The theory of evolution of the Coca Cola can.

The theory of evolution of the Coca Cola can.



Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."

Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.


The banana--the atheist's nightmare.

Note that the banana:
1. Is shaped for human hand
2. Has non-slip surface
3. Has outward indicators of inward content: Green--too early,
Yellow --just right, Black--too late.
4. Has a tab for removal of wrapper
5. Is perforated on wrapper
6. Bio-degradable wrapper
7. Is shaped for human mouth
8. Has a point at top for ease of entry
9. Is pleasing to taste buds
10. Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy

To say that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to say that no one designed the Coca Cola can.
TEST ONE
The person who thinks the Coca Cola can had no designer is:
___ A. Intelligent
___ B. A fool
___ C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious

Did you know that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings, the focusing muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains 137,000,000 light sensitive cells?

Charles Darwin said,

"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

If man cannot begin to make a human eye, how could anyone in his right mind think that eyes formed by mere chance? In fact, man cannot make anything from nothing. We don't know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop . . . but we cannot create even one grain of sand from nothing. Yet, the eye is only a small part of the most sophisticated part of creation-the human body.

George Gallup, the famous statistician, said,

"I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity."

Albert Einstein said,

"Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble."


TEST TWO
A. Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder?
___ YES ___ NO
B. Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter?
___ YES ___ NO
C. Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker?
___ YES ___ NO

If you answered "YES" for any of the above, give details:
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________

Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and they by chance fell into ten rows of five oranges? The logical conclusion is that someone with an intelligent mind put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall by accident into a straight line are mind-boggling, let alone ten rows of five.


TEST THREE
A. From the atom to the universe, is there order?
___ YES ___ NO
B. Did it happen by accident?
___ YES ___ NO
C. Or, must there have been an intelligent mind?
___ YES ___ NO
D. What are the chances of 50 oranges falling by chance
into ten rows of five oranges? ______________________

If you answered "YES" for any of the above, give details:
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________

The declaration "There is no God" is what is known as an absolute statement. For an absolute statement to be true, I must have absolute knowledge.

Here is another absolute statement: "There is no gold in China."

TEST FOUR
What do I need to have for that statement to be true?
A. No knowledge of China.
___ YES ___ NO
B. Partial knowledge of China.
___ YES ___ NO
C. Absolute knowledge of China.
___ YES ___ NO

"C" is the correct answer. For the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China, or the statement is incorrect. To say "There is no God," and to be correct in the statement, I must be omniscient.

I must know how many hairs are upon every head, every thought of every human heart, every detail of history, every atom within every rock...nothing is hidden from my eyes...I know the intimate details of the secret love-life of the fleas on the back of the black cat of Napolean's great-grandmother. To make the absolute statement "There is no God." I must have absolute knowledge that there isn't one.

Let's say that this circle represents all the knowledge in the entire universe, and let's assume that you have an incredible 1% of all that knowledge. Is it possible, that in the knowledge you haven't yet come across, there is ample evidence to prove that God does indeed exist?

If you are reasonable, you will have to say, "Having the limited knowledge that I have at present, I believe that there is no God." In other words, you don't know if God exists, so you are not an "atheist," you are what is commonly known as an "agnostic." You are like a man who looks at a building, and doesn't know if there was a builder.

TEST FIVE
The man who sees a building and doesn't know if there was a builder is:
___ A. Intelligent
___ B. A fool
___ C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious

Perhaps you have questions that hold you back from faith. First, almost every question you have about suffering humanity etc., can be adequately answered. Second, we have faith in plenty of things we don't understand. Did you understand the mechanics of television before you turned it on? Probably not. You took a step of faith, turned it on, and after it worked, understanding how it worked wasn't that important. We accept that there are unseen television waves right in front of our eyes. We can't see them because they are invisible. For them to manifest, we need a receiver, then we can enjoy the experience of television.

God is not flesh and blood. He is an eternal Spirit-immortal and invisible. Like the television waves, He cannot be experienced until the "receiver" is switched on. Here is something you will find hard to believe: Jesus said, "He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him" (John 14:21).

Either that is true or it isn't. Jesus Christ says that He will manifest Himself to anyone who obeys Him. Approach the subject the same way you approached your first television set. Just take a small step of faith. If it works, enjoy it, if it doesn't, forget it.

Or have you an ulterior motive? Could it be that the "atheist" can't find God, for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman? Could it be that your love for sin is clouding your good judgment? If the Bible is true, and Jesus Christ has "abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel," then you owe it to yourself just to check it out. Here is how to do that:

TEST SIX
With a tender conscience,
check this list of the Ten Commandments:

1. Have I always loved God my Creator with all my heart, mind, soul and strength?
2. Have I made a god in my own image - a god to suit myself?
3. Have I ever used God's name in vain?
4. Have I kept the Sabbath holy?
5. Have I always honored my parents implicitly?
6. Have I murdered (God considers hatred as murder)?
7. Have I committed adultery (including premarital sex and lust)?
8. Have I stolen (the value is irrelevant)?
9. Have I lied (including fibs and these questions)?
10. Have I coveted (been greedy or materialistic)?


If you have even broken one Law, then you have sinned against God and therefore will "surely die," for the "wages of sin is death."

We are all guilty of breaking the Commandments. Listen to the voice of your conscience, and let it remind you of some of the sins of the past. We are not perfect as we are commanded to be (Matthew 5:48), neither is our heart pure. On Judgment Day our transgressions will be evidence of our shame. Think of it: God has seen every sin we have ever committed. We share our thought-life with Him.

We are guilty of violating His Law a multitude of times, yet if we repent, God can forgive us because Jesus stepped into the courtroom 2,000 years ago and paid the fine for us.

His death on the cross satisfied the Law we so blatantly transgressed, and at the same time demonstrated how much God loves us—"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." His shed blood on the cross can make you clean in the sight of a holy God...as though you have never sinned.

God doesn't want you to go to Hell. Please, forget your arguments, repent and put your trust in Jesus and be saved from God's wrath. Make Psalm 51 your prayer, then read your Bible daily and always obey what you read; God will never let you down. Thank you for taking the time to read this page.


Adapted from God Doesn't Believe in Atheists
by Ray Comfort

> > >

The 2012 Apocalypse Virgin Hunt

Twistianity Today is looking for 70 virgins for The End of the Age Human Sacrifice Extravaganza

How do I become a 2012 Human Sacrifice® Model?   

http://truetwistianity.blogspot.com/2011/12/contestant.html

http://truetwistianity.blogspot.com/2011/12/2012-apocalyptic-human-sacrifice.html

http://truetwistianity.blogspot.com/2011/12/2012-apocalyptic-human-sacrifice.html

LORD, LIAR OR LUNATIC? or as "Mad, Bad, or God"

THE TRILEMMA
LORD, LIAR OR
LUNATIC?


Yeshewa (Jesus)' distinct claims of being God eliminate the popular ploy of skeptics Who regard Him as just a good moral man or a prophet who said a lot Of profound things. So often that conclusion is passed off as the only one acceptable to scholars or as the obvious result of the intellectual process. The trouble is, many people nod their heads in agreement and never see the fallacy of such reasoning.
C. S. Lewis, who was a professor at Cambridge University and once an agnostic, understood this issue clearly. He writes:
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Yeshewa (Jesus) as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Yeshewa (Jesus) said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic ‑on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg‑ or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the son of God: or else a madman or something worse.
Then Lewis adds:
You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
In the words of Kenneth Scott Latourette, historian of Christianity at Yale University: "It is not His teachings which make Yeshewa (Jesus) so remarkable, although these would be enough to give Him distinction. It is a combination of the teachings with the man Himself. The two cannot be separated."
Yeshewa (Jesus) claimed to be God. He didn't leave any other option open. His claim must be either true or false, so it is something that should be given serious consideration. Yeshewa (Jesus)' question to His disciples, "But who do you say that I am?" (Matthew 16:15) has several alternatives.
First, suppose that His claim to be God was false. If it was false, then we have only two alternatives. He either knew it was false or He didn't know it was false. We will consider each one separately and examine the evidence.
>> Was He a Liar?
If, when Yeshewa (Jesus) made His claims, He knew that He was not God, then He was lying and deliberately deceiving His followers. But if He was a liar, then He was also a hypocrite because He told others to be honest, whatever the cost, while He himself taught and lived a colossal lie. More than that, He was a demon, because He told others to trust Him for their eternal destiny. If He couldn't back up His claims and knew it, then He was unspeakably evil. Last, He would also be a fool because it was His claims to being God that led to His crucifixion.
Many will say that Yeshewa (Jesus) was a good moral teacher. Let's be realistic. How could He be a great moral teacher and knowingly mislead people at the most important point of His teaching ‑His own identity?
You would have to conclude logically that He was a deliberate liar. This view of Yeshewa (Jesus), however doesn't coincide with what we know either of Him or the results of His life and teachings. Wherever Yeshewa (Jesus) has been proclaimed, lives have been changed for the good, nations have changed for the better, thieves are made honest, alcoholics are cured, hateful individuals become channels of love, unjust persons become just.
William Lecky, one of Great Britain's most noted historians and a dedicated opponent of organized Christianity, writes:
It was reserved for Christianity to present to the world an ideal character which through all the changes of eighteen centuries has inspired the hearts of men with an impassioned love; has shown itself capable of acting on all ages, nations, temperaments and conditions; has been not only the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice.... The simple record of these three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and soften mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers and all the exhortations of moralists.
Historian Philip Schaff says:
How, in the name of logic, common sense, and experience, could an imposter‑that is a deceitful, selfish, depraved man‑have invented, and consistently maintained from the beginning to end, the purest and noblest character known in history with the most perfect air of truth and reality? How could He have conceived and successfully carried out a plan of unparalleled beneficence, moral magnitude, and sublimity, and sacrificed His own life for it, in the face of the strongest prejudices of His people and age? 70/9495
If Yeshewa (Jesus) wanted to get people to follow Him and believe in Him as God, why did He go to the Jewish nation? Why go as a Nazarene carpenter to a country so small in size and population and so thoroughly adhering the undivided unity of God? Why didn't He go to Egypt or, even more, to Greece, where they believed in various gods and various manifestations of them?
Someone who lived as Yeshewa (Jesus) lived, taught as Yeshewa (Jesus) taught, and died as Yeshewa (Jesus) died could not have been a liar. What other alternatives are there?
>> Was He a Lunatic?
If it is inconceivable for Yeshewa (Jesus) to be a liar, then couldn't He actually have thought Himself to be God, but been mistaken? After all, it's possible to be both sincere and wrong. But we must remember that for someone to think himself God, especially in a fiercely monotheistic culture, and then to tell others that their eternal destiny depended on believing in him, is no light flight of fantasy but the thoughts of a lunatic in the fullest sense. Was Yeshewa (Jesus) Christ such a person?
Someone who believes he is God sounds like someone today believing himself Napoleon. He would be deluded and self‑deceived, and probably he would be locked up so he wouldn't hurt himself or anyone else. Yet in Yeshewa (Jesus) we don't observe the abnormalities and imbalance that usually go along with being deranged. His poise and composure would certainly be amazing if He were insane.
Noyes and Kolb, in a medical text, describe the schizophrenic as a person who is more autistic than realistic. The schizophrenic desires to escape from the world of reality. Let's face it; claiming to be God would certainly be a retreat from reality.
In light of the other things we know about Yeshewa (Jesus), it's hard to imagine that He was mentally disturbed. Here is a man who spoke some of the most profound sayings ever recorded. His instructions have liberated many individuals from mental bondage.
Clark H. Pinnock asks:
Was He deluded about His greatness, a paranoid, an unintentional deceiver, a schizophrenic? Again, the skill and depth of His teachings support the case only for His total mental soundness. If only we were as sane as He!
A student at a California university told me that his psychology professor had said in class that "all he has to do is pick up the Bible and read portions of Christ's teaching to many of his patients. That's all the counseling they need."
Psychiatrist J. T. Fisher states:
If you were to take the sum total of all authoritative articles ever written by the most qualified of psychologists and psychiatrists on the subject of mental hygiene ‑if you were to combine them and refine them, and cleave out the excess verbiage ‑ if you were to take the whole of the meat and none of the parsley, and if you were to have these unadulterated bits of pure scientific knowledge concisely expressed by the most capable of living poets, you would have an awkward and incomplete summation of the Sermon on the Mount. And it would suffer immeasurably through comparison. For nearly two thousand years the Christian world has been holding in its hands the complete answer to its restless and fruitless yearnings. Here ... rests the blueprint for successful human life with optimism, mental health, and contentment.
C. S. Lewis writes:
The historical difficulty of giving for the life, sayings and influence of Yeshewa (Jesus) any explanation that is not harder than the Christian explanation is very great. The discrepancy between the depth and sanity ... of His moral teaching and the rampant megalomania which must lie behind His theological teaching unless He is indeed God has never been satisfactorily explained. Hence the non‑Christian hypotheses succeed one another with the restless fertility of bewilderment.
Philip Schaff reasons:
Is such an intellect ‑clear as the sky, bracing as the mountain air, sharp and penetrating as a sword, thoroughly healthy and vigorous, always ready and always self‑possessed ‑liable to a radical and most serious delusion concerning His own character and mission? Preposterous imagination!
>> Was He Lord?
I cannot personally conclude that Yeshewa (Jesus) was a liar or a lunatic. The only other alternative is that He was the Christ, the Son of God, as He claimed.
When I discuss this with most Jewish people, it's interesting how they respond. They usually tell me that Yeshewa (Jesus) was a moral, upright, religious leader, a good man, or some kind of prophet. I then share with them the claims Yeshewa (Jesus) made about Himself and then the material in this chapter on the trilemma (liar, lunatic, or Lord). When I ask if they believe Yeshewa (Jesus) was a liar, there is a sharp "No!"
Then I ask, "Do you believe He was a lunatic?"
The reply is, "Of course not."
"Do you believe He is God?"
Before I can get a breath in edgewise, there is a resounding, "Absolutely not."
Yet one has only so many choices.
The issue with these three alternatives is not which is possible, for it is obvious that all three are possible. Rather, the question is, "Which is more probable?" Who you decide Yeshewa (Jesus) Christ is must not be an idle intellectual exercise. You cannot put Him on the shelf as a great moral teacher. That is not a valid option. He is either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord and God. You must make a choice. "But," as the apostle John wrote, "these have been written that you may believe that Yeshewa (Jesus) is the Christ, the Son of God; and" ‑more important‑ "that believing you might have life in His name" (John 20:31).
The evidence is clearly in favor of Yeshewa (Jesus) as Lord. Some people, however, reject this clear evidence because of moral implications involved. They don't want to face up to the responsibility or implications of calling Him Lord.

Labels: Jesus, JeZus, John 1.1, Yeshewa, Yochanan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma


The trilemma has been further popularised in Christian apologetics since Lewis, notably by writers like Josh McDowell. Peter Kreeft describes the trilemma as "the most important argument in Christian apologetics"[13] and it forms a major part of the first talk in the Alpha Course and the book based on it, Questions of Life by Nicky Gumbel. Catholic Christian Outreach uses this concept as a central tool in the "Discovery" Faith Study. Ronald Reagan also used this argument in 1978, in a written reply to a liberal Methodist minister who said that he did not believe Jesus was the son of God