Why Have Rules?

If your courts are going to say that they do not matter?


The United Methodist Church’s highest court will be deciding whether or not the denomination’s first openly gay bishop will be allowed to serve.

While we understand that some rules may not be correctly written or established honestly and they do need some alteration, this is not one of them. When someone does not like the rules, then it is up to them to investigate their own feelings first and see if they are standing on proper ground before they make their opposition to the rules known to others.

Protesting simply because someone thinks the rules are unfair or infringe upon their personal desires is not enough reason to violate established rules. There must be some legitimate standing before the rules can be contested. We would also include in there the idea that what is being culturally acceptable for a limited time as not being legitimate standing or reason enough to alter the rules.

Rules are to reflect what is actually right and what is actually wrong and not be fluid to adapt to cultural desires. If rules are culturally adaptable then we have a basis for anarchy because culture changes and is in need of guidance on issues of right and wrong no matter what is popular at the moment. Culture does not determine the standard of right and wrong.

“As a clergy person in good standing, she was unanimously elected bishop by the delegates of the Western Jurisdiction, who believed she was being called by God to be an episcopal leader of our denomination,” said Robledo.

This bothers us as well as how can a person be a ‘clergy person’ in good standing when they are unrepentant sinners and violating God’s rules on a daily, even hourly basis?  This election says more about the condition of the church leadership than it does anything else. It tells us that those bishops do not care about the rules the God they claim to serve has instituted for his church and when the leadership ignores God’s rules then you have nothing to guide the church at all.

God does not matter but culture and what it accepts at the moment does.

“She will vigorously and faithfully lead our Church forward as we seek to make disciples of Christ for the transformation of the world.”

How can an unrepentant sinner do that? How can someone who practices sin lead people to a holy life that God wants in his followers? How can she help transform the world when she is leading people back to where they already are–living in sin and in need of a savior? People who ignore God’s rules become blind, even church leaders and that quoted person is prime evidence for that statement.

“The delegates acted out of the belief that God is calling the Church to fully live its commitment to inclusion of all. Their vote was an act of love and obedience to a God who calls all disciples of Christ to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. That includes LGBT persons in every aspect of church life.”

God does not call his church to include sin or call evil good. The vote was not an act of obedience but of deception as they do not understand what the term love really means or how it applies to one’s neighbor. it is not love when you keep people in their sins and tell them they are okay. It is not love when you bring sin ad corruption into the church. It is also not fair to those in the church who have given up their sins and follow what God has commanded when you let in those who do not do that. There are more people in this issue than just the members of the LGBTQ community.

According to the UMC Book of Discipline, however, homosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teaching” and “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” cannot become ordained

We see here that there is no escape clause in this rule to allow for exceptions in cases of being a clergy in good standing or receiving a unanimous vote from one’s peers or the church at large. Making exceptions in this case means that the church leadership do not consider the rules as important or that they matter at all. it is their own desires that count or misunderstanding of scripture that is more important than being governed correctly.

If anyone ultimately leaves the Church, it should be those factions who reject the Church’s teachings. Dying liberal USA Mainline Protestantism is captive to the past and does not have a promising demographic future. The long-term future is bright for Orthodox global United Methodism.”

God said in Deut., and I paraphrase, if you want to live follow my commands. That declaration applies even if the true church is down to 5 members or even one member. The majority opinion does not determine what is the truth and we only have to look as far as Noah and the flood to see the truth of that statement.

Regarding the Judicial Council’s consideration of the petition next spring, Tooley told CP that the case is an unprecedented one for the denomination’s highest court.

“There is almost no precedent for this kind of judicial issue that could have impact on United Methodism’s global future,” continued Tooley.

The key word is in bold. Precedent should not matter in determining the validity of the rules or if they matter. What should be used is if the rules are right or wrong. we say this because precedents can get it and be wrong. The judges could have erred and so on. We need to base our rules on what is right not what previous fallible and subjective humans have determined.

God is right and he has set the rules thus we need to base our rules upon God and his will. He is not subjective nor fallible and he sets the definitions for right and wrong. Culture cannot do that for it too is subjective and in need of a savior. It also needs guidelines in order to tell the people how to live correctly. Culture on its own leads to sin and destruction–just ask the pre-flood world and Sodom and Gomorrah.

Rules matter and we need to be careful how we live by them or alter them for our ignoring of the rules or saying that they do not matter proclaims a message to the unchurched world. If Christians do not follow God’s rules then why would the unbeliever change and join the church? They already do not follow God’s rules.

Pushing Away From God

We have not taken the time to examine everything Mr. Laurie says and from what we have read, there are a lot of things we like about and agree with him. In this post we are not attacking Mr. Laurie but want to use some of his good words as an example to teach some ideas you may already know. we are not saying Mr. Laurie is guilty of what we are about to discuss either, we just need to use his examples.


#1.During an interview with CP at SoCal Harvest in Angel Stadium on Saturday, Laurie, the senior pastor of Harvest Christian Fellowship in Riverside, California, and author of over 70 books, was asked whether or not he believes compromises being made by Mainline denominations are helping lead America away from God.

“Yes, I do,” Laurie responded.

We at this website agree BUT we cannot restrict that agenda, for a lack of a better word, to just premarital sex. What about the fact that she is a woman pastor who is violating God’s instructions on who can be a pastor? Does that not also push people away from God? If we address one issue that is unscriptural but ignore another one then that is being hypocritical and cherry picking the issues we will call wrong and leading people away from God.

People can justify their opposition to the ‘glass ceiling’ in the church in any number of ways and they do it all the time, but is their justification correct? This leads into the next point

#2.”Yes, this is a problem because they are misrepresenting God,” Laurie continued. “So, someone might believe something like that, or another idea that says they can do whatever they want regardless of what Scripture teaches and this now becomes something that can push people away from God or keep them from understanding what a real Christian really is.”

If we are going to represent God then we need to represent him correctly in all areas of the Christian life. We cannot close our eyes to one violation because it is popular or culturally acceptable while condemning another because it isn’t accepted morally by those who believe God. If we are going to represent God then we must do what Jesus and the disciples did, and present all of the truth and let the people make up their own minds if they are going to repent or not.

The failure of people to repent is not an indication that the Bible got it wrong in some areas of life and that the contents of the Bible need to be altered. It is an indication that the people cannot accept the truth about God or do not want to accept the truth about God and have decided to remain in their sins. The people get to choose and for them to choose they need the correct information from the believer and the believer needs to correctly represent God and his views.

If the believer fails to do that then they could fall into the category of the unfaithful steward for they are not conducting God’s business correctly or honestly. If one allows for women pastors but not pre-marital sex then the believer is not being honest about God and his views commands etc.

#3.”We see Mainline denominations in many ways dying,” he said. “The churches that are growing and thriving are churches that I would call evangelical and orthodox for the most part in their beliefs. They are churches that tend to evangelize … and encourage their people to share their faith. These are the churches that are actually growing. The ones that are shrinking are the ones that are compromising and watering down what the Word of God says.”

Yes the evangelical churches are growing but the evangelicals also are losing a lot of people as well.  But it is not due to just the lack of evangelizing but to the content the believers are being taught. Sadly, many evangelical churches leave their people vulnerable to secular teaching because they adopt so much of the secular world’s ideology and call it good or correct.

This is not limited to just the mainline churches as fundamental and evangelical and other true Christian churches compromise on many issues. One example is building extravagant structures another is adopting secular science over God’s word or as we see in that article altering what God has said and promote what is prohibited by God–i.e. women ministers and premarital sex

Compromise is not solely found in the mainline churches but it is found in different areas in the evangelical, etc., movements. If you want to attack compromise in other denominations then you need to make sure you have rooted it out from your own first.

#4.When someone says that the Bible is not the Word of God and that we can make things up as we go, pick and choose what parts of the Bible we want to believe, that to me is apostasy,” he reiterated.

And we agree BUT you cannot say that calling premarital sex is wrong if you call Genesis one wrong and secular science correct. That too is cherry picking what you will believe. In other words if one wants to call others wrong then they must be consistent and not do wrong in other areas of biblical life. I do not know if this woman pastor and her beliefs are an indication of the end times or not for such people have existed throughout church history since Jesus lived on this earth. We need to be careful when we try to identify an event especially when God has hidden that information from us. We should be focused more on getting the job done than worrying about when the end times are approaching.

Not everyone alive today will live long enough to see the rapture so we must concentrate on doing our duty correctly and stop pushing people from God through different areas we may not consider eligible to be included in the idea of pushing people away from God. Unbelievers are not just looking at women preachers and premarital sex when they decide not to repent.

Peter Enns & Noah

We have already exposed the false teaching held & proclaimed by Peter Enns for several years now so today will not be any different. His take on Noah and the flood is worth addressing. You can read the whole article at the following link:


#1.I should put in my two cents—be ready for a shock—that I don’t think much of the recent construction of a life-size but totally non-functional replication of Noah’s ark by Ken Ham and his massive following at Answers in Genesis.

For one thing, I’m not sure what is accomplished, other than, “See, we did it!”—though I assume that, being a business, AiG will realize much gain through it, financial or otherwise. All press is good press, as they say—even if it’s for building an ark (for heaven’s sake).

It seems we are not alone in our criticism of Mr. Ham and his ventures.  Having communicated directly with AIG about our ‘thoughts’ on their constructing this project we are not going behind their backs when we criticize them here or place criticism of their ventures here. Why is it that Christians let the Great Commission blind them to God’s instruction and will? There is more to the Great Commission that harvesting and while we secretly hope that some people will come to Christ because of that structure we do not support it.

Evangelism, like the farming analogy tied to it, is a lot of hard work, sweat and tears. But enough about that misguided building. Mr. Enns has listed 3 things everyone is to know about Noah’s flood but be forewarned he does not support those three things with scripture..

#2.The story of the flood seems to be rooted in history. Many biblical scholars relying on geological findings believe that a great deluge in southeastern Mesopotamia along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (present-day Iraq) around 2900 BCE was the trigger for the many flood stories that circulated in the ancient world, some already two thousand years old by the time King David came on the scene around 1000 BCE.

These ancient stories were attempts to explain why this happened, and the cause was fixed in divine wrath/retribution.

Mr. Enns does not grasp the truth behind the existence of those flood stories. Ir he did he would see that those inscribed myths or legends came after Noah and his family, and did not influence the biblical authors.The sheer amount of flood legends from around the world undermine his point because while the Israelites spent time in Babylon the other ancient civilizations which reside din Africa, South, Central, North America as well as in many Asian regions did not. So how did they come to write their account of this great flood?

The ancient world was not limited to Mesopotamia. So why would those far away ancient civilizations take the time to explain about a flood that happened to a people they never knew or thought existed?

#3.The story of Noah and the flood, though rooted in history, is also rooted in the stories told among other ancient people living in or near Mesopotamia. Israel’s version of the story is not the oldest one, and its existence certainly cannot be divorced from these older versions (like the Atrahasis epic and Gilgamesh epic).

Whether or not the author/s of the biblical version was/were aware of any of these older stories or consciously worked off of them is impossible to know and immaterial (though the similarities between the biblical account and the Atrahasis epic raises questions of dependence of the former on the latter, namely the sequence: creation—population growth—an unforeseen problem—devestating flood.)

Understanding the impact of these first two points will lead to the third:

The problem with this point is that Mr. Enns is mistaken. The other flood stories inscribed legends may have survived longer than the Israelite scriptures but that does not make them the oldest accounts. Because of Noah, the Israelite account is the oldest, Any written accounts of Noah and his family’s experience were not lucky enough to survive to the present day.

Another problem is his declaration that the Israelite version ‘cannot be divorced from the other accounts’. Mr. Enns and any other biblical critic has yet to prove that the biblical authors copied their information from other stories or people. That idea is read into the controversy not taken out from actual evidence. It is assumed only and is not proven fact. we have mentioned this information before as the book Mesopotamia and the Bible edited by Chavalas and Younger contains an article that shows that it was the Old Babylonians who copied from everyone else so where is the documented information that shows that the Israelites did the same?

There is none.If there was, we would have heard and seen it by now. We are not even going to go into the ramifications that would take place if God had his people copy from unbelievers. Mr. Enns certainly fails to grasp them.

#4. The story does not depict an “accurate” account of history, but the ancient Israelites’ understanding of that long-past event that survived in cultural memory.  Reading the flood story in Genesis does not tell us “what happened,” but it does tell us something of what the Israelites believed about their God.

Now we have to go back to the old question: Really? How does he know? What evidence does he have to support that declaration? Obviously he has none as we have spent years documenting the evidence for the flood and we have most of it on our other website http://dakotascba.com/Evidence-for-Noah%27s-Flood.php

& http://dakotascba.com/Flood-Myths.php 

So what is his evidence?  We also posted a little while ago something that defeats any critic of the flood and it comes from the following work WILLMINGTON’S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE by Dr. H. L. Willmington TYNDALE HOUSE PUBLISHERSINC. WheatonIllinois and it readsd.

 If the flood was local, then God lied to Noah when he promised never to send a destructive flood again (Gen. 9:11). But there have been, of course, many local destructive floods since.

Why make a promise if the flood was not real?  If the promise isn’t real then the people would have complained and had it removed from the scriptures for there is no reason to keep a false promise in one’s holy writings. If you do it defeats the purpose of having holy writings.

#4.In other words, it is a statement of theology, not history (despite the historical trigger mentioned above).

Just what that theology is isn’t laid out for us in black and white. You have to read between the lines a bit. But the story is certainly connected to two others in the Bible: creation and the exodus from Egypt.

If you are going to dismiss and exclude the theology that is present in the account, you better make sure you have a replacement and inform every one of how easy it is to find. How can the theology be true if the history isn’t?  Or how can the theology be true if the account it is based upon is myth? That kind of defeats the purpose of having a theology based upon the story. If the story is false then so is the theology.

#5. The reason given in Genesis for this need to start over is human wickedness. Now, this raises (and has raised for a long time) all sorts of problems, namely why God goes so over-the-top. We’re only in the 6th chapter of the Bible. Couldn’t God think of another solution or was drowning the only option?

Here Mr. Enns demonstrates his lack of understanding of the wickedness that was taking place in the pre-flood world. When no one petitions Noah to save their families then the world is beyond the point of no return. And while God could probably thought of another way to destroy the world, Mr. Enns would probably have problems with that alternative as well. His problem isn’t with the punishment used but the fact that unrepentant sinners are doomed and that sin is wrong and needs to be punished.

Even today people are trying to redefine sin so that they will not feel the burden of the need to repent and feel good about their sinful lifestyles.

We are not going to go through the whole of Mr. Enns’ post at the initial link but yo get the gist. When you stop believing Moses you lose sight of the truth and do not understand what Go dis telling us through his word. You also make mistakes about different characters of the Bible and their experiences. For example:

Likewise, Noah and his family are saved in an “ark” waterproofed with pitch. The Hebrew word for ark is tevah (TAY-vah), and its only other use in the Bible is in the story of Moses, where, as an infant, he is placed in a “basket” (tevah) lined with pitch to escape Pharaoh’s edict to kill the Israelite male children. Both Noah and Moses are brought safely through a watery threat.

Moses was under no such threat. He was being watched over by his mother and sister and he was sent in the direction of the  Pharaoh’s daughter who was present at the river at the time. When you stop believing Moses, God and Jesus then you really have spiritual problems and it i snot the Bible who is at fault when you misunderstand what is being said.

You are not going to get to the truth when you exclude the truth from your studies.

Corporal Punishment

The title of the article we are going to address today is:

Miss. Man’s Life Upended by 8th Grade Paddling

and it can be found at the following link:


We who have been in education have a variety of views on how discipline should be handled with those who are against corporal punishment trying to force their views on others and say that their way is the only way to handle behavioral problems. They are incorrect of course for the Bible leaves the method of discipline up to us.

The main biblical instructions we have say that when we discipline, we need to be just, fair and use mercy when needed. We are also told to treat others as we would want to be treated and that verse applies to applying punishment to children’s, student’s and even criminal rule/lawbreaking.

We are allowed to use corporal punishment if the discipline fits the crime and meets those criterion. We must remember that God used corporal punishment in his disciplining of his people throughout the OT, even to the point of removing them from their homes and national lands.

Unfortunately too many people do not read those verses on being just, fair and merciful but take too literally the most famous passage on discipline—he who spares the rod spoils the child. When those people read that passage they think that they must use a rod, or some alternative tool to apply discipline each and every time they do so.

Too many people take the easy, lazy way of handling behavior problems and that is why we have so many problems with people later in life. It is not the method of discipline per se that causes problems but the attitude behind the given discipline and the thinking of one who received the discipline. As the article says:

Advocates of physical discipline often point to it as an effective means of getting students in line without missing school time from suspensions. But new research not only questions the effectiveness of corporal punishment like spanking and paddling, but suggests it might make it more difficult for students to behave well in the future.

Corporal punishment is as effective as the recipient allows it to be. If the person receiving the discipline does not think he or she were punished fairly then they would respond to that application in a way that they choose to respond. it is not the method of discipline that is the determining factor here.

“It’s been part of these schools for decades, and the teachers and administrators are sure it works,” said Elizabeth T. Gershoff, an associate professor and corporal punishment researcher at the University of Texas at Austin. “But everything we know about how children process being hit by adults goes against it being effective.”

This, of course is just not true. it ignores the fact that maybe the child was not instructed properly on why the discipline is being applied thus they do not understand fully and that lack of correct information influence how they process the discipline administered.

In a 2016 study analyzing 50 years of research on 160,000 children, Gershoff and colleagues at the University of Michigan found the more children are spanked, even with an open hand, the more likely they are to defy adults and show more anti-social behavior, aggression, mental-health disorders, and lower academic achievement over time. Children struck with implements, such as paddles, showed even worse effects.

We are going to disagree with this as well for this type of thinking rules out other sources for that rebellious attitude and those who think this way are being dishonest in how they analyze the data, using the information to support their pet ideas instead of being honest about the role of discipline in the lives of people.

We will agree that this may be the reason for SOME people responding in that manner but not all. But these studies do not necessarily interview those who turned out okay even though they received such treatment. We can suggest that these studies are influenced by the beliefs and preconceived ideas anti-corporal researchers have when they conduct these studies so it is hard to say how true the results are.

Then when they omit other sources for those behavior patterns then we know that the studies are not dealing with the whole issue.

“The more we hit kids for their misbehavior, the more we may be reducing their neurological ability to actually control their behavior,” said Victor Vieth, the founder and senior director of the Gundersen National Child Protection Training Center, which was created by hospitals to reduce corporal punishment.

Again we will disagree with this point of view for it focuses solely on the method and ignores how much justice, fairness and mercy or lack of them play a role in the thinking of those disciplined.

These researchers should be looking at more than the method of discipline and seek out the attitude behind its application. They should be looking at if the parents and school officials were fair, just, honest and at times merciful to see how those factors influence a child’s reaction to the punishment.

But studies have also found it’s easy for corporal punishment to get out of hand, as it did for Clayton that day near the end of 8th grade, his first year in that high school. Clayton went to the office on March 10, 2011 to be paddled for “mouthing off” to a teacher and a librarian. This time, however, court documents show that shortly after getting three strikes, Clayton fainted as he left the office, breaking his jaw and opening a two-inch gash in his chin when he hit the floor. “When I went to pick him up, my son was spitting teeth into the trash can,” Trey’s mother, Dana Hamilton, said.

This is what caused us to write this article as we see here that corporal punishment may be unfairly and falsely accused of something it did not do. It seems that he was fine after the punishment then fainted so the cause of the fainting may not have been the corporal punishment and 3 strikes is not enough to cause anyone to faint.

There are many factors that could have applied here, like the amount of or lack of air conditioning in those offices, the anxiety felt by the student and so on. To blame the paddling solely is unfair as the evidence does not show that it was the actual cause of the fainting.

There are other things we can point to  that contributed to his broken jaw and that is the position of the student, his mother and why she didn’t try to catch him and so on.

Clayton and his mom launched a three-year lawsuit against the district as a result of the incident, alleging school officials used excessive force and disproportionately targeted boys for punishment.

Unfortunately for them, they agreed to the punishment and they knew the force that those blows would be applied so they really have no argument here. Then to say that the school disproportionately target boys is unrealistic for it may be that it is mostly boys committing the violations requiring that type of punishment.

To us, it looks like the mother and son are looking to blame everyone else but the boy for we could argue that if the boy did not commit the violation then he would not have been in the position to receive the corporal discipline in the first place.

So he is to blame for his broken jaw also. Corporal punishment is not the only faulty thing, if it was applied in error, in this case. It looks like the mother and son are trying to avoid responsibility for their roles in this whole problem.

Clayton missed weeks of class while his jaw was wired shut. He missed the end-of-semester tests and was not allowed to make them up, ultimately failing 8th grade. As the lawsuit continued, Clayton became more disengaged from school; he transferred to another school, then later dropped out.

In this quote we rind the evidence that corporal punishment was not the culprit in influencing that student’s life. The words in bold provide the key. It was the decision of the school in not allowing him to make up his tests that seems to have contributed more to his future behavior than the application of corporal punishment.

So experts who make a case against this form of discipline are not being honest and not looking for the real reasons why such later behavior exists. But there is another problem in this article that is also troubling and it reads:

“I like to give kids the opportunity to self discipline and reason through it firs

How can they self-discipline? Students need to be taught what is fair and just, they do not possess those ideas on their own. And if given the opportunity most would not apply the correct punishment but let themselves off very easily. This is also an abdication of the school official’s duty to do the hard work and punish correctly

We must add that no punishment or amount of discipline is a guarantee that people are not going to break the rules again and again. We only need to turn to the book of Judges to see the evidence for that fact.

To say that a given punishment is not effective because people reoffend is ignoring reality. People, even children, have the right of free choice and there are many reasons why they continue to break the rules. It is not because the punishment is ineffective but because of the spiritual problem in each person’s life.

It is unfair and erroneous to look at those who re-offend and claim that a given punishment is ineffective. That thinking does not take into account all those who were deterred from committing crimes because they did not want to pay the penalty for their offense. Such thinking is only dealing with partial and inaccurate data in drawing their conclusions.

People reoffend because they may like the life of crime and their behavior has nothing to do with the type of punishment given them as they were growing up. The idea that the type of punishment is the cause is only an excuse, something to avoid taking responsibility for their decisions.

Or they reoffend because the rule breaking life is more fun than being law abiding. It is not corporal punishment that is at fault in every case or even a majority of cases.

A Few Comments

In this post we are going to take a brief look at 4 articles that come from the Christian News Network (http://www.christiannews.net/ )

They do not warrant full analysis so we have lumped them together here to make some general comments about the subject matter of each. First up will be a scientist’s conclusion about evolution.

#1. The Darwinian View is False’: Ph.D. Biologist Dismantles Evolution in New Book

An accomplished molecular biologist with more than two decades of research experience has come out with a new book in which he describes crippling weaknesses in the theory of evolution and argues instead that life must have been invented by God.

Although most believers already knew that evolution was impossible, it is nice to hear that there is some scientific evidence backing up what we already knew. We find his study compelling and a very interesting tack to take. Here is where he came to his conclusion:

“[My strategy was] to look at the constraints on gene sequences and protein sequences and see if the constraints were loose enough that evolution could work or if they were too tight so that evolution couldn’t work,” Axe said in a recent interview with the Discovery Institute.

While conducting his research at Cambridge, Axe began to doubt the validity of Darwin’s ideas.

“I was consistently starting to find that [the constraints on gene and protein sequences] were too tight—that the target that had to be hit for something to work as an enzyme was too small for accidental changes, accidental mutations,” he said.

I would like to get my hands on that study and read it for myself as it may provide a lot more evidence against evolution than is stated in that brief article. But there is one problem with his conclusion and it is found in the very next paragraph:

Axe decided that Darwin’s natural selection observations were valid and scientifically sound.

We disagree. The variety we see in the world is not a product of some process that was never created and does not exist. We find the term inadequate and does not fully describe the design operation that God did create.

Natural selection does not exist and had no hand in developing or selecting which life forms were to exist. I do not know why people need to hang on to false secular ideas for as it does nothing to help evangelism or the growth of the faith. Appeasing people who do not and may never believe is a mistake as such action displeases God.

#2. Archaeologists discover mysterious stone structure underneath Neolithic garbage pile

Archaeologists working in the Orkney Islands of Scotland have discovered large stone slabs belonging to a mysterious, ancient structure. But perhaps even more puzzling than the stones is the fact that they were found underneath Scotland’s “largest Neolithic rubbish dump,” BBC reports.

The structure is approximately 33 feet wide, and is made up of pieces of stone 13 feet in length; the complex could date back as far as 5,000 years. A human arm bone found nearby might have belonged to the founder of the structure.

Arm bones could come at any time so that cannot be used to date the structure. Since we do not agree with the secular labels for the different eras that may have been a part of our history, for they too distort the truth and our past, we cannot accept the term Neolithic.

We cannot pinpoint when a stone age actually occurred as it continues through to today in many different societies found throughout the world What we can say is that this structure is probably a creation of the pre-flood world and its people.

How that civilization was divided we do not know but one thing we do know they were far better builders than any one of the post-flood era.

#3. Activist Seeks ‘Aggressive Punishment’ of Air Force Major Who Left Open Bible on Desk

According to reports, Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) recently sent a letter to Col. Damon Feltman, the commander of the 310th Space Wing at the Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, to issue a complaint about the Bible displayed by Maj. Steve Lewis, a supervisor at the Reserve National Security Space Institute.

What we will say here will also apply to the next article in this post. No one died and left the atheists in charge nor made them an authority to oversee other people’s activities. Someone needs to slap these busy bodies down and put them back on their place.

Their constant interference in the daily operations of the military, government and other businesses should make them vulnerable to lawsuits but no one is brave enough to investigate to see if they are.

We are tired of these people who cannot mind their own business and seek to force their views upon those who have constitutional rights to express their religious beliefs. The agenda to restrict those rights is getting out of hand as the atheist does not have a perfect standard to guide their actions nor show the world that they have a better way to live.

Their efforts can simply be described as their fleeing the truth and the fact that God is real. Their cowardice is revealed in their nitpicking. Taking such minute instances and making them into a mountain shows how petty and intolerant the atheists really are.

Time for someone to put them in their place.

#4. Bibles Removed From College Hotel Following Complaint From Atheist Activist Group

Officials at a public university in Arizona recently agreed to remove Gideon Bibles from the school’s hotel rooms following a complaint from a prominent professing atheist organization.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) sent a letter earlier this year to the CEO of the Thunderbird School of Global Management, which is part of Arizona State University. It said that an employee, who remained unidentified, had contacted FFRF to express their objection to the presence of the Bibles at Thunderbird Executive Inn.

The following words can apply to the previous point as well.

When you appease people who do not believe, you have then given them no reason to believe. You just show how little backbone you really have. The atheist cannot have a perfect society as their definition of a perfect society means removing anything religious from their eyesight and hearing. That agenda only violates the actual civil rights of others and forces the atheist view on others.

Since the atheist is an unrepentant sinner we can say that their agenda is influenced and led by evil and that their opinions do not matter on these issues as their opinions infringe upon the freedoms of those who do not accept or want the atheist way of thinking.

But like the homosexual, the atheist thinks that the majority must cow tow to the minority even when the latter is in error.

Things are out of whack in this world and we see that imbalance in all of these different rebellious actions and spirit. we are letting evil influence and ruin society and nations and that is not right nor an intelligent thing to do.

The believer needs to get serious about these issues and become serious about their prayer life as well so that they can make a difference and influence the world for God correctly.

Another Broken Link

We are going to place a short article written over 40 years ago about the Neanderthal man. What we ask is– has there been any update on this information and where did secular science suddenly determine that the Neanderthal could talk? And any other pertinent articles dealing with this subject

If you have links to credible and legitimate articles that contradict the following piece, please let us have those links in our comment section. Thank you


Another Broken Link


One of the links in the supposed chain of human evolution has been discredited by a professor of anatomy at Yale University. After studying the upper throat region of the skulls of several types of prehistoric men, Edmund S. Crelin concluded that Neanderthal man could not talk because his upper throat was not properly shaped. This knocks him way back in his ancestral relationship to man, Crelin said. He stated that the ability to speak was far more important to survival on the evolutionary chain than brain size or the ability to chew, the previous anthropological criteria.

Although Neanderthal man, who lived some 40,000 to 70, 000 years ago, could not talk, Crelin was quick to point out that two other types of prehistoric men could. These were Cro-Magnon man, a contemporary of Neanderthal, and Steinheim man, who lived at least 300,000 years ago according to Crelin.

As a result of this discovery, anthropology books will have to be rewritten. Several already have, says Crelin, and Yale and the University of Connecticut have revised their anthropology courses to disinherit Neanderthal man from his once awarded role as a close relative of modern man.

Is Neanderthal man trying to tell us something?

(NEW HAVEN REGISTER, March 2, 1972; NEW YORK TIMES, March 9, 1972.)

(1972). Bible and Spade, 1(2), 58.

Secular Science & the Believer

The church has a problem. It has been invaded by those who take the words and methods of the unbelieving world who use those deceived ideas to alter God’s word and teach what God has not taught. They also misrepresent God casting a different picture about him, one that God does not paint of himself.

Sadly, these people are respected and held in high esteem and many in the church are led to alternative beliefs which are not of God and not biblically taught. In this piece we are going to look at some of the favored ‘tools’ used by secular and alternative believing people as well as two theories, which are also held in high esteem.

There is an old saying, ‘when confronted with printing the truth or the legend, you print the legend.’ That is what secular science does. It prints the legend, the best explanation, not the truth. As Dr. Del Ratzsch recorded in his book, The Battle of Beginnings, and many other authors have done so as well, secular science does not want God as a part of their work and when you remove the truth from guiding you then you have no hope of coming upon the truth.

Yes they do get bits and pieces of truth but every con man knows that if your con is void of any truth it will not hold up. Some truth has to be included in order for the lie to sound convincing and work.

I. Interpretation: This is nothing more than eisegesis at work. People who use this inadequate and vastly inferior tool read into other people’s words their own ideas, thoughts, beliefs, preconceptions and misconceptions.

It is not automatic as some people claim and can be removed in order to do discussion, hearing, listening correctly. Jesus prayed that we would know God and his truth, he also told us that we would know the truth but those who use interpretation do not get to the truth because they have altered the intent and meaning behind the words of the other person.

This is what makes the idea behind sexual harassment so erroneous. It is not how the receiver takes the words spoken or written for the listener/reader does not have the gospel truth concerning what others say or write. This idea allows people to misunderstand what is being said or written and place the misunderstanding in greater standing than the actual intent of the words spoken/written.

This faulty reasoning, and interpretation does this as well, brings injustice to innocent people as it claims to know the original intent and meaning over the person bring the words. That is impossible. The responsibility to make sure one has understood what has been said/written is upon the receiver not the speaker/writer.

Interpretation, while it is a possibility it can lead one to some truth, usually leads people away from the truth and allows for false teaching to enter into the lives of those who use this tool. They often misunderstand what was said/written and fail to clarify in order to respond correctly to the spoken/written word.

By placing your own ideas upon other people’s words, you are not responding to their thoughts but your own ideas. You also can hurt innocent people by using this tool as your interpretation does more damage than you think.
The Bible does not teach anyone to use this inferior tool as it leads to confusion and confusion is not of God. This tool places subjectivity, existentialism above God’s objectivism and that is very wrong.


II. Observation: Many in the secular scientific field place a high regard on this very inferior tool as they think observation is a key to understanding any given situation. Unfortunately for them observation can only lead to a multiple reasons for any action observed and the multiple choice they are left with only includes the truth as one possibility.

Observation needs more information for it to work effectively and getting that information can be and is often very difficult. We use the analogy of a man and a woman are observed leaving a hotel room. This observation may come to the correct conclusion but it still needs confession to verify and validate its claim

The observed situation actually has over 6 different possibilities for the two to be exiting the hotel room and the illicit affair is only one of the possibilities. Others include, they are actually man and wife, they are on a honeymoon, the owner or clerk is getting an estimate for work to be done, the clerk is showing a perspective guest the room and on it goes.

Observation alone cannot ferret out the truth and it needs the help of other sources providing the correct information to get to the truth. Observation merely puts a person on the path to getting to the truth and if the observer makes an error or decides to go after false information then their work is worthless as any claims made from faulty conclusions could hurt innocent lives, just like interpretation does.



III. Prediction: This is pseudo-science dressed up to be factual science. There is no other term for this as predictions come from fortune telling not scientific, rational thought. There is no objective authority that states we are to use prediction in any of our investigations. In fact, in criminal investigations predictions are frowned upon and consider unjust and unfair.

Why secular science has adopted this as a lynch pin in its work can only be answered by the fact that secular science is evil influenced and led not God led or influenced. The fact that secular scientists only proclaim the predictions that work shows how dishonest they are. The many unfulfilled predictions that so many scientists encounter are ignored as the secular scientist tries to present an ideal picture of their field of research even though those failed predictions would disqualify the secular scientist from achieving any credibility and demonstrate that their theory does not work and is not true.

1 prediction correct in a thousand or even 500 or 50 is not a good track record and shows that secular science is not doing anything correctly and is far from the correct information. This predictions are often very generalized and do not exclude other sources from producing the same results. In other words, predictions do not exclude anything but simply muddy the waters a lot more. They do not pinpoint a source but make it easier for false theories like evolution or micro-evolution to get a foothold in the minds of the unwary or those who do not want to believe the Bible.

You will notice that the Bible does not teach the use of predictions but does state to thoroughly investigate a matter. Predictions are not part of a thorough investigation but a lazy, cheating way to avoid the truth and get one’s pet theory a hearing. These also allow for injustice to take place as well as teach people to accept lies over God’s truth

IV. Assumption: It seems that secular science has taken every bad thing, things we are taught by our parents, grandparents, teachers and pastors not to do, and declared them good and useful. Assumption is never good and needs lots of correcting as the person making the assumptions needs the time to remove their feet from their mouths.

Assumptions are never good and are very misleading. Declarations that have the words, ‘we believe’, ‘we think’, ‘it may’, it is a possibility’ are not proven fact and cannot be taken seriously. What someone thinks or believes does not make it truth or even close to the truth. It is their ideas they are expounding not what God has said or done.

We can put the terms ‘speculation’ and ‘conjecture’ in with assumption but unlike the last action the former two can lead one to being put on the right track to the truth. Assumption is a belief or preconceived idea that has no foundation and too many people take that preconceived idea to their experiments and all objectivity is lost as is all hope of finding the truth.

Assumption distorts what is observed and wrongly influences predictions. It also influences interpretation to go for the error over looking for the truth. The same verse used earlier about investigating thoroughly applies here as well as assumption does not investigate thoroughly but takes the wrong shortcuts which end up ruining an investigation, which then has to be done all over again. Assumption is not honesty and has no role in the Christian’s life.


V. Einstein’s Relativity: I place this and the following topic here as they illustrate how brilliant men can make mistakes and how those mistakes are blindly accepted and adopted by lesser individuals then taught to generations of unwary students.

Einstein’s theory of relativity has a fatal flaw and it resides in his assumption that gravity affects time and that mechanical or atomic clocks are the source of time. But time is not a material entity that is influenced by gravity. It is a separate non-material factor in our human lives which runs at the same pace no matter what is taking place in this world.

Time’s source is not a terrestrial clock but was created by God in Genesis 1 when he created light and separated it from the darkness. Terrestrial clocks, whether mechanical or atomic or whatever material they are made of, do not produce time, they can only measure its passing, thus if a person travels for 60 minutes by walking and a person travels 60 minutes at the speed of light, they both have aged by 60 minutes.

Time is not relative and it is not governed by speed either. While gravity can and does influence and slow down material objects, like atomic and mechanical clocks, it has no control over immaterial entities like Time.

Time passes the same for everyone no matter what they are doing.


VI. Hubble’s Expanding Universe: I had a blogger/scholar tell me once that Hubble’s expanding universe theory and his equations (Hubble’s constant) were refuted and rejected by astronomers long ago. He was wrong, of course, as both remain very active in the research on the universe and the moving galaxies.

The problem with Hubble’s theory, and I am well aware he was not the originator of it others contributed to its construction, is first he ignores those galaxies that are not moving outward but inward. He calls then anomalies. (Must be nice to disregard important information when doing research and get away with it)

Second, it assumes that the outward movement comes from some explosion that took place 14 billion years ago. That theory has many problems to it as well, one being how could that event produce energy so great that 14 billion years later it is still influencing the movement of galaxies. That thinking just demonstrates the irrational, illogical and unrealistic thinking of secular scientists and secular science.

It is unrealistic as how can anyone expect a force to last 14 billion years? The assumption that it does is distorted thinking and a distorted view of the evidence.
Third, Hubble’s theory is undermined by the fact that no one at any time has ever seen the edge of the universe. There is no way to measure any expansion. We have no ‘stretch marks’ that reveal the different boundaries of the universe over time and no other markers that can be used to support the thinking that the universe expands or has expanded.

Moving galaxies are not evidence and using those as evidence is like saying, the city of Denver is expanding because cars are travelling away from the city. Without accurate, constant historical records measuring the expansion of the universe the expanding universe theory falls flat as moving galaxies only prove that God gave the galaxies enough room to ‘live’ and move in.

God shows his protection of the earth and the solar system it resides by this fact. He also verifies those verses which state that he has set the foundations of the earth and those foundations shall not be moved.

VII. Secular Scientists: The believer needs to remember one very important fact about secular scientists. They have not been redeemed by Jesus, they have not been made a new creature nor has the old man been removed from their lives.

These people are deceived, blind and under the influence of evil thus their ideas, theories, conclusions, etc., will not be the truth. Though they may contain elements of the truth, this is merely a trap to deceive believers into leaving the truth for the lies of evil.

No amount of education, no amount of experience, no amount of conducted experiments will overcome this fact. The secular scientist remains in sin, a prisoner of evil and blind to the truth. At no time does the Bible teach that we are to follow the unbelieving world and at no time are we taught anywhere in scriptures that we are to adopt or adapt their theories, ideas or conclusions.

The choice is you either believe God or you believe secular scientists (evil) There is no middle ground.


These points should help the believer to see the weakness and inferiority of secular science and the error of adopting its terminologies. This does not mean that the believer cannot ‘do science’ but help them understand that they must ‘do science’ God’s way not the secular world’s way. The believer must go for the truth not the best explanation as again I point people to Jesus’ prayer to his father were he says ‘that they may know your truth for you are truth.’ (paraphrased)

At no time do either God or Jesus teach anyone to go for the best explanation. For example secular scientists proclaim that evolution is the best explanation for our origins and variety we see in the world today. But how can the ideas of sinful, secular, deceived, fallible, corrupt men trump the revelation of the most holy, infallible, incorrupt, sinless God who did the actual creating?

They tell us to go for the truth and the truth does not depend upon interpretation, observation, predictions or assumptions and so on. It depends upon getting to the facts through careful and thorough investigation under the guidance of the HS. The secular world does not have the spirit of truth helping them and Jesus made that very clear in John 16.

No matter what some supposed believers say, the unbelieving world is influenced by the father of lies not by the holy God. This includes the area of all scientific research fields that reject the inclusion of God, which secular science does vigorously. Without doing science God’s way and following the HS to the truth, one cannot expect to have the truth.

The believer cannot partner with the secular world not adopt its terms or theories for that would be a violation of God’s instructions in 1 Corinthians. Nor can they compromise and ‘Christianize’ those theories or terms, keeping what God has defined as false teaching but trying to justify those faulty ideas with altering scripture.
The believer must stand with God, represent him as he represents himself and investigate biblical terms thoroughly so that they completely understand the truth about what God is saying instead of using those verses to support the lies of secular science.

The believer is NOT anti-science, they are against the lies told by secular science and scientists. A guideline to this is if science disagrees with the Bible then it is not the Bible that is in error.

Science, any variety, was not given the authority to over-rule or alter God’s word and it does not possess a monopoly upon the truth. It is NOT the only source for truth it is merely a tool to find knowledge but that objective does not mean that the knowledge it uncovers is correct, true or perfect. Since science is not immune to the sin and corruption that entered the world at Adam’s sin, its conclusions, theories and ideas are very suspect as well as usually wrong.

We cannot take any secular scientific idea blindly but investigate it thoroughly and when it turns out to be false, like evolution, big bang and micro-evolution theories, we toss them aside for we go for the truth not the false alternatives.

Science, any variety, does not know more than God or the Bible.