This is why they keep changing their "proof," resorting to other false artist drawings and fossil evidence and/or microbiology studies that claim to demonstrate proof of macroevolution, but when looked into more carefully never really do. They make up stories, about horse evolution that is then disproved, and whale stories about their ancestors being walking land-mammals, and then when that's disproved they say, "Oh okay, they're ancestors were actually hippos," etc. etc. rather than just admit defeat. Another strategy of Darwinian promoters and internet trolls is to say something like: "You obviously don't understand evolution," and then leave it at that, hoping that their brief and inadequate quip of supposed superiority will be enough to persuade anyone reading the debate. Another common one is something like "Any science before 5 years ago is irrelevant," which is of course false, and just a convenient way to ignore their history of hoaxes and other disproved bunk science, ignore excellent resources like the books listed below, and try to marvel people with cherry-picked modern complex deceptive studies. (Worth noting: That dynamic of never admitting mistakes and engaging in one irrational diversion after another can be observed outside of science debates too, it's a hallmark of deep-seated denial based on false belief.)
"In the face of these forced admissions of failure to find supporting scientific evidence, how can these men of science continue to press so dogmatically for their shaky views? No wonder they fight to keep students from hearing the opposing arguments. Their positions would crumble under the impartial investigation of honest research." ~ Joe Crews, How Evolution Flunked the Science Test, p. 20This all shows that a) their theory is not actually sound, and b) they are more interested in defending their ideology than in following the scientific method and honoring whatever the truth is. They want people to believe bananas are our distant cousins (which is an extremely incredible idea, whether you are religious or not), and then ignore requests to show solid evidence for this claim. This inability to point to specific evidence is ongoing as I add this additional note now; the comments I keep receiving on this post from the Darwinian-Evolution-defenders consist of one diversion after another and/or one personal attack after another, but still no solid scientific evidence. Here's a good comment I found in reply to some of the aggressive/slandering anti-science pro-Darwinian Evolution trolls that abound online: "You should not make comments. You aren't helping the evolutionists' cause because all your speech is filled with hatred and scorn but no actual scientific refutations! ... - the things in this video [below] have certainly NOT been debunked. You are either lying or are just ignorant." The slanderous non-scientific comments being referred to, that I have also seen many times, just add further support to the scientific position rejecting Darwinian Evolution as fact. When Darwinian evolution has been put on trial by those who care more about the truth than pushing an atheistic world-view, it has been found clearly guilty of impersonating solid science.
As I said at the top of this post, the theory of Evolution has been pushed very forcefully on the population, by supposed experts, and so many "educated" people just take it as fact because they "trust the scientific community." In the same way, people follow the blood-sacrifice/magical-incantation version of Christianity that is pushed on them via the church establishment, because they trust in that too. Misplaced trust in, and one could even say the worship of, the false idols of hierarchical and authoritarian institutions is a long, sad and tragic story that continues to this day, disempowering and misleading countless people, generation after generation.
So what is so disempowering and misleading about the theory of Evolution? It's simple and subtle, but powerful. The main take-away from this theory, that remember says humans evolved from a "primordial soup," is: "You came from pond scum." Therefore the subconscious association made is "You are scum." And therefore also "There is nothing Divine about you," also supporting, "God does not exist." These beliefs do have an affect on the minds of men; for example the mass-murderer Jeffrey Dahmer:
"If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…" ~ Interview with Stone Phillips on the NBC television program Dateline, Nov. 29, 1994.And then there is how "Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies," so clearly, the bunk science of Darwinian Evolution Theory has negative implications well beyond giving false information about biology.
The main affect of this theory on humanity, like all malevolent propaganda, is disempowerment. Think this evaluation is a stretch? Well, the reality is: Transmitting a very simple and subtle, but also very detrimental false idea, repeatedly and forcefully to your subconscious mind, is the very hallmark of effective propaganda. Darwinian Evolution Theory which is pushed on the population fits that formula perfectly, it is "Big Lie" propaganda that is pushed out in the open (like the official 9/11 story, from which the main subconscious takeaway is "I need the Government to protect me, the Government = the good guys."). There are of course other subtle forms of propaganda out in the mainstream too, like the popularized "revolutionary" street artists whose main imagery depicts common people as rats/vermin, or who plaster the word "Obey" everywhere, neither of which is revolutionary at all, despite whatever "clever" rationalizations are given in explanation. The subconscious doesn't deal with those rationalizations, it deals with "I'm scum," "I'm vermin," "I should obey," and "Government is good/needed and keeps us safe." Those that seek to control populations (yes, there really are such authoritarian people, if you doubt this read a little history), especially in current times, seem to know that the power of belief serves them better than anything else, and if you get the population to believe extremely disempowering ideas like that of scum-of-the-earth Evolution and distorted blood-sacrifice/magical-incantation Christianity, then the masses are much much easier to control; both science and religion have been clearly manipulated via establishment institutions to serve the purpose of mind/population control. You can dismissively call this a conspiracy theory, but then that would just ironically reveal another false belief you've been indoctrinated to hold, i.e. that conspiracies don't actually happen on a regular basis; conspiracies (i.e. people working secretly together for a selfish/harmful purpose) are commonplace in the corporate, political and economic realms of society; that's just a common-sense fact. Once you see clearly how the main scientific and religious ideas pushed on us are complete bullshit, and you see why those ideas would be pushed, it's no stretch of the imagination, it's actually waking up to the truth.
The following are excellent resources on the theory of evolution for evaluation, keep in mind that the science academy/institutions have been heavily censoring the publication of reputable articles concerning Intelligent Design and/or showing the faults of Evolutionary Theory (and firing/"disciplining" any scientists that even mention Intelligent Design), so these books in particular are how the quality information has thus far been best presented to the public (though the videos/interviews and websites below also contain excellent information):
- No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence (2nd Edition) by William A. Dembski
- The Edge of Evolution by Michael J. Behe
- Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer
- Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer
- The Case against Darwin: Why the Evidence Should Be Examined by James Perloff
- Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism by James Perloff
- Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton
- The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God by Lee Strobel
- Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach about Evolution is Wrong by Jonathan Wells
- Not by Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution by Lee M. Spetner P.h.d.
- Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome by Dr. John C. Sanford
- Undeniable Design by Douglas Axe
"Scientists Prove Human Evolution Being a HOAX."
"Frog to Prince"
It would be wrong to not address the subject of Divinity in more depth here, since it is of course very worthy of discussion, and is usually part of the debate concerning the origin of life, so I will do so now, but briefly, since this post is more about disproving Darwinian Evolution than it is about trying to convince people there is a Divine Creator. Many atheists point to evils in the world as proof that there is no loving Divinity. This perspective operates on certain assumptions, though as far as I've seen, usually never directly stating the assumptions, probably because their perspective would become instantly less solid-sounding if they did:
Assumption #1: "There is no evil force opposing the Creator." This is quite an assumption, being that it goes against thousands of years of theology, history and psychology that clearly point to exactly the opposite. They assume that the Creation hasn't been corrupted by separate evil, and isn't continuing to be corrupted further by separate evil, even though the evidence for that grows daily.
Assumption #2: "A good God wouldn't permit evil." And you know this without a doubt... how exactly? You know the entire metaphysical reality and what is ultimately necessary and/or for the best? This is basically the "I'm enlightened" atheist perspective... yet I'm pretty sure they're not enlightened/omniscient. Also the question of evil has very intelligent responses from current and ancient philosophers, e.g. that in order for there to be people with free will evil has to be allowed as a possible choice, otherwise we would all just be programmed robots, which would be a world without love or freedom, and so not worth creating.
Assumption #3: "Natural Disasters and Birth Defects prove there's no loving Creator and that Intelligent Design is false." A study of the Earth's amazingly complex and against-all-odds life-sustaining operations makes fixation on natural disasters irrational, and also ignores their unavoidable existence within the Ecology/Earth-Sciences that is overall life-preserving (e.g. Plate Tectonics: "For life, advanced or primitive, to exist for more than a few million years, a planet’s crust must easily crack into movable plates that can slide both past and underneath one another.") As for birth defects, again this is irrational fixation, ignoring the fact that the majority of babies are still, even with the problems of genetic entropy, extreme increases in toxic chemicals, radiation, etc. born perfect. (Similarly atheists will point to "Junk DNA" and vestigial organs as evidence there is no designer, while both fixations again ignore the bigger reality, and also ignore the repeated revelations concerning what was at first thought useless turned out to be not so). They also ignore the fact that leading causes of birth defects are caused by evils of human society that were not part of the original natural design at all, e.g. chemical/radioactive weapons, recreational and pharmaceutical drugs, x-rays and other tools of modern medicine, etc. Creation has been increasingly corrupted; to ignore the pure origin and focus only on the present is irrational. So Assumption #3 ignores the details of physiological/geological reality and history, and that does not make for a good basis of argument (nor does any assumption).
"No one has ever seen a quark, and we believe that no one ever will. They are so tightly bound to each other inside the protons and neutrons that nothing can make them break out on their own. Why, then, do I believe in these invisible quarks? ... In summary, it's because quarks make sense of a lot of direct physical evidence... I wish to engage in a similar strategy with regard to the unseen reality of God. His existence makes sense of many aspects of our knowledge and experience: the order and fruitfulness of the physical world; the multi-layered character of reality; ... the phenomenon of Jesus Christ... I think that very similar thought processes are involved in both cases. I do not believe that I shift in some strange intellectual way when I move from science to religion. ... In their search for truth, science and faith are intellectual cousins under the skin."
~ John Polkinghorne, Quarks, Chaos and Christianity, p. 98-100
"Faith does not imply a closed, but an open mind. Quite the opposite of blindness, faith appreciates the vast spiritual realities that materialists overlook by getting trapped in the purely physical."
~ Sir John Templeton