The Key to Eternal Life — Is It Possible?

The key to eternal life: dream or nightmare?

The key to eternal life: dream or nightmare?

The key to eternal life, the fountain of youth, is it possible, and is it even desirable? I remember back in the 60s, reading in Popular Science Magazine that scientists had been able to keep a few cells of chicken flesh alive in a petri dish, came to the conclusion that they could be kept alive forever, and announced that eternal life, a world without death was just around the corner. Some fifty plus years later, we’re not even close.

Dr. de Gray suggests in the article below that the human body is a machine with moving parts that wear out. Most materialists, or reductionists, will go even further than that, suggesting that even the brain, even the mind, is some chemical, electrical machine with memory storage that works inside your skull.

And while it’s true that bone, with things such as hip replacements can be screwed, glued, and bolted into place, you can’t replace your nervous system with some wiring harness such as you might find in an auto parts room.

But aside from all that, what problems would eternal life present to life in the everyday world? How about with nobody dying, would we soon run out of room; after a couple of centuries, would there be standing room only with no room for new births and forced sterilization?

And what about the political power structure? Could you imagine how much power the Roman emperors would have accumulated if they were still alive from the days of the early empire unto today? What about control-freak, NWO globalists like George Soros or David Rockefeller? To what lengths would such people go to secure their power if they knew their time on earth was not limited to nine or ten decades at most but that they would be around for thousands of years?

What sort of risks would people take if they knew they could live forever? Would anyone have risked discovering the New World, or risked their lives inventing machines like the airplane, or gone to the moon. And how tragic would it be if you were killed in an auto accident when you could have lived hundreds or thousands of years?

And what about supporting yourself? Sure, living forever might be great if you had an intellectual curiosity and enjoyed doing new things and had an unlimited supply of cash that wasn’t subject to inflation. But what if you were middle class and had to suffer through a life of drudgery for the next thousand years? How long would it take for the average person to become a burnout? How long would it take for a small group to make everyone their slaves?

Better to die and be absorbed back into the source from which you came, better to return to your essence and blend with God. Or, if you’re not ready for eternal bliss, then to be reincarnated and start a fresh life, a fresh adventure on equal ground with the rest of your peers.


KEY TO ETERNAL LIFE? Someone already born will ‘live to 1,000 and immortality IS possible’

A DOCTOR who has dedicated his work to the quest for eternal life insists the record for the oldest living person will soon fall and someone already alive will keep going until they make 1,000.

From Sunday Express by Jon Austin

Dr Aubrey de Grey believes people who have already been born could live for ten centuries because of ongoing research being done into “repairing the effects of ageing.”

He hopes to ultimately create preventative treatments that mean humans would be able to consistently re-repair and live as long as 1,000 years or possible even forever.

British-born Mr de Grey, who graduated from Cambridge University in 1985 insists he is one of very few scientists looking at preventing, rather than slowing down ageing, and is perplexed why there is not huge focus on it.

He told the actuary.com: “To me, ageing was the world’s most important problem. It was so obvious that I never tested the assumption. I always presumed that everyone else thought the same.”

But his theory for repairing ageing has not been widely accepted by peers.

He said: “People have this crazy concept that ageing is natural and inevitable, and I have to keep explaining that it is not.

“The human body is a machine with moving parts and like a car or an aeroplane, it accumulates damage throughout life as a consequence of normal operation.” . . . (more)


In this book, The Mind’s Eye: Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul, Douglas R. Hofstadter and Daniel C. Dennett present a collection of essays and short stories that ask what is consciousness, can AI obtain consciousness, and would it be possible to download someone’s mind onto software and upload it into a new body: a form of immortality.

God Speaks to Ted Cruz, and Apparently, Also His Wife

God speaks to Ted Cruz.

God speaks to Ted Cruz. God gave his wife a sign. Image Credits: By Maverick Little, Wikimedia Commons.


God Speaks to Ted Cruz: According to Rafael Cruz, his son is running for president because God spoke to Ted’s wife and gave her a sign.

These people believe in Biblical inerrancy, that is, they believe every word in the Bible is True. That means that there really was a talking donkey (Numbers 22:28), and that YOU should obey Romans 13: Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God — Ted, on the other hand, well, he’s reportedly listed in the DC madam’s black book.

So, if Cruz should become president and God talks to a delusional Ted, Heidi, or Rafael, and tells any one of them that it’s Armageddon time, well then, you can expect World War Three. And God knows what they’ll hear when any of them starts talking in tongues?


Ted Cruz’s Dad: My Son Ran for President After God Sent His Wife a Sign

From Mother Jones by David Corn

Ted Cruz decided to run for president after God spoke to his wife, Heidi.

God Speaks to Ted Cruz.

God Speaks to Ted Cruz. Is his wife Heidi the Whore of Babylon, the catalyst for WWIII?

That’s how Rafael Cruz, Ted’s father and a born-again pastor, described his son’s decision-making process. Speaking on a syndicated radio show at the end of last year, the elder Cruz recounted that during a Sunday prayer session at a Texas church, Ted Cruz and his family sought God’s guidance as to whether the senator should enter the presidential race, and after two hours of praying, God sent a message to Heidi that essentially said: Go for it.

Here’s the story, according to Rafael Cruz:

My son Ted and his family spent six months in prayer seeking God’s will for this decision. But the day the final green light came on, the whole family was together. It was a Sunday. We were all at his church, First Baptist Church in Houston, including his senior staff. After the church service, we all gathered at the pastor’s office. We were on our knees for two hours seeking God’s will. At the end of that time, a word came through his wife, Heidi. And the word came, just saying, “Seek God’s face, not God’s hand.” And I’ll tell you, it was as if there was a cloud of the holy spirit filling that place. Some of us were weeping, and Ted just looked up and said, “Lord, here am I, use me. I surrender to you, whatever you want.” And he felt that was a green light to move forward.

 

* * *

In most instances, it would be unfair to judge a politician based on a relative’s pronouncements. But for years—in his Senate race and in this presidential campaign—Ted Cruz has used his father to round up support from tea partiers, social conservatives, and evangelical leaders. The son, naturally, speaks lovingly of his father. Given that Cruz is seeking the presidency by courting the religious right and offering himself as a moral and godly candidate who shares the faith of evangelical voters—and given that he frequently quotes Rafael Cruz on the campaign trail to urge people to vote by God’s values—a voter can likely gain some understanding of Ted Cruz’s world (and perhaps his worldview) by examining the statements and professed beliefs of his father. And they are extreme.

* * *

The senior Cruz sees no difference between the religious and political realms. In a June 2013 speech at a men’s prayer breakfast, he contended that Jesus’ original followers were not looking for a “spiritual leader” but for a “political leader” who could establish “a physical kingdom on the Earth.” And Jesus, he noted, was “bucking the political establishment.” (Sound familiar?) “The ministry of Jesus,” he claimed, was a “highly political ministry.” So religion and politics do mix—a lot. “It’s not just a spiritual confrontation,” Cruz said. “It’s also a political confrontation.” Toward the end of that speech, Cruz declared, “We have a responsibility to elect righteous leaders. God is going to hold us accountable if we do not.” He added, “And the people will proclaim that Jesus Christ is lord and king of this nation.”

* * *

Rafael Cruz’s outlook on the world is exceedingly narrow and unforgiving. The only righteous Christian is the evangelical Christian who is “biblically correct.” These Christians must conquer the political world—vanquish those who are in league with Satan—and establish dominion over society by ruling in accordance with their definition of the word of God. And Ted Cruz was directly given the green light from God, via Heidi Cruz, to lead what is, in essence, a crusade to smite wickedness. (At a gathering of evangelicals in Iowa in 2013, Ted and Rafael Cruz joined in prayer with a pastor who said that “every tongue that rises up against [Ted Cruz] in judgment will be condemned.”)

Without saying it directly, Rafael Cruz calls for a theocracy. (He has often decried the notion of separation of church and state.) His religious rants are not irrelevant to the Ted Cruz campaign. Ted Cruz has consistently cited his father as a key influence in his life, and he has regularly deployed him as a political representative and surrogate. . . . (more)

Lying Ted and the Cruz Kasich Deal

Lying Ted — The Cruz Kasich Deal

Lying Ted — The Cruz Kasich Deal. Image Credits: By Gage Skidmore, Wikimedia Commons


The Cruz Kasich Deal: Lying Ted stabs Kasich in the back by naming Fiorina his choice for VP, then claims there never was a deal before the ink is even dry.

And no sooner does Fiorina get in than she says Kasich should get out! Lying Ted: a real straight shooter, LBJ Texas style.


Cruz denies alliance with Kasich that his campaign announced earlier this week

From USA Today via MSN

Ted Cruz, whose campaign announced an alliance with that of John Kasich’s earlier this week, on Thursday denied to reporters that such an alliance existed.

Cruz’s comments came during a press availability with journalists, according to CNN’s Teddy Schleifer:

Teddy Schleifer, via Twitter (‎@teddyschleifer):
“Cruz on Kasich: “I recognize the media is all eager to talk about an alliance. There is no alliance.'”
“Cruz: “John Kasich made the decision, in his own political self-interest, to withdraw from Indiana'” – 8:54 AM – 28 Apr 2016

On Sunday, the Cruz and Kasich campaigns both issued statements announcing a strategic alliance aimed at stopping Donald Trump from reaching the 1,237 delegates needed to clinch the Republican nomination. . . . (more)


But wait there’s more . . .

Carly ends the Cruz – Kasich bromance within hours of accepting VP nod

From Hot Air by Jazz Shaw

Will Carly Fiorina shake up the GOP primary race now that she has accepted the invitation to be Ted Cruz’s running mate? The early signs point to that possibility, but in less than a day she demonstrated that Cruz may have a bit of trouble keeping his new partner on message. Fiorina had barely left the stage in Indiana before she showed up on Mark Levin’s show and pretty much drove a stake through the heart of the recent Cruz – Kasich alliance to stop Donald Trump. (Real Clear Politics)

Carly Fiorina tells Mark Levin that John Kasich should drop out of the race for president.

“Look, there is somebody in this race who ought to get out. His name is John Kasich,” Fiorina said. “Ted Cruz can and will win this nomination. Donald Trump, as I said, the very week he announced his candidacy… he does not represent me and he does not represent my party, and that is why Ted Cruz and I are going to fight this fight for the soul of our party and for the future of our nation.”

. . . (more)

Ted Cruz’s Swan Song — Cruz names Fiorina VP

Cruz names Fiorina VP

Cruz names Fiorina VP Image Credits: By Gage Skidmore, Wikimedia Commons


Ted Cruz’s swan song: Cruz names Fiorina VP. Ted Cruz puts the cart before the horse: First you’ve got to win Ted before you pick your VP. And who does he pick? Fiorina! The only one who did worse than her was Lindsey Graham. But one thing Ted is forgetting is that if someone wins the nomination with such little support, then it’s the party that picks the VP.


Trump thinks her song is false.

 

Are the Bill of Rights God Given Rights?

Are the Bill of rights God given rights? And just how do you explain that to an atheist?

From the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. . . .

From the preamble to the Bill of Rights:

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

Are the Bill of Rights God given rights?

Are the Bill of Rights God given rights?

How do you explain to an atheist, agnostic, or a socialist that the Bill of Rights are God given, unalienable rights that can neither be granted nor taken away by government? The following excerpt from Frank Chodorov’s The Income Tax: Root of all Evil gives the best explanation that I’ve ever seen.   

From The Income Tax: Root of all Evil:

“The axiom of socialism is that the individual has no inherent rights. The privileges and prerogatives that the individual enjoys are grants from society, acting through its management committee, the government. That is the condition the individual must accept for the benefit of being a member of society. Hence, the socialists (including many who do not so name themselves) reject the statement of rights in the Declaration of Independence, calling it a fiction of the eighteenth century.

In support of his denial of natural rights, the socialist points out that there is no positive proof in favor of that doctrine. Where is the documentary evidence? Did God hand man a signed statement endowing him with the rights he claims for himself, but denies to the birds and beasts who also inhabit the earth? If in answer to these questions you bring in the soul idea, you are right back to where you were in the beginning: how can you prove that man has a soul?

Those who accept the axiom of natural rights are backed against the wall by that kind of reasoning, until they examine the opposite axiom, that all rights are grants or loans from government. Where did government get the rights which it dispenses? If it is said that its fund of rights is collected from individuals, as the condition for their membership in society, the question arises, where did the individual get the rights that he gave up? He cannot give up what he never had in the first place, which is what the socialist maintains.

What is this thing called government, which can grant and take away rights? There are all sorts of answers to that question, but all the answers will agree on one point, that government is a social instrument enjoying a monopoly of coercion. The socialist says that the monopoly of coercion is vested in the government in order that it may bring about an ideal social and economic order; others say that the government must have a monopoly of coercion in order to prevent individuals from using coercion on one another. In short, the essential characteristic of government is power. If, then, we say that our rights stem from government, on a loan basis, we admit that whoever gets control of the power vested in government is the author of rights. And simply because he has the power to enforce his will. Thus, the basic axiom of socialism, in all its forms, is that might is right.

And that means that power is all there is to morality. If I am bigger and stronger than you, and you have no way of defending yourself, then it is right if I thrash you; the fact that I did thrash you is proof that I had the right to do so. On the other hand, if you can intimidate me with a gun, then right returns to your side. All of which comes to mere nonsense. And a social order based on the socialistic axiom—which makes the government the final judge of all morality—is a nonsensical society. It is a society in which the highest value is the acquisition of power—as exemplified in a Hitler or a Stalin—and the fate of those who cannot acquire it is subservience as a condition of existence.

The senselessness of the socialistic axiom is that there would be no society, and therefore no government, if there were no individuals. The human being is the unit of all social institutions; without a man there cannot be a crowd. Hence, we are compelled to look to the individual to find an axiom on which to build a nonsocialistic moral code. What does he tell us about himself? . . .”

Location of the mind — Rupert Sheldrake Speaks

Location of the mind. Where is your mind located? Is it in your brain? Is it located throughout your entire body? Or does it extend to the farthest reaches of the entire universe. In this talk, Rupert Sheldrake asks: Is nature mechanical? Is matter unconscious? Is your mind confined to your brain? And he explains quantum mechanics through an example of human action, a collapsing of the wave, with mental action working from the future and pulling from the past, and physical action working from the past and pushing towards the future. Listening to Rupert Sheldrake may forever change the way you look at the world and the way that you think.

Ghoulish Chelsea Clinton Gun Control, Dancing on Scalia’s Grave

Chelsea Clinton Gun Control

Chelsea Clinton Gun Control

Chelsea Clinton gun control — Scalia Died under suspicious circumstances and this just adds to that suspicion, and justifiably so. Listen to the demure presentation of this satanic beast who’s so concerned for your safety that she wants to take away your constitutionally guaranteed 2nd amendment rights. That the Left is coming for your guns is not a conspiracy theory it’s a fact.

Chelsea Clinton Gun Control Opportunity on Supreme Court With Scalia Gone

From The Washington Free Beacon by

Chelsea Clinton said Thursday at an event in Maryland that there is now an opportunity for gun control legislation to pass the Supreme Court since Justice Antonin Scalia passed away.

“It matters to me that my mom also recognizes the role the Supreme Court has when it comes to gun control. With Justice Scalia on the bench, one of the few areas where the Court actually had an inconsistent record relates to gun control,” Clinton said. “Sometimes the Court upheld local and state gun control measures as being compliant with the Second Amendment and sometimes the Court struck them down.” . . . (more)

9-11 Inside Job — MSM Begins to Confirm Conspiracy Theorists

9-11 Inside job

MSM begins to confirm — 9-11 Inside job


9-11 Inside Job: What has been known for so long by 9-11 Thruthers is now beginning to be revealed by the MSM. Now the question is: Just whose side is Obama on?


 

How US covered up Saudi role in 9/11

From New York Post by Paul Sperry

In its report on the still-censored “28 pages” implicating the Saudi government in 9/11, “60 Minutes” last weekend said the Saudi role in the attacks has been “soft-pedaled” to protect America’s delicate alliance with the oil-rich kingdom.

That’s quite an understatement.

Actually, the kingdom’s involvement was deliberately covered up at the highest levels of our government. And the coverup goes beyond locking up 28 pages of the Saudi report in a vault in the US Capitol basement. Investigations were throttled. Co-conspirators were let off the hook.

Case agents I’ve interviewed at the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in Washington and San Diego, the forward operating base for some of the Saudi hijackers, as well as detectives at the Fairfax County (Va.) Police Department who also investigated several 9/11 leads, say virtually every road led back to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, as well as the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles.

Yet time and time again, they were called off from pursuing leads. A common excuse was “diplomatic immunity.”

Those sources say the pages missing from the 9/11 congressional inquiry report — which comprise the entire final chapter dealing with “foreign support for the September 11 hijackers” — details “incontrovertible evidence” gathered from both CIA and FBI case files of official Saudi assistance for at least two of the Saudi hijackers who settled in San Diego. . . . (more)