Letters


Create new letter

why you are out to lunch

Created on Aug 23 2013
fact and conjecture
for a "rationalist" to broach the subject of faith
is as ridiculous as a juggler qualifying for the olimpics.
Richard Dawkins has been getting a lot of press for his overt rejection of faith. It is his mission....and how he gets his press...If he wasn't a professional "Atheist" he wouldn't be interesting at all....Pissing of groups of people is the oldest way of gaining some cheap notoriety. And he has elevated it to a high science.
Firstly, if God wanted to present a "carnal" argument, for a spiritual matter, he would be abnegating a person's right of choice...He could categorically convince everyone that his is all powerful and completely in charge..but....that would result in a lot of people just bending their necks as slaves in a no win contest against the almighty...who could resist him...
furthermore, sin and death came into the world of people through a choice, based on a deception. And ignoring God's precept was a breach of faith. Therefore faith needed to be restored. some people believe this, some people don't. believing something does not make it true, and not believing something does not make it false. It is either true in itself , or it is not. simple as that. And , in the case of Jesus and salvation, you don't get to see the truth of it, until you believe. He could twist your arm and make you believe it. But , someone convinced against their will is of the same opinion still. God does not take prisoners. He frees them.
A person making a career of unbelief is as interesting as a person talking about the things they didn't do......
Here is another interesting thought. How many people think about why they don't believe in God?........the most common answer is....why does he let bad things happen to good people?.....the subtext of that is that...and here it is...."if he's there, he's doing it all wrong"......why do babies fall out windows?.....Is God sleeping?.....why do people suffer?....is he without mercy?.....etc.....apparently some people have the idea that God should grant wishes, and if you find the magic bottle, you should be able to tell him what to do....and why is God a "he"....isn't it all just part of some "patriarchal" conspiracy to keep down women and Gentiles ?......men and women are both made in the image of God...it's just that women are female....that doesn't mean they aren't made in his image, it just means that they are female...you know...so people could be born into a family...with parents.....born of love...and brought up by people who care for them....
But if you believe that life emerge because of some chemical event in an ancient sea , then you are exercising faith in a proposition...a hypothesis...conjecture...a notion that life could emerge from that which was previously lifeless. And until that event is demonstrated, you are engaged in speculation. And speculation is not evidence. It can't be testimony, even in a court of law. "Calls for speculation", is the objection , and it is struck from the court record. Hence, "Evolution" does not even meet the criterion for "rules of evidence".......And that's why Richard Dawkins is boring....His case is based on false evidence. And ,ergo, the subsequent conjecture of "evolution" is built on a foundation of conjecture....there's my case.....the "theory " of evolution is conjecture and supposition, without demonstrable proof. And does not even meet the rules of evidence. Until it is proven with the actual creation of life, from random chemical events, it is merely a guess. And, according to the statistical model, there was even less chemical activity in the oceans "millions of years ago" than there is today...Millions of years ago the oceans had no chemicals. The oceans didn't even have any salt. The salt and chemicals get into the ocean from the rivers. The rivers deliver a solution of minerals into the sea. And according to the scientific data, the oceans should be 10 times saltier than they are now. No explanation for it..Except the unproven hypothesis , that the earth is only one tenth as old as science believes.
So...if you dismiss the notion of a merciful God, because the world is so corrupt. Then consider this...God is modest. I am certain he accomplishes more than he gets credit for. He just doesn't want to take spiritual prisoners with a "miracle sideshow"...taking prisoners, through deceit, is the work of the Devil....the Father of Lies.......and his little minion , Richard Dawkins....flying around the planet on his broom telling everyone there is no God...
Well Richard....you seem to be investing a great deal of time refuting, what , in your mind, is a non reality. If something is unreal, Richard, then it is hardly worthy of consideration. And if it isn't worthy of consideration , why don't you just shut the fuck up about it.....?......go get a job teaching anthrofuckegy somewhere....or dickolosophy....I will tell you why......because the notion that the son of God died for you sins is the most interesting thing you've heard in your life....it is the most riveting concept on the face of the earth....and what you want most is the sublime faith in the Almighty.....In that your heart and spirit would know that you are not some random chemical fart in an otherwise empty universe...generating other random farts of utterly pointless nonsense...in a soulless world of fiduciary automation and personal politics , ruled by some warmongering pompous elite selling you crap on a cracker every way you turn......Jesus loves you, believe and repent and be saved.
Drago12345