Chris Pinto radio show on the Scarlet Beast of Revelation as Communism, and another on the Georgia Guidestones

Chris Pinto on his latest Noise of Thunder radio show talks about interpretations of the scarlet beast of the ook of Revelation as Communism as we are seeing it today, interpretations that go back to the early nineteenth century, Alexander Hislop being a major voice.  I've often mentioned his book "The Two Babylons" which traces the pagan religions from Nimrod to the Roman Catholic Church, but he also wrote a book titled "The Red Republic" which makes a connection between Rom and Communism and the scarlet beast of Revelation.  

 THE SCARLET COLORED BEAST - 07.21.2022 by Chris Pinto (soundcloud.com

And here's Pinto's previous radio show on the Geogia guidestones.  Somebody blew up the monument on July 6th and he goes into the background of who might have had the motive to do that.  Pinto did a documentary in 2015 by the way, called Dark Clouds Over Elberton, which is an investigtion into the Guidesones in which they managed to uncover the identify of the man who had them erected.  Few seem to know about this expos.  but of coruse there's a lot of globaility communist lore involving them that nneed s to be explored.

GEORGIA GUIDESTONES & THE GLOBAL AGENDA - 07.15.2022 by Chris Pinto (soundcloud.com)

Dawkins Says Geologist Kurt Wise A Disgrace to the Human "Species"

 Kurt Wise, who has degrees in Geology and Paleontology, one from Harvard,  has famously said that even if all the evidence in the universe supported evolution he would be the first to acknolwledge it but still be a Young Earth Creationist, which is what got himj such an excoriating denunciation from Dawkins.  

Of course Dawkins doesn't believe the Bible himself but you'd think he could grasp the thinking of someone who does.  I could be wrong but as a Young Earth Creationist myselelf I understand WQise to be saying that no matter how much evidence there may seem to be that we have no answer to, nevertheless because we know the bible to be Go'ds word we know it is wrong, and maybe someday we can prove it's wrong.  Meanwhile we stand with God even if all the  world is against us.

I personally think cbiblical creationists have shown in ma ny ways that it's false but because the evidence of any historical science is mostly a matter of imaginative reconstructions that can't be proved we can't get anywhere showing them that it's false.

Mutational Variation is a pipe dream for starters, then natural selection cuts it down anyway.

 Yes, natural selection, and indeed any kind of selection whatever, the most common most likely being simple geographic isolation of a portion of a population, means a loss of genetic diversity to the new populationj as compared with the parent population.  This reduction in genetic diversity means that evolution has a natural limit bewyond which no more genetic variation is possibl.

But they always think that mutation imakes up the difference, insofar as they notice there is a problem at all, which of course they don't, I've tried to point it out for years.  Mutation is  always the answer and my answer to that is that it doesn't matter what the cause of the variation is, natural selection MUST reduce genetic diversity, that's how it works.  Mutation or not mutation there is a limitation to evolution built into the processes that bring about change.

But this idea that mutation could contribute anything positive at all is crazymaking.  I just watched a couple of videos making that claim.  Oh golly gosh, mutation is the CAUSE of variation.  WSigh.  If you have a population of black mice a mutation may occur that makes one white and on a white background that mouse will survive predatory birds while the black ones will be picked off, so the white mice will proliferate.

Sigh.
First the idea that mutations just popp up when need3ed is a biizarre article of faith.  If mutations so easily cam along to save the day for any species surely they would have saved the dcheetah long ago by now, but no, the poor cheetah goes on generation after generation with no mutation coming to the resue, endangered as always by 8its genetic depletion.

No.  Plain old Mendelian genetics is all we need to explain variation.  In a word, heterozygosity.  When you have two alternatives for a gene you get vriation.  The recessive alternate may not appear in the phenotype for some generations but when it does if it is beneficial it will proliferate in the populationj.  So once in a while black mice on a black background will get a white individual in its midles.  It will be eaten by a big bir.  but if a few more appear over time and they wander onto the white sand near the lava flow it is the black mice that will get eaten.  

You don't need anything more than normal heterozygosity for this kind of variation to occur in any population.  A And heterozygosity is really what genetic variability IS.  It's when you get a population of homozygous genes for asalient traits that become the only genetic gype in the population that you can't get variation.  This is the natural limit to evolution.  It's the common situation in engangered species and it is alwso what used to be the definition of a purebred in domestic breeding.  The more fixed loci or homoZygous genes the more a breed will "breed true.
   And that's what breeders used to want, until it was disocvered that this genetic condition usually brings genetic weaknesses and diseases with it, so they've had to modify their standared.

Ha ha.  They've got such an investment in their fake theory I guess there's no may to get them to see the truth.  

Sigh.

Confined to the Spiritual Outskirts By Orthodox Biblical Christianity, Mysticism Contains Depths Too Many Never Get tEven An Inkling Of

Every now and then an excellent Bible expositor will tabe a little jab at "mysticism," such as in mocking what he considers to be an unwarranted mystical interpretation of a particular biblical text.  Sometimes the expositor is undoubtedly right, if there really is such an interpretation which in some cases I've heard I really don't know, but the impulse to mock the "mystical" does grate on me.  It's an unfortunate word because it covers both good and bad "mystical" experiences, but we're stuck with the word as Tozer seemed to know.  He put together the book "The Christian Book of Mystical Verse" and felt it necessary to use the term although he was at pains to explain that it is nothing more than expressions of biblical truth experienced at a depth most people don't have or even think of pursuing.

I don't want to get into this subject beyond once again pointing it out as a neglected area of Christian experience, an area Tozer says is too often cramped and shriveled by a zealous attendance to the truths of biblical faith.   If you don't seek God beyond the usual level of daily devotions and Bible reading and medication you'll never discover that God can be known in personal experience beyond anything you can imagine.  Just try a few days of intensifying the usual prayer and Bible reading with fasting, with an aim to know god better.  You might be amazed.

 <a href=The Pursuit of God | A.W. Tozer | Free Christian Audiobook ->THE PURSUIT OF GOD by A W Tozer</a>

YouTube

Hint:  If you don't know that the Song of Solomon is about the love between God and His saints you just don't get it.

Hitchens vs Dembski Debate

 The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the only  right way to have this debate between believers and atheists is to argue from the Bibl3e.  Philosophy is a lost cause for the Christian point of view.  There is no value in defending theism as a general principle wince it can support antibiblical and therefore antiGod  positions such as evolution.  There is simply no point in this.  Debski tries to do this here and it isn't until the very end when he finally starts to argue from the Bible that he makes any worthwhile points in this debate, as I see it anyway.   

Hitchens gets away with all sorts of things thta should hvae been soundly squashed early on from the Biblical perspetive.  Dembski says he is sticking to the philosophical perspective because he believes that's what the rules of the debate require, meaning that's how you have to argue for God's existence.  But why?  The Biblie gives plenty of evidence for God's existence and I think the Christian debaters make a big mistake not to work out their best arguments from that source.

Hitchens makes arguments against the idea of a loving Creator God based on the evils and destructive elements in this world and the universe itself, and it isn't until the very end that Dembski finally says that this world is not the world God originaloly created but the broken world of death and deisease and destruction and sin that was the conseque3nces of the Fall, the original sin of our ficrfirst parents in eating of thte forbidden rtree.  As Paul says in Roma ns 5, death came through the sin of the one man Adam, and sin and death have reigned in the human race ever since because we are all descended from Not exactly part of the debate problem , Adam.  So all arguments that this world doesn't look like the lovely place created by a loving God is easily answered from the Bible.  It ISN'T that original lovely created place.  And the reason is sin, disobediencde of God.

Hitchens makes a couple of comments I have to answer:   I get so tired of hearing this lie that Israel is occdupying lands that are not theirs.  No, they bought whatever belongs to anyone sle and own it rightly, but the fact is that there were very few people living in that area when the Jews cam e to settle the land.  Mark Twain described it as a barren wilderness.  and the "Palestinians" today are NOT natives of that area, they are a motley collection of Arabs from all over the Middle Easy who cfame to work for Israel cdas it was building up its land and settlements.  They were made refugees by the Arabs that attacks Israel, who warned them to flee before the attack.  They are not Palestinians and never were Palestinians.  

He also informs us that we're only half a chromosome away from chimps and that we are all  covered with hair at some stage in the womb.  Well, I looked up the hair, it's not ALL of us but SOME of us who get this hair coat in the womb and if you think it makes us look like chimp babies you'll be disabused of that notion when you read that it's "fine" and "downy" hair.   And although half a chromosome doesn't seem like much of  a a difference I think we really need to know more about this supposed massive similarity.  In any case the similarity can be accounted for by the similairties in body structure which is what DNA is all about after all, there being no reason whatever to assume genetic relatedness on the basis of phyisocal similarities though this is what the evolutionists are always doing.   Design similarity is enough of an explanation.  W DNA makes the bodies needed by animals and humans to navigate this physical world.  Each animal has it's own particular body plan and ours although similar to chimps is not the same body plan at all the way say all cats have the same body plan or all dogs or all tri.lobites.  The proportions are too different.  

Abnd then he ends with an objection to the authoritarian nature of God.  He wouldn't want to have a father who had authority over him every minute of his life and would never go away.  And he thinks all religion is authoritarian  the way Islam is or Roman Catholicism.  Well I agree that those two religions are totalitarian buty that's because they are pagan religions.   Romani Catholicism killed fifty million true Christians in six hundred years of the Middle Ages.  There is nothing Christian about that.  And Islam prescribes murdering all non Muslimas.  That is nothing at all like true Christianity which was recovered at the Protestant Reformation.    The liberties and rights of individuals in western civilization all come from True Christianity if only through the cultural versions of it.  No,not from rationalism.

As for God being authoritarian, it's hard on us as fleshly human beings because we are at odds with God, but through faith we are a new creation that is in tune with the Creator God so that there is nothing but perfect agreement between our nature and His.  The fleshly unregenerate human being is always at odds with God but salvation is the recovery of our essential alignment with Him so that all our thoughts are as His thoughts and we can enjoy Him forever more as the Westminster catchism tell sus.   

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hDD8957XuA4" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Sam Harris Attacks Religion" From an Abysmally Ignorant Position

For a few weeks at least, I've been listening to atheist talks and debates against 
religion" and it's pretty depressing both how ignorant the atheists are and how much hatred they bear against believers, believers in any religion but  of course the fact that they hate Christianity is the most depressing thing.   Christianity built western civilization and they have no idea.  They attribute the rights and freedoms so recently won in the history of the world to their own rationalism.  They are abyssmally ignornat.  

TGhis talk by Sam Harris is introduced by a guy who is nearly beside himself with hatred for "religion".

iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/j8llkjvURyg" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

apparently some years ago holding forth against religion.  I don't know when this was but apparently during the Bush administration.  I gather this atheistic aggresion there is so much of on the internet got started as a restul of the attack on the Wtc on Nine Eleven.  But instead of focusing on Islam they attack all 

religion" and treat Christianity as essentially the same kind of thing as Islam.  This is pernicious ignornance, scary scary evil ignignorance.  

My eyes are worse than usual today so I know this post is already a horrendous mess.  I hope I'll be able to fix it later but I don't know.

All I think I'll answer her is one thing Sam Harris said and maybe do more in a later post.  He is chiding George Bush for referring to our "god give rights" and complains that golly gosh Mr Bush which god are you tlaking about.  Poseidon?  The ignorance here is glaring.  It is our own founding documents, our American documens, specifically the Declaration of independence, that says our rights are God Given.  "We hold these truths to be self evidence, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights..."  Remember?  Why argue against Bush. when it's right there in our aMAmerican founding documents.  And if you haven't noticed, all the nations of Europe are likewise dedicated in one way or another to the same Creator God.   Not Poseidon but the God of the Bible, the God of Christianity.

No the Restrainer is Not the Holy Spirit and TGhere Is Nothering to Be rfestrained about the Antichrist Before the Tribulation

 Ah well, it seems to bbe my spiritual gift to raise questions about other people's theologies.  Oh well.  An odd one I admitg but it's where I alwayss gravitate.  ANYWAY, this time it's again about Jan Markell's eschatology.  This week's radio show had a guest who gave the usual interpretation of the Restrainer. I'm sorry I didn'g look up the verse first, it's the verse where Paul stells the Thessalonians that the Antichrist won't be reveals until "he who restrains 

<br>

<br>

The problem is that this is interpreted as if it said the power or existence or activityh of the Antichrist can't occur until this Restrainer is "out of the way."  But all it says is that this Antichrist won't be REVEALED until then.  And surely it needs to be recognized that Paul is using very cryuptic language to avoid saying exactly who this Restrainer is, but why?  The popular interpretation is that He's the Holy Spirit or the Holy Spirit in the CHurch, but this makes no sense because there is no reason whatever why Paul would find it necessary ro be so careful about his language if it was the Holy Spirit.  No dire consequences would follow from identifying the Holy Spirit as the Restrainer.

<br>

<br>

But dire consequences wouldcertainly follow if the Antichrist was to be a usurper of the role of Caesar, which could certainly be said of thePope in the seventh century which is when the Bishop of Rome assumed that role, and the Restrainer was Caesar himself since Caesar would be threatened by such a claim.  

This is one bit of the Pre Trib Rapture scenario I definitely reject.  I think the Roman Church was rthe Great Apostasy and all this happened in the Weventh century and the Roman Church under the papacy continued to reign throughout the next millennium until the Protestant Reformation.  Certainly we can suppose that the Great Apostasy could resume in the last days just as I would assume that the papapc6y will again be in the ascendant and will no doubt be the seat of the ANtichrist during the Tribulation.  

I mighr as well add here that the Pre Wrath position does make some sense to me, and that was sdiscussed on Jan Markell's radio show troday too.  Nevertheelss that one also has problems, questions and doubts in my mind.  All of the different eschataologies have some problem or another as I see it.

Supposedly the First Horseman of the Apocalypse can't ride until the Church is Raptured, the first horseman being the antichrist, the Church being the possessor of the Holy Spirit.