Atheists Borrow from Christian Doctrine

Evolution borrows Christian Dogma

If evolution is the path through which life, and indeed human life, resides on this planet than there are many problems with how humanity is treated.

Evolution teaches that man is nothing more than an animal. It resides at the top of the food chain simply because it has become intelligent by means of natural selection. Evolutionists believe that man is a product of the earth, and a product of the universe, that there is nothing inherently majestic or special about human beings in the cosmos.

If man is no different that the animals, than his access to the resources of the planet should be no more restricted than an ant, or a duck.  As the animals all have equal access to the resources of the planet, than man being nothing more than an animal should also have the same access without restrictions.  There is no evolutionary reason for man to not build whatever he wishes where ever he wishes anytime he wishes. No reason for an animal to restrict  its use of the resources of the planet that spawned its very existence.

Environmentalists want man to be restricted from using some resources because it "harms" the environment. That is not logical, because if man was made from the same materials as the earth was made, than by not allowing him free use of all the resources is the same as genocide, and has potential to lead to extinction of the species.  In theory the planet spawned all life spontaneously, than all life can be said to be a product of the planet, and human use of the planet is no different than a plant using decayed waste as a nutrition source. So where did the idea come from that man is the master of the planet and needs to care for the environment?

The idea that man is higher than the animals, and that he needs to subdue the planet and be its steward comes from the Bible. Many environmentalist and atheists are borrowing from Christianity to make their claim.  The only possible reason for man to be restricted from complete access to Earth in its entirety is because the Bible teaches that man was made higher than all other animals and was commanded to rule over the whole planet and cultivate it.

So there is absolutely zero evolutionary reason for man to not:

Drill oil in the Gulf of Mexico
Cut down forests
Build in wetland areas
Burn coal and fill the skies with smoke
Ignore a minor temperature change
Create chemicals that kill insects
Put animals in cages
Use animals for experimental purposes
Drive massive vehicles
Create antibiotics that kill pathogens
Have intercourse with animals
Fish, hunt, or destroy other species, even to the point of extinction
Clone, or genetically modify any life form
Enslave other races, genders, species



No evolutionary reason at all!


The only argument that man should not do these things is because the earth was created perfect and man was put in charge of taking care of the planet by the Creator of the planet.  Your welcome!

Debt Payback Plan

An equitable and fair solution to the national debt issue.

Currently the National debt per citizen is equal to $56,634 and climbing, www.usdebtclock.org. This includes men, women, and children. Unfortunately is does not include illegal residents.  Every single living, breathing person in this country owes a whole lot of money that eventually must be paid back. But we keep on spending and borrowing to pay for our spending, this is a problem that will not go away. But I do see a solution on how to bring down the national debt.

The first step is, of course, to stop the profligate spending. We need a balanced budget, no more borrowing to pay for things we cannot afford. And I am not talking about cutting the "growth of spending" for the future and calling it a tax cut. We deserve a balanced budget, we demand a government that is responsible with the taxes we give them.  It is estimated that over $850B per year is channeled through the welfare system, this is larger than the GNP of some countries, and unsustainable.  So step #1 is a Balanced Budget, and make in an Amendment to the Constitution, so it will be harder to ignore.

The second step is to devise a fair way of paying off the debt we have already accrued, which stands at $18T, as of this writing.  The only fair way to do it is to make everyone, including non-citizens, pay back their portion of the debt, the $56,634 mentioned earlier.  I know that sounds harsh but here is how we do it.

1. We are not unfair misogynists, we do realize that there are some people who cannot work to pay off their portion, but there will be only a few exemptions. My list includes anyone under 18 (until they turn 18 and then they begin paying back), anyone who is not physically capable of meeting their own basic care needs, elderly, infirmed, those confined to wheel chairs, and the severely mentally handicapped.  I believe everyone else needs to provide some measure of work to pay back their debt.  The majority can do something, even if it is just a couple hours a day washing dishes or greeting people at the door. Even a paraplegic can use a grabber to pick up trash along the roadside or in parks.

All the taxes they pay into the system go to decreasing the debt. This will require many years of hard work and labor for most Americans, including the illegals.

2.  So the second step is to inform all residents, citizens, resident aliens and illegals that they will be required to take part in paying back the national debt. As a condition of living and working here in the United States, you and your family assume responsibility for the debt that has accrued.  I can almost guarantee a mass exodus of people from the country if this would be included in any Amnesty law.  All the Muslims that have found refugee status here will also not be exempt. If our money is good enough to pay for your daily expenses, then you will be required to invest in the future of the country.

3. The fair part comes in now, because everyone will have their previous contributions to the tax base considered as paying their share of the debt.  So the senior citizen that paid into the system their whole life, will have their taxes for their whole life deducted from the debt they owe. This will mean that most will have already paid their portion off, leaving them debt-free to live out the rest of their lives.  For decades the Social Security Trust Fund has been used as a slush fund for increased spending, and not set aside, as it was established, for the funding of the Social Security Program. This means that most of the people who have paid into the fund over the years will see nothing for their contribution to the Trust Fund. Unfair instance #1.

For decades the hard working American laborer has paid their taxes, and taken little, or nothing, in benefits out, and will still be straddled with the huge debt our citizens owe. Unfair Instance #2. And if you were to include as their contributions the taxes they have paid into the system, their debt would be paid off or almost paid off.

Let me lay this out with an example:  A family of 4 will have a debt of  $226,536 ( almost a quarter of a million dollars).  The children under 18 will not have their income included because their debt will be paid off after they turn 18 so $113,268 will be their current obligation.  With a household income at the median income $52,250 (www.deptofnumbers.com/income/us) and a tax rate of approximately 25% (www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/10/31/irs-announces-2014-tax-brackets-standard-deduction-amounts-and-more)  would pay $13,000 into the government per year. Meaning they would have their debt paid off in less than 10 years.

 This does however leave a rather sizable portion of the population that will owe a great deal of taxes and will need to find ways to pay that debt back. Those with a larger family will have more debt to pay back. Those who have not made any contributions to the system will have a larger burden to pay back. 

Before you think the rich are getting off, after all they have paid into the tax base for decades, in exceedingly larger amounts over the years, so their portion of the debt could already be considered to be paid back. But we will still have a government to run, the taxes the rich pay into the system will be used to contribute to the current running of the system. But remember we will have a Balance Budget and the only funding available for the running of the government will be the money the rich will be paying into the system going into the future.  That of course means the budget will be much lower than it is today, because the available tax base will be smaller as the majority will be paying into the system to pay back the national debt.

I know this will mean that the poor will have to find a job and start paying taxes. This is not heartless, as some may contend, this is what is right and fair for the whole population, we have subsidized the poor for decades and the problem has not gotten any better, in fact, we have grown the population that contribute nothing and receive assistance from the government. The time to pay back is upon us, we can no longer afford to borrow against our future.

Chrislam: is it possible? Updated

Many people claim that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. There is even a sect in Africa that merges the 2 great world religions into one, they call it Chrislam, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrislam.
There are many more intelligent and studious ministers that have debunked this religion and who have used lots of outside resources to convey their message.  I wish to use only 1 quote from the Quran and 1 quote from the Bible to ask my question: is it even possible? The common ground that we share is the idea that only one God exists, Allah or the Creator God. From here the religions depart unity.

Here is why:

Christians say that God makes Himself manifest in three distinct personalities. Many people have a problem with this concept, including Muslims. And yet they have no problem seeing themselves as having many different roles to play, for many they are parent, child, and employee all in one person. Much like our Creator, as Father he rules over all, like the son he serves the Father, and like the Holy Spirit he does the work;  we also have different functions to perform for the situation.
As the son Jesus, God tells us:
He (Jesus) is revealing his true nature, He calls Himself the truth. John 4:16 "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. Nobody comes to the Father except through me." The purpose of Jesus life was to reconcile God with the humanity that He had created by telling humanity the Truth of His nature and show them the way to eternal life.

When Allah spoke through the angel who thus translated the message to Mohammad, the quote is:

He (Allah) is revealing his true nature, he calls himself the "Great Deceiver".  By what means does someone get to call himself the "greatest" of deceivers? Obviously, by deceiving the largest number of people. The Muslim people claim that the Christians have been deceived, but the great deceiver did not speak to the Christians, it is not them that he has deceived.


This is where the two great world religions depart from each other. There simply cannot exist a religion in which the same deity claims to be the "Truth" while claiming to also be the "Great Deceiver." The claims are simply not compatible, and to make the statement that they are the same being is not logical.

So is Chrislam even possible?

Just a simple comparison that a third grader could think up, the idea that Allah and God the Father could ever be considered equivalents becomes a nonsensical statement. One came to bring the Truth, the other to deceive. It is all black and white, so to speak.

Update:

 When Allah says to his people "Allah is the greatest of deceivers" he is saying my words are used to deceive you. But I ask, it is those who do not believe your words, or those who do believe your words who are the people you are deceiving?  Allah is telling his followers that he is lying to them, and yet they still believe him.

Does government aid increase bigotry?

Many people believe that because we claim to live in a Christian nation, then the government should be responsible for tending to the poor.  Is this really what Jesus meant when he said we need to "care for the least of these?"

Lets start by defining the least of these. Who could we classify at the least among us? For many the poor would be considered, and indeed Jesus did speak about the poor much (see Luke 11:41; Mark 14:7; Luke 6:20) but were there others that could be considered "least" among us? (Matthew 11:11; 1 Cor 15:9; Luke 9:48) It would seem to mean anyone who does not have a leadership role, for many that would include more than just the poor, the in-firmed, the down-trodden. Our American definition includes anyone who cannot take care of themselves, the disabled, the mentally handicapped, fatherless, widows, elderly and unemployed.

But is sending these people to a government agency really "caring" for them?  Or did Jesus mean something else when He commanded us to "care" for them?  Caring, by definition includes, "to watch over; be responsible for" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/caring?s=t. This means that we are to be personally involved in caring for them. We have instead set up a system of cold, sterile, and unfeeling agencies that the "least" among us must traverse; usually without assistance by the people who make a big deal about caring for them. But does sending them to the government release us from our personal responsibility to care for them?

For many people, raising taxes to set up government agencies to assist the poor is the only responsibility they feel to them. "I pay taxes that go to the poor, so I don't have to do anything else," has become an unfortunate reality in our world.  We feel good about ourselves because the fatherless are not hungry, the disabled get health care, the elderly are not left alone, and the unemployed are not starving. But is this really caring for them? Or is this simply removing them from our hearts? Do we feel personally responsible, or do we just want to get rid of them?

Are we telling them, "Here is your money, now get out of my sight." Instead of feeding them from our own table, we send them to the nearest food pantry or shelter. Instead of offering to see to the upbringing of the fatherless children we send them to daycare and let the gangs raise them. Instead of bringing them into our homes, we send them to the overcrowded shelters. Instead of giving them a job, we give them some money and send them out to find something themselves. Removing the personal responsibility of caring for the "least of these" and instead pushing them away into a cold unfeeling government maze only increases our own bigotry.

We feel that because we pay our taxes we have done our good deed for them. But instead the process that has been put in place actually makes them feel unattached from society, entitled to what they did not earn, and ungrateful. And who can blame them for being ungrateful when those who claim to "care" about them are so unempathetic towards them? The unfortunate side effect of our so called "Christian" government aid system is less compassion and actually more bigotry.

The new Overseers

I may be beating a dead horse.....but...... During a debate, the comment came up that empowering of the black people is not something any government program can do, it is something that blacks need to do for themselves; but that every time someone rises up to defend and empower blacks they end up dead. If it is true that every time a black leader rises up to empower the black population that person ends up dead......then what can be said about the Reverands Al and Jesse? These two are very much alive, they have become wealthy influential men in the black community, trusted by most blacks, but are they empowering the black community? Here is what I think of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson:

History, during the time of negro enslavement, leads to the conclusion that some of the worse treatment to black slaves was from black overseers. The white family couldn't be in the fields all the time, so they hired "trusted" blacks to see to it that the work got done, by whatever means necessary, including violent punitive action. The overseers were meant to keep the slaves under the thumb of the plantation owner, to keep them under control; he was meant to keep the slaves busy, never giving them time to foment a rebellion, to realize that they outnumbered the owners, and that the slaves had the power to control their own destiny; which they could have realized through education. In fact when some of the white abolitionists tried to educate blacks, by teaching them to read and/or write, they were turned in by black overseers.

The overseers were not above using whips and starvation to keep the slaves in line, placid, and uneducated. Basically the black overseers were meant to KEEP the slaves enslaved. Al and Jesse are the "trusted" blacks, nothing more than overseers, meant to continue the enslavement of the black community. And any black who doesn't toe the line will be, by force if necessary, brought back into line. This is the reason Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, Mia Love, Tim Scott, Alan West, Thomas Sowell, and many other conservative blacks have taken such a beating; the overseers are not doing their job and are letting some blacks become too "uppity" as LBJ said.

Climate Change from a Climate Change Scientist turned Skeptic

The science is not settled on this matter. If the predictions of the climate models was correct, then we would be seeing the obvious effects of global warming already, but still no islands have sunk, and the icecaps have not melted. There is 30 years of data to prove that none of it has happened as predicted.

The Obama's surrender their Law Licenses

About a year ago, the liberal left unionistas made a list of all the supposed lies told by Governor Scott Walker in the course of his campaign for Governor. But their list had no source material. So I am copying this from another blogger to show how a list of lies should be presented, WITH the source material. The following is a small list of the flaws and illegal activities carried out by our president and his wife, not simply made up allegations.

BY David Herold

I am reposting for those who have missed it.
FORMER LAWYERS?
I knew they had both lost their law license, but I didn't know why until I read this.
This is 100% legit. I check it out at https://www.iardc.org/ Stands for Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee. It's the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois ; and they are very strict. (Talk about irony.) Even I, at the advanced age of almost 65, maintain (at the cost of approximately $600/year) my law license that I worked so hard and long to earn.
Big surprise.
Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and U.S. President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU) Address.
Consider this:
1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you 'voluntarily surrender" your license five seconds before the state suspends you.
2 Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993. after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between surrendering her license or standing trial for Insurance fraud!
3. Facts.Source: http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pres-barack-obama-editor-of-the-Harvard-law-review-has-no-law-license/
4. A senior lecturer is one thing, a fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago .
5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school-but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.
6. "He did not hold the title of Professor of Law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.
Source: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html ;
7. The former Constitutional Senior Lecturer (Obama) cited the U.S. Constitution the other night during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence … not the Constitution.
8. The B-Cast posted the video: http://www.breitbart.tv/did-obama-confuse-the-constitution-with-the-declaration-of-independence/
9. Free Republic : In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal.
10. Um, wrong citing, wrong founding document there Champ, I mean Mr. President. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?
When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight. Keep this moving — educate others