**The Official, Authorized Version of Eckhart Tolles Stillness Speaks**Enjoy the wisdom and insights of Eckhart Tolle in both text and audiobook formats in one easy to use app!In Stillness Speaks, Eckhart Tolle illuminates the fundamental elements of his teaching, addressing the needs of the modern seeker by drawing from all spiritual traditions. Stillness Speaks takes the form of 200 individual entries, organized into 10 topic clusters that range from "Beyond the Thinking Mind" to "Suffering and the End of Suffering." The entries are concise and complete in themselves, but, read together, take on a transformative power.App Features: -Text and streaming audio version in one! (internet connection required for audio)-Easy to use UI and navigation-Browse and search functions-Save your favorite passages and bookmark sections-Share with friends and family via social media and emailWhen you become aware of silence, immediately there is that state of inner still alertness. You are present. You have stepped out of thousands of years of collective human conditioning. - Eckhart Tolle

More here:
Stillness Speaks (book with audio)

The Official, Authorized Version of Eckhart Tolles Practicing the Power of Now**Enjoy the wisdom and insights of Eckhart Tolle in both text and audiobook formats in one easy to use app!The Power of Now can transform your thinking. The result? More joy, right now. - Oprah WinfreyEckhart Tolle is rapidly emerging as one of the worlds most inspiring spiritual teachers, sharing the enlightenment he himself experienced after a startling personal transformation. Through meditations and simple techniques, Eckhart shows us how to quiet our thoughts, see the world in the present moment, and find a path to a life of grace, ease, and lightness.This app restates the wisdom of The Power of Now but in a simpler, easier to follow format that I found much easier to digest and enjoy. Thank you! D.HammanThe Practicing the Power of Now app makes an excellent companion-guide: rich in exercises and meditations to help readers get out of the traps of their minds so they can live more peacefully in their bodies.Features:-Text and Audiiobook version in one!-Easy to use UI and navigation-Browse and search functions-Highlight functions-Browse recent content for quick/easy access-Save your favorite passages and bookmark sections-Share with friends and family via social media and email-Adjustable brightness and text sizeStart transforming your life with these meditations and simple techniques today on your mobile device!

Visit link:
Practicing the Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle (with Audio)

Stop me if youve heard this one, but Hermann Hesses Siddhartha might have been a great stand-up comic in another life. Seeking enlightenment in Nepal circa 525 B.C. didnt give the namesake of the 1922 spiritual Bildungsroman much chance to develop an act, but Hesses description of his protagonists inner struggle could easily be applied to every clown caught crying, from Pagliacci to Louis C.K.: He brought everyone joy; he pleased everyone. However, Siddhartha didnt bring himself joy; he didnt please himself. This seed of discontent sprouting within him leads Hesses hero to join an order of self-denying proto-Buddhist monks who fast and meditate in the woods, but he soon becomes disillusioned with their practice and insights gained. I could have learned it in any pub located in the whores district, there among the manual laborers and the gamblers, he complains.

This route to self-discovery comes closer to the road traveled by more modern truth-seekers, comedianslegendary comic Lenny Bruce, for example, who probably did his best onstage act philosophizing as a strip-club MC. What Hesse suggests, decades before the rise of open mics and the two-drink minimum, is that the meditating monks and boozing barflies are actually seeking and achieving the same thing: a brief escape out of the agony of self-existence a momentary anesthetic against the pain and meaninglessness of life. Bruce, who died of a morphine overdose, clearly sought the same. After throwing needed light into Americas dark places, critic Walter Goodman concludes, by age 40 Lenny Bruce had nothing left to lighten the darkness of his final years. Something similar could perhaps be said of each of the many talented comics who have since died of drug overdoses (Mitch Hedberg, Greg Giraldo) or outright suicide (Freddie Prinze, Richard Jeni, Robin Williams).

According not only to anecdotes about those high-profile comedic acts but also to a study published last year in the British Journal of Psychiatry (which has been often cited following Williams death in 2014), comedians may be particularly prone to suffering mental illnesses and distress. The study gathered the answers of more than 500 self-identified comedians responding to the Oxford-Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and Experiences with scales measuring four dimensions of psychotic traits. The comics reported higher instances of all four traits than the control group. Of the four traits, comedians were most likely to report cognitive disorganization (writes Hesse of Siddhartha: Dreams and restless thoughts came flowing to him out of the rivers water, twinkled to him from the stars of the night, melted out of the sunbeams) and introvertive anhedonia, defined as the inability to experience pleasure from social interactions and physical contact (Everything was a lie, everything stank, everything stank of lies, everything feigned meaning and happiness and beauty, and yet everything was decaying while nobody acknowledged the fact. The world tasted bitter; life was agony.).

Comedians are especially susceptible to wanting to quote-unquote kill the pain, confirms comic Eddie Pepitone, [You] live a stressful life, [you] travel and try to have relationships and meaning [while] dealing with audiences that dont like you. Pepitone is one of the growing number of stand-ups following in Bruces footsteps artistically while relying on coping methods closer to those of Siddharthas monks. Best known to mainstream audiences for his small but memorable role in Old School, or his appearances as Conan OBriens recurring heckler, Pepitone, who describes his manic, stream-of-consciousness act as almost like one long, 30-year primal scream, seems to embody the comics mental plight. One of my constant thoughts that Im obsessed with all the time is that Im not successful enough, that people dont respect me enough, he says. I just go in this mental loop of feeling neglected and not validated and not cared for, and its just like I have to work every day to get out of that horrible loop of thinking that keeps me stuck in such a petty thought pattern.

If that sounds like a particularly eloquent self-assessment, its because Pepitone has had plenty of practice reflecting on his mental state, both in professional treatment for anxiety and as a guest on podcasts such as Paul Gilmartins appropriately titled The Mental Illness Happy Hour. The title of his own podcast, Pep Talks with the Bitter Buddha, comes from the nickname given Pepitone by another comic, who was tickled to learn that the Staten Island screamer had taken up meditation in his 50s. On the show, Pepitone frequently talks not only about meditation, but also about the ideas and philosophies of The Power of Now author Eckhart Tolle, Buddhist lecturer Jack Kornfield, and other like-minded thinkers. Though Pepitone is known for his rants, these are rarely one-sided conversations. His guests are drawn from a large pool of comedians (such as Duncan Trussell, whose own podcast is as likely to feature an actual monk as it is another comic) eager to not only air their psychic suffering, but also their Eastern philosophy-influenced salves. I think the reason meditation and The Power of Now and stuff like Jack Kornfield seem new to comedy is theres more of an awareness of mental illness, says Pepitone. Its just an evolution. Years ago people werent talking about this stuff ... but now comedians are reaching out for some help. The high-profile mental illness of a guy like Robin Williams also raises awareness about Oh shit, maybe I need some techniques to deal with all this stuff.

The authors of the British Journal of Psychiatry study offered an explanation for why a mild form of mental illnessor at least exhibiting some of its symptomsmight be oddly beneficial to a comic. The racing, wildly disparate thoughts associated with paranoid schizophrenia, for example, might aid a performer in developing an original perspective. But after the audience heads for the exits, that performer is left to live alone in that addled headspace every other hour of the day. And when the comics sense of humoran otherwise, according to the studys authors, healthy and desirable trait and potential coping strategyis also his or her primary income source, its at least as likely to cause stress as it is to relieve it. For Pepitonewhose better-known bits include heckling himself with a hilariously specific list of his own phobias and neuroses and channeling fears fueled by bleak reads like Chris Hedges Empire of Illusion into throat-shredding absurdist theater comedyhis creative output can function like a release valve. Getting as heated as he does on stage, however, can sometimes only increase his internal pressure. Sometimes I come home from shows, he confesses, and Ive been more upset than when I started because Im taking on all these things to be angry about.

Maria Bamfordwho uses her hyperactive energy and ability to embody multiple personalities to great comedic effect in roles ranging from a recovering methadone addict (Arrested Developments Debrie Bardeaux), to pretend princesses (Adventure Time), to the Crazy Target Lady in a popular series of holiday TV adshas also discussed her struggles with anxiety and other mental-health issues extensively both on and off stage. She named her 2009 album Unwanted Thoughts Syndrome, after the phrase she coined to describe the version of obsessive-compulsive disorder she suffers from. Along the same lines, her 2012 The Special Special Special! includes bits about Bamford checking herself into a hospital for psychiatric treatment when she became suicidal, as well as her familys lovingly inept responses to her depression.

In addition to these issues, Bamford, who recorded The Special Special Special! in her living room for an audience of just her parents, struggles with stage fright. It is still a battle, says Bamford, the subject of a profile in The New York Times Magazine that sported the headline The Weird, Scary and Ingenious Brain of Maria Bamford and focused mainly on her mental illness. It is a horrifying battle. Its not always a horrifying battle, but I am afraid. I dont want to perform, and in fact its just as hard as it was in the beginning. But despite her vicious send-ups of her life-coach sisters affirmations, Bamford is an enthusiastic advocate of 12-step programs and self-help books and tries to see the potential ego-blow of a cold room as an opportunity for personal growth. The nice thing about live performance is that its very humbling. [The audience says], We paid to see this or we havent paid to see this and were going to do with it what we will. Not only is awareness of the subjective experience an often-preached key tenant of Buddhist philosophy, it can help balance the otherwise unbearable roller coaster of They loved me! They hated me! They loved me! that tempts any live performer.

Bobbie Oliver, author of the Zen-influenced The Tao of Comedy (a book recommended by Bamford) says that depression, crises of identity, and a potentially dangerous desire for the approval of others plague stand-ups at every level, from veteran comics comics like Bamford and Pepitone to the first-time comedy students that come through Olivers workshops. In her classes, she encourages students to use techniques like mindfulness meditation and present-moment awareness as part of the creative process. Oliver, who was in and out of mental hospitals from the time she was nine through the 11th grade, says that comedians, in my experience, are usually the smartest, most damaged people in the room. But she also views comedy as a potential healing act. Were constantly looking for a way to cope with life and you can find that in your craft, or you can use your craft to torture yourself. Are you going to let it be something that nurtures you, and allows you to hear your true voice whispering to you over all the screaming in the world, or are you just going to let comedy be one more thing that you use to beat the shit out of yourselfHow am I not famous yet? And why did that person get this show? Why dont I have that? You can use [comedy] to show you how to insert stillness into your life and write jokes about things that upset you.

Bitter Buddha or not, Pepitonewho rails hysterically against the ineffectual remedies offered by New Age friends on his 2011 album A Great Stillness (Is sleepy-time tea going to make up for the fact that I was molested and kept in a steel box for 25 years?)has clearly chosen the second path. Ive never been a great one-liner writer, Pepitone says, so my comedy kind of comes from a place of This is what Im concerned about, and this is what Im thinking about. For me, the comedy is my struggle against this stuff. Its all a comedy that were trying to live these dignified lives in an undignified world. Pepitone has certainly realized that his own struggles to stay sane and productive are ongoing. What Ive come to lately is that to be creative, you have to nurture it all the time with authors and techniques like meditation or really being present [but] to be present in your life is really a difficult thing in a stressful world, he says.

Read the rest here:
A Monk, a Comedian, and a Therapist Walk into a Bar

Wikipedia defines pseudo science as a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudo science ignores the scientific method. It makes conclusions and then looks for facts to support the conclusions. In pseudoscience there is no healthy skepticism about fantastic claims, in fact there is an enthusiasm to accept untested personal testimony as a public truth ( as in the stories about UFOS).

It is more about what someone feels then facts. The elevation of individual testimony or sensation over logic and verifiable fact is not only popular; it is often linked to religion, spirituality, popular psychology and cults. Pseudoscience enthusiasts offer a hypothesis first and ignore facts such as the assertion that ancient aliens were behind most changes in history. A recent Time/Yankelvich poll found that 80% of Americans feel that the government is covering up information about extra-terrestrials. 68% of citizens support child vaccines compared to 86% of scientists 57% do not know that electrons are smaller than atoms. 84% percent of scientists think that humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels but only 49% of the public believes it. 93% of scientists support federal research on funding on stem cells versus 58% of the public. About 46% of the public believes, God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years and this number has not changed since 1982 63% of American adults are unaware that the last dinosaur died before humans arose. According to a recent Pew Research poll, science is on the decline in terms of public interest. At the same time there is almost a universal criticism of our education system directed at students, teachers, school administrators, and their curriculums. And the latest magic curriculum that is being offered is called STEM LEARNING which is supported by the Federal, State, and local governments as well as the manufacturing sector. This program aims to make kids better at science, engineering, technology and math. I am a supporter of the STEM learning initiative, and feel strongly that all citizens (not just students) need to have a better understanding of science. But I have a big question that relates to STEM learning. How can we ask kids to be more interested in science and math when their parents are enamored by pseudo-science? Pseudo-science comes in the form of books, products, seminars, newspapers, magazines, pop psychology, religion and TV shows. I think TV is very representative of what people are really interested in because it is based on ratings and numbers of viewers. There are channels called the history and science channels on cable TV but these are oxymorons because there is very little real science or history. Most of the programs are about UFOs and Ancient Aliens with a smattering of reality shows like Swamp People.

All of these examples make it very clear that pseudo science is a lot more popular with the public then real science which I believe is a real danger for the future. But before any attempt at making a case for science literacy, it is important to understand why people like pseudoscience.

Pseudo-science is very appealing to people who like black and white or fundamentalist thinking such as creationists and new earthers. People attracted to fundamentalist solutions prefer simple solutions to very complex problems. Secondly a lot of people who took science courses in high school remember very little science because the courses were taught through rote memorization. Third science is not easy to study and many people simply avoid hard subjects. And perhaps the biggest problem is that pseudo-science is easier and more entertaining than the real thing.

To put this problem in a larger perspective, American Manufacturing must be able to compete with the rest of the world by advancing science and technology. Manufacturers know this and are crying for students who can take courses in Science Technology, Engineering and Math.

Of all of the subjects that students can master in their STEM learning, I think understanding the scientific method way of thinking is the most important lesson that can be learned. In the scientific approach to analysis, people create a hypothesis, describe the facts that support the hypothesis, and then publish their findings as conclusions. Science has a built in system of checking for errors, by letting anyone on the planet try to find errors in the facts or conclusions. The theory is based on provable facts and your conclusions will not be accepted until a majority of the critics agree they are valid. We are in a century where there will be many changes to the planet and environment. . In our new century, science will permeate all industries and most of our major problems. But with so few citizens really understanding science there will be big problems. The late Carl Sagan summed up this problem in his book the Demon Haunted World: Weve arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our face,

I think that the most critical factor in student learning are their parents. Parents are in the unenviable but responsible position of setting an example for their children and being involved in the learning process. Parents involvement is crucial to developing the childs academic ability and confidence. Dr. Patricia Porter makes the case that parents are very influential in 3 ways: 1. Modeling Children love you and want to be like you. They watch what you do and try to do what you do. Modeling is the most important way you influence your childs behavior. 2. Mentoring Sharing your knowledge and experience with your children will help them develop skills. 3. Mediate You need to mediate between your child and the world around him. You can help your children understand science and the realities of the world by preparing yourself in the realities and basics of science. How can a student focus on geology and the search for natural resources if parents tell them that geological dating methods are wrong and the world is only 10,000 years old? How will we train the future doctors, nurses, and medical technicians if they are told that the principles of evolution and biology are not proven? How will students be able to understand and analyze the problems of gas emissions and make a decision about climate change if they dont know basic chemistry? More importantly, how will students understand many of the advanced and complicated concepts in STEM learning if their parents cannot model, mentor, or mediate? Pseudo-Science leads to irrationalism

Parents, not just students, are going to have to learn more about science just to play their role as mentors to their children. To even have a chance of understanding the natural world and all of the problems that are coming at us in the future, parents need to set a better example for their kids. They need to be less gullible and better at critical thinking and more skeptical about fantastic claims. They need to understand that fantastic claims require fantastic evidence. Rather than accept a claim that appeals to them emotionally, people need to learn more about the scientific method. It is
a way of looking at the world as it is, rather than how we would wish it to be. The 21st century is going to bring some fantastic breakthroughs in stem cell research, cloning, coding of DNA, fusion, quantum physics, artificial intelligence, computers, microelectronics, materials science, nanotechnology and the conquest of disease. Pseudo-science can lead to blind antipathy to reason and lead people away from making good decisions or understanding the true nature of the world we live in and the problems we must solve. It makes people gullible to fantastic claims taken at face value without investigation. A good example is the current antipathy to vaccines by 32% of our citizens which has led to a rash of infections in Southern California It will be very tempting for people to be attracted to superstition, cult theories, and pseudo-science for answers. Unless we can make a lot more headway in discounting the importance of pseudo-science we will continue to move towards a society where irrationalism will prevail, clutching our crystals and magnets to our heart.

Go here to read the rest:
Pseudo Science And The Age Of Irrationalism

For most of my life, a God that was real seemed a contradiction in terms. Every idea of God I had ever encountered seemed either physically impossible or so vague as to be empty. I was an atheist married to a famous scientist. But a time came when I needed a higher power. I was forced to acknowledge that, but I didnt know if it would be possible for me. I have no interest in a God that has to be believed in. If I am going to have God in my life, it has to be a God that cannot help but exist, in the same way that matter and gravity and culture exist. We dont need to believe in these things; they just exist. We can choose to learn more about them, or not.

I have had the extraordinary privilege of a ringside seat for one of the greatest scientific revolutions in human history. For thirty-eight-years I have been married to a man who studies the entire universe as a single evolving entity. My husband, Joel Primack, studies cosmology, the branch of astrophysics that researches the origin, nature, and evolution of the universe. In the early 1980s my then-young husband and three collaborators proposed a theory to solve the great mystery of why there are galaxies. After all, if the Big Bang was symmetrical in all directions, why isnt the universe just a bigger soup? What caused galaxies and clusters of galaxies to form?

Their new theory challenged the assumption that everything is made of atoms. It postulated that the vast majority of matter in the universe is in fact not made of atoms or even made of the parts of atoms. Its something completely different, something invisible, called cold dark matter. The theory calculates how the peculiar behavior of cold dark matter could have created the galaxies over time. It was a daring theory, making specific predictions in a field that had scarcely any believable evidence. Some astronomers dismissed it as wildly improbable, but my husband and his collaborators kept developing it with increasing success, realizing a few years later that the other key actor in the evolution of the universe was the even more mysterious dark energy. Thats the energy making the universe expand faster and faster. To test the theory countries around the world have built great observatories on the ground and in space. After three decades the evidence is overwhelming and still pouring inand it confirms the theory without a single discrepancy. As unlikely as it seemed at first, even to my skeptical husband and his colleagues, the double dark theory, based on dark matter and dark energy, has now become accepted in astronomy as the foundation of the modern picture of the universe.

For me a God that is real has to be real not in our commonsense world but in the double dark universe, where we now know we live.

The double dark theory tells a big piece of our origin story. For thousands of years and in virtually all cultures, people have told origin stories, but this is the first one to be based on science and therefore the first origin story in the history of humanity that may actually be accurate. The story is not what anyone, not even Einstein, expected. Were living in a stranger universe than earlier generations ever dreamed. The implications of this discovery for intelligent beings are almost entirely unknown, but inevitably they will be life changing. We have a new picture of the universe. What does a new picture of our universe mean for who and what we are?

And what does it mean for God?

The modern world is certainly confused about God. Surveys consistently find that about 90 percent of Americans, and a somewhat smaller majority of people in many other countries, say quite definitely that they believe in God. But when they are asked to explain what they mean by God, they become less certain, and theres much divergence of opinion. Is God something authoritarian or supportive, engaged or distant, physical or in the heart? Some describe God as all knowing, all loving, all wise, a careful planneran entity embodying human characteristics raised to perfectionthat created and controls the entire universe, including alien worlds where there could be intelligent creatures with little resemblance to humans. Some believe there is no law of physics an all-powerful God could not break.

Religions opponents jump in and claim that God does not exist, end of story. This claim is understandable: abuses in the name of religion provide plenty of temptation to feel that the human race might be better off abolishing the whole idea of religion. From this perspective God is at best a fantasy and a distraction, and there are saner and more useful ways to contribute to society.

There was a time when I felt this way.

I remember sitting in Sunday school when I was in the second grade, reading a picture book that showed God as an old bearded man sitting on a cloud and giving orders. I thought, of course that couldnt be real! I watched clouds all the time, and I never saw anyone up there. Metaphor was quite beyond me as a child. I took things literally, and then I made my own judgment, which would always seem like the obvious conclusion. The greatest mystery to me as a child was how grown-ups could believe the religious stories they were teaching us. Did they really? Were they crazy or were they intentionally tricking us? The implications either way were confusing. I suffered through eight years of Sunday school. When I was fifteen, the rabbi had my confirmation class write an essay on our personal view of God. God didnt create us; we created God, I wrote, honestly concluding that God was a fiction invented by weak or illogical people for reasons of convenience or comfort. The rabbi ordered me into his office and yelled at me. Who do you think you are, he railed, to question the wisdom of your ancestors? It was more than a decade before I entered a synagogue again.

See the rest here:
My atheist search for God: Were debating science and religion all wrong

This article is about an evolutionary concept. For the ideology and movement, see Transhumanism. For the Believer album, see Transhuman (album). For a person identifying as male or as female, respectively, after having been socially and/or medically assigned the opposite sex identification at birth, see trans man and trans woman.

Transhuman or trans-human is an intermediary form between human and posthuman.[1] In other words, a transhuman is a being that resembles a human in most respects but who has powers and abilities beyond those of standard humans.[2] These abilities might include improved intelligence, awareness, strength, or durability. Transhumans sometimes appear in science-fiction as cyborgs or genetically-enhanced humans.

The use of the term "transhuman" goes back to French philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who wrote in his 1949 book The Future of Mankind:

Liberty: that is to say, the chance offered to every man (by removing obstacles and placing the appropriate means at his disposal) of 'trans-humanizing' himself by developing his potentialities to the fullest extent.[3]

And in a 1951 unpublished revision of the same book:

In consequence one is the less disposed to reject as unscientific the idea that the critical point of planetary Reflection, the fruit of socialization, far from being a mere spark in the darkness, represents our passage, by Translation or dematerialization, to another sphere of the Universe: not an ending of the ultra-human but its accession to some sort of trans-humanity at the ultimate heart of things.[4]

In 1957 book New Bottles for New Wine, English evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley wrote:

The human species can, if it wishes, transcend itself not just sporadically, an individual here in one way, an individual there in another way, but in its entirety, as humanity. We need a name for this new belief. Perhaps transhumanism will serve: man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature. "I believe in transhumanism": once there are enough people who can truly say that, the human species will be on the threshold of a new kind of existence, as different from ours as ours is from that of Peking man. It will at last be consciously fulfilling its real destiny.[5]

One of the first professors of futurology, FM-2030, who taught "new concepts of the Human" at The New School of New York City in the 1960s, used "transhuman" as shorthand for "transitional human". Calling transhumans the "earliest manifestation of new evolutionary beings", FM argued that signs of transhumans included physical and mental augmentations including prostheses, reconstructive surgery, intensive use of telecommunications, a cosmopolitan outlook and a globetrotting lifestyle, androgyny, mediated reproduction (such as in vitro fertilisation), absence of religious beliefs, and a rejection of traditional family values.[6]

FM-2030 used the concept of transhuman as an evolutionary transition, outside the confines of academia, in his contributing final chapter to the 1972 anthology Woman, Year 2000.[7] In the same year, American cryonics pioneer Robert Ettinger contributed to conceptualization of "transhumanity" in his book Man into Superman.[8] In 1982, American Natasha Vita-More authored a statement titled Transhumanist Arts Statement and outlined what she perceived as an emerging transhuman culture.[9]

More:

Transhuman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"It's what you know (and believe) that saves your life - and so knowledge, figuratively speaking, is an 'ark', one that can keep you afloat when others without it are sinking in a deluge of perplexity. If you desire to arm yourself with knowledge, the kind that may save both you and possibly your children - I recommend reading: 'As The Days of Noah Were', by Minister Dante Fortson." - C. Heidt

"Interesting and well explained. Though this goes totally against all I was taught growing up it has given me allot to think about. There are so many places in scripture that just didn't make much sense to me. M.F.'s explanation does make these passages fit better." - Carol Motsinger

"Get this book, I could not put my kindle down. The book is well written and extremely well researched. Minister Fortson takes a subject, gives you a variety of angles from other texts than just the Bible and shows how they all seem to connect in very important ways and allows you the reader to find your own solutions." - J.K. White

"As a student of eschatology I must congratulate this author for a job well done! Very insightful, informative and interesting!!! One of the best books on the Great Flood and the Nephilim." - M. Torres

"This book is sure to challenge you, regardless of your previous research and beliefs about ufology, genetic hybrids, the Nephilim, end-times prophecy, or a host of other issues covered in this book. It is clear that Minister Fortson is passionate about this subject matter and has spent a great deal of time researching and forming his own beliefs. Whether you agree or disagree with his ultimate conclusions, this book is a must read for those interested in the topics mainstream media refuses to touch." - Andrew Hoffman

Here is the original post:

Animal Human Hybrids , Transhumanism, and The Bible :The ...

February 10, 2015|9:03 am

In 2000, Craig Venter, along with Francis Collins, joined then-president Clinton in announcing the mapping of the human genome.

Since then, Venter has been a leader in the field of synthetic biology, a multi-disciplinary field related to genetic engineering.

And what he recently told the Wall Street Journal sent chills down my spine. Venter said, "We're going to have to learn to adapt to the concept that we are a software-driven species and understand how it affects our lives. Change the software, you can change the species, who we are."

The Journal's selected headline of the article described how we can now "control our evolution," which because evolution is supposed to be an unguided process, must be a misnomer. What Venter was actually describing would be better characterized as playing Creator to everyone else's Adam.

Humans, by the way, have quite a history of trying to reinvent our species. The Communists spoke about building the "New Soviet Man," a "selfless, learned, healthy and enthusiastic" person who would help build the Utopia described by Karl Marx. Fascism spoke of a "New Man who is a figure of action, violence, and masculinity," free from the taint of individualism.

Well, both failed, but not before causing previously unimaginable suffering.

Now it's scientism's turn to take a crack at reinventing the human species. And fittingly for a worldview that holds that empirical science is the only measure of truth, its approach is to reduce people to biological machines and see if they can produce something new by swapping parts and tinkering with the "software."

These efforts are known as "transhumanism." The goal of transhumanism is to "fundamentally [transform] the human condition by developing technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities."

For a long time, transhumanism was thought to be a kind of fringe movement, the stuff of science fiction movies. But now you have Venter, who is as significant as it gets in the field of genetics, talking about "changing the software." Transhumanism is not fringe anymore: It's mainstream. In fact, just last week the British Parliament approved a procedure to create babies with genetic material from three different parents!

Read more here:

When Adam Plays God: Why Transhumanism Won't End Well

February 12, 2015|8:10 am

In 2000, Craig Venter, along with Francis Collins, joined then-president Clinton in announcing the mapping of the human genome.

Since then, Venter has been a leader in the field of synthetic biology, a multi-disciplinary field related to genetic engineering.

And what he recently told the Wall Street Journal sent chills down my spine. Venter said, "We're going to have to learn to adapt to the concept that we are a software-driven species and understand how it affects our lives. Change the software, you can change the species, who we are."

The Journal's selected headline of the article described how we can now "control our evolution," which because evolution is supposed to be an unguided process, must be a misnomer. What Venter was actually describing would be better characterized as playing Creator to everyone else's Adam.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/when-adam-plays-god-why-transhumanism-wont-end-well-133846/

Hackers Declare Cyberwar on ISIS

Android 5.0 Lollipop Update for Samsung Galaxy S4 Release Date: Download Now Available

Continue reading here:

Are 'Transhumanists' Trying to Play God?