Inactive. But Still Effective.

This blog has been inactive for some time. However, it has netted quit a few individuals who have chosen to post anonymously or with their online profiles.

For the most part, the comments are typical atheist strategy; easily refuted and often guilty of the same accusations that they press (performative contradictions abound).

The ones that disturb are from the Christians who rather arrogantly claim to have had their eyes opened by the "beauty of evolution" through their coveted Christian universities. Almost invariably, these folks post anonymously. The usual song and dance is 'I learned evolution from godly men and women!' Very nice for you... Typically, they then proceed to denounce the original author of this blog as uneducated, uncouth and irrelevant. Balderdash.

In all of your Christianized and educated refinement, please consider John Whitmore at Cedarville University; a creation geologist. Or perhaps consider the multitude of scientists that have signed onto the creationism cause at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/.

Though the original author of this blog has departed to a happier world, I'm glad to see that he stills raises the dander of Christians who sit on fences.

Letter sent to Owen on 8-14-06 (Four days before departure)

Hi Owen,

I've little to say but I can't let that stop me.

After watching a few Jack Van Impe films and presentations about prophecy, I'm rather in awe of his amazing memory and historical analysis. Most of his stuff seems "right on." I'd like to loan you some VCRs and see what you think. He is a staunch defender of the Jews and shows much passion against those who deconstruct them out of their place in history and in God's economy. He draws on both biblical and extra-biblical sources including Jewish rabbinical works and catholic sources, but filters it all through the scriptures. (Lowell Kress may have been Impe's greatest fan; perhaps I told you Martha gave me all Lowell's prophecy collection.)

Coming back one evening from working with Eric on his new house this past week I had electrical failure after entering Delaware City limits. I prayed about it as the amp indicator moved down to 4 (should have been 14 or so). Within two or three minutes or less, I barely made it into an Autozone. Opening the hood, I found that the serpentine belt that goes around everything had shredded and bound up in the pulleys.

It had been a tough day and the arthritis just about had me down, but I bought the belt (they had only one left) and tried to fit it on the front of the quite hot engine. After asking for advice on how to route the thing, a couple guys said the diagram was right beneath me. Sure enough, it was under my elbow. But the thing simply wouldn't route and it was getting dark. I didn't even know whether the car would start again if I got the belt replaced, because the battery was really low. To make it all worse, Autozone was to close at 9:00, a matter of only five or ten more minutes. If they closed, I wouldn't even have the jumpstart I thought might be necessary.

"Do you need help," a young man asked who had just left the store. He was about six feet tall,handsome had on white walking shorts, and was pristine clean. I was (and am) squat, gray haired, jowly, usually limping, and near desperate with fatigue and arthritis, not to mention having temporarily greasy hands and arms. Of course, I didn't refuse him.

"I'm slim with long arms," he said cheerfully. "Just made to order for this kind of job." It also turned out he had a similar vehicle!

He showed me how an idler pulley had been destroyed and sent me in for another one. Autozone had one (one!). Then he sent me in for a wrench to install the pulley. In the little more than five or ten minutes it took for him to do the whole job, I was in the store purchasing things he needed. He did it all and insisted on having loctite for the nut so it wouldn't come off. At no time did I actually get to see him do the work.

The Blazer started. Jake Williams told me he had been married a year and he and his wife were leaving for Virginia Beach on vacation the following day. They only lived a short piece from the store and he had come over for some windshield wiper fluid.

I saw God's hand at work in my behalf and am still praising Him for being the Provider. I copied and showed the Sunday School class the size comparisons of planets and stars that Clyde forwarded to us . . . . Wonderful! Oh Lord, what is man that you should take notice of him?

Love,
Dad

National Geographic's Central Tendency

A 2004 issue of National Geographic held a real surprise. The editor (or an editor) acknowledged in the first paragraph of a one page article that we did not descend from apes. No. You read it right! The most thoroughgoing evolution supporting magazine I can think of (other than The Smithsonian) contained such a revolutionary statement. Of course, once again, we had no evidence cited for this rare but true conclusion.

My good feelings about the temporary "sanity" of the richly illustrated magazine didn't last very long. A very long article followed about how Darwin was absolutely right about evolution. Supposed transitional forms were discussed as well as much evidence for micro-evolution--what ID people and creationists recognize as mutation, natural selection, and adaptation. But, of course, our argument isn't with micro-evolution; it is with macro-evolution or transition from one species to another. Micro-evolution within a type of organism accounts for the wide divergence of shapes, size, behavior, and color of dogs, sheep, people, birds such as Darwin's finches and all the other species expressing such differences. No surprise here. Macro-evolution, however, describes the change from a bird to a reptile or other such fanciful notion. This has never happened at any time through any process upon planet earth.

The good news one can glean from that issue of the yellow magazine is that there may be a slight backing off and redefinition of what evolution is in the light of rapidly improving technology that Darwin couldn't even imagine in his day. Not that National Geographic will jump off the horse of evolution it has been riding for about a hundred years just because the dam of false science is thoroughly breached and an overwhelming flood of good sense is rushing down.

The long article mostly defended micro-evolution. Could this be a strategy adopted by Darwinian evolutionists who are afraid their favorite myths can't stand up beneath new technology clearly revealing an intelligent design described in Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible? I think so. It looks like a finger from the hands strangling public education, true science, faith, and our culture has been pryed up just a little.

Following the Darwin story comes a story of people blending together Christian beliefs and catholicism with animism. The attack against Christ continues unabated.

Dracorex Hogwartsia (I Kid You Not.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Newspaper Quote)

May 23, 2006 — A dragon-like dinosaur named after Harry Potter's alma mater has performed a bit of black magic on its own family tree, say paleontologists who unveiled the "Dragon King of Hogwarts" on Monday in Albuquerque.


The newly described horny-headed dinosaur Dracorex hogwartsia lived about 66 million years ago in South Dakota, just a million years short of the extinction of all dinosaurs. But its flat, almost storybook-style dragon head has overturned everything paleontologists thought they knew about the dome-head dinos called pachycephalosaurs.


"What you knew about pachycephalosaurs -- you can chuck it," said Spencer Lucas, curator of paleontology at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History.


"Dracorex hogwartsia is a rather fantastic new dinosaur," affirmed paleontologist Robert Sullivan of the State Museum of Pennsylvania.

For years dinosaur experts had thought the classic dome-headed, head-butting sorts of pachycephalosaurs evolved from earlier flat-headed ancestors. The last thing they expected to find at the end of the Age of Dinosaurs was a dramatically flat-headed pachycerphalosaurs, or "pachy."


"If you were going to predict the kind of dinosaur that would live at that time, it would not be this," said Lucas.


Without so much as a nod of the head or the waving of a wand, hogwartsia has reversed the pachy family tree.


"Instead of going from flat-headed to domed, you're going from dome-headed to flat," Sullivan told Discovery News. Along with several colleagues, Sullivan co-authored the first detailed study of the new dinosaur, published this week in the New Mexico Museum of Natural History & Science Bulletin.


Dracorex hogwartsia, which translates as "Dragon King of Hogwarts," was unearthed in 2003 in the Hell Creek Formation of South Dakota by three amateur fossil hunters working in cooperation with the Children's Museum of Indianapolis. But it wasn't until it was at the museum, while the fossil was being carefully prepared, that renowned dinosaur researcher Robert Bakker happened to catch sight of it while visiting. Bakker then recruited pachycephalosaurs expert Sullivan and other paleontologists to take a closer look.


As for how it got its name? A group of children at the Children's Museum of Indianapolis drew the connection to the fanciful school of witchcraft that the famous fictional wizard Harry Potter attends and came up with the name hogwartsia..

"It's a very dragon-like looking dinosaur," said Sullivan.


J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, has been notified and apparently rather likes the new name.


"I am absolutely thrilled to think that Hogwarts has made a small claw mark upon the fascinating world of dinosaurs," said Rowling, according to a museum press release. "I happen to know more on the subject of paleontology than many might credit, because my eldest daughter was Utahraptor-obsessed and I am now living with a passionate Tyrannosaurus rex-lover, aged three.

"My credibility has soared within my science-loving family, and I am very much looking forward to reading Dr. Bakker and his colleague's paper describing 'my' dinosaur."

-Commentary-

Dracorex Hogwartsia (I Kid You Not)

Lo and behold, we have another dinosaur skull herded through our brain. This one has the distinction of being named after a fictional character (or something) from the very magical, cultic book series about Harry Potter. Evidently a Hogwarts is some fantastic little something or other in one or more of the books written by Rowling. Fans of the series might want to correct me on this. Problem is . . . I couldn't care less about the Potter cult books.

Dracorex Hogwartsia has the charming translation, Dragon King of the Hogwarts. It is a pachycephalosaur with a flat head that should have been dome-shaped if it followed the imaginary line of other pachys. My evolutionist friends will have to forgive me; this all seems confusing. Evidently this article originated from paleontologists among the nine-percent of the American people who believe in literal Darwinian evolution. It seems as if this pachy thing has a flat head and dragon-like features. Their find--if anything has really been found--belongs firmly in the culture of wow-myths. It is said to be sixty-six million (unusual number) years old, give or take a billion years. A wow-myth thrives on millions and millions of years like a cow eating corn.

The thing supposedly has a flat head, not at all like the prodigious brow of Charles Darwin. Thought I'd throw this in just for the sake of the cause. Sometimes I wonder if artists haven't done a little frontal lobe alteration on Charles. His high brow shames some of us flatter-headed homo sapiens, but then look at what wierd theories are spawned in some of those big brains. I haven't looked at the head of Harry Potter's author, but it must also have ample space for mind-mist. Now they mutually share Dracorex Hogwartsia. Religion marries myth and begets postmodernism.

Darwinism couldn't howl down us ninety-one percent who hold to literal creation or, at least, intelligent design. Darwinism couldn't invent or falsify enough evidence to bring us over, so its proponents hooked their wagon to pleasant fictions. If the trend continues, the next lot of bones might be named after something from Star Wars, maybe a Java the Hut frog turning into an elephant or a Wookie becoming a man. No use to give Darwinians any ideas, though. They spin stuff pretty liberally as it is. Dracorex Hogwartsia indeed!

These blog articles usually debate the science or scientific methods used by Darwinian paleontologists, anthropologists, zoologists and the like, but there is almost nothing solid in this Hogwartsia thing to work with. That item about turning the pachy tree upside down? What on earth does that mean? How can they prove right side up or upside down? Are we going to hear the same old song about them being the experts and we peons having to listen to them? Are the people who now give us dome-headed and flat-headed pachycephalosaurs from the same tribe who gave us the Nebraska Man, Haeckel's fake embryos, fake horse genealogies, and uncounted speculations and just plain guesses about our origins? Please cease and desist! This poison could give an aspirin a headache.

Before the sad ship Darwin sinks into the furthermost depths of the stygian sea (and it must if people care a pin about truth and real science), where will its sailors jump to next? Obviously, they can't offload to the Ark or any other ship with an intelligent design. Some vessel flying the skull and crossbones, or a ghost ship such as the Flying Dutchman, or a vessel headed for Neverland might serve them, however.

What would you do if you discovered most everything you previously worked for was now universally branded "tommyrot," if you knew most of the accumulated "knowledge" dug up in your field was rubbish? Who would take you in after your naturalistic paradigm died and was buried in a common grave with your decayed world view? Who would employ you? Not a pretty picture. You worshipped Darwin and built upon his theory; 1859 was the birthday of your soul. Then came twenty-first century science and knocked your religion in the head. God's Word had found you out already. Now, nowhere man, where are you going to hide? Who can trust you?

Look for diehard Darwinians in tattoo parlors, in palmistry shops, front rows at magic shows, acting in Hollywood, writing fantasy and horror stories, buried in cults, drunk out of their skulls, shooting-up in alleys, enlisting in the AntiChrist's army.

But look for emancipated former evolutionists working alongside the Phillip Johnsons, the Gary Parkers, the Ken Hams, the Duane Gishes, the Michael Dentons, the Michael Behes, and others living to eradicate the blight of a baleful religion famous for brutalizing true science.

It won't be easy. Satan won't surrender the stronghold of evolution without a fight. After all, it undergirded communism, was instrumental for genocide in Nazi Germany, decimated the Aborigines, suppressed knowledge of God, has powered the abortion mills, has granted permission for homosexuality, tainted the humanities and the arts around the world, aided and abetted a horror of suicides, and generally enlarged hell. This awful propaganda has been forcefed to our children from the cradle on through our public schools, sponsored by our government, archived on computers and in libraries, been lauded by the UN and the EU, glorified in most of our institutions, and has even forced its way into God's church. Many co-opted ministers preach from evolution distorted world views.

Push on, Intelligent Design! Fight on, Creationism! Join together
in the battle for truth.

The Quill and the Crowbar

The Quill and the Crowbar

Flakey Church

What Christian wants to contribute to the Flakey church? Money isn't the subject here. Rather, in a day and age in which people seek every possible avenue to express themselves as spiritually unique, what real Christian should want to encourage them by joining in?

Enough fleeces have been put out to strip every sheep in the world. Gideon would be amazed at what he started and at all the reasons for these fleeces. Chuck Swindoll reported one man saying he would marry his girlfriend if she wore her plaid dress on such and such an occassion. Another man said that if the next four traffic lights were green, he would go off to the mission field. These souls forgot that God sought out Gideon to do a special work. Gideon wanted to make sure it was God talking to him and that God was really on his side. This so-called "putting out the fleece" trivializes our relationship with God. Superstition does not glorify our Heavenly Father. Christians had better wait for God to speak to them directly before they even think about "putting out a fleece."

If we think God audibly speaks to us, then we might first check to see if we have recently taken any medicine with bizarre side effects. Did we injest hallucinogenic mushrooms? Did the message correspond with God's Word in signification and spirit? God does not major in small talk. Did the "word" from God impart something essential for ourselves or others with whom we correspond? Will the message edify our brothers and sisters in Christ? Could it have been a demon playing God? Will the net result of this message be a swelling of our heads? Remember how Paul was raised up to the third Heaven and heard things and saw things too high for mortal ears and eyes? The Lord gave him a "thorn in the flesh" to keep him humble. If God gave a thorn in the flesh (blindness, or polio, or leprosy, or psoriasis, etc.) to everybody who testified that God talked to them or told them to do something, how many people would go around seeking such a manifestation? As long as we are asking all these questions, how many people do you know who God has spoken to? Do you trust them enough to act upon what they have told you?

Supposing your congregation has several people who put out fleeces, who hear God's voice or who talk to angels. Scripture may soon play second fiddle to such exciting revelation. When these people meet, what will be the first thing on their minds? Why, they will be all abuzz to find out who has seen an angel at the foot of their bed or who has seen the Lord's face appear in the clouds. Those without such special revelation will feel like second-class citizens in their local church. Wasn't this the very thing Paul warned people about?

Subjective experiences have become the main drawing card for many charismatic and Pentecostal congregations. People become so hung-up on manifestations and proofs of God's power and presence that the most simple events become infallible proofs that God is blessing His people. God does bless us. He is present. Miracles are performed today just as in the early church, but where does a fixation on such things lead? To minimizing the direct inspiration of the Lord's revealed Word, the Bible.

Pentecostalism becomes flakey when The Bible is only given honorable mention status, when God's Word is insufficient to bring joy and peace to God's children, when we go to church to "see what God will do tonight" rather than coming together to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.

Charismatic leaders really take the cake for being the life of the party. They usually have a word from God and they are ready to share it. "The Lord has revealed to me," or "God showed me something about you," supposedly means God and Pastor so and so have talked. The leader now speaks with the very authority of Almighty God. If we know this to be true, we had better listen closely, act upon what we are hearing. Do we see where manipulation comes in here? One person with this awesome, super, high priestly ability to peer into the hearts of "his flock" can become very God to them--or, at least, their Moses. This reminds me too much of a four or five year old running around hollering about his special powers. The scarey thing is, the four-year old whirlwind and the charismatic preacher may both have unassailable faith in themselves. Flakey leaders pattern flakey followers.

Humility goes out the window of the flakey church. A puffed-up, proud, flakey biscuit church really "gets it on" better than the flapjack type. Just ask them.

The Word in its simplicity has lost its appeal in the modern church. Something new is always coming down. Just like Wendy's or MacDonald's always varying the menus, the church tends to follow suit. One day, yogurt cones and the next, cheesecake. We hear people will get sick of the same old thing. Fresh approaches, repackaging, upscale tempo, diverse delivery systems, appeal to all groups. Whatever happened to the Gospel being the power (dynamite)of salvation? Whatever happened to God's Word being LIFE? Why do we think we can outmaneuver God with our winning techniques? Why do we think that psychology outmasters the Master Teacher, Jesus Christ? The big-headed, proud biscuit church strains to pull God into the 21st century. Stand still and see the Hand of the Lord!

Angels here, angels there, angels, angels everywhere! Flakey! Enough said.

Astrology, channeling, veneration of relics, worship of images, talking to the dead, burning the candles, veneration of saints, working your way up to Heaven, adding books to the 66, indulgences. . . that's not just flakey; its heretical.

How about a commitment statement. Who will sign it? Here it is:

I, _______ ________, seeing that the world--and sometimes something styling itself the church-- strives to defame my Lord by trying to make His Word of no effect, do intend to refrain from flakey practices in my Christian walk. I accept that God is my Commander-in-chief and realize that a good soldier will follow the Manual describing his service. Amen.

Church Growth Movements

We want BIG. Few question the value of BIG centralized schools today. BIG is enough of a reason. No-one wants to question BIG. A Supersized Walmart outside Circleville, Ohio replaced a Walmart less than a half a mile away. The old one probably cost a few million to build, but it sits empty. Why? Why bother to ask.

WORLD MARKET (One World. One Store.) That's how one on-line store bills itself. I predict a huge success there. It may help supply the one world order under the one world dictatorship ruling over the one global community. BIG is simple, easy to hold in the head.

Cities make sense to a lot of people--bigger and bigger and bigger cities with everything convenient and everything inconvenient within easy reach.

Few seem to question the need for big churches. Most ministers want to grow them. Mega churches must often have two, three, or more Sunday morning services to accommodate the worshippers. Like a teacher who can use one prep for several sessions, a minister may preach the same sermon to each new houseful of people. Sometimes this is a stopgap measure before a larger building goes up, but oftentimes the multiple service approach is a matter of local church pride: We have four thousand people! We are a BIG church!

Along with the BIG--usually seeker friendly--style of worship is a well elaborated management team with a thorough policy manual governing all phases of the ministry. Management by objective (MBO) has come of age as anticipated. This is the unquestioned best way to manage people going about the serious business of worship, fellowship, missions, giving, and generally operating in Christ's Kingdom.

It also goes without question that the biggest churches are the ones to model. They must be doing things right. Why? Because they are BIG churches. No need to explain that. Leaders of BIG churches write books about how to build them. Everyone comes to their seminars and buys their books.

Good church growth plans include a wealth of ministries, almost as many ministries as there are hobbies, predilections, age/gender/marital/special interest groups. BIG churches will provide a rich smorgasbord of activities to maintain interest and connectivity to the larger group. Being seeker friendly requires all these ministries. The goal is to make the church the hub for all spiritual and worldly activities so the members will remain tied in to the local body.

In such an organization, much care must be taken that members cooperate to further mutual goals established by the leadership. The greatest sin is disunity or carping against an element, program, direction or management strategy of those in governance. The larger the organization the more vigilance is required to assure compliance with the philosophy, goals, objectives, and overall vision of those in charge. This will require very close personal supervision for some who still have to "mature in the faith." After all, they are neophytes still "on the milk" and not ready "for the meat."

Close attention is given to the content of sermons and lessons. People have not come to church to feel uncomfortable about themselves. They are looking for community, a sense of belonging, of being loved and loving others. They want to make close friends. Disharmony will chase them away before they can appreciate the deeper things of the faith. Preaching about sin, the degradation of mankind, Satan, and an eternity in Hell is certainly not what they want to hear. Such teaching must be deferred till later. How much later? Well . . . we will always have new people coming in . . . so perhaps they . . . . Just remember, if asked,we are a full gospel church. How do we know? Our denominational headquarters says we are.

BIG churches need not shirk on altar calls. Worship services can have invitations for people to come forward and receive Jesus. That's all they need to do, just ask Jesus to come into their hearts and start living a new life and discovering their purpose. Everyone has a purpose. Everyone can get with the program. Pay no attention to those fundamentalists talking about sorrow for sin and the need for repentance. That will scare people away. You won't find any of that kind of language in a Purpose Driven Church. When people read the Bible, they will come across all that negative stuff and know what to do with it, but only after we show them the power in positive imaging and thinking. Shuller didn't get to be as big as he is by carrying on about sin and death and repentance. Go really easy on that kind of stuff in the modern church. That's how to get ahead.

The modern day minister, like Bartholomew Cubbins, must wear a hundred hats. He must cultivate a bedside, graveside, whatever betides side manner. Old people, young people, nice people, grumpy people, smart people, dumb people, must all adore him. As a higher priest he must do all things for all people so that all people will toe the line and be radiantly happy. That is his job. Just because Peter, Paul, James and John didn't do all this doesn't make any difference. We're talking about a latter day minister. Since the Bible doesn't prohibit the pastor serving in all these ways, a modern church board and laity should impose these high and impossible expectations to the hilt. Let the minister do the sacrificing as a representative of the people. That spares the congregation from having guilty consciences for doing nothing at all.

Take a close look at the above priestly delivery of services system if it should interfere with our vision of a really BIG church. (Then again, three or four high priests are more effective than one.)

Just remember that a little church is necessarily anemic. It takes a bunch of people praying to catch God's ear. We need not think that one or two or three people can get through. It is like nuclear fission; it takes critical mass to pray. I'm not sure where the chapter and verse is for that truism, but it seems logical. A BIG church has a big bunch of people continuously praying. Just take my word for it.

A puny congregation can't raise the money to send off a bunch of missionaries either. What did one missionary ever accomplish? I mean, generally speaking. No fair mentioning Bible people or those other fanatics who trust God for everything.

These points should settle the hash of those little store front upstart churches with little drawing power. It takes a big building, lots of people, and a big name preacher to bring 'em in. Identity. That's what's needed. Associate with the with-it church, the church of what's happening now; big oysters grow the biggest most lustrous pearls of great price.

Do you want to meet the movers and shakers in the business and political realms? BIG church is the answer. Doesn't God want to be housed in a magnificent temple worthy of His Glory? BIG church will accomplish that,too. Get with the tide for a first-class religious ride. After you grow really big, then you can do stuff for the down and out, the little people with no drive and no vision. Yes, we mustn't forget the little people, but at first we need to knock on the doors of the successful. They can help us grow to where we can give the little people a hand up.

(This post still under construction, but feel free to post a comment. Perhaps you can provide input for this particular article. If you love BIG churches and what BIG churches do, don't be ashamed to say so. Perhaps you will open my eyes to your vision.) Please remember, though, I'm not saying there are no vibrant, Spirit-filled, full Gospel, huge congregations with God-fearing faithful ministers under the headship of Jesus Christ. I'm talking about man-serving, people-pleasing, dilute the Word and dose it out with an eyedropper, honey and pie, don't rock the titanic, insipid, powerless, psychology of relationships drenched, health and wealth, country club, management by man-made objectives, lost in the clockworks organizations deceptively calling themselves "The Church."