Saturday, February 10, 2018


I'm reading in Acts chapter 4 today about the Jewish rulers examining Peter and John regarding their healing the lame man in the temple.  Peter nails them between the eyes with his pointed remarks:

"...let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well. This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone."

So what's their response?  They discuss the matter and decide that even though Peter and John have performed a tremendous miracle in the name of Jesus, they still need to suppress talk of Him being the Messiah or any silly thing like that.  Like the miracle in no way validates Peter and John's testimony.  Or even has anything to do with the matter.  Right.

Q:  How could they possibly be so blind and unthinking?  How could they possibly NOT be filled with fear and awe at the possibility that they just killed the long-awaited Messiah?  How could they not have been stopped in their tracks by the stupendous implications of this?   I'm reading this, amazed at the depravity of human nature, and at the same time, convinced at the accuracy of the account by the sheer perversity of this bunch.  In what work of fiction would you find such a reaction to an utterly convincing event?  Only in real life would such a thing happen.  It's stuff like this that convinces me even further that the Bible is a true account of history and of the reality of evil.

This reminds me of the reaction of the religious leaders to the story of the guards they placed at Jesus' tomb to keep the body from being stolen.  The guards witnessed a supernatural being rolling away the stone from the door of the tomb:

"And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.  His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men."

These rough, tough men were utterly terrified.  There were four of them (at least), and they could have overpowered just about any natural being who tried such a thing.  Their testimony to the Jewish leaders had to be shocking.  So what was the Jewish leaders' reaction?  

...they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers and said, “Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.”

This is insanity.  The testimony of these guards (four of them!) HAD to be amazing.  Shocking.  Ominous.  TERRIFYING, to those responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus.  I mean, what were they thinking?  You'd think that at least some of them would immediately fall on their faces and ask God for forgiveness.  But there's no record of that.  Instead, they bribed the guards to spread what they knew was a lie, and promised to bribe the governor also to keep him from executing the guards (death was the penalty for falling asleep on a watch).

But this is so true-to-life.  People hardened to the truth seldom are convinced by any evidence.  And they will go on telling lies that they know to be lies if the alternative is acknowledgement, repentance, humble acceptance, and a change of direction.

May God deliver us from ourselves. 

Power Games

I'm amazed at the seeming naivete of so many journalists and bloggers covering the current developments regarding corruption in the high places of DC.  So many of them act so amazed, so dumbfounded, so...shocked, just shocked!! at what's come out.  I'm amazed and dumbfounded too (but not shocked).  My amazement is for a different reason, though.  I'm amazed that all this is actually coming out in public view!  If it hadn't been for the election of Donald Trump which, politically, was a black swan event, NONE of this would have surfaced.  It was that political miracle which enabled this one.  Before the election I had resigned myself--for several years, actually--to the election of Hillary Clinton as our next POTUS and to business as usual in DC.  But the election of Donald was truly earth-shattering, and made so many previously unthinkable things thinkable.  Donald Trump is like a chlorine molecule inserted into an oxygen slot in an organism--fits right in and totally disrupts the chemistry.

NOW--what we see playing out in DC and around the nation is a raw game of power.  To be sure, there's still subterfuge involved, but so much more of the raw power is exposed for those who observe.  The left is in full-attack mode.  They seem to be operating on the assumption that rhetoric, not truth, will ultimately carry the day, and they have a nuclear arsenal of rhetoric at their disposal.  The right seems to have some very powerful evidence of official wrongdoing, but they don't have the left's powers of persuasion.  Who will win?  It remains to be seen.

But here's the deal: This battle is being fought strictly along partisan lines.  This greatly favors the Democrats.  They have the luxury of being intensely partisan while accusing the Republicans of being partisan.  It's a double standard which they've enjoyed for decades.  This also weakens the arguments of the Republicans.  After all, if they really had truth on their side, you'd think that at least SOME democrats would join them in their battle, wouldn't they?  But the Dems' not breaking ranks focuses attention not on THEIR partisanship, but on the Republicans'.  It's a weird phenomenon.  And the Republicans aren't helping matters by being so overtly joyful, gleeful even, at having discovered such incriminating evidence on the part of Clinton supporters.  They really make this look like a partisan battle, don't they?  And the sad part is, in light of their recent vote to give the government even greater surveillance powers, it may very well be for many in the GOP.

So--let's see how this plays out.  Like I said, this is a power game now.  The sides have been drawn up, the battle lines are formed.  There are only a few neutrals out there.  Most Americans are in one camp or the other.  Whose will shall prevail?  Most commenters, left and right, speak of "the will of the American people" as though it were a monolithic thing aligned, naturally, with the party the speaker endorses.  But it seems to me that the electorate is pretty much divided 50/50.  People in one camp are very, very unlikely to even listen to any argument put forth by the other.

The LORD God help us, especially His chosen ones.

Sunday, January 28, 2018

DC Revelations

I'm watching this Wash. DC show utterly dumbfounded.  Not so much at the revelations.  Knowing human nature (my own heart), the depth of the evil doesn't surprise me.  What is amazing is that it's all coming out.  I'm driven to prayer (a good thing!) by the knowledge that this can mean that our nation is in very great peril.  I'm also driven to searching my own heart and confessing the stuff in dark corners.  I don't want His wrath myself, I'd MUCH rather have His protection. I very much hope that the awfulness of the revealed evil causes many to reflect on the nature of man and their own status with the Creator, and drives them to Him in prayer.  I don't have any great expectation that'll happen, but it would be wonderful.  Here's what amazes me:  Hillary is now 70.  Many of those who control her are older, some much older.  How long do they expect to live?  The pre-diluvians might have had a little reason to think they were independent of God, living as they did for 900+ years, some of them, but us??  What are we thinking?  I'm 68.  I know my time is short.  I realize it's time for a proper humility.  What are the power-brokers thinking?  Just wondering.

Saturday, December 30, 2017

Cult of Mary

This was my reply in response to DRG's question about the Roman Catholic cult of Mary--"when it became incorporated into Catholic doctrine, what were the circumstances, and why would they want to do that?"

I suspect it was shortly after the Edict of Constantine, which made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. This was a very key happening in the history of the Church, and NOT for good. What it did was make Christianity fashionable and appealing to all sorts of heart-not-right types, who then saw in being a churchman an opportunity for social advancement and financial gain. It opened up a new career path for the ambitious.
Now these teachings of the Queen of Heaven had been around from time immemorial. Remember, when the Israelites were fleeing from the wrath of the Babylonians after one of them had assassinated the Babylon-installed governor? They went to Egypt, which God had forbidden them to do. They took Jeremiah with them, and he took them to task for their unfaithfulness. They were still not convinced that following the LORD was the wise thing to do, and decided to cover their bases by baking cakes to the Queen of Heaven. This was around 585 BC. So we can surmise that this practice had been going on for a long time before that.
By the time of Constantine, this Queen of Heaven idea was part of the cultural narrative, and the Church, in order to make Christianity “culturally relevant”, just incorporated the idea. We can see this tendency toward syncretism everywhere Catholicism holds sway. Instead of impacting the culture with truth, Catholicism accommodates.
I say these things as a former Catholic who came to Christ at age 27. You might be interested to know that one of the first works I read as a new believer was Martin Luther. At the time, I was starting university, and happened across a copy of his writings in the university bookstore. I stayed up nights until 3am reading it–amazed at Luther’s insight and his critique of the Catholic church. When I compared what he wrote with the Catholic condemnations of him I had been hearing in my growing-up years, I decided that Luther was a man of God who had been slandered by Rome.

Thursday, December 14, 2017


I for one have known how superior homeschooling is from first hand observation of friends’ home-schooled kids who grew up to be well-rounded, confident adults. The objection is always, always, always, They need to be socialized! The fact of the matter is that home-schooled kids are much better socialized than their antisocial, standoffish-with-adults and scornful-of-younger-kids peers. Home-schooled kids live in the real world. That’s the main advantage they have. Everything they learn is learned in the real world. They learn reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic in the real world. They learn social studies, science, and shop in the real world. They gain a real (that is, adult) perspective on everything they learn, as they go. There’s no transition between schoolboy- and -girlhood and adulthood. THAT can be a very traumatic transition, and homeschoolers completely sidestep it. Under our current system, it takes some time for the products of our educational system to become real people. That’s what their ’20s are for, to make real adults out of schoolkids. Homeschoolers arrive at that point at around age 15 or 16.
But the real objection to homeschooling is and always will be: How can we possibly mold these kids into the kind of reflexively- unquestioning-our-premises droids we want without compulsory formal education?
Oh, I thought of another objection to homeschooling that will be advanced: How can we possibly have powerhouse interscholastic athletics without primary and secondary feeder systems to select and train the best athletic entertainment? The whole American way of life would come crashing down. Bummer.

Friday, December 8, 2017

Evidence for the Resurrection

In an earlier post (Feb. 1, 2017), I made reference to Steve, who wrote in response to an article in The Daily Bell entitled, "Increasingly, Evolution Has No Proof":

"The authors of this piece need to not only read about the theory of punctuated equilibrium that addresses the main issues raised but also be aware that 'proof' is only relevant in mathematics and jurisprudence, not science."

I should have jumped on the last part of that statement sooner, maybe in my original reply.  My original reply camped on the theory of punctuated equilibrium and neglected the other point.  So proof is relevant in jurisprudence, he says?  I say, Good point!

Such an expert in the law as Simon Greenleaf, the "Father of American Jurisprudence", investigated the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and came to the conclusion that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead:

"As a legal scholar, Greenleaf wondered if Jesus’ resurrection would meet his stringent tests for evidence.  He wondered whether or not the evidence for it would hold up in a court of law. Focusing his brilliant legal mind on the facts of history, Greenleaf began applying his rules of evidence to the case of Jesus’ resurrection.

"Contrary to what skeptics might have expected, the more Greenleaf investigated the record of history, the more evidence he discovered supporting the claim that Jesus had indeed risen from the tomb.

"After evaluating all the evidence, Greenleaf accepted Jesus’ resurrection as the best explanation for the events that took place immediately after his crucifixion.

"To this legal expert, the case for Jesus’ resurrection was so compelling that he had no doubt it would hold up in a court of law. In his book, The Testimony of the Evangelists, Greenleaf documents the evidence supporting his conclusion. He challenges those who seek the truth about the resurrection to fairly examine the evidence."  ("Harvard Law Professor Puts Jesus' Resurrection on Trial",

I wonder if Steve would be so quick to assert that "proof is relevant in jurisprudence", knowing that?
I wonder.


I think the Beatles' epiphany about the nature of government came just before they released the single, "Taxman":
"Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me,
'Cause I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me"
This was written around 1964 protesting the confiscatory tax rate of 95% on those in the highest tax bracket, which the Beatles were in. The lefties would dearly like a 95% rate on the wealthy to this very day.
The antiwar left of the '60s and '70s had a lot of good things to say, but they were unable to awaken the majority of the American people, IMHO, because of their advocacy of socialism as the fix. Wrong solution. This was the spawning ground for the leftist establishment we have today. The establishment is still evil.
The lefties are delusional in thinking that if THEY can be the ones in control, everything will be fine. Well, they've succeeded in getting control, and everything's not fine. Now they think that if they can just completely stamp out and snuff out their opposition, everything will be fine. I have a prediction...