The End of the World

Key Precept: How to know whose advice to follow to save yourself and loved ones from disaster.

15,000 scientists just signed the largest-ever warning about Earth’s destruction

On Nov 13, [2017] the journal BioScience published the “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice”…The first warning was issued in 1992 when 1,700 members of the Union of Concerned Scientists argued that humans are “on a collision course with nature.”

…Since 1992, with the exception of stabilizing the stratospheric ozone layer, humanity has “failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse,” the paper states. Its authors say they are especially troubled by “the current trajectory of potentially catastrophic climate change…from burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and agricultural production—particularly from farming ruminants for meat consumption.”

They also point out that this rapid heating has “unleashed a mass extinction event, the sixth in roughly 540 million years.” Scientists predict many current life forms could be annihilated or near extinction by the end of this century...

Time is running out, the scientists remind us.

And if that’s not bad enough, there’s always the threat of atomic warfare.


Think the human race ends in a win for mankind? Think again.

Even the scattered survivors of an apocalyptic event will wipe each other out if left to their standard modus operandi. That is what makes The Walking Dead so horrifyingly true to life. The zombies aren’t the greatest threat. It’s the other survivors.


William James, “first among the Harvard faculty giants a century ago”, wrote in “one of his most eloquent, utterly ageless essays, a sweeping denunciation of war and at the same time, a paean to military values.”

“History is a bath of blood.” The Illiad is one long recital of how Diomedes and Ajax, Sarpedon and Hector killed. No detail of the wounds they made is spared us, and the Greek mind fed upon the story. Greek history is a panorama of jingoism and imperialism — war for war’s sake, all the citizens being warriors. It is horrible reading — because of the irrationality of it all — save for the purpose of making “history” — and the history is that of the utter ruin of a civilization in intellectual respects perhaps the highest the earth has ever seen…

But I do not believe that peace either ought to be or will be permanent on this globe…A permanently successful peace-economy cannot be a simple pleasure-economy. In the more or less socialistic future toward which mankind seems drifting we must still subject ourselves collectively to those severities which answer to our real position upon this only partly hospitable globe…Martial virtues must be the enduring cement; intrepidity, contempt of softness, surrender of private interest, obedience to command, must still remain the rock upon which states are built — unless, indeed, we wish for dangerous reactions against commonwealths, fit only for contempt, and liable to invite attack whenever a centre of crystallization for military-minded enterprise gets formed anywhere in their neighborhood.

In the article Is War Inevitable? by E. O. Wilson, he argues that, yes, it is.

Our bloody nature, it can now be argued in the context of modern biology, is ingrained because group-versus-group competition was a principal driving force...Each tribe knew with justification that if it was not armed and ready, its very existence was imperiled. Throughout history, the escalation of a large part of technology has had combat as its central purpose

Any excuse for a real war will do, so long as it is seen as necessary to protect the tribe. The remembrance of past horrors has no effect. From April to June in 1994…In a hundred days of unrestrained slaughter by knife and gun, 800,000 people died…The total Rwandan population was reduced by 10 percent…For a relentlessly growing population, the per capita arable land was shrinking toward its limit. The deadly argument was over which tribe would own and control the whole of it…

Wars and genocide have been universal and eternal, respecting no particular time or culture. Archaeological sites are strewn with the evidence of mass conflicts and burials of massacred people. Tools from the earliest Neolithic period, about 10,000 years ago, include instruments clearly designed for fighting…

Since the end of World War II, violent conflict between states has declined drastically, owing in part to the nuclear standoff of the major powers…But civil wars, insurgencies, and state-sponsored terrorism continue unabated. Overall, big wars have been replaced around the world by small wars of the kind and magnitude more typical of hunter-gatherer and primitively agricultural societies

At the present time, we are still fundamentally the same as our hunter-gatherer ancestors, but with more food and larger territories. Region by region, recent studies show, the populations have approached a limit set by the supply of food and water…

The struggle to control vital resources continues globally, and it is growing worse.

This fact challenges the myth of “the noble savage” envisioned by movements such as the Enlightenment, Communism, the New Age and Evolution. Their vision of native peoples satisfied with the bare essentials, minding their own business is pure romanticism. Any psychologist or sociologist will tell you it is not within human nature to find peace by families “living off the land by hunting and gathering what it had to offer…if there was not enough food in a group’s direct vicinity, it meant they had to move around and lead more nomadic lifestyles in order to sustain themselves.” No they didn’t. History, as succinctly reported above, teaches us that groups took what they needed – or wanted – when they could. Evolution is based on observation of the “survival of the fittest”, and it’s a fact that apes have inherently violent natures.

As the famous explorer Captain Cook discovered to his mortal chagrin, evidence gathered by social science supports the most ancient historical records that humanity has from the outset been murderers and thieves, with the strong oppressing the weak.


…it is obvious that the techniques of organized warfare had been developed and were ready for extensive application at the beginning of historic times as man crossed the boundary of the prehistoric [which is to say undocumented] world into civilization. The societies of the Tigris-Euphrates and Nile valleys were forged from the outset in war, and the skill of war was one of the most important distinguishing characteristics of the early civilizations.

Fighting never ends. Truces and surrenders only provide brief respites to gather armies and stockpile weapons. When the balance of power tips to one side, it all starts again.

Every single great power has risen only to fall. Do we Americans really believe that our government is strong enough to override this inexorable course of history?


Deluded megalomaniac leaders believe they can, with occult / secret knowledge and technology gained by allying with out-of-this-world hyperdimensional beings. 


The ironic truth is that humans are actually more powerful than the hyperdimensional beings through whom they seek to empower themselves! Think about it for two seconds.

What other reason do these supermen have to ally themselves with mere humans other than to gain access to our power in order to claim our dominion for themselves?



And yet massive resources have been expended since the most ancient times accessing the heavens via ziggurats and astronomical calculators up to modern day space probes and interstellar and nuclear research programs for this purpose.


And how’s that going to turn out? “Destroy a weary universe”?! Does it really take the most brilliant scientist of our day to analyze that?


Is the following prayer your response to the intense anxiety this subject provokes?

Protect me from knowing what I don’t need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don’t know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.

How about overcoming fear, not with speculation, but with truth?

All you really need to know for the moment is that the universe is a lot more complicated than you might think, even if you start from a position of thinking it’s pretty damn complicated in the first place.

Or as Douglas Adams sums it up: “Don’t panic.”

I am proposing that you resolve your anxiety about the meaning of life, the universe, and everything by finding a solid basis for faith in the midst of a crisis. Obviously most people put their faith in themselves, thinking they can figure out the truth intuitively, without need to gather and study any data about the subject at hand.

But can we trust ourselves, really?


The biggest crisis we face in this life is death, especially the question of where I’ll be and what I’ll be like after death. This isn’t a question I can really afford to ignore, neither can I trust my own limited experience on such a significant issue.

This is where we inevitably put our trust in a leader and his promises. We trust who we deem to be an authority on religion, philosophy, or science.

  • Religion automatically posits the existence of God or gods as powerful spirit beings to whom humans can turn for help resolving super-human problems.
  • Philosophy and science generally look for explanations and solutions in the observable four-dimensional world, which means leaving spiritual interventions out of the study.

This is fair, because maximizing consistency in the subjects under study is the only way that consistent predictions about future expectations can be made about cause-effect relationships. An example of this is a medical study on the benefit of taking a baby aspirin daily to prevent heart disease. It can’t include prayer to God for healing because of inconsistency in belief or use of prayer by the study subjects, not to mention unpredictability in God’s intervention. 

The key difference between philosophy and science is how they arrive at their conclusions, AKA beliefs about the world.


In-duction is a process where in-dividual arguments and premises are used to develop a generalization or a conclusion that can be attributed to much more than the initial subjects. In this method, the conclusion may be validated or disproved by the preceding premises.

Philosophy – which includes psychology – starts by observing human behavior in specific instances and generalizes this to draw conclusions about human nature in the entire population. Due to the limited data used by philosophers for their theses, there is a high probability of a faulty conclusion drawn from an inaccurate thesis. The population to which observations of individuals can legitimately be generalized should be defined since behaviors in one culture or era may be significantly different in other times and places. Most of all, while typically expressed as facts, philosophical conclusions are in reality only theories which may be disproved or overthrown by a paradigm shift.

For example,

  • in 1952 the American Psychiatric Association published its first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-1), the definitive criteria for diagnosing behaviors as psychiatric illnesses. At that time it classifed “homosexuality” as a “sociopathic personality disturbance.”
  • But in 1968 the second edition (DSM-2) reclassified homosexuality as a “sexual deviation.”
  • This was in turn replaced in 1973’s DSM-III by a new category called “Ego Dystonic Homosexuality”, despite being obvious to psychiatrists that this was done by the DSM editorial committee as a political compromise to homosexual social activists, and did not meet the definition of what was still considered by the majority of the psychiatric profession as a disorder.
  • In 1987 the DSM-IV completely removed homosexuality.

So in just 35 years the psychiatric community changed from pronouncing adult homosexuality to be a sociopathic condition to being a normal variant of sexual behavior. But we’re not settled on psychiatric “facts” yet.

  • In 2000 the revised DSM-IV (TR) included children for the first time in  homosexuality with a diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder in Children. As a disorder this was considered a illness to be treated by changing the patient’s thinking, behavior and emotions.
  • In May 2013 the DSM-5 removed the GIDC diagnosis and replaced it with Gender Dysphoria. The difference is that dysphoria = unhappiness to be resolved by social support of the individual’s sense of self.
    • “There is some controversy around the inclusion of gender dysphoria within the diagnostic manuals, as it may inadvertently pathologize gender variance through its inclusion in this manual. Gender variance is a healthy exploration of the gender spectrum…we do not believe that gender variance is pathologic,
    • we know that individuals who experience incongruence between biologic sex and gender identity are forced to face intense minority stress, overtly and covertly, and it is unsurprising that transgender adolescents often have alarmingly high rates of mental health issues, including increased suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.1
    • Minority stress is seen systemically through the chronic violence toward transgender and gender nonconforming individuals, high rates of homelessness, underemployment, and poor medical care for these individuals.2–4
    • the dysphoria is not the result of the individual’s gender identity itself.5  Parental support is necessary for positive outcomes for transgender youth with gender dysphoria.

While stated as a factual relationship of cause (discrimination) and effect (severe depression), the association of mental and social problems with society’s disapproval of this behavior is statistically a simple correlation. We find one occurring with the other.  There is no proof that disapproval is the major reason for mental and social problems, simply a theory that that is the case. There is bias by the social scientists’ failure to explore other possible causes in a controlled study.

If we are objective on this issue, we see that a massive social paradigm shift on sexuality has come about by accepting a minority social activists group’s self-benefiting demands after a couple of decades while rejecting millenias-long social leaders’ prohibitions with the interests of all of society in mind. On what basis do we place our trust that the outcome for our children’s future will be positive? On one’s own rejection of civil or religious authority? Certainly not on time-tested evidence.

Would you trust your child’s future to such unproven treatment in the medical field?


Philosophical conclusions are inevitably limited by the observations of human behavior available to the philosopher, and colored by the philosopher’s prejudice. Since philosophy often starts with the premise that there is no God, they aren’t trustworthy for determining best course of action for consideration of any life hereafter. And that’s not a rabid Christian speaking. That’s Norman Mailer.

…atheism is a cropless undertaking when it comes to philosophy. (We need only think of Logical Positivism!) Atheism can contend with ethics (as Sartre did on occasion most brilliantly), but when it comes to metaphysics, atheism ends in a locked cell. It is, after all, near to impossible for a philosopher to explore how we are here without entertaining some notion of what the prior force might have been. Cosmic speculation is asphyxiated if existence came into being ex nihilo. In Sartre’s case–worse. Existence came into being without a clue to suggest whether we are here for good purpose, or there is no reason whatsoever for us.


Quoted from Francis Bacon.

His works are credited with developing the scientific method and remained influential through the scientific revolution.

Bacon has been called the father of empiricism…Most importantly, he argued science could be achieved by use of a sceptical and methodical approach whereby scientists aim to avoid misleading themselves…the general idea of the importance and possibility of a sceptical methodology makes Bacon the father of the scientific method. This method was a new rhetorical and theoretical framework for science, the practical details of which are still central in debates about science and methodology.

In contrast to philosophy, science primarily studies material substance and uses de-duction to draw conclusions about reality. In the reverse process of in-ductive reasoning, deduction starts with general information to arrive at specific conclusions. The greater amount of data gives science greater credibility than philosophy…but that doesn’t mean greater accuracy.

As with philosophy, scientific conclusions are often presented or accepted as factsbut in fact science only derives generally accepted explanations about material reality. Even the cardinal fact-finder, the scientific method, is only applicable when direct observation is possible, and must be verified by repeated experiments.

When experimentation is not possible, science

  • formulates a hypothesis, which by definition is a statement of the desired condition, then
  • develops a theory via imagination,
  • bolstered by assuming regularity and similarity to known conditions.

If just one assumption is wrong, then the conclusion is wrong.

Because life after death isn’t accessible for experimentation, the scientific method can’t give answers to the questions about its reality or condition, and can only speculate. Many scientific theories, such as evolution and the Big Bang, begin with a desired hypothesis that God does not exist, then invent a more-or-less plausible alternate explanation for currently observed reality.  These provide welcome, but hazardous, shelters, for people looking for justification for their own rejection of a higher authority than themselves.

Science is most applicable to researching the material body, philosophy for understanding the behaviors directed by the personality / soul. Religion is different from both science and philosophy in that it can’t rely solely on direct observation, but must depend on revelation for truth about a hyperdimensional spirit, to which one responds with trust in the revelator.

With that definition, it can be seen that any purportedly scientific or philosophical teachings involving aspects of human experience that are unknowable by direct observation are in fact religious teachings on which people base their faith on someone’s revelation, such as philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche‘s pronouncement that “God is dead” or scientist Richard Dawkin’s promotion of the theory of evolution.


Whaaat?  In the same breath you preach a dogmatic trust in science books while admitting  continuous errors in scientific claims? Why does anyone listen to you? Can you recognize the cult leader in this man?

Belief in evolution is…passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof…

The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a “simple fact,” nevertheless agrees that it is an “historical science” for which “laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques”2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action…

They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion…it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved3

With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:

And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means5

Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:

The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life8

paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!

It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations10

So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of organisms which didn’t change during their durations?

Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees — fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner — new features are often “cut and pasted” on different groups at different times11

Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn’t help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence

Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:

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 imagination14

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy — also known as the second law of thermodynamics — stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go “downhill,” as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems — in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found — not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the “first law”), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles18 [Since the 1970’s this fundamental scientific “fact” is being replaced with String Theory which states that there is no solid matter even in subatomic particles, only energy moving in ways, like bicycle wheel spokes or fan blades, to act like a solid. But staying on point…]

In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20

The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion…the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man…

And a-theism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.

Of course we can’t prove that there isn’t a God.22

Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion…

Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today…25

They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.27

The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn’t make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

We cannot identify ancestors or “missing links,” and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.28

A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal — without demonstration — to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary…29

The leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a “religion without revelation” and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book…he argued passionately that we must change “our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern…”34 “The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought…we must construct something to take its place…”35

the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists…The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

According to evolutionists themselves, they offer an alternative faith to Christianity. Makes sense. But evolution is the religion that demands blind faith and trust in the revelator and belief despite EVIDENCE to the contrary. Such as Richard Dawkin’s claim that books about evolution present overwhelming quantities of mutually buttressed evidence. I’m sorry, but what a liar.


There is one book has never – ever – been proven to be wrong about anything it has reported in the course of human history for over 6,000 years. Oh, it has constantly been claimed to wrong, but never proven to be wrong. And the way to escape destruction and even death is its theme.

“Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord…

  • Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature [immortality]
  • we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
  • We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts…scripture…For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (II Peter 1)

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

  • I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book…
  • And I turned to see…one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead.
  • And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;” (Revelation 1)

And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire: And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea [outer space, explained in detail in later posts], and his left foot on the earth, And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth:

  • and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices. And…I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not [because the counter-action is not to going to be spoken or written into being.]
  • And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea [outer space], and the things which are therein [“aliens”], that there should be time [therefore material degeneration / death, scientifically explained in detail in later posts] no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.
  • And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth…And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.” (Revelation 10)

What makes the Bible unique among all other religious – or philosophical or science -books is the proof it gives to back up its assertions.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

  • For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
  • Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
  • Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And…changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” (Romans 1:18-25)


Of all religious leaders, Yahweh’s Consecrated Savior – delegated before time began – alone proved, by his own resurrection, to have the power to fulfill his “exceeding great and precious promises: that…ye might be partakers of the divine nature” reported by contemporary “eyewitnesses of his majesty.” 

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that The Chosen or Sent One / Messiah / Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also…” (I Cor 15:3-8)

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is established by legal and scientific evidence unparalleled by any provided by any other religious claim, philosophical argument, or scientific theory.

There is good reason why, according to Guinness World Records, “Although it is impossible to obtain exact figures, there is little doubt that the Bible is the world’s best-selling and most widely distributed book.  A survey by the Bible Society concluded that around 2.5 billion copies were printed between 1815 and 1975, but more recent estimates put the number at more than 5aagqmz3 billion.”  And that’s not even taking into consideration the fact that the first section of  this book, commonly called the Torah, has been in continuous circulation for about 3,500 years.  So there is something special about this book.

I encourage you to give this book a fair hearing. Put aside what other people have said about it and find out for yourself. Ignore the patently hypocritical politicization of religion and determine if there is a reality to a relationship with a powerful and loving hyperdimensional Being.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s