Evolution True or False Part 2

It is said that religion is blind faith where there is no proof.

The Holy Bible is full of scientific proofs, ergo fact.

Evolution is a theory without a shred of proof, ergo blind faith, ergo a religion.

Now that we have shown that evolution is a religion and not science let’s discover what the evolutionists say:

Charles Darwin wrote: “Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theories.” He also wrote: “I was a young man with unformed ideas, I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire, people made a religion out of them.” Why do evolutionist leave this out of anything connected with evolution? Another quote from Charles Darwin: “To suppose that the eye, with all it’s inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

If Darwin himself finally doubted his own theory why should anyone else take it seriously? Now a few words from dedicated evolutionist:

Preston Cloud, Geologist and evolutionist: “ There are so many transitional forms between species that we must often fall back on statistical analysis to separate one form from another”. What?? If the proof cannot be found prove the theory by conjecture? Then he went on to say: “The problem with transitional forms is one that all honest paleontologist have a problem with. The geologic record is incomplete.” In other words no transitional forms have yet to be found.

Dr. Leo Hickey, Yale University, and Evolutionist: “There is no problem finding transitional forms”. And then contradicted himself saying: “Evolution acts in very short bursts, it doesn’t leave many transitional forms behind”.

Commenting on the last quoted scientist: First, what happened to “millions of years of evolution”? Secondly, if the second statement is true then the first cannot be. Is this man educated beyond his intelligence? Once again: this is an excuse for no one being able to find any “missing links” which would prove evolution. How sad for the evolutionist, they cannot find the evidence that does not exist.

Now it is time to hear from other scientists:

Werner Von Braun, Founder of the U.S. Space program and former director of NASA: “The idea of creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. To be forced to believe only one conclusion, that everything in the universe happened by chance, would violate the very objectivity of science itself. What random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?”

Robert Jastrow, Astronomer and Geologist: “It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as the product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions of brain cells in our ancestors.”

You read and judge for yourself. This is by no means a complete documentation of all the arguments for and against evolution but I believe this clearly defines the reality thereof. Is there no validity to any of Darwin’s theories? That depends on your viewpoint. The idea of “the survival of the fittest” is valid in a way but it has nothing to do with natural selection or evolution.

We will create an example just for demonstration purposes: A group of finches are released on an island. Now every animal on earth has genes that vary within the species. Because of this there are variations within a species. Now let’s assume this group of finches include those with genes which predisposes some to grow long bills and others to grow shorter bills. If the food these finches eat are from flowers (just an example) and the flowers on this island are a type that grow long and narrow then the finches that have short bills will die out from lack of food leaving only those finches that have the gene for longer bills. By elimination and genetic replication the results of this is all the finches on this island eventually receiving the gene for longer bills. The birds have changed as a group but they are still finches, not a new species. Please note that this has no bearing on finches that live elsewhere because those from the original location will probably still have both short and long bills depending on mating habits and attractions.

Evolution: true or false? Part 1

To discover if evolution has any validity we need to look at the scientific facts, not scientific fraud or misconception.

The first scientific fact is that no cross-link or “missing link” has ever been found. If animals change from one species to another over billions of years the fossil record would show this because of the gradual change.

The life process that a frog goes through reflects this evolutionary change. Allow me to explain: The first thing we see after a frog hatches is a tadpole larva:

And then following onto the first metamorphosis stage:

Followed by the adult stage:

I know this is not evolution but the fossil record would show something similar to this if a transformation from one species to another actually occurred and with the process taking millions of years the evidence would be abundant but it is not. The entire fossil record shows a sudden appearance of new species, NOT a gradual change from one to another. There have been frauds and mistakes by paleontologists and other scientists, which we will deal with later.

Before we examine evolution any further, we need to take on the question of how life began. Did life begin because of a chemical reaction or by a yet unknown natural occurrence?

Once again we need to deal with facts and not supposition or theories.

Before life could occur protein and nucleic acids would have to exist at the same time, one cannot exist without the other. In order for the simplest protein to appear millions of processes would have had to occur in the exact order and the exact configuration with the exact conditions necessary to be present.

Scientists have noted that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other so that means life could not have been spontaneous. Committed evolutionists cannot accept any such conclusion as that; therefore, they speculate that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that the precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. Investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.

The bottom line is: the chances of a simple protein developing spontaneously is so far fetched it would be akin to a man finding the winning lottery ticket on the sidewalk every week for a thousand years. The simplest living organism is so complex and statistically improbable it is more feasible to expect to find tools such as an axe that has formed in nature. Oh, you say a man would have to develop a tool? Yes and with the complexity of living tissue it takes a Creator to make a man. Tools need a creator and tools are simple iron and wood…oops there is the life of a tree that the wood came from, well perhaps a simple metal wrench would form in nature. What? Science has never found any such thing? How amazing is that, just like the “missing links” that have never been found in the fossil record.

Did aliens from another world “seed” the earth with the beginnings of life? If so where did alien life spring from? That brings us back to the same question, which has no answer from the evolution standpoint.

I could go on with more evidence that life was created and not a natural occurrence but for the moment we will assume it is possible for life to occur spontaneously and move back to the evolution question.

What about DNA findings? True scientist have found “even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.” Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism. Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins. In other words it is more scientific to believe Creation than Evolution. This makes evolutionists preachers of a religion (or a belief system) and not scientists.

Now we will introduce the frauds dealing with fossil evidence.

Ramapithecus was widely recognized as a direct ancestor of humans. It is now established that he was merely an extinct type of orangutan.
Piltdown man was hyped as the missing link in publications for over 40 years. He was a fraud based on a human skullcap and an orangutan's jaw.
Nebraska man was a fraud based on a single tooth of a rare type of pig.
Java man was based on sketchy evidence of a femur, skullcap and three teeth found within a wide area over a one-year period. It turns out the bones were found in an area of human remains, and now the femur is considered human and the skullcap from a large ape.
Neanderthal man was traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man. It is now accepted that the alleged posture was due to disease and that Neanderthal is just a variation of the human kind.

Human evolution has its currently fashionable specimens that lead from small ape-like creatures to Homo sapiens. These are examples of the most recent alleged links:
Australopithecus aphaeresis, or "Lucy," has been considered a missing link for years. However, studies of the inner ear, skull and bones have shown that she was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked a bit more upright than some other apes. She was not on her way to becoming human.
Homo erectus has been found throughout the world. He is smaller than the average human of today, with a proportionately smaller head and brain cavity. However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that he was just like current Homo sapiens. Remains are found throughout the world in the same proximity to remains of ordinary humans, suggesting coexistence. We have pigmy’s in today’s world so where is the difference?

Australopithecus africanus and Peking man were presented as ape-men missing links for years, but are now both considered Homo erectus.
Homo habilis is now generally considered to be comprised of pieces of various other types of creatures, such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus, and is not generally viewed as a valid classification.

Human Evolution: The Most Recent Find
In July 2002, anthropologists announced the discovery of a skull in Chad with "an unusual mixture of primitive and humanlike features." The find was dubbed "Toumai" (the name give to children in Chad born close to the dry season) and was immediately hailed as "the earliest member of the human family found so far." By October 2002, a number of scientists went on record to criticize the premature claim declaring that the discovery is merely the fossil of an ape.

Human Evolution: The theory has no support in the fossil record.
Human evolution is a theory in denial. With all of this fossil evidence (or lack thereof) it becomes increasingly clear to an earnest seeker of the truth that human evolution did not happen at all.

There are a lot more frauds that have been exposed but these are enough for now. What worries me is the fact that even with all the evidence proving evolution an incorrect theory and always fraudulent, these same frauds are being taught to children in school as fact even after they have been proven as false. The reason behind this is the idea of “separation of church and state”. Schools are not permitted to teach the truth because if the truth is taught then schools would have to teach that there is a Creator, which some people believe is a religion. Is not religion simply a belief system that cannot be scientifically proven because it depends on a faith that is not scientifically supported? If this is a true statement, then evolution is much worse than any religion because evolution is not only based on faith but on fraud, supposition and a willingness to fake proof to prove the lie. That is why the Christianity is easier to believe than evolution because Christianity is backed by proofs.

In the Christian religion there is historical, archeological and scientific proof of accuracy of the Bible. Nothing in the evolution theory has any proof AT ALL. Since the Holy Bible has been proven scientifically accurate, why not take the rest of the Bible on faith rather than take on faith that which has been proven to be fraudulent? This is only common sense and that is severely lacking in today’s world.

One last word: Not one real scientist of any real merit, credit, accomplishment or noteworthiness has EVER jumped on the evolution bandwagon.

Evolution: True or False?

To discover if evolution has any validity we need to look at the scientific facts, not scientific fraud or misconception.

The first scientific fact is that no cross-link or “missing link” has ever been found. If animals change from one species to another over billions of years the fossil record would show this because of the gradual change.

The life process that a frog goes through reflects this evolutionary change. Allow me to explain: The first thing we see after a frog hatches is a tadpole larva:

And then following onto the first metamorphosis stage:

Followed by the adult stage:

I know this is not evolution but the fossil record would show something similar to this if a transformation from one species to another actually occurred and with the process taking millions of years the evidence would be abundant but it is not. The entire fossil record shows a sudden appearance of new species, NOT a gradual change from one to another. There have been frauds and mistakes by paleontologists and other scientists, which we will deal with later.

Before we examine evolution any further, we need to take on the question of how life began. Did life begin because of a chemical reaction or by a yet unknown natural occurrence?

Once again we need to deal with facts and not supposition or theories.

Before life could occur protein and nucleic acids would have to exist at the same time, one cannot exist without the other. In order for the simplest protein to appear millions of processes would have had to occur in the exact order and the exact configuration with the exact conditions necessary to be present.

Scientists have noted that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other so that means life could not have been spontaneous. Committed evolutionists cannot accept any such conclusion as that; therefore, they speculate that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that the precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. Investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.

The bottom line is: the chances of a simple protein developing spontaneously is so far fetched it would be akin to a man finding the winning lottery ticket on the sidewalk every week for a thousand years. The simplest living organism is so complex and statistically improbable it is more feasible to expect to find tools such as an axe that has formed in nature. Oh, you say a man would have to develop a tool? Yes and with the complexity of living tissue it takes a Creator to make a man. Tools need a creator and tools are simple iron and wood…oops there is the life of a tree that the wood came from, well perhaps a simple metal wrench would form in nature. What? Science has never found any such thing? How amazing is that, just like the “missing links” that have never been found in the fossil record.

Did aliens from another world “seed” the earth with the beginnings of life? If so where did alien life spring from? That brings us back to the same question, which has no answer from the evolution standpoint.

I could go on with more evidence that life was created and not a natural occurrence but for the moment we will assume it is possible for life to occur spontaneously and move back to the evolution question.

What about DNA findings? True scientist have found “even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.” Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism. Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins. In other words it is more scientific to believe Creation than Evolution. This makes evolutionists preachers of a religion (or a belief system) and not scientists.

Now we will introduce the frauds dealing with fossil evidence.

Ramapithecus was widely recognized as a direct ancestor of humans. It is now established that he was merely an extinct type of orangutan.
Piltdown man was hyped as the missing link in publications for over 40 years. He was a fraud based on a human skullcap and an orangutan's jaw.
Nebraska man was a fraud based on a single tooth of a rare type of pig.
Java man was based on sketchy evidence of a femur, skullcap and three teeth found within a wide area over a one-year period. It turns out the bones were found in an area of human remains, and now the femur is considered human and the skullcap from a large ape.
Neanderthal man was traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man. It is now accepted that the alleged posture was due to disease and that Neanderthal is just a variation of the human kind.

Human evolution has its currently fashionable specimens that lead from small ape-like creatures to Homo sapiens. These are examples of the most recent alleged links:
Australopithecus aphaeresis, or "Lucy," has been considered a missing link for years. However, studies of the inner ear, skull and bones have shown that she was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked a bit more upright than some other apes. She was not on her way to becoming human.
Homo erectus has been found throughout the world. He is smaller than the average human of today, with a proportionately smaller head and brain cavity. However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that he was just like current Homo sapiens. Remains are found throughout the world in the same proximity to remains of ordinary humans, suggesting coexistence. We have pigmy’s in today’s world so where is the difference?

Australopithecus africanus and Peking man were presented as ape-men missing links for years, but are now both considered Homo erectus.
Homo habilis is now generally considered to be comprised of pieces of various other types of creatures, such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus, and is not generally viewed as a valid classification.

Human Evolution: The Most Recent Find
In July 2002, anthropologists announced the discovery of a skull in Chad with "an unusual mixture of primitive and humanlike features." The find was dubbed "Toumai" (the name give to children in Chad born close to the dry season) and was immediately hailed as "the earliest member of the human family found so far." By October 2002, a number of scientists went on record to criticize the premature claim declaring that the discovery is merely the fossil of an ape.

Human Evolution: The theory has no support in the fossil record.
Human evolution is a theory in denial. With all of this fossil evidence (or lack thereof) it becomes increasingly clear to an earnest seeker of the truth that human evolution did not happen at all.

There are a lot more frauds that have been exposed but these are enough for now. What worries me is the fact that even with all the evidence proving evolution an incorrect theory and always fraudulent, these same frauds are being taught to children in school as fact even after they have been proven as false. The reason behind this is the idea of “separation of church and state”. Schools are not permitted to teach the truth because if the truth is taught then schools would have to teach that there is a Creator, which some people believe is a religion. Is not religion simply a belief system that cannot be scientifically proven because it depends on a faith that is not scientifically supported? If this is a true statement, then evolution is much worse than any religion because evolution is not only based on faith but on fraud, supposition and a willingness to fake proof to prove the lie. That is why the Christianity is easier to believe than evolution because Christianity is backed by proofs.

In the Christian religion there is historical, archeological and scientific proof of accuracy of the Bible. Nothing in the evolution theory has any proof AT ALL. Since the Holy Bible has been proven scientifically accurate, why not take the rest of the Bible on faith rather than take on faith that which has been proven to be fraudulent? This is only common sense and that is severely lacking in today’s world.

One last word: Not one real scientist of any real merit, credit, accomplishment or noteworthiness has EVER jumped on the evolution bandwagon.

Figure of Speach Part1

Figure of Speech, Metaphors and Parables.

How God uses words in a beautiful way.

Part 1

In today’s world when we use a figure of speech it is to enhance a story so that it paints a vivid picture in our mind so that we can grasp the enormity of the action or situation and let it sink into our minds much deeper than if the literal plain truth were told. In the Bible when a figure of speech is used it is for this same reason, to use words in a way that expresses the truth more fully than the literal words of truth could convey. This is a fantastic way to convey the truth while at the same time shrouding the literal truth from Satan in a mystery or metaphor.

Let’s start by looking at an example in Genesis 3:15. Where it says “thou shalt bruise His heel” it does not mean a literal bruise on His (Jesus’) flesh and blood heel but a temporary injury that will by no means stop Him (Jesus) from completing His objective. Later in Genesis 3:15 where it says, "It shall bruise thy head" does not mean that He (Jesus) will crush the literal skull, hair, flesh and brain of Satan. This is a much more eloquent way to speak the truth than that a simple literal combination of words. Read on to discover why.

What is in our head, the mind is there. We use our minds to construct plans and plots and to gain what we desire. This figure of speech means that Jesus will crush and end all the plans and plots, policy and purposes that Satan will use to attempt to mar and disrupt the will of God.

Satan first attempted to tempt Jesus in the wilderness, which failed, and then he helped to place Jesus on the cross and Satan believed he had ended the threat from Jesus because at the time Satan thought because Jesus died on the cross that Jesus had failed to fulfill the prophecy where Jesus would “crush his (which is Satan’s) head”. As God intended from the first Satan did “bruise the heel” of Christ but this “bruising” was the very action that crushed the head of the serpent. This is when Jesus destroyed death, which is Satan. Why is this? Sin caused the death of Adam and Eve and therefore all mankind. Now death was destroyed because Jesus paid our debt, which was our death because of our sins. Jesus paid it for all sinners by dying in our place and taking all our sins onto Himself. It is ironic that Satan caused his own demise by “bruising” the heel of Jesus.

Are you beginning to understand figures of speech in the Bible? There is a “boat load” (figure of speech) of examples to come.

Part 2 coming soon.

Time for a decision

When you know when a birthday or anniversary is you know how long you have to decide on a gift.

When you see the wear on your tires you know it is getting close to time for deciding to get new ones.

When you see a weather forecast you know it is time to decide to wear the appropriate clothing.

All through life we usually know the signs for making decisions but if you never decide to give your life to Christ then you have already made a decision and that is to follow Satan. There are no gray areas when it comes to Heaven or Hell, when you make no decision you have rejected God. God offers you a free gift but you have to reach out and take it, make a decision.

There are usually no signs that your life may end today and if it does it may be too late for the most crucial decision of your life. Would you want that decision to come by default and take the chance of spending eternity in hell? Satan will tell you that there is always tomorrow and maybe years but those are lies because none of us are guaranteed the gift of another breath.

I beg everyone to make that decision today.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I stand ready to help anyone with questions about their walk with Jesus, the Bible or any other spiritual matter.

How many will enter the Kingdom of God?

How many will enter into the Kingdom of God?

Only God knows the exact number.

Matthew 7:14
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

This study is to discover for ourselves the possible percentage that will gain the Kingdom of Heaven and why so few will find it. To get an idea we have an example in the Old Testament. This story spans several chapters and verses so I will not be including the entire text here, instead I will paraphrase the story. If the reader wants to read this very interesting story it is found in Numbers and early chapters of Deuteronomy. Start in Numbers chapter 13 if you want to read the entire story.

The Lord had spoken to Moses to send men into the land of Canaan to scout it out in order to discover how rich the land was. There were men selected from every tribe. Included among these men were Joshua and Caleb. The men were in Canaan for forty days and when they returned there were reports of a land that was bountiful and rich but there were also reports of giants in the land (like Goliath).

All the children of Israel rebelled against God and desired to return to Egypt instead of trusting God to give them the land. They were cowards and faithless men. Only Joshua and Caleb wanted to go in and take the land, only these two did not rebel and trusted in God completely. God said that of all the men of Israel above the age of twenty none would enter into the promised land save for these two men. This is why the children of Israel had to wander the wilderness for forty years (a year for every day the scouts were in Canaan).

In Numbers chapter 7 we see that the number of men of Israel over twenty years old and able to go to war at this time was 603,550. Of all these only TWO were allowed to enter the Promised Land (Heaven), Joshua and Caleb.

If only two men out of this number reached the Promised Land; which in this study equates to the Kingdom of God, we can see that one out of 301,775 is the average number of people that will make it to Heaven. Those are short odds. Are you really following God’s will or are you deluding yourself?

The next question is why will there be so few given the number of Christians in today’s world, not counting the trillions that have passed on before. The answer is the same as from this example of the children of Israel. Many proclaim to be of Christ yet their fruits do not show that this is true. To be truly of Christ it must come from the heart. True faith, belief, and a desire to be with God has got to be in your heart. If you do not hunger and thirst for the truth in the word of God then you probably do not have the love of Christ in your heart. If you do not learn the word of God Satan can destroy you simply because you are open to deception.

God knows your heart and you cannot fool Him. Paying lip service to God will only get you praises from man. This may make you happy in the flesh body but when judgment comes you will be left holding the bag. God does not compromise.

If you do not trust God to take care of your needs you are not giving your life to God. Your life belongs to God, He can take it at anytime. The point I am trying to make here is there are way too many self proclaimed Christians that do not have the Holy Spirit in them yet truly believe they are justified in God’s word. Many believe that they can live outside the will of God and still inherit the kingdom of God. That was the mistake of the children of Israel. God showed His miracles, His love, His promises and even the Promised Land yet they were in a continual state of rebellion against Him.

I cannot and will not attempt to judge anyone but it is my duty to help everyone I can to discover what his or her relationship is with God. You can do this simply by honestly answering this question:

Do I hunger and search diligently for the truth of the Word of God and do I make sure that those that teach me are teaching me the truth by checking my heart and the love letter God sent, the Holy Bible? Do not be deceived, learn God's truth.

God bless the reader with understanding and love.

The Ignorance of the Law about Life

Hello all, this is not my usual Bible study but it falls in the realm of what is Godly and Biblical so please bear with me.
It seems the entire world has lost all common sense. Read this partial report from a Texas trial (My comments are in red):

Dateline: Austin Texas:

The state's highest criminal court has ruled that Texas law allows the death of a fetus to be prosecuted as murder, regardless of the fetus' stage of development.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals also acknowledged that state laws protecting fetuses do not apply to abortions. (What? If a fetus can be murdered how is abortion different? The fetus is still dead. Women’s rights are dealt with later.)

Wednesday's ruling rejected an appeal by Terence Lawrence, who said his due-process rights were violated because he was prosecuted for two murders for the killing of a woman and her 4- to 6-week-old fetus.

The court ruled unanimously that state laws declaring a fetus an individual (Yes, a living individual) with protections do not conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling that protects abortion rights. (It DOES conflict if a person has common sense; according to the Bill of rights EVERY individual is granted the same rights; therefore the ruling that "abortion rights" exists at all was erroneous from the outset).

The Supreme Court has emphasized that states may protect human life not only once the fetus has reached viability but 'from the outset of the pregnancy,"' the court said. (The important words here are “human life”. If this is true then the fetus has a right to life, liberty, civil rights and protection under the law "FROM THE OUTSET OF PREGNANCY", in other words the right to be born and live from the moment of conception) "The Legislature is free to protect the lives of those whom it considers to be human beings." (It has clearly stated that a fetus is an individual life from the outset of pregnancy).

Lawrence was convicted of capital murder and given a life sentence for the 2004 shooting death of his girlfriend, Antwonyia Smith, and the couple's unborn child in Dallas County. Lawrence shot Smith after learning she was pregnant with his child, according to court documents. Perhaps he was trying to abort his child, and abortion is legal (sarcasm intended). Conclusion: If you can murder a fetus separately from it's mother then the fetus is alive and is a separate individual. Since this is true according to the Supreme Court how can abortion be legal? When an individual human being is killed by the decisions and actions of others, whether it is by a bullet or surgeon’s scalpel the individual is nonetheless dead, no longer a living individual and therefore murdered.

There are similar rulings and laws in other states and I believe this is a great first step and now I hope the U. S. Supreme Court takes note and understands the impact of this. If they do the Roe v Wade ruling will be overturned.

Where in the Bill of Rights does it say or even hint that a living individual has the right to control the destiny, life or death of another living individual? The Bill of Rights has no such provision because murder and slavery is illegal. If abortion is a "right" does that mean conjoined twins have the "right" to destroy the other? Let's look at this with common sense. In both cases (abortion an conjoined twins) there is a physical connection but they are also individuals with individual rights. It does not matter if the life is outside of the womb; it is still a life and an individual. To believe you have the right to kill a fetus because it is attached to your body and you believe you have the "right to control your own body" is the same as believing a person has the right to kill a conjoined twin because he or she is attached to your body. Murder is murder no matter what the circumstances of the individual being killed may be.

The question here is NOT if the fetus is a life and an individual because we all know he or she is alive and an individual person, the question we face is: does a woman (and a doctor) have the right to commit murder if the life inside the woman is unwanted, damaged or the result of a crime? Does it matter by what accident, crime or mistake the life occurred? No, because it is still a life with his or her own rights exclusive of the mother. God allowed the life to be conceived and mankind has no right to end that life.

The Bill of Rights establishes that individuals have the right to life liberty and happiness. We cannot exclude those that cannot speak for themselves or else we open the door to exterminate all the "unwanted that have no voice" which is similar to what Hitler attempted to bring about.

The bottom line here is if he or she is a living human being no other individual has the "right" to decide if he or she lives. Yes women (and men) have the right to control their own bodies but NOT the life or death of born or unborn individual human beings because it matters not if the life is inside or outside the womb, it is still an individual life and EVERY individual has the right to protection under the law. Chew on that for a while U.S. Supreme Court!

To those that disagree I say that perhaps over time abortion has begun to weed out human intelligence, love, compassion and common sense.

If you agree with me send this on to your all your friends, elected officials and the U.S. Supreme Court. It is time to stop the massacre.

Saved, But not from yourself

Can you sin weekly and be forgiven every Sunday?

I am going to start this Bible study in Hebrews 10:26-30 because it addresses a huge misconception about being saved and how your sins are forgiven. The main thing every person needs to remember is that Jesus will never fail us but we can fail Jesus. Not only can we fail Jesus we can actually sin to the point where there is no forgiveness. Don’t believe it? Read on dear Christian.

Scripture is in Red and comments are in Black.

Hebrews 10:

²⁶ For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, In other words if we have accepted Christ as our savior and know what is a sin and we understand the truth about a sin and we willfully commit that same sin again there is no forgiveness of that sin anymore; ergo, no more sacrifice for sins.

²⁷ But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. All that is left after willfully sinning is fearfully looking for judgment to come your way from a God that has fiery indignation who will destroy you. Jesus expects and demands a virgin bride.

²⁸ He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Here is an example from the Old Testament punishment to underscore the results of willfully sinning and that punishment is death.

²⁹ Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Let’s read this verse again with comments for clarity:

²⁹ Of how much sorer punishment (how much worse the punishment), suppose ye, shall he (the person that knowingly and willfully sins) be thought worthy (be thought as deserving), who hath trodden under foot the Son of God (walking all over Christ Jesus like a doormat), and hath counted (treated) the blood of the covenant (the sacrifice of Jesus), wherewith he (the sinner) was sanctified (was saved), an unholy thing (treated the blood of Christ as if it was from Satan), and hath done despite (treated with disrespect and contempt) unto the Spirit of grace? (This is also blaspheming the Holy Spirit and God’s grace).

³⁰ For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me (God), I will recompense (you will be paid what you are due…and it will not be pretty), saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. We are ALL His people, Christians included. God created us all.

God will never fail you but you can fail God and yourself.

For more insight to this teaching let’s look at:

1 Corinthians

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived (do not be fooled or fool yourself): neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

As we know God forgives all sins if you are saved and if so why will these people NOT inherit the kingdom of God? There is a huge difference between committing sin and living outside the will of God (willfully sinning with full knowledge it is a sin). The King James Version of the Holy Bible makes no distinction as to who these people are, in other words the Bible does not say if they are Christian or non Christian.

It just says these people will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Since Paul is talking to the church of Corinth we can safely assume he is directing this to Christians, think about that.

A drunkard is a person that gets drunk on a regular basis and it is usually not a mistake and the same is true for all sins. Knowing to get drunk is a sin and doing it anyway is what Hebrews 10 is talking about, you cannot expect forgiveness for your sins if you know better and still commit the sin willingly. You are stomping on the sacrifice Jesus made for us and have treated it as if it were a “get out of jail free card” or more to the point a “sin as you like and receive no retribution card”. That was never God’s intention. God’s intention was to make you a better person to become more like Christ Jesus and He expects you to love Him enough to surrender your sins.

Claiming to be saved and living outside the will of God is a contradiction. It is an insult to Jesus. If you are truly saved your only desire is to please God. You love God more than your temptations. Willfully sinning and knowing the truth of that sin is just like spitting in the face of Jesus no matter what the temptation because God always gives us a way to flee the temptation. You may not be able to resist temptation but God can and will give you the strength therefore God offers us no excuses and in fact tells us that we have no excuse because He always gives us an escape route and power over our enemies (Satan and temptation). It is up to us to take the escape or not.

If you cannot escape fleshly temptations you are not as close to God as you need to be because His grace and love destroys all evil.