Archive for February, 2014

Salem, witches, and the truth

February 13, 2014

Everybody remembers the Salem witch hunts (especially atheists and agnostics and lower-rank witches) but nobody remembers that it was SECULAR minded infiltrators who made the accusations, and many high-level repentant witches influential in the “background” have denounced that it was these closet witches, with greedy designs on the property of others (especially the more “Christian” ones that created the hysteria while their governor was away, who immediately put a stop to it.

Much more rare is the remembrance of the massacres and slaughters of Bible-believing Christians that had to flee the kings and tyrants and bishops of Europe. The plots against the independently Bible-minded believers (who validated leaders’ orders against the “Book of Books”) continued long after the Gunpowder Plot and continue today. So worried about witches in history, so nonchalant about the massacre of two million Christians in southern Sudan long before the noise started over the “animists” in Darfur.

The history books always leave out that the first Pilgrim arrivals were collectivists (in the sense of Acts 2 and Acts 4) that practiced a VOLUNTARY “socialism” with common property practice. Work and fruits of labor were shared equally. But it was VOLUNTARY; they had entered into this agreement by joining this migration. It took just one year to find out that it wasn’t going to work, people need incentives. The resentment against the successful is bitter; equal shares in the fruits of labor breeds resentment against the deadbeats. (Even labor hates deadbeats, so they say, in their demand to force others to give dues).

Advertisements

Studying prayer

February 11, 2014

This blog post was “inspired” as a reaction to a comment on the description of research by one Candy Gunther Brown, one example of which is described at the following link: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/testing-prayer/201303/clinical-trials-1

The one study they did was with people who had healing prayer, and there were a couple of examples she gave of dramatic mesaurable improvements in eyesight and hearing.

The commenter suggested a control group getting a “sham treatment”. As if going from 20/400 vision to 20/40 and only a healing prayer in between is not of any significance.

With something like this, in matters of faith, sham treatments are very hard to pin down.

As a Bible believer, and one who has met many who have been healed through prayer, and worked in a mission work founded by the son of one who had been healed and who walked around as normal with two missing vertebrae (medically examined)… I whole-heartedly applaud this effort.

I started to suggest that Ms. Brown could study people who’ve been “healed” by sham evangelists –I could suggest some that I despise (and surely God does too), but there are two major complicating factors there.

One is, that often with healing evangelists, sham or not, the ones who go there have at least some measure of faith themselves, many of them receiving healing in spite of the “sham” and better than the placebo effect. The reason is that their faith in God’s healing power, and in the “gift of healing” in general, is recognized and often “honored” in reality.

Another factor to consider in looking for sham evangelists is expressed in the Bible verse, “The gifts of God are without repentance” (Romans 11:9). This means that some people are given “gifts of the spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:7-10) during their “non-sham” time in the past. Such a one might “backslide”, might get cynical, or whatever, and his “ministry” becomes a “sham” and his prayers an abomination, but the special measure we understand as a “gift of healing” is not revoked, it is “without repentance”, for God’s own reasons.

Might I suggest that the general remission and non-remission rates among the entire population can serve as a “control group”, at least to study the scenarios of “with prayer” and “without prayer”.

Studying prayer

February 11, 2014

This blog post was “inspired” as a reaction to a comment on the description of research by one Candy Gunther Brown, one example of which is described at the following link: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/testing-prayer/201303/clinical-trials-1

The one study they did was with people who had healing prayer, and there were a couple of examples she gave of dramatic mesaurable improvements in eyesight and hearing.

The commenter suggested a control group getting a “sham treatment”. As if going from 20/400 vision to 20/40 and only a healing prayer in between is not of any significance.

With something like this, in matters of faith, sham treatments are very hard to pin down.

As a Bible believer, and one who has met many who have been healed through prayer, and worked in a mission work founded by the son of one who had been healed and who walked around as normal with two missing vertebrae (medically examined)… I whole-heartedly applaud this effort.

I started to suggest that Ms. Brown could study people who’ve been “healed” by sham evangelists –I could suggest some that I despise (and surely God does too), but there are two major complicating factors there.

One is, that often with healing evangelists, sham or not, the ones who go there have at least some measure of faith themselves, many of them receiving healing in spite of the “sham” and better than the placebo effect. The reason is that their faith in God’s healing power, and in the “gift of healing” in general, is recognized and often “honored” in reality.

Another factor to consider in looking for sham evangelists is expressed in the Bible verse, “The gifts of God are without repentance” (Romans 11:9). This means that some people are given “gifts of the spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:7-10) during their “non-sham” time in the past. Such a one might “backslide”, might get cynical, or whatever, and his “ministry” becomes a “sham” and his prayers an abomination, but the special measure we understand as a “gift of healing” is not revoked, it is “without repentance”, for God’s own reasons.

Might I suggest that the general remission and non-remission rates among the entire population can serve as a “control group”, at least to study the scenarios of “with prayer” and “without prayer”.

About the Ken Ham and Bill Nye debate

February 9, 2014

Pat Robertson is an old Yale schoolmate and later presidential campaign supporter of Mr. Skull and Bones, the first Bush president, warmonger, best friend of the war machine and and socialism-lite, who multiplied the ranks of the CIA and the NSA, and who made a big joke about not finding WMD’s in Iraq.

But don’t worry, Christians that have the spirit of Christ can forgive, but the left-fascist government-media complex will never give him credence, and only publicize pronouncements like this one against other Christians that they hate worse, like Ken Ham.

For me it was same ol’ same ol’ I’ve heard many times, but to some extent Bill Nye’s detractors on the side of Official Politically Mandated Science were right and wrong both. Many of them said it was a disaster but only because it gave Creation science a fighting chance to be heard directly by an audience instead of the censored and adulterated pablum.

As to the one question, Ham has every right in the world to “drum up business” as much as do the manufacturers of Crony Government politically-approved textbooks that the State pushes onto children of Bible-believing parents. They make you and me pay for those textbooks without an opt-out, and they make billions.

Bill Nye probably saw it as a chance to do his showmanship thing for an audience of youth that might not hear it otherwise, but some of his arguments (and even some of Ken Ham’s answers) missed out on some very strong science pointing to Creation.

Bill Nye said a lot that Creation science endangered America’s technology role in the world. This is kind of crazy and Ken Ham missed pointing out that the telegraph, the electric grid, the combustible engine, the telephone, the photograph, Mendel’s inheritance research, Ben Franklin’s inventions, Michael Faraday, and so much more were feats of technology in the context of a culture in which the overwhelming majority were believers in the support of Creation in science.

He did list several accomplished Creation-believing scientists with lots of accomplishment.

One scientist Ham did not mention, I believe, was Russ Humphreys, he who predicted smack-on the magnetic field strengths of the outer orbiting gas giants, while NASA’s smartest were exponentially off. He did mention the inventor of the MRI, (whom, by the wasy, as passed up by the Nobel Prize for that discovery to give to lesser contributors to the feat).

Except for the predictable “our guy won” from places on both sides of the debate on the Internet, I think some objective voices were disappointed. On Bill Nye’s side mostly because he gave somebody the time of day, and on the other side (Creation) because Ken Ham did not use the best arguments.

In fact, there are a LOT of creationists that would have done much better than Ken Ham in that debate. Walter Brown has a long-running challenge out for any and all anti-Creationists, for an equal-time equal-rules debate whether with an audience or in writing, with ALL and ANY “profits” to be divided equally to go to the non-profit of either side’s choice.

Kent Hovind would have done better too. He has a way of showing how ridiculous it all is. His videos are available on-line to watch for free that he has had with others.

About the Ken Ham and Bill Nye debate

February 9, 2014

Pat Robertson is an old Yale schoolmate and later presidential campaign supporter of Mr. Skull and Bones, the first Bush president, warmonger, best friend of the war machine and and socialism-lite, who multiplied the ranks of the CIA and the NSA, and who made a big joke about not finding WMD’s in Iraq.

But don’t worry, Christians that have the spirit of Christ can forgive, but the left-fascist government-media complex will never give him credence, and only publicize pronouncements like this one against other Christians that they hate worse, like Ken Ham.

For me it was same ol’ same ol’ I’ve heard many times, but to some extent Bill Nye’s detractors on the side of Official Politically Mandated Science were right and wrong both. Many of them said it was a disaster but only because it gave Creation science a fighting chance to be heard directly by an audience instead of the censored and adulterated pablum.

As to the one question, Ham has every right in the world to “drum up business” as much as do the manufacturers of Crony Government politically-approved textbooks that the State pushes onto children of Bible-believing parents. They make you and me pay for those textbooks without an opt-out, and they make billions.

Bill Nye probably saw it as a chance to do his showmanship thing for an audience of youth that might not hear it otherwise, but some of his arguments (and even some of Ken Ham’s answers) missed out on some very strong science pointing to Creation.

Bill Nye said a lot that Creation science endangered America’s technology role in the world. This is kind of crazy and Ken Ham missed pointing out that the telegraph, the electric grid, the combustible engine, the telephone, the photograph, Mendel’s inheritance research, Ben Franklin’s inventions, Michael Faraday, and so much more were feats of technology in the context of a culture in which the overwhelming majority were believers in the support of Creation in science.

He did list several accomplished Creation-believing scientists with lots of accomplishment.

One scientist Ham did not mention, I believe, was Russ Humphreys, he who predicted smack-on the magnetic field strengths of the outer orbiting gas giants, while NASA’s smartest were exponentially off. He did mention the inventor of the MRI, (whom, by the wasy, as passed up by the Nobel Prize for that discovery to give to lesser contributors to the feat).

Except for the predictable “our guy won” from places on both sides of the debate on the Internet, I think some objective voices were disappointed. On Bill Nye’s side mostly because he gave somebody the time of day, and on the other side (Creation) because Ken Ham did not use the best arguments.

In fact, there are a LOT of creationists that would have done much better than Ken Ham in that debate. Walter Brown has a long-running challenge out for any and all anti-Creationists, for an equal-time equal-rules debate whether with an audience or in writing, with ALL and ANY “profits” to be divided equally to go to the non-profit of either side’s choice.

Kent Hovind would have done better too. He has a way of showing how ridiculous it all is. His videos are available on-line to watch for free that he has had with others.