This blog is dedicated to the destruction of this thing humans call God. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” Epicurus
Sunday, September 4, 2016
Thursday, August 4, 2016
God Creates Evil Regardless of Human Free Will
"I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD do all these things."
(Isaiah 45:7) Isaiah 45:7 affirms that God creates darkness and disaster. It is not a creation of mankind, nor of fallen beings or Satan. The Hebrew word here that is translated as "disaster" could also mean "wickedness", "hurt", "affliction" or "adversity". God creates these things directly. Any argument that asserts that evil is a result of Human free will must first get over the fact that the Christian Bible states that God creates evil and disaster itself. Not only does this God create darkness and disaster, but it actively "does" them too. For example in Job 42:11 God is described as doing evil to Job as part of its test of Job even though Job is described as holy and blameless. In other words, the evil done by God on Job was not the result of Job's free will. Also, his children and animals are all slaughtered too, as collateral damage1. God doesn't merely create evil and suffering as possibilities, it actively chooses to do them itself. Psalm 104:27-30 notes that God sometimes makes animals happy and sometimes "terrifies them" as part of the daily rhythm of life as described in general by Psalm 104, although the King James Version nicely tones this down to "troubles" them.
The Book of Lamentations confirms that free will cannot stop evil, when evil comes from God, nor can man stop goodness, when goodness comes from God: Who is he that can speak, and it happens, when the Lord command it not?37 Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not both evil and good?38 Lamentations 3:37-38
(Isaiah 45:7) Isaiah 45:7 affirms that God creates darkness and disaster. It is not a creation of mankind, nor of fallen beings or Satan. The Hebrew word here that is translated as "disaster" could also mean "wickedness", "hurt", "affliction" or "adversity". God creates these things directly. Any argument that asserts that evil is a result of Human free will must first get over the fact that the Christian Bible states that God creates evil and disaster itself. Not only does this God create darkness and disaster, but it actively "does" them too. For example in Job 42:11 God is described as doing evil to Job as part of its test of Job even though Job is described as holy and blameless. In other words, the evil done by God on Job was not the result of Job's free will. Also, his children and animals are all slaughtered too, as collateral damage1. God doesn't merely create evil and suffering as possibilities, it actively chooses to do them itself. Psalm 104:27-30 notes that God sometimes makes animals happy and sometimes "terrifies them" as part of the daily rhythm of life as described in general by Psalm 104, although the King James Version nicely tones this down to "troubles" them.
The Book of Lamentations confirms that free will cannot stop evil, when evil comes from God, nor can man stop goodness, when goodness comes from God: Who is he that can speak, and it happens, when the Lord command it not?37 Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not both evil and good?38 Lamentations 3:37-38
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
God Loves Lies and Liars
Black Lives Matters is a terrorist organization that is spread the false narrative that cops are unlawfully killing Blacks when the truth it cops kill 3 times as many White people. Given the fact that African American commit more than 1/2 of the crime yet are only 12% of the population. Since Blacks have more encounters with the cops than Whites then one would expect the numbers of Blacks killed by cops would be the same as the number of Whites killed by cops.
Watch this video!
Watch this video!
Slave Owners, The Original 1% and Tiny Homes
House for the Plantation Slave |
Home For The Wage Slave |
Monday, August 1, 2016
Doctors Playing God
There are a lot of famous scumbag doctors. Most recently Dr Oz was outed as a fraud and so was Dr Drew Pinsky but two other godlike scumbag are the late Dr Robert Atkins and Dr Arthur Agaton's South Beach diet.
Doctors in the US are God's agents of human suffering. The scumbags at the criminal Mayo Clinic are recommending the South Beach diet. American doctors love to make people fat and sickly CHA CHING! I shit you not. The Mayo Clinic is actually promoting this nightmare diet.
The Risks of High-Protein-High-Fat, Low-Carb Diets
High cholesterol. Some protein sources -- like fatty cuts of meat, whole dairy products, and other high-fat foods -- can raise cholesterol, increasing your chance of heart disease. However, studies showed that people on the Atkins diet for up to 2 years actually had decreased “bad” cholesterol levels.
Kidney problems. If you have any kidney problems, eating too much protein puts added strain on your kidneys. This could worsen kidney function.
Osteoporosis and kidney stones. When you're on a high-protein diet, you may urinate more calcium than normal. There are conflicting reports, but some experts think this could make osteoporosis and kidney stones more likely.
Gallbladder Disease. High fat diets play a large part in the formation of gallstones
Food that is high in cholesterol includes meat pies, sausages, fatty cuts of meat, butter, lard, cakes and biscuits.
Avoiding high cholesterol food may be recommended to help reduce the risk of gallstones.
The NHS recommends a low-fat, high- fibre diet rich in fresh fruit, vegetables and wholegrains as part of gallstone prevention
Atkins Diet Causes Diabetic Ketoacidosis in Diabetes Mellitus Sufferers
Diabetic Ketoacidosis (DKA) is a potentially life-threatening complication for those with diabetes mellitus, and if you’re thinking of trying the Atkins diet, you may encounter this complication.
Saturday, July 16, 2016
The Harvoni Scam and The Harvoni Alternative
It goes without saying, American MDs and their filthy industry are very much like the Bible God. God creates illnesses and the American medical industry exploits the human suffering and following God's example the medical industry is causing even more human suffering. God created Hepatitis C and for years the medical industry had nothing even close to a cure and then scientists discovered interferon. It took a long time for the filthy godlike medical industry to start offering interferon as a treatment and a cure. Interferon had a cure rate of 5% and when combined with other medications the cure rate was 50%.
Enter Harvoni at $1125 a pill or $94,000 for a 12 week course of treatment and here's the thing that will make you blood boil. All Havoni is is a combination of two existing drugs ledipasvir and sosfbuvir.
New research shows an antihistamine used for decades for allergies could be effective in treating hepatitis C.
A simple antihistamine approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 70 years ago may be an effective and affordable way to treat hepatitis C, new research shows.
Published today in the journal Science Translational Medicine, researchers from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reported chlorcyclizine prevented hepatitis C infection in a petri dish and in humanized mice. They said it was effective and did not produce any significant cell toxicity when given along with existing drugs to treat hepatitis C.
But in stark contrast to existing hepatitis C drugs, which can cost $1,000 per pill, chlorcyclizine costs 50 cents per dose. The discovery could be a significant breakthrough in efforts to bring hepatitis C treatment to marginalized people around the world.
The antihistamine had a synergistic effect with FDA-approved hepatitis C drugs such as ribavirin, interferon, telaprevir, boceprevir, sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), daclatasvir, and cyclosporin A.
Many people with hepatitis C are having trouble accessing the latest generation of drugs. Sovaldi costs about $1,000 per pill but can cure the disease in 12 weeks. Many insurance companies won’t pay for the medication until a patient develops cirrhosis, or liver scarring.
A brief guide to Big Pharma - The Week
Scientists have discovered that a cheap hay fever medicine, about only fifty cents per pill, can be an effective treatment for hepatitis C virus infection, a severe liver disease that has generated drugs costing $1,000 per dosage.
This medicine known as antihistamine chlorcyclizine HCL (CCZ) has been approved and available since 1940s. National Institutes of Health (NIH) researchers have established that repurposed chlorcyclizine and other related compounds can cure hepatitis C through early stage blocking of the virus, preventing liver cells infection.
Utilizing cell-based high-throughput screen, scientists have been able to identify that antihistamine can be a potent inhibitor of hepatitis C virus. This method has also been used to examine thousands of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved drugs for their efficiency against bacterial and viral infections.
Dr. T. Jake Liang, head of Liver Diseases Department at NIH, noted that hepatitis C virus "continues to infect new cells as the infection goes on. So, our thought is, if we can prevent or destruct that reinfection process, the infected cells will die eventually, so you would not have any more infected cells."
The hepatitis C virus has been spreading through contaminated blood products and sexual contact. This infection can also lead to cirrhosis or liver hardening, liver failure and cancer.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 3.2 million Americans have been living with chronic hepatitis C.
- See more at: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/45095/20150409/forget-1-000-a-dose-hepatitis-c-drug-this-cheap-allergy-medicine-might-be-as-effective.htm#sthash.UKrrsi4z.dpuf
Thursday, July 7, 2016
Friday, June 17, 2016
Why Blacks Should Also Hate Muslims
The US went to war with Iraq because Saddam Hussien invaded Iraq and the way it was sold to the American morons was under the guise of Iraqi aggression and its invasion of Kuwait. What the spin doctors of the corporate criminal elite did not tell you was that Kuwait was and is a slave owning principality. It is becoming clearer to even the dumbest Americans that when the US starts stirring up shit in the Middle East it is for two main reasons; stealing oil wealth and war profiteering. As bad as Saddam Hussien may have been he did not condone slavery. Islam does condone slavery, pedophilia, polygamy and misogyny.
African Women Sold Into Slavery In Kuwait As Domestic Workers ...
African Women Sold Into Slavery In Kuwait As Domestic Workers ...
Slavery is not a relic from the past. News stories surface consistently of people being sold into slavery by family members or vigilantes. The latest report of modern day slavery comes from the Guardian, who is reporting that African women from Sierra Leone, Cameroon, Kenya and Ethiopia are all saying that they were duped into being part of a modern day slavery ring after being promised lucrative nursing and hotel jobs in other countries.
One of the countries most of these women wound up is Kuwait, where almost 90 percent of households employee at least one foreign maid. The ratio of one domestic worker to every two Kuwaiti citizens is the highest ratio of domestic workers to citizens in the Middle East. The women report that they paid recruitment agents around $1,500 to secure jobs hat they were told were in nursing or in the hotel industry. Upon their arrival to the new country, the women learned that the work was in reality as a domestic worker and that they would be expected to work up to 22 hours a day.
READ MORE ABOUT KUWAIT'S AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE
READ MORE ABOUT KUWAIT'S AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Proof: Most Muslims Support Terrorism
It is wishful thinking and naivety at best and dangerous at worst to think that most Muslims are not a serious potential threat. It's not "just a few bad apples", it's the majority of the bunch and to deny that reality is beyond Polyana. The notion, "there is good in everyone: is a foolish cliche.
The idea that criticism of Islam is comparable to homophobia, racial bigotry, misogyny, misandry, is offensive. Unlike the afore mentioned categories, Islam is a choice. What one choose to believe is a choice. Pretty simple huh. What Muslims choose to believe and the behaviors that result in those beliefs is what makes them to some people's way of thinking, dangerous and undesirable.
What Muslims generally believe is not much of a subject for debate. They believe the teaching of Mohammad as per the Koran and they believe in Sharia law as per the Haddith. Most people of every other political stripe and religious belief and non-religious belief find a good share of the teaching of Mohammad and Sharia in conflict with humanity.
Muslims want protections against any criticism of Islam. No religion deserves protection or rights. Protection and rights are for people and in some cases animals. Laws are for protecting people not the ideas of people. Islam is at best and idea and IMO a horrible idea. If a Muslim does not like me criticizing Islam he is welcome to present an opposing view but if he tries to stifle my expression or threatens violence I'll go 1776 on him. Americans fight, kill and die for freedom.
Terrorism and What Muslims Think About it
ICM Poll: 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... in-UK.html
NOP Research: 1 in 4 British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/ ... 2011-04-06
http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY
People-Press: 31% of Turks support suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq.
http://people-press.org/report/206/a-ye ... r-iraq-war
YNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children:
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/ ... fanticide/
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 51,00.html
World Public Opinion: 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans
32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans
41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans
38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans
83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose)
62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose)
42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose)
A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on Americans:
(Egypt 34%; Indonesia 45%; Pakistan 33%)
About half of those opposed to attacking Americans were sympathetic with al-Qaeda’s attitude toward the U.S.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/ ... 09_rpt.pdf
Pew Research (2010): 55% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hezbollah
30% of Egyptians have a positive view of Hezbollah
45% of Nigerian Muslims have a positive view of Hezbollah (26% negative)
43% of Indonesians have a positive view of Hezbollah (30% negative)
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims ... hezbollah/
Pew Research (2010): 60% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hamas (34% negative).
49% of Egyptians have a positive view of Hamas (48% negative)
49% of Nigerian Muslims have a positive view of Hamas (25% negative)
39% of Indonesians have a positive view of Hamas (33% negative)
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims ... hezbollah/
Pew Research (2010): 15% of Indonesians believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified.
34% of Nigerian Muslims believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified.
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims ... hezbollah/
16% of young Muslims in Belgium state terrorism is "acceptable".
http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/1275/Islam/art ... baar.dhtml
Populus Poll (2006): 12% of young Muslims in Britain (and 12% overall) believe that suicide attacks against civilians in Britain can be justified. 1 in 4 support suicide attacks against British troops.
http://www.populuslimited.com/pdf/2006_02_07_times.pdf
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07 ... h-islamist
Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall).
29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall).
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/musli ... df#page=60
Pew Research (2011): 8% of Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified (81% never).
28% of Egyptian Muslims believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified (38% never).
http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/ ... extremism/
Pew Research (2007): Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/musli ... df#page=60
ICM: 5% of Muslims in Britain tell pollsters they would not report a planned Islamic terror attack to authorities.
27% do not support the deportation of Islamic extremists preaching violence and hate.
http://www.scotsman.com/?id=1956912005
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07 ... amist.html
Federation of Student Islamic Societies: About 1 in 5 Muslim students in Britain (18%) would not report a fellow Muslim planning a terror attack.
http://www.fosis.org.uk/sac/FullReport.pdf
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07 ... h-islamist
ICM Poll: 25% of British Muslims disagree that a Muslim has an obligation to report terrorists to police.
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/20 ... 0Nov04.asp
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07 ... h-islamist
Populus Poll (2006): 16% of British Muslims believe suicide attacks against Israelis are justified.
37% believe Jews in Britain are a "legitimate target".
http://www.populuslimited.com/pdf/2006_02_07_times.pdf
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07 ... h-islamist
Pew Research (2013): At least 1 in 4 Muslims do not reject violence against civilians (study did not distinguish between those who believe it is partially justified and never justified).
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/T ... report.pdf
Pew Research (2013): 15% of Muslims in Turkey support suicide bombings (also 11% in Kosovo, 26% in Malaysia and 26% in Bangladesh).
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/T ... report.pdf
PCPO (2014): 89% of Palestinians support Hamas and other terrorists firing rockets at Israeli civilians.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/poll- ... on-israely
Pew Research (2013): Only 57% of Muslims worldwide disapprove of al-Qaeda. Only 51% disapprove of the Taliban. 13% support both groups and 1 in 4 refuse to say.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/mus ... st-groups/
BBC Radio (2015): 45% of British Muslims agree that clerics preaching violence against the West represent "mainstream Islam".
http://comres.co.uk/polls/bbc-radio-4-t ... slim-poll/
Palestinian Center for Political Research (2015): 74% of Palestinians support Hamas terror attacks.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/193395
Pew Research (2014): 47% of Bangladeshi Muslims says suicide bombings and violence are justified to "defend Islam". 1 in 4 believed the same in Tanzania and Egypt. 1 in 5 Muslims in the 'moderate' countries of Turkey and Malaysia.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/con ... ddle-east/
The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 19% of Muslim-Americans say that violence is justified in order to make Sharia the law in the United States (66% disagree).
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/ ... l-Data.pdf
The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 25% of Muslim-Americans say that violence against Americans in the United States is justified as part of the "global Jihad (64% disagree).
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/ ... g-Company-
Nationwide-Online-Survey-of-Muslims-Topline-Poll-Data.pdf
The Sun (2015: Following Nov. 2015 attacks in Paris, 1 in 4 young Muslims in Britain (and 1 in 5 overall) said they sympathize with those who fight for ISIS.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... -poll.html
See also: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_(Terrorism ) for further statistics on Islamic terror.
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Prove There Isn't a God
Prove there isn't a God is what believers tell non believers to which the non believer says, you can't prove a negative and the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The non believer is correct on both counts. That said I can prove that at least one God is a liar.
There is a debate among Christians regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ. This is for the ones who think that Jesus is/was God.
Sometimes Jesus would speak in parables but here he didn't when he said: And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14) Whether Jesus actually said that is a whole other thread and whether he actually existed is another topic as well.
It crystal clear that when Jesus supposedly said, " And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it." in John 14:13-14 he was speaking literally so let's put that to the test.
Whatever Jesus? OK Jesus I want something BIG BIG BIG since you are promising to do whatever I ask with no caveats. Here is what I want. Right now cure all the sick and give everyone immortal pain free lives like you did for the angels. They didn't have to earn it did they Jesus? You have no excuses Jesus so don't try and weasel out of this. Keep your word Jesus and DO IT!
As you all can see, Jesus did NOT keep his word. People are still suffering and dying as you read this. What Jesus is said to have said, simply is not true s they only thing left to debate is whether Jesus actually said it and if he did not say then the Bible is unreliable at best. I mean, wouldn't God's "word" be error free.
I have proven that the God described in the Bible either doesn't exist or is a liar. You decide which. I cannot prove that God doesn't exist but I have proven that the God of Abraham is maybe a myth and if not a myth definitely a liar.
Knowing what you know now are you still going to worship this "god". Are you still going to trust the Bible?
Related: Jesus Lied A Lot
There is a debate among Christians regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ. This is for the ones who think that Jesus is/was God.
Sometimes Jesus would speak in parables but here he didn't when he said: And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14) Whether Jesus actually said that is a whole other thread and whether he actually existed is another topic as well.
It crystal clear that when Jesus supposedly said, " And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it." in John 14:13-14 he was speaking literally so let's put that to the test.
Whatever Jesus? OK Jesus I want something BIG BIG BIG since you are promising to do whatever I ask with no caveats. Here is what I want. Right now cure all the sick and give everyone immortal pain free lives like you did for the angels. They didn't have to earn it did they Jesus? You have no excuses Jesus so don't try and weasel out of this. Keep your word Jesus and DO IT!
As you all can see, Jesus did NOT keep his word. People are still suffering and dying as you read this. What Jesus is said to have said, simply is not true s they only thing left to debate is whether Jesus actually said it and if he did not say then the Bible is unreliable at best. I mean, wouldn't God's "word" be error free.
I have proven that the God described in the Bible either doesn't exist or is a liar. You decide which. I cannot prove that God doesn't exist but I have proven that the God of Abraham is maybe a myth and if not a myth definitely a liar.
Knowing what you know now are you still going to worship this "god". Are you still going to trust the Bible?
Related: Jesus Lied A Lot
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
The Real Reason Lucifer Rebelled
FACT: Word has it that the next most powerful being next to God is Lucifer.
FACT: God is said to have created Lucifer.
FACT: Lucifer was God's favorite angel.
FACT: God is said to be all knowing.
FACT: As the story goes, Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels rebelled against God and a big war in heaven broke out.
The all knowing God had to have seen this rebellion coming. God caused the war in heaven.
FACT: As the story goes, Lucifer's motivation for rebelling was brought on by God ordering him to bow to Adam.
This doesn't make sense. Didn't the all knowing God know that Lucifer was a megalomaniac like him? God should have known that this would have rubbed Lucifer who by the way, Lucifer was God's favorite angel, the wrong way?
Perhaps Lucifer rebelled for honorable reasons? Let's look at the facts. Lucifer is nearly as intelligent and as powerful as God his creator. Was Lucifer's ego greater than his intellect? Not likely but pride, jealousy and ego are the reasons given for Lucifer's tiff with God but this makes no sense. What did Lucifer have to envy? Adam was mortal and he and Eve were thought slaves to God. They were nothing more than God's pets to torture and confound. God knew that and so did Lucifer, after all Lucifer is the next closest thing to God.
Perhaps knowing the plight of humankind and knowing all the suffering humans would endure Lucifer said, "Enough is enough!" and decided to do something about it. Perhaps Lucifer was an animal lover and saw a future of animals suffering and dying in God's system of predator and prey and kill or be killed model? Animals did nothing wrong yet God saw fit to give them the same biting maladies that he had planned to inflict upon humans for being "tricked" by a talking snake? If you think about it logically it pretty much looks like Lucifer and his angels are not only good guys but are heroic figures. They were outnumbered and outgunned yet they fought the good fight. This is a bit like soldiers from the Northern states sacrificing their lives to free people that they didn't even know and by the way, the slave owner used the Bible to justify slavery and all its cruelty and injustice. Lucifer and his legions were even more courageous than the Union soldiers because they had their immortality to lose and their chances of victory were slim and none.
As the story goes, humans will be tortured in hell or destroyed for not believing in Jesus, yet Lucifer and 1/3 of all the angels set out to kill God, and Lucifer and his angels were assigned the task of punishing the wicked and non believers in hell for all eternity. As the story goes God loves his children; but clearly he plays favorites. He gave all his angels blissful lives unearned while setting the bar unreasonably high for his other children and punishes ALL all of them for a mistake by two people, Adam and Eve and BTW, Eve was framed.
Maybe, just maybe, Lucifer is the good guy. Sounds like it to me.👿
FACT: God is said to have created Lucifer.
FACT: Lucifer was God's favorite angel.
FACT: God is said to be all knowing.
FACT: As the story goes, Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels rebelled against God and a big war in heaven broke out.
The all knowing God had to have seen this rebellion coming. God caused the war in heaven.
FACT: As the story goes, Lucifer's motivation for rebelling was brought on by God ordering him to bow to Adam.
This doesn't make sense. Didn't the all knowing God know that Lucifer was a megalomaniac like him? God should have known that this would have rubbed Lucifer who by the way, Lucifer was God's favorite angel, the wrong way?
Perhaps Lucifer rebelled for honorable reasons? Let's look at the facts. Lucifer is nearly as intelligent and as powerful as God his creator. Was Lucifer's ego greater than his intellect? Not likely but pride, jealousy and ego are the reasons given for Lucifer's tiff with God but this makes no sense. What did Lucifer have to envy? Adam was mortal and he and Eve were thought slaves to God. They were nothing more than God's pets to torture and confound. God knew that and so did Lucifer, after all Lucifer is the next closest thing to God.
Perhaps knowing the plight of humankind and knowing all the suffering humans would endure Lucifer said, "Enough is enough!" and decided to do something about it. Perhaps Lucifer was an animal lover and saw a future of animals suffering and dying in God's system of predator and prey and kill or be killed model? Animals did nothing wrong yet God saw fit to give them the same biting maladies that he had planned to inflict upon humans for being "tricked" by a talking snake? If you think about it logically it pretty much looks like Lucifer and his angels are not only good guys but are heroic figures. They were outnumbered and outgunned yet they fought the good fight. This is a bit like soldiers from the Northern states sacrificing their lives to free people that they didn't even know and by the way, the slave owner used the Bible to justify slavery and all its cruelty and injustice. Lucifer and his legions were even more courageous than the Union soldiers because they had their immortality to lose and their chances of victory were slim and none.
As the story goes, humans will be tortured in hell or destroyed for not believing in Jesus, yet Lucifer and 1/3 of all the angels set out to kill God, and Lucifer and his angels were assigned the task of punishing the wicked and non believers in hell for all eternity. As the story goes God loves his children; but clearly he plays favorites. He gave all his angels blissful lives unearned while setting the bar unreasonably high for his other children and punishes ALL all of them for a mistake by two people, Adam and Eve and BTW, Eve was framed.
Maybe, just maybe, Lucifer is the good guy. Sounds like it to me.👿
Monday, May 9, 2016
God Loves Doctors and Big Pharma
God loves it when people suffer. That is one way he gets people to pray for him. He tortures them with all sorts of cruel maladies. God has help and his helpers are members of the medical industry. A lot of people think that the letters MD mean Medical Doctor. Physicians believe that MD means Me Deity because they believe that they are God but in fact they are God's little helpers.
Doctors Earn $3.5 Billion in Kickbacks from Pharmaceutical Companies - See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/doctors-earn-3-5-billion-in-kickbacks-from-pharmaceutical-companies/#sthash.7rEA5vvO.dpuf
AND... what does it say on American currency? There you have it!
Doctors Earn $3.5 Billion in Kickbacks from Pharmaceutical Companies - See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/doctors-earn-3-5-billion-in-kickbacks-from-pharmaceutical-companies/#sthash.7rEA5vvO.dpuf
AND... what does it say on American currency? There you have it!
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Prince Dead
The singer songwriter, musician, actor and rock star Prince is dead at age 57. At this point the cause of death is unknown but has been reported Prince was suffering from the flu. In America people rarely die of the flu. The following is speculation.
Usually what a rich celebrity dies there are usually doctors and their poisons involved. Doctors killed, Anna Nicole Smith, Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson, Joan Rivers, Heath Ledger ect... I suspect that Prince was killed in part by a drug called Tamiflu.
Prince's doctor prescribed oxycodone under friend's name days before ...
Tamiflu is given to people who have flu symptoms and it's effectiveness is questionable. Tamiflu is a very very expensive and dangerous drug which should never have been approved by the FDA. Don't just take my word for it. Here is what patients with no ax to grind are saying about Tamiflu.
List of celebrities killed by pharmaceutical drugs.
UPDATE: The semi official word is, Prince took an overdose of the pain drug Percocet. It looks like the media is going to try to portray Prince as a junkie. I doubt if he was a junkie but what I do know is that Prince was a victim of failed hip surgery in 2010 and that is why he was prescribed Percocet. Percocet is the brand name of the drug Oxycodone. Oxycodone is a combination of Oxycodone Hyrdrochloride and Tylenol. The Tylenol may have been what killed him. First off, Tylenol does nothing to reduce pain but is will destroy your liver. Chances are Prince's liver was compromised and therefore unable to process the Percocet.
Doctors failed Prince. They fucked up his surgery and they fucked up his pain management. This sort of stuff is typical when MDs are involved. Chalk up another hit for the White Coat Mafia.
Saturday, April 16, 2016
Who Owns The Star Spangled Banner?
Leave it to the scumbag corporate gangsters to steal the Star Spangled Banner and profit from it. Call me a crazy liberal but I for one hold our the national anthem sacred and believe it belongs to the people of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.... NO EXCEPTIONS!!
NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PROFIT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM FROM THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER... PERIOD! ANYONE WHO DOES IS A FUCKING TRAITOR!
My shock is not that great because the corporations and the criminal elite also have made the Constitution and its Bill of Rights mostly null and void. Will the next step be them owning design patents on Old Glory?
IMO any proceeds from the Star Spangled Banner should go to the American people or the descendants of Francis Scott Key and the people of England because the tune was originally an English drinking song.
Censoring the National Anthem for Copyright Violation
Performing rights: These are held by (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC etc.) as registered by the publisher. These organizations reserve the right to act on behalf of the publisher to obtain monies from the performance or broadcast of a sound recording.
Mechanical rights: These are held by the person or persons who's performance was recorded (i.e. vocalist, intrumentalist, comedian etc.)
Copyright: These are held by anyone that had anything to do with the creative work that was recorded. (i. e. composer, lyricist, arranger etc.)
Publishing rights: These are the intellectual property rights to the sound recording that can be bought or sold to parties that may or may not have anything to do with the recording. The owner of these rights have control of where and how the recording is obtained or broadcast.
Television and radio stations stopped using the Star Spangled Banner when they signed off the air because if they used it they would have to pay royalties so they stopped using it.
Any time the anthem is sung at an NFL game, recorded by NFL engineers and broadcast during NFL TV time, the mechanicals, publishing, and performance rights belong to the NFL for that specific performance even if the song was originally written and recorded by U2 or Green Day. If it is sung at an NBA or MLB game, those respective organizations control the same rights.
Imagine: The NFL owns the rights to Whitney Houston's version of the Star-Spangled Banner while MLB owns the rights to Rosanne Barr's version!
NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PROFIT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM FROM THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER... PERIOD! ANYONE WHO DOES IS A FUCKING TRAITOR!
My shock is not that great because the corporations and the criminal elite also have made the Constitution and its Bill of Rights mostly null and void. Will the next step be them owning design patents on Old Glory?
IMO any proceeds from the Star Spangled Banner should go to the American people or the descendants of Francis Scott Key and the people of England because the tune was originally an English drinking song.
Censoring the National Anthem for Copyright Violation
Performing rights: These are held by (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC etc.) as registered by the publisher. These organizations reserve the right to act on behalf of the publisher to obtain monies from the performance or broadcast of a sound recording.
Mechanical rights: These are held by the person or persons who's performance was recorded (i.e. vocalist, intrumentalist, comedian etc.)
Copyright: These are held by anyone that had anything to do with the creative work that was recorded. (i. e. composer, lyricist, arranger etc.)
Publishing rights: These are the intellectual property rights to the sound recording that can be bought or sold to parties that may or may not have anything to do with the recording. The owner of these rights have control of where and how the recording is obtained or broadcast.
Television and radio stations stopped using the Star Spangled Banner when they signed off the air because if they used it they would have to pay royalties so they stopped using it.
Any time the anthem is sung at an NFL game, recorded by NFL engineers and broadcast during NFL TV time, the mechanicals, publishing, and performance rights belong to the NFL for that specific performance even if the song was originally written and recorded by U2 or Green Day. If it is sung at an NBA or MLB game, those respective organizations control the same rights.
Imagine: The NFL owns the rights to Whitney Houston's version of the Star-Spangled Banner while MLB owns the rights to Rosanne Barr's version!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)