131 Divine Physics

There are basically only three kinds of people when it comes to exploring the mysteries of our origins: those who believe that the Clock-Maker made the clockwork, those who believe that a coincidental explosion made the clock-work, and those who are not sure which of the other two are right.

The difference between the first two is that Coincidental Explosion (CE) proponents are the guys with all the money, the support and the time to elaborate so extensively on their studies of how exactly coincidence exploded into such a brilliant clock-work, that the few who dare to defy them and insist that behind the clock-work of the universe has to be a Maker just the same way as it was with any Rolex, look rather ridiculous in comparison, and a substantial amount of the third group join in the laughter of the CE proponents, even if they may not have the faintest clue what they're laughing about.

They see the other, big, rich and mean guys laugh, and so they laugh along. Call it peer pressure, monkey-see-monkey-do, copy-cat-ism, you get the point.

Far from being the lunatics, religious fanatics and scum of the earth the CE media make their counterparts out to be, some of the Clock-Worker's defenders actually do have a brain, well-functioning ones at that, and are even - occasionally - blessed with time to investigate the possible veracity of the blueprint of our origins the Clock-Maker left us.

From the CE side of the fence, the claim that the first chapter of the Bible may have anything to say about where the universe came from sounds totally ridiculous. After all: you see the universe expanding, press the "reverse" button and you get the picture of the Big Bang. Only idiots would deny that.

Possibly. At first glance, perhaps.

But then all the decades and gazillions of dollars poured into a substantial proof for "how it happened" only got the CE camp close to the ever-elusive break-through, always near the edge, but never quite there.

If only a fraction of the funds and efforts would have gone into investigating whether possibly something might be true about the creation account in Genesis, I personally believe, we'd all know a lot more by now.

One of the brave few who has wracked his brain in such a comparatively lone attempt, is D.Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., author of the 1994 book "Starlight and Time - Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe" which to my shame I must admit I only took off my shelf now, after 2 years or so of buying it.

While Humphreys may not have it all figured out to a tee (and I'm not familiar with any updates on his theories), he makes at least as much sense to me as the much appraised Stephen Hawking and his distinguished colleagues from the "Anything-but-the-Clock-Maker-Tale" camp. I may be Bible-biased, but in the same manner, they are definitely coincidence-biased, and since coincidence has proven to be a rather poor clock-maker in real life, I stick to my conviction that you must be a fool if you persistently refuse to see that fact.

What's really nice about Humphreys is that he has the guts to take the Bible literally literal. Even more so than the average creationist, which is already the standard of downright lunacy as far the hounds of the CE Gestapo are concerned. In other words, more literal than I did. While most creationists traditionally contend that the "expansion" Genesis describes as the "firmament" or "heaven" that separated the waters on earth from waters above it that were supposed to have soaked the earth during Noah's flood, the literal description of that expansion would actually make it the stellar universe.

I had heard that claim once during the 80s and quickly dismissed it, but Humphreys' argumentation gives me new reasons to have the guts to take the Bible as literally as he does.

It turns out that the supposed "knowledge" the CE crew came up with and bombards us with daily has had a stronger impact on all of us than we sometimes realize, even if we know that all that really upholds it is the money poured into it, and even if some of them are honest enough to declare that they are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology.

Some people are just fine without ever finding out how our planet and its neighborhood came into being. I personally am more inclined to be the more curious type, and I'd like to be able to tell people that what my camp has to say on the issue is potentially just as valid as the mainstream, anti-God efforts.

So, I'm profoundly grateful to Russell Humphreys for his work, even if it may not be quite the perfect explanation of everything yet, but merely a theory, but we can't even say more than that about some of Einstein's work, either.

If one really is bold enough to accept the Bible for what it is and says, it drives home the point that God must be even more awesomely greater than we previously tried to fathom, and also, that size and distance are perfectly irrelevant to Him.

If everything in our physical home world is an illustration of a greater truth concerning the world we don't know (which I strongly believe), then take the atom for example:

If the atom's core were the size of a marble, then the radius in which the electrons spin around it would be two miles.

According to Humphreys, the vast universe we perceive through our increasingly powerful telescopes is only an expansion within a larger heaven, which the Bible calls "Heaven of heavens," and even that's not yet the end of it, since it also talks about a third heaven.

So, as vast as the universe may be, and as tiny as we may be in comparison to the rest of it, it's not our size that matters to God, evidently. He seems to be at least just as concerned about us as some of those scientists are about subatomic particles.

Or, as I have put it in the much simpler terms of one of my songs: "He's greater than everything, but small enough to fit inside your heart..."

It's probably impossible to figure that out with our current brain capacity, but things still make more sense accepting it.

130 Let's Get Physical

Smart people can be really dumb sometimes.

I've been doing some catching up on the current state of physics lately, since the subject had utterly failed to grasp my interest in school, and I was pleased to see that folks seem to be getting a little bit closer to the real thing, as far as my gut feeling tells me. At least they're now almost ready to accept other, additional dimensions, aside from the ones they can see and perceive with their physical senses.

It's not as if they would have done it voluntarily, but they were practically forced to broaden their scope in order for their equations to make sense and get General Relativity to match with Quantum Mechanics.

So, they're coming up with all sorts of fancy, big names for their fancy, big theories of the origin of everything: The "Final Theory," "Super-String Theory," "M-Theory," about which no one can tell you what the "M" is supposed to stand for, but one possible interpretation was "Matrix" theory, which I, of course, particularly like. So, they're practically ready to accept that there's a "matrix" of some sort, but then go to such lengths and painstaking efforts, spending decades of their lives and trillions of dollars (as long as they're still worth anything) on equipment and tests that are supposed to come with proof for a theory that's going to make sense of everything, feverishly making sure that if they ever find it, it will still make sense leaving out the most important and always remaining (whether they like it or not) Factor: God. As in, the Dude Who constructed the matrix.

The only way they get around Him, of course, is by proposing that in order to get the jack pot universe we live in that provides just all the necessary fine-tuned settings to make life possible at all, there are (possibly) countless other universes, most of which, by sheer mathematical probability, didn't turn out as lucky. That is, of course, where I - and, thankfully, other believers - dare to differ, since you don't have to come up with such ridiculous hypotheses once you're willing to accept that just as behind every other shred of information that ever came into being there was an author, so it also happens to be the case with that giga machine we call the universe, and the infinite amount of information, planning and intelligence it requires to function.

Although God created us in our image, He's not a crazy scientist that needs endless trial & error runs to see if His "experiment" is going to work out. Unlike our earthly, human scientists, He knows what He's doing, thank God! We're in good hands. As long as we don't try to make the bill without Him and insist on locking Him out of His own game; because He cannot save us from our own stupidity as long as we refuse to be saved.

So, it all boils back down to the theme of my previous post: faith. It's either faith in, and acceptance of the fact that there is, of course, an Author behind the slew of information and genius that slapped the universe (= literally: "single spoken sentence") together, or in the one gross exception, the mysterious "singularity," which claims that contrary to everything we ever have observed, and in defiance of all the voices in creation that constantly scream the opposite, from the tiniest cell to the most complex galaxy, it all simply "happened" by itself.

Back to the additional dimensions. The fathers of M-Theory have come up with the number 10 (plus time), otherwise their equations wouldn't figure. What a "coincidence" that the structure of the universe should be based on the same system that has been tried and proven down on yer-ol'-blue-planet (including its own solars system and the outer extremities of its prominent inhabitants, etc.)!

What a coincidence that everything might just consist of tiny, either open-ended or looped "strings," (1s and 0s?), as if Somebody was trying to get everybody's attention: "Hello!? Anybody listening?"

Then on the other hand we've got fundamental Christians who refuse to accept the possibility of 10+1 dimensions, because they're not mentioned in the Bible. Well, neither are telephones or microwave ovens, but they probably use them anyway.

So, on one hand we've got the believers who claim that God stopped communicating and passing on any additional information to His crowning creation 2000 years ago, and on the other, scientists who refuse to accept the image of such an astute-but-mute God, and it's almost like, "Well, can you blame'em?"

I get kicks out of imagining the surprises either might get upon their arrival in that extra dimension to which our spirit inevitably passes the moment our physical bodies cease to function (a dimension of which the Bible has spoken for millennia, by the way): "Oh, so You DO exist, after all, do Ya!?" And the other guys, "Y...Y...You m...m...mean, You can actually t...t...talk??? And I thought...."

Well, that's what ya get for thinking.

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that believing is in many ways better than thinking.

Just have the guts to believe what everybody else says is impossible: There IS a God, He loves you, and He's got something to say! - To YOU!

129 What Do We Really Know At All? (Or: The Evolution of Politics)

One more aspect in which we seem to be living in a scenario comparable to the one portrayed in the Matrix movie trilogy, turns out to be history, and especially our recent history, if one happens to stumble across issues as those revolving around the controversial British historian David Irving.

It's pretty obvious that some of the claims made by the Soviets at the Nuremberg trials were false, and yet there seems to be no area in our present scope of political thought where light shed on potential facts which might alter our current view and knowledge on these things is more ardently and vehemently resisted.

While scientists, journalists and educators may lose their jobs for even lending an ear to alternative views of the ancient history of our planet (as in what exactly happened "billions of years ago," instead of the gazillions of beneficial mutations that are supposed to have brought forth the human race, whales crawling out on land and back into the water, etc.), such as the number of scientists who developed the school of thought of "Intelligent Design" had the nerve to do; and while guesswork and theories on physics are the only goodies teachers can sell their pupils in schools for facts, far from an ultimate theory that explains it all, without one law of nature contradicting another; when it comes to history, it becomes even more prickly, since people who are interested in finding out what really happened as recently as 60-some years ago, might not only risk their jobs, or their students' enthusiasm, but their very freedom, health or lives.

It seems that our oh-so-enlightened Western democracies aren't that much of a Wonderland of the Free, after all, as which our modern politicians try to sell us our current system. Speaking of which. According to God's views, as laid down in His much disputed account of such (nevertheless found to be absolutely reliable by those who have the guts to believe it), the Bible, the evolution of politics over the past 2500 years isn't quite as flattering as we may see our own current state.

The prophet Daniel (in an interpretation of the king of Babylon's dream, given to him by God) pictures the world's empires from Babylon to Rome as deteriorating. While Babylon is symbolized by a head of gold, the subsequent empire, Medo-Persia, becomes silver, Alexander the Great and his Grecian empire turn out with a bronze medal, and Rome is devaluated to mere iron, only to wind up in a useless mixture of clay and iron good for nothing but to be replaced by God's eternal kingdom toward the end end of the world as we know it.

So, while we look back at ancient rulers and systems as primitive, from our high and lofty democratic pedestal, God, evidently, has a perfectly different view of things.

We don't even have to go as far back as Babylon or Rome to note drastic differences.

While we know by now that neither Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, FDR or even JFK were flawless, yet they all seem to have had a residue of nobility and honor that perfectly eludes our 21st century statesmen.

And while some of us may still live in the illusion that the current administration is an improvement on the stock, compared to the former, as shocking as it may be for all of us, judging by the Wall-Street nature of that administration, it would be a very big surprise indeed, if that illusion will not turn out to be just such.

20th century statesmen at least attempted to speak the truth every now and then, and when they made promises, they made somewhat of an effort to keep them, which is more than you can expect from the puppet position that a presidency has become in Century 21.

"You never know when the sky will fall. What do we really know at all?" the "Rembrandts" from California once sang, and they must have been on to something.

What do we really know at all?

What of all that which we call "knowledge" could really be called such? Isn't it much more often simply faith in the portrayal of the picture by a certain group of people, the "winners," those who have the money and the propaganda machinery?

So, why not be honest and reduce the preposterous claim of "knowledge" to that which it really is, namely faith?

After all, it has served true believers good and well for thousands of years, all throughout history, where empires and emperors have come and gone.

Maybe St. John was really on to something when he claimed that our faith is the victory that would overcome the world.

Maybe we know something they don't. Maybe we really know something. Even if it's just a fact as simple as the one that says "There is a God, and He loves you," along with His Promises that someday soon He'll save us out of the mess all those big shots are getting us into in the name of illumination.

Oh, and along with the promise that we'll know then, even as we are known.

You really want to know what happened? Just hang on a little longer.

128 Christianity Now and in 30 A.D. - The Differences!

Moving from the arenas to the grandstands: Christianity now & then

I've expounded before on the tragic abyss between what Christianity has become and once used to be, and in my opinion ought to be, due to the fact that fundamental teachings of Christ Himself and His early spokesmen are purposely being ignored by His modern supposed followers, resulting in the constant discomfort of having to apologize for the rest of the world for pertaining to a group of people, which, originally, truly was a ray of hope for anyone who believed in the depth of his heart that there had to be something else besides the usual games people play, with their rules of acquisition of power, fame, fortune and temporal glory.

As a Christian, I see it as part of my duty to rectify that the crimes Christianity has been found guilty of for the past 16 centuries (and unfortunately, during the current one more than ever), were not at all in its Founder's intention.

Somewhere around the 4th century, after having failed to wipe out the church (meaning "ecclesia," Greek for "the called out ones") through persecution, Satan finally changed his attitude toward Christianity into "If you can't lick'em, join'em." The result is the sad picture of what Christendom has become since.

But what was it like before that? What were the differences, and which was the way the early followers of Christ lived that are such a stark contrast to what may be labeled "Christianity" today, but really, only amounts to not much more than Churchianity?

One blatant contrast that jumps in my face time and time again, is the materialistic attitude that has taken hold of probably the vast part of Christendom throughout the past millennium and a half, as totally opposed to what Jesus Himself, and His most ardent representative of the 1st century, the apostle Paul of Tarsus (aka St. Paul) had to say on such subjects as money, wealth, and one's dedication to the acquisition of such.

Most Christians are apparently totally oblivious to the fact that the Early Christians lived in a totally unique style which could perhaps be termed "total, holy Communism." In fact, it was the prototype of communism, and the only type that ever worked, since it's impossible to achieve it by leaving out the main Factor, which happens to be God and His supernatural love.

The reason most people are totally ignorant of this, is because they either simply don't read their Bibles, or they only read and remember the parts they like.

Apparently none of those Sunday morning assemblers who proudly present their attire and vehicles in those pompous palaces they named after the assembly of those who died as martyrs in Christ's footsteps, after having lived their lives in modesty, has ever seriously pondered the statements we find in the Book of Acts on how Christians lived back then.

It doesn't say there, "And all that believed assembled once a week in the temple to sing, pray and listen to the preacher for an hour, and then drove home, each in their car and to their own houses, spending the rest of the week in the pursuit of their happiness, aka financial stability."

What it does say, is, "And all that believed were together and had all things common. And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. ...Neither said any of them that anyof the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common." (Acts 2:44, 45, 4:32).

You can only imagine the average Christian's head-shaking attitude toward such a radical life-style, of people living together and sharing all things...

When it boils down to it, neither Jesus, nor Paul, John or James had much good to say about money, or rich people.

The next vast gap between Christianity now and then - which I have repeatedly addressed in my blogs, because i just can't do the subject justice - is the current "Christian" attitude towards war, their silent consent to their nations' government sending their own sons (and daughters) off to foreign countries under often more than shady and questionable pretexts, to kill and maim their often totally innocent citizens by the hundreds of thousands.

It is unthinkable that Christians during the first 3 centuries would have given their consent, had the Romans called upon them to join the empire in one of its military actions against other countries.

Of course, all that changed with the crusades. But whether you can rectify having the audacity of calling that "Christianity," you have to decide for yourself, especially in the light of all Jesus had to say on the subject.

Christians in the first 3 centuries were a persecuted minority, not - as has been the case since fake Christendom became a world power - a persecuting majority and ruthless authority. It is really no wonder that some people think that the world would be better off without the scourge of Christianity falsely so-called, and if you ask me, that's where the future of "Christendom" is headed: elimination by the same tactics it has applied on the inhabitants of much of the world for centuries. Luckily, this will separate the true sheep from the goats and expose who was really "in it" for the right and wrong reasons...

In the final analysis, it seems that Christianity was certainly better off in its original state, and from the looks of it, we're going to have to face the fact that that's where Christianity is headed again: back to the ranks of the persecuted minorities, instead of those of the ruthless oppressors, even if it will be the latter that will bring the persecution upon themselves, (and even if most of them probably won't see the writing on the wall before it's too late).

What Christians worldwide ought to do is get "Back to the Basics," "trim the fat" and return to its humble origins, instead of trying to play the rulers in a world that is currently run by Christ's enemies. They'd do a whole lot better to heed the Words of their Founder, instead of the false prophets' tales of peace when there is no peace, and of prosperity gained by the exploitation of the poor of the world, which God simply cannot bless.

As long as Christians chime, "God bless America, no matter what," they show that they put themselves above the very laws of God, and thus become an abomination to Him, and will only reap the consequences accordingly.

They should seek their God for the kind of courage that their spiritual forefathers many centuries ago had, who were willing to be despised and persecuted as members of that obscure sect that followed a Leader Who had challenged all the existing values of the world.

Unfortunately, not many of us seem to be nearly as strong as Jesus was when the Devil tempts us with the riches of this world. Most of us give him a warm welcome, throw our arm around his neck and say to Jesus, "See ya on Sunday!"

127 Great Depression Vol.2 - Where've Ya Been?

Religious lunatics all have certain qualities in common: they drive you insane, irritate you, make you hate them, want to wipe them off the face of the earth, strangle them, persecute them, exterminate them...

But the deadliest of all their qualities is that sometimes they just happen to be so painfully right about some of their predictions.

When the Jewish prophet Jeremiah predicted that his country was going to be conquered by the Babylonians, his distinguished colleagues dared to differ by the hundreds. So vehemently in fact, that they threw him in some hole in the ground. But it was shortly thereafter that Jeremiah was pulled out of the hole on behalf of the Babylonians who had conquered Judea regardless of contrary predictions of peace and prosperity made by hundreds of false, though respected, prophets.

Three days before His crucifixion, Jesus announced - when His disciples marveled at the architectural structure of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem - that it was going to be destroyed. In fact, that not one stone was going to be left upon the other.

The Jews - as usual - dared to differ, and continued to rebel against Rome until Jerusalem was besieged in 70.A.D., precisely 40 years after Jesus' prediction. When the citizens of Jerusalem barricaded themselves inside the temple, the Romans set fire to it, causing the gold in the temple to melt. In order to get a hold of it, the Romans virtually pulled every brick off another.

No wonder Jesus still doesn't have many friends in the Mideast - regardless of how much money Christians keep pouring into it. (After all, they want to be on good terms with the "chosen people." Except that they missed some details about why Jesus had to die in the first place.)

The truth simply isn't very popular. Nor were the predictions made by David Berg in the 70s about impending doom and destruction for America, whom he identified with "Babylon, the Great Whore" in the Book of Revelation, chapters 17 and 18, whose riches - so says the Bible - would come to naught within one hour.

Most American Christians like to interpret those chapters differently, just like they do the rest of the Bible, and the culprit "Babylon," in their version, is the city of Rome, the capital of poor old Italy in Europe... But that's another story I'm not going to get off on again.

Mr. Berg (also known as "Moses David" during the 70s), also predicted that an economic crash would precede the apocalyptic destruction the Bible heralded, an economic crisis, similar to the Great Depression of the 1930s, only much worse, which would usher in a New World Order, eventually spear headed by the notorious Antichrist, who would solve the World's financial woes by a new cashless monetary system, in which cash would be replaced by a "mark," - a computer chip or digital imprint - in each world citizen's head or forehead, as also predicted by St. John the Revelator.

While it yet remains to be told whether our current crisis is indeed that dreaded one which is to usher in the End of the World as we know it, the number of those who draw the connection between now and the Great Depression increases daily, and not just among religious freaks.

And whether it will result in the introduction of the Antichrist and his "mark of the Beast" also remains to be seen, but what we have got already is Henry Kissinger telling the American public on television that Barrack Obama would be the man to seize the golden opportunity within that crisis, to sell the world the New World Order.

I have stated before why I don't believe that the Antichrist will be American, and I, like everyone else, would hope like everyone else, that we all still live many happy years in a prosperous world. IF I hadn't seen what excessive prosperity and ease can do to people...

I also wouldn't want to come across as some wise guy who rejoices in the plight and ill fate of others just so he can say "Told you so." But I also know from experience and the things we never learn from history, that time will do the talkin' about who were the "lunatics" and who were the false prophets.

It took the Great Depression about 5 years until it finally hit the last wealthy family in Suburbia. Years that gave rise to a man in whom many see the epitome of Antichrist.

Mrs. Angela Merkel recently said that "the worst is already over." I will be as bold to label her one of the false prophets of our time.
(After all, no leader of government could ever earn my respect by hauling away a 15 year old from her home with 16 cops for being home-schooled.)

I will be so bold as to proclaim that if you think Hitler and the Great Depression were bad, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.

I hate to be another party-pooper and religious lunatic. Of course, I'd much prefer to be popular, like everyone else does. I'd love to close my eyes to any impending evil and say, "Hey, but we don't deserve this! We've all been good boys and girls." I would, if I'd stand a chance in a million that my face would not turn tomato red and my nose wouldn't sprout twigs and leaves like Pinocchio's, after saying so.