myblog -august '07

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"

10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." Genesis 3:8-10

power in asking God: Ask God And Experience Answered Prayers

1 John 3:21-22 Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God [22] and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him.

visit the link tho, if, that is, you want to know how to get your prayers answered...

from this book review at amazon.. sooo true:

"If a martian landed in America and set out to determine the nation's official state religion, he would have to conclude it is liberalism, while Christianity and Judaism are prohibited by law.

Many Americans are outraged by liberal hostility to traditional religion. But as Ann Coulter reveals in this, her most explosive book yet, to focus solely on the Left's attacks on our Judeo-Christian tradition is to miss a larger point: liberalism is a religion\u2014a godless one.

And it is now entrenched as the state religion of this county.

Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In Godless, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted. But Coulter neatly reverses the pretense that liberals are rationalists guided by the ideals of free inquiry and the scientific method. She exposes the essential truth about Darwinian evolution that liberals refuse to confront: it is bogus science.

Writing with a keen appreciation for genuine science, Coulter reveals that the so-called gaps in the theory of evolution are all there is\u2014Darwinism is nothing but a gap. After 150 years of dedicated searching into the fossil record, evolution's proponents have failed utterly to substantiate its claims. And a long line of supposed evidence, from the infamous Piltdown Man to the "evolving" peppered moths of England, has been exposed as hoaxes. Still, liberals treat those who question evolution as religious heretics and prohibit students from hearing about real science when it contradicts Darwinism. And these are the people who say they want to keep faith out of the classroom?

Liberals' absolute devotion to Darwinism, Coulter shows, has nothing to do with evolution's scientific validity and everything to do with its refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force. They will brook no challenges to the official religion.

Fearlessly confronting the high priests of the Church of Liberalism and ringing with Coulter's razor-sharp wit, Godless is the most important and riveting book yet from one of today's most lively and impassioned conservative voices.


"Liberals love to boast that they are not 'religious,' which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as 'religion.'"

just some responses to some comments i got on this video: Proving the Existence of the Eternal God (which by the way is awesome, go check it out) which i posted on my profile at my social networking site of choice

firstly, a point with infinite time before it will never be reached, so we cannot have infinite time going backwards (which is what he was explaining) the universe is made up of matter (space) which cannot be eternal, but God, by definition isnt and is outside of time. he called God a He because thats the god he believes in, and youtube only allows for 10min vids, so he didnt have time (nor was it the purpose in this vid) to explain why God is good and all powerful.

trung: yeah, the only thing he was arguing was the existence of an eternal God.. not (in this video) the fact that the God of the bible is that God.

scott: yeah that was his point, you cannot reach a point in time (or space) that is infinitely far. the universe cannot exist outside of space time, because it is within space time, by the very fact that it is made up of matter (space) and events (time) and nothing can be self-creating, not even God, this is a logical impossibility (not even God can do the logically impossible)

wax: time is defined as the distance between two events. the first event marks the basis of measurement. you would need previous events to have negative progression from that point. same with the ruler. if you put your finger in the middle, it requires the ruler to advance in both directions, where each notch represents an event in the time analogy, but if you put your finger at the beginning of the ruler, ie at the first event, then the ruler only progresses into positive infinity. by the argument he was making, matter nor time can be infinite, since that would require that there be an infinite amount of events leading to now, which he stated is impossible. and matter is not infinite, since that would violate the statement you made that matter cannot be created.

happy birthday to meeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

this here is a useful word i wll be using with my atheist friends.. contranym, (from askoxford.. really interesting source of info)

What is the proper term for a word that has two opposing meanings?

The usual name for a word with two opposing meanings is contranym (though it is still not in sufficiently widespread use to have appeared in our dictionaries). Cleave is the usual example given.

holey, whoda thunk lisa to be hot?? and bart looks quite inoffensive here.. haha (sorry, i dont have a link for this, the anime simpsons)