Welcome to visit my Site.
Allan Svensson, Sweden

Why does the revival tarry? It is because God’s
people tarry to obey the powerful command of
the Lord in Rev. 18:4. This is the most powerful
revival message of the Lord to his people in our time.
http://www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/INDEX.HTM

As in the days of Lot, it is now. Lot was not interested
to leave Sodom. God sent two angels to rescue him,
and they must persuade him to leave Sodom. When
he yet lingered, one of the angels said to him:
“Flee for your life sake …”
Just like as Lot, God’s people are not interested to
leave the great Babylon, but finally they must flee
for their life from there.
http://www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/PAGE88.HTM

God’s people are destroyed for lack of knowledge
because their preachers have rejected knowledge.
Hosea 4:6-11. Instead to preaching the truth of the
Assembly of God, they have preached lies about the
Assembly of God. The Pentecostalists have abused
the expression “Assembly of God” and used it as a
name of their church.

What does hinder the Antichrist to appear?
What is the Restrainer?
http://www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/MESSAGE.HTM#Antichrist

Why did the Pentecostal Revival take an end?
http://www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/CRISIS.HTM

The coming revival, a nameless revival
http://www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/POWERFUL.HTM

What will happen before Jesus comes?
http://www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/BEFORE.HTM

“jewish traditions are such that they deny that the messiah has come. thats what the jewish religion is! nobody can deny that.”

Well Starla, one can, and I do. How can you say that? Judaism is an incredibly rich, vibrant religion based in a belief in God and the laws he gave us, NOT a belief that the messiah has not yet come. In no way does it exclude the possibility of a Messiah having already come and that he will return again. By your definition, when the Messiah comes, we Jews will all cease to be Jews! It doesn’t sound like you have explored the core of the religions you are speaking of. Seriously, I’m astounded that you can make such a statement. I hope to respond more fully later, and to some other posts, but simply don’t have the time right now.

peace,
Daniel

P.S. I’m not impressed with the J4J signs either, and J4J does seem to me like a guise to completely convert Jews to Christianity, which I do not believe is necessary, or even right. Especially, considering the commands Jews believe God gave to them when it comes to keeping Jewish religious law (i.e. celebrating passover).

You are asking these questions in the wrong place. These are questions to pose to evolutionary biologists. As scientists, they are required to consider all credible critiques and revise or replace a theory as necessary. In fact, evolutionary theory is continuously being revised in light of criticism from other biologists. Many of the questions you asked have probably already either been shown to be non-credible or resulted in an amended theory. That is the beauty of the scientific method.

Also, linking the Discovery Institute is a perfect way to destroy any scientific credibility. If you look up quotes by the leading members of the institute, you’d find that they are using anti-evolution as a wedge issue to undermine naturalism and replace it with Christian values.

William Dembski, a major contributor in the Discovery Institute said “Intelligent Design should be viewed as a ground clearing operation that gets rid of intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.” Any quest for knowledge that rules out the possibility of results that conflict with faith is not science.

This quote was from an internal document leaked in 1999, “The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy”

Thus the Discovery Institute is patently anti-scientific and they should not be taken seriously as credible critics.

ORIGIN OF LIFE - Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life’s building blocks may have formed on the early Earth — when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

DARWIN’S TREE OF LIFE - Why don’t textbooks discuss the “Cambrian explosion,” in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor — thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

HOMOLOGY. - Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry — a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. - Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry — even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

ARCHAEOPTERYX. - Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds — even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

PEPPERED MOTHS. - Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection — when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don’t normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

DARWIN’S FINCHES. - Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection — even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. - Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution — even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

HUMAN ORIGINS. - Why are artists’ drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident — when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

EVOLUTION A FACT? - Why are we told that Darwin’s theory of evolution is a scientific fact — even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

http://www.discovery.org/csc/

As someone who was born and raised Jewish (and now is effectively agnostic) in a town that had MAYBE 15 kids in my grade in high school that were Jewish out of 350, I learned a lot about how the two religions coincide. Beyond the whole Jesus thing, the basis for the two religions (Islam too) are basically the same.

If you have a more right winged group of people who are in charge of the specific house of worship in question, the trend still applies.

The more a clergyman attempts to identify the differences between the two religions, the more he proves the similarities between them.

There are plenty of nut jobs on either side, but in the end, the difference comes down to whether or not they pray to one god or three (trinity etc…).

A few comments:

“I firmly believe that a person of one religion should never attempt to dissuade a person of another religion from practicing thier[sic] faith. I don’t see a problem with encouraging someone to do research or open thier mind, but when it’s a “You’re wrong and I’m right” message, it sickens me.”

This is the essence of all advertising. The point of advertising is to get other people to think the way you want them to think. Whether your goal is to get them to drink Pepsi, vote Republican, or switch away from Judaism, it is all the same thing. To me, it’s absolutely disgusting that we allow our world to be polluted with ads, but some people apparently feel differently. Ads with religious intent are fundamentally no different than those with economic intent. Both are generally attempts to irrationally alter your way of thinking.

I just had to re-emphasize this point. Being a Jew, in the religious sense, essentially means that you do not believe that the messiah has already come and gone and will come again. Believing that he has come, rose, will come again, makes you a christian.

insaner points out that the word jew in one sense doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing in another sense. Well I think we all agree that we’re all talking about jews in a religious sense. Meaning, those that count themselves as part of the religion that does not believe the messiah has come! So, that’s a bit of a non-issue in my opinion.

Speaking strictly from a logical point of view, how can someone be a jew AND a christian. Sure, one can say they are a christian and celebrate jewish traditions. but that person has to evaluate themselves, their actions, and their beliefs, because jewish traditions are such that they deny that the messiah has come. thats what the jewish religion is! nobody can deny that. That’s what makes jews, jews. How can you say you’re a christian AND a jew. You would then be contradicting everything BOTH religions stand for.

FYI, I guess if you feel the need to, you can call me agnostic. I don’t believe there is any way to PROVE the existence of a god. I believe it’s a lot of feelings and passed down beliefs. I like the analogy of santa clause, i think thats in the coments to a post about jesus camp. Just because you’re told it’s true, by some people doesn’t mean it is. I’m a scientist and mathematician. I want proof. I’m also a humanist. I think that people have the power and the obligation to make themselves be whatever they feel the need or desire to be; good, bad, or indifferent.

Oh, and, as for evolution being a religion, like insaner says. I’m sorry, but the work that Darwin did in collecting SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE and proving it using more SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is NOT a religion! IT’S SCIENCE!!!! Myths are not supported by evidence that has been reviewed by countless scientists over decades. Thats why their myths! Oh and, neo-darwinism leads to genocide huh? Um no.

to the “jews” posting their comments.. please first define what a jew is before you say you cant be X and Y at the same time.. jew is a word that basically means, “descendant of judah”. if you use a different definition, such as anything to do with religion, then be aware that chassidic jews might not consider you a jew either, as would an orthodox jew.. so you are forced to acknowledge you are not a jew.. (ps, i have a great love for jews.. but a great dislike for people not being honest)

deletedsoul:
“I firmly believe that a person of one religion should never attempt to dissuade a person of another religion from practicing thier faith. I don’t see a problem with encouraging someone to do research or open thier mind, but when it’s a “You’re wrong and I’m right” message, it sickens me.”

much like evolutionists do? if you research it up, again, being intellectually honest, you are forced to admit that evolution is not science, but rather a religion, believing in a different set of myths started by the greeks years before Jesus walked the earth.. they are also responsible for the terracentric view of the world (which later influenced the catholic worldview) (which is against what the bible says, by the way) and for stuff like neo-darwinism, which leads to genocide all over the globe (read up on hitler.. remember him?)

quit being so hypocritical.. fine, so you dont agree with christianity, big deal, saul of tarsus was killing christians looong before nero came along to use them as living garden candles.. you are not the first, but please please just be intellectually honest with your position, admit your faults, and dont make stuff up about the other group you are criticizing just because you happen to not agree.. _set the example if you really are that much better!_

oh and before i click on submit, theres a difference between a nominal christian and a christian as the bible defines it, much like you can have a democrat that votes republican.. if you say one thing, and act contrarily, where do you stand? and if you choose exactly these people to be the examples of that christianity you attack, then you are not being honest, you are just fishing for reasons to criticize..