Latest Entries »

The political scene with its surrounding discourse, debate and accompanying scheming, charades, and false characterizations and representations provide a perfect arena for human nature to hone and to extrude one of its prime characteristics-one of the things it’s best at: blaming someone else…

220px-Three_wise_monkeys_figure

Life, for almost all of us, is tough, and then we die. As if life and death itself isn’t enough to deal with, we live in opposition to our Creator and we ignore his instructions for a good life and a happy world, and then when things go wrong as they would if we attempted to construct a table with a chainsaw, we look for someone else to blame and accuse.

We forget that we’re all prone to the same troubles, and we’re all limited in our abilities and knowledge. There is no perfect world; there is no utopia just waiting to be discovered by somebody who has all the right ideas and the right phrases and the best looks, and even if there were, there are plenty of others ready and willing to throw a wrench in the works, who have a different idea of how that perfect world should be achieved, and who don’t want to listen to your ideas.

We all tend to want to blame someone else for our problems and our failures. It was our dad’s fault, our mother’s fault, our boyfriend’s fault, our wife’s fault, our politicians’ fault, our ancestors’ faults. They weren’t generous enough, they didn’t try hard enough, they didn’t think of us enough, they didn’t make the right decisions, they weren’t educated enough, they weren’t good-looking enough, they didn’t…overlook our faults enough. We don’t consider that they themselves were struggling to get through life as best they could. But for them our world would be just as it should be -right?

Oh, but then, if the world were perfect, there would be nobody left to blame…but ourselves.

Advertisements

Governments, kings, leaders and despots, and those opposing them in times past have always rallied people around them by pointing to a common enemy, whether real, perceived or contrived. Globalism seeks to do away with the ancient view of nations being our enemies by doing away with nations, and by calling people who don’t agree with their agenda “racists” and “bigots”. Media corporations and “entertainers” are in the position to push the appropriate propaganda into the faces of the populace, and shape public opinion, in a manner which would have made the Soviets green with envy. Lies, smears, false stories and omission of real stories are all tools of an entrenched, un-elected power, along with some who they help to get elected, claiming free speech while all the time trying to eradicate it.

220px-Reggio_calabria_museo_nazionale_mosaico_da_kaulon

The enemies of the future will be (and are now) those who will not go along with those globalist designs for our world. Ultimately, as related in Revelation, Christians will be the “enemy” to be focused on and hated. But for now, the “enemy” is Donald Trump.

What is the gospel of Jesus Christ? Is it socialism? Is it just one of many ways to God? Is it an invention of white American men? I’ve posted this message before…and I’ll post it again…

blinding-light-into-lent

The Greek word translated “gospel” in the New Testament means “good news”, and in the context of the Bible the gospel is the “good news” about Jesus Christ. But what exactly was and is that good news, and what does it mean for us?

In answer to the second question first, read what Jesus said:

I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life (John 5:24).

The Bible speaks of a love-gift from God. That gift is forgiveness of all our sin, and eternal life. The gift-if we accept it for ourselves and change our ways-takes us from being subjects of God’s wrath into eternal life, even though for now we are in mortal bodies.

Contrary to the common view on the street, as promoted by Hollywood, the education establishment and by certain authors, the gospel, the scriptures and the essential Christian doctrines were not all invented or altered hundreds of years after the time of Christ’s life on earth.

Lee Stroebel, with an MA in Law from Yale University, and a former award-winning investigative journalist for the Chicago Tribune, in his book “The Case for Christ”(note 1) interviewed a number of believing scholars such as Cambridge educated Sir Norman Anderson. Anderson was a Professor at Harvard, and lectured at Princeton. He was also the Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of London. Anderson said that Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, which contains a clear definition of the gospel as outlined below, can be confidently dated to around 55 AD.

Dr. Gary R Habermas, a New Testament historian, received his Ph D from Michigan State University and his DD from Emmanuel College, Oxford. In his book “The Historical Jesus”, Habermas discusses the creed quoted below as found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, and writes that the gospel existed in the form below even before Paul’s letter:

That this confession is an early Christian, pre-Pauline creed is recognized by virtually all critical scholars across a wide theological spectrum”(2).

THE GOSPEL

Here, then, is Paul’s first-century definition of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which he had given his life to, despite all opposition and threats, having once been a persecutor of Christians:

Now brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time….Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also…(1 Corinthians 15: 1 – 8).

So the gospel of Jesus Christ is this:

1 Christ died for our sins, as prophesied in Old Testament Scriptures. We can be forgiven for all our sin because of Christ’s death on the cross;

2 He was buried;

3 He was raised from the dead on the third day;

4 He appeared alive to his disciples after his resurrection.

The gospel is here spelled out for you. Accept it, believe it, pray it, confess it, and live it.

NOTES

1 Lee Strobel “The Case For Christ” Pg 230. Pub. By Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49130. © 1998 by Lee Strobel.

2 Gary R Habermas “The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ” (College Press Publishing Company, Joplin, Missouri, © 1996 Gary Habermas) p 153.

I have to apologize for my title – a greater brain could have conceived a better one…

Scientists aren’t allowed to consider even the possibility of design or creation, under threat of ostracism, ridicule, and loss of livelihood. Consequently such bafflingly complex design features as the human brain are just blindly accepted as being another product of chemicals plus a convincingly long period of time. It’s that baffling complexity which got my own brain thinking about itself recently.Neuron_Cell_Body(This post is another in my “blast from the past” series posted while I concentrate on writing a book. It was originally called “Brains, Sense and Nonsense”)

An average healthy human brain contains some 200 billion nerve cells connected to one another through hundreds of trillions of synapses, so that a single human brain has more information processing units than all the computers, routers and internet connections on the earth. One brain’s memory capacity, even by a conservative estimate, is at least a petabyte, equal to the entire world-wide web. Weighing only three pounds, it is super-energy efficient. The brains internal communications occur at light-speed.*

So if we’re part of the onward and upward evolution of life, why is it that even the most talented and intellectual among us only use a fraction of their brains’ potential? Does that make sense to you? Shouldn’t it be the other way around-that the most intelligent are pushing the boundaries of their brain so that their offspring will have greater brain power, given the additional requirement of an incredibly fortuitous mutation?

Someone may protest that the history of man demonstrates evolution clearly: just look how we’ve developed technology and travel in the last few decades alone. That’s not evolution, that’s development. It’s the result of a snowballing God-given thirst for knowledge, in conjunction with times of relative freedom from war, factions, disease and starvation. You could take a man from what is a very backward tribe, still a reality in some remote parts of the world, assuming that he could stand the shock of the change in lifestyle, and put him through school and university. He has brain power too, and it’s not that of an ape-man.Great_Andamanese_-_two_men_-_1875Historians-secular historians-find remarkable the rapidity with which the first civilization in Mesopotamia developed writing, literature, mathematics, geometry, astronomy, business and technology. People weren’t morons crawling out of the trees or muddy fields and making a few marks on a piece of rock or banging two sticks together, one for yes and two for no, in order to communicate. As far back as real history goes, man was intelligent-he just hadn’t got around to building a computer or an airliner yet. He did manage to build such structures as Stonehenge, the Mayan temple and the Pyramids-structures so big and so cleverly put together that we still haven’t figured them out. Some imaginative people have put such structures down to aliens-because, they’re convinced-early man was brainless and clueless. They aren’t allowed or willing to consider the possibility that humans have always had that brain-power potential, right from their creation.

However, some people even in past millennia were able to recognize what professors and educators of today are missing by intent, which is that we humans have been created physically complete and ready to function, and designed by a mind far above our own:

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

(Psalm 139:14 NIV).

* http://www.icr.org/article/human-brain-beyond-belief

TOP DIAGRAM: NEURON CELL BODY, BY BRUCE BLAUS

 

 

Evolutionists cite similarities between various animals, and between various plants, as evidence of our ancestry from single-celled creatures. The “evolutionary tree of life” depicts us all descending from the same one-celled creatures as jellyfish, elephants, butterflies and Venus fly-traps. FISH

Apologies to anyone reading this repeat of my post from last year-I’m quite proud of it so it’s getting a second airing. Apologies also for the re-appearance of my five-legged fish for the same reason. I’m working on a book which is taking up all my writing time, so expect a few blasts from the past in lieu of some fresher material.

According to the tree of life, which is, of necessity, nothing more than a diagram: an “artist’s interpretation” or “artist’s impression”, the more structural and genetic similarities organisms share, the more closely related they are and the closer they are on the Tree of Life (NOTE 1). Four-legged creatures are very closely related, as are two-legged varieties such as the “Great Apes” which classification includes humans.

But we all come from the same Designer: the same Creator. Some design features are common in similarly-shaped animals because they work well and because they have the same designer. What do evolutionists expect to see: five legs? Three eyes? Square hips made of wood? Two heads?

Experts have assured us that we humans have very similar DNA to chimpanzees, and that we and chimps are therefore closely related. This claim has been chipped away and exposed by creationist scientists who found bias in the use of data (see note 2 below).

Somewhat more distantly, two-legged, four-legged and no-legged animals are all related. Yes, your distant cousin is a jellyfish. So don’t be surprised if he has no back-bone.

Anyway, as the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Is the conviction as great as the claim? I haven’t yet heard of any evolutionists marrying chimps, have you?

The “FIVE-LEGGED FISH” picture above is my own creation, © Nick Fisher.

NOTES

1 http://naturalhistory.si.edu/exhibits/darwin/treeoflife.html

2 http://www.icr.org/article/human-chimp-dna-comparison-research

http://www.icr.org/article/new-research-evaluating-similarities

 

%d bloggers like this: