ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Great White Throne Judgment

Concerning judgment,

Who will be at the great white throne judgment?

Can you prove your answer is true by Scripture?

Join Our Christian Dating and Take The Salvation Bible Quiz
 ---mima on 7/2/11
     Helpful Blog Vote (3)

Post a New Blog

Process of elimination. 1Jn 4:8-16[Love prevails[In-Christ] The Old/New Testament, book of "Apocalyse" [Revelation of Christ], [Rev 4:1] all the way to the last chapter "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches..." Rev 22:16,
some of it history,
some prophecy,
some warning and admonition,
some instruction,
but all of it for Gods chosen people, the planting of the Lord {Isa 61:3} from the Garden of Eden into present day history and then beyond into the eternity. The followers of Christ who are the light [to the Gentiles] through Christ Jesus the Son of God, that shall fulfill the prophecy and, for God, by God, spread the Gospel of God during the trouble of the end-time.
---char on 7/10/11

Warwick, that mentality also came down through false teaching stating there were people here before Adam/Eve, and those who Cain married into were these non humans. That blacks had no soul. This too gave even those devout?? christians?? in the south and all around the world to use these non-soul beings as slaves. If I'm not mistaken Trav believes this and seems to be also prejeduous against certain races of peoples.

Does this all come from Darwin, or did it start even before Darwin? I think Darwin just help promote the lie.
---kathr4453 on 7/10/11

Your source of information on the alleged "stolen generation" is wrong.
The documented evidence/papers/laws/quotes, etc you refer to contradict your claim.

Even the High Court differed from your views on the "stolen generation", and they were considering the best 3 examples available.

It would seem your on the Left side of politics or you have been indoctrinated by liberal/Left propaganda through mainstream media.

You even use similar underhanded tactics they do. I'm surprised you didn't bring out the "racist", "redneck", "homophobe" charges yet. This is how the Left always derail any debate they don't have complete control over .

---Haz27 on 7/10/11

In 1992, the High Court of Australia handed down its decision in the Mabo Case, declaring the previous legal concept of terra nullius to be invalid. That same year, Prime Minister Paul Keating said in his Redfern Park Speech that European settlers were responsible for the difficulties Australian Aboriginal communities continued to face: We committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers. We practiced discrimination and exclusion. It was our ignorance and our prejudice. In 1999 Parliament passed a Motion of Reconciliation drafted by Prime Minister John Howard and Aboriginal Senator Aden Ridgeway naming mistreatment of Indigenous Australians as the most "blemished chapter in our national history".
---kathr4453 on 7/10/11

"And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a [wedding garment]: And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having [a wedding garment? And he was speechless]. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matt 22:11-13)
[Our own works are filthy rags]. Holy Spirit working through us are righteous works sanctified by Jesus Christ and are fine linen, pure and white. they are [the wedding garments] (19:8).
All of the dead whose names are not written in the Book of Life will be found guilty at this judgment.
They will be speechless--[their word] means nothing.
---char on 7/10/11

Haz, We know Aboriginal children were taken from camps, not all for evolutionary reasons as some were taken to Christian missions for their safety. Nonetheless many 'half-bloods' were taken for evolutionary reasons.

Charles Kingsley, (close friend of Darwin, called Darwin's quisling), said:

The Black People of Australia, exactly the same race as the African Negro, cannot take in the Gospel All attempts to bring them to a knowledge of the true God have as yet failed utterly Poor brutes in human shape they must perish off the face of the earth like brute beasts.

Upon Darwinian principles Hitler said 'black' people were close to animals therefore stronger than evolved 'wites' so should be excluded from Olympic sport.
---Warwick on 7/10/11

So interesting to see how David the JW has run for cover after falsely accusing me of lying.

Also interesting that Scott the JW cut and paste guru has likewise been silent.

Both are usually so ready to swamp any thread with the well prepared cultic nonsense their organization provides in the hope they will confuse Christians.
---Warwick on 7/10/11

Axey: "And my name isn't "Axey"." I seriously doubt that your birth certificate says "StrongAxe" either. I choose not to call you strong because you are weak - not strong - in the Word of God, preferring the atheist version of creation over that of God's Word.

You still haven't answered my question about what you personally know to be true. Mendellian genetic variation, as Warwick has shown, is not evolutionary Natural Selection as you believe. It is the reason your children don't look alike, but I'll bet you've never seen a new species form, now have you?
---jerry6593 on 7/10/11

I agree Darwinian evolution is racist.

I was only disputing the liberal/Left's favorite fabrications of history (i.e "Stolen generations" and "genocide" of Tasmanian Aborigines).

I was not aware of Korah Wills confession and would not be surprised that its true. And there's no dispute that Aboriginal remains were taken for missing link displays.

But I do recommend Keith Windshuttles book "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History". He's a well researched historian and much hated by the Left because he exposed their deceit.

Former prime minister John Howard even appointed him on board of directors of the Left dominated ABC (TV & radio), much to the lothing of the Left.
---Haz27 on 7/10/11

Haz, just because you're from Australia doesn't really matter. Many Germans deny there was a Holocaust or concentration camps who murdered millions of humans.

There are too many facts and documented historical facts in government papers, laws and quotes that one would have to be in total in denial to say it wasn't so.

Laws were passed to take all rights away from these parents strictly based on their race and their baies were taken from first time patents the moment they were born. Child abuse? Hardly.

Is it still being practiced today? Have the laws changed protecting their rights? That will give you the true answer.
---kathr4453 on 7/10/11

Another horrible fact of discrimination: Poverty.

From 1938 to 1974 thousands of parents were persuaded to sign over legal guardianship of their children to Fairbridge to solve the problem of child poverty in Britain while populating the colony.

As many as 150,000 children had in fact been deported from children's homes in Britian and shipped off to a 'new life' in distant parts of the Empire.

Many of the children were told that their parents were dead. Their parents, too, were often deceived, many believed that their children had been adopted in Britain. The reality was very different: for numerous children it was to be a life of horrendous physical and sexual abuse in institutions in Western Australia and elsewhere.
---kathr4453 on 7/10/11

Haz what we need to accept as known fact is that Darwinian evolution is racist to its core. That he wrote about favoured human races is fact. That evolutionary graphics showed the ascent of man going from dark hominids, to dark humans and finally to white man. We know Darwin said less favoured races would disappear, We know that searcher, David Monaghan, spent 18 months documenting atrocities perpetrated in the name of science. It culminated in a documentary called 'Darwin's Bodysnatchers.' Scientists stole Ausralian Aboriginals bodies for missing link diplays. A deathbed statement by Queenslander Korah Wills says he killed an aboriginal for these purposes.
---Warwick on 7/10/11

I guess you haven't read the book "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History".

Being Australian I can tell you that "Australian history" is very political and not an objective/impartial search for truth.

The alleged "stolen generation" was subject to standard child welfare policies for that time. Even the High Courts came to this conclusion.
Abused/neglected white children were also removed.

The fact that FULL blood Aborigines maintained a nurturing family society whilst PART Aborigines failed shows that child welfare policies were not about racism.

I suggest keeping to facts about history. Don't believe emotional propaganda from movies like Rabbit Proof Fence.

---Haz27 on 7/9/11

StrongAxe, reality shows evolution and genetics have been opponents from the beginning. Read up on Gregor Mendel and you will see that by carefully done and recorded experiments He showed the opposite of what Darwin was claiming.

When Darwin was claiming one kind could change into another kind Mendel had already showed this was not so. Darwin's beliefs were based of false Ideas which were not proved by experiments as were Mendels.

When we observe natural selection we are not seeing microbe to man evolution in action at all. However when we see that dogs always have dogs, and cats always have cats we are seeing but one of the truths of Genesis.
---Warwick on 7/9/11


As I mentioned in my previous two messages (did you miss them?) natural selection is a part of evolutionary theory that we can actually verify is true becuase we can see it happening today. I did not claim that Darwin was right in all things, but he WAS definitely right in this one thing.

You can see an abundance of "kinds" as Genesis relates, but you cannot observe them being formed, so you can ONLY know about them from the author of Genesis, not from personal experience nor from live witnesses.

And my name isn't "Axey".
---StrongAxe on 7/9/11

mima, I don't know about you, but I'm wondering how your question turned to an evolution debate/discussion. One fact is for certain, Darwin knows the answer to your question first hand. He's no longer here to witness all the confusion he's left behind, but I personally believe if he could return to life on earth, he'd be one of the Creation believer's now. :-)
---Reba on 7/9/11

Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service

Mosquitos are still mosquitos, just as the fossil record shows.
Bacteria are still bacteria.
Finches are still finches.
Darwin had acute observation skills, but relied alot on others' research.
Adaptation is true and can be seen.
His conclusions about evolving to different kinds, however, were wrong.
This has never been seen, nor does the DNA have the ability to do such, even with all the wonders that it does do.
His conclusion has never been supported by the fossil record.
On the contrary, the fossil record continues to support "after it's kind" as the Bible states.
---micha9344 on 7/9/11

Axey: "Can you name one thing about the Bible that you personally know to be true?"

Yes, many. I could delineate the historical accuracy of the prophecies of Daniel, the vindication of the genetic variation in the original Genesis "kinds" which you falsely try to assign to darwinism, the many personal answers to prayer I've experienced, etc. But, the most compelling evidence to me is the close, personal relationship that I experience daily with the God of the Bible.

Why do you align yourself with Atheist in his adherance to the religion of Evolution and his opposition to the Bible?

Can you name one thing about Evolution that you personally know to be true?
---jerry6593 on 7/9/11

Warwick, have you ever seen the movie Rabbit Proof Fence? Haz 27 may want to see that from the mouths of those stolen. These three children were taken from their home, three thousand miles away and found their way back. Amazing story. One of the sisters died along the way. People(white people) helped these girls along the way by placing food out for them.

Haz27, it's no different than when we took Native American children and put them in WHITE MANS schools, forbidding them to keep their native names etc. It was wrong.
---kathr4453 on 7/9/11

David the Jehovah's Witness has accused me twice, of lying. This is a cowardly and immoral act as I have since given him two or more opportunities to show where I have lied. But silence. He has disappeared from these pages which would suggest he is too cowardly and dishonest to face up to his wrong doing.

So typical of the cultists.
---Warwick on 7/9/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements

StrongAxe Darwin thought natural selection (or in your example unatural selection) brought about microbe to man evolution. He was proven wrong but students are still taught this (and other fallacies) as fact.

Regarding the Genesis account: God said He created His creatures to reproduce after their kinds, exactly as we see today.

Further the Genesis account says Adam's sin brought about the curse of death disease and suffering we see in action today.
---Warwick on 7/9/11


If you are going to insult someone by calling him an animal (dog, swine, etc.), you had better have good reason to do so.

Personally, I prefer to stick to the point and to address issues directly, rather than to waste my time and others by lowering myself to petty name-calling.
---StrongAxe on 7/9/11

Trav: It merely takes common courtesy.
---StrongAxe on 7/8/11

I'm sure i can follow you're example...we won't go too many of your post back.
Brace yourself pilgrim, animal comparisons are bound to afflict your educated self in scripture.
Being courteous to Mr. Wolf just doesn't make much sense. Or a Mr. Snake,Fox,Goat,Dog,Hog or Rooster etc.
Calling something courteously what it isn't does not make it so. Regardless if patronizingly popular in your circle, country or Church.
A sheep is a sheep. Matthew 7:6
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
---Trav on 7/8/11


I was not claiming that Darwin was right in all areas - merely that SOME of his claims could be observed happening right now.

For example, suppose a perticular pesticide is 99.99 percent effective at killing mosquitos, but 1 in a million are 10x as resistant against it. If you spray an area with a billion mosquitos, you will have 100 thousand left - but now 1 in 100 thousand are resistent. These all breed quickly (given reduced competition), so after only 6 sprayings, most of the remaining mosquitos will have the improved resistance to the pesticide.

We have also seen this with the development of MRSA - a strain of antibiotic-resistent streptococcus found in hospitals, places where antibiotics are common.
---StrongAxe on 7/8/11

Shop For Church Resources

You are correct that the falsely alleged "stolen generation" are of PART Aboriginal "blood".

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I listened to an interview with a retired police officer from that era of history. He stated that it was the part-Aborigines who presented the neglect/abuse, etc of their children that required removal for their protection.

He said the FULL-blood Aborigines did not create this same environment of neglect/abuse for their children.

And he stated that he would do it (child removal) all again if he had his time over. Welfare of neglected/abused children was the system's motivation.

---Haz27 on 7/8/11

StrongAxe, in his scientific ignorance Darwin thought natural selection was the driving force of microbe-to man evolution. In more knowledgeable times scientists came to understand this does not work as Darwin believed. It brings about variety within God's created kinds but does not create new kinds. We have great variety within the dog kind but dogs are still dogs. They are not on their way to becoming some totally different kind of creature.

Scientists added mutations to natural selection but there is no proof this works either.
---Warwick on 7/8/11


It does not take education to call people by their names (rather than insulting nicknames or epithets). It merely takes common courtesy.


If you feel it fair to ask such a question, by the Golden Rule, you must also feel it fair to ask you:

Can you name one thing about the Bible that you personally know to be true?

Since it was written 2000 yeasr ago and more, none of us personally witnessed any of it. We take it all on faith, based solely on the testimony of others.

Furthermore, some aspects of Darwin's theory (e.g. improvement of existent species via natural selection) can be observed today, while the same cannot be said of the Genesis creation account.
---StrongAxe on 7/8/11

'Both eugenics and social darwinism are sick belief systems, but neither disprove evolution, simply because some idiots used his writings as a reference.'-atheist on 7/7/11
-This statement was awesome and I had to re-post.
It made me consider all the belief systems that don't disprove God simply because some idiots used His Word as a reference.
Can you consider the same Atheist?
---micha9344 on 7/8/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services

A theist: Thirteenth request:

Can you name one thing about Evolution that you personally know to be true?
---jerry6593 on 7/8/11

Historian Keith Windshuttle formerly believed similar to you until his research on Aboriginal history overturned the indoctrination he accepted at Uni.

He found the small numbers of Aboriginal child removals were almost all based on child's welfare.
Most were orphaned, abandoned, destitute, neglected, subject to various forms of domestic violence, sexual exploitation and sexual abuse.
Some parents even voluntarily placed their children in institutions for education, better future.
In NSW, some entered apprenticeships to help youth qualify for the workforce.

In short, they were subject to standard child welfare policies of their time, regardless of race. Reseach reveals there's no racist Darwinist agenda.
---Haz27 on 7/8/11

Your tone indicated sarcasm rather than scholarly discussion (and does still, since you continue to use mocking terms like "denigrator" and "crow"... ---StrongAxe on 7/7/11

Well, me not being a toned/tuned scholar like yourself....acknowledge scholarly toned errors are bound to happen. Exception? This case.
You err in that it was a Crow i was denigrating. It was the Noble Rooster. The scriptural Rooster crowed marking the third denial of a scared an humanly weak follower of Christ.
Roosters crowing do not determine GOD's direction. Their beak music can be a sign/mark though as evidenced scripturally and otherwise. Christ used animal comparisons...reference snake/fox etc, usage.
---Trav on 7/8/11

Atheist I answered your comments however they haven't made the trip.

You are being a little dishonest.

I did not say, or imply, that the racist foundation of Darwinism refutes the theory of evolution.

You have often said you reject 'religion' because following a religion has negative social consequences. But you couldn't give one negative consequence of following Jesus. In fact you said this would be a better place if people followed His commands.

This refutes your argument.

What I did say was-Darwinism is racist at its core, and has serious negative social consequences if anyone applies its philosophy. I gave examples of these negative consequences.
---Warwick on 7/8/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores

Rev.20:11 And I saw a great white throne, & him that sat on it, from whose face the earth & the heaven fled away, & there was found no place for them. I'm assuming since no place was found for them, it will be people like the atheist's who refuse to acknowledge God, & who do not have the blood of Christ as their covering that will be at the GW throne of judgement. Because God's children will be judged for their works from the books & book of life Rev. 20:12.
---Reba on 7/7/11

I have spoken with quite a few Aboriginals who were removed i.e. forcibly 'stolen' from their camps. I once spoke at a predominately Aboriginal church were there were quite a few of the stolen generation. All were of part aboriginal 'blood' which supports the case that their removal was on Darwinian principles. So I would take quite a bit of convincing that it never happened.

I do agree that the left-wing of politics has told some serious lies over the years.
---Warwick on 7/7/11

StrongAxe, my comments regarding a visit to a nude beach (in the early 1970's)before my conversion, were made in the light of people looking better with clothes on. I suppose 6,000 years of the curse has a lot to do with that.

The comment regarding the Bishop and the actress was a joke. Have you heard the comment " the Bishop said to the actress?"
---Warwick on 7/7/11


Your tone indicated sarcasm rather than scholarly discussion (and does still, since you continue to use mocking terms like "denigrator" and "crow" rather than people's actual names).

Checking the facts? I look at the entire discussion thread. The original post to which you were replying had already fallen off the bottom, so it was not possible to read what went on beyond that point. They are not visible on Warwick's recent postings either.
---StrongAxe on 7/7/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training

Okay. Let's supposed that Darwin was not only a racist, but he kept slaves, and because of the proceeds of "Origins" could afford to regularly beat them to death and just buy new ones.

That behavior on his part, or the behavior of anyone who you claim read "Origins" and participated in a genocide, does not falsify the theory of evolution as it stands today.

Both eugenics and social darwinism are sick belief systems, but neither disprove evolution, simply because some idiots used his writings as a reference.
---atheist on 7/7/11

Yes, I am saying there was no "stolen generation".

The High court findings on the best 3 examples brought before them on the matter also concluded similar. Can you recall that high court case some years back?

If you want more details on the errors/deceit the liberals/Left historians have conned us with on Aborigianl history check out historian Keith Windshuttles book, "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History".
---Haz27 on 7/7/11

Haz are you saying there was no stolen generation?
If you believe there was a stolen generation why were they stolen?
---Warwick on 7/7/11

Whilst I agree with your position against evolution I ask that you reconsider your claim of genocide against Tasmanian Aboriginals.

Historian Keith Windshuttle exposed the errors/deceit of the liberal/Left historians regarding the genocide claim.

You might want to read his book, "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History", to update your understanding.
The "genocide" and "stolen generations" versions of history are merely fabrications for the Left's political ends.

You should recall how even the High court decision on the case of the alleged "stolen generations" came to similar conclusions to historian Keith Windshuttle.
---Haz27 on 7/7/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Software

Jerry, thanks for that quote regarding Darwin's attitude to so called primitive races of humans. I had it in mind but couldn't find it.

Atheist I trust you will see from Jerry's quote that your view of the direct consequences of applied Darwinism is indeed pure institutionalized racism. Just as I have said all along.

And you are worried about the imagined wrong doings of Christians who follow Jesus' commands!

To follow Jesus is to love and serve your neighbour, your fellow man.

To follow Darwin is to look down on your fellow man if he is not of an approved race!
---Warwick on 7/7/11

If you have an intelligent point to make, why not make it, rather than lowering yourself by making slanderous and unsubstantiated comments like this?
....adds nothing useful to the discussion at hand.
---StrongAxe on 7/5/11

Well forgive me for repeating the substantiated. Ask denigrater. Warwick proudly mentioned his beach foray a recently. His point, he was a proud succumber, before his self observation....the bishop/atheist he denigrates after the fact.
The point? There was a fellow who denied Christ three times before the Rooster crowed.
Roosters crowing does not condemn a man. GOD's job.
You might check your facts/axe before you Crow.
---Trav on 7/6/11

"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God, and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which being the Life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. For we must all appear in front of the Judgment throne of Christ, that every one will receive the things in body, according to what we have done, whether good or bad." Rev.20:12+ II Cor.5:10.
---Eloy on 7/6/11

Trav, I am flattered by your constant personal interest in my Spiritual well being.
---Warwick on 7/5/11

Your welcome to anything you can glean.
Truth is a good meal whoever partakes. Sustains the giver and recipient....if not the fearful type.

13 The nations shall rush like the rushing of many waters: but God shall rebuke them, they shall flee far off, shall be chased as the chaff of the mountains before the wind, like a rolling thing before the whirlwind.

14 behold at eveningtide trouble, and before the morning he is not. This is the portion of them that spoil us, the lot of them that rob us.
---Trav on 7/6/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
Charles Darwin (The Descent of Man)
---jerry6593 on 7/6/11

Trav, I am flattered by your constant personal interest in my Spiritual well being.

Please keep it up!
---Warwick on 7/5/11


In responding to Warwick, you said: Maybe they met on the same nude beach you go to.

If you have an intelligent point to make, why not make it, rather than lowering yourself by making slanderous and unsubstantiated comments like this? This is a pure ad hominem attack, and such attacks always demean both the target (accusing him of something tawdry) and the accuser (for revealing him as someone more interested in malicious character assassination than truth), adds nothing useful to the discussion at hand.
---StrongAxe on 7/5/11


Don't disbelieve something because of the actions of those who claim to adhere to it, though I understand your reasoning. The evolution theory itself has been used for reasons very much like religion. Men want power and control and use whatever they can to justify it. I have been where you are for the same reasons, but never was satisfied in accepting the only purpose of our life is to procreate and die so the process can continue. Truth is not religion as Jesus himself proved, so I encourage you to search for it despite those who attack you.

Be blessed freind
---willa5568 on 7/5/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders

Hey Atheist I am not choosy I 'denigrate' all sorts. I could never work out how the bishop and the exotic dancer became so acquainted.
---Warwick on 7/1/11

Maybe they met on the same nude beach you go to.
You denigrate yourself. At least Atheist does not accept what you cannot prove. Doc problem. Your physical witnesses are there but, not all defining on foundations of creation.
There are open ends, that your doctrine, in fear must not be asked for lack of answer. When answered, you have not enough you elaborate/stretch grandly or denigrate emphatically instead of researching your own shortfall.
Truth will never appeal to or be utilized by you, in that you've sown too much in error to recant.
---Trav on 7/5/11

Atheist, you oppose 'religion' becuse of what people do in its name, but agree if people followed Jesus' commands this would be a better place.

But you still oppose Christianity despite the fact Christians developed the scientific method which has given such technical/medical marvels!

Darwin wrote of races, including humans along with animals.

The evil people have done to so-called inferior 'coloured' races was directly because of Darwinism-institutionalised racism.

Darwin decreed Australian Aboriginals were not human but missing-links.' This lead to them being hunted (like animals) to extinction in Tasmania. Scientists came from Europe and had Aboriginals murdered to use them for missing-link exhibits.
---Warwick on 7/4/11


To be clear. I am not agreeing that pygmies are an inferior race, or that Darwin said they were. His reference to races, was used at that time as species, not human beings. I am disagreeing with you that ORIGINS was bad because bad people put human beings on display because of what they thought it said. Like slave owners in the South who beat their slaves not quite to death, as instructed in the Bible.
---atheist on 7/4/11

Atheist a flat earth is not Biblical.

Isaiah 40:22 describes it as a circle (Hebrew khug) which can mean spherical. Taken in the light of Job 26:7 "He hangs the earth upon nothing" this describes a spherical earth suspended in space upon nothing. God knows!

Jeffrey Russell professor of history at the University of California in Santa Barbara, says in his book 'Inventing the Flat Earth' that through antiquity up Columbus time nearly unanimous scholarly opinion pronounced the earth spherical. He believes a major source of the myth came from the creator of the Rip Van Winkle story Washington Irving who wrote a fictitious account of Columbuss defending a round earth against misinformed clerics and university professors.
---Warwick on 7/4/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages

Atheist having viewed the video a few times, and read your part transcript I have correctly represented what Dawkin's has said. Stein rattled him and he began to babble about life evolving somewhere over the rainbow and seeding life in other places. Have a look at the video and take note of the strange look on his face while he babbles!

The Creator God does not have the problem you imagine as He is eternal, therefore uncreated.

I ask you, the materialist- is matter eternal or did it create itself? Be brave ang give an answer. At least Dawkins tried!

No matter how you squirm and theorize Ota Benga was put in a cage because of Darwinian beliefs. What other reason was there?
---Warwick on 7/4/11

Warwick, "Following Darwin scientists put Ota Benga, a Pygmy,on display in an American zoo, as an example of an inferior race."

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a form of logical fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not address the truth value of the premise. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.
---atheist on 7/4/11


"We don't know." is an acceptable and honest answer. It wasn't long ago that we didn't know for sure that the world wasn't flat.

He didn't go on to make a fantastic claim, he used the example of a fantastic claim, (little green men), other than the fantastic claim that god did it, to show that little green men if they were the "creators" would need a creator themselves. Just as the fantastic "god" explanation need a creator to create "god". It's an infinite recursive loop. Insert god, little green men, or the flying spaghetti monster, and you have the same thing.

Are you so afraid of this man that you have to pretend that he said something else?
---atheist on 7/4/11

Atheist, I have confused you, sorry.

You quoted from the Stein video beginning " could come about in the following way... From it I quoted "that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere....But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process." This is where he talked about life evolving elsewhere in the universe.

You then quoted Dawkins admitting we don't know how life came about. I wrote "He has no proof life evolved here on earth so fantasizes about it happening somewhere else!"

Then you asked "when did he say any such thing? Where is your proof of this accusation. I hope this explains things!
---Warwick on 7/4/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair

What about Ota Benga? Fact or fiction Atheist?
---Warwick on 7/4/11


Your last entry:"Atheist you know I was not referring to that wonderful conversation."

Your entry before that:"Atheist,I think that is Dawkins babbling I wrote about."

It appears you have contradicted yourself, and I have no idea what conversation you are talking about.

"He has no proof life evolved here on earth so fantasizes about it happening somewhere else!"---when did he say any such thing? Where is your proof of this accusation.

I listened to that "debate" yesterday. The format really wasn't a debate. They were both too polite. There was no winner. Lennox had some good wordplay quips, but beyond that nothing.
---atheist on 7/3/11

Atheist you know I was not referring to that wonderful conversation. But Dawkins admission-we (evolutionists) don't know- should be on every TV tonight, and in every school/university. Currently the whole long-ages/evolutionary fable is reported as truth.

Had you read what I wrote you would know I was talking about Dawkins twaddle about life evolving somewhere over the rainbow, unseen. He has no proof life evolved here on earth so fantasizes about it happening somewhere else!

Stein had him on the run.

You should see his debate with Oxford Don Lennox, (Christian) who also had him on the run. Dawkins, bold and confident when facing his fans, incompetent and nervous when faced with knowledgeable opponents.
---Warwick on 7/3/11

Warwick, can you read?

His point was that little green men, the flying spaghetti monster, and god all would need a creator, and so explain nothing. What an idiot misreads into any writing, the Bible or Origins is idiocy, not the fault of the author.

STEIN: How did it get created?

DAWKINS: By a very slow process.

BEN STEIN: Well, how did it start?

DAWKINS: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.

BEN STEIN: And what was that?

DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.

BEN STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?

DAWKINS: I told you, we dont know.
---atheist on 7/3/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products

Atheist,I think that is Dawkins babbling I wrote about. Stein 'rattled' him and out comes his-somewhere over the rainbow evolutionary story. "that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere....But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process."

In this babble Dawkins attempts to shift the problem elsewhere.

Dawkins well knows there is no evidence that life evolved on earth by naturalistic processes. He well knows the scientific law of biogenesis which states-life comes only from life. No one has ever seen a lifeform which was 'motherless?' You, and Dawkins know you haven't.
---Warwick on 7/3/11

Atheist I have lost interest in reading the distortions atheists have written about various things. I have seen the lies and half-truths they have written about projects and events I was directly involved with.

You have also been deceitful and evasive refusing to answer questions. Jerry has asked a relevant question 8+ times-you cannot answer!

You said Stalin missused Darwin-not true. Darwin wrote of the 'survival of the fittest' applying this to socalled 'primitive races' of human saying they would be overcome and made extinct by the fully evolved (read white) races of human.

Following Darwin scientists put Ota Benga, a Pygmy,on display in an American zoo, as an example of an inferior race.

Is this a lie?
---Warwick on 7/3/11

I know little of this, but " For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)" The first resurrection? Also rev 20:5.

I have heard, but not sure, this is when the judgment seat (bema?) takes place (Rewards etc)

In contrast, the great white throne judgment: Rev 20:11-14, after the millenium. the dead standing before God
---Christina on 7/3/11

Atheist you STILL did NOT answer my question on the Gospels. I gave you all the secular evidence you need to decide if the Gospele were true or not. At least in a Historical sense.
Do you belive Jesus existed?
---John on 7/3/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce

" could come about in the following some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved,....some kind of Darwinian means,....and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet.....that is a possibility, intriguing possibility....I suppose its possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer....that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere....But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously.THAT'S THE POINT."
---atheist on 7/3/11

Warwick, read "Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know......about intelligent design and evolution" in Scientific American." The whole project was a lie.

How you must twist things:


The English transcription is in my next entry. Do I have to try again starting with, "Long ago, in a universe far away, little green men?..."
---atheist on 7/3/11

\\Cluny, it is must then be the tradition of the Eastern Orthodox to teach that believers stand in judgment with the rest of the lost.\\

That's because it's the teaching of the Bible, which we wrote.

\\There is two judgment seats,\\

Right: a particular judgement and a general jdugement, and we ALL go through both.

The rest of what you're saying is just traditions and precepts of men.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/3/11

Cluny THE following statement is like you would say WRONG!!

"for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ".

The reason the statement is wrong is because Jesus has already been judged on the cross for those who enjoy salvation. Consider this answer for it is important for you to understand.
---mima on 7/3/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage

Cluny, it is must then be the tradition of the Eastern Orthodox to teach that believers stand in judgment with the rest of the lost.
There is two judgment seats, "The Judgment seat of Christ" Romans 14:10, which is for believers rewards and burning of the wrongs they did in life. And "The Great white Throne of Judgment" for unbelievers, Rev. 20:. Believers will be with Christ on the throne, at the Great White Throne of Judgment but not to be judge because we have been forgiven through Christ.
---Mark_V. on 7/3/11

"Who will be at the great white throne judgment?" The Spiritually dead.
"Can you prove your answer is true by Scripture?"
As previously posted be by micha9344 "And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away,... And I saw 'the dead', small and great, stand before God... and 'the dead' were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works...each one according to his works." Rev 20:11-13
This Obviously refers to the Spiritually dead, since all at this time has been raised from physical death. Those in Christ are "alive unto God" through Him (Rom. 6:11), and will not be judged here.
---joseph on 7/3/11

Dan 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
Dan 7:10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.

Jas 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
---jerry6593 on 7/3/11

Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection. Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Rev 20:11-12 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away, and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God, and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
-everyone dead?
---micha9344 on 7/2/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation

well if you read revelation 20-11 thru15 it appears everyone.saved and unsaved.
---tom2 on 7/2/11

Everybody will, mima.

Romans 14:10
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

It's only the traditions and precepts of men that come up with several different judgements.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/2/11

Atheist of course the antiChristian brigage tried to do a hatchet job on Ben Steins documentary. They have to do so as it truth they do not want known.

Whatever they say does not change Dawkins strange babbling towards the end where he spoke nonsensically about creatures from outer space. I thought he was going to talk about little green men.

Have you watched it?

People of the same antiChristian hatred tried to do a hatchet job on From a Frog to a Prince but their deceit was exposed by the second camera which showed the video was a true version of the interview. And that Dawkins simply lied. The Australian Sceptic gave him lots of space to answer the question but he couldn't.
---Warwick on 7/2/11

Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.