The God Particle

                                                       The God Particle

     I believe in God. In spite of my shifts in concepts, I have always believed in an unmoved mover. I watched the most beautifully produced documentary just the other day about the proofs behind this and in the end found out that it had been made by Muslims. In the conclusion of the work the narrator says, "Allah," but by this time I'd forwarded it to a lot of my believing friends. Being a reasoning person I had to accept that truth is truth. The video scientifically analyzed the mathematical preciseness of the organization of the universe, and demonstrated that  how if one tiny thing were not exactly in place the whole thing would  disintegrate into utter chaos. It addressed evolution by demonstrating that there was a certain level of geological history where life virtually exploded and contrary to Darwin's idea that life evolved from a single root that grew upward in ever increasing diversity, the "tree" was actually upside down and life had in effect came into existence quiet suddenly and began to "fine tune" as some species failed the test and disappeared from the scene. It showed an equation called 1.618 that governed everything from the shape of galaxies to the number of petals on a sunflower, to the proportions of a pretty girl's face. And it was put together by Muslims! 

     Then I spent several days watching a series called, "How The Earth Was Made," and got the same information. The very planet we call home is so complex, with intertwining systems so closely connected that it is almost beyond comprehension. One segment explained how Antarctica, with all of its inhospitable conditions, virtually controls our entire weather system by producing brine that creeps along the ocean floor thereby articulating the currents that flow around the globe. One last video studied what would happen if the earth's rotation slowed only one mile per hour and the result would be devastating! The very moon operates as a balance, keeping the earth rotation in a synced fashion, enabling the weather system to remain constant, within certain parameters which, if it were not so, one year New York would be New York, and the next it may be situated near one of the poles. 

     Great minds, such as Stephen Hawking say that when things get too complicated the theist will just fall back on a "god" in a vain effort to avoid the question, while they, themselves, when their own model fails will posit a multiple-universe theory in effect claiming that if the model doesn't work just apply layer upon layer until it does or any opposition simply gives up in exasperation. 

     My concept of God is that of a great creative force that we, as mortals, will never understand, we aren't capable. Jesus was strapped with trying to educate simple fishermen, a tax collector, and a few women as to the way the universe works. Did He try to explain the time-space continuum to them? Certainly not! At the last supper, did he try to hold a lecture on molecular reorganization, or the presence of dark matter, no. He held up a piece of bread and told them, "This is my body. Whenever you have this ritual you need to remember that!" Jesus was explaining to them in terms they could get their minds around. They understood the Passover, and all it meant to them, as Jews, and He was the ultimate Passover for all people. 

     We, as Christians, no, let me rephrase that, as believers, have to accept that there are some who will never accept our concept, or explanations for the order of the universe no matter how persuasive our argument. For all their scientific method they will abandon it, and proceed on the premise that there simply cannot BE a god and any system that makes that claim is simply rejected outright. You will never change these people. I didn't change my ideas while watching all of the documentaries I cited above. They merely reinforced what I already suspected. And, if you will note, when you forget about all the arguments about Jesus and Mohammed, the Muslim work was outstanding in its direct analyzation of the science of mathematics and the correlation to the universe. 

     As believers, our explanations look absurd to atheists. Atheists have a hands on, linear methodology in their universal view, but does that make them evil? Certainly not! A girl in high school on the East Coast wanted to start a club geared to atheists like herself so she, and other like minded kids could gather and discuss ideas, and feel a oneness. At first the school absolutely forbade it, but after the ACLU got involved she was allowed to form her group, but was then bullied into giving it up by the "Christian" community around her. Tell me how those "Christians" were any different than a radical Muslim who believes he must destroy all "infidels" to spread his "faith?" She was accused of being a Satanist. This is so far in left field if defies explanation but I'll try. A Satanist is a believer. Jesus said, "Even the demons believe in God, and they tremble." People who subscribe to this mind set believe there is a god but choose the opposite path. To me they're like the kid, when we all went to the movies on Saturday, who would cheer for the guy in the black hat. For whatever psychological reason they have rejected what is regarded as proper by most other believers for the side that is adverse to that. The atheist simple rejects any spiritual explanation of the universe, preferring a physical model instead. 

     As long as you live you will be formulating your world view. Mine has evolved so much that it barely resembles what was in my head at sixteen years old. The one constant remains: There has to be a designer for such a finely turned situation. Can I explain this to a non-believer? Nope. Can I, myself even ever completely understand this designer? Absolutely not! Should I judge, or cast stones at someone who doesn't subscribe to my very own ever changing view? Well, Jesus, Himself, said, "Judge not lest you be judged." Now, He didn't say that to be clever. He said that because He knew we could never get our finite minds around the infinite. I am comfortable with accepting Biblical principles. The young atheist simply is not. 

     I am always amazed at the knee-jerk reaction to any inclusion of Biblical principles in government. Put a statue of the ten commandments on the courthouse lawn and certain groups lose their collective minds. All the ten commandments are is an early example of codified law given to a bunch of people trying to carve out a civilized existence out of a  horrible situation.     I hear all the time about the separation of church and state, but that's not what the first amendment is all about  It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of religion ..." It forbids Congress from jumping up and making the Baptist Church the official religion of the United States. It does NOT nullify bringing your morals, common sense or life experiences to the table when you vote, or make decisions. How else can you make these decisions. You see, that's what's wrong with this whole idea that we have to blindly accept that we really have no opinion or options when it comes to government. When Congress sits in session can they impose religious guidelines and restrictions on the rest of us? Constitution says they cannot. Can they let their experience, morality, and personal beliefs guide how they will vote? You bet they can, and DO! Should they have anything to do with the little atheist girl wanting to form a club with her like minded friends? Well, that's where my Libertarian beliefs kick in. They have a right to their beliefs, and she has a right to hers! 

     You will never convert this little girl. Conversion comes from within. You will never scare a gay person straight. For whatever psychological reasons that mold our sexuality it is OUR mold. Our INDIVIDUAL mold. Lead by example. Live your lives by your principles and if those principles are sound, kind,and not bigoted there are those who will approve. Cast your bread upon the water, and maybe, just maybe, you'll get back a sandwich! And that, my friends, is the true God Particle. 

http://youtu.be/3YvSkGIIGici

http://youtu.be/nH3bmG-KjvU

     

Mooving The Government

Mooving The Government

http://youtu.be/UHnw1DXcX1g

     I have read my son's article about the history of the far western states and see the logic therein, however I would like to inject my take, and it has taken me a few days to formulate it so bear with me. 

     The government seems to have a clear cut case for their actions in Nevada, but there is a human, moral ingredient that we must acknowledge. The Obama administration did not see fit to send one platoon of soldiers to Benghazi to secure our embassy which was under attack in what can only be termed an act of war. The same administration ignores repeated invasions by the Mexican army along our border protecting cartel drug deliveries. One rancher grazing his cattle warrants a full scale military operation. Am I the only one who has a problem with this? 

     If it is true that the government has this right under some treaty back in the mid 1800's I'll go with that. And while we're going with that let's just go with Texas' entry into the union where we retained the right to divorce the US and become a republic again! 

     Johnny Johnson maintains that the Federal Government has no right to state land. I have to agree. No matter what their reasoning the basic right of the people trumps any documents that may exist. General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna was the legal ruler of Mexico of which Tejas was a part. He had every right to attack the Alamo. He also was free to sign agreements under an oak tree at San Jacinto and hope to God he wasn't hanged!

     This is the cliff we are now standing on the edge of. The combined militia of the people are poised to take the country back under the force of arms and then THEY will forge the next "agreements!"

     Make no mistake about it. We have entered into a state of war with elements we have so long despised. Good, decent Christian men and women are standing up right now in the desert against a system that long ago stopped representing the people. Harry Reid is right. If the government doesn't stop this now it will escalate. Yes it will, Harry. We got an oak tree for ya!

   

Labels

                                                                Labels

                                                             by Wilbur

     Labels are always dangerous. Things like "liberal," "conservative," "feminist," and  anything to do with sexuality are huge imaginary vats that people are poured into and once there the membership to the group becomes more important than the ideas that formed the group in the first place. 

     There is nothing wrong with being a liberal so long as one does not let the mindset of "liberal" negate common sense. Being liberal means simply trying new ideas, but when a theory fails you need to accept it and fall back to tried and true methods until you come up with something better. Theoretically you can drive a nail through glass, but if that doesn't work you must consider the more conservative alternative of a drill. 

     The liberal demigods saturate their devoted followers with mindless mantras and the minions do not even care how outrageous the idea is, they will follow it blindly so long as it is "liberal" and they are in step with the group. The problem they have is trying to sell these ideas to people who hold to tried and proven methods and actually think. 

     Hitler said that if you tell a lie, no matter how large, and you repeat it often enough, the masses will accept it. Let's take one such lie and analyze it. When Rowe vs Wade came about the original soft sell was a service for victims of rape. Also, it supposedly would bring the procedure would be safer because it would be brought out of the alleys and into the hospitals. Then it was expanded to include women who had health issues that may endanger their lives should they give birth. May be to hard on their heart. You know the theory.  And giving birth is certainly much more rigorous than say, orgasm, but I digress. 

     Eventually, the word, "abortion" was largely discarded, being replaced by the kinder, friendlier, "termination of  pregnancy." You see, when you commit genocide you must first dehumanize the victims so as to desynthisize the general public so they casually accept the act. Hitler didn't murder Jews he had a "final solution" to Germany's economic problems. 

     Then, just in case there are questions you make sure that the lemmings understand that conformity to the group philosophy is the most important thing, indeed, at this point, even more important than individual thought, or conscience. Jews are not Aryan, unborn babies are not human, so you see? 

     Remember the reasons for abortions in the first place? Let's expand that a little more. With DNA and genetics we can now try to predict the possibility of an unborn child having a health condition, and we can save everyone a lot of trouble by just ending that pregnancy right away. We, at this point are still within a health related circle, more or less, but no genocide is complete unless it includes as many victims as possible. Enter social services and Planned Parenthood. Some children may have a hard life. The parents have a spotty record, possibly even drug abuse. A child born into such conditions would certainly have a difficult time growing up. As would the child of a migrant worker in the south of Texas, or Harlem. Children born in Beverly Hills would not have these problems for the most part. There is a huge gap between poor children and heirs. 

     The other problem with mantras and grouping is that in invariably expands what is basically a minority idea into to appearance of a majority opinion. Under normal conditions abortion would never even be discussed in a household. If a teenage daughter came home pregnant the most extreme thing that would hit the table would be adoption because the very thought of ending the life of a grandchild would benumb them. Only by the injection of a huge organization chanting would normal people even think of such a thing. Still, if the people just take a breath and step back two steps and forget the mantra it all becomes very clear. 

     So what is the solution for this issue? Individual thought! How liberal is that? Make up your own mind. Say to yourself, "Ok, I know it's my body but this just doesn't sound right. I don't like the idea of Jewish bankers but I'll just bank somewhere else. I don't like gay marriage but they don't live in my house!" Being Libertarian means live and let live. During a heated discussion someone once told me, "Admit it! You find gay sex disgusting!" I find all sex disgusting unless I'm the one doing the sexing. Such considerations have nothing to do with politics. 

     Mantras are always bad, and always wrong. A one line sound bite will not fix anything. If that philosophy worked then shoe stores would only sell one size. If you are liberal you simply must, by definition, accept new alternative ideas. If someone throws something on the table that is sound you should consider it, not retreat to tired old quotes contrived by someone far from you with a limited agenda and a huge bank account.