I'm Pure Evil

I think the most interesting thing is that I answered honestly.


How evil are you?

Why 32 Are Dead

Yesterday was one of the worst days I have had in a very long time. I watched the news as the reported death toll climbed and wondered why so many people were senselessly dying. I also thought of others across the nation who were killed at the end of a gun or the point of a knife that were not reported- those killed in a back alley somewhere for a few bucks from their wallet. Statistically, every two weeks more people in Washington DC alone are murdered than were murdered at Virginia Tech yesterday.

Murder, unfortunately, will always be a part of human society. It will absolutely never go away, and anyone who says it can is a fool. Because I know this, I was not surprised to hear that once again someone had shot up a bunch of people. What made me really mad is that the people had to sit there cowering in a corner waiting to be shot- because they couldn't do a thing about it. Virginia Tech in a so-called "weapons-free zone." At least until a murderer brings a weapon onto campus.

I fought with my anger all day yesterday focusing on the Virginia lawmakers, who just recently shot down a law that would have required Virginia Tech to allow both students and faculty the God-given right to self-defense by allowing them to carry a gun. In fact, the effort to shoot down this law was hugely supported by Virginia Tech itself. Even a single student or faculty member armed with a gun of their own could have prevented dozens of deaths, just as in DC dozens of deaths could be prevented by allowing the general population to carry weapons.

But today, my spirits were lifted when I saw that apparently I am not alone in my opinions. Polls that I have seen today claim that, on average, about 75% of the nation thinks that had guns been allowed on the campus the death toll would have been greatly reduced, if the gunman had even decided to do it at all (I think he still would have in this case) as opposed to the other 25% or so who believed that further restrictions on guns is the answer.

As my focus began to move away from politicians and stupid laws, I began to realize that I missed something, something that I am ashamed to have missed. The single reason that the death toll was so high, and the reason that it remains high in DC, New York, LA, and across the nation, the reason our government feels it is necessary to disarm the people in direct violation of our Constitution, is that we as a nation are continually turning our backs on God. We remove Him from school, from government, and we worship politically correctness in His place. And these are the results: gunmen in our schools, and thousands of defenseless students for them to prey on until our politically-correct police finally show up to stop it. Three murders every day in DC, and people who believe dialing 911 is actually going to help.

This could have been prevented. This should have been prevented. But without a basis for morality we pass feel-good laws that make us feel safe knowing full well that people are going to die as a result. This nation needs to wake up. We need God, we need morality in our society, and our government needs to realize that it is put in place by God to serve the people, not to remove their ability to defend themselves from murderers.

Religious Thoughts on Minuteman Experiences

This weekend I attended the opening ceremonies for the Minutemen month-long April operations. I was very pleased to be able to say the opening prayer, which can be found in the political section of my blog.

One thing that I noticed (once again) was that the dedication of the Minutemen goes so far beyond protesting and letter-writing. Many Minutemen have run for office across the nation, and we even had a fly-by of two Minuteman airplanes, dubbed "The Minuteman Air Force." One of the planes even had "MM AZ" painted across the bottom of the wings. These people, who donate their lives, money and equipment to the cause, are backed and supported by the rest of the Minuteman leadership and volunteers with action, not just words. It was an amazing thing to see.

I then got to thinking about the state of things in the religious arena. The latest attack on Christians comes in the form of a "Hate-Crimes" bill that would make it a federal felony to speak out against homosexual lifestyles. This would mean that a pastor who is preaching The Bible to his congregation could get fines and jail time, as well as lose many of his personal rights.

Why is the church not motivated enough to organize a specific attempt to get good freedom-loving Christian men and women into power? Why are we allowing our hands to be tied by "political correctness" instead of battling it with everything we have? Why is the church so absent in politics?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think anyone, Christians included, should violate the Constitution to force people to do what we would want them to do. I believe in free-will, I believe in freedom, and I believe that this country should be religiously free. The freedom that was put in place by the Founding Fathers was based on the Bible, and I believe that a violation of that freedom is sinful. But we stand by silently while those freedoms are raped just because "Christians shouldn't be involved in politics," or because ignorant people believe that "Separation of Church and State" means that personal religious convictions don't have a place in government (unless those convictions are liberal), or we are simply too cowardly to stand up to political correctness.

The church, as a whole, absolutely needs to wake up and see the direction the world is heading. We live in a unique country where we as Christians can actually be in power, yet we just are not willing to even try. What could be more sinful for the church? The church has the funding, the people, the infrastructure, and the backing by the people of this country to be a tool for God and for freedom, but we just simply don't do it. We even have Christians in office, yet there is very little organizational support from the church. "We should be ashamed" just doesn't cut it. In fact, I would go as far as saying that whatever happens to this country is OUR FAULT because we have ignored this opportunity. It's time to change that. Because if we don't change it now, the Bible is soon going to be a "Hate Crime" in and of itself.

Minuteman Invocation

I'm excited because I was just invited to provide the Invocation for the opening of the Minuteman operations this weekend. I don't know how much I am going to be able to participate, but if I get to open the month in prayer, I feel that I have done my duty.

Prophesy, or Educated Guess

Here is a link to and the text of an interesting article I would like to discuss:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/1/3/71722.shtml?s=al&promo_code=2BA3-1

Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2007 7:15 a.m. EST
Pat Robertson: Major Terrorist Attack in 2007

In what has become an annual tradition of prognostications, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said Tuesday God has told him that a terrorist attack on the United States would result in "mass killing" late in 2007.
"I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear," he said during his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian Broadcasting Network. "The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that."
Robertson said God told him during a recent prayer retreat that major cities and possibly millions of people will be affected by the attack, which should take place sometime after September.
Robertson said God also told him that the U.S. only feigns friendship with Israel and that U.S. policies are pushing Israel toward "national suicide."
Robertson suggested in January 2006 that God punished then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with a stroke for ceding Israeli-controlled land to the Palestinians.
The broadcaster predicted in January 2004 that President Bush would easily win re-election. Bush won 51 percent of the vote that fall, beating Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
In 2005, Robertson predicted that Bush would have victory after victory in his second term. He said Social Security reform proposals would be approved and Bush would nominate conservative judges to federal courts.
Lawmakers confirmed Bush's 2005 nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. But the president's Social Security initiative was stalled.
"I have a relatively good track record," he said. "Sometimes I miss."
In May, Robertson said God told him that storms and possibly a tsunami were to crash into America's coastline in 2006. Even though the U.S. was not hit with a tsunami, Robertson on Tuesday cited last spring's heavy rains and flooding in New England as partly fulfilling the prediction.

Alright. I have always questioned Pat Robertson. I don't know if I can trust someone who has an entire show on the good things that happen to people when they give money to him. I also seem to disagree on way too much of his doctrine.

That said, I am a person that likes to give the benefit of the doubt. Frankly, Pat is making a claim that he is a prophet. He is saying that God revealed something to him. He has done this on a national level, putting God's reputation on the line. After all, he said that the Lord has told him this.

Could this be? SURE! I have no doubt that the Lord could have told him this. But there is something that I see, in Pat's own words, that puts up a huge red flag: "I have a relatively good track record," he said. "Sometimes I miss." "I" have a relatively good track record? Sometimes "I" miss? HOLD ON RIGHT THERE. Who is making these predictions? Is it Pat? Or is it God? Somehow I don't think God would get a "relatively good track record," or "sometimes miss." So this begs the question - where in this information coming from?

Is Pat a prophet as he is claiming? NO. Not if HE has a relatively good track record, no. Not if HE sometimes misses. We'll see about the terrorist attack. I will make no claim that in this particular instance that this information isn't from God, but with a "relatively good" track record somehow I think Pat is trying to be something he isn't. That would be called a "false prophet." That doesn't mean that everything he predicts will be wrong, but it means he is just making educated guesses and claiming prophesy for his own gain.

The Missing Link

Evolution vs. Creation Science is one of the most controversial topics in religion today. According to today's Church, evolution undermines everything Christians believe in. It says that people were not created, everything is chance, and there is no God. People therefore have no inherent value. I agree strongly that with no God, people have no inherent value. But I do not necessarily believe that evolution proves that there is no God. White I consider myself a Creation-evolutionist, I am not completely convinced either way on this issue as I see strong (yes I DID say strong) scientific evidence in favor of evolution, but I also see strong (once again STRONG) evidence against the traditional evolutionary theory. This did not make sense to me for a long time, but I believe I have come up with one possible scenario for the beginning of time and the world. If you hold any traditional view whether it be Christian or Evolutionist, I disagree with you. My view is not traditional. While I would be surprised if I were the only one to hold this belief, I have never met anyone who does. But just because no one believes it does not make it false. People for a long time thought the world was flat, and they were wrong. The Christian Church killed people for saying that Earth was not the center of the universe. They thought that the Earth not being in the center would undermine the Bible. We know now that the earth is most definitely NOT the center, but Christianity is still thriving. It turned out that the Bible could be correct even while the Earth was not the center of the universe. In fact, there was no conflict, it was tradition that was in conflict, not the Bible. I am determined now to find out if evolution is in conflict with the Bible, or simply in conflict with traditional beliefs.

Every living thing on this planet has a chemical in their cells called DNA. DNA is the blueprint of life. Using different combinations of four substances, DNA tells the cells in an organism how to put together a life form. When a life form reproduces, small errors called mutations appear in the DNA in the new life form, much like when you make a copy of an audio tape. These mutations usually do absolutely nothing, but once in a while have an effect on the new organism. Unlike copying an audio tape, once in a very long while these mutations can have a positive effect. This effect will allow the new organism to live easier and be more likely to reproduce. If it reproduces, the new modification will be passed down to the next generation. Eventually, this modification will alter the entire species because the ones with this modification live easier than the others and will reproduce more. What I have just described is a known, observable and proven fact, called micro-evolution. This DOES happen. The type of evolution in question is macro-evolution. This, put simply, is micro-evolution on a scale that would alter a species so much that it would turn into another species, i.e. it could not produce offspring with the original species that would be able to produce offspring of it's own. An example would be a horse and a donkey... they can have offspring together, a mule, but mules are sterile. Therefore horses and donkeys are different species. Kind of.

Most Christians that I talk to say "I believe in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution! *GOD* created the universe!!!!" From what I see, if micro-evolution were not PROVEN, they would not believe in that either. But we know it happens, so in that case they would be wrong. But we do know it happens, so they have to admit it. "But I don't believe in macro-evolution," they say. "Why?" I ask. The way I see it, if you put two groups of the same species in drastically different environments (let's say one very hot and one very cold) and leave them for a few hundred years, then change the environments on them again (say make one group have to run very fast in order to eat and the other has to dig into the ground to eat), then change again to something else, in the course of a thousand years or so the two groups would have micro-evolved themselves into slightly different species. Now that they are different species, they will continue to micro-evolve without genetic influence from the other group, even if they two groups are re-introduced to each other in the same environment. This could eventually lead to a drastically different species, and would be called macro-evolution. This has only been observed on a very limited number of occasions, but it has happened as well. The question is this: are the limited number of occasions enough to prove that life on Earth evolved? Most Christians (including me) would say no. It's not enough. But unlike most other Christians, this catches my attention, because it just flat out makes sense.

Frankly, I don't see how macro-evolution can't exist if micro-evolution does. If you change the DNA enough, you WILL eventually have a different species. They may look and act the same, but they will be different enough to not be able to reproduce. Once that happens, the two groups cannot influence each others' genes. I don't see how this can't be happening. "Because GOD would stop it! Because evolution is WRONG!!!" Well sorry, I don't think God would stop it, there is nothing Biblical that says that God would stop it. In fact, this system (if true) is an absolutely BRILLIANT system! It would be horrible to deny God the glory for thinking it up if that's how things actually work!

Ever since the idea of evolution came to be, it has had holes or "missing links." If species evolve slowly, where are the "in-between" animals? Well, first of all, if evolution is true, a common cat may be an "in-between" animal for something else down the road. It just looks normal to us because we are used to seeing it... but more important I believe is the first question. The "missing links" throw a wrench into the idea of evolution. No solid fossil records of any "in-between" animals in the past, only huge and vast jumps in evolution, which are not possible. We have mammoths and elephants, but nothing linking them. We have kittens and tigers, but nothing linking them. We have lizards and snakes, but once again, nothing linking them. Where are the fossil records of these "in-between" animals? They don't exist. This, many would say, disproves evolution on a macro scale. I DON'T... I have found the missing link, and why it has not been discovered before is simple. It's because the missing link is nothing less than the Bible itself. The history recorded in the Bible was the final clue to me that evolution really could be true.

What is this "Missing Link?" It's time. The problem with the traditional evolutionary theory is simply that they have the timeline all wrong. When we look into the fossil record, we are seeing at most 10,000 years into the past, not 10,000,000. The reasons I believe this I will explain in later posts, but for now let's make that assumption. If we can only see 10,000 years into the past, no wonder all we see are huge leaps in the evolutionary changes. It's because we can't see far back enough to see the "in-between" species. Think about that for a while, and I'll post more later.