Search results

Propaganda and The Christian Enslavement

When you think about Propaganda, 
why do you think WWII?
We've had many military engagements since then (Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, The War on Drugs, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq), and each of them used propaganda against the enemy. Each campaign from one to the next learned from the last becoming stronger, more effective, complex, sophisticated. How many Propaganda Wars are going on right now, on Twitter, Facebook, in the News Media, and other Social Media sources? How many people died this week from the publication of words on the web?

THERE ARE TWELVE MILITARY LEVEL PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGNS currently active on the Internet. Associating Propaganda,  with military actions isn't a huge leap. There are many other campaigns out there as well. Such as the Campaign to turn Christians into enslaved machines.

If you were to engage in propaganda today, what would be your top three goals? What group would you want to influence, and in what direction? Would you choose oil companies to become more environmentally interested? News Media to be more accurate? Congress to be more Congressional?

The average US Citizen, discounts the use of propaganda as ineffectual, if not outright non-existent, In the face of overwhelming stacks of evidence, and demonstrations of propaganda as a direct threat to the country, the economy and our children, we dismiss it out of hand.

Occasionally we will accept the possibility that a group of people (a small extremist group who isn't very bright) may be engaged in aggressive marketing .
But what threat is that? That I might wind up with a few more gadgets and designer shoes in my closet that I couldn't really afford? That Pet Rocks are going to make a come-back?
While these humorous viewpoints seek to  minimize the issue into non-existence, they are Straw Man points which are irrelevant. The fact is that media content is often organized to manufacture consent and to prevent opposition to corporate hegemony.

OUR MAIN STREAM MEDIA NEWS is at an astonishing level of  inaccuracy: 65% of the news reported to us is false (both from the papers and on cable TV). This is for both Left and Right newscasts. There are claims that media content serves ‘political ends’ by ‘mobilizing interest and outrage’, and by generating audience interest and sympathy in some stories while directing interest and attention away from others. Often I ask, "how would you know? They are so far off the mark, so inaccurate and tainted, they are not even wrong -- wrong would be a step up?"

It is a heartache when someone makes strong declarations of faith, and argues that Christian values are needed in this Nation, only to witness them moments later imposing on God the limitations of their fear, or worse, condemn others for not doing so. They need to stop defending God and start believing in him.
Secular reporting and reliability are shot and Religious groups believe they can do better. Let's take a look at that -- Creationism? The view point that THEORY OF EVOLUTION is an attack on the Church.--this is an  American propaganda program. Yes, it is. It's all a campaign. Let's look at some facts.

Since the Mid-50's the Popes have not found there to be any conflict between the THEORY OF EVOLUTION and the Scripture's description of the Creation of the World as described in Genesis. None. The last three popes have made that abundantly clear, even going so far as to have scientists teach them the layers of the theory under the surface. Correct, the popes hired several top scientist to tutor them so that they understood the full picture on the THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the THEORY OF EVOLUTION, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces. Today, the Church supports theistic evolution(ism), also known as evolutionary creation, although Catholics are free not to believe in any part of evolutionary theory -- it is not a sin, nor a benefit to believe in either one or the other or both. The entire ordeal is a Non-Issue -- has no baring on anything spiritual or in regards to your relationship with God.  -- so decrees the Pope of the Catholic Church, and their stance is becoming more accepting, not less as the years pass, as more information is discovered by scientists, doctors and researchers.

I understand that not everyone is Catholic. I get that. I'm not Catholic myself. But few people in this world have a better understanding of the principles and the instructions of the Bible, than the Popes. I'm going to throw out there that if your minister is in direct conflict with how the Pope and his staff of researchers are interpreting scripture -- you should want to see some clear, and definite theological research to back up your minister's stance. I am the last person on this earth who will declare the Pope infallible. They are often wrong and just as often make the mistake worse by insisting they are not -- which is absolutely not the point.

Polygenism is a theory of human origins positing that the human races are of different origins (polygenesis). This is opposite to the idea of monogenism, which posits a single origin of humanity.
So, again the Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation, that Adam and Eve were real people (the Church rejects polygenism) and affirms that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual.

That should at the very least offer some doubt about the validity and wisdom of bringing angst, anger and fear into your life because of this issue. But the validity of the claims of either side is not the point at all. The e bottom line here is that this argument, this manufactured angst against the THEORY OF EVOLUTION is a Straw Man propaganda campaign. A propaganda campaign devised by those who benefit by the Christian public distrusting science.  and whose goal is to take your belief in God, use it to distort your priorities, and use you as a means of wealth.

These people view your devotion to God as an opportunity to increase their political power and increase their wealth, by twisting and distorting your view of the world. By altering your priorities. Their campaign attacks our human nature, injects fear deep inside of us and with weaponized deformity and militarized disinformation they take from us what we want the most -- a personal relationship with God  -- they take this purest of desires and twist it, bend it, and use deviancy as scripture -- crafting you into a tool, a resource for their goals, rather than God's. Theirs is a propaganda campaign to make you an apparatus providing them political and corporate advantage.

This is a heavy accusation and I do not make it lightly. To back this charge of heretical offense I propose we look at the THEORY OF EVOLUTION as close as we can, stripped of fear and distortion.

Propaganda, emotions, sins and misinformation have muddled the issue, adding bias, and hurt feelings. To  clear the air, and void the arguments of distraction we'll be required to set aside issues which lack importance. To this goal we will set aside all questions of what is what and what is right -- and agree  for our purpose that: 
Creationism is in fact absolutely true without a margin of error in any form

I have no problem with this for our purpose. So for the rest of this examination , I will not argue against nor attempt to persuade against Creationism.  Creationism is absolute fact. Thus we remove the temptations of distraction, and other devil tools.

The devil knows the scriptures far better than we do. His ability to twist them are beyond our ability to perceive, but we can know his methods -- which are through strife, confusion, misinformation and irrelevant debate -- though this is not a complete list, it covers his most common methods thus far. He is the deceiver, so we remove what he uses to deceive. He tempts us through our pride, our bias, and our fallacies. So, we take those methods from him with this agreement. There is no confusion, no strife, no question. Creationism is true for our purposes. All discussion from this point must be in line with that point.

From this point, let us also agree that science has several merits -- there are benefits to science such as scientific thought and method for solving problems.

Science has also been useful in taking care of our bodies, preserving our health and prolonging our lives -- these actions  are in line with the scriptures As we are created in the image and likeness of God, it is not condoned by scripture nor inline with God's will. that we mistreat our bodies, injure ourselves through ignorance or commit suicide.  If we refuse to learn or ignore facts -- i.e refuse to observe and accept  a certain berry or fruit is poisonous,and insist on eating it again and again, such actions are contrary to scripture.

Observation, experimentation and the acceptance of results are all part of the scientific method and very much in line with scriptural living. Exploring and understanding the world God created is very much in line with God's will.
It is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; i t is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician demonstrative proofs ~ Aristotle

We can also agree, without argument I believe, that poisons are not all equal. Different poisons have different effects, they cause damage in various ways. Also, some require large amounts to be lethal, while others require only a drop to be consumed for lethal results. However, the amount is irrelevant. Poison remains a poison. i.e. the poison of the Black Mamba is far more toxic to us than the poison of a bumble bee, or the Black Widow spider, or the poisons contained in cigarettes but they are all poisons and it is not condoned to consume them in any amount.

In the 30s, 40s and 50s of the previous century, there were commercials on the radio, which presented doctors preferring the health benefits of one brand of cigarette over another -- but cigarettes were not healthy. Cigarettes contain many poisons, they damaged our health, pollute our bodies, and they are addicting. Addictions by nature, by their definition and by the actions they promote are against the First Commandment. Thus smokers were acting out of line with the teachings of scripture.

We were fooled by the misinformation of those who cared nothing for honesty, scripture or God. They told lies.They used our trust in doctors to promote those lies. They promoted addiction. There were no legitimate studies which proved that cigarettes provided health benefits.

So, without scientific intervention to call these commercials, and their masters, into question, and to bring them to heel -- without science and research to provide our courts of law with the evidence of truth, so that our courts  could act, we were  seduced by heretical deceptions propagated by sinful natures and designs.

So, again let us agree that science has several merits. We are NOT agreeing that Science is Right, simply because it is Science. We do not agree to that at all, and I don't believe that any true scientist would object to this limitation, We only agree that Science -- used inline with scripture -- has merits including discovering and developing for our use, methods, research, education and compounds that provide care of our bodies, our minds and our lives. That these provisions help and aid us in preserving our health and prolonging our lives.

Let's add as well that the methods of science assist us in debunking the lies of the devil, and his distorted distractions. The Church has a long history of utilizing scientific processes and methods to aid in separating the Lies of Lucifer from the Will of God. For example the process of Canonization is a set of strict methods and procedures.Her is the process up to the declaration of Venerable for example:

When a person dies who has "fame of sanctity" or "fame of martyrdom," the Bishop of the Diocese usually initiates the investigation. One element is whether any special favor or miracle has been granted through this candidate saint's intercession. The Church will also investigate the candidate's writings to see if they possess "purity of doctrine," essentially, nothing heretical or against the faith. All of this information is gathered, and then a transumptum, a faithful copy, duly authenticated and sealed, is submitted to the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints.

To disparage the dictate of reason is equivalent to contemning the command of God. ~ Thomas Aquinas

Once the cause is accepted by the Congregation, further investigation is conducted. If the candidate was a martyr, the Congregation determines whether he died for the faith and truly offered his life in a sacrifice of love for Christ and the Church. In other cases, the congregation examines to see if the candidate was motivated by a profound charity towards his neighbor, and practiced the virtues in an exemplary manner and with heroism. Throughout this investigation the "general promoter of the faith," or devil's advocate, raises objections and doubts which must be resolved. Once a candidate is declared to have lived life with heroic virtue, he may be declared Venerable.

From the state of Venerable, the process moves to beatification, then through the final investigation to the act of Canonization.

Note the  process of documentation, paper trails, storage and gathering of evidence. All of this is Scientific Process, and put in place for the same reason science uses the procedures -- so that little mistakes don't happen, so that properties are not damages, and the establishment of a controlled environment is possible.

As we were created in God's image, the healthier and wiser we become honors God's love for us, as it honors the purity and perfection of his image.

With these agreements in place, to be used as the boundaries that all propositions must adhere, let's return to the question of the charges.

These charges are of propaganda and the aggressive manipulation of our love for God. My charge is that these aggressive manipulations are willful and are intended to twist our desire for a life dedicated to Christ-- twist our desire with distorted facts, convincing us that Science is a Threat to the Church and in doing so make us into tools. The final goal being the personal gain of those behind the campaign, and their political power.

The development of a THEORY is much the same in mindset and goals as the Doubter of the Church who investigates the claims for Sainthood prior to Canonization. Trained to debunk evidence, demonstrate where the interpretation of observation was skewed, and bring to bear evidence of failure, hypocrisy, misunderstanding and irrelevant proofs, the Doubter uses every skill to show why a person should NOT be canonized. This office is highly respected

With this accord reached, I  wish to address the topic of the THEORY OF EVOLUTION proposed by Science and examine the Theory itself for levels of spiritual risk, or possible scriptural jeopardy, and also to examine the intentions of Science for developing the Theory as well as the the possible uses for deception to provide a means of distorting scripture.

My first topic to provide answers as to the threat level of the THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

To do this we need to first clarify the meaning and purpose of a THEORY.

Common Knowledge and Public understanding of the word  THEORY. is often understood, and used as a synonym for CONJECTURE . However the two definitions are far from identical in meaning.

A CONJECTURE is based on an Opinion. It is the result of taking incomplete information, and using previous experience and education to produce the best possible evaluation with the tools and material at hand. There are many occupations which use skills of CONJECTURE and estimation out of necessity. An officer on the battle field for example is trained and required to make life and death choices in moments based on incomplete and perhaps misleading information. The officer must use every skill and experience he or she has to save lives,defend the objective, and overcome the enemy in with only minutes to gather, process and command. Hesitation, shrinking from the responsibility or self doubt can and often does result in far more casualties than a wrong but strong decision might have.
Unlike the soldiers and officers on a battle field, scientist  have the luxury of time. Where the officer has minutes, perhaps moments with no option to gather new information or even complete information, the scientist does have that opportunity. She may spend years, even decade gathering information, testing, researching, exploring the work done by others to develop a resource of complete understanding on a subject matter, before she is ready to compose a THEORY

INDUCTIVE REASONING (as opposed to deductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.

A scientific THEORY is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. The information and experience to substantiate is gathered through  scientific method. Scientific method is a well established set of procedures with expectations of documentation, procedure, method of sample gathering, methods of lab control, methods of clean room conditions and many other procedures which every lab and scientist in the same field is informed of and expects. This insures that the environment and processes are consistent from one lab to another and that experiments can be  can be  duplicated. If an experiment that comes up with one result can not be duplicated, the result, no matter how much every scientist in the world wants that result to be true, is useless. Duplication, and confirmation are required for any result or observation to hold any validity.As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.

The conjectures arrived at on the battle field become Orders. Orders on the Battle Field, right or wrong -- are law. They must be followed without hesitation or question. Not performing the given task prescribed by an order while in battle causes loss of life, failure to achieve mission objectives, and may result in a military criminal charge of insubordination or even desertion. Social accusations of disloyalty and cowardliness are likely to occur.

The development of a THEORY is much different. The focus of the Scientist is the same as the Doubter of the Church who investigates the claims for Sainthood prior to Canonization. During the process of Canonization the"Doubter," or devil's advocate, raises objections and doubts which must be resolved. This office is an important position and the one holding it is trained extensively in objecting and debunking evidence, and demonstrating observational errors.

What do theories do?
  1. Help us classify things: entities, processes, and causal relationships
  2. Help us understand how and why already observed regularities occur
  3. Help us predict as yet unobserved relationships
  4. Guide research in useful directions
  5. Serve as a basis for action. "There is nothing so practical as a good theory."
The distortions of propaganda declare that Theories are not true -- this deceiving. It is using persuasion to promote ignorance and distort value, which misdirects attention away from the purpose. It is a Straw man.

"If the theory isn't true then..." stop. That is a Straw man statement. It is building on the misconception of what a Theory is and its purpose for scientific observation. The next statement is something like  Science is being deceitful which is unfounded and built from a false description of the subject matter. Look at definitions.

These definitions have been in place and valid for at least two centuries. I point this out to prove intention of distortion soon.
  • Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow. 
  • Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. 
  • Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances. 
  • Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

Let's look at a theory as it is meant to be looked at. A theory as shown above is a set of ideas and parameters. It is a "world" described and that world's descriptions provide structures which will offer predictions if the scientist posses facts into the Theory. Think of the theory as a box. Inside the box is a world in miniature. The box has mechanisms inside that operate under a list of rules and contains a reality and physics of its own. Science has a number of these boxes.Their use for problem solving is immense. Can we know everything about God's Creation? Unlikely.Theories give us away to utilized that which we do not fully understand in a useful way.

Take for example a situation. Let's say that we have been able to demonstrate and prove that the reason the people in the city are becoming ill is a virus. We are able to collect a good sample of this virus, and get it into the lab. We then develop a vaccine for the virus, and test it. It works on the person we got the sample from. It works on 100s of other people.Then, it stops working. Those 100s of other people are still good, but the vaccine doesn't work for the 1000s of others.

Returning to the lab we test our method of creating the vaccine. We find nothing wrong with the method which has been used for decades. But we check anyway, we do not assume. Then we test to make sure we used the method properly. Human error is always possible. To believe we can not be wrong or make a mistake when 1000s of lives are on the line is not inline with the teachings of Christ.. We push any pride aside and test. We then check for contaminates. Our clean room appears to be clean, our method valid, our process and use of the method sound. So, we now have a question.

How is it that a vaccine created from a good sample of the virus can work on set of 100s of people, but not on the other 1000s?

There are many ways to approach this question, but since the purpose is not to teach methodology but to show the usefulness of the Theory, I'm going to jump directly to that part. 

Pulling our our Box labeled THEORY OF EVOLUTION, we find inside the observation that life alters, changes, adapts to fit environments. Generally  we think of 'evolution' as being a process that happens over long periods of time. Generations of time. The Box  of Evolution tells us this is true, but insists that Generations are not time specific, bur a process of reproduction. We think about that. The virus in one person, is a reproduction of the virus in another person. Infection begins with a mere sample of the virus. Signs of infection won't be detectable until several generations of the virus are produced. But this happens within a few days.

We jot that down.

Also, it comes to mind that while we are a species, as Human, we are also individuals ( for example, each of us posess a unique soul) so each person is different, if only on a minor scale.THEORY OF EVOLUTION points out that the measure of difference in the Environment has little to do with the need for a species to evolve and function better.

Do viruses change then? 

We test. We find that it is true. The sample-A we used, before is not an exact match to the many we gathered to test this HYPOTHESIS. This hypothesis appears to have merit. WE NOW CLOSE our Evolution Box and proceed to test the samples for variation, life span, and propagation -- we don't require the box for these areas. 

The knowledge of God is the cause of things. For the knowledge of God is to all creatures what the knowledge of the artificer is to things made by his art. ~ Thomas Aquinas
The box has given us a place where the data of this problem could be viewed in a different way, and in this case it has allowed us to become aware of the insight we needed. Finding that this virus has changed from host to host neither adds to the validity of the Evolution Theory nor detracts. The question of validity never comes up. IT IS NOT PART OF THE PROCESS AT ALL.  

Why would it be?

Taking this a further step further: The THEORY OF EVOLUTION  could be absolutely wrong.

It could be proven beyond the shadow of doubt -- wrong. This would not, in any way, take away or limit the usefulness of the theory. The Theory was based on measurable, reproducible observations. The measures, the data, and the facts in this theory could be all accounted for by a totally different CAUSE, and that is absolutely acceptable. However, something is the CAUSE. If not the current candidate of EVOLUTION, something is the CAUSE of the data, observations and verified facts that we have on this box.

If it happens that EVOLUTION is not the CAUSE and we find another, stronger candidate -- The Media will go NUTS. People all over the World will wonder and talk and even make jokes -- Scientist... they'll change the label on the box and get back to work.

The proposal above is not far from the truth of things, because we currently don't use the Box that Darwin came up. We use a new box with new variations. Many of his mechanisms have proven to be  unreliable. Those have been removed. Others have been added. Some of those were taken back out and new ones were put in. When you say today the THEORY OF EVOLUTION and point at the box on the self in the lab, that box you are pointing at is not what is described in Darwin's book.

It is not the Goal or the Assumption of any scientist that the THEORY OF EVOLUTION is without error, or disproves God, or contradicts the scripture or anything else. Anyone who uses the THEORY OF EVOLUTION as evidence that the Bible is not accurate, doesn't understand scientific theory at all. It is a tool. Like a hammer for example. If you needed to put a screw into a plank of wood, you might try using the hammer, but it would not take you long to realized another, different tool would work better. Eventually you discover a screwdriver. The screwdriver works famously. Does its success make the hammer an invalid tool? Of course not. Does it make using a nail in the future invalid? No. That would be silly.

Thus, it is equally silly to suggest that the THEORY OF EVOLUTION proves, or disproves -- validates or invalidates the scriptures. It would be parallel to typing in your calculator 7x9 and getting the answer 63, and then perceiving the observance of this functional process as undermining the Biblical truth that God did not create the heavens and the earth as Genesis describes. Understand? The comparison is equally nonsensical suggesting that the theory of evolution does this as well.

Proverbs 12:1 ~ Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

Einstein wrote a new THEORY OF GRAVITY. His THEORY OF GRAVITY is more accurate and more precise than the THEORY OF GRAVITY written by Newton.

Newton's Theory however is in many ways easier to use, and for large scale data, it is "accurate enough" Think of this as the Newton Screwdriver is large, and Einstein's screwdriver is more precise -- works better for the minor details.

Which one is better to fix a watch? What is better for replacing the water hose on the radiator? Did we throw out Newton? No. That would be silly. It is a great box, and easier to use for fixing the car and putting up doors and windows in the house.

GRAVITY IS A THEORY, does that mean that we will periodically stop falling? 

Of course not.

Does any of this break our agreement that CREATIONISM is absolutely correct? No. Not even close to the boundary.

Has the use of the THEORY OF EVOLUTION in this example challenged God's authority, his dominance? Has the THEORY OF EVOLUTION given the impression that it supersedes the creation of the world by God in any way? Would the use of the THEORY OF EVOLUTION in this manner affect our children giving them a false impression that the Bible's teachings are incorrect?

It is Pride, on the level of Felony and High Crimes, that gives man belief that his powers of observation are so great, that he can look at the surface of Creation and Believe he understands the Depth of God's power and design
None of those are true. In fact what is true -- is the opposite. Teaching our Children what a theory is, how it is created and how the box is used opens up doors for their health and survival -- and also allows them to discover the depths of God's Creation in new and ever changing ways.

Now. I want to present the structures and Propaganda Methods of those who seek to use you -- to take away your relationship with God, to hinder your connection to Christ and distort your scriptures -- and enslave you as a tool for their profit, The do this by injecting you with a false distrust of science, with malevolent claims that it is a threat to Christianity.

This one is by far the most disturbing.
Creationists commonly argue against evolution on the grounds that "evolution is a religion; it is not a science," in order to undermine the higher ground biologists claim in debating creationists, and to reframe the debate from being between science (evolution) and religion (creationism) to being between two equally religious beliefs—or even to argue that evolution is religious while intelligent design is not. Those that oppose evolution frequently refer to supporters of evolution as "evolutionists" or "Darwinists."
This is generally argued by analogy, -- by arguing that evolution and religion have one or more things in common, and that therefore evolution is a religion. Examples of claims made in such arguments are statements that evolution is based on faith, that supporters of evolution revere Darwin as a prophet, and that supporters of evolution dogmatically reject alternative suggestions out-of-hand. These claims have become more popular in recent years as the neo-creationist movement has sought to distance itself from religion, thus giving it more reason to make use of a seemingly anti-religious analogy

This is so distorted and self-deprecating I'm appalled that anyone who is a Christian could be this out of touch with their Creator.  The idea that some Creationist feel that their "argument" is enhanced by becoming "non-religious" is beyond disparaging. This argument's logic suggests that
"If  I'm not a Christian then my words have more validity,"  
Really? First of all, this is very close to people who only speak English traveling in other countries, shouting their words under the belief that saying it louder will help make them understood. Second, when -- exactly -- did turning away from God make someone more "valid"?

I'm tempted to dive into this with a burning swords, but I will need to wait for another post to discuss.

This one is worrisome because of massive use of propaganda, and its total lack of actual merit..
A number of creationists have blurred the boundaries between their disputes over the truth of the underlying facts, and explanatory theories, of evolution, with their purported philosophical and moral consequences. This type of argument is known as an appeal to consequences, and is a logical fallacy. Examples of these arguments include those of prominent creationists such as Ken Ham and Henry M. Morris.
Ken Ham is a Propagandist. In his publication titled Six Days or Millions of Years, he begins this publication with the section Titled "Why is this Important"

Since I have a hard time finding the importance in countering a very useful tool -- which has been more valuable to discovery and advancement than nearly any other theory known at the present time -- with a false and deceitful emotional appeal -- this section's title was of interest. Here is the section:

Why is it important?
If the Days of Creation are really ‘geologic ages’ of millions of years, then the Gospel message is undermined at its foundation because it puts death, disease, thorns and suffering before the Fall. This idea also shows an erroneous approach to Scripture—that the Word of God can be interpreted on the basis of the fallible theories of sinful people
It is a good exercise to read Genesis 1 and try to put aside outside influences that may cause you to have a predetermined idea of what the word ‘day’ may mean. Just let the words of the passage speak to you. Taking Genesis 1 in this way, at face value, without doubt it says that God created the universe, the Earth, the sun, moon and stars, plants and animals, and the first two people within six ordinary (approximately 24-hour) days. Being really honest, you would have to admit that you could never get the idea of millions of years from reading this passage. 
The majority of Christians (including many Christian leaders) in the Western world, however, either do not insist that these Days of Creation were ordinary-length days or they accept and teach that they must have been long periods of time—even millions or billions of years.
The Highlights are mine They mark each point where he uses Propaganda Methods.. I'm going to discuss this and close with the rest of the discussion to be carried on another day. First, do you have an answer? Why is it important? Because I don't see one.

Point One: Question -- Is the Foundation of the Gospel based solely on Death and Thorns arriving After the Fall?

This propaganda method is called the Erroneous Fact.

The Catholic Church no longer teaches creationism – the belief that God created the world in six days – and says that the account in the book of Genesis is an allegory for the way God created the world.
Oct 2014 ref:Pope Francis
The Gospel is not in the Old Testament, it is the New.

The Gospel is comprised of four books which give details and descriptions of the Life of Jesus, offer descriptions of his teachings and present to the reader the way to salvation through the acceptance of Jesus as her Lord and Savior. That is the Gospel. I checked nine different dictionaries, and five theological sources and everyone of them agreed on this description. Definitions were variations of these two
gos·pel· || 'gɑspl /'gɒspl
St. Francis rocks
message taught by Jesus and his followers; story of the life and teachings of Jesus; something considered to be absolutely true and right; rhythmic and emotional musical style which developed among African Americans from the southern United States 
gos·pel· || 'gɑspl /'gɒspl
any of the four first books of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John); excerpt from one of the four Gospels

The Catholics base the whole of Original Sin and the Cause of Death on Romans 5 : 12-14

It was through one man that guilt came into the world; and, since death came owing to guilt, death was handed on to all mankind by one man. All alike were guilty men;13 there was guilt in the world before ever the law of Moses was given. Now, it is only where there is a law to transgress that guilt is imputed, 14 and yet we see death reigning in the world from Adam’s time to the time of Moses, over men who were not themselves guilty of transgressing a law, as Adam was. In this, Adam was the type of him who was to come.
If you are not aware -- this is Paul speaking/writing. He is addressing the Jews in Rome.

As far as I know, (and on these topics my knowledge is extensive), there are no serious scholars with any factual evidence that refutes the claim that Paul is the author of this document.

It is also an Epistle, which is not by any means a casual letter or something you author to a group as a 'work in progress'. An Epistle is formal, it has a clear guideline for composition, and the author is aware that what he writes will be taken at face value by those who read it -- so when composing an Epistle you call up to bear all your skill into the accuracy of content, and the clarity of the presentation,

In Romans, Paul refers to Psalms 51:5 as a reference original sin.
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me

Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man,stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden. 

The concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in his controversy with certain dualist Gnostics. Other church fathers such as Augustine also developed the doctrine, seeing it as based on the New Testament teaching of Paul the Apostle (Romans 5:12–21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22) and the Old Testament verse of Psalm 51:5

Jewish theologians are said to be divided in regard to the cause of what is called "original sin". Some teach that it was due to Adam's yielding to temptation in eating of the forbidden fruit and has been inherited by his descendants; the majority, however, do not hold Adam responsible for the sins of humanity, teaching that, in Genesis 8:21 and 6:5-8, God recognized that Adam's sins are his alone

However, Adam is recognized by some as having brought death into the world by his disobedience. Because of his sin, his descendants will live a mortal life, which will end in death of their bodies.
The doctrine of "inherited sin" is not found in most of mainstream Judaism. Although some in Orthodox Judaism place blame on Adam for overall corruption of the world, and though there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam's sin, that is not the dominant view in most of Judaism today.

Modern Judaism generally teaches that humans are born sin-free and untainted, and choose to sin later and bring suffering to themselves. The concept of inherited sin is also not found in any real form in Islam. Some interpretations of original sin are rejected by other Christian theologies.

While this is a large amount of information to take in, it is worth the effort if you can get a firm idea of how propaganda like this works. I have gathered all of the information which could possibly be related to this statement, and also several layers of insight from theologians.

All of this is irrelevant and has nothing to do with whether or not Creationism, or Evolution is factual, or whether days were 400m years long at that time, or where the dinosaurs were at any time. All of that, this whole opening titled "why this is important" is mis-information and distraction. All of it.

What you are looking at is a man who calls himself a Christian and has composed -- far from accidentally as we'll see in a moment, by the magnitude of his methods --a Propaganda publication designed to rob you and put your to work for his benefit.

The Gospel, from every Christian scholar and reputable church based on the Teachings of Scripture and Christ is... the news of the coming of the Kingdom of God (Mark 1:14-15), and of Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection to restore people's relationship with God. It may also include the descent of the Holy Spirit upon believers and the second coming of Jesus.

Paul's works as wonderful as they are -- do not in any way, contain the Gospel. No one ever suggests that Paul is part of the Gospel. No one. -- except Ken Ham, Propagandist, composer of documents to strip, instruct, and enslave Christian believers.

The message of Jesus Christ is not based on the fact that we die, or that we have original sin. Both of those topics are created by Paul -- none of the other disciples describe or condone the message, and Paul addresses it only once with firm intention in Romans -- with no consultation or discussion with the other Apostles. Jesus never addresses the issue, in any way. None of his parables, stories, or lessons breach the topic. Paul has the famous quote from Romans as well
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
That is also the only place in the scriptures, which places sin in the context of death for all of man.

So, no, the Gospel has nothing to do with Time being Time or Ages. 

Now, let's play with words. This method is called "Appeal to Prejudice". The method seeks to use loaded or emotive terms to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition.
...that the Word of God can be interpreted on the basis of the fallible theories of sinful people.
  1. Theory of Evolution is admittedly fallible, and is attacked every year by scientist all over the world. It is not a)designed to be absolute, b)does not address the absolute, c) and has nothing to do with belief, or the scriptures in any fashion. 
  2. All people are sinful so either this Propagandist believes he's not part of the Human Race and therefore not sinful or his theories are questionable.
  3. Theory of Evolution  is just a theory, not alive nor  attempting to interpret scriptures, or make arguments against scripture.
As we can see this is not what the propagandist wishes to be pointed out. What he sought -- with the use of this method -- is to appeal to the human weakness for finding joy in the act of Justifiable Anger. This is no small threat to us as humans, because the feeling and experience of Justifiable Anger is heady indeed.

This whole opening is propaganda. In the second paragraph he  offers that it is a " good exercise" to read Genesis 1. He follows that with advise to be without preconceived ideas. "Just let the words of the passage speak to you..."
so.. what have we here? Do you agree with these? Let's list them

Do you agree it is good to.:
  1. read Genesis 1?
  2. Approach Scripture with no preconceived ideas?
  3. Open yourself to let the Word of God  speak to you?

This propaganda method is called, The Power of Three...

The method Power of Three is old, -- going all the way back to Aristotle and his book Rhetoric, and I'm sure the method was old before Aristotle. 

It is also a method used every day. In fact, most salesman will recognize this one right away. The reason it is a sales technique down at the Furniture store and a method of Propaganda is the delivery is deceitful, and aggressive, and its only goal is to imbue your mind with false information, and beliefs.

Did you catch his focus on Genesis 1 and not just Genesis, as is commonly said? The beginning creation story in Genesis goes on into Genesis 2:6, right?

This method is commonly known as Dictat, the practice of limiting, and then instructing what options to chose, what message to hear, and dictating to you what the message means. It is "A walk through the prescribed decision processes without alternative sources of information or meaning".

The way the method Power of Three works as a sales technique is that you approach the person on the sales floor, and suggest a course of action or thought /ask a question them in such a way that the only response possible, is positive agreement. Then the method repeats this to draw from the listener, two more positive agreements.

Above the propagandist doesn't "tell you" to read (that would provide an alternative response. Also, orders tend to make people more alert). It is a "good exercise" ... and then he assumes you are going read the passage, finishing the sentence with instructions put in such a way that another "Yes" is only answer. Then he follows that with a third yes required phrase..

The reason this method pre-dates Aristotle, and the reason every carpet and furniture salesman in the world learned the method their first day on the job -- is that it works. It is highly effective. The biology behind this is given most of the credit. There are also strong psychological triggers which this method fires. Triggers called Reflexive responses.or Reflex Behaviors.

These behaviors are processed in an automatic fashion and do not ask for a "decision". They act on the same level as the knee jerk test your Doctor gives you with the little rubber hammer. You don't have to tell your knee to bump, it does it on its own using the Nervous System. Reflex Behaviors are hardwired responses. Part of our design. Psychological reflexes to social interaction. 

Perhaps the most familiar is called Reciprocity. A salesman uses reciprocity by offering you a coke when he meets you on the showroom floor. He'll have it in his hand making it more difficult to refuse. You take the offered 'gift'. The knee-jerk reaction is instant. As soon as you accept the gift, an 'obligation' registers in your mind. A tally that you 'owe' him. An urge to balance the ledger will be noticeable, and over time it could become quite uncomfortable.

Said like this it sounds like a trap, but it is an interesting trait to wire us with, and more complex than it appears on the surface.

Reciprocity is also encoded with a couple of Social Norms. So, let's say we are strangers, and we meet in the woods. After sizing each other up, you offer a small flint knife blade to me. I accept, and give you a string of polished colorful shells. We sit down and I offer news to you about what I saw coming from my direction. This is valuable to you, because you are now heading in that direction. You then offer the same. 

The Social Norm of Reciprocity wires us with the expectation that people will respond to each other in similar ways. Responding to gifts and kindness and offering a return is one of these. Another is a social code of expected conduct:
  • First, individuals must assist those who have previously given them assistance. 
  • Second, individuals should not do anything that might harm those who have previously given them assistance.
So, when we sat down and began sharing news, these social norms fell into place and more or less insure that you and I will share a peaceful truce for the time. Acting against this urge of truce will result in strong feelings of Guilt, and Shame.

The urges behind the Power of Three are just as demanding, if not more so. Again, that little method sounds simple, but it is a complex behavior urge. The Power of Three addresses a reflexive tendency to respond as we have responded in the past. You have met me in the woods, and we shared some news. A couple of months later, we cross paths again. My reflex will be to offer you a gift again, and share news. I would require a strong reason not to offer the same kind of meeting. We will greet each other similar ways, and if we used a parting handshake or Wish of Health, we will use the same this time as well.

If I voted against something last time, and the same issue, only reworded is on the ballot this time, I will need a strong reason to vote differently. If I buy from Ford for three years in a row, getting me to buy Chevy is going to be a hard sell. Getting me to buy Honda, even harder.

We seek consistency between our expectations and their reality. Because of this, people engage in a process called dissonance reduction to bring their cognition and actions in-line with one another. This creation of uniformity allows for a lessening of psychological tension and distress. Acting against my beliefs causes a state of stress which can get painful in some cases. 

This stress response is called Cognitive Dissonance.
On the sales floor I've agreed with you three times. While not strong, it is still a act of will not to allow the stress of cognitive dissonance to press me to say yes or to agree on the fourth. The effect, again, is reflexive and instant, so three in a row will require my effort to restrain.
On the biological level, down in the chemical layers of our body, when we are primed like this, our minds are flooded with the chemicals of "agreement" Peptides are the chemicals of emotion and thought. The human brain is a chemically activated pattern engine. Peptides are released into the bloodstream where they perform their signaling functions. Having them in your mind and inside your blood stream after three "yes/positives" makes refusal or saying "no" directly afterward, amazingly difficult. The peptides clear fast, and that is why you perform the Yes, Yes, Yes, -- then the bang when using this method. Expecting to deliver the bang after lunch, is going to result in disappointment..
Our propaganda writer here does exactly that -- the very next sentence he gives you your "outside influence". And he's done more than to use the Power of Three and Dictat. Notice that his language has given instructive suggestions to 
  • clear your mind, 
  • opened yourself to receive,and 
  • accept the word as you would from God
With your mind flooded with "yes"peptides, he then hammers you with "without a doubt it says that God...'
It is a good exercise to read Genesis 1 and try to put aside outside influences that may cause you to have a predetermined idea of what the word ‘day’ may mean. Just let the words of the passage speak to you. Taking Genesis 1 in this way, at face value, without doubt it says that God created the universe, the Earth, the sun, moon and stars, plants and animals, and the first two people within six ordinary (approximately 24-hour) days. Being really honest, you would have to admit that you could never get the idea of millions of years from reading this passage. 
Then he Shames you with "Being really honest, you would have to admit"... 

This Shaming is yet another method of aggressive persuasion/propaganda and one that calls into play emotions as motivators or "Emotives." Shame and Guilt are the strongest of the the emotives. This method is called Testimonial and here is the general description: 
Testimonials are quotations, in or out of context, especially cited to support or reject a given policy, action, program, or personality. The reputation or the role (expert, respected public figure, etc.) of the individual giving the statement is exploited. The testimonial places the official sanction of a respected person or authority on a propaganda message. This is done in an effort to cause the target audience to identify itself with the authority or to accept the authority's opinions and beliefs as its own. See also, damaging quotation
The chosen expert in this case is THE WORD OF GOD.

Well, what are you going to say? That you aren't honest? That you don't agree with the THE WORD OF GOD? Are you really going to question His authority when the THE WORD OF GOD is right there? Doesn't it say SIX days? Six, NOT six million years, SIX Days. Right? A Day is OF COURSE 24hrs. Right? You're not stupid right? We learned how long a day was in kindergarten.

yeah... That section is hard hitting, -- it is also, wrong and completely irrelevant, but most people -- intelligent, good Christians -- are going to be out of their depth at this point.

Why Genesis 1 and not 2? Have you thought that one out yet? 

In case you haven't, his facts are wrong, but they have a chance of slipping by your judgement if they are only juxtaposed against the Creation as described by Genesis 1. -- and it is not inconceivable that this would be the case. Most people don't read more. Chapter 1 is pretty much it for the average Christian. The story of Creation in Chapter 1 is also well known for those who are not Christians. God creates the world in six days and then rests on the seventh, which is where we get the Sabbath. Right.

Almost 100 years ago physicists Werner Heisenberg, Max Born und Erwin Schrödinger created a new field of physics: quantum mechanics. Objects of the quantum world -- according to quantum theory -- no longer move along a single well-defined path. Rather, they can simultaneously take different paths and end up at different places at once. Physicists speak of quantum superposition of different paths.

However, there are two descriptions of the Creation in Genesis. 

Two descriptions, which are as alike as oil and water. They could be polar opposites if that was possible with scripture, which of course it is not. 

In the first Description, the world, the land, the oceans, sky, sun, moon, stars, animals and plants and the Garden are all created before man is created. God in this description creates Adam after he has prepared everything for him. This description also has the day count.

Even some of the best theologians fail to bring up the second Creation story in Genesis as if pointing it out will give those who argue against the Bible's legitimacy the proof they need. The general feeling being that in the first Description of Creation Adam is created after all things, in the second Description of Creation Adam is created first, before all things, and that the two can not both be true

This is as irresponsible as it is irrational

One should never use their fears to put limitations on God. It is this, imposing our fears on God, which gives those who doubt their appearance of being well armed -- not the scripture. There is nothing wrong with the scripture. The scripture performs its functions with perfection. 

Right now, at this moment, in the lobby of a research center in California there is a particle, which is in two places at the same time. Not a copy, and not two particles but the same particle in two places. If we, man the creation can achieve this, do you seriously doubt God's ability to do the same? 

This is why we need to stop doubting science and begin joining in the explorations of God's creation. We put so much energy into these silly discussions, and WE ARE MISSING the show!

The second description begins on Genesis 2:7. 

This description begins with God creating man first. He creates man, and then spends time creating the garden and all the animals.How long does this take? Doesn't say. Not even a hint. Could have have been an afternoon, a father son project. Could have been eons, and Adam has no sense of time or mortality so its not like he's going to get bored hanging out with God watching him make stuff. Right?  

In this description God is much more laid back, and more of a craftsman than a creator. The first description has God in the Deep space commanding elements, pushing back the tides, lifting the continents into place and shape. These are powerful, dramatic images.

God in the second description is making animals and hanging stars, crafting them one by one. He's walking around, adding this, shaping that, touching up this one. Adam follows God around and names the animals and trees. The scene is deeper, describing a personal relationship. Not really son, though I did use that term, but more like Grandson. Adam tootles along after God, God makes a new animal and Adam's job is to give the new animal a name. The visual images here are closeness and warmth.They are simple images. Images of family and hearth. Love.

It is also easy to visualize the making an animal such as a lemur, and then watching it breed and grow, and evolve over generations into several species of apes and one branch developing into humans. A little magic trick for the grandson. Watching this occur over the period of several thousand years, is nothing to these two. Ages pass while sitting in the garden, admiring the creativity of God and watching the way it all works -- together. -- and it also helps us to understand how Cain, later on, goes over the mountains and finds a wife. But... that's just a thought.  

Obviously there was a lot going on at this time and not every detail was written down. After this beautiful moment/eternity with Adam, God is then ... very likely for the first time in his existence ... hurt. He's hurt bad. And Adam is the one who deals the blow.

Right now, however, life is good.

The idea of Propaganda that has been taught to us as simple tricks that only fools need to worry about. Believing that today borders on insane. Eyes open, pay attention to what you agree to. Ask, directly, grill every statement of "fact" against a credible source, and the words of the scripture. Even if you are absolutely sure what the scripture says about the subject, check. 

May your road be smooth and your eyes always in the light.

Current Views of the Pope in Rome on the Creation of the World
oct 2014

“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”Colossians 1:16,17
The Pope said the scientific account of the beginning of the universe and the development of life through evolution are compatible with the Catholic Church’s vision of creation. He told a meeting of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Sciences: ‘The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it.’
But he said Christians should reject the idea that world came into being by chance. Likewise, evolution was all part of God’s plan, he explained. The development of each creature’s characteristics over millennia ‘does not contrast with the notion of creation because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve,’ he said.
“Reading Genesis we imagine that God is ‘a wizard with a magic wand’ capable of doing all things, he said. ‘But it is not so. He created life and let each creature develop according to the natural laws which he had given each one.’
Francis praised his predecessor, Benedict, who initiated attempts to shed the Catholic Church’s image of being anti-science, a label that stuck when it condemned the astronomer Galileo to death for teaching that the earth revolves around the sun.
The Catholic Church no longer teaches creationism – the belief that God created the world in six days – and says that the account in the book of Genesis is an allegory for the way God created the world.

Mastering Story Pacing: Techniques and Insights

Pacing is a crucial element of storytelling that dictates the speed and rhythm at which a narrative unfolds. Effective pacing keeps readers ...