(Matthew 13:44)
The
concept
The
theory of evolution in biology is that different types of plants,
animals and other living things on Earth are descended from other
pre-existing types, and that the distinctive differences are due to
modifications in successive generations. Life began with inorganic
molecules and evolved through nature into viable organisms, from
simple molecules to modern humans.
It
is an undeniable fact that organisms have changed or evolved
throughout the history of life on Earth. Natural selection is a
simple mechanism that causes populations of organisms to change
gradually over time. The processes of natural selection operate
slowly, over generations.
Those
organisms that could adapt survived the ordeal, and those that could
not, perished. Evolution can therefore be understood as a gradual
change (genetic variation) in the characteristics of a species,
brought about by the need to adapt to situations and environments
through natural selection. Some of these characteristics may give
individuals an advantage over others, which they can then pass on to
their offspring.
The
theory of evolution is one of the most powerful concepts in modern
science. It is backed by abundant evidence, observations and testable
hypotheses, allowing for the prediction of outcomes, changes and
effects.
Ethical
behaviour has emerged as a necessary consequence of man's superior
intellectual capacities, which are traits directly promoted by
natural selection. One of the main problems with the evolutionary
view of morality is that it undermines the idea of objective moral
truths, according to which there is no ultimate truth in morality
about whether an action is right or wrong. According to its
defenders, however, this is precisely the value in it, where the
evolution of society shapes the norms of behaviour that everyone can
follow.
Misleading
science with personal consent
"Scientific
truth is based on facts. Philosophy, religion, feelings and
prejudices have nothing to do with science. Only facts matter.
Verified, repeatable facts are the basis of scientific truth."
/Scientific
truth
- https://academic.oup.com/book/10860/chapter-abstract/159067052?redirectedFrom=fulltext
As
a non-expert on the subject, you obviously didn't even realize how
much science has misled you with the above statements, as you are
convinced of their truth during your compulsory schooling, which is
in line with your value judgement - which is a very important aspect,
the most important! It gives you the freedom to choose the lifestyle
that you practice and to which you adhere. You do not want anything
else, saying that there is nothing else that has a perspective in
your life.
What
you may be forgetting is that the theory of evolution itself is an
explicitly atheistic concept, since it does not seek scientific
balance (things could have happened differently if other factors were
taken into account), but rather it was specifically sought to prove
it, sworn to, that everything happened as Darwin had stated and
scientific principles were laid out accordingly. Subsequent
adjustments may be made to the modalities of the evolutionary
scenario, but the fact of evolution itself stands on a firm and
irrefutable foundation.
The
claim that "Scientific
truth is based on facts. Philosophy, religion, feelings and
prejudices have nothing to do with science. Only facts matter."
to put it mildly, does not correspond to reality! Especially the fact
that "Verified,
repeatable facts are the basis of scientific truth."
For
the most part, forget the latter, as far as evolutionary phylogeny is
concerned, or the origin of man from the animal kingdom. This is
about as repeatable as the big bang, just have a person who
survives the experiment.
Mutual
self-deception - self-hypnosis
Right
from the start, it should be pointed out that the otherwise not
obvious fact is that the tastes of those representing evolutionary
science are perfectly in line with your own, as long as you find
nothing objectionable in the position of the elite who support
evolution.
This
is not surprising, because the roots found support on similar ground,
but you may be quite surprised that the essence of the position was
recorded from the very beginning in a book that you, by the way, do
not hold in high regard, nor does the scientific elite.
The
biblical description of the Garden of Eden has suffered countless
criticisms throughout history, not only from the atheist camp, but
also from those who consider themselves Christians and think in terms
of evolution.
The
Garden of Eden is a symbol of a sanctified, protected, enclosed,
place, a symbol of the human world set against the fearful,
surrounding world. "The
garden is our own world, a world created and controlled by us. An
ordered and harmonious universe, in contrast to the disordered and
disharmonious world outside"
(Hankiss, 2006 142).
“What
is the most well-known case of sin in the Bible?
The description
of the sin of our first parents resulting from pride and disobedience
(Gen 3:1-6). This is the symbolic story of all other falls into sin.”
(ASKING THE SCRIPTURES [Biblical Catechism] - St. Stephen's Society,
1980. p. 55.)
“Most
people have heard, for example, that according to the Bible, God
created the world in six days; or they have heard about Adam and Eve
and the Garden of Eden. But few know the symbolic and profound
teaching of these stories.” (ADULTS
IN CHRIST [book of confirmations] Szent István Society, Bp. 1988. p.
33)
The
Roman Catholic Church, in particular, supports the idea that
evolution is God's means of creation, which has been accepted and
embraced by more than 1 billion believers.
"The
number of baptised Catholics worldwide has increased from 1376
million in 2021 to 1390 million in 2022." - https://www.vaticannews.va/hu/vatikan/news/2024-04/egyhazi-statisztika-novekszik-katolikusok-szama-vilagon.html
Well,
the point here is not what is considered a symbol (which is not a
symbol, by the way), but what the text inspired by God precisely
points out, which is the most important moment:
“Now
the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the
LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye
shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto
the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But
of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God
hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye
die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes
shall be opened, and ye
shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
(Genesis 3:1-5)
The
world is searching for solutions to countless problems, such as a
cure for cancer and answers to challenges in countless other areas,
but the real problem is not here, but what the Bible states: “You
will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
What
have we observed in the previous discussions? “Ethical
behavior emerged as a necessary consequence of man's outstanding
intellectual abilities… this is precisely the value in it, when the
development of society develops norms of behavior that everyone can
follow.”
Here
is the meeting point of problem-solving of all things, the essence of
which is the legalisation of autonomous thinking, man deciding for
himself what is right and wrong for him:
"The
concept of morality refers to the set of rules of behavior that a
given society has collected based on past experience and deemed
correct." /Wikipedia/
So
the individual, society, and the scientific elite take for themselves
the right to decide on a position that is favorable to them, in which
the problem is not the decision itself (because it is necessary and
useful), but rather that they decide their position in advance and
stick to what they have decided in advance afterwards.
"I
cannot believe in something, whose existence is not proven. To me,
the Bible and God are nothing more than simple tales. Until there is
proof, the Bible is a fictional book from ancient times. It is
everyone's right to decide what they believe in, for me the important
thing is that everyone respects the other's belief or atheism."
/Atheist position/
If
you decide on morality, you show that you reject it: morality decide
on you. You may as well override the that sets the traffic rules for
you. Or even the laws of nature.
Let's
say you protest by not breathing for 20 minutes or so. But don't try
to cheat me, because I'm measuring time with a stopwatch. Haven't you
noticed that you exist within the ordered framework of time and space
that operate independently of you?!
Free
will – is it there or not?
Proverbs
11:27 (ASV) He
that diligently seeketh good seeketh favor; But he that searcheth
after evil, it shall come unto him. -
says the Bible.
What
does the scientific text say in contrast?
“Since
our present decisions and actions are, according to determinism, the
necessary consequences of the past and of natural laws, we have no
control over them, and thus no free will… our choices are
determined by our genetics, experiences, and environment, and the
common use of the term “free will” is incorrect.”
/Wikipedia/
So,
on the one hand, man has no free will, but on the other hand, he can
decide his own position - even in advance - on any issue that may or
may not concern him. What is this if not a legalisation of the
attempt to deflect responsibility from oneself?!
Free
will is the choice of the moment before action, which overrides all
predictability. If there were no free will, there would be no A la
Carte menu in restaurants, only menus, and only one of them.
If
the atheist has no free will, he cannot avoid the puddle in the
street, so when the atheist parent chastises his child for getting
mud on his clothes, it is totally unfair!
That
man has free will is well demonstrated by his decision that "Life
began with inorganic molecules and evolved through nature into viable
living beings, from simple molecules to modern man."
It
was decided by the scientific elite, it was decided by the rest of
society, and it was decided by you, who are similarly in this
mindset. And what is important about the decision is not the decision
itself, but that you have decided in advance in a sovereign way /free
of any external constraints, influence; self-willed/. Because you
have chosen this worldview for yourself.
You
may not have done your research either, but chose it because you like
it, because it is close to your spiritual and intellectual feelings
and thoughts. And that is a fact that you have to face up to when it
is said to your face!
However,
the fact that humans do have free will is evidenced by the fact that
many people have not chosen the evolutionary worldview, even though
they share the same atoms and neurons.
If
there are two equally valid theories for the origin of the universe -
creation or spontaneous generation - and one chooses the latter, it
shows that one wants to live without God.
Those
who seek the answer to the existence of God should not rely on
others, but investigate for themselves. Others may not be able to
give you the answer, but what you have sought for yourself, no one
can take away from you.
That
science has looked into things, it is claimed, but in reality it has
looked into why the Darwinian concept of evolution is true, to which
it is committed in the first place, and not into what conclusions the
facts themselves might lead to. Yet how interesting it is that
atheistic science leans its hand towards itself!
Evolutionists
want to prove afterwards what they previously accepted as a basic
worldview and from then on explain everything subordinate to it. To
state in advance something they want to prove afterwards, shouldn't
it be the other way round?!
On
what do you build the credibility of evolution? "It
is an undeniable fact that organisms have changed or evolved
throughout the history of life on earth."
And
why doesn't he say that his other statements are an irrefutable fact?
Because the other statements are being dragged onto this one, without
having the status of "irrefutable fact" in relation to it.
Let
us then examine whether this proposition really holds for evolution?
Does the evolutionary worldview deserve the respect it is given, and
if so, to what extent?
The
evolutionary worldview
In
a subjective statement, only the statement is true, not necessarily
what it says. Atheism is evidence of free will, that they have chosen
this worldview and not the Christian faith. And a worldview
absolutely exhausts the notion of a subjective /determined by
personal interests/ position. [A statement is objective if it is
arrived at in a completely unbiased way and is not distorted by our
personal opinion.]
Evolution
is basically a worldview, if you embrace it, you will see everything
through that lens.
"Nothing in biology makes sense unless you look at it in the
light of evolution." (Theodosius
Dobzhansky) The evolutionary worldview of Theodosius Dobzhansky - https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400863808.179/html?srsltid=
But
the question is what justifies putting on these glasses in the first
place, if not a predetermined worldview.
"Science
commits suicide when it accepts a creed."
/Thomas Henry Huxley/ By accepting evolution as a worldview, it has
done just that. "The
great tragedy of science - killing a beautiful hypothesis with an
ugly fact."
/Thomas Henry Huxley/
What
is the ugly fact that kills the beautiful Darwinian hypothesis? I'm
surprised the scientific elite hasn't figured this out yet, even
though it's so obvious.
The
GPS test of Darwinism
"The
Global Positioning System (GPS) is a global navigation satellite
system (GNSS) developed and operated by the United States Department
of Defense (primarily for military purposes), which operates 24 hours
a day, anywhere on Earth." /Wikipedia/
Imagine
a GPS system in which all the world's roads suitable for car travel
are programmed to rank on a scale of 10 to 100. The highest quality
roads are at the top, the lowest quality at the bottom.
[For
example, Afghanistan's infrastructure is well illustrated by the fact
that one of the best quality roads between Kabul and Bamyan is 180 km
long, and the journey takes about 4 hours by car, due to table-sized
potholes (2-3 meters) that are 30-40 cm deep. /2024 data/ So where
does this road rank on the scale, above or below? Obviously below.]
Suppose
you live on one continent, say a country in Europe. Let's say it's
Hungary, in Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County, in a village called
Vilmány, at 9 Paprika Street.
You
are now in the middle of Europe as a tourist in a small town called
Saarbrucken /Germany/. You get into a taxi and say to the driver: -
"Please turn at every intersection to the best quality road
/where there is the most viable traffic option/ and I will let you
know when I get home!"
The
taxi driver turns on his GPS navigator, which shows him which road to
take and when he reaches any intersection, he turns onto the best
quality road. When do you think you'll get home?
The
fact is, you will never get home because the strategic route home is
not provided by the best routes, but by those that are purposefully
chosen for the shortest route home!
So
what you need is a GPS navigation system that has a map of the whole
of Europe, and of Hungary, fed into it. There is also the county of
Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén, the village of Vilmány, and in it Paprika
Street 9. Why shouldn't it exist.
Now
let's apply the same to biology. What built-in GPS system does nature
use?
Adaptability
is the key to survival
"Survival
is not the strongest of the species, nor the most intelligent, but
the one most adaptable to change,"
wrote Charles Darwin in his seminal work On the Origin of Species,
published in 1859. This is entirely consistent with the selection of
the best quality paths.
Nature
does not engage in species selection (which would be equivalent to
choosing the shortest route home), but favours survivability. It does
not select for species, but for adaptability.
If
Darwinian evolution determines survival by the quality of adaptation,
what does this have to do with the breeding of individuals of a given
species? When does evolutionary orientation /by prioritizing
adaptability/ result in the kind of character that would be essential
for the evolution of any species? For the inexorable truth is that
the survival of
the fittest individuals is not the same as the survival of the
individuals necessary for the evolution of the species.
And this is a truth that is proven by the laws of nature!
The
concept of breeding
Breeding
is the constant activity of mating and then breeding individuals with
excellent breeding characteristics in order to obtain offspring with
even better internal and external characteristics than the parents.
[The totality of varietal characteristics and external
characteristics (stamps) is called breeding character.]
So
how did evolution from that very first alleged stem cell, called
LUCA, manage to blindly and without guidance evolve millions of
different species of plants and animals, and eventually humans, if
natural selection favours adaptability over the conscious selection
of the best breeding individuals?!
It
cannot even create a new sub-species, let alone a whole new species
that did not exist before! [To use the tourist example, a taxi
driving blind on the best roads cannot even pick out Hungary, let
alone 9 Paprika Street in the village of Vilmány in
Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County!]
Let
the Animal Husbandry Engineer breed any new quality animal variety
/e.g. Holstein-Friesian cows/
by selecting only the healthy cow individuals available for breeding,
the ones most able to adapt to the habitat. Would he be successful?
Go ahead, show us! Yet mainstream science claims that the selection
of the most adaptable individuals occurred according to breed
characteristics, and according to as many breed characteristics as
there are species, i.e. millions.
Because
if a group of scientists had to breed a previously non-existent
species from a single cell that did not belong to any species, they
would also have to select the subjects for breeding on the basis of
the species. After all, the selection of the most viable rootstocks
is only sufficient to breed the most viable ones, which do not
provide any anatomical or trait parameters that are different from
the initial base. Instead, it always produces the same thing, always
reinforces the same thing.
The
taxi on the best roads will stay on the best roads, but Hungary, in
it Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén county, in it the village of Vilmány and
in it the house at 9 Paprika utca will never be selected. However,
the species characteristics of every biological organism are like a
certain point on the map that is different from the others.
In
addition, what does Charles Darwin write in his autobiography about
how natural selection works, what will come out of that? “... there is no more design in the operation of natural selection
than in the direction in which the wind blows”.
What did Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking say about the same
thing? “Natural
selection is the blind watchmaker; blind because it cannot foresee,
because it does not plan for consequences, because it has no
purpose... biological evolution is essentially random wandering in a
field of genetic possibilities.”
Darwinian
evolution builds millions of organisms from one or more cells, so it
creates the selection of traits through environmental pressure
without a breeding program. In a constantly changing environment,
where does it get the millions of environmental selection pressures
necessary to bring millions of not yet fully developed organisms
participating in the evolutionary process to full development?
So
we are not talking about the inheritance of the better qualities of a
single organism, but about the development of all the better
qualities of millions of organisms from a given initial organism/cell
that did not exist before!
This
means that no matter how many types of living beings begin to
develop, a selection pressure of the appropriate subject, intensity
and direction must be applied to that living being, which must be
continuously maintained until a living being capable of independent
life, reproduction and adaptation to the given organic and inorganic
living conditions develops, typical of that species.
Since
organisms are different, selection pressures must also be different,
which means that what is good for one is not necessarily good for the
other /in artificial selection this is quite obvious, since different
organisms are not bred on the same niche, but the pairings are
determined by separate goals: favourable weight, speed, productivity,
etc./ which is quite obvious and evidential!
So,
if we contrast the millions of variations in selection pressures with
the millions of alleged branching evolutions of organisms that
require a particular line of evolution,, what will come out of that?
According
to Darwin, spontaneously acting selection pressures evolved
everything as necessary /to support the creation of the living
organisms best adapted to a given environment/ by slow, continuous,
stepwise formation over an extremely long period of time. Spontaneous
breeding, so to speak, without any purpose or plan [Lack of a
Designer]. So what about head-on collisions?
When
an evolving organism is confronted with selection forces that are
completely opposite to the effects it had previously been subjected
to, how did it continue its evolutionary line towards becoming more
complex along its spontaneously initiated, otherwise purposeless,
path?
In
artificial selection, an intelligently controlled strategic process
is supervised by breeders, while in natural selection, a random
process is generated by absolutely uncontrolled alternating natural
forces and directions. And supposedly, the same thing is created in
both, a living being with a qualitatively better anatomy and
properties. Of which there are millions, and millions of types, with
completely different life and reproductive functions.
The
living world consists of millions of different organisms, all of
which fit into their environment with absolute precision. How can
this extremely diverse, contradictory, uncoordinated environmental
selection pressure be created, since each organism must be
individually matched with the appropriate selection pressure?! For
the development of millions of organisms, as many directed selection
pressures as are needed for successful development must be applied.
What directs the direction of the selection pressure to the necessary
extent – chance?
The
principle of artificial selection could not be followed or imitated
by the intelligence of natural selection, to constantly exert
unidirectional selection pressure to ensure the complex structure of
millions of living things. Instead, it obviously crossed their
developmental paths with constant environmental changes. So this
continuous improvement on the imaginary family tree of evolution is
just a pseudoscientific fantasy.
Regardless,
the miniature prehistoric creature that emerged from who knows where
supposedly climped forward from the stem cell to the human, as if
pulled by a string. Except that this is not the merit of natural
selection, but of evolutionists catching the end of the string.
Natural
selection essentially promotes a process of purification and quality
maintenance in a given range, while the subjects involved in the
process adapt to changing natural conditions by exploiting their
particular gene sequence. That is the extent of its assigned task.
From
then on, the claim that the reproduction of the most adapted
organisms provides a strategic path for the spontaneous development
of millions of species and types of biological life has lost
credibility.
The
fact is that the survival of the most viable individuals is not the
same as the survival of the individuals necessary for the evolution
of the species! It is a biological law of nature, therefore it is
necessary in artificial breeding to consciously select the subjects
for further breeding, merely selecting the healthiest, most viable
ones is not enough!
The
biological evolution paradigm manipulates variability /intraspecies
variation/ based on and exploiting the genetically programmed
adaptability of current species to prove the Darwinian view of the
evolution of organisms from some unknown origin.
But
this is an impossible undertaking, Darwinism failed from the very
beginning, yet it is being forced into official curricula and media
organs.
The
Darwinian program was of high quality, only the definition of quality
fell victim to inflation.
Removing
Darwinism from the public consciousness
-
Evolution is popular because it explains most things, not because all
of its explanations are correct. Its fans don't care about the
misconceptions.-
The
test of the concept pudding is eating it. So let's see what they have
served society:
According
to the theory of evolution, which has gained ground in biology…
-
Why did it gain ground? Not by presenting evidence, but because those
who represent this worldview dominate the scientific world, and
behind their rise, the rejection of creation is essential to their
success, so that they can reap the rewards for their discoveries.
They pocket prizes for the tiny detail of the great whole of Creation
that has been deciphered by human intelligence, while they label the
great whole, filled with an astonishing amount of intelligence, as
spontaneous generation, is dubbed self-evolving.
On
Earth, the different types of plants, animals, and other living
things are derived from other, pre-existing types, …
Where
do the existing types come from, and where do the
other types come from, since other types cannot develop from
the most adaptable living beings, because other types represent a
different species characteristic, and natural selection cannot select
for them, but only for the most adaptable within its own type.
Therefore,
the existing types must be created so that their most adaptable
descendants maintain the type of that species. This is exactly what
we see in nature.
and
that discernible differences are due to the modifications of
successive generations…
Then
distinguishable differences could not have arisen at the beginning,
because, as he says, successive generations are needed, or rather
their modifications. Subsequent modification cannot create the
biological basis in which the modification subsequently takes place.
Life
began with inorganic molecules,...
This is a
statement completely under the influence of atheistic self-hypnosis,
since the scientists themselves have seen that this virtual /only
theoretical, as a possibility/ molecular acrobatics has no relevance
to the origin of life.
„In
fact,
as Miller’s experiments showed, it’s not difficult to create
amino acids. The far bigger challenge is to create nucleic acids –
the building blocks of molecules like RNA and DNA. The origin of life
lies in the origin of these “replicators”, molecules that can
make copies of themselves. ... “Even if you can make amino acids
(and nucleic acids) under soup conditions, it has little if any
bearing on the origin of life.”
/Scientists complete a 53-year-old classic experiment on the origin
of life/ - https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/scientists-finish-a-53-year-old-classic-experiment-on-the-origins-of-life
Those who
have not yet faced the problem of the origin of life, might like to
read the technical literature on the subject, both to understand and
to acknowledge that it is not a scientific problem! Every where and
every attempt has failed. Life cannot even be defined, let alone how
it came into being.
Abiogenesis
is a failed theory and science has no tools to crack this hard nut!
-https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/why-is-abiogenesis-such-a-tough-nut-to-crack.html- https://cdn.fortunejournals.com/articles/why-is-abiogenesis-such-a-tough-nut-to-crack.pdf
“Life
does not arise from physical existence consisting of matter-energy,
and cannot be reduced to matter-energy. Life itself does not involve
any fundamental particles of physics. Life interacts with physical
existence, but it is a different form of existence. There are no
known causal effects for the emergence of life, and thus no known
ways to create life from non-life… life does not arise from
non-life; it is reproduced from life."
/Eighteen Distinctive Characteristics of Life - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10123176/
Then
on what basis do you make such a remark: "Life
began with inorganic molecules…"
Because
it travels with a worldview, and at the same time, those who hold the
same worldview are interested in making it true, in order to force
this worldview down the throats of society. So this is a propaganda
text, a PR activity, a good reputation, an image. [PR is an
abbreviation for: informational activity carried out in front of the
public in order to create a positive image.]
In
essence, the claim that life originated from inorganic molecules is
disinformation /consciously distorted information that does not
correspond to the truth/.
Yet they
regularly bombard the public consciousness to make the spontaneous
generation of life seem real to the layman. See for example:
“Scientists
have found the ”strongest evidence yet“ for life on a distant
planet.” - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c39jj9vkr34o
and
with the help of nature it became viable living beings, from simple
molecules to modern man…
Life
is not about nature, it is about spirit. Nothing proves this better
than the fact that when someone receives a letter, there must be
spirit /life/ behind it. Or have you ever received a letter from a
dead person?
Life
forms are controlled by spirit, biological life functions are
controlled by genetics, words and sentences are controlled by thought
information. But words and sentences by themselves say nothing. If
you don't believe me, listen to a 900-page dictionary in the dark
between four walls to see what it says. But don't reveal the reason
for your listening, or they'll look at you strangely.
[By the
way, there is a spirit world, spirits also live in a kind of
spiritual way, which science cannot approach. When the Reiki master
tells you things about you that are your most hidden secrets, he is
drawing information from the spirit world that he can perceive
because he has acquired this ability through initiation.
The
shamans of the natural peoples can establish contact with the spirit
world through the same initiation, which you have no idea about,
because these dimensions do not fit into the
materialistic-evolutionary worldview. But this is not a privilege but
a disability!]
It
is an undeniable fact that organisms have changed or evolved
throughout the history of life on earth…
One
species cannot evolve into another species because the individuals
best suited to the environment strengthen their own species by
displaying a certain level of variability, but to evolve into another
species requires a strategic transformation according to the type.
And nature selects for the best adaptability within a given species,
not for type.
Nature
cannot select for specialised traits and anatomical characteristics,
especially in the long run, and it cannot immediately transform a
subject into some other species. And the need for viability links it
to the species in which it can show the best survivability. If it is
in water, then to that, if it is on land, then to that, and if it is
in the air, then to that. It is not by chance that the earthworm
hides back in the ground and does not want to climb a tree, even
though there is a better view of what is happening in the poultry
yard.
Natural
selection is a simple mechanism that causes populations of organisms
to change gradually over time...
In the case where
it is able to carry out species selection. But because it selects for
the most best, the claim is discredited. What he say applies to
artificial selection, where gradual changes in populations of
organisms are induced /qualitative transformations/ over time. See
for example the breeding of the Holstein-Friesian cow, etc.
There
is a huge difference between changes /variation, variability/
occurring within a given species, and changes occurring in relation
to change/transformation into another species. Mixing the two is
conscious manipulation!
The
processes of natural selection work slowly, over generations…
The
point is not in slowness or speed, but in following a strategic path,
which is lacking in natural selection.
And
again. Because what did Charles Darwin write in his autobiography
about the workings of natural selection, what will come out of that?
“
...
there is no more design in the operation of natural selection than in
the direction in which the wind blows”. What did Richard
Dawkins and Stephen Hawking say about the same thing? “Natural
selection is the blind watchmaker; blind because it cannot foresee,
because it does not plan for consequences, because it has no
purpose... biological evolution is essentially random wandering in a
field of genetic possibilities.”
Slow
or fast operation is completely irrelevant if the process is driven
by wind turbulence. Wandering blindly leads to the same thing, sooner
or later to the abyss.
That
the wanderings of adventurers led to the development of man is
claimed of who set off blindly with a white cane in any race, and
then when they reach the finish line have no idea where they have
ended up.
Those
organisms that were able to adapt survived the ordeal, and those that
were not, perished…
This is evident, but where
did these organisms come from, how did they have the ability to adapt
when they originally did not have it. And before they acquired the
ability to adapt, how did they survive? Did nature wait until it
developed for them? It did not cull them until then.
It
is a beautiful thing that the many vagaries of nature have adapted to
such a beautiful tale. And it is also beautiful that people adapt to
such beautiful tales.
Therefore,
evolution can be understood as the gradual change in the
characteristic features of a species (genetic variation),…
The
story begins there, that there are species and their characteristic
features. If evolution begins with change, then evolution has nothing
to do with what the change takes place in. Sorry.
The
Darwinian view is that the original genetic, flawless base
/intelligent DNA code base/ was insufficient to create species
populations, but that from the accumulation of their mutational
errors, unintelligent natural forces were able to create them.
To
put it simply, this means that the head chef of the five-star
restaurant was unable to prepare a multi-course menu, but the
untrained kitchen staff, who were also poor at peeling potatoes,
created it. If that's not scientific schizophrenia, what is!?
If
the entire biological world that exists today is the result of
selection from genetic variations / errors/, then what was created
from the flawless initial genetic base? How did the unchanged state
before genetic variation get into the genetic code if it is exactly
the deviation from it that is the engine of evolution! If variation
is the point, how can variation initially cause the original
invariance from which it subsequently deviates?
Since
when is evolutionary change a response to the origin in which
evolutionary change occurs? Where did the first subjects of the
initial organisms capable of evolution come from, which could not
have been created by evolution, because then evolution would have
created its own capability by evolution?! Where do the abilities
come from, through which the alleged evolution takes place? How could
evolution ensure this, when it itself depends on their existence?
which
is brought about by the need to adapt to situations and the
environment through natural selection…
All
living things have a genetic programme for this, if they did not,
they could not adapt or survive.
Some
of these characteristics may give an individual an advantage over
other individuals, which they can then pass on to their offspring…
An
advantage is an advantage within the species in which it arises, and
not an advantage in a change that is realized only in the emergence
of some new species. A change that does not strengthen its own
species is a weakening or completely neutral change.
The
theory of evolution is one of the most influential concepts in modern
science…
It
is influential because it represents for many a liberation from
certain moral constraints, which appeals to most people who love
pleasure without limits.
The
Bible's morality is obsolete for those who adapt their own to the
occasion.
As
for the concept, we agree. The meaning of the concept is: a way of
understanding, a system of views; a conception, a vision, an idea.
So, a kind of worldview based on spontaneous development, which shows
a subjective aversion to the personal origin of that background
intelligence, which is otherwise obvious to intelligent thinking,
that is, that matter is a derivative of consciousness:
"As
a man who has devoted his whole life to the purest science, the study
of matter, I can say this much as a result of my research into atoms:
matter as such does not exist! All matter arises and exists only
because of a force which sets the particles of the atom in vibration
and holds together this smallest solar system of the atom. Behind
this force we must assume the existence of a conscious and
intelligent spirit. This mind is the matrix of all matter."
/Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech in Florence,
Italy (1944) (in the Archiv zur Geschichte der
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)/
Ample
evidence, observation and testable hypothesis support…
Well,
if they are set up that way, then certainly. But if you scratch the
surface, there is very thin ice underneath that mainstream science
treads on!
allowing
for the prediction of outcomes, changes, and effects…
In
the realm of so-called micro-evolution, certainly. But this has
nothing to do with the evolutionary philosophy based on life
spontaneously arising from the inanimate, leading from the imaginary
last common ancestor through a phylogenetic tree in which the most
survivable individuals have specialised into species traits, while
wandering blindly through the field of genetic possibilities amid the
various changing winds.
Despite
supposedly wandering blindly for millions of years, each species
consciously and precisely adapts to its environment. But wandering is
more typical of evolutionary biologists, who wander from one
explanation to another, and then come back to the same place, looking
for another explanation when the previous ones don't quite work. At
least as far as the basics are concerned.
Ethical
behavior is a necessary consequence of man's superior intellectual
abilities, which are traits directly promoted by natural selection…
As
for ethical behavior, it can easily be realized in a world war, while
in everyday life, not a few people believe that superior intellectual
abilities are found in corruption and ordinary crime. Just look at
the current state of the world and the statistics in this regard.
One
of the main problems with the evolutionary view of morality is that
it undermines the idea of objective moral truths, according to which
there is no ultimate truth in morality about whether an action is
right or wrong…
This
is precisely the point, and the cause of all problems, that man is
unwilling to accept and adhere to higher ethical standards than
himself in all circumstances. Because, on the one hand, he is subject
to abuses, and on the other hand, it is he who reserves the right, if
his interests so require, to abuse his free will for his own benefit.
According
to its defenders, however, this is precisely its value, when the
development of society develops norms of behavior that can be
followed by everyone…
Then
again, what the evolution of society means to whom is another
question, because what is good for some is bad for others and vice
versa. The human race leads a self-destructive life because it is
unwilling to change, unwilling to confess its sins, unwilling to
respect and honour the truth at all costs.
And
that atheists would be at the forefront of this decent life is highly
questionable. Even the greatest atheist's moral anthem is destroyed
by the pitiful atheist car thief, who refutes the atheistic rhetoric
that is presented as authentic with his actions. This happens a
thousand times a day. All of this is part of the atheist liberal way
of life. So much for now about the authenticity of atheism and
so-called evolution.
Atheism
as a moral offense
As
human beings, we are social animals. Our sociality is the result of
evolution, not choice. Natural selection has equipped us with nervous
systems which are peculiarly sensitive to the emotional status of our
fellows… Our ethics can be based neither upon fictions concerning
the nature of humankind nor upon fake reports concerning the desires
of the deities. Our ethics must be firmly planted in the soil of
scientific self-knowledge. They must be improvable and adaptable.”
/American atheist: Ethics Without Gods - https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/ethics-without-gods/
If
ethics cannot be based on a fiction about the nature (or even the
origin) of humanity, then forget about evolution as an explanation
for the origin of sociality, because if natural selection had been
left to shape the nervous system, it would be a mirror image of what
drove it:
"
... in the operation of natural selection, there is no more design
than which way the wind blows"... Natural selection is the blind
watchmaker; blind because it cannot foresee, because it does not plan
for consequences, because it has no purpose... biological evolution
is essentially random wandering in a field of genetic possibilities."
Blindness,
aimlessness, wandering, and the complexity of the human nervous
system, classified as a social animal, are two separate dimensions,
and to someone who assumes one leads to the other, a tornado will
remind him of the metropolis it created. If the statement cannot be
taken seriously, then its maker certainly cannot. It passes for an
opinion, but not quickly enough.
Morality
becomes public the moment it becomes obligatory for all people, just
like traffic regulations. Most accidents happen precisely because
traffic rules are overridden by recalcitrant drivers who drive
according to their own interests.
Atheists
think and make decisions according to their own self-interest, not
for the benefit of society, but for their own benefit, without even
considering each other.
Why
does the atheist deny the existence of God? So that he does not have
to deny the right to his own sovereign conception of life, and so
that he can abuse it whenever and wherever he wants, as his own
individual interest demands. While this abuse in his eyes is the
exercise of natural rights, since he also determines for himself the
extent of the difference between the two.
Moreover, they are even arrogant when
they express their absolutely characteristic position:
"I
am content with the decision to be an atheist because I feel smarter
and freer because no one is guiding my choices... God has worked a
miracle" seems an unpretentious, primitive and lazy solution.
That someone who operates with such solutions wants to impose moral
obligations on me, on everyone, I really reject... Don't threaten an
atheist with "going to hell" because they don't believe
that. It's like threatening an adult that Santa Claus won't bring
them a present for Christmas."
It
is clear that he is driven by completely subjective, individual
motivations, and that he is not at all interested in the consequences
of this basic position for society as a whole. While the essence of
the traffic order is precisely that it serves the safety of society
as a whole.
Adherence
to the sovereignty of atheistic thought is in the individual's own
interest, and therefore insists on this freedom and rejects any moral
order that is the result of a transcendent spirituality. Behind the
rejection of the gods lies, in fact, a rejection of the moral order
for all, formulated in such a primitive way:
“The
concept of God and the concept of Santa Claus share the status of
‘unreal’ because there is no evidence for either.”
/Michael Scriven, Primary Philosophy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966),
103./
And
since when is the lack of evidence proof that there is no evidence?
Since when has atheistic blindness been proof that nature has beaten
humanity with blindness, which they try to compensate for with what
science considers its own tool: the white cane.
What they
touch with it is there, what they cannot touch with it is not. And
where is the clear thinking, the impartial conclusion, the sacred
prostration before intelligence, its recognition above all else?
And
perhaps in the order of the universe and the durability of its
functional operation, one cannot discover the higher intelligence of
which “human systematization and thinking are
only a faint reflection.” /Albert Einstein: Mein Weltbild. -
C. Seeling edition, Zurich-Stuttgart-Wien 1953. 21.1/
This
is not discovered by those who have no intention of discovering it,
so the solution to the formula is to be sought in the motive, not in
the imaginary Santa Claus, which is only a pathetic excuse for
atheistic babbling.
An
accounting of atheist arguments, real or perceived
Some
atheists have come to the intellectual conclusion that the science of
evolution is quite strong, and Christians they know have aggressively
resisted even asking questions about religion.
Among
other reasons, they list the following, which invites them into the
atheist camp:
-
Once I realised I was an atheist, I didn't have to do anything. No
church, no praying, no begging for forgiveness. There are no rules. I
live my life without worrying about whether or not I'm adhering to
certain aspects of the faith. I can just be.
It's
kind of like what we read about in the evolutionary form of natural
selection: “blindly wandering in a field of genetic possibilities.”
And who wouldn't want to wander blindly through a jungle of freely
chosen pleasures? The atheist certainly would, that's why he chose
this way of life.
-
My lack of religious belief empowers me. Instead of following a
restrictive religion, I now see myself as an integral part of the
entire universe. I am made of the same stuff as the stars, not
suddenly put together by magic, and therefore composed of particles
as old as the universe itself. It is an incredibly profound
realization.
Are
you trying to figure out where you came from and where you are going?
Astronomy will give you the answer, won't it?Well, it certainly
won't. If the paint and the spray paint can tell us where the Mona
Lisa's smile came from, then so can astronomy.
“We
are all made of the stuff of stars” -
Carl Sagan is an atheist astronomer.
Of course, like any painting, it is made of the stuff of paint
molecules.
Science
says we come from stardust, which is the equivalent of saying that
Mona Lisa's smile on canvas came from paint molecules.
The
elements were created in dying stars. Please, what is created by
itself in an aluminum smelter that is accidentally incorporated as a
component into, say, an airplane? Tell me something specific.
-
A sense of equality and unity. People are all the same, regardless of
faith, skin color, nationality, or any other superficial difference.
We and all life on our planet have the same origin, in a soupy
primordial mixture millions of years ago. It is a feeling that brings
a warm smile, a sense of well-being, and a wonderful sense of
belonging.
It's
a wonderful feeling, but it bears no relation to reality! The feeling
of church intimacy has united atheists. They say that faith belongs
in the temple, while their faith outside the temple /more so their
gullibility/ surpasses that of the worshippers!
-
Freedom from doctrine. I follow the natural human moral imperative to
"do unto others as you would have them do
unto you," without attributing morality to any particular
religious injunction or acting out of fear of reprisal. And I do not
have to adjust my conscience to accommodate the unpleasant aspects of
a religion with which I disagree.
If you
follow the natural human moral imperative, you are following the
teachings of Jesus, through whom God created humanity. (Matthew 7:12;
19:4) And what is it about religion that you disagree with?
Romans
13:9-10 For this, Thou shalt not commit
adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not
bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other
commandment, it is summed up in this word: Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no evil to a neighbor:
therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
He
that obeyeth these things obeyeth God. And whoever decides for
himself what is good and what is bad for him is not obeying God, but
the instigator of the Garden of Eden, Satan.
-
Ignorance is bliss. Science answers many fundamental questions and is
constantly searching for more. The vast gap in our knowledge is
incredibly exciting, full of wonder, and allows my imagination to run
wild without having to invent supernatural answers.
The
atheist has no idea what supernatural means.
Supernatural
phenomena abound in the universe and in the everyday world around us,
which science cannot detect, but which the scientist should detect,
at least according to his or her individual intelligence.
According
to the basic position, if an existing entity-creation, biological or
other complexity does not automatically follow from the material
components that build it, then there must necessarily be a
supernatural cause behind it, see e.g. matter /see Max Planck's
earlier quote/, life, prose and musical works written by letters or
scores, computer programs, the genetic code of DNA, etc., which if
they existed naturally would build themselves from their own
components. But they cannot build themselves.
That
is why the statement that life is a self-organizing and self-learning
natural movement of matter, which creates an organization that adapts
to and functions in the environment, is false.
A
wall clock, the hands of which move in a circle and show the passage
of time based on fixed numbers, obviously fulfills the purpose that
justifies its existence. Therefore, the clock itself has a
supernatural existence, it would be natural if its parts could build
themselves by themselves.
The
existence of the wall clock is therefore a supernatural phenomenon.
If it breaks down, it is a natural state, because the force of
gravity will not make it work. But if it does work, it goes beyond
any self-evident physical process.
Applied
science which cannot detect such and similar supernatural phenomena
approachable by intelligence is not in a position to be the sole and
absolute means or guarantee of knowing the truth in the eyes of
society!
In an
interview about his new book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins said,
“The great war is not between evolution and
creationism, but between naturalism and the supernatural.” /Gary
Wolf, “The Church of Infidels,” Wired (November 2006): 182-193,
p. 186./
In
The God Delusion, Dawkins clearly states that everything supernatural
is under attack: “I attack God, all gods,
everything and everyone that is supernatural, wherever and whenever
they have been invented or will be invented.” /Richard
Dawkins, The God Delusion (The God Delusion) (New York: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 2006), p. 36./
If anyone
didn't know that Richard Dawkins is a staunch enemy of all clocks
supernatural, now you do!
-
Self-catering. I am my own boss. Atheism has no rules, no centre, no
spokesman. No referral service or counsellors. It does not exist as
an organisation. Whatever is created by the individual and its
interpretation is entirely up to me.
Go
atheists! It is a sincere profession of faith, but offers no
guarantee of ultimate success. The only guarantee is to adhere to the
guiding standard declared by the transcendent power directing the
universe and measure everything against it. Then you cannot be
mistaken about anything, because in obedience to it everything and
everyone will fulfil its purpose of existence. Guidelines that stray
far from it are absolutely unreliable and are breeding grounds for
various chaos philosophies and inevitable failures.
-
I ask for evidence before faith, which is not an unreasonable
request. Atheism for me means accepting what is proven and being
completely open to what is not. I do not believe that God exists, but
I am very willing to be proven wrong about his existence, just as I
am about the existence of the aforementioned Santa Claus, unicorns,
ghosts, leprechauns, and the Tooth Fairy.
The
atheist's openness to belief in God, if genuine, requires him to
personally investigate the truth, because what is presented to him by
official bodies is self-interested PR propaganda. And this applies
not only to the world, but to Christianity as well. It is no
coincidence that man is called upon.
1
Thessalonians 5:21 Examine everything, and
whatever is good, keep.
The
biggest problem is that neither the average person nor the average
Christian can do this. They are satisfied with the explanations that
are put before them. As a layman, he makes the most basic and
important decisions that affect his own life.
Here's
the most important question that will fundamentally affect your
eternal life: Who is the object of true worship, the One whom we have
the privilege to worship and pray to?
Is
it Jehovah God, the Father, Jesus Christ, the Son, or both, or a
trinity God, or Allah, or Buddha, or Shiva, etc., or the tooth-fairy
god of the atheists? If you don't know the right answer, you are an
idolater.
Because
if you don't believe in God, you will worship people, objects,
professions: footballers, food, travel destinations, women or men,
science or your career, etc. You will definitely worship someone or
something, because that is human nature. He seeks the object of his
worship.
[American
Football USA - Baseball; 1. Kansas City Chiefs; 2. Buffalo Bills; 3.
Baltimore Ravens; 4. Houston Texans; 5. Los Angeles Chargers... ]
As
the best-known hedonist-prophet who condemned himself to blindness
recommends: "There is probably no God. Now
stop worrying and enjoy your life."
/Richard Dawkins' UK bus campaign 2008-2009, London/
If you
love the true God, you will learn the Christian law of love! But if
you do not know God, and even reject him, you may serve the god of
arms and become a supporter of the military killing machine. You
cannot be indifferent to worship because you are either doing it
right or wrong. And you will be judged accordingly before the
judgment seat of Christ!
2Corinthians
5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment
seat of Christ, so that each one may receive his reward or punishment
for what he has done, whether good or bad, in his earthly life.
-
Long-term comfort. I know what happens after death. My body will
decompose or be cremated, and my remains will once again become
objects of the universe. I don’t worry about heaven or hell, the
afterlife or purgatory. The acceptance that life ends when I die is
incredibly powerful and comforting. What could be more exciting than
knowing that one day I will return to the universe from which I –
and we all – came? - Source: https://www.huffpost.com/archive/au/entry/10-reasons-i-am-an-atheist_au_5cd34ef8e4b0ce845d7f3126
You
are completely wrong, which is both convenient and comforting to you.
Well, then let's see what you will miss out on, what existing
perspective you are unaware of, which is the essence of true life,
why man was created in the first place, and which gives real meaning
to man's life!
Invitation
to eternal life
„And
the Spirit and the bride say, Come! And let him who hears say, Come!
And let him who is thirsty come; and let him who wishes take the
water of life freely.”
(Revelation
22:17)
As
scales fall from the eyes of the blind, so the cataract falls from
the eyes of the atheist when he finally encounters the truth conveyed
by Jesus Christ.
God's
original intention was for eternal life on the paradise earth, for
man to live there free from disease and death. Nor was there
originally any need for an evolution in which the most viable survive
and the rest perish in immense suffering, chasing each other,
devouring each other alive or dead. The breakdown of the balance of
nature was caused by man's rebellion against God, for God thereby
confronted man with the consequences of his actions. The wages of sin
is death and the consequence of disobedience is suffering.
The
answer to why there is so much suffering in the world is that it is
not God who rules the world, nor does divine morality guard the
social order, but rather those who have rebelled against God. World
society is subject to the spirit of rebellion, atheism being the
specific embodiment of this, in which self-interest and the stronger
representation of power prevail – for thousands of years now.
[The
abuse of church and religious power is the same category, in which
people were maimed, burned alive, or boiled alive in a cauldron in
the name of God, see e.g. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQu9wX12sow]
But
divine grace prevails where it is obeyed through the redemptive death
of Jesus Christ - in contrast to those who disobey God.
Ephesians
2:1-2 And you also [made alive], who were dead
in trespasses and sins, in which ye once walked according to the
course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the
air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience;
When
a person comes to God, he accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour,
accepts the sin-cleansing power of Christ's shed blood, and from then
on lives according to the law of Christ, the main part of which is
love, respect and support for God and neighbour. From then on,
everyone who thinks likewise and follows the same way of life becomes
his friend and spiritual brother.
According
to the Bible, Jesus Christ will return in royal power and will bring
an end to this present world system. /The main features of the
prophecies about this are contained in the 24th chapter of the Gospel
of Matthew, supplemented by several other prophecies./
What
is presented to atheists in Christianity, namely that the good go to
heaven, is a serious misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
Hebrews
2:5 For it was not to angels that he subjected
the inhabited earth to come /oikumené, inhabited earth, globe,
world/, of which we are speaking…
Hebrews
2:16 For it is evident that he did not embrace
angels, but he embraced the seed of Abraham
When
we pray, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done,
as in heaven, also on earth” (Matthew 6:10),
we
are praying for the coming of a government that is identical to
Abraham's spiritual seed/descendants, the saints of Christ called to
reign as kings in heaven.
All
others who remain standing at the judgment day of Christ will live in
Christ’s thousand-year earthly paradise free from sickness, hunger,
pain, and death, as the prophet Isaiah was inspired to foretell the
conditions there. /See 9:6-7; 65:17-25/
This
is how Adam and Eve's descendants will get back the eternal life that
Adam and Eve gambled away for themselves and their descendants.
The
main teaching of the Bible is the redemption and salvation of
mankind. Yet the EVANGELIUS /Good News of Christ/ is the object of
ridicule, scorn and belittlement in the academic world, and is widely
embraced and trumpeted by advocates of atheism. See e.g. [Pat
Condell: Your Faith is A Joke – video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4dSiHqpULk
Why
are you an atheist?
The
atheist advocate is no longer interested in the fact that there are
answers to the questions he raises, because he has already decided
his worldview in advance, and what he has read in the Bible or taken
from others is just enough to turn it against God.
Why
are you an atheist? Because you have adopted that thinking and found
true comfort in it. Biblical contexts, background information,
historical data are of no interest to you. Because you are not the
man who goes out and sells all he has to buy the land where the
treasure is hidden (Matthew 13:44-46).
You
are not the man who will be God's partner in building the new world
of paradise. Because your whole being is embodied in protest,
contempt and indifference. You are unfit for eternal life, the very
thought of which is far from you.
But
this is not God's will, but the imprint of your innermost being, your
spiritual world. You chose this, because you do have free will and
you use it for this. Yet it is God's will that you be obedient and
gain eternal life!
1
Timothy 2:4 Who - God -
desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the
truth.
Deuteronomy
30:19 I call heaven and earth to witness
against you this day, that I have set before you life and death,
blessing and curse: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy
seed may live.
I
have tried to report on the True Treasure, which cannot be missed by
accident. But no one will lose it by chance, but only those who
consciously refuse it. If you have read this writing, you will
presumably know what you are missing. For a few pleasurable moments
of your own choosing, you give up the pleasures of eternity, which
are freely available to all by divine grace.
The
Testimony of Ruth
There
is a beautiful testimony of faith in the book of Ruth that goes like
this:
„Turn
back, my daughters; go your way, for I am too old to have a husband.
If I should say I have hope, even if I should have a husband this
night and should bear sons, would you therefore wait till they were
grown? Would you therefore refrain from marrying? No, my daughters,
for it is exceedingly bitter to me for your sake that the hand of the
Lord has gone out against me.” Then they lifted up their voices and
wept again. And Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to
her.
And she said, “See, your sister-in-law has gone
back to her people and to her gods; return after your sister-in-law.”
But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or to return from
following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will
lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you
die, there I will die, and there I will be buried. Whatsoever the
Lord shall do unto me, let death be the only thing that shall
separate me from thee." (The book of Ruth 1:12-17)
You
know, such deep attachment is that which comes from the pure heart of
a person. This is the kind of sincere love that God treasures. Are
you that committed to your own atheism? I hardly think that the
extent of your commitment goes beyond your momentary self-interest.
God
has no personal interest in punishing or rewarding. What He does, He
does out of love and unwavering loyalty to the truth:
"Who
is like the Lord our God, who dwells on high, but stoops down to look
down on heaven and earth? He lifts up the destitute from the dust, He
lifts up the poor from the mud, to give him a place among princes,
among the princes of his people. The childless woman shall dwell in
her house, as a mother rejoicing over her sons." (Psalms
113:5-9)
"Listen,
heavens, let me speak! Let the earth hear the words of my mouth! Let
my teaching drip like rain, let my words fall like dew, like a shower
on the weak grass, and like sprinkling on the lawn. For I will
declare the name of the Lord: praise ye our God. Rock! His work is
perfect, for all his ways are truth! God is faithful and not
deceitful; He is just and upright" (Deuteronomy 32:1-4).
What
you do and how you live is in harmony with what is in your heart. You
will change when your heart is filled with an unquenchable thirst for
truth, honesty, and love. So strive to awaken in your heart a desire
for the true life that only God can satisfy.
Psalm
139:23-24 Search me, O God, and know my heart.
Try me, and know my thoughts. And see if I have any way of evil, and
guide me in the way of eternity.
Proverbs
4:23; 10:22 More than all things that are
feared, guard your heart, for out of it all life proceeds...
Jehovah's blessing is that which makes you rich, and he will not add
to it pain.
- - - -
connection
- ogocse@proton.me
