Forum

What was the world like before the flood? i have pondered this before but due to the very small amount of information given to us no definite answer can be found. but still, it is interesting to think about. to be clear -for those of you who are old-earth creationists- i am not talking about the world before Adam, but rather the specific 1600+ years between their removal from the garden and the great flood. i am also not talking about what the people where like, since we know that "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil".  what i am referring to was the technological advancements they could have made. if you believe  like me that man has been devolving since the fall, then that means that they were actually smarter then we are now. there's also the fact of how long they lived, how much knowledge  could one have acquired and used in that amount of time? think of the smartest men we know  throughout history -Issac Newton, Archimedes, Albert Einstein, Leonardo Da Vinci, ect- now what else could they have made if they had had several hundred more years to live? Not to mention that they did have over 1600yrs, look at how far we went in that time. and if you factor in the first two points, it isn't hard to imagine them with at least some semblance of technology, possibly the equivalent of our Renaissance or even more modern.   once again, we can do nothing bu speculate on this matter, but i hope it was interesting.

it is because the way modern people use it permits the glorifying of AI instead of God, everytime you have a problem or question you type it into an AI search engine, instead of asking God like contemporarrean days. its actually a sin for above mentioned uses, and its actually devastating for modern and soon to come generations, as im currently in school and i literally have colleagues that are tasked with an assignment about explaining basic molecular phenomena, they type the question in an AI search engine, and then mindlessly copy the explanation, the next day at school, they dont understand and cant explain their own work, they only read and rely on unnafected students like me to explain their own work to them, its not only AI dependence, its hypersexualised media designed for minors and kids in crucial brain development phase, i estimate that 4 out of every 11 kids under 14 watch pornographic content and its deeply disturbing, this all makes me conclude a truthful statement indepndent of the time it is said ''the world ending is closer than ever''. AI is not meant to delay children learning, as the teachers job is to develop each childs academic skills individually, how will teachers do their job when students are too lazy to think on their own, skibidi toilet nonsense and the latest tiktok trend and song are all they care about and it makes me think that each generation is becoming worse than the previous one at an exponential rate, all you need to watch unsuitable content online is to type in the content you feel like watching and the links and sites will come rushing. this for kids is especially bad because it gives them a false expectation of the real world and dating life, and kids are early on exposed to addicting sexual content . thankyou for reading my rant and please share your thoughts

farming karma is simple = if you plant obscurity into this world youll harvest obscurity, as simple and deterministic as that, but science and life say that randomness is a governing quantum rule that determines the nature of reality, so its determinism(science) vs randomness(religion) we know that science must never be an impediment to the truth so it must never be an impediment to God, with this said the rule of farming karma, comes with a twist = Faith. you dont know what will happen during before the actual karma comes its up to randomness and you also dont know the time it will take which is decided by God, it appears that determinism and randomness are deeply connected. like entropy and randomness, but thats a story for another day ( my current thesis)

its literaly a question i have, especially with oversexualized social media where kids and adults can share lust as an age neutral concept. how do kids stay safe.

Where does morality come from? If your answer is "from God", I now present you the Euthyphro Problem, originally created by Plato in his dialogue called Euthyphro. Are right actions right because God commands them, or are right actions commanded by God because they are right? If the first, you have to accept morality by authority, so if God came down and reversed the 10  commandments, say, they would still be moral. In which case, goodness has no real meaning anymore. God commands what is good becomes God commands what he commands. If the second, there appears to be a higher power that even God is regulated by, which defies the idea of his omnipotence. And then, what created these moral values? Why would we get them via God instead of straight from the source. What do you think?

Dogmatic Doctrine   A physics debate, a theology discussion & a religiously motivated analogy on the scientific beginning of time all through where logic breaks   Complete argument to atheism by Evandro .C. Chitlango a 13 year old fond of Christian apology and theoretical physics                                   §  Heading §  Introduction §  Sub introduction §  O-theory §  P-theory §  The precision of the universe §  Fractals, beauty in math and its discovery not invention §  Paradoxes §  The arrow of time and the nature of God §  Conclusion-the arcane creator §  Multiverse theory intervention §  Randomness §  The collapsing of the big bang theory §  Entropy  §  Logic analysis (conclusion) §  appreciation and ending                Introduction§  Around the time of life’s pre-existential conditions, every factor and possible manner to destroy (dismantle) It had to be pondered over –therefore bringing a complete solution or maybe –infinite solutions. And in the midst of all the natural phenomena in the observable universe, a hypothetical mere-coincidence could and will never be the exact and precise cause of the inexplicable phenomena we call life. SpiritualMaterialisticLife                                            =   We the scientific descendants of great minds ironically fail to define our own existence, nature and origins as beholders of life. Life is a complicated concept though, but in the name of all science, hypothesizing that the three dimensional constants that shape reality as we know it (space, time and matter) just came to be in one universe upon trillions of others, and that they coincidentally or maybe perfectly joined forces creating the observable universe, the other 95% the celestial bodies, their orbit on a curved space-time that they themselves created, where entropy and the least action principle geometrically evolved (they were already there but yet to be discovered) and life itself is too much of a grave falsidical paradox for my doctrine and sense of truth to remotely believe.  My ‘in ’competent faculty of anything believes that this is the most unfathomable low in all of physics and that the stage has been set to debunk it once and for all. So I have yet decided to assemble all my thoughts, truths and logic into a thesis for you as the reader just as the title assures. I hereby definitely have assembled a thought process for you to not just imagine but to experience as a whole.                    Sub-introduction Throughout my life I certainly have accomplished more than I expected from others and myself. My insatiable thirst for an ever ending curiosity no matter what I learn in my designated field has driven me to question my personal beliefs and values in such a manner that fortified my strength and as a result has resulted in a question, namely: why do atheists have such contradicting moral beliefs, as I understood their curiosity, but lacked the similar ideologies to understand their audacious decisions to ultimately turn away from God. It was soon revealed to me at primary school when on test week my teacher, an atheist himself, questioned why we believed and admired such a ‘terrible’ God before jokingly or mockingly stating that there was no point to resort to prayer before the examination because no God would save us. It turned into an argumentative debate where he questioned me –the supposed smartest kid in the room- “what if God killed your father? (Must you still, praise such a God)” my logic towards the question was correct, but ultimately fell short as I said it  I wanted to tell him that on Earth everything worked in a way that after any significantly negative happening we shouldn’t turn against God for we are too inferior to understand his decisions. And that God doesn’t take people from you in that way, he doesn’t just psychopathically decrease population, there is much more involved (future, you, feeling, healing those sorts of factors)   But I said “what if your father was plotting to kill you first and he was just protecting you!” my words came out wrong and as I grew to realize this. Which explained his huff and jump backwards he was probably astonished by such an insensitive answer. Maybe it was more than a farfetched example, maybe he was opening up to a 12 year old kid who brutally, and derogatorily diminished his sufferings and ultimately the possible reason he turned into an atheist, most Christian-atheist transformations are in this way, through a grave loss. and so somewhere in early 2024 I developed the tools and necessary (fractals*) and beauty in math, the affinity with debates and with proving God to people I thought that at the time were useless, but all came together to form this thesis. Out of all the people in this world dead or alive, at least a bundle of them has tried this before so I don’t think Dogmatic Doctrine is an entirely new concept, but I can assure you that my idea to write this came from the Lord who revealed this idea to only me in comparison to those around me, we can be certain that the bible is true, and be certain in its words too. I originally wanted to name this O-theory, meaning theory of origins but kept that for one chapter.  (*= to a certain extent) (Disclaimer: this thesis includes a biological analysis and a physical analysis on relevant matters)     Conceptualization worth remembering               To commence we need an at least mediocre definition of life that satisfies the following characteristics: ü  Explaining the process as a whole and defining it simply; ü  Not just casually explaining its observable characteristics =(movement, respiration, sensitivity(adaptability) growth, reproduction, excretion, nutrition) ü  Explaining in detail its functions, origins, benefits, ways to conserve it, and its cause = (how? – why?)life exists Ø  Life is a profoundly vital spiritual* feature/component of a specific group of matter that the Super Intellect God gave that specific group of  abiotic matter through breath (respiration is the main element of life for that very cause)    o   It gives us the ability to naturally respire, move, grow, adapt, feed, excrete, reproduce, and to have a competent faculty of thinking.    o   Life’s benefits would be its ability to conserve itself, and anything else around it and in contrast, its ability to destroy everything around it. o   Life exists because our creator felt the arguable desire to create a dynamic dynasty where everything worked in complex algorithms that he designed such as math which was obviously discovered not invented, all this means that everything written in math was already there just in a complex yet to be discovered algorithm but this will be discussed later     People always force others to choose between God and science, but it isn’t that way, science can never be an impediment to God the same way it can never be an impediment to the truth so if you were a Super intellect how you would create everything? How would you create something out of nothing?   God created science as a way to rigorously control space, time, matter and the entire universe, and math to govern the rules of the universe space, time, matter and even energy and the laws that form their connections.    Why I specifically choose evangelism –Christianity-Every Christian denomination believes in one god, but other religions aren’t included. Some are aligned with polytheism, and others aren’t. But I only speak for those who have one God, in their perspective their God is the only one, and ask yourself if you were born into one of these religions without the freedom of self-expression and exploration to find out what you truly believe in, you’d definitely believe in what you were born into, but if you had freedom of thought you would look into every religion to see what you’d like, before making a choice. My choice didn’t change, I don’t want to dedicate a long part of this thesis to comparing and contrasting Christianity from other religions like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Judaism. So I will just list some significant differences. Christianity: is the spread of the Gospel primarily believing in 3 figures that are all the same God The father, the son of man, and the Holy Spirit, God usually reveals himself to his followers in this religion by dreams, his actual voice, and other miraculous, sightings and situation-dependent cases. It, not to be confused is an anti-judgement, violence and blasphemy kind of religion where the only one permitted to judge is the creator of all, ironically (all) includes judgement… etc. Unlike Buddhism, or Hinduism, Christianity is a One-God worshipping religion, and one of each prominent differences from Islam and Judaism are that: Judaism does not believe in Jesus Christ the Son of Man, and many revelations have exposed adultery, and other wrongdoings in the once completely Arabic Quran and to other denominations, in this case scenario: Catholicism: we solemnly appreciate God for bringing Jesus into the world, for, would you thank the boy who brought the newspaper to you or the man who sent him to, for if the boy had refused then the man would’ve sent somebody else..     The following are amidst my sphere of gratitude for their contributions to my thesisI would like to thank my family and friends for their help and endless discussions, to anyone of them reading just know that our conversations weren’t in vain.I would also like to express gratitude to a few science and math content creators un-namelyAnd also to anyone unmentioned, Thank you for partially filling my insatiable curiosity and wasting your time on inevitable and engaging stimuli. I also would like to shamelessly express my sincere gratitude to a chess player by the name of Frederick Pascal for spending his own time and patience uncovering one of the most peculiar and groundbreaking chapters of this thesis                     A Synopsis of O-theory QUESTIONReligious advocates- if science is completely wrong then how did archeologists find fossils of evolving hominids that had to be human ancestral beings??? ·         Please bear with me for my approach to this all doesn’t diminish the religious side it confirms some of the scientific facts in relation to the religious side  It all began when I was in history class and realized that there is an unmistakable error in the way that Darwin’s theory of evolution was taught to us!   There are two opposing governing theories that reveal the origin of humanity, namely: The theory of evolution and natural selection by Charles Darwin prominently stating that humans and/or all forms of life were subject to evolution from other primary forms of life And creationism: the theory stating that our, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God created the heavens, the earth, and all of life   (The heavens = space) (The earth = matter) (Space, matter, and time) the 3 dimensional constants, along with life and everything else And all in a given time period, of 7 days, thus creating time If the Lord God created only mass and time then where would he put it? And similarly if he only created mass and space then when would he put it? A super intellect created the heavens, the earth and everything else indeed, the three constants (space, time, and matter) are so fundamental and vitally dependent that they are the beginning of the entire universe and were created by a super intellect who obviously knew what he was doing. This example isn’t set to an equivalent scale comparison, but like when Steve Jobs and his team designed the first but most fundamental steps in creating the IPhone  He didn’t then stay inside controlling it like a video-game character he stayed, outside of it in another dimension like world (our own) closely watching his creation.And this brings us back to the theories. The theory of evolution (Darwin’s theory) by definition describes the emanation of life forms evolving from other life forms, but it doesn’t explain where the preliminary life forms originate from, only that they evolve into more sophisticated versions, and the answer is in the next theory =Creationism , it’s in the name. It describes how humans were created. They were made by spiritual means which also explains why mankind is the only rational, empathetic, loving, and logic species, -it’s because we acquired those characteristics from an already rational, empathetic, loving and logic creator with knowledge incomparable to humans who designed us in his image.  (Ex: humans developed vocal chords connected to their brains that are capable of producing a resonant intentional pattern of recognizable and eligible terms.) O-theory unifies both predominant theories into one unique description of human and life’s origins, and of course try to get closer to the now approximate truth (I will also refer to the two theories as p2O)(And to add a sense of understanding note that primary means unevolved here)   We can create a description as well, but drastically emphasizing p2Os points:        In correctly prepared circumstances, primates in perfect geo-climatic conditions with the necessity of protecting themselves from different climates will become accustomed to the climates respective forms of living that will eventually turn into habits that will result in their own modification (evolution), evolution gets warped into the story as soon as the primates were expelled from the kingdom of God where they were subjected to complete independence, and really needed to adapt to new biomes or in other words begin the process of evolution or hominization. They now weren’t in the protection of The Lord, because of their disobedience.        Evolution   We can logically hypothesize that in these new conditions they were subject to intense heat, intense cold, intense sunburn, and ultra violet light rays from the sun causing their bodies to age faster than they probably should have, getting used to hunting for food, and the wilderness at another scale –particularly the resistance and aggressiveness of other primary/unevolved animals. They would have to have fur for reasons about to be mentioned but, but soon their change to living in shelter for so long caused their fur to decrease =(They logically had fur to survive the harsh climates), that were the opposite of now so hypothetically the climates were smoother, continuous and so easier to predict, they sometime evolved the ability to fabricate and use animal skins (this proves that they learnt to hunt and any initial problems had been solved with respect to animals)they produced tools and equipment out of nearby and available resources, they constructed huts or other forms of shelter to protect themselves from the heat and to defend themselves from dangerous products of Animalia. They now evolved logical thoughts to solve the problems they faced and eventually learned from improving their evolving memory, and cognitive abilities. Their fur had to gradually lessen as their habitat evolved from nature to shelter, they also now could produce advanced solutions to problems and ensure priorities like = feeding, protection, health, comfort, and their young. They were of course illiterate, and were yet to become the modern humanistic society of today, but they were in faze with evolution. Other topic =(In the world the lack of agreement between believers makes perfect sense as God created us in his image we have a competent faculty of thinking and a right to believe in our own doctrine, and seriously, in any party, theology, atheism or world peace there will always be skepticism and non-belief  And now, you see that atheists believe in the creation of everything by chance and coincidence, but if we just do a little hypothesizing then it all makes perfect sense. And a beautifully proposed description is made and there is no way to know if it is truly authentic or not, that is up to you as the reader to decide.   A succession to O-theory P-theory Just as O-theory was for origins theory, P-theory is for predominance theory where the most predominant parts of nature are analyzed. In the midst of all criteria involved with primary forms of evolution, P-theory insists that they are all deeply connected and have bio-geographical interdependence which results in the sustainability of eccentric and fragile life. In detail this suggests that: the evolution of (factors=) climate, humanistic and physical geography, feeding methods, nutrition, lifestyles and life itself were all deeply connected to form an unbreakable relationship. Table: (in this table when, a factor evolves into a result that contains another factor that original factor cancels out, example: the evolution, or practical use of humanistic geography evolves into an evolved lifestyle, lifestyle is one of the original factors so it cancels out, as it is already in the table, and. …)   Factors                                      Evolution                                              Results Humanistic geography                                                                     evolved lifestyle Physical geography                                better understanding of the climate and land \ Feeding methods                                                                              better nutrition Life                                                                   more sophisticated and better preserved                                                                                        The following postulates are the governmental laws of P-theory: §  All physical-geographical spaces (Biosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere) are and were designed to sustain life.  §  Our biological structure (cognitive ability, internal structure, and external structure) are always at their maximum capacity through evolution. Origins: we were created by God through breath, so the origin of life and humanity is now known, but what else? the postulates add a nice reassuring touch to the equation, with the life sustaining physical-geographical spaces and their biological structures being at maximum capacity through the habits they practiced resulting in their own modification or evolution, and if I plug in all the current factors of a systems life from the way it is conserved/sustained form of living and comparing it to other close relatives and the factor of evolution (which is defined by the designated manner that system is supposed to evolve with respect to time) is then im 100% sure that I can compute and describe its future. This is a very vast technique  Ex: if I put a small watermelon in a square box the n the watermelon will acquire the boxes shape, but of course I modified the watermelons current state and that was enough to drastically impact the watermelons future state. Or another example, going back to primates, we can use the principle backwards, by plugging in our averaged out lifestyle, and comparing it to their possible lifestyle I can determine how they evolved with respect to time (the factor of evolution) or by plugging in our current lifestyles (since population increased at a massive rate since then) I can plug in the estimated factor of evolution to determine how they lived, and evolved to every single lifestyle we have We can also do the same with animals to determine the evolution of their relation to humans, or to estimate how they looked in the past by determining the factor of evolution (in this case it would be the climatic and geophysical conditions they lived in) and multiplying* it to the way they look now, or even to determine extinct species, by observing modelled patterns, and adding in a new species to explain these events left behind, of course these are speculative possibilities that could one day come to reality The origins of primates can be one of the more essential factors that help determine a lot more as serious pointers indicate their approximate location, then we could see if a correlation is made between their way of living and their evolution over time (factor of evolution) resulting in our current lifestyle and appearance.  In conclusion: if the primary forms of evolution, the geo-physical spaces, and biological structures are all connected in such a manner that they can only sustain life, then they must have been designed by an outer mind. Statistical data is one of the things that prove it, and that is a testament to the fine tuning of the universe, and to the existence of God.                        The precision of the universe The universe is extremely precise and accurate in such a way that it baffles many physicists, and a general counter argument hasn’t been brought to the table yet, what is bizarre is that life being so eccentric and hard to manipulate in any way, form, shape, or how and in some way fragile, that it still is the most predominant mystery upon all others   Table of physical constants QuantityValueRelative standard uncertaintyreduced Planck constant1.054571817...×10−34 J⋅s0Boltzmann constant1.380649×10−23 J⋅K−10Newtonian constant of gravitation6.67430(15)×10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−22.2×10−5cosmological constant1.089(29)×10−52 m−2 1.088(30)×10−52 m−20.027 0.028… There are about 26 physical constants in our observable universe and 19 of them apply to earth, they are the values above (though not complete) But the reason behind their values being so specific is a problem so uncomfortable for physicists that most avoid it, and Christian apologists take advantage of that to further prove Gods unarguable existence.  If the gravitational bounds were just a bit higher or lower, than life would be unstable and we wouldn’t cease to exist because we would never have existed in the first place. It’s so bizarre to think that in a certain way that if all of these constants were altered to the slightest degree, then k dwarfs, hydrogen stars(or hydrogen and oxygen atoms created in stars creating H2O and then biology = for a general definition) or other stars wouldn’t have a balanced or good enough ratio of hydrogen to oxygen on earth to form h2o on earth (water) going on to form biology (life) (disclaimer = not all constants being altered end this way as most have nothing to do with this it is just an example) why is the earth so sustainable towards life, and it’s not only about some numerals why are things in the universe so beautiful: life itself, people- plants- animals- fractals and beauty in math –We will aboard this topic soon   -Since everything that begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist, the universe must have had a cause which was itself not caused-. The famous kalam cosmological argument adds that if everything exists it has a cause and that the universe exists so it has a cause, that cause is limitless (like God whom is infinite) these constants have a cause, they abide in the universe and so they have a (causeless/uncaused) cause, sorry about the pseudo-science the intuition is slowly fading away*, but also imagine if a mind like ours developed the physical constants, where did that mind come from: There are two ways to visualize it, first by definition, the constants mathematically form our observable universe and if a mind formed* the universe then this mind is causeless therefore proving the existence of a God. Such precise values fine tuning the universe for life are exceptionally impossible for a mind just like ours to create. It has to be much more advanced, and sophisticated –like the mind of a God with us. Or, secondly if a mind like ours developed the universe it also has to have a cause but if only this case scenario comes with an exception bending the kalam cosmological law it still applies as this mind has to have an outer mind to have designed it and this second more powerful mind is causeless, or maybe this mind also has an outer mind who designed it, but is causeless. This could go on infinitely thus creating an audacious infinite amount of (outer) minds therefore a falsidical paradox. It is disproven by the true statement: –there is only one God- and only one creator of the universe that is the ultimate mind. A variation of the ontological argument has somewhat turned falsidically paradoxical.       Fractals, beauty in math, and its discovery not invention  ·         There are two beliefs that can occupy our minds with their respective/assigned ways of thinking, being: ·         Math is in our minds but it can calculate things in the real world or impact the real world even though it is just a natural cognitive ability that we invented  ·         Or math is above natural (supernatural) because of things in it, we humans couldn’t possibly invent these mathematical laws that govern the universe because they were already there waiting to be discovered by us humans (by the way this perspective is the correct one you’ll soon see why) who seem to want to take credit for their DISCOVERIES, and God’s inventions, things In this world are too complex and beautiful for the first perspective to be wildly and generally accepted. Math is infinite, so what created it is also infinite, but it does exist in our minds although our minds and math share a common uncaused creator(God) so everything still holds, but what could I use to further prove this? Why not some of the examples he has already made clear for us to see and to visualize : Fractals are beautiful intricate designs carved into anything from visualized equations to nature’s components, they help us understand the patterns we see every day. Here are two examples along with a personal story:   Zn+1 = Zn2 +C is repeated millions of times on a modern digital computer to get the fascinating visualizations where Z and C are complex numbers, you should be somewhat familiar with them to understand this equation, basically there is the one-dimensional plane of simple digits that we all call counting numbers (1 ~∞) to the opposite side (still on the same dimension/plane) we have negative numbers that start beyond 0 at (-1 to -∞) But as math evolved over time when Leonhard Euler was looking for a term that would turn his number’s squared value negative or (ex = - (a) (a is just a place holder for negative value.) Something happened, of course this small problem wouldn’t stop Euler he invented a mathematical constant that fit the needed description and made ei e  equal to something negative, and this is the evolution of math simplified as now 0 has another plane going down with –i, -2i, -3i … on it, and one going up with positive i, 2i, 3i … this forms the complex plane where the equation was plotted and printed to be visualized forming the Mandelbrot set. Which can be searched up on any search engine, did you know that if you zoom into any point on the outline of the Mandelbrot set, infinite intricate complexity will be revealed to you as you    keep zooming you’ll only see more patterns.         Going on to a simpler fractal, picture the leaves of a fern tree and think of how it’s made of smaller leaves that are also visibly made of even smaller leaves. This is a fractal in nature but it’s not the only one nature has billions of trillions of them that are yet to be discovered. external(a,b,c,d,e)angles  36(2)+ 108 = 180 (180(5) = 540, sum of external angles) internal(a,b,c,d,e)   72(2) +  36 = 180 Note that. (`)Is degrees The striangle is a fractal*I discovered earlier this year and as crazy as it is you too will be able to understand this:     It all began when at school I played around with the angles in a star that’s in a pentagon, unfortunately there was a faulty problem in the way I had visualized and calculated the striangle, you see I had thought that the angles weren’t supposed to be distributed equally in each angle and ended up labelling the two bottom ones as 90`, and the three on top as 120`. The striangle in that way turns undefined as it holds negative value, let me explain, =The inner (a,b,c,d,e) angles on the bottom instead were 90` and left or right being 60` or 70` = well 60+70+90 = 220 ≠ 180, the two inner (a,b,c,d,e) were 70`+70`+(40` or 10 `)depending on if you changed the value to try and make it make sense( to keep the symmetry do it on the other side) the angles were equal to 180` though, only if we use 40`but that is the only place where the angles are correct and so where the problem arises,  but it doesn’t finally end there as the external (a,b,c,d,e) angles on the bottom were 40`+ 40`+120 which is also equal to 180`, so two of the places are = 180` but all the rest aren’t, what should we do then?   I’ll just skip to the solution I found. A pentagons sum of angles is 540`, so we divide 540 by the number of angles which is five (since it’s a pentagon) so each angle is 108`which is divided by three (= 36`) to get the angles inside. Now two of our angles on the bottom are 36 so we solve for the last angle (36 + 36 + X = 180` so X is obviously and intuitively given by 180`- 72` (36+36) = 108 which is separated by the vertex meaning that that angle of the pentagon opposite to the bottom angle is also 108`,so we do that everywhere to find that all angles of the pentagon are 108` in the inner pentagon forming the same shape, just smaller by length, the angles are all the same so a star can be formed in the inner pentagon where all the angles join, and in the middle of the star an internal inner pentagon already resides and another star inside, and another pentagon inside and the sequence continues infinitely as you go deeper, then the colors that were first there come back , light blue star, dark blue pentagon and you have reached the beginning again, having realized that it is all an infinite loop. The loop doesn’t just come from color, it is defined by the repeating star inside the pentagon and pentagon inside the     star creating an infinite loop. My happiness and satisfaction towards this discovery was equivalent to when I solved the first problem that had much to do with the star’s actual shape, and beauty like this can’t have just come to be coincidentally As the universe didn’t form in a coincidence, and therefore it has an uncaused cause, the earth is in the universe so it also has an uncaused cause. The same cause as the universe- God made the heavens, the earth and everything else. With all of this I can only say assume that such mathematical beauty and complexity came from a mind that is complex and capable, and that mind is uncaused.         Paradoxes Such mind breaking ideas have to a glitch in the matrix, or the faulty errors in logical thinking for example.  A Greek personality Archimedes suggested that if we wanted to walk two meters it would be impossible for us to reach the finish line because we can half the distance that’s needed to get to the end, (0.5 or 1/2 meters) then again( 1/4) and again, and again ,and again (1/6, 1/8, 1/10) and infinitely more times, ignoring the fact that mass and distance have an ultimate atomic scale or just ultimate finite distance, but a super task can be made, an infinite amount of halves can be made in that finite distance adding the total value of land we have to cross, it blows up to infinity and we never reach the end of the two meters. Im not saying that paradoxes prove Gods existence I’m just adding on to the inevitable complexity of the world we live in.  The arrow of time and nature of God One of the compelling arguments is that = If god is omniscient than he knows all and if he knows all then he knows the future and if he knows the future then he can predict the future, and that means that he doesn’t have free will because he already knows what is in the future, and so he cannot exist.  And that mindset comes from the fact that most atheists neglect the reality of time or so the difference between our arrow of time and his arrow of time, God created time so our arrow of time which is: Past                                                                     present                                                               future  Works very differently from his. Think of God as a higher dimensional being, so he would have the capacity to bend time to his will because he created it:   Past                                                    present                                                future This analogy creates a superficial contradiction, as the future is still there, if God goes back in time then the future is unfolding as he does just that, but it is disproven by the same mechanism, if God knows the future then he knows that while going back in time the future is unfolding so he could go back in time to ‘fold’ the future back, and this sequence of contradictions and proofs could go on infinitely and, so you end up being left with a choice! But still, God would have free will because he would be able to mani[pulate time the same way we manipulate direction. It is just another dimesion to him. (Thinking in the contradictive mindset gives the implication that in some way a man could be turning up while still walking right. Because in 2 dimensions upwards could be the main direction. )example, and I really believe until disproven that time isnt a dimension we can manipulate in the fourth dimension, for a few reasons: All dimensions have the three dimensional constants (space,one way arrow of time ,and matter but the only thing that changes in each is space) §  There is a pattern in dimensions as from the second to the third we add one more dimension being probably (frontwards and backwards will be represented by K) but it is a different direction in addition to the already known ones, a different way to move, to see reality, and to co-exist with reality. But time isnt a direction, in our dimension there is the arrow of time which points in a direction that is said to be manipulatable in higher dimensions. But the same way that going K is oblivious to the second dimension, then we should not even be able to imagine what the change in the forth dimension would be, and I’ll tell you why it isn’t time   §  Time is in all dimensions, everything follows a pattern =One way time is in all and a spatial dimension is added in each higher dimension that the former one had no clue of. And this is even more clear when I ask why both first dimensions have the one way arrow of time. If my theory is wrong then the second dimension must’nt of had time because it must be oblivious to the change made in the third but then a bigger mess arises because not only does the third dimension already have an added spatial dimension but it also has time so one way time must be a constant dimension, going back a bit when I wrote that the second dimension couldn’t of had time if the other explanation was correct, but time is one of the three dimensional constants and it is essential not only for life but the existence of dimensions and the universe itself so how can such a self contradicting theory govern so well.  §  I belive that as the dimensions get higher a pattern arises and time isnt a spatial dimension so why would it change.   We can use dimensional analysis to analyse the change( where D means dimension) D1 = inexistent D2 =S,T,M D3= S+S2,T,M D4= S+S2+S3,T,M Etc This could be wrong altogether though, im open to arguments.     So here I basically said that time is in one direction (and relative) at the same time but in different scenarios as I don’t know what happens to time in a singularity , maybe the first ever singularity can help find the solution , well you cant go back in time in the first ever singularity because there was never any before take it to the first ever tenth of a nano second well you practically couldn’t even return in time the universe exploded into an expanding existence as entropy increased time was in only one direction and that was right. Were higher dimensions already there and how did they come to be? Or is my understanding of dimensions at fault here?       THE ARCANE CREATORCONCLUSION I recently went on a chess.com club to socialize and to talk about the points of this thesis even though it wasn’t technically allowed, when through that a mind boggling idea flew around my mind. It all started -When I talked about Gods ability to go back and forth in time, because he’s in a higher dimension, when the infamous chess player (anonymous-Frederick Pascal) made me realize that God isn’t bound to his own creation, in this way the complete answer to the atheist argument of Gods free will is that God created time with the other two dimensional constants, at the same time, and so he isn’t bound by it, In a mind-boggling way he doesn’t even move through time because it is one of his creations, like the Steve jobs example, God isn’t inside of our time-dependent reality which would kind solve the mystery that he is infinite years old, he is unknown, and it gets worse, because I realized that if God isn’t bound by one of the connected three dimensional constants, than he isn’t bound by any of them, he doesn’t move through a determined length or necessarily go in a direction :-this idea is arguable, as God could maybe be dimensionless while still being able to move, because what if         Multiverse theory intervention As much as it sounds like a farfetched bundle of words without any experimental evidence or steps to how a person can get there, still, let’s analyze its foundations, the cosmic microwave background doesn’t prove it. These anomalies interpreted as interactions with parallel universes can just be the result of the first ever light in existence’s (the big bang explosions light) wave length so stretched (red-shifted) that it breaks space time, or any other random crack-filling explanation, we for sure cannot assume that black holes lead to them as it hasn’t and could possibly never be experimentally tested, as everybody knows that its mostly a speculation, let me speculate my own argument, there is no fundamental limit to magnetic fields and spooky things happen at greater sizes. The universe probably is in shape with some sort of colossal magnetism and that could interact with other universes, as we don’t know how much space is between them, it could create a catastrophic black hole between universes as magnetism may even cause them, and others joining in ending the universes before they even existed, or a catastrophe in the making. The universe is expanding and taking up space, if all parallel universes were doing the same, then they would all end, scientifically we all know that the universe is not eternal as it is expanding from a point in space time. Did all the universes come to be at the same time? And will some last longer than others? It sounds like science is becoming so vastly populated that it is falling into a void of conspiracy. If this so rumored collection of universes each with clusters of galaxies is even remotely true, than how can we even be certain that they are parallel to ours, they could be a rock, or a bird or any other philosophical possibility because that is all it is, -Philosophy! No statistical evidence has or can ever prove it. The fundamental flaw in physics applies to this theory as it is an unfitting justification for gravitational waves (they are just an unseen issue with an answer in progress), undistributed temperature and non-uniform polarization, how would our universe even have from another they could very well just be the effects and manifestations of entropy on a larger and micro scale and other solutions that can’t be patched up with unfitting hypotheses’, as it is obvious that everything comes down to disorder over time, the different races in the world, the spread of asteroids, the relativity in time and the entropy in the forming of planets as they are not going back to the beginning but joining with new particles because of gravitational forces, ironically yet entropy is the counter intuitive force that God used to control our universe, over time. It has some real consequences like the facility of bad things happening on earth as written in Randomness and explained in Entropy.     Randomness Ecclesiastes argument  Atheists use a pathetic argument about God letting bad things happen on earth but as O-theory gives the example of Steve-jobs, the trinity states that the Holy-Spirit is the part in us, but only if we accept it, even if we do it won’t save us from bad things hitting us, you could create a mediocre probabilistic equation to see the real likeliness of bad or good things happening. All though entropy in the world does end up increasing the risk of bad things as disorder over time (gory example: a rotting cadaver only gets worse) it has real life appliances and even more benefits like, the different races in the world only becoming more vast over time,    Ecclesiastes talks about some deep and dark concepts in life, mainly time, death, and randomness, but the point is that it gives powerful insights about wisdom, and the biggest one is that we as inferior humans in comparison to the universe and God have no control whatsoever over life, and that we should just follow the Lords word for anything can happen to anyone. Ex. If a container of Ping-Pong balls is held over a set of nails close enough together for the balls to be dumped in and spread randomly are nailed to a wall, and below them six containers are arbitrarily arranged, each one representing one of the following: prosperity, death, happiness, cancer, eternal-life, and broken hearted. Imagine you and your family are the Ping-Pong balls dumped in the set of nails and each one bounces off a nail and follows a random trail down into one of the containers, anyone falls into any container. Life is just like that, the way we live doesn’t determine what we go through or what happens to us, it’s all random along with the fact that we must understand the importance of time and that there is a time for everything, we should also understand this concept, a God fearing soul could painfully and slowly die from the worst of diseases, the same way that a psychopathic serial killer who knows what’s wrong and what’s right that’s on a killing spree can infiltrate into society and live a happy life with prosperity. And when significantly negative happenings occur people are quick to say that it’s just a test, or that you’ll get double or triple what you suffered as a reward just as it was for Job, but people fail to realize the main point, those words are just a coping mechanism, the point is that bad things happen on earth, no one is immune from it., not believers, not scientists in the lab, not God defendants like Christian apologists, not me, not you or anyone else, not even the Son of Man (Jesus Christ) was immune from the arbitrary nature of life as he was determined to suffer early on.  Life is like Quantum Mechanics, where things are un-deterministic and random, the simple, deterministic rules are only really rewarded in the after-life, where if we have lived a good life on earth we will then be rewarded. What is trying to be put through is simply that we must live a good life not expecting anything in return here on earth as anything can happen to anyone. Im not by any means telling you to read the Holy Bible or even Ecclesiastes, that is up to you entirely, it doesn’t take a Christian apologist, a pastor or a ‘man who does not sin’ to understand life’s randomness. Anyone with a common faculty of thinking would understand this whether their an atheist, an agnostic, a Buddhist, a Jew, or a practitioner of traditional ancestral medicine, life’s randomness has certainly at least once been observed by everyone, it is an ancient and modern thing and is equivalent to saying “life is unfair” In this way, a place like this can’t have just come to form on its own, an uncaused mind must have plotted in complex algorithms and laws into it, and randomness has to be a complex algorithm that we really aren’t even close to understanding intuitively, we are just way too advanced.       The collapsing of the atheist big bang theory How can a cosmologist that is catholic or God fearing believe that an infinitely dense point arbitrarily burst into everything we know today without the interference of a super intellect? A religious menace in my opinion or in less judgmental words: a-lot suspicious-sounding! The kalam cosmological law can verbally cancel out the atheist big bang theory, in the following manner:  The atheist big bang theory is imprecise because how can nothing that is in a given time period suddenly burst into something expansive and where could the matter even come from, it should of turned into a black hole, which wouldn’t even permit the universe’s existence, but that can’t be true because that would mean that infinite atoms would be cramped up all together in probably what our uncompressed world would now call the place of one atom, becoming an infinite set, was the universe supposedly just a singularity with no light or matter revolving or going in or out, only holding expanding space that wouldn’t become too much for it to hold because it is infinitely dense, infinite means literally uncountable and expanding matches that definition , Or simply the big bang theory is imprecise because how can nothing but space, spontaneously burst into something with matter and relative time, it must have an uncaused cause. Or even simpler how is it possible or coherent to believe that nothing + nothing was equal to everything in the universe, more than, something more than possibly comprehensive, + nothing made everything.  Logic says that it mustn’t have bursted in the first place without a causeless cause, because if it is infinitely dense then time would be enough to keep it that way for a most probably infinite amount of time, or how else would you explain the ever expanding universe if space wasn’t already expanding in the first ever singularity, and once again where would matter come from! Im not expressing this as a satirical form of judgement, but as the three dimensional constants state: one cannot exist without the other. Matter would fail to exist if the whole universe were a singularity because it would be infinitely compressed and how were all the atoms in existence infinitely compressed? They would need to decompress now, or be created (which they were at the beginning of time at space)! But, mass and energy cannot be created after the beginning as they share an equivalence           (e=m  , so all the current atoms would need to be compressed into the size of a point in the first Nano second, that sounds ridiculously inaccurate, and in addition now instead of a plausible infinite amount of increasing space by expansion, but matter along with it making the whole equation grow exponentially!, but in the singularity matter would probably be way   ¼ of the amount of space, since only about   0.0000000000000000000042    of the universe contains matter(probably excluding dark matter), and this brings us to the question: how does mass increase in quantity and size on its own? Or how does mass decompress from infinite density when it cannot expand or increase? Well of course it doesn’t! all the atoms are already there they make up all the matter in the universe(observable and the other 95%)but if all the mass was already in existence then should we really consider that they were all infinitely compressed, try comparing that ratio of size,    but that would mean that they were compressed until non-existence, mass also can detach from central masses by fission in colliding stars or other temperature unrelated collisions and float around in space forever or form a planet, so at this scale something was definitely different about mass: -it was infinitely dense*. Of course my beliefs are that God created the heavens or (space-time and matter at the same time as I talked about this in the beginning of the synopsis of O-theory.   The big bang theory could be correct only if it comes with an uncaused cause as that would supernaturally explain 3 things: 1.      The universe coming from a Nano scale: this would explain everything as everything was made from nothing and so it began from literally nothing and would grow from a smaller than Nano scale to what it is today 2.      The problem with matter: matter as said before has some deep unexplainable factors as space and matter and time all came at the exact same time, there are unexplained things in this universe, and unexplained means that God made something so intricate or infinitely complex, but that is exactly how things are supposed to be because God made things that that are terribly complex, of course he made everything and we still don’t know what we don’t know, but God is already omniscient and the creator of all. 3.      The infinite compressing of space: space couldn’t arise from nothing to everything, only a supernatural intellect could infinitely compress space in such a way where it was programmed to form the entire universe from nothing which is how God made the universe. And the universe could have indeed formed in an explosion, but not caused by nothing.     Entropy Being the universal force that governs the universe it seems counterintuitive that God would make a force that causes disorder over time so crucial, essential, and universally ubiquitous, but there is nothing counterintuitive about entropy as even though it aggravates untreated negative instances, it also permits our existence and the existence of the universe because, in the big bang where everything exploded from nothing, that was God creating the universe in a ‘big-bang’, and as ambiguous as it may seem, the fact that nothing which technically is orderly is bursting into an expanding space is in line with disorder so at the absolute beginning of time, space, and matter, entropy was in existence. It was created along with the three dimensional constants at the same exact time as space first appeared, and is by definition entropy because that appearance is a disruptance of orderly nothingness, and as more space is released, its total value into the universe increases. In the universe new things always happen, new combinations of the universes algorithm are positioned.  Like milk in a mug of coffee blending, the effect is beautiful and looks orderly but is actually considered ‘second order’ but different order from the first, (order-disorder-second order) as it is different from before and that is the kind of entropy that God used to create the universe, that it is currently growing and on its way to become so disorderly that it actually orderly and beautiful like people on a crowded stage jiggling around and spreading out, as the ratio of people to the stage can represent mass to space spread out as it expands , of course we ignore the expansion of the universe to not encompass any difficulties with this simple example, but to account for this dilemma we can use our imagination to envision an expanding stage.      People: crowded stage     mass: space    Now there is a lot more to consider like the question of why there was less disorder over time and the solution is independent of your religious background. We first have to accept a postulate: The universe was created from nothing (god created the universe from nothing or in general the expansion of the universe started from a growing ‘yocto scale’ expanding space) And with that postulate we can construct an answer with solemnly logic: Nothing is already orderly as we know so that point in time where the expanding yocto size space was already a disturbance of orderly nothingness and so entropy increased by that same yocto scale, as the universe expanded more and more nothing became less common and so entropy increased even more as mass and energy were spreading.                                                                                                             Logic analysis  To both atheists and theological thinkers : Try to picture a world where God didn’t exist and the universe actually in some inexplicable way formed on its own, how we can be sure that -that beginning would end up how the universe is now , the point of scientists is to try and make inexplicable things make sense, but maybe they’ve gotten ahead of themselves this time, as a problem with physical and biological sciences is that you can always patch up the gaps and cracks with explanations compelling at first but as time unfolds they reveal their own un-patchable gaps that would be un-patchable because they are just wrong and that just makes the fight for the truth even harder, and unfortunately there is no way to tell if even this thesis was 100% reliable as maybe some explanations fell off, our only reliability comes from proven religious evidence or in other words –doctrine-, as an explanation on how things were truly made. Adam and eve were real as archeological evidence backs up the existence of  first humans like them in the world, and the speculations of one being lighter and one being darker to explain the worlds different races doesn’t logically make sense as when a mixed race couple have a kid the kid is mixed race, and the rareness of their child inheriting different races is even rare now, so let alone the first ever couple on the planet, this can be explained as a predicted event from God himself as he knew that if he made, (let this example be) white people then as population grew and spread out ,the ones migrating closer to the equator would turn darker over time as it’s the closest part of the earth to the sun.  To atheists: Now try to picture a world where God exists. At first you will see that everything in this thesis makes complete sense and that there is a beauty towards everything, you don’t have to become Christian or religious to see the implications, and the relations as shown in the summary of P-theory. And the inevitability of life in chapter Randomness or ironically of randomness in life, there is a beauty in this world, math proves it, it can’t be from evil, but from the opposite as mathematics is divine logic, and you can’t even trace it back to just the Egyptians whom used it for un-Godly purposes, because everybody has math wired and welded in their brain from the first people in existence to now, the counting of objects, spatial awareness, cognitive competence, and the above natural visualizations in Fractals, and the discovery of math prove just that! The collapsing of the atheist variations of the big bang theory isn’t just necessary it is reality, because how can nothing in nothing form everything, Newton’s first law in inertia proves this wrong. And the speculative un-testability of unfitting conspiracy theories like the multiverse theory don’t even need to exist. All scientists need is to keep on trying because maybe the answer comes from evidence from a totally unrelated topic so we must broaden up our investigations and researches, and I can then assure you that someday the answers will come up, but the excitement of how close we are all getting in agreement is far beyond this faculties comprehension. Conclusion: The relevance of this thesis is beyond average as it is the cornerstone of my life and a general perspective of the ongoing debate between science and God, which turns out to be the fact that they are connected, maybe that is all what this is about –connections- . In the near or distant future I hope to accomplish a better, more specific analogy to dogmatic-doctrine or maybe one who will come after us will accomplish this goal of mine.  As in O and P-theory state that the evolution of primates and the current evolution of humans, to our current lifestyle and the factors in the process of evolution all share a connection to the fine tuning of the universe which is so precise that it baffles physicists with the bizarre math and geometry, the infinite loops and paradoxes, then getting on to widely accepted theories by the general public but not to actual physicists the multiverse theory and the atheist big-bang theory both have failed to make sense by divine logic, then with subtle things that when shined on with more intense light reveal a pattern that proves the existence of a God when you believe and understand it like Life’s randomness, Entropy, pure logic and just about everything else here.      Thank you sincerely for reading this all and reaching the end of this thesis, for it has been a very didactic experience for me as well not just to assemble it but to contemplate on its main ideas, and I’m extremely happy to have finally written it for I have been wanting to do this for a great deal of time.  

for starters, there was the indulgences sold by the church to shorten someones time in purgatory. the idea of purgatory its self is an idea never found in scripture and means that the death of Jesus wasn't enough, but that we must  still suffer in order to get to heaven. and even if purgatory is real, then there certainly wouldn't be any document man could make that could shorten it, which would again mean that man was doing something Jesus couldn't. and if you disagree with the indulgences or purgatory then you disagree with the catholic church not are therefore not a true catholic.    would also disagree with praying to saints as it is never found in scripture. Jesus told us how to pray, and he said in his name and to the father, not any one else

What is free will and does man have it?

During my personal studies I came across an argument -why does God let bad things happen on earth, it is logical that he does, and as a result he is either not all good or not all powerful- now my simple answer was that : 1- if you were to explain this to a grieving person they wouldnt understand you because they just lost someone important and they might be blaming God - thats how most atheists come to be- so it comes down to a factor , namely - RANDOMNESS- A universal code embedded in the outline of the universe like math that God designed to govern the universe, think of it like quantum mechanics -nothing is deterministic, only in judgement day where if you have lived a good life you will be rewarded and if you havent, then the contrary- but you may ask me why the universe would of needed randomness, and here is where I reference our consciousness, the ability to discern good from bad all comes in from the same algorithm as randomness, just slightly tweaked, consciousness is necessary and came far before Adam and Eve ate the apple. now the connection between randomness and consciousness is a bit harder to explain so maybe that was the breaking point,because i feel like i'm missing a key factor but just know that my doctrine is based on logic derived from basic biblical postulates (verses, laws, chapters, etc) so i still need to learn and improve as i'm a relatively new soul. right, so please share your thoughts and personal answers to the question, thankyou and lol, I forgot to explain randomness, so basically If a container of Ping-Pong balls is held over a set of nails close enough together for the balls to be dumped in and spread randomly are nailed to a wall, and below them six containers are arbitrarily arranged, each one representing one of the following: prosperity, death, happiness, cancer, eternal-life, and broken hearted. Imagine you and your family are the Ping-Pong balls dumped in the set of nails and each one bounces off a nail and follows a random trail down into one of the containers, anyone falls into any container. Life is just like that, the way we live doesn’t determine what we go through or what happens to us, it’s all random along with the fact that we must understand the importance of time and that there is a time for everything, we should also understand this concept, a God fearing soul could painfully and slowly die from the worst of diseases, the same way that a psychopathic serial killer who knows what’s wrong and what’s right that’s on a killing spree can infiltrate into society and live a happy life with prosperity. And when significantly negative happenings occur people are quick to say that it’s just a test, or that you’ll get double or triple what you suffered as a reward just as it was for Job, but people fail to realize the main point, those words are just mostly a coping mechanism, the point is that bad things happen on earth, no one is immune from it., not believers, not scientists in the lab, not God defendants like Christian apologists, not me, not you or anyone else, not even the Son of Man (Jesus Christ) was immune from the arbitrary nature of life as he was determined to suffer early on.

If God told you to, should you murder your child? This is one of the more concerning questions I found while reading the Bible, and what's worse is that the answer is unequivocally "yes". Since when did the murder of innocents become justifiable?  I understand that in the story of Abraham and Isaac, it was all a test and God didn't actually mean for him to go through with it. But what if he had? There would be no doubt that Abraham would have done it. I think that sort of blind obedience is concerning, and quite possibly dangerous. If your morality is what some higher authority tells you it is, you could do anything, and believe yourself to be right. How do Christians reconcile with this? Obedience seems to be valued more highly than love, or basic morality, or family, or anything else. Is it any wonder the Isrealites were enslaved for 400 years?

Has anyone heard of the Gospel of Judas? Probably not, because it, along with many other "heretic" texts, was excluded from the scripture during the Council of Nicaea, called by Emperor Constantine to unify the Christian faith - by excluding any religious texts that disagreed with the "orthodox" faith. Various local sects of Christianity each had their own beliefs about what did and didn't count as scripture, however, the Council of Nicaea determined to abolish these differences and consolidate the various Christian teachings into one book - the New Testament. Very little of the "hidden texts" remain, but what is left is shocking to all those used to the God of orthodox Christianity. You can read them here, if you want. https://www.gospels.net/ Try not to dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't agree with the canonical Bible - remember, they were only excluded because a bunch of Roman bishops wanted them to be. Historically, they're just as valid.

I have always found it odd that the book of Esther does not mention anything theological in the slightest. The closest it gets is a fast. It also the only Old Testament book to not contain a designation of being divinely inspired. It is not mentioned in the New Testament and was the only Old Testament book not found in the Dead Sea scrolls. It really does feel like the odd one out in so many areas. Does anyone have any information on why it is considered canonical and the apocryphal books are not?

What Is a Godly Man?A godly man is not perfect — but he is being formed by God’s Word, transformed by the Holy Spirit, and led by His unfailing love. These scriptures describe the character of a man who fears the Lord and walks with Him.  1. He Delights in God’s WordPsalm 1:1–2 “Blessed is the man… whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and on His law he meditates day and night.” A godly man hungers for truth and lets God shape his thinking and living.  2. He Walks in Justice, Mercy, and HumilityMicah 6:8 “Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.” He doesn’t chase power or popularity — he lives to reflect God’s heart.  3. He Bears Spiritual FruitGalatians 5:22–23 “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.” His life produces evidence of God working in him.  4. He Fears the Lord and Lives RighteouslyPsalm 112:1, 4 “Blessed is the man who fears the Lord… He is gracious, merciful, and righteous.” He honors God, loves others, and walks in integrity.  5. He Is Steady, Faithful, and TeachableTitus 1:6–9 “namely, if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of indecent behavior or rebellion. For the overseer must be blameless as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not overindulging in wine, not a bully, not greedy for money, but hospitable, loving what is good, self-controlled, righteous, holy, disciplined,  holding firmly the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.”  A godly man is faithful, self-controlled, gentle, blameless, holy,  and committed to sound teaching.  6. He Lives with Purpose and Purity1 Timothy 6:11 “But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.” He chooses the path of holiness, not the path of ease. Godliness is something pursued — it’s active, not passive.  7. He Cares for the Weak and Resists WorldlinessJames 1:27 “Pure religion is to visit orphans and widows… and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” He shows compassion and lives with purity in a polluted world. 8. He Follows the Way of the Risen Lord John 13:15 “For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.” 1 John 2:6 “Whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.” A godly man follows Jesus, who served with humility, loved without condition, and obeyed the Father even unto death. He seeks to be Christlike in speech, action, and motive.  9. He Treasures God’s WordPsalm 119:11 “I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.” Psalm 119:105 “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” A godly man hides God’s Word in his heart — it guides his choices, guards his purity, and grounds his soul.  10. He Lives as a Witness of the KingdomJohn 15:8 “By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.” He understands that his life is not his own — it belongs to Christ. A godly man lives to bear fruit for God’s glory, to lead others to Christ, and to build the Kingdom, not his own platform.  11. He Lives Above Reproach and Serves Faithfully1 Timothy 3:8–13  “Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience… Let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless… Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.” A godly man is dignified, truthful, and self-controlled. He is faithful in small things, respected by others, and proves himself in service. His home life is in order — he leads with gentleness and responsibility. 12. He Lets the Peace of Christ Rule His LifeColossians 3:15–17 “Let the peace of Christ, to which you were indeed called in one body, rule in your hearts… Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you… do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus.” A godly man walks in peace, not pride — ruled by Christ, clothed in love, and filled with the Word. His life is not marked by control or chaos, but by thankfulness, truth, and Christlike action.   A godly man doesn’t just believe in Jesus — he becomes like Him. He is a disciple, growing in grace, rooted in truth, and devoted to reflecting the light of Christ in a dark world. While works is not a requirement for salvation, the are a natural result of a living, active faith.  It affects what we do with our time, talent, and treasure.  It affects our priorities, It affects the way we speak,  It affects the way we think.  We cannot encounter the resurrected Savior and walk away unchanged.  May the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, His word dwell in you richly, and because you are chosen of God, in Christ you are holy and beloved, therefore: put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience;  bearing with one another, and forgiving each other and most of all put on love. Proverbs 1:9 do not ignore your mother’s teaching; for it is a graceful wreath for your head And necklaces for your neck.

When I was homeschooled, my curriculum assigned me a couple books explaining arguments against evolution. My parents are very open to various old earth theories (which I didn’t really realize at the time), so on the side my mother made me read a series of letters that were a response to one of those books. However, this curriculum still brainwashed me into thinking that you had to reject evolution to be a good Christian. Because of this, I felt very uncomfortable in museums for the longest time, assuming that as a Christian I had to disagree with the ages of various things. I didn’t really question this assumption until 6 or 7 months ago, when I began to realize just how many amazing Christians hold to old earth views or even evolution. A while back, my father introduced me to Gavin Ortlund, a Nashville-based Baptist pastor (he’s been called a liberal and a heretic for his regional flood views: how terrible is that?), who is something of an evolutionist. I had been watching Christian YouTube channels for a few months, but I gradually realized that many of them (typically the more academic ones) also hold to old earth views. I began to realize the unlikely harmony between evolution and the Bible. I also began to read more Tolkien and Lewis, two great Christian thinkers who were also open to evolutionary views. Now, it pains me to look back on myself and realize how my homeschool curriculum had taught me the same thing that many atheists believe: that nobody could see the Bible and evolution as fitting together. Having been presented with this false dichotomy, atheists choose evolution, rejecting the religion that is the foundation for Western culture, and fundamentalist Christians choose the Bible, rejecting the modern scientific advances that numerous Christians worked towards. You see, I didn’t realize how plausible theistic evolution actually is. I hope my testimony on this has been helpful and thought-provoking for y’all. Obviously this issue is secondary to the gospel itself (it’s a so-called tertiary issue, which means that it’s important but less so than, say, baptism). The main reason I care about this issue is to raise awareness about theistic evolution, which many Christians automatically reject as ridiculous. Because if I had entered a college biology class with this same assumption I keep talking about, and if I had started to see how plausible evolution actually is (and how there is plenty of evidence that I thought didn’t exist), then I may have been seriously tempted to leave Christianity. But since I have changed my mind on this issue, my faith is much stronger. I no longer have to care if that dinosaur skeleton really is 80 million years old: it doesn’t make the Bible any less true!  Thanks for listening!

I'm not that well-versed in the angel part of the Bible, so please correct any inaccuracies. If Satan was originally an angel, and angels are supposed to be pure and good, where did he get the desire for power that led to his fall? I checked the Bible for every reference to Satan, but he only appears seven times, or something. How did he become such an important figure in Christianity when he's mentioned so little?

Tell me not, in mournful numbers,    Life is but an empty dream! For the soul is dead that slumbers,    And things are not what they seem. Life is real! Life is earnest!    And the grave is not its goal; Dust thou art, to dust returnest,    Was not spoken of the soul. Not enjoyment, and not sorrow,    Is our destined end or way; But to act, that each to-morrow    Find us farther than to-day. Art is long, and Time is fleeting,    And our hearts, though stout and brave, Still, like muffled drums, are beating    Funeral marches to the grave. In the world’s broad field of battle,    In the bivouac of Life, Be not like dumb, driven cattle!    Be a hero in the strife! Trust no Future, howe’er pleasant!    Let the dead Past bury its dead! Act,— act in the living Present!    Heart within, and God o’erhead! Lives of great men all remind us    We can make our lives sublime, And, departing, leave behind us    Footprints on the sands of time; Footprints, that perhaps another,    Sailing o’er life’s solemn main, A forlorn and shipwrecked brother,    Seeing, shall take heart again. Let us, then, be up and doing,    With a heart for any fate; Still achieving, still pursuing,    Learn to labor and to wait. - Henry Wadsworth Longfellow I thought this poem was really inspiring. What do you think?

what should be the governments role -if any- in marriage? should you need a state license to marry people? should you have to get a certificate when you marry or divorce? or should the government stay out of it all together and let it be an ordnance fully done by the church? but if so how would non-Christians get married? which begs the question is marriage for non-Christians too? please feel free to share your thoughts on any of these quistions

What do you think are the most important beliefs in Christianity? Especially moral ones. Could you summarize it please?

What are practical ways to live a Holy life pleasing to God while living in a fallen world?

Look around at everything you can see around you. The natural landscape of the earth that's covered with stunning views, towering mountains enormous oceans, sand and snow covered waste landscape, and so much more. All made of over a hundred different elements that combine to form thousands of unique compounds that make up the world around us. Then look up to the sky and think of the quintillions of other planets, stars, solar systems, black holes, galaxys, and more that form our universe. Now think of all the laws and constants that keep it all running. The hundreds of mathematical fumulas that we use to decipher the world around us, such as the the laws of physics and geometry, and the predictable constant of gravity(and many othersbot mentioned and still more to be discovered). And now we come to the most complex thing of all: life. From the smallest bacteria to the largest whale, from the tiniest speck of algae to the tallest tree, our planet is covered with life. From the bottom of the Pacific, to the deserts of Africa, to the frozen shores of the Antarctic, there is no were on earth that we can go to get away from it. The sheer complexity of life still leaves scientists baffled in many areas. And ourselves, the only known form of consciousness and by far the most complex form of life. And yet phisical science has given us no explanation for what causes our consciousness. The only plausible explanation is that our consciousness comes from our souls which are just as much as part of us as our bodies, and undetectable by any physical means. And despite all of our technology, scientists have never come close to replicating there evolutionist view of how life formed from non-life (or how something came from nothing). Nor can they find any proof of it in nature, except for a few* fossils that they claim are species in mid evolution, but could also very well be some poor creature or person that was badly deformed. Now how could everything we just mentioned -mountains, atoms, compounds, planets, stars, the laws of nature, life, conscious, ect.- and much much more, have come from nothing? This idea is simply absurd, or as Isaac Newton said: "Atheism is so senseless". Any one of the things mentioned ought to be enough to convince anyone of a creator. To quote Isaac Newton again, "In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence.". *if evolution was true, we would have WAY more then a few