What Defines A True Human Being?

The real ultimate spinners in this world are not Bush and Cheney but rather, atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who have no evidence for their position and yet, continue to claim to be on the side of "science". All known evidence indicates that everything that is in motion must be set in motion by a primary cause and, that nothing exists or creates itself apart from a primary designer. That is what ALL of the known evidence indicates, thus it remains entirely unscientific to pretend otherwise.

No scientist questions whether or not someone designed and built the pyramids of Egypt; scientists, historians, anthropologists and others just assume they were designed by someone, because that is what all known evidence and human experience indicates. It is entirely irrational, unscientific and downright loony for anyone to assume that the universe appeared on it's own volition without the aid of a Designer. Why? Because there is no evidence to support such a baseless idea; science and analysis leading to sound reasoned conclusions must be based on evidence, not on spurious assumptions without any evidentiary foundation.

This is why modern "progressives" who insist that only the teaching of evolutionary theory be taught in America's public classrooms are in reality "regressives"; against freedom of speech, thought and thus, human rights. Much of what constitutes modern evolutionary theory is based on assumptions of facts not in evidence, fundamentally unscientific and without basis in either human logic or experience. Even if it is entirely correct, there is no rationale or freedom to the regressive notion that nobody can question or propose otherwise. The pursuit of the "truth" demands that other ideas be pursued and openly and freely discussed. There is little doubt, based on his own words and actions if he were alive today, that Thomas Jefferson would not wholeheartedly agree.

What constitutes a "modern human being" is quite arbitrary and is not even agreed upon by all scientists. According to Charles Darwin in "The Descent of Man", “it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term man ought to be used.”

And from the Britannica: "Homo sapiens is distinguished from other animals and from earlier hominid species by characteristics and habits such as bipedal stance and gait, brain capacity averaging about 1,350 cubic cm (82 cubic inches), high forehead, small teeth and jaw, defined chin, construction and use of tools, and ability to make use of symbols such as language and writing."

These are arbitrary distinctions drawn by science for the convenience of classification of various uncovered remains and do not refer to modern man, classified as Homo sapiens sapiens, which again, is based on arbitrary criteria, which does not consider other valid possibilities such as discussed in the next paragraph (more on modern human beings from the Britannica below).

Other possible ways to define a true modern human being would be by the ability to conceptualize domestication of both plants and livestock, which represents a very significant survival, cultural and brain reasoning capacity advancement according to virtually every scientist, archeologist and other researcher. This began around the 8th millennium BC but is sketchy as to it's deliberate nature and probably the ability to conceptualize both domestication of plants and animals for long-term survival purposes in a deliberate fashion did not begin until sometime in the 7th millennium.

Another way to classify true modern human beings could also be the use of metals, which begins around 6500 B.C. with copper and also, represents a significant brain conceptual and cultural advancement. The mixing of copper with tin (bronze age) represents another major advancement, which would push the time of the appearance of true modern human beings up to around 3,000 BC or earlier.

All early evolutionary and technological "advancements", other than possibly the invention of the wheel (which date and geographic origin is disputed, sometimes given as 2500 BC, sometimes earlier), appear to be long drawn out exercises of physical changes and casual to deliberate experimentation over a great many generations. Thus, there is no clear line or definitive way to define a true modern human being, other than just by arbitrary criteria distinction, clouded by the bias of hundreds of years of scientific assumptions, based on various physical, brain conceptual ability and possibly other characteristics.

Thus, what represents a true modern human being is quite arbitrary and, due to human cross-breeding, based on recent DNA global comparisons, everyone on the planet today appears to be descended from a single female no more than 8-10,000 years ago and possibly, considerably less (see article at link below).
Common Ancestry Global Human DNA Analysis

HUMAN BEING from the Britannica: A bipedal primate mammal that is anatomically related to the great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain, with a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning, and by a marked erectness of body carriage that frees the hands for use as manipulative members.

Note the term "abstract reasoning" as a criteria for a modern human being. The concept of "abstract reasoning" is extremely arbitrary, as to what exactly is covered by such terminology (see ability to conceptualize farming above); some animals have been shown to apparently also possess a form of "intellect"; both the ability for abstract reasoning and to communicate with a sophisticated type of language.

Until recently, according to the Britannica, human beings were assumed to be "different" than animals primarily due to a rather difficult to define distinction of possessing "intellect". Where one draws such lines as noted above is quite arbitrary and open to dispute, as also noted in the Britannica in an article entitled "Philosophical Anthropology".

From the Britannica: "This debate—whether the variation in intelligence levels is a product of the conditions into which people all having the same initial potential are born, or whether it is a reflection of variations in the capacities with which they are born—is very closely related to the question of whether there is such a thing as human nature common to all human beings, or whether there are intrinsic differences among those whom we recognize as belonging to the biological species Homo sapiens."

Modern experiments demonstrate various animals also possess the ability to both craft and use tools and the ability to use symbols and rather sophisticated language-type communication systems, which indicates a type of "intellect" and possibly "abstract reasoning" capacity among various species. Animals (and some insects) also possess many advanced abilities modern human beings do not have, such as the ability of birds to very quickly fly in a deliberately arranged and rigidly maintained, group pattern, the ability to craft a highly engineered new web by a spider every day without ever being taught (how millions of insects and animals possess advanced engineering capabilities to create various complex structures without being taught remains a mystery to modern science).

Modern humans have quite carelessly invented terms such as "instinct", "nature" and the "natural world", to supposedly explain what no one has any idea how to truly explain in any depth or detail. As a scientist recently stated on PBS, exactly how life formed on our planet "remains one of modern science's greatest mysteries". What he didn't say is, that a whole lot of other things also remain quite arbitrarily defined and in reality, very great unexplained mysteries.

What he also did not say is, the old Darwinian model of all species "advancing" from a single origination point to the millions of complex species existing today is highly questionable at best and most probably, not accurate, based on many recent post-Hubble findings of modern science. For example, if either life or the building blocks of life was "seeded" on earth from asteriods, comets and similar space objects, then life is more likley to have sprung up all over the planet and may have a trillion or more origination points, most of which did not survive. As one scientist recently stated, life may be able to form "wherever there is a little wetness".

The truth is, nobody except the Creator really knows, which is why insisting that only one out-dated and most probably incorrect, narrow-minded theory be taught in our public school system is completely foolish and assinine and, against all notion of quality education and/or, freedom of speech and thought.

Atheism and Evolutionary Theory

Position One: In order for someone to be an atheist, they must have empirical (scientific) proof that there is no God. Otherwise, they are an agnostic, someone who does not know if there is a God or not; someone cannot honestly say there is no God unless they have empirical proof. Someone who claims something to be true without any legitimate proof is fundamentally, a liar.

Position Two: In order for the modern theory of evolution to be correct, there must be empirical proof of "self-selecting" and "unguided processes". Without empirical proof, there is no such thing as a "scientific" theory. The modern "theory" of evolution does not qualify as a scientific theory, because there is no empirical proof for it's fundamental hypothesis; likewise, it has no explanation for primary origination of elements, where the "stuff" the universe consists of came from, thus it does not qualify as a theory of origins.

Position Three: In order for Darwinian evolution to be correct, all human activity must be rationally explainable based on reproductive advantage. Otherwise, reproductive advantage is not the sole fundamental motivation of human beings and likewise, reproductive advantage is not the "engine" that causes theoretical "blind watchmaker" evolutionary change.

If belief in a supreme being is a an overall negative, why does it exist? If it is an overall positive, then why do atheists spend so much valuable time arguing that God does not exist? What is their purpose for doing so? If there really is no God, why did Richard Dawkins bother to write his book? Why not rather, spend one's time trying to help the homeless, or trying to cure AIDS or, carousing down at a local hangout, which would (hopefully) be more of a reproductive advantage?

Why doesn't the MENSA Society's test of human intelligence contain a single question regarding how to solve human violence, greed, oppression, pollution, disease, pain, suffering or hunger? And why isn't the Skeptic Society skeptical of modern science? Why is their website mainly devoted to taking easy cheap shots at religion, mysticism and similar shallow inventions easily debunked?

Is it because attacking religion and mysticism is much easier than asking a more difficult question that any true skeptic would ask, such as why do educated scientists in the 21st Century continue to design nuclear and worse weaponry? Or, why is modern evolutionary theory based on a non-empirical, unproven and entirely non-provable assumption? Or, why does a so-called theory of origins lack a fundamental explanation for origin and worse, claim that such a question is not relevant to the theory? What kind of a "scientific" theory is that?

Why do human beings historically in droves, forsake all hope of reproduction at the slightest whiff of a hint of gold? How does the Klondike Gold Rush, where hundreds of human beings, who were told by other human beings heading back the other direction that scores of people were dying ahead, continuing to trek over a mountain in the dead of winter by pulling themselves inches at a time with a chain of rope, represent "reproductive advantage"?

How does Cortez leaving civilization's women time and time again, to search for gold while murdering every human being in the way, represent reproductive advantage? How does an already wealthy banker, who leaves his wife and family in New England and travels west on a perilous and extremely long arduous journey in search of Gold in California, represent reproductive advantage? Why do billionaires continue to spend thousands of hours trying to earn more money, instead of just kicking back and enjoying what they already have? Why don't they just spend their days reproducing, since they rationally already have enough to survive for several lifetimes? Why do most of them spend lavishly on themselves, rather than just live in a normal house, drive an inexpensive car and give the rest to charity?

Why are there so many different kinds of faucet washers in a typical hardware store? Aren't human beings intelligent enough to understand we can get by with just a few different sizes? Why isn't there just one automobile company and one size of television? Why did Exxon earn record profits in the same year that the price of a gallon of gasoline rose to a record high? Why didn't Exxon instead, refund some of their excess back to us poor common people who got stuck with the bill? Why are human beings so greedy? If greed is good, then why do we have "great" thinkers and moral teachers who claim that it isn't?

Why are some of human civilization's most revered individuals, people who never married or otherwise, reproduced? Why instead, aren't people like Jesus, Paul and Mother Teresa viewed in historical perspective, as complete idiots? If "natural selection" is true, why is someone like the president of the MENSA Society considered more intelligent than an illiterate farmer in Bolivia who has 18 children and 53 grandchildren? Why are some of history's most revered individuals people who have died from martyrdom at an early age? Why do so many people want to build a monument to Martin Luther King, Jr. in Washington, D.C.? How is it a reproductive advantage for human beings to hold people who refuse to remove themselves from harm's way, such as King, in such high regard?

Why do human beings universally have to teach their children to be "good", while human offspring are "bad" quite easily on their own, with or without any parental encouragement? Why aren't they "good" automatically if what their parents consider to be "good" is in fact, good. If it is not really good, then why do their parents believe what they are trying to get their children to conform to, is good? If it is not good, then who lied to everybody and why? If it is good, then why aren't children good automatically? Why do parents bribe their children into being "good" by offering rewards of ice cream and candy, which are considered "bad" for them? (The final question of this paragraph is a much more difficult question for a Darwinian evolutionist to logically answer than it may at first, appear to be.)

Why is there still war and rumor of war, after over 10,000 years of moral instruction to the contrary? If war is a bad idea, then why do educated human beings keep contributing to it? Why do some of the United States' most educated individuals design weapons that can obliterate all of humanity? Why do we, in spite of our "reproductive advantage" evolutionary theory and our educational classes on ethics and morality, continue to create nuclear bombs and worse, even when there is no other nation anywhere close to our own nuclear capacity? If war is a good idea, then why are people such as Isaiah, Jesus, Gandhi and King, who all strongly opposed war, such revered human beings? How could Adolph Hitler and Mother Teresa both arise in the same modern "advanced" species?

Why is Jesus considered a great moral teacher if war is "natural" and therefore, "good". Why is there such a concept as morality at all? Why aren't human beings automatically moral without any instruction? If morality is just an invention, then who invented it and why? What good is morality if it just gets in the way of our natural inclinations to reproduce? Why is rape considered bad by most people, but not by everybody? Why do some people murder, while most people do not? Why are there concepts such as "good" and "evil"? If Darwinian evolutionary theory is correct, then why isn't every human action considered to be morally good?

Where did disease come from? Why is every living thing in theorized competition with each other? Why doesn't every living thing rather, evolve to co-exist in harmony? Is it a better reproductive advantage to live in competition than to live in harmony? If evolutionary change is overall, a "reproductive advantage", why aren't species eventually disease free? And why would there be such a thing as disease in the first place?

How could disease evolve if it is not a reproductive advantage to the host? If it was initially somehow an advantage to the host, why and how could it deteriorate into becoming a dis-advantage, if evolution is churned by "reproductive advantage"? What caused the initial evolutionary co-habitation of organisms diametrically opposed to each other? Why is evolution two steps forward and one step back, instead of just an uninterrupted chain of reproductive advantage change into better and better reproducing organisms? Why would disease ever appear in human beings or anything else, if natural selection is true?

If there is no God, then who invented God and why? What reproductive advantage is there for billions of people to believe what is not true? What reproductive advantage is there for billions of people to waste so much time, energy and money in pursuit of the divine? Why do human beings deliberately lie to other human beings, not only to external "tribes", but also, deliberately lie within their own immediate groups and immediate families? What reproductive advantage is there to lying in the overall "natural selection" scheme of things? What reproductive advantage is there to lying to one's own spouse and offspring?

If there is no God, then why did Jesus believe in God? Why is one of his most important sayings carved on many college campus walls? Why is another one of his most important sayings called the "golden rule"? Why would anybody care to remember anything he said if he was so fundamentally wrong about God? Why did Moses, Isaiah, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, DaVinci, Newton, Shakespeare, Jefferson, Tolstoy and Einstein all believe in God? How could such learned individuals all be so completely wrong about such a fundamental belief? If they were all so fundamentally wrong, then why are they considered great historical thinkers by our encyclopedia compilers and educators? Why aren't their names just cast aside and forgotten, as belonging to superstitious idiots?

Modern science is aware of the fact that very tiny organisms live inside of other larger, but still very tiny organisms which in turn, reside inside of the intestines of human beings. It can be rationally assumed that these very tiny organisms are not aware of our human existence and not only that, have no way of possibly knowing of our own existence. The fact that they are totally unaware of our own existence however, does not prove that we do not exist.

A fundamental problem of atheism is, we are much smaller than either type of these very tiny organisms in relation to the known universe. Beyond that, modern science speculates there may be as many universes as there are stars in our own universe and if that is even a little bit true, this makes us a whole lot smaller still.

Because of the known science, it is impossible for a human being to know that there is no God. Therefore atheism is illogical and unscientific, because it is based on an assumption which has not and as far as we know, cannot ever be proven. It is unscientific and illogical to build one's belief upon a quicksand of assumption, based on facts not in evidence.

Unlike what is defined in public high school textbooks, but what is found in some college and university textbooks, the modern theory of evolution is based on an unscientific assumption that what we can observe is a product of "self-selecting" and "unguided processes". The term "random processes" initially used by early evolutionists, has been largely abandoned due to backlash from the general public. Apparently, modern scientists believe that somehow, by replacing one ridiculous phrase with two more even more absurd phrases, they will somehow deceive the general public, themselves and their own children more easily.

Because of the relative size of human beings compared to what modern science believes to exist, it is impossible to know from our tiny perspective, that the overall universal process is unguided. Therefore, the modern theory of evolution is unscientific, based on an irrational assumption built upon a quicksand of facts not in evidence.

The fact of the existence of the pyramids in Egypt has long been known to human beings outside of that ancient culture. There have been many theories proposed as to exactly how the pyramids came to be there. These theories range from the somewhat plausible on up to speculation they were constructed by space aliens and even, designed by angels.

However, regardless of how plausible or implausible these explanations may be, not one explanation has ever proposed that the pyramids constructed themselves over a long period of historical time, without the aid of a designer. Any historian or other human being who proposed such a preposterous idea would be ridiculed and scorned into silence. The reason such an absurd idea has not been proposed is because all known logic, evidence and human experience assumes that the pyramids were designed by someone. It is doubtful that a legitimate historian has ever even considered whether or not the pyramids may have appeared on their own.

Yet, what the modern theory of evolution and modern atheism proposes is far more preposterous than it is for an historian to assume that the pyramids of Egypt designed themselves. There is no evidence that a re-action has ever occurred without an initial action and likewise, there is no evidence that anything has ever appeared by its own volition or that anything has ever designed itself. There is no empirical evidence for "self-selecting" and/or, "unguided process" and/or "random processes" and/or any of the other absurd phrases invented by scientists to cover for what they quite obviously, don't have a clue regarding.

Thus, the modern theory of evolution is unscientific and irrational, based on a fundamental assumption unsupported by any known evidence or human experience. All known scientific and other evidence, logic and human experience dictates that the universe and everything contained therein is a product of design. Why would any rational human being assume otherwise? It is one thing to ask "if" there is a God. It is quite a different brand of fairytale to claim that there isn't one.

And finally, I am aware that some evolutionists can answer some of the questions posed above, however unsatisfactory their answers may be, even to a small child with half a brain. However, if they can't provide a logical answer for every one of the questions above, then they are clearly liars. Of course they are clearly liars anyway, because they cannot prove that the universe is a result of unguided processes. Someone who states that the universe is a product of "unguided processes" is, by default of our size compared to the size of the known reality, very clearly an absolute liar.

MEMORIAL DAY WEEK 2007

     Here is something to ponder this week after the memorial holiday, that should perhaps cause every American to think twice before trusting our American media or either party in power, ever again.  When Baghdad fell after the U.S. invasion, for over a year and doubtless still somewhat of an ongoing lawless reality, the major problem creating violence in Iraq was not insurgents vs. coalition troops, as one would assume from reading the front pages of every American newspaper. 
 
     According to the London "Guardian" and other international media sources, the major instability problem in Iraq after the initial invasion, was roving gangs of thugs that were not politically motivated and had nothing to do with insurgents; criminal gangs and many former law-abiding citizens turned criminals, due to little threat of police retaliation, freely roamed throughout Baghdad and other major Iraqi cities, looting, kidnapping for ransom, raping and pillaging at will.  This reality of utter lawlessness was never even reported in our media as far as I am aware.
 
    Baghdad has a population of about 7 million, whereas Los Angeles has a little over 4 million and the greater Southern California area about 18 million, which illustrates just how large of a city Baghdad is.  Most Americans from my own experience, even activists, have no idea that Baghdad is much larger than Los Angeles. 
 
     To give an idea of how bad things were and continue to remain in Baghdad, when the initial invasion was over, the current military was disbanded and there was no coherent police force in place.  Imagine what would happen in Los Angeles if the police and national guard suddenly disappeared and there was no federal military--that is what happened in Baghdad. 
 
     On top of that, there were and remain, days with little to no electricity and very poor water and sewage systems; this in weather sometimes nearing 120 degrees and other times, near freezing at night.  On top of that, many hospitals and emergency systems were partially or completely destroyed.  And on top of that, people continue to often wait in line for 1-2 days, just to fill up their cars with gasoline. 
 
     I have read and seen on film where kids of people who can afford it, are driven back and forth to school in private taxis, because it is the safest way for them to go.  Groups of people go shopping together in order to enhance security; Many able adults remain unemployed and virtual prisoners trapped inside their homes, because it is unsafe for them to venture outside. 
 
     Shopping for necessities, unlike John McCain  and others have pretended, remains an extremely risky endeavor.  Also, almost everyone owns and often carries one or more guns.  I've seen several films made by activists who have gone over there that validate what is stated in these last three paragraphs.
 
     If our media had any courage at all, every American would long ago have clearly understood just how tragic of a mistake the current Administration made, instead of half of our population still believing that it was the right move.  It is not just that the invasion wasn't handled correctly.  What Karl Rove and Company did represents utter insanity from any kind of viewpoint.  Every American by now should clearly and easily understand that and, because of our for-profit corporate media of mediocrity, very few Americans actually do. 
 

GUN DEALER DEFENDERS AND THE LUNATIC FRINGE

Today, two days after the horrific loss of 33 American lives at Virginia Tech University, CNN.com reported that over 300 people were maimed and murdered in Iraq, most of them in the main central marketplace of Baghdad that Senator John McCain claims is so much safer since the "surge". The death count was at least 171 and rising as of this morning.

Some folks might call it "insensitive" to compare these two examples of modern-day carnage within the same immediate context. I beg to differ, as rather, it remains highly "insensitive" that an American media continues to downplay and "backburner" the much worse ongoing carnage that Karl Rove and Company are directly responsible for in the Middle East, while our highly "insensitive" general population goes right on purchasing SUV's and shopping at the mall, as if the loss of teachers, friends, husbands, wives, students and children don't mean anything at all, unless they happen to be our own.

And meanwhile, the Lunatic Fringe have crawled out in full force from under their slimy NRAolithic rocks, to encourage the ongoing insanity of unbridled ownership of firearms in our homeland of the not-so-free and overwhelmingly naive to continue, while our "passionate conservative" president neatly sidesteps the issue. The word "gun" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, which was purposely very carefully worded by those who drafted it, in particular, the first ten amendments.

The 2nd Amendment does not mention either "guns" or "firearms". The Constitutional framers chose to use the much broader term "arms", which did not mean the same thing as "firearms" to the framers of the Constitution, any more than it means the same thing today. Thomas Jefferson owned his own private cannon, the largest military weapon available at the time. The term "arms" at the drafting of the 2nd Amendment, included anything used in warfare, for hunting, for personal defense and/or, for personal attack.

Today, that would include nuclear and conventional bombs, all manner of chemical and biological weaponry and soon to be included, space-ray weapons. Either the NRA and the rest of the Lunatic Fringe are going to push to allow private companies with satellites to possess their own private space-ray weapons, owners of private jets to mount their own private nuclear arsenal and allow their own next door neighbors to manufacture Anthrax whenever they wish, or they are going to restrict the 2nd Amendment.

There is no middle ground. Using the 2nd Amendment as a shield to allow unregulated ownership of modern firearms is without rational foundation and displays no more Constitutional logic than allowing individual Americans to personally own and possess unlimited nuclear and biological weaponry. I have long wondered what Charlton Heston would do if Michael Moore decided to mount a nuclear bomb on a Hummer and parade around Beverly Hills with a peace sign attached over a loudspeaker blaring, "long live the 2nd Amendment."

Sounds like a great Lethal Weapon script to me. Mel Gibson could play the racist bigot chauffer and Danny Glover could play the naked descendant of a slave, target of a racist bigot, running for dear life up ahead, shouting "the sky really is falling this time". Meanwhile, the hole in the sky and in our American soul keeps on growing, the planet keeps on getting warmer and the great river of Babylon tears keeps on flowing.

And may God comfort and bless the families and friends of those who lost a loved one at Virginia Tech University; and may they forgive me for not being able to believe that the loss of an American student in Virginia is any more or any less significant to God, than the loss of an Iraqi student in Baghdad.

FREEDOM

According to biographer Walter Isaacson, Albert Einstein once remarked at a dinner party where everyone assumed he was an atheist: "I have a deep feeling of faith, a deep religiosity that comes from my appreciation of the way the Lord made the universe." According to Thomas Jefferson, we are "endowed by our Creator" with certain, what are now commonly referred to as, "human" rights.

According to conservative and many if not most Evangelical Christians, God is not the author of human rights, thus eliminating Isaiah, Jesus, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the so-called founding fathers from any equation of reason and sanity, entirely and altogether.

According to liberals and progressives, we don't have any right to discuss whether or not there is a Creator in a public science classroom, thus eliminating the possibility of anyone remotely as intelligent as Albert Einstein, Neils Bohr or Thomas Jefferson ever teaching in public education, not to mention Newton, DaVinci, Rosa Parks, Helen Keller, Samuel Clemens and Woody Guthrie.

It would seem that in 21st Century America, nobody believes in freedom, fairness, open discussion or democracy anymore. Everyone wants to know if you agree with them and if not, then you must be on the "other" side. In modern-day America, there is little free and open discussion of important core issues but rather, a constant blathering of unqualified preachers and clueless pundits, representing an ill-defined and far from clear, perceived "side", that doesn't remotely represent anything that is reasonable, fair or true.

Houston, no doubt in America, we have a significant problem, not the least of which is an education system devoid of truth, freedom, rhyme, reason and the pursuit of happiness. "These are the days of miracle and wonder, this is the long distance call..."

GOD, GAYS AND OTHER MISFITS

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, individual scientists are at odds regarding exactly how much human sexuality is innate and/or inherited, as opposed to how much it is induced by society and peer pressure and/or, mixed in with personal choice. In spite of what we read in the modern media, there is no universal scientific consensus.

Virtually all experts however, agree that what we view on the surface is but a tiny portion of the seething sexual frustration and confusion mess buried and repressed underneath and likewise, virtually all agree that what we ultimately view in others on the surface represents a combination of innate, inherited, societally induced and individual choice behavior. In other words, contrary to both conservative religious and modern media over-simplification, human sexuality represents a complex mixture of a great many factors.

Also according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, on a human line graph sexual chart, where the extreme left represents 100% "straight" and the extreme right represents 100% "gay", all human beings fall somewhere in-between the two ultimate extremes. These modern case-study findings also agree with Freud, Jung and others, who have discovered that human beings underneath the societal "Band-Aid", are a mixed up seething mess of sexual and psychological confusion.

Unfortunately, nobody in the media is telling people in America what modern science actually "believes" concerning human sexuality. And you thought that only George Bush and the religious entirely wrong are the liars.

According to the Bible, specifically the letter to the Romans, all human beings are sexually askew from what the creator intended and there is no difference before the Creator between the "gayest" and "straightest" of individuals, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Sin by Biblical definition, is askew from what the Creator intends; i.e., war, rape, murder, theft, hatred, pride, etc. Thus, the conservative religious right's condemnation of homosexuals is without Biblical, moral or rational scientific basis, as none of us in the eyes of either modern science or the Creator according to the Bible, "measure up".

The Bible does not say that heterosexuals are okay and homosexuals are not okay. The Bible states what nobody wishes to hear but which the findings of modern science and the track record of human history clearly bear out; that is, nobody is sexually okay. Quite logically, if we were sexually okay as a species, then the front page news wouldn't be filled with the ongoing reality of rape, murder, war and rumor of war.

Unfortunately, nobody in the media is telling people in America what the Bible actually says, either. Thus, we will continue to largely be a nation of human sexual and moral illiterates, devoid of righteousness, wisdom, understanding and human compassion. And more than likely, the front page of the Washington Post will continue to be filled with the same re-curring news of war, rape, murder, theft, hatred, pride, etc.

PRIMARY CAUSE EXISTS BECAUSE

Most rational people agree that 2 dominos plus 2 dominos = 4 dominos. One can argue that we can't prove with absolute certainty that we are not ourself, a domino, as some with a lot of time on their hands and nothing better to do, may wish to argue. Yet, the logical "scientific" conclusion is that 2 dominos + 2 dominos = 4 dominos. There is overwhelming evidence that this will most likely always be true, regardless of how many times it is tested.

There is even more overwhelming scientific evidence that it takes primary cause to induce an effect. One can argue that it can't possibly be proven for certain that for every effect, there is a primary cause, but nevertheless, their is overwhelming empirical (scientific) evidence that this is true. It is practicing good science to conclude that this is true because that is what all of the known evidence dictates.

There have been many instances of people setting up a few to several thousand dominos in a row and then by pushing just one, the many others will fall over without any further primary "cause". However, it has never been successfully demonstrated that the first domino will fall over all by itself, without the wind or an earthquake or a finger or some other form of primary cause making it fall. There is no evidence that there is or ever has been an observable effect occur without a primary cause (not that science hasn't tried very hard to prove otherwise).

Yet, modern so-called 'science' and atheism has concluded that the entire observable reality appeared without a primary cause. No matter how many "big bangs" one goes back in time (or even if there is no such thing as time, as Richard Dawkins claims and to which I agree with him on this), the modern theory of evolution breaks down because it cannot explain primary cause. To conclude or to even propose that the observable reality was not created is neither logical, scientific nor rational. Just as it is being scientific to conclude that 2 + 2 will invariably equal 4 and for every re-action, there must be a primary action, so it is being scientific to conclude that there must be a Primary Cause for the observable reality. Even though no one can prove with absolute certainty that 2 + 2 always equals 4, or that there must always be a cause for a reaction to occur, it is overwhelmingly probable that this is true, based on all known evidence.

Likewise, even though modern scientists themselves have often referred to the "grand design" of the universe, even though they label certain galaxy types as "Grand Design" galaxies and even though our own bodies obviously consist of different parts having different functions, modern evolutionary theory continues to insist that there is no Grand Designer. If someone were to propose that the pyramids of Egypt appeared over a long period of historical time all by themselves without the aid of designers, they would be dismissed as a lunatic. Yet, lunatics of the modern science asylum continue to claim that the entire Cosmic Grand Design appeared entirely on its own, even though there is no known scientific or historical evidence or human experience that design without designer has ever occured.

The correct scientific conclusion, based on the known evidence, is that there is a Primary Cause for the observable reality. It goes against all known evidence, human experience and the fundamental basis of science to conclude otherwise. There is nothing in science that is based on absolute certainty; absolute truth or certainty is not what science can ever be. True science and indeed, sanity itself, consists of the most likely conclusions based on the known evidence.

I have no quarrel with a "science" that changes its mind as new evidence is discovered. Rather, I would have a huge quarrel with a science that did not change its mind, which is increasingly the case with the modern dogmatic superstition of evolutionary effect without primary cause, which is patently absurd. To conclude that there is no God is the very least likely conclusion based on the known evidence and is therefore, neither logical, rational nor scientific.

At the bottom-line, it is impossible for anyone to function in the real world without believing in something. We initially "believe" most of what we are told until we hopefully, begin to question some of it as we grow older. Nobody can or would even want to question every single thing they are told, as to attempt such would be an overwhelming task and would most likely lead to insanity. Because we do not have universal "Logos" perspective, it is not possible to know what is ultimately true. All science or any human being can ever "believe", other than what we conclude to be true via cultural assumption, is what is most likely true based on the known evidence.

I would not expect a writer who wrote 5,000 years ago to know that the earth revolves around the sun, even though today there is a lot of evidence that this is true. Neither would I consider such a lack of knowledge by an early writer to be a valid reason for disregarding what they otherwise, said. I do not expect science or anyone else to know what is ultimately true or to know what is not generally known in our own historical timeframe--I do however, expect anyone who calls themselves a scientist or educator to go by the most likely conclusion, rather than insisting on promoting the very least likely.

One of the creators of the "South Park" cartoon series stated that he believes the modern theory of evolution is the very least probable religion ever invented. The reason I agree with him is not because I think Darwin was wrong about species changing over time. Rather, it is because modern theory is based on the least likely conclusion. It is therefore, fundamentally flawed, regardless of how accurate certain observations using the theory may or may not prove to be in the bigger picture. Newton's theory of gravity is correct enough in many of its observable conclusions to work for almost all earthly applications, even though Einstein demonstrated that it is fundamentally flawed.

It is far more highly likely that modern science is fundamentally wrong about how the observable reality came into being, even though much of what biologists have discovered along the way is useful for medical and other applications. Because certain things are apparently "true" based on modern experimentation does not prove that there is no God, that modern evolutionary theory is fundamentally correct, or that it is even remotely correct, from true universal (Logos) perspective.

Dawkins and others like him, who claim there is in reality no time, are only underscoring what the authors of the Bible long ago claimed to be true; that the Creator is eternal. In my opinion, this is the only scientific and indeed, the only rational thing to conclude based on the known evidence. If there is no Creator and, if the Creator is not eternal, then there can be no logical or rational explanation for anything.

JESUS AND SIN

If it is true that Jesus spoke the truth, then one must either take his entire body of words and deeds (as far as history knows) or they must pick and choose what they like, thus by default, claiming that Jesus only sometimes spoke the truth.

My experience is, that religious conservatives who claim to believe in Jesus, believe, for no valid reason based on his known teachings and actions, that he was conservative; their concept of God tends to lean toward an unforgiving God of retribution (regardless of what they may claim to the contrary). This represents a contextual problem when viewing the entire contents of the life and words of Jesus, as related in the so-called four gospels, which for better or worse, are essentially the only sources we have for the life and words of Jesus. This conservative concept inaccurately represents Jesus by ignoring much of what he actually said and did, based on the contents of the four gospels.

On the other hand, my experience with religious liberals is that they don't believe in a God who punishes anyone and most don't believe in an afterlife. Their concept of God tends to lean toward a God who is equally nice to everybody and who has no power or desire to punish anyone, either in this life or the next; that is, extremes such as Adolph Hitler and Mother Teresa are both treated equally nice by this type of God in an afterlife (if believed in) and there is no threat or hand of punishment for one over the other. This also represents a contextual problem when viewing the entire contents of the life and words of Jesus, as related in the four gospels; it inaccurately represents Jesus by ignoring much of what he actually said and did according to the four gospels.

My experience also is that for the most part, atheists and agnostics tend to claim that Jesus was fundamentally correct about human rights and morality but somehow, entirely wrong about God, sin and hell. Again, this represents a severe contextual problem when viewing the entire words and deeds of Jesus as related in the four gospels.

It is historically unfair and a careful historian like Will Durant would likely claim, intellectually dishonest to claim that Jesus taught what is true, while stating he was correct only about what one wishes to believe, while he was incorrect about what one chooses not to believe. It is unfair for a myriad of reasons, among them, it negates the purpose for much of what Jesus said if someone does not believe in the afterlife that Jesus believed in and likewise, it perhaps negates everything he taught if someone does not believe in sin, hell and a God of judgment, as well as a God of love, mercy and forgiveness. According to the four gospels taken in entire context, Jesus very much believed in a God of love and judgment; he also believed in heaven in terms of both an unseen spiritual world and an afterlife, in hell in terms of an afterlife and most definitely, he believed in sin.

Of course, someone can pick and choose to believe whatever they want, but it is not fair or intellectually honest to state that Jesus was crucified because he stood for what is true, while ignoring much of what he actually said and did. If Jesus taught what is true, then an afterlife, hell and sin and a God of love and mercy and judgment are also true. Otherwise, Jesus did not teach what is true. People of conviction and one would assume, especially someone like Jesus, base their convictions on strong personal belief. The fundamental premise to love one's neighbor as one's self is no more fundamental to Jesus than the concept of sin and perhaps, less so, as Jesus might argue that there would be no reason for him to have to teach anyone to love their neighbor if there is no such thing as sin.

I consider this to be the greatest historical conundrum, as if there is no such thing as sin, then the entire life and purpose of Jesus makes no rational sense, nor is there any rational reason why we should teach our children to love their neighbor as themselves. It also poses a question or two most difficult to answer. If there is no God, how was an uneducated young man, the son of a common laborer with no known education or intellectual credentials, somehow able to both grasp and lay down for common people and even children to easily understand, what to this day, remains the fundamental foundation of human and civil rights and morality? And likewise, if there is no sin, how could someone be so wrong about sin and yet, so right about morality? And, as the life and words of Jesus cry out to argue, if there is no sin, then why would we crucify our greatest moral teacher and why would we need him to teach us morality at all?

OF GOD AND SCIENCE

The problem with the simplistic view propagated by both conservative fundamentalists and the major media is summed up in atheist Richard Dawkin's conclusion, that humanity's concept of God is much too small; to Dawkin's credit, he states that the "God question" is a very important one. The notion that God is somehow, not a question for science, is highly laughable. If there is a Creator, then beyond any rational doubt, the Creator would understand and be entirely compatible with true science. Eliminating the "God" question from a science classroom, by default, even if there is no God, is equivalent to eliminating true science, education and rational inquiry, entirely and altogether. What kind of pseudo 'scientific' fairytale is afraid to even address a child's most basic question, "Where did it all come from"?

The problem with the simplistic Darwinian model proposed by Dawkins is, it simply does not agree with the known empirical historical and scientific evidence. For example, why would concepts of God, conscience, good and evil ever arise within our species if they are false? How are false concepts and the known propensity for human beings to deliberately lie and spread falsehood, helpful to our overall ability to survive and reproduce? If they are not helpful, then how does Darwinian theory explain their existence and if they are helpful, then why are Dawkins and so many publicly-funded scientists wasting their time and our tax dollars disputing them? If evolution is a progress towards "adaptive perfection", as Dawkins claims and as Darwinian theory has long assumed, then why do cockroaches and other ancient organisms continue to be plagued by disease and predators?

Logic dictates that if evolution is a gradual progression forward toward being better able to reproduce, then organisms would eventually shed disease and other negative traits entirely. Even less logically, Darwinian theory fails to explain why there is such a thing as disease in the first place; that is, if evolution is an advance toward sexual reproductive perfection, why would organisms contrary to reproductive perfection ever arise? Why is there such a reproductive war prevalent in nature, rather than complete interactive reproductive harmony? And if reproductive war is the natural "advantage", as Darwinian theory dictates, then why do we as human beings, revere Martin Luther King, Jr. and other "peace makers"? If Darwinian theory is correct, why bother to teach our children to be moral? Why not just teach them that plunder, war and rape are better ideas toward our own society's "reproductive advantage"?

Likewise in the known historical evidence, the theory of "survival of the fittest", breaks down entirely based on what human beings actually do in the real world. For example, during the Klondike Gold Rush, human beings risked life and limb, leaving all sanity and hope for reproduction behind, in a fervent mad dash across blizzard-condition winter mountains for the slightest hope of a few dollars more. How can their actions and those of Cortez and the myriad of other overwhelmingly male gold seekers of our own brief American history, be explained in terms of "ability to survive and best reproduce"? Dawkins accuses Francis Collins and others of being afraid to answer the big questions, yet neither he nor Darwin can answer any of the big questions, either.

If there is a Creator and the Creator is eternal, then the question of "origins" is satisfied and there is a rational explanation for the known observable evidence, regardless of how well we may or may not as a species, understand how creation exactly and entirely works. If there is no Creator and just as importantly, if the Creator is not eternal, then there is no rational explanation for anything. Modern evolutionary theory fails to explain origins, where the "primordial stuff" from the big bang came from and how so-called "self-organizing" processes can arise from nothing out of nowhere. As such, it is not worthy to be compared with the most simplistic of creation myths known; even the famous ancient universe-on-the-back-of-a-turtle story at least, attempts to explain origin, rather than just ignoring the obvious. It is no small wonder that "he who sits in the heavens shall laugh..."

NEO-CONS AND OTHER CONS

The problem with the concept of "good vs. evil" is not that the concept itself is wrong but rather, the problem stems from naive and simplistic assumptions of what "good" and "evil" are and where they originate. It is an historical lesson never learned by societies as a whole and in particular, by both militant conservatives and violent socialists and anarchists within societies, that violence never produces "good", nor in the bigger picture, "peace" and/or "justice".

Americans are taught from a young age and typically blindly accept, that our own violent revolution was "good", while violent revolutions in Cuba or Russia, we are taught, were "evil". The historical truth clearly indicates otherwise, as our own violent revolution has lead to war after war after war after war in our so far, entirely vain attempt to "secure the peace".

The "war for peace" philosophy of our own American society has historically been a smokescreen for protecting and enhancing our own economic interests. We entered into both WWI and WWII late in the battle, only after our own economic interests were severely threatened. We were as a collective nation otherwise, content to allow Hitler and others to run over Europe at will. During WWII prior to Pearl Harbor, it was rather unpopular in America to advocate entering into the war. On the other hand, we stirred up and instigated both our own revolution and other wars, such as the war against Mexico, for example, when it suited our own economic greed interests.

We invented the smokescreen of "manifest destiny" to justify taking what we wanted and later, openly condemned the Soviet Union for doing the same thing. Not only in Reagan's own mind, but in the mind of our collective conscience and heritage as a nation, it has long been promulgated that our own violent advance from sea to shining sea was "good", while the Soviet Union's similar advance into Poland and Czechoslovakia, was "evil". We have a very long national self-contradicting track record of actually "why", as a nation, we have engaged in war at various and sundry times and circumstances.

Collective violence leading to war, is invariably a "smokescreen", often cloaked in religious and patriotic-sounding slogans, for protecting one's assets and/or, accumulating someone else's assets; the "Crusades" are a good example of how religious and patriotic slogans backed by promises of much booty, propelled one civilization (perceived as the "good" side in their own collective minds) to run over another. Another good example is the expansion westward of our own nation, which was literally achieved by "hook and by crook" and by any and every means and religious and patriotic-sounding excuse, possible. "Evil" is a result of individual greed leading up to collective acts of violence, oppression and war; it is not "socialism" vs. "democracy", "corporations vs. progressivism" or some other naive and shallow, mis-assumption.

Evil at the root, as Jesus taught, stems from individual human motivation, from selfishness and greed, not from a political or economic system or from one way of life verses another; philosophies leading to religious, economic and political systems are a product of the collective greed of individuals. The root problem is not "corporations", as many modern liberal activists seem to assume, nor is it "communism" or "tyranny", as many modern conservatives likewise, naively assume. Neither is the solution merely more "education", as education without morality, produces a negative, not a positive result (the creation of space-ray and biological weapons, for example).

The root problem is individual greed. Frederick Engels had the problem sort of pegged correctly, although his conclusion of society being a "class" struggle is inaccurate at the root--at the root, the history of civilization is an individual struggle, not a "class" struggle--individuals, by individual choice of greed and hope of economic gain, form larger groups such as guilds or unions. Much larger perceived "groups", such as the "working" or "middle" class, for example, consist of individuals who make individual choices, however coerced those choices may be.

If one doesn't understand the root problem, then one has little hope of coming up with a viable solution. Understanding the problem, however, of itself, does not produce a solution. A viable solution to individual greed, that is, what to do about it, is something else, entirely.

THERE IS NO PARTY IN "PARTY-LINE"

Because of the neo-con/Fox News/talk radio ultra extremist agenda, people in America today are very confused over the term "liberal". There is no major liberal media in America, there never has been. Likewise, there are almost no liberal political office holders. Because someone is more liberal than an ultra-extreme right wing fanatic, that does not make them a liberal by any stretch of the historical imagination.

Here is a good example. When I graduated from high school in 1968, Walter Cronkite was considered a mainstream moderate conservative by most media pundits. Today, the same Walter Cronkite, is often called a leftist liberal. This does not mean he has changed to any significant degree--what it indicates is, the definition of "liberal" in most American minds, has shifted dramatically to the right.

Historically, a liberal is someone who believes in sharing the wealth as much as possible, by using collective bargaining, progressive legislation and other means to take cream from the rich and re-distribute coffee to the poor. A true liberal believes in a "maximum" wage as much, if not more than a minimum wage. A liberal is someone who does not believe in capitalism, free enterprise or free market systems and someone who believes business should be regulated as much as possible to offset the political power advantage of the wealthy over the poor.

A true "liberal" is not someone who believes in or promotes religious tolerance but rather, someone who opposes all forms of organized religion as repressive and counter-productive to human rights and peace. Historically, liberals are often promoters of violence as a means to an end; the word "peacemaker" historically does not apply to liberals very much, if any more, than it does to conservatives. Both conservatism and liberalism leave in their wake, a very long historical trail of oppressive and bloody tears.

As one can clearly deduce, there are no major newspapers, television or radio programs today that are "liberal" by any true historical standards or definition. The American media has always been and remains, moderately conservative to extremely conservative. No media that supports free market capitalism, by its very nature, can ever be "liberal". A conservative, by definition, supports the governmental, societal and business status quo. A liberal, by definition, seeks to change, modify and/or, replace the governmental, societal and business status quo.

I am not personally either a "liberal" or a "conservative". I consider labels such as these extremely counter-productive to personal and collective freedom and to what is in fact, actually true. No one branding themselves a "conservative" or a "liberal" has any real hope of coming to a legitimate understanding of what is true in the real world of human action, inter-action and re-action. Today, many liberals have abandoned that label for the term "progressive". Changing a term of course, does not change a single conservative or liberal hair on one's head, nor will doing so likely produce positive change.

The meaning of words in language evolve over time and certain words in a society's language often carry a powerful connotation, such as the words "conservative", "liberal" and "progressive" do in America today. The word "FREEDOM" is a much better concept and idea than boxing one's self into a conservative, moderate or liberal mold. A person who is truly free can be as conservative, liberal or progressive as they so choose, regarding any given issue or circumstance.

It remains interesting that Jesus, the most politically, socially and morally accurate person in history by a very long stretch, is today, interpreted entirely incorrectly by American "conservatives" and generally ignored by American "liberals". November 2006 election day is a very sad and sorry day in Tennessee and in America, where We The People no doubt, can no longer afford a Ford or a Corker (or a Chevy). As a rather progressive individual once remarked, when the blind lead the blind, both parties will more than likely, fall into the ditch, accordingly. "Are the good times really over, for good?"

WHY WE CAN'T AFFORD ANOTHER FORD

Harold Ford, Jr. is running for the U.S. Senate in Tennessee against Bob "Flipped By Wall Street Brokers" Corker, who recently literally bought the Republican primary, spending as much as the other major candidates, Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary, combined. His opponents are two solid red right-wing neo-con lapdogs if there ever was such an animal, clearly demonstrating there are no friends among thieves. Corker repeatedly mis-represented and trashed his opponents in various commercials that inundated the airwaves every few minutes for weeks on end (so what else is new?) and now his big-money machine is aiming both twisted NRA-backed gun barrels at Ford.

A "tag" saying has been adopted by some locals here, for use at the end of any pronouncement, however mundane it may otherwise be, such as, "I'm going to the Tom DeLay illegal soft money funneling, All-American sell-out Cracker Barrel Restaurant for some lousy imitation grits; I'm Bob Corker and I approved this message", and similar. This saying of Corker approving his own messages, apparently because nobody, including even his own mother, would approve them for him, has been heard on Tennessee television about as frequently as Muslims bow to Mecca, which makes one even more tired of conservative religion, just thinking about it.

The problem with this scenario is, we can't afford Harold Ford, Jr. any more than we can hope to put a lid in the corporate sewer drainpipe flowing in support of Neo-Convict Corker. While it may be unfair to judge poor Harold based on the political "cookie-jar" chicanery that a certain other Ford has recently been accused of, why not let Ford Junior's mirror-image record of President Junior speak for itself:

Ford has voted to outlaw gay marriage, to repeal the estate tax and, he apparently considers it more important to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning, than to push for healthcare, better jobs and better wages. Ford supports getting rid of the handgun ban in Washington, D.C. He supports the ongoing carnage for promised, but yet to be delivered, cheap oil in Iraq and argues for even more of our fine young men and women to be put in harms way. He wants to seal the border with Mexico, which would cause even more poor Mexican men, women and children to perish in our deserts and do about as much to curtail immigration as Bush Junior's war has done to secure the peace in Iraq.

Harold Ford, Jr. even makes Bush-bowing Democrats, such as Iraq hawk-appeasing Whamo O'Bamo and Killery-Hillary, come across as somewhat rational alternatives, by comparison. Hopefully, the final nail in Ford Junior's political coffin will result from his recent grossly obvert religious-uptight-right-pandering TV commercial. Tennessee is supposed to be the Volunteer State. We're looking for volunteers to stand up for the common people and support Chris Lugo, about the only candidate running for the U.S. Senate in America willing to risk standing up for we the people instead of for we-the-few-super-rich. Let's make a Ford and a Chevy and a Corker and a "No Medicine" Bredesen and a Frist and a Bush and a Clinton, wish they had been worth as much as a Chevy used to be (thank you and God bless you, Merle Haggard).

FOOTNOTE:
John Ford, who seems to be a chip of the same old crooked-cronism block, is currently awaiting trial in the Tennessee Waltz Scam as a primary suspect. He continues to proclaim his innocence, even though the FBI appears to have a video of him literally stuffing bribery cash in drawers; Tennessee Waltz 'Em"

OF GOD AND MONKEY BUSINESS

The problem with the ongoing "evolution-creation" debate is, it is habitually relegated to an "either/or" debate (and typically always has been), pitting so-called "scientists" on one side, who possess the understanding of a retarded knat at best and fundamentalists on the other side, who typically posses considerably less understanding than a fruit fly on a retarded knat's ass. Rather than consisting of honest human beings looking for what might actually be true based on the actual known evidence, people seem compelled to "defend" one side or the other, as if human survival depended upon such frivolity.

Based on the known evidence, which changes constantly and has changed dramatically within my own lifetime, there is abundant proof that species adapt and gradually change over long periods of time. However, there is no proof whatsoever that these changes occur "naturally" on their own, without a Creator or Creators behind the grand design and grand scheme of things. Because the universe and beings within the universe gradually change very slowly over time does not in any way prove that there is no God--it only proves at best, that the Creator operates beyond the complete grasp of something as comparatively extremely tiny as a human brain with limited memory, ability and perception.

Human beings, typically with pre-conceived bias, have invented concepts over time such as "natural", "naturally occurring", "acts of nature", "natural selection" "random chance" "random appearing and self-selecting processes" and similar, in large part it would seem, as an excuse to rationalize away what we cannot fully comprehend and explain. Because something from a certain viewpoint appears to be "naturally occurring", inclined to "random chance" or an "act of nature", this does not in any prove that there is no Creator acting beyond the scope of our ability to entirely comprehend and perceive. One might assume that if there is a being great enough to create the entire known universe, then our ability to explain how such a being ultimately designes and creates, would be minute at best.

One might conclude that both modern fundamentalists and modern scientists need to grow up, come down off their infantile high-horse, stop wasting everybody's time arguing about what no one can possibly prove or ultimately know and rather, start investing time, research and funding into how we might best feed, cloth and protect those who live on our fragile home we call Planet Earth. That, according to a bible so grossly mis-interpreted by fundamentalists and so ignorantly ignored by the vast majority of self-important "scientists", is what the Creator would prefer we do with our short time allotted here. And which logically enough, makes far more rational sense than all of modern fundamentalist and evolutionary theory combined.

The Myth of Modern Science

Of God and Monkey Business

A-Z Random Chance Primer of Science and the Bible

ON DIGGING A DEEPER HOLE

According to CNN, "Hezbollah was founded in 1982 in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon."

Historically, this is where ALL nations, which are in reality, associations of people by common assent, get into trouble, not just Israel. When nations engage in wars of aggression, it comes back to haunt them, generally in a far worse way, down the line. For example, our own United States nation, which was formed by violent revolution and human subjugation (slavery) and, "defended" in the war of 1812 against England, later became engulfed in a Civil War that was far worse for own "collective association of people" (i.e., nation) than these two conflicts combined.

We then practiced "manifest destiny", a substitute word for "human genocide", by expanding westward and slaughtering and otherwise, taking land we could not easily purchase, by acts of aggression from whoever was in our way, including but not limited to, various Indian wars, the U.S.-Mexican War, Spanish-American War and War in the Philippines.

We were then forced to protect our ill-gotten gains by sacrificing hundreds of thousands of our citizens lives and significant resources in World Wars 1 & 2 and Korea. As nations formed by aggression habitually do, we soon began our long decline into the historical abyss by committing major military blunders, first in Vietnam and now, Afghanistan and Iraq Two (some would argue also Iraq One).

Populations of poorly educated people, such as the modern U.S. population, are rarely taught and even if so, never learn this historical lesson. Thus, history continues to be an ongoing repeat of aggressive powers of the self-righteous and self-important, rising and inevitably, falling.

In the larger historical picture, a nation (in reality, individual people in collective assent) never gets away with acts of aggression, and/or human rights suppression (in the case of human rights suppression, civil wars and violent revolution are the end result), regardless of how powerful and/or self-righteous they imagine themselves to be. There is probably nothing more true in history than the great historical lesson of "what goes around, eventually comes around".

This same historical reality remains true regardless of whether a person or group of people on up to nations, call themselves Jew, Palestinian, Christian, liberal, conservative, progressive, socialist, American, communist or whatever. Acts of violence, from individual on up to collective national violence and aggression, will always return a personal and collective negative, which is a crystal clear historical lesson, underscored by Jesus (regardless of how many ignorant Christians argue to the contrary): "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword".

It may be argued that a person has a right to defend themselves and collectively, that a nation has a right to defend itself against unwarranted aggression, such as Chief Black Kettle and the Cheyenne at Sand Creek, for example (Luke 22:36), but no individual, group or nation has a right to engage in violence and aggression, whether the perceived cause is animal liberation, democracy, workers rights, progressive socialism or anything else. The United States is digging herself into a huge international hole and the more aggression we engage in, the deeper that hole will become.

CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN LIARS

No author of the New Testament ever advocated taking up arms as far as history knows, including the main four authors; Peter, James, John and Paul. Conservative Christian arguments that wars are necessary because of evil leaders such as Saddam Hussein have no historical validity, as these four and many of their friends were severely persected, imprisoned, tortured and crucified by both the Romans and the Jewish authorities and they never advocated taking up arms to fight back.

It's hard for a government or leader to do any worse than lion-feeding and crucifixion, yet the consistent message from these four is to love our enemies and do good to those who threaten us. Thus there is no justification for modern conservative Christian arguments for war, which of necessity, have to dig deep from the Old Testament because there is no New Testament support. If the angels sang "peace on earth, goodwill towards people" as the Creator's message for Planet Earth, just who are these liars promoting otherwise?

A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER

There is an extremely naive belief, deliberately fostered since the late 18th Century within the general population of the United States, that our own violent revolution was somehow, triumphant. The United States since 1776 has been engaged in war after war after war and throughout our history, large numbers of people have remained both economically and literally, enslaved; our current slaves today are called "illegal immigrants".

Violent revolution historically tends to be "beneficial" (that is, economically and civil rights beneficial), to a select portion of the respective societies. Recent examples other than ours include the Cuban Revolution, which resulted in improved lifestyles for most Cubans but by no means, all Cubans and the Bolshevik Revolution, which resulted in improved lifestyles for millions of Russians, but by no means all of the diverse peoples comprising the former Soviet Union.

There is no historical justification for violent revolution or the so-called "pre-emptive" violence the United States is currently engaged in--there never has been and never will be. Violence breeds more violence, just as surely as love breeds more stability and peace. The logic of Jesus is supported by the evidence of history, whereas the 'logic' of Reagonmics and the conservative right finds no historical justification whatsoever.

Our own history represents enslavement and economic servitude of millions, annihilation and total displacement of millions within American native populations and displacement and mass-migration of working-class populations. Our violent history includes the War of 1812, U.S.-Mexican War, Spanish-American War and resultant war in the Philippines, Civil War (one of the most violent in all of known history based on comparative population statistics of disease, wounded and dead), Spanish/American War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, Iraq One and Two and perhaps soon, Iran.

These major conflicts, along with hundreds of minor battles and skirmishes, remain the ongoing legacy of our own violent past, present and foreseeable future. The historically naive assumption that the U.S. Revolution was somehow, an overall benefit, is weighed in the historical balances and found extremely wanting. There is no end to the violence required to shore up the wealthy elite of our society, who the majority of our so-called "founding fathers" very much, were a part of.

As an historical note, our own revolution was instigated by the wealthy few and fought over a taxation issue of less than 3%, an issue without legitimacy, as King George had every rational historical right to tax the colonists to pay for protection against the French and Indians of our pre-revolutionary war. During our own revolution, a significant percentage of the colonial population succumbed to disease or otherwise, was severely economically displaced, in addition to actual battlefield casualties. The true moral and emotional cost of our violent history can never begin to be measured.

Americans are for the most part, incredibly naive when it comes to our own checkered and rather questionable past. Our nation has no historical or legitimate moral right to point out the shortcomings of other nations, while the great beam of human oppression remains squarely lodged in both our Democratic and Republican eyes. And today the wealthy few, who have historically controlled our political and educational processes as well as our supposed "free" press, continue to make certain that our population's very clear and present danger of moral ignorance remains.

WHERE'S BILL FRIST WHEN WE NEED HIM?

I attended a funeral on September 19th, 2005 for a family who lost their 50-year-old husband. He died from lack of hemophilia medication and there are three children in this family with the same problem--one of them is covered by medical insurance and the other two have been cut from the TennCare roles--they are living on the surviving mother's meager wages and have an $800 mortgage payment. This is the third person I am aware of who has died as a direct result of the cuts. Many more have died who I do know of personally and the number of deaths is expected to grow to many thousands in the coming few months.

A friend of mine who has Lupus and Multiple Sclerosis was an active contributing citizen up until recently, working full time and doing charitable work on the side; though poor and surviving paycheck to paycheck, she was cut from the TennCare rolls. A girl in her twenties who has ALS has had her necessary 12 medications cut back to 5 and has lost her nurse, another friend who is paralyzed and a wheel-chair basketball champion, has lost his breathing and pain medication a woman is losing her seizure medication and without it, is expected to die. They, along with many thousands more, are suffering severely and many of them will die slow and excruciatingly painful deaths without medicine.

More than 325,000 poor and uninsurable Tennesseans had their healthcare arbitrarily cut due to the draconian efforts of Governor Phil Bredesen, one of the most corrupt and ruthless political miscreants in American history. To demonstrate just how ruthless and callous these actions were, the State of Tennessee currently has a surplus of over 300 million dollars and is very much in the black financially. After many demonstrations and large ongoing public outcry, some cut victims have been partially re-instated, though their ability for physician care and to receive quality and sufficient medication has been drastically curtailed.

Several TennCare cut victims say they are planning to commit suicide and many more will become homeless and extremely ill, requiring millions of dollars in hospital and other care before dying, thus these ruthless cuts without conscience will greatly increase the burden to the taxpayers of Tennessee rather than save the state any money and are therefore, beyond all credibility and logic, as well as being grossly immoral and far removed from all common decency. This situation is worse than anything I have ever personally witnessed our own government doing in terms of scope and callous disregard for the lives, suffering and well-being of its own citizens and many educated people here in Tennessee are labeling it "medical genocide".

Tennessee is currently represented in the national senate by Lamar Alexander, who appears to have never heard of the concepts of "compassion", "morality" and "political courage" and Bill Frist, a medical doctor who seemingly has forgotten or never bothered to read the Physicians Oath, in addition to apparently not having even a rudimentary grasp of these other concepts. The modern Physicians Oath specifically states the following: "I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required. . . I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick. . . I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure."

Senator Frist's response to this growing medical genocide in his own state has been that it is not politically proper for him to interfere with the governor. This is the same Bill Frist who thought nothing of challenging both the Florida and the United States Supreme Court over the "right to life" of Florida resident Teri Schiavo, who was later found to have already been brain dead. I find the word "hypocrisy" here far too lenient of a concept when attempting to explain my feelings regarding these two polar opposite responses. On the one Voodoo economic Witch Doctor's hand, we have a purportedly overly-sincere physician decrying the ruthlessness of our government's highest court over one individual, in a state he had no elected political business being involved with and on the other self-contradicting hand, while thousands of people most definitely still alive are experiencing horrible suffering and are expected to die in the state he supposedly represents, Frist has suddenly become the national poster-boy for political politeness.

Make no mistake about it. Bill Frist, as senate Majority Leader, has the political clout to bring this needless suffering of his own constituents to the national forefront and have it debated in Congress and the national media. He can demand that both Congress and the Supreme Court intervene, while at the same time, demand that affordable healthcare be made available for all Americans, either by public or private enterprise means or a combination of both. Even if he had only the minor authority of our politically weak "wag the dog" Senator Alexander, the very least he could do is to try.

According to a local Nashville minister and TennCare cut victim advocate, Senator Hillary Clinton asked for and received, one billion dollars in emergency healthcare funding for the State of New York, Alabama, a state on the opposite side of the political spectrum, received 900 million and other states also have requested and received emergency funding. Meanwhile, though repeatedly petitioned by many of his own constituents to intervene and, even though as Senate Majority Leader Frist has more power than these other state representatives, Senator Frist has repeatedly refused to ask for one nickel. Tennessee paraplegic Don DeVaul was flown to Washington, D.C. at the expense of this same Nashville minister to personally petition Senator Frist. Mr. DeVaul, sitting in his wheelchair, was physically barred from entering Frist's office.

Being an educated medical doctor and a supposed adherent to the Physicians Oath, one would assume that Senator Frist would be up front leading the charge for the "right to life" of his own Tennessee constituents. As history clearly has taught over and over again, if a society does not take care of its sick and poor, mass disease, violent revolution and worse will rise up and consume that society. All of the weapons in our nuclear arsenal and all of our military might will not serve to remove a single hair of this historical reality from our unsuspecting heads. And we the people of Tennessee and the United States of America are all left wondering, "WHERE'S BILL FRIST WHEN WE NEED HIM?"

FACES OF TENNCARE

TENNCARE PROTEST

THE "JOE AMERICA" VOTE

According to a recent CNN report, over half of registered Republicans are unhappy with Congress and it gets worse when Democrats and Independents are included; the approval rating then dropping to 25%, worse than for Bush himself, who currently has a 32-34% overall rating. According to the CNN report, 51% of Americans polled said they prefer that Congress is controlled by the Democrats after the November 2006 elections and only 34% said they wanted the Republicans to maintain control.

I once stated that I didn't think the Democrats had enough political balls to take back Congress, regardless of how corrupt the Republicans, lead by Voodoo Economic Healthcare Witch Doctor Senator Bill Frist, obviously are. I still don't believe they do, but the Democrats might get it handed back anyway, on a golden petroleum platter, by sheer default of the Republicans repeatedly shooting themselves in head (or in the case of Dick Cheney, shooting his friends in the head).

I argue in my free online book Uncommon Sense, that Americans by-and-in-large, do not in reality vote for religion, principle or ethics but rather, they habitually vote based on the immediate condition of their wallet. The Republicans, in spite of the war and their other gross mis-steps, were not doing all that badly as a public opinion whole until the recent surge in gasoline prices. When the money starts coming off the dinner table, then Americans historically can be counted on, to re-act by replacing the perceived culprits, accordingly.

It has been this way ever since I have been analyzing American politics and probably, since the American Revolution. There's nothing like a famine to get the capitalist middle-class to turn against their corrupt masters. Illegal war, torture, no healthcare and all manner of political, social and environmental corruption doesn't seem to really matter much to suburbia Joe America and the conservative Christian cathedral choir. But when dollars start disappearing from their immediate wallets due to high energy and other prices, then the party in control may as well stick their head in the political quicksand (as they habitually have done since the Revolution, anyway).

A similar "Joe America" scenario could be observed under both Presidents Carter and Reagan. In the case of Carter, even though he did well in eventually reigning in OPEC, to this day he has never been given credit for doing so and continues to be blamed for double-digit inflation that was largely, a result of the Vietnam War and clearly, no fault of his own. Carter was one of our better domestic presidents but to this day, he is considered one of our worst by average "Joe America", almost entirely because the average Joe felt the immediate inflationary pinch.

In the case of Reagan, states where the average American was doing poorly, such as Colorado for example, had the entire media and public opinion skewed against him, while in states where the majority of average Americans were doing okay, such as California, Reagan continued to be revered, even among some liberal elements of the middle-class. Ronald Reagan was one of our worst domestic policy presidents, ignoring the homeless, sick and poor, curtailing important social programs including child vaccinations (one of the worst decisions any leader could possibly make) and plunging us into future debt unheard of before Bush Junior. Yet to this day, he continues to be revered for bringing "prosperity" to America, while economically raping Joe America's own children.

In U.S. politics, everything at the bottom line is about the average voter and their immediate economic prosperity. No amount of other political coercion or persuasion, however well merited, seems to matter; especially in regards to long-term issues such as global warming and the gradual curtailment of Social Security and far more importantly, Medicare benefits. One can carry a no healthcare, anti-war, anti-homelessness or peace sign all day long and nobody pays much attention. But let the dollars start falling out of average Joe America's own immediate wallet, and then watch the political dominos begin to fall. If the current trend of increased costs of living for average Joe America continues, more than a few red states are likely to be singing the blues come November...

ATHEISTS AND TRUE SKEPTICS

I found the following quoted paragraph on a website that is an adjunct of the American Atheist Society. This same website has thousands of pages attempting to prove that the Bible is wrong, as if that somehow, proves there is no God:

STATED PARAGRAPH FROM AMERICAN ATHEIST SOCIETY ADJUNCT WEBSITE: "Jesus is quoted many times in the Bible saying that a believer can ask for anything through prayer and receive it. He even goes so far as to say that mountains and trees can be thrown into the sea simply by praying for it. This is clearly a lie, and can be proven to be a lie by any believer. Simply pray for me to be converted to Christianity right away. Or better yet ask God to move the mountains behind my house. He could make a lot of converts that way. If I’m converted today, I’ll post a public apology on my web site and devote my life to kissing God’s ass. If I’m not converted it would only be fair for you to apologize and devote your life to kissing my butt."

However, I could find nowhere to email to respond, either in favor of or against the contents of this quoted paragraph. Whenever I write an article or state an opinion on every website I control, including my two companies, foundation website and blog, I make it very easy for someone to be able to email me in response. In my opinion, columnists, reporters, bloggers, pundits and similar individuals who state opinions and fail to make it EASY for a child or anyone else to respond, are clearly egotists, afraid of someone challenging their pre-conceptions and bias and/or else, "know-it-alls", who vainly imagine that they somehow, know more than the average waitress or truck driver and are not interested in open or honest discussion.

According to the surviving fragments of history we have concerning Jesus, there is no evidence he would not allow a child or anyone else to ask him a question, as he is portrayed as answering the most obnoxious questions of the very obnoxious conservative fundamentalists of his day (very similar to today), as well as chastising his followers for discouraging children from coming near him. How is anyone supposed to respond to this paragraph quoted above if there isn't a clearly posted email? I believe Jesus was a far greater skeptic than the author of the above paragraph ever hoped to be.

I do not believe he or she is a true skeptic. I corresponded in the past with the late Steve Allen, a founding member of the Skeptics Society. He was perhaps close to being a true skeptic. I have corresponded with the current president of the Skeptics Society and like the author of the above quoted paragraph, I do not believe he is very skeptical. His writings come from an obvious bias and the pre-conceived assumptions that a) there is no God; b) modern science can be trusted, in spite of the nuclear and bio-weaponry downside, not to mention the scientific fallout of global pollution; c) Because there is evil in the world, this is proof there is no God; and d) If I can prove something in the Bible to be wrong, then there is no God. What kind of skepticism is that?

Why does the author of the above quoted paragraph spend so much time trying to prove the Bible is wrong? How does this prove or disprove there is no God? How do the actions of Jews or Christians prove or disprove there is no God? Wouldn't he or she's time be far better spent trying to help the homeless? Why is proving the Bible to be wrong so much more important to the American Athiests Society than helping the sick and poor, as Jesus taught us to do?

A true skeptic would never say there is no God, as any true skeptic knows that no one can possible prove there is no God. Stating there is no God is what a true skeptic, such as Socrates, would call a blind assumption. Claiming there is no God because there is evil is assuming that God is good and/or, assuming there is no evil force separate from a good God and is again, a blind assumption. Claiming there is no God because Jesus supposedly lied is assuming that if Jesus is not God, then there is no God, which is a blind assumption. Claiming there is no God because the Bible is supposedly wrong is assuming the same position as a conservative fundamentalist; blind assumption with no proof to back up the blind assumption that the Bible somehow correlates to the true God. Claiming there is no God because there is murder, rape war and rumor of war is stating by blind default, that we have no conception of what "free choice" means.

I don't believe either the author of the above quoted paragrah or members of the American Atheist Society are true skeptics or remotely honest. Just as a microscopic worm inside the intestines of a goldfish cannot prove there is no mother who instructs her child to feed the goldfish, upon whom the microscopic worm depends for life, even far less, no one living inside the multi-dimensional and multi-universal fishbowl, on a microscopic grain of cosmic dust we call Planet Earth, can prove there is no God. If we cannot prove there is no God and we continue to state that there is not a God, then we become by default, what Jesus called conservative fundamentalists: "fools", "liars" and "blind learders of the blind."

If we say, "I don't know if there is a God" or, "Let us start with a logical question, is there a God or could there be a God?", then perhaps we are being somewhat honest. However, if we say there is no God, then we clearly become by logical default, a blind follower of the blinder. It would appear that atheists and conservative fundamentalists are truly, strange bedfellows indeed.

RESPONSE TO QUOTED PARAGRAPH ABOVE: The author of this quotation clearly contradicts his own logic, by assuming "This is clearly a lie, and can be proven to be a lie by any believer... ask God to move the mountains behind my house. He could make a lot of converts that way." Since the author admits he is not a believer, than he is admitting that he cannot prove that this statement by Jesus is a lie. According to Jesus, moving mountains does not work unless one has the faith it can be done. Because someone else other than this author who claims to be a believer cannot move a mountain does not prove that a mountain cannot be moved if one has enough faith. Since this author does not believe, according to his own statement, then as Jesus stated elsewhere, the mountain remains and the author, by default, remains a liar; he has called Jesus a liar, for which he has no proof and no ability to prove, one way or the other.

Like conservative fundamentalists, American atheists have a bad habit of, "cherry picking" quotations by Jesus and various authors of the Bible out of context and, like Christian conservatives, they very unfairly mis-represent everything Jesus ever stood for, said or did. As far as I understand, whether or not a literal mountain ever moves was and remains, unimportant to Jesus in the greater and far more important context of removing the American mountains of poverty and oppression from sea to once shining sea. And like the other "common people and sinners" who Jesus claimed to love, I don't respect anyone who deliberately lies to me, whether they be a conservative Christian or a liberal atheist.

IRAN, NEXT TARGET AMONG MANY

by Richard Aberdeen 4/17/2006

In my free online book, Uncommon Sense, published in August of 2003, I wrote that the Bush Administration's invasion of Afghanistan prior to Iraq was just a warm-up and that the real objective of this administration is to dominate and control the Middle East, nation by nation. The reason has everything to do with oil, natural gas and other economic resources and absolutely nothing to do with patriotism, protecting America or establishing democracy. The idea of establishing democracy in Iraq was not even originally on the table and was only hastily invented later after other reasons, such as phantom WMDs, were shown to be fraudulent.

The perverse objectives of Bush and Company have long been obvious. Either the American mainstream media is incredibly stupid or incredibly corrupt or both. The objective of the neo-cons is to control as large a percentage of as many global economic resources as possible; oil is one of several resource objectives, which also include natural gas, timber, water and manufactured commodities and even worse, human resources.

There are at least four primary methods that those of wealth, who have long controlled the government of the United States, are currently using in their quest to dominate planetary resources, including human beings. One way is by engaging in direct conflict, such as the example of Iraq. A second method is puppet-diplomacy, such as putting up with and propping up our so-called "allies" in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and other nations (Syria remains a red-herring that could go either way).

A third way is by toppling governments using the CIA "banana-republic" method, which generally includes initiating a propaganda campaign and stirring up rebels and the general population against an established government, helping the rebels topple the established power and then setting up a puppet regime in its place; the United States has been engaged in this sort of terrorist "regime change", often as not in the name of democracy, since the Eisenhower Administration. The CIA is currently instigating insurrection in Venezuela, which not so coincidentally happens to possess a large amount of oil resources. The fourth way is by global corporate domination. To accomplish this, neo-cons, since even prior to the Reagan Administration, have fought to relax as much government regulation as possible, thereby consolidating wealth in the hands of ever fewer individuals and ever larger, global corporate conglomerates.

It appears that the neo-cons originally imagined taking over the Middle East would be pretty-much a "cake-walk" compared to what they have belatedly discovered to be extremely difficult in Iraq. If they had succeeded in quickly pacifying Iraq, there would have been no small end to other nations they would engage in war, step by step, domino by domino (precisely what the U.S. at one time accused the Soviets of being up to). This has clearly been the very obvious plan of George Bush and Company from the beginning. The true real threat to the United States, even since before Bush came to power, has been North Korea. The fact this administration has done nothing militarily regarding North Korea speaks volumes about true neo-con intentions, which have nothing to do with protecting America and everything to do with control of major resources.

Another clear example of true intentions, crying out to be exposed by America's ever myopic media, is the fact the Bush Administration has done less than zero to curtail the spiraling price of oil. Any even half-way effective leader would have long ago threatened major sanctions, including perhaps physical attack, against OPEC nations, as President Carter once did and succeeded in bringing a global oil crises under control (even though the success of his policies were not clearly evident until after he left office and have long not been properly credited to him).

There are many other "minor" draconian methods being used to achieve the ultimate neo-con "New World Order" objective of global economic domination, including the gradual curtailing of human and civil rights, both in America and in various other nations, including England and more obvious recently, France. An American working-class individual who believes that George Bush and Company are on their side is an individual who is truly mis-informed and naive beyond all historical delusion.

Conservative religionists who portray this administration as one of "family values" and "moral righteousness" are absolute liars of the worst kind, whose moral malfeasance reaches beyond anything the original Pharisees and Sadducees of Biblical times every hoped to achieve. Even the charades of Karl Rove pale in comparison to the twisted anti-human rights wickedness proclaimed from hypocrite bully-pulpits of America's conservative religious entirely wrong. The fact that George Bush claims to be "one of them" is not likely a coincidence.

OF DaVINCI, JUDAS, GOSPELS AND JESUS

by Richard Aberdeen -- 04/08/2006

In addition to Evangelicalism, Protestantism, Catholicism and various and sundry other isims and schisms, there have been many additional strange "movements" and "cults" over the years associated the story and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Not the least of which is the historically recent Joseph Smith/Mormon fiasco, which reeks of racism, legalism and cultism. And none of which remotely reflect the historical Jesus as depicted in the four New Testament "gospels".

Over time there has evolved a rather large cult following of the Gospel of Thomas which, like the Gospel of Judas currently in the media eye-of-the-moment, contains severe contradictions between it and the familiar four--far too severe to be dismissed as merely different authors with varying recollections. Unlike the familiar four, the Gospels of Thomas and Judas and the Book of Mormon contain major teachings and ideas either attributed to Jesus or that otherwise, directly contradict teachings and ideas of Jesus found in the familiar four. They also fail to emphasize the importance of human rights and loving our neighbor as ourselves, which is central to everything Jesus ever said or did, as attributed to him in the more familiar four narratives.

Either the familiar four gospels are inherently fraudulent or these other three works noted here are historical inventions--it cannot be had both ways because of major discrepancies between them. Since contradictions within the familiar four among themselves are minor-to-nonexistent, depending on one's interpretation, it makes rational sense from an unbiased historical view, to trust the familiar four and reject the Gospels of Thomas and Judas, the book of Mormon, and several others as fraudulent inventions of 2nd-3rd Century and later monks and other ne'er-do-wells (the book of Mormon, of course, being a much more recent invention than these other two noted here).

The familiar four gospels represent four different perspectives of a coherent and consistent portrait of an extremely advanced, accurate and correct, from historical human rights perspective, individual named Jesus. Unlike some rather biased and self-serving Biblical "scholars" and historians have often claimed, different events depicted somewhat differently with different phrasings of teachings and portions of various events included or otherwise, omitted within the familiar four, does not indicate historical invention, but rather, it indicates the familiar four are genuine, howbeit somewhat different, perspectives of actual events as related by four or more different individuals several years after those events took place.

For example, if in the modern era, four different people were to have hung around Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. or Cesar Chavez for 2-3 years and then later, went back and honestly attempted to write down what they had witnessed, it is entirely logical that there could be four honest, yet dissimilar perspectives published, perhaps similar in nature to what we now know as the four gospels. Quite obviously, each of the four would see and hear and recall certain events, teachings and phrases somewhat differently within their context--these types of so-called "contradictions" and "inconsistencies" tend to authenticate rather than deny, the accuracy of the familiar four gospels.

On the other hand, inconsistencies and contradictions between the familiar four gospels and those of the Gospels of Thomas, Judas, the book of Mormon and some others, are significant in nature, many outright contradicting fundamental teachings of Jesus attributed to him in the familiar four. Thus, they cannot historically be rationally viewed as anything other than fraudulent inventions by those having their own purposes outside of what rationally can be considered, fair and accurate history.

As historian and agnostic Will Durant stated and as atheist Isaac Asimov echoed, it is historically irrational to believe in Alexander, Julius Cesar and much of the so-called "history" of human civilization if one does not likewise, believe in the existence of Jesus. Whether or not later individuals invent ridiculous religions or cults concerning him does not in any way, reflect the historical significance of Jesus, nor the universal clarity of his extremely advanced human rights vision.

Due to length, we shall remain largely silent regarding one Leonardo DaVinci, who no doubt along with the true historical Jesus, would utterly scorn recent books and motion pictures containing their famous names for obvious crass commercial profit, not to mention the enhancement of the already way-to-deep pockets of Evangelical, Protestant and Catholic churches, television evangelists, Christian musicalists and cathedral design and construction, stain glass and various and sundry other crooked industries. Perhaps better for us all if Mel Gibson had stuck to making motion pictures about his violent Scottish heritage and Ron Howard had remained, Opie.

HOMELESS IN AMERICA

HOMELESS (Free Song)

MUDDY CHANNEL RADIO (Free Song)

SLOW TRAIN (Free Song)

WILLIE'S SONG (Free Song)

MORE FREE
SONGS

HOMELESS IN AMERICA
Twenty-One Songs of Social
Conscience for the 21st Century
Charity CD Collection Information

HOMELESS Statistics

Fundraiser Offer

U.S. STEAL T-Shirts & Bumper Stickers

Free Online Books of Social Conscience

The Aberdeen Foundation