Former Diseny “Hanna Montana” star and singer Miley Cyrus made her feelings on the Christian faith even clearer with a Twitter posting in which she uploaded a picture and quote from physicist Lawrence Krauss that not only advocates evolution as the basis of creation but includes the phrase “forget Jesus.” Here is the tweet below:
As detailed in our article: “Miley Cyrus’ Dad: “My family is under attack by Satan. I’m scared for daughter Miley”, Cyrus’ own father, singer Billy Ray Cyrus has stated that his daughter has been caught up in a series of rebellious, scandalous behavior that have been anything but Christian (which Cyrus claimed to be for most of her career). Despite claiming to be a Christian Cyrus has been an advocate for gay marriage, quotes other religions and repeatedly mocks those who criticize her raunchy behavior and dress. But this is obviously taking her disrespect of Christianity to another level.
Jesus Christ is the foundation and central figure of the Christian faith. It is belief in Him and the Bible that is at the core of being a Christian. One’s faith hinges on whether one believes the claims of Jesus were true and professing that belief. Jesus said: “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.”
Notice that the physicist’s evolutionary explanation only targeted Jesus Christ. He does not mention Allah, Gaia, Krishna or any other god of any other religion. Just Jesus. And thus the true nature of his quote is exposed. Time and time again, the messages being put out in society always seem to come back to the Bible of Christianity and Jesus in particular. Why? Because Satan knows that Biblical Christianity is the greatest threat to his lies and deceptions. For Cyrus to not only agree with the quote from the physicist but post it for her over 5 million twitter fans to see is a denial of Jesus, blasphemous and an attack on the Word of God.
The Book of John states: “In the beginning was the Word [Jesus], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.”
The point of this passage is that Jesus, being God, is the Creator of all things, including stars. This is a basic premise of Biblical Christianity. And yet Cyrus is promoting evolution and encouraging her followers to “forget Jesus.” This is why once again fans and parents alike should not be won over and amazed by pop stars who claim to be Christian. Whether it’s Katy Perry who went on to make songs celebrating Lesbian sexual experimentation and alien sex, or Justin Bieber who promotes premarital sex and wearing women’s clothing or the Jonas Brothers wearing a t-shirt with Satanist Aleister Crowley on it, being Christian is often just part of the image and marketing of certain entertainers that does not reflect in their lifestyles or worldview.
Cyrus’ Response
After receiving a great deal of backlash on Twitter, Cyrus responded: “How can people take the love out of science and bring hate into religion so easily?” Again, notice how Cyrus completely overlooks the scientist who wrote “forget Jesus” and actually attributes his quote as being loving. This is yet another sign of the trend in society to label Christians who believe the Bible as people of hate, regardless of what others say about the Christian faith.
Conclusion
Regardless of other incidents in Cyrus’ career, this post is a particularly sad moment. Even if Cyrus never believed in the Christian faith, there is no need to upset her fanbase with a quote that is clearly attacking Christianity. Her own father is on record saying that he believes Satan is at work in his family and that Miley’s success and her handlers have been destructive for their family. Christians should not react with anger at Cyrus for her statements, but rather pray for this young woman to see the err of her ways and repent. And hopefully more people will not fall for the seduction of the Christian role model pop star who talks a Christian game but acts devilish on stage. And instead of forgetting, it is time more people remember Jesus Christ, who gave His life and rose from the dead as the perfect sacrifice to pay for the sins of humanity. We are not stardust, we are God’s creation. And once we see past Satan’s deceptions we can look to Jesus and be brought back into The Lord’s family.
Wow, just wow! How can you denounce someone who you don’t even know. I think that if she knew our Father and his goodness, then she would have never made that comment. May God forgive her in Jesus Christ Holy name.
she didnt make any comment other than beautiful. Maybe you should learn to read before you go all high and mighty on someone.
By her posting that statement and writing beautiful in reference to it,she is basically agreeing with it.
You people with your medeival superstutions are just laughable. Want to know what is destroying america?……..fundamental christianity. This is why the rest of the world thinks americanas are idiots.
It is sin that is messing up america. Who cares what the rest of the world thinks as long as you are standing for what is right?
You may reject Christ, it is your right but surely there is no need to be disrespectful?
May The Lord open your eyes.
The reason the scientist “targeted Jesus” is because the claim in Christianity is that he died so that “we might live.” No other religion makes that claim, so the analogy wouldn’t work. Don’t be so freakin’ sensitive.
But instead this scientist makes the claims that “stars died so we could live” and everyone is supposed to be at aw. Lol all I see is a man who prophesied himself to be wise and doing so made himself a fool. Tell me something, how can a star die for us to live? Have we ever seen a star form? Jesus was sent to die on the cross for all of our sins. Christians are the only religion to make this claim sadly because we know the truth and so do Jews for Jesus. I just want to make one thing clear, in Romans 6:23 the lord my God says “the wages for sin is death”. What this scientist is telling people is that, the stars that we have never seen formed died for us?? He could have targeted any other religion, but no, he didn’t he decided to target the one that was the truth. This is the word talks about, SUPPRESSION. In Romans 1:18-19 it says it is evident that word is in us. We know that God exist but like this scientist, there are people who want to supress the truth. Jeremiah 31:31-34 the word is us, it is installed in us. We already know God exist. It’s your choice to follow him.
*exists
I don’t really think the scientist meant to attack Christianity–he’s trying to compare the amazing sacrifice that Jesus did on the cross to the supernovae of stars, which is, in a way, even more fundamental than Jesus (simply because of the chronological order). I’m not sure how much you know about stars, but when God whips them up in nebulae, the stars create elements through nuclear fusion. All stars start with hydrogen, smashing the elements together to meld hydrogen into helium. After all the hydrogen is used up, the star begins fusion with the helium, and the process continues. Eventually, the star creates carbon, etc, the elements all life (as we know it) requires–Carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, and the like. With the increase atomic mass, the star eventually breaks under its own gravity and energy, and explodes, causing a supernova, and what scientists refer as a star’s death. Those elements are scattered all around. I’m of the opinion that it was by God’s grace that he decided to gather these elements on Earth, and oversee creation of life here. Jesus may have died to save us from our sins, but Humans as a species would still be around whether or not he came around; without the stars to “die” for us, humans and life would not exist. I hope that clears up any misconceptions you may have had, but if I have misunderstood anything, please let me know. I don’t like living in ignorance.
Hi Michelle,
I think the one part of Mr. Krauss’s statement you missed is where he said “So forget Jesus.” He is not trying to harmonize science with Christianity. He is outright attacking Christianity and putting “the stars” in the place of Jesus Christ. He is encouraging people to forget and reject Christianity altogether.
Of course the Bible says nothing about stars creating us. It says that God made humanity Himself:
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. — Genesis 2:7.
No mention of stars, carbon, nitrogen, etc. God did the creating Himself. On top of that, Jesus being God, also was there at creation. We are told this in the book of John:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. — John 1
Jesus, The Word, created all things. So we would not be around without Him. He gave us our initial life and He also gives us our eternal life. The only question is whether or not we choose to believe in Him or follow the religion of someone like Mr. Krauss. I hope and pray that you choose to believe Jesus over a skeptic and Miley Cyrus. God bless.
And that’s true. Stars did not create us. But they helped to form the matter God used to, in turn, form us. I re-read his statement, and it’s true, he could have picked other words, a different metaphor–something that could be less insulting, but I believe his want to attack stems from Christians unwavering want to interpret the Bible verbatim and literal. In addition, I meant as Jesus in the form of a physical human on Earth. Even if he physically had not visited, the physical matter needed to create us is as important as God’s life giving breath (though with God, I’m sure it’s possible to bypass even that if he wanted to). All things were created by him. I never argued with that. God made the stars (and they’re lovely too). He made the moon, the sun, billions of stars, and billions of galaxies. He made the laws of physics, and he made particles. He made dark matter, dark energy, the elements, and he made us.
People say things sometimes for the poetic meaning–not because they wish to insult anyone, though that may be the case. Miley Cyrus may have tweeted that picture saying “Beautiful”, but she could just be referring to the idea of being made from stars, something that sounds incredibly beautiful, poetic, and inspiring. I’m not going to pretend like I know anything about Miley, because I don’t. I never watched as a child, and I don’t plan to. Again, please correct me whatever I might have misunderstood, misrepresented, etc.
“Stars did not create us. But they helped to form the matter God used to, in turn, form us.”
Once again, this is not what the Bible says. The funny thing is that since the creation of the universe is not observable, the Big Bang will always just be a theory. Yet, you are fully willing to put your faith and trust in it even though it is not proven. You’re just taking a man’s best guess as literal fact. Yet, you criticize Christians who view the Bible literally. Christians and Big Bang proponents are both faith-based believers. Christians are just willing to admit it.
As for Miley thinking it was beautiful, in no other context would we ever try to justify Krauss’s statement. If he was writing to married women and said “so women, forget your husbands. I’m the one you should be focused on.” in the midst of flowery, poetic language, would it be okay for a married woman to to tweet his words and call them “beautiful”? Would that not be offensive to her husband? I think the answer is obvious. So similarly, flowery language does not sugarcoat what is a blatant attack on Christianity and a call to reject it. What spirit inspired Krauss to write that? Certainly not a Godly one.
Again, I really hope and pray you will consider God’s ways and His truths over man’s vain objections and theories.
How to Get to Heaven
https://beginningandend.com/how-to-get-to-heaven/
I never mentioned the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory, to my knowledge, does not address the matter of human creation. The Big Bang theory addresses what scientists think was how the universe was created. In addition, the word “theory” in layman terms is a word that portrays uncertainty. In science, a theory is much more concrete than the way a layman would use it. The Bible does not mention anything about the elements. It does not mention carbon, nitrogen, plastic, cars, DNA, dinosaurs (a classic example, I’m sure you’ve seen this and refuted this countless of times), but my point is just because the Bible doesn’t go into specifics does not simply mean it did not happen. It just shows that we don’t know the specifics. I really do not understand why you brought the Big Bang theory in this discussion, as I never even referred to it. Just suppose God snapped his fingers, and that snap was the Big Bang as only a human could visualize it (as a concept)?
Also, if Krauss wrote that, and a wife tweeted that saying “beautiful”, I probably would have thought that was with sarcasm, as “I’m the one you should be focused on” sounds rather arrogant. We won’t know his meaning unless we actually ask him what he meant. I am simply trying to give him the benefit of the doubt instead of jumping to conclusions that he is making that statement with the intention of offending. I also think it is worth looking at his target audience. If he is talking to what he suspects is a mainly atheist audience, I think it’s natural he feels this kind of statement is acceptable. Again, I must stress this point, I am not saying he is blameless. I am merely stating possibilities that not all scientists are out to destroy Christianity or something.
I don’t believe the Bible was meant to be taken literally. Jesus told many parables that were not meant to be taken literally–he told those parables as metaphors to explain to the people he taught lessons. While I personally believe the Bible was not meant to be taken literally, I meant no disrespect and did not meant to criticize those who do.
I do earnestly hope that you realize there are many Christians that can hold different beliefs.
To finish, God has told us his truths, yes, but man is trying to fill in the details. How did God create Earth? Perhaps he gathered many chunks of rock and smashed them together, melding and forming this planet and putting it into the perfect place in space to have the capacity to hold all three matters of water in a reasonable temperature range. Perhaps he only had to close his eyes and visualize what he wanted. The point is that the bible never went into details, so we won’t know which happened.
I consider myself a Christian, and while I believe that who the debaters are does not affect the discussion at hand, I do believe it is a worthwhile thing to note, as it appears as though you think I am an atheist.
He mentions Jesus because his death is fictionalised as having been for our sake. Christ’s sake, don’t your even know the myths of your own religion? It’s a simple comparison- not a satanically derived conspiracy.
Besides, being composed of stardust is much more poetic than some socially constructed deity murdering his own son for the sake of forgiveness that he could have granted anyway as the supposed supreme being….
Power and glory be unto the God and Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel. The God alone whose name is Jehovah
Miss Stacie –
You are sadly and hideously mistaken if you think that all of this is about “poetry”, and that this is for your entertainment. This is for the saving of your soul – IF you are even concerned with your salvation. From your short posting, it seems as if you are not.
The main reason why Christianity is relentlessly attacked by other religions/heretical teachings/false doctrines is because Lucifer (who, by the way, is REAL and is the author of all these false religions, etc.) knows the truth, and the truth is that the Lord Jesus Christ IS the way, the truth, and the light; no man comes unto the Father God Jehovah except by (or through) Him (John 14 vs.6). Lucifer knows that there is forgiveness of sins, baptism into righteousness, salvation and eternal life in the Lord Jesus Christ – who IS the righteous Son of God – but Lucifer does not want ANY of God’s people to have these good gifts. So, he has dispatched his demonic agents into the world to attack these basic tenets of Christianity by creating these false religions, etc. that preach/teach everything BUT salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ, in order to blind people to the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ.
For example: Lucifer is not concerned with attacking or trying to discredit the religion of Islam because the basic tenets (belief) of Islamic law is that the Lord Jesus Christ was not the Son of God and that there is no salvation in Jesus Christ, and that He was merely a prophet who existed at one point or another in time, which is what Lucifer wants people to accept and believe. But, the Word of God says, in John 3 vs.16, that God so loved the world (meaning humanity) that He gave His only begotten Son (Jesus Christ), that whosoever believes in Him (Jesus Christ) shall not perish, but shall have life everlasting. Lucifer does not want anyone to have eternal life in the Kingdom of God; he wants people to perish in eternal damnation like he will. Lucifer will not attack the religion of Islam, because if he did, he would basically be working against himself. Lucifer also will not attack other false religions (Scientology, Krishna/New Age, etc.) because he created these false religions because it is his goal to get people to accept and believe (contrary to the truth that Christianity teaches) that there is more than one way to salvation, forgiveness and eternal life – but that’s usually through worshiping other gods. But, the Lord God Jehovah said in His commandments that He is the Lord our God, and we are to have no other gods before Him. In other words, we are not to bow down and worship any god except Him because He created us. We were not created from starbursts or stardust, nor were we created by false gods fashioned (made) by our own hands.
Be not deceived; the Word of God is not “dreamy poetry”, is not some romance novel devised to keep us entertained or tickled and titillated. The Word of God is the divine, holy Word from the Heavenly creator, for the saving of our souls. Be wary of false religions/false teachings/false doctrines (including atheism), because they are of Lucifer. Atheism surely is.
“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we have made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but (we) were eyewitnesses of His majesty. ” 2Peter 1 vs. 16 (KJV)
If you believe that Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was not for your sake, and His story is just some piece of wild, imaginary fiction, then I encourage you to seek Him and begin to have a personal relationship with Him. The truth will begin to unfold and be revealed for you because clearly you lack wisdom and understanding. If you do not desire knowledge through a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, then I will leave you to get back to the scientific “poetry” that provides you your excitement.
Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all things will be added unto you. For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. Romans 14 vs. 17 (KJV)
Whether or not this is “rebellion” or not I don’t see why her freedom of speech and opinion is anyone’s business but her own. Who’s to say it was nothing more than her ability to see the beauty in someone else’s view/opinion on life and how it was created. Before you start judging ( and I’m sure somewhere in the bible it says you shouldn’t) you better make damn sure you’re perfect.
The problem with Miley CyrusIs comment was that as an influentail person (from all the little girls who watched her when she was Hannah Montana) she cannot be saying these things. It says in the Bible in Corinthians that Christians should not be a stumbling block for the weak (the weak in this case being the young children) and it says in Matthew that if anyone causes one of these little ones (children) to sin that it would be better for him to have a milstone hung around his kneck and be thrown into the sea. It says that God is not willing to let any of these little ones be lost. She cannot be an advocate for the sinful nature of this world and claim to be a Christian. It simply isnIt done. It says in the Bible that you can’t serve two masters; either you will hat the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despice the other. You cannot serve both God and the world, but yet this is the message that she is trying to send us teens and kids.And about this comment, truthfully I am offende by this comment , and as aso called Chriistian she should be too. Foget Jesus?! Realyl?! This is not beautiful, this is terrible. Something is wrong in the world when Christians call a comment that defaces Jesus beautiful, that’s like the words of the devil.
Personally I find what Miley said insulting. It’s rediculous. How can you believe for a second we’re all born from stars or stardust? How come people aren’t being born in space and falling to earth then? It is the same as the theory of evolution. If we evolved from monkeys, where are our tails? And why aren’t we evolving like pokemon already? It takes more dedication (not faith because saying it is would be an insult to faith) to believe you’re born from a puddle, monkey or space than anything. Miley is entitled to her own opinion though.
All Miley said was “Beautiful”. Dr. Krauss is the person you ought to find insulting. However, that is beside the point. He didn’t mean we are literally born from stars or stardust. He meant figuratively. People are not born in space because that is not how literal birth works. (If I could, I would like to politely refer you to the first post I have posted on this page, as I describe the process Krauss is referring to in his quotation.)
It is NOT the same as the theory of evolution. We did not evolve from monkeys, however, we do share a common ancestry. As for our tails, we still have tailbones. “And why aren’t we evolving like Pokemon already?” I love Pokemon, but if you are going to use Pokemon as a lesson in education, I strongly suggest you reconsider. We do not evolve like Pokemon because the theory of evolution is over time. Real evolution takes time.
Miley may have only said ‘Beautiful’ but she was completely agreeing with Dr. Krauss, otherwise she would not have posted the link would she?. So in reality she wasn’t just saying one word, but whole heartedly agreeing with what he said. It is just as stupid as the theory of evolution because there is no concrete evidence we evolved. Furthermore, we haven’t been changing form since our existence, so the evolution theory is utter rubbish either way.
There is a lot of proof, both scientifically and historically, in the bible, and look at the shroud of Turin for example. No one has been able to solve the mysteries of it to this day to disprove it and the image (the examiners said it’s like trying to paint a van gogh painting on dog hairs – it’s impossible for the Turin to be a fake). The bible speaks the truth – look up Josh Mcdowell’s story on how he completely dissed the bible. He was a 100% athiest, and now is a full on devout Christian based on his research, findings, historical evidence and truth of the bible. And despite the amount of resources and examination of the shroud of Turin, no one has been able to solve its mysteries. Other religions and theories have nothing compared to the amount of real life evidence in Christianity. I strongly suggest you too reconsider your education. You can be sincere, and you can be sincerely wrong.
In dealing with evolution and things planted deep in the past, there isn’t much to go by as concrete evidence. There are, however, many fossils of primates that show a possible graduation from monkeys to humans. Scientists, I’ve read, have found Homo Neanderthal DNA mixed in some Europeons and Asians showing that Homo Sapians may have intermingled with what many of us consider our “cousins” on the evolutionary tree, should it exist. In looking at how humans have not changed form since our existance, perhaps way in the past, humans actually looked slightly different. I do know that in a study done on people who lived in the mountains, their bodies had evolved ever so slightly to adapt to the thin air in the mountains.
I feel bad for asking, but could you please elaborate on your Shroud of Turin argument? I don’t really know the basis of how that is a counterargument, etc, and so I can’t really comment about that.
I’d also like to ask (and I mean no disrespect) about your level of education in a public school system, so then I may know whether we are on the same page or not in understanding what science actually means and is talking about.
Hi Michelle,
I wanted to reply to some of your points you addressed to me above:
1. Big Bang Theory — You are correct. You did not mention Big Bang specifically and no BIg Bang does not directly address human creation. but what Krauss, I believe is stating that the Big Bang started the causal chain the provided the molecular building blocks that led to life. Either way, what is most relevant is that regardless of whether you believe in evolution or some derivative of it, you are a faith-based believer. You will never have scientific evidence of humanity’s creation because it cannot be observed. So you are putting your faith in theory just as I put my faith in Jesus Christ and the Bible. Finally, I think if you search the scriptures, you will find a lot about the physical creation of the Earth and “how God did it.” Specifcally in the book of Job.
2. “We won’t know his [Krauss] meaning unless we actually ask him what he meant.” — With all due respect, I completely disagree. First off, this was not a comment he made in a coffee shop or on a cell phone that someone overheard. He published this statement for the public. So his intent was that his statement would be understood by strangers. Secondly he says “So forget Jesus.” This is an obvious, clear swipe at the Christian religion. He is saying in effect that it was not Jesus’ death on the cross that saves but instead we should look to nature and the cosmos as our Creator. I don’t think it’s a stretch at all to interpret his words this way and frankly I think it’s quite obvious.
3. “I don’t believe the Bible was meant to be taken literally. Jesus told many parables that were not meant to be taken literally–he told those parables as metaphors to explain to the people he taught lessons.”
Where is this reason for parables ever stated in the Bible?? Do you have any Scripture to support this? I ask because The Lord Jesus specifically explains why He spoke in parables at times and this is not the reason He gave. So I am wondering how you came to this conclusion.
Additionally, where does the Bible says it was not meant to be taken literally? This again, is a very major and import conclusion you are making and I don’t see any support for this in Scripture. Before you make such a critical judgment about the faith, shouldn’t you look in the Bible to see if God agrees with your belief?
4. “I do earnestly hope that you realize there are many Christians that can hold different beliefs.
To finish, God has told us his truths, yes, but man is trying to fill in the details.”
Krauss is not trying to fill in details. He is trying to find the origin of the universe without God and making a hostile rejection of Him on top of it. Again, if a scientist wants to explore the origin of the universe from a secular perspective, that is completely her right. I have no issue with that. But to throw in “So forget Jesus” is just an attack meant to insult and discredit Christianity.
And with respect to Christians “holding different beliefs” there is only one Gospel and only one Bible. I think the difference we are at comes down to what the Word of God means. Clearly I believe the Bible to be God’s Word and thus something we should interpret literally and live by. If you or anyone else does not see the Bible this way, then of course it is open to any reinterpretation and one can pick and choose what they see as “literal” and what is not.” Which again is why it’s so important to know the reason for believing this. And I am very curios to know your reasons. I’ll just leave a couple of verses to which I base my perspective on:
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
John 17:17 They are not of the world, even as I [Jesus] am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Thanks again for your very insightful comments. I look forward to hearing from you. God bless you abundantly.
If only non-believers would realise God’s love for all humanity. You have no idea what you’re missing out on. I hope and pray that you let Jesus in your hearts before it’s too late.
1. But the Theory of Evolution is supported by various observations. Excluding humans and arguments from the picture to look at the actual idea, so far as I can tell, what evolution says is that when a species is in an environment, there are tiny differences between the different individuals of that species. These tiny differences might help that individual survive, hurt its chances, or not affect it. Over a period of time, the differences that help something survive grow more common, and the differences that hurt the chances slowly go away. The effect the differences have for the individual’s chances are based on the environment. Some of the traits are advantageous for some environments but not others. Over time, what used to be one group of similar organisms are now two different species. You could argue that God just plopped all the present day animals down on Earth, etc, but the concept behind evolution itself seems to make sense. That’s how we domesticated plants and animals. Traits that helped strawberries that we grew ourselves were perhaps larger sizes, and sweeter tastes, while the more sour berries that grew, we discarded. That’s why we have domesticated strawberries, and the wild ones. The thing about evolution is that because we ourselves are living organisms, it would follow that we should try applying it to ourselves. We see that societies living in mountainous regions for those long sustained periods of time actually have higher oxygen in their blood because of their prolonged stay in their environment.
2. We all interpret things differently because of our different experiences and ideas about body language, voice inflection, intonation, etc. I looked up a video of Krauss’ lecture where he actually said that, and, honestly, I think his delivery leaves a lot to be desired. It sounded mean in his voice; something I did not hear when I myself read his statement. Likewise, Miley Cyrus likely did not read his statement with his voice in her head, and she likely did not bother to search for the video to listen to him say it (Let’s be honest, if she shared it on twitter, it was probably a cursory thing for her). Despite how he said it, in the context, which was a science talk, the audience most likely wouldn’t have minded the statement. If I was discussing beekeeping, to a beekeeping audience, and I was discussing the effects of smoke on bees, if I said “so forget the log, smoke is the real fake red flag”, the audience wouldn’t really care or mind my reference of the log to a small child’s story about why crickets don’t chirp if you get near them. In another audience, where the story is someone’s religion, they might see that as insulting. Now, I know this isn’t a perfect metaphor to compare Krauss’ statement, but I hope I was able to simulate his expectation that it wouldn’t have caused a stir.
3. Perhaps it was the wording of my statement that made my ideas unclear. I was trying to convey the idea that Jesus was telling parables, or fables, for the lesson in the story; not for the literal story itself. Parents tell their children the story of the tortoise and the hare, a fable, not for the literal story that hares can run faster than tortoises, or that animals race against each other, but for the lesson that being slow, but constant and persistent can reap better rewards than being quick but very unreliable and unpredictable.
Also, I feel wary about looking at the bible for literal meanings because, sadly enough, I only have the English translation of the bible. Translations between languages can twist meanings without meaning to. Words that exist in one language may not have a counterpart in another, or have connotations that a translated word does not have. Not only that, but the bible was written down with mankind as the middle man, and since the time people have first written the word down up to me, the script for the bible has passed through many hands. I’ll put my trust in God, but I can’t help feeling skeptical that every man who had influence over the bible didn’t change it in some way. Hopefully, I’ve conveyed my idea clearly enough that you might understand my reluctance in looking at the bible as a literal source.
4. Er, I don’t quite understand your statement of Krauss trying to find the origin of the universe without God. I know what you mean, and I can see what you mean, but could you explain how Krauss might find his answers with God?
Science is meant to be an unbiased search for truth–looking at things and seeing if they are consistent with our ideas. If Christianity is the truth, there should be nothing to worry about. One of the things that saddens me the most is the idea I feel too many people have: “Christians versus Science”, or some other “Group A versus Group B”. What this should really be about is a coming together of people and the sharing of knowledge to get down to the truth, which will be the truth, because, well, it’s the truth. Sometimes, I don’t feel that when I witness people arguing with each other. I just feel very glad that our discussion hasn’t or needn’t descend into superficial bickering.
Both Miley & Lawrence have got this SO wrong I fear for the way they will be judged at the weighing scales.
Yes Strauss is correct in stating living organisms came from dead stars. Dead stars create carbon and carbon is seemingly only created through these deaths. Carbon didnt exist in the early universe.
But what he IS missing out (and let’s face it Satanists will miss this stuff out) is that the process of the production of carbon is so mathmatically accurate it is practically a MIRACLE.
You can do your own research but the layman version is basically: there is a resonance enhancement in the tray of the stars core which if altered in the most minute way possible would destroy the entire process of creating carbon and any life as we know it could not and would not have existed.
You see people, science is pointing more and more to a creator. the term ‘fine-tuning’ is the scientists way of explaining it. All the fundamental particles, laws etc are so exact people like Stephen Hawkins are running for the Hills….or should I say creating new theories which require more faith to believe in than does any religion never mind the TRUE ONE.
the Multiverse theory is the ‘new’ theory in which they postulate there is nothing special about our universe because there is an infinite ammount of universes…..which in theory we cannot and probably will not ever be able to view.
God is REAL, science is starting to lay hands on his key signatures. They have even found the golden ratio in quantum science and magnets.
PEACE LOVE PROSPERITY
SensiP40
The other thing that makes me laugh is the Scientists who shout proof proof proof! then run a mile when it comes to us O negatives.
IF Evolution is correct for humans and we came from monkeys how come I dont have the Resus Gene AT ALL.
now the proof proof proof! all knowing scientists soil themselves and go….Mutation! random Mutation!
LOL you scientists really are a comedy to us faithfull.
Mutations are generally the type of thing that help create cancer and most negative things in life. Mutations wreck the genome and cannot introduce new information into the existing genome. mutations cannot provide a ‘leap’. or to put it simply an upgrade.
Mutations can be either good or bad, but the actual word outside of science has negative connotations. It’s denotation just means that something changed. In any case, there are a different variety of mutations like insertions, deletions, and translocations. It really depends on what the mutation causes the DNA to code for. There are beneficial mutations out there, but it has to happen at the right place. With all the mutations going on, it’s statistically possible.
Also, your O negative statement confuses me. I thought it was just simple dominance? I mean, the ABO blood type assorts independently from the + or – part of the typing, and for the + or -, that’s just controlled by dominant/recessive stuff.
Hi,
To clarify what I mean is what I say. Science has no answer to my question. The best of the ‘best’ give their best answer to be ‘mutation’.
in other words we haven’t got a clue and we don’t want to consider anything beyond what allows me to pay my mortgage and exist in my macro-darwin box:
‘Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011
Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually.
http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7
The RH factor is the Rhesus (rhesus as in monkey) blood factor. If your blood tests positive for this, you have the factor in your blood. If you test negative, you do not have the factor in your blood. The RH factor is a protein found in the human blood that is directly linked to the Rhesus Monkey.
When blood type is inherited from your parents, it is known that this factor element of the blood is the most consistent human or animal characteristic passed on to the off spring. There are VERY few aberrations. It rarely changes.
Most people, about 85%, have RH-positive blood. That could support the idea that humans evolved or were derived from Primates. 15 % of humans have RH-negative blood. If blood type is one of least mutable human characteristic, where did the RH negative come from? This question has puzzled scientists for years. There is some evidence that suggests the RH-negative blood group may have appeared about 35,000 years ago. And the appearance was regional and seemed to, originally, be connected with certain groups/tribes of people.
Northern Spain and Southern France is where you can find some of the highest concentration of the RH-negative factor in the Basque people. Another original group were the Eastern/Oriental Jews. In general, about 40 – 45% of Europeans have the RH-negative group. Only about 3% of African descendent and about 1% of Asian or Native American descendent has the RH-negative group. Due to the larger European numbers, it is a safe bet that was where it was introduced into the human genetic code. Could this also be where the Caucasian was introduced? Is the introduction of Caucasian related to the RH-blood factor.
If the RH-negative factor is a ‘normal’ presentation of blood, then why is there a problem when a mother of the RH-negative blood group gives birth to an RH-positive blood group baby. This Hemolytic disease, actually an allergic reaction, can cause death when the two different blood groups are mingled during pregnancy. When the antigenic substances attack the negative blood group it can destroy the blood cells. So why does the human body produce antigens to this blood type? Is the blood group alien?
The only other time this occurs in nature is, as an example, when donkeys and horses are crossed to produce mules. This is not ‘natural’ because left alone in the wild, these animals would never cross breed. Only with intervention would this happen. Was there a cross breeding of two human like beings, similar but genetically different?
The RH factor is the Rhesus (rhesus as in monkey) blood factor. If your blood tests positive for this, you have the factor in your blood. If you test negative, you do not have the factor in your blood. The RH factor is a protein found in the human blood that is directly linked to the Rhesus Monkey.
When blood type is inherited from your parents, it is known that this factor element of the blood is the most consistent human or animal characteristic passed on to the off spring. There are VERY few aberrations. It rarely changes.
Most people, about 85%, have RH-positive blood. That could support the idea that humans evolved or were derived from Primates. 15 % of humans have RH-negative blood. If blood type is one of least mutable human characteristic, where did the RH negative come from? This question has puzzled scientists for years. There is some evidence that suggests the RH-negative blood group may have appeared about 35,000 years ago. And the appearance was regional and seemed to, originally, be connected with certain groups/tribes of people.
Northern Spain and Southern France is where you can find some of the highest concentration of the RH-negative factor in the Basque people. Another original group were the Eastern/Oriental Jews. In general, about 40 – 45% of Europeans have the RH-negative group. Only about 3% of African descendent and about 1% of Asian or Native American descendent has the RH-negative group. Due to the larger European numbers, it is a safe bet that was where it was introduced into the human genetic code. Could this also be where the Caucasian was introduced? Is the introduction of Caucasian related to the RH-blood factor.
If the RH-negative factor is a ‘normal’ presentation of blood, then why is there a problem when a mother of the RH-negative blood group gives birth to an RH-positive blood group baby. This Hemolytic disease, actually an allergic reaction, can cause death when the two different blood groups are mingled during pregnancy. When the antigenic substances attack the negative blood group it can destroy the blood cells. So why does the human body produce antigens to this blood type? Is the blood group alien?
The only other time this occurs in nature is, as an example, when donkeys and horses are crossed to produce mules. This is not ‘natural’ because left alone in the wild, these animals would never cross breed. Only with intervention would this happen. Was there a cross breeding of two human like beings, similar but genetically different?
Well, I do know that the human body is trained to attack foreign substances and things that aren’t “them”. This is one of the reasons why organ transplants have so much risk attached to the operation. The body can flag it as a foreign body and start attacking it. The same concept goes with Rh+ and rh-, where the body sees the presence of something foreign, the protein, and starts attacking it.
On a somewhat related note, I heard that humans of varying cultures have slightly differing amounts of neanderthal DNA mixed it. It’s a really really small percentage, but maybe the neanderthal’s cross breeding with us at some point is relevant?
In any case, I think we can all agree we have plenty of unknowns ahead of us that we have to figure out.
”In any case, I think we can all agree we have plenty of unknowns ahead of us that we have to figure out.”
I 100% agree.
This is why I get so angry when people with positions of ‘esteem’ like Krauss & Cyrus are so happy to state fact and ruin many childrens lifes based on such a lie.
The Establishment is scared to death of having fully functioning human beings who can decide things for themselves.
Thats why they created the culture of celebrity so masses of people can be knowingly or unknowingly told what to think when to think by thier ‘Idol’ so has to never have an individual opinion on most things.
It’s why they create ‘Royal Society’s’ so they can dictate to you what is right or wrong without you actually doing the research yourself and reaching your own conclusions.
All the Best in your Quest !
She may eventually come out as not being christian, but to those that say she is hurting children by saying forget Jesus, that is absurd. She is a star yes, she has her fans, and she has her ways, but to say that she has to start lying about her beliefs simply to save her career is simply wrong; if she changed her mind about what she believes then, as a person, she is not the slave to the children, nor is she the slave to the adults that criticize her; people change, roles change, and if she decides to go on a different route, then so be it. There are Atheists with children, also. There are people who are of many different faiths that simply don’t believe in the christian religion, the bible, or Jesus. It is just a matter of time before she actually comes outright and says it. If she’s not a christian anymore, then so be it, and please take off the closed-minded bible thumping for a moment; she’s quoting, as a young female, a theoretical physicist. If her admiration for a theoretical physicist isn’t enough to inspire your children, and isn’t enough because he says to forget Jesus in one of his quotes, then your children will certainly not benefit from the perspective she no longer shares with your religion and no longer cares to spread about.
stop playing dumb like you dont understand her pull on society. stop playing dumb like her actions are not imitated by her fans. stop playing dumb like people dont look up to their favorite stars, and like to copy cat them from their actions to their beliefs. stop it. stop supporting evil.
stop acting oblivious to the damage that celebrities can cause.. and most of all, stop acting oblivious to her fan base.. who is her fan base…. shes a disney star that little kids grew up admiring. and just like all the other disney stars, once they turn 18, they break away from their disney character and completely let loose and be a slut in a world stage, leading her young followers to imitate them. this so commonly happens with disney stars that its not a coincidence.
i see your act all the time. people who act oblivious to the evil that you are trying to neutralize, “shes grown, she can do what she wants, shes her own individual, etc etc;” trying to “be the better person”, when in reality, you are just knowingly enabling whorish behavior.. and i say knowingly cuz i dont know who you are. so im going to assume you are not this foolish.
stop with the ignorance.
ahhhh…. once again, satan targets christians, baits them for a reaction, then uses our “responses” against us to quiet us..
we call that, “reverse psychology” in attempt to keep christians quiet next time satan speaks up. i say, dont let him play mind games. we are suppose to speak up. speaking up and out is not anger. its addressing the wrong in the world and society. there is no hate in that. the hate is from satan himself. hes leading humanity into destruction, but we all know misery loves company and his whole purpose is to be miserable and lead mankind into hell so he wont have to be miserable forever by himself.
satan.. what a loser.
Cyrus’ Response
After receiving a great deal of backlash on Twitter, Cyrus responded: “How can people take the love out of science and bring hate into religion so easily?” Again, notice how Cyrus completely overlooks the scientist who wrote “forget Jesus” and actually attributes his quote as being loving. This is yet another sign of the trend in society to label Christians who believe the Bible as people of hate, regardless of what others say about the Christian faith.
Daniel in Prophecy states of a “Strange god- a god of forces” Now Obama loves to carry a certain ‘monkey god’ as luck charms, pertains to hinduism(to the many alters figured in the Freemasonic Israeli supreme court) This monkey god in its understanding to science denotes “An Evolutionary god” , a Mythical ancestral god saying “Man evolved from the monkeys” that Daniel calls it as “Strange” which belief but results in denying the Existence of God, in other words man itself as god(remember eden) & this is what is denoted through this “Arse Barer”, all because they have not the Love for the truth & for this reason, God sends a strong delusion, that they may believe “THE LIE”, their own. What a delusion.
To know that the belief of hinduism has but “Evolution as its basis”. “Freemasonry by Theosophy” ,Zech 5 the Biblical False Prophet , where the Lie is made into a belief, off that ‘ole Golden Calf, now become Holy Cow & thus is “evolved”” Sodom, the marker.