Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Demons and Secular Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Materialists contradict themselves by claiming that there is no God, spirits, or anything supernatural, and then they try to explain the soul and their version of free will (which is impossible from an evolutionary worldview). Ironically, atheists have their own miracles of sorts, but they deny God. 

Sure, we see some self-styled ghost hunters on television attempting to obtain electromagnetic, infrared, and other readings of supposedly haunted places. Those do not amount to much. Can secularists ride the trail and scientifically study demons, which they believe do not exist? Kind of difficult with their materialistic presuppositions and bad logic, such as, "Since there are some fakers, there are no spirits at all". I can show you some angry atheopaths that have blasphemed each person of the Trinity, and are demonically possessed.

Materialists deny the existence of spirits, but attempt to study demons anyway.
Credit: Pixabay / Pete Linforth
The Parkland school shooter, Nikolas Cruz, said he had a demon telling him to kill and destroy. His account sounds like a case of mental illness. From a Christian perspective, we need to consider the possibility of demonic influence, but I'll allow that it is unlikely in this case.

A study of Ouija boards was done by Thomas Hoffman. You know, that thing you scoot around on a board with an alphabet that also has symbols as well as a yes and no? Many people claim to have contacted spirits. This scientist wrote it is all in the minds of the users. What pusillanimous drivel!

I've told my account elsewhere of living in an apartment complex and hearing the teenagers across the hall messing with a Ouija board. They didn't know I was there. I went outside and prayed with authority, and shut the wicked thing down. Then I heard them wondering why the thing stopped. I explained why, and also explained the gospel to them.

A woman's daughter and a friend were playing with one of those boards, and the woman was invited to join in. As time went on, they learned the name of the person that the spirit was impersonating, how he died by suicide, where he had lived, and more. They contacted some of his relatives online and verified the story. As more time passed, the spirit did not like the woman's current boyfriend, and she was physically assaulted by an unseen power, knocked backward in her chair to the floor. They ended Ouija involvement at that point, but she felt a presence for quite some time after that.

My interference was not something in the minds of those teenagers, and people like Hoffman would be hard pressed to explain it away. Also, he would not be able to explain how previously unknown people and facts were learned from a distance, or the force that assaulted the woman. Mere dismissal is not an explanation, old son.

"What does a demon look like, Cowboy Bob?"

Whatever it thinks will be the most influential, and not in red pajamas with horns and a pitchfork! I heard a story about demons that took the forms of the rock stars in the group Kiss, because that was someone's focus in life. Others can be the stuff of movies, with fangs and glowing eyes. What I think is worse is that they can be beautiful, like their master (2 Corinthians 11:14, Ezekiel 28:17). Despite all this, I fully believe that most people will not actually see a demon or angel.

Studying demons and angels can be fascinating and even helpful, but Satan likes a couple of things. One is for people to believe that he does not exist. Another is for people to become so obsessed with studies of angels and demons, they drift away from their Creator who gave them life. Those who have had demonic activities, whether through direct occult involvement or demons pretending to be can test the spirits: "Who is Jesus Christ?" (1 John 4:1-3).
One cannot make predictions about what a mind will do. Secular scientists mock belief in angels and demons, but they have their own occult beliefs.

Science cannot study what it doesn’t believe is real. Secular cosmologists believe dark matter and dark energy are real, but cannot see them. They believe angels and demons are unreal, but then have to account for things that defy natural explanations. Let’s see how they do.
To finish reading, click on "Can Science Study Demonology?"


Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Intellectualizing God out of the Bible

Some folks spend too much time in secular edjamakation centers and get into a habit of intellectualizing too many things. That is, they commence to pondering the minutiae of many things, and making a mighty great mess of it all instead of starting with the plain intent. A certain tinhorn named Dr. Jordan Peterson does that very thing with the Bible — especially Genesis — and unfortunately, he has many followers.


Jordan Peterson is dismissing Bible believers and replacing the meaning of Scripture with weird Jungian psychology and atheistic philosophies.
Credit: Freeimages / Sar Castillo
I'll make no apology that he's not the kind of guy I'd like to have lunch with. From excerpts in his books it's easy to see that he's condescending and rejects the God of the Bible. He labels people who believe in creation, the global Flood, even the historical account of the Mosaic writings as fundamentalists. Like so many other labels, it has become vague and has many connotations nowadays, and is primarily used to stir up negative emotions.  Peterson doesn't tell us how he defines a fundamentalist. But then, he's smarter than you and me, so he prolly don't need to.



Looking down from his high horse, he dismisses fundamentalists outright. Apparently, he categorizes those of us who believe the Bible are stupid jaspers, and he is superior to us because he's a (pseudo) intellectual. He argues from atheistic and evolutionary presuppositions, including the complex scientific principle of Making Things Up™. Jordan emotionally manipulates his audiences with assertions, smug superiority, and implicit ridicule of those who disagree with his pronouncements about Moses and Jungian psychology. That's just plain weird, old son. I'll take the clear meaning of God's Word (with the help of scholars who actually believe it when it comes to the difficult parts) instead of accepting the say-so of a disbelieving "scholar" any time.
We recently listened to a lecture series on the psychological significance of the biblical stories by Dr. Jordan Peterson, professor of psychology at Toronto University. It has taken a long time to distill the hours of lectures down to a form that can be examined in something as short as this article. It was a daunting task! However, the first lecture alone has over 2.5 million views on YouTube, indicating that Peterson’s lectures have a real audience, so it is worth talking about them here. His lectures are generally admired by his devotees, in much the same way that faithful churchgoers regard the sermons of their pastor; however, we found them intensely tedious, rambling, and hard to follow.
To read the rest, click on "Is Genesis psychology or history? A response to Jordan Peterson".



Wednesday, August 15, 2018

Would Paul the Apostle Debate Modern Evolutionists?

Speculative questions can be as useful as a hole in a milk bucket, as you can spend a lot of time working at them, but not much get accomplished. You get a "what if" and a "yeah, but" added now and then, and folks get a mite overwrought.

On the other hand, if handled properly, though, thought experiments can be interesting and productive. Uncle Albert Einstein liked them, after all. So, let's see if we can make use of the question about whether or not Paul the Apostle would debate modern evolutionists if he rode into town today.


If the Apostle Paul were here today, we can wonder how he would have dealt with evolutionists. He did that very thing before.
Made at Break Your Own News, background image St. Paul Preaching in Athens, Raphael, 1515
Paul was enthusiastic, to say the least. He would reason, discuss, debate, and so on at the drop of a hat, and he'd drop his own hat if nobody else did. Okay, the last part is an exaggeration, but I don't reckon it's too far afield.

However, how would he deal with evolutionists? Would he try to "out evidence them" with piles of facts, hoping that if he was the best orator with the biggest prairie schooner-full of evidence, people would realize that they need to repent and bow to Jesus? That'll be the day! As I study on it, I believe one of the biggest problems with evidence-only apologetics is that the method not only appeals to the pride of the sinful man, but the pride of the apologist who is doing the presentation. We are supposed to be glorifying God, not ourselves, and Scripture clearly tells us that unbelievers are blinded and under the control of Satan. An even bigger problem is that by doing this, we are actually agreeing with unbelievers that the Bible is not true!

Now, don't be getting vexed. I'm not saying that there is no place for evidence, but it needs to be presented properly. Look at Paul in Acts 17-16-34. He was making his argument to the pagan evolutionary philosophers, just like we do today. Western society has been hijacked by materialistic philosophies, postmodernism, atheism, and evolutionism. How are we supposed to follow 1 Peter 3:15, "...ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you"? We sure as shootin' can't be an expert in every philosophy or every science view that is in vogue.

We have to believe the Bible, first and foremost. We presuppose that Scripture is true, and then we can present evidence in the proper framework that honors God. Jesus, Peter, Paul, and the others did the same thing. Also, the Bible is self-affirming.
If we jump back to Paul and consider his missionary journeys, sermons, and epistles, he saw a great number of people and surely encountered a great number of beliefs. 

. . .
In the greater context, we find Paul forced into a debate with Epicureans and Stoics. In fact, because they disagreed with him, they take him to Mars Hill (the Areopagus) to defend his views in front of the whole crowd of philosophers. So Paul masterfully begins his defense, which has gone on to become the basis for creation evangelism.
I'd take it mighty kindly if you'd read the rest of this article. To do this, click on "If Paul Were Around Today, Would He Argue Against Evolutionists?" Also, you may want to hear this short podcast of Scripture on Creation, "Creation's Role in the Gospel".

Wednesday, August 8, 2018

Genesis as History: Short Form

There are times when we need to ride up to yonder hill and get the view from up there. That is, a broad view or big picture. Biblical creationists maintain (with a little help from Occam) that the basic approach is true: Genesis is written as history. Some owlhoots read all sorts of things into the text in order to work in long ages and evolution.


People wonder if Genesis is meant to be taken as history. Yes, it is.
Creation of the World III, Mikalojus Konstantinas Ciurlionis, 1906
I have long wondered why some professing Christians insist on compromising with atheistic, ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies. It is also an inconsistent message to say that we believe the Bible is true from cover to cover except the early chapters of Genesis. Those, we have to interpret according to man's wisdom. Oh, please! So when do we start believing the Bible, and when do we stop? Can we trust John 3:16-17, or is that just allegory? By the way, even if the first few verses of Genesis were allegorical, that does not mean they are untrue and that there was no history in them, you savvy?

Some go as far as to say that Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others in the Bible were unaware of science. Reign in there, pilgrim! First, Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16-17), so that is an indirect attack on God's integrity by calling him a deceiver. Second, Jesus is God and created all things (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16). This is essentially saying that Jesus is not God — you are an antichrist (1 John 4:2-3, 2 John 1:7). If you want to deny six-day recent creation, go ahead. But do not attack God in your efforts to compromise with eisegesis and bad hermeneutics.


We have many reasons to believe that Genesis is written as history. We can examine how scientific evidence supports this (you may want to see my review of the video Is Genesis History?). Also, we can demonstrate in great deal how the days of creation were meant to be taken as literal days. But let's get that view from the hill, shall we?

The early chapters of Genesis contradict ancient history as portrayed in public schools, television, and movies. For example, our culture insists humans evolved from ape-like creatures, while Genesis says we were made in God’s image. Culture says the earth formed over eons, but Genesis 1 says it took God just six days. Is it possible to believe both the Bible and evolution’s history? Many try. Some say early Genesis doesn’t convey real events and that God never intended for us to take Genesis 1–11 as history but as poetry. How well does this idea work?
To read the rest of this short article, click on "Is Genesis 1–11 Actual History?"



Saturday, August 4, 2018

Non-Human Persons, Pro-Life, and Evolutionary Thinking

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

One aspect of the extreme environmentalist movement is to give "rights" to animals, even going so far as to call them non-human persons. Naturally, vegans also saddle up to ride for this brand, which is primarily based on evolutionary thinking. Professing Christians are also joining in. Christians and creationists need to think logically, and not fall for emotional manipulation tactics, nor get their values from worldly thinking.


The idea of non-human persons is a ludicrous view based on evolution.
Ham the chimpanzee in the biopack couch for the MR-2 suborbital test flight
Credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Be wary of word games, because not only do extremists use loaded, emotion-provoking terminology, but they redefine words. It is interesting that just before I wrote this, I saw a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode called "Lonely Among Us". Commander Riker told someone, "We no longer enslave animals for food purposes". Enslave? A slave is a person, not an animal. We are also told that killing animals is "murder". When trophy hunter Melissa Bachman showed off her kills, she was castigated for murdering animals, and ironically, some people wanted her to be murdered! 

Then there's the word person. The idea of a non-human person is ridiculous. It amazes me that some people wanted legal rights for an orangutan, and took the case to court. Also, some want rights for chimpanzees. I guess the next time we send one up in a rocket, we need to have the critter sign off on it to make the whole thing legal.



There are people who use emotional manipulation and lack of thinking by going to the extreme, "You don't care that animals are tortured!" Did anyone say that? Sorry, not interested in defending something I, or we, did not say, and do not believe. We were created by God, in his image. Animals were created as well, so we do not share an evolutionary lineage. For that matter, we should be able to kill all we want to be consistent with evolutionary views, you savvy? But knowledgeable Christians do not act that way, because God made us stewards of his creation, and we are not to abuse it. These facts are found in Genesis, but liberal theology does not recognize it as legitimate or even important.

Some owlhoots at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, a part of the Southern Baptist Convention, put up a video with a Roman Catholic comparing animal rights with the pro-life position, and was scornful that pro-lifers were not involved in animal rights. (That's just as sideways as the tinhorns that claim my political views negate everything I write and post about creation science). It's called being focused, and not chasing rabbit trails. Do enough of that, and you lose sight of your calling, old son.

This article was inspired by a discussion on The Dividing Line by Dr. James White. Since I prefer to avoid embedding longer videos here, I'll link to the appropriate part, which takes about 24 minutes of the 1 hr. 41 min. episode. While the whole thing is interesting, I know y'all are busy, so this link should take you to the 54 min. 34 sec. mark. Please give it a look. If you want the MP3, Sermon Audio has it at this link. Interesting that what he says parallels several things that I have said, but he has quite a bit more to say on the subject that I should let you hear him cover.

Wednesday, August 1, 2018

Roses for Afghanistan?

Poppies are nice to look at, but the plants have chemical properties that can be lethal. Opioids are processed from them, and some are for good purposes. Unfortunately, the opium poppies in Afghanistan are mainly used for heroin. Follow the money: people who foolishly use heroin are ultimately funding the sidewinders of Islamic terrorism! With any drug trafficking comes violence and criminal activity. What's a poor Afghani farmer to do who wants to put food on the table? Personally, I'd find something else to do that doesn't involve the deaths of many people.

Damask roses are a means for farmers to make a living better in many ways than from poppies.
Damask rose image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Kurt Stüber (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Enter the Damask rose. It is native to Afghanistan, appeals to the eye and nose, is more profitable than poppies, a renewable resource, is a source of employment, and more. God has given us all sorts of things for us to use. We can use them through biomimetics, or use them directly — if we know how. Our creator gave us minds and expects us to use them. Part of this is done through finding ways to observe, use, or develop applications from or inspired by what he has given us.
Need some good news for a change? Some Afghan farmers are finding better profits growing roses than growing opium poppies.
. . . 
Sales of opium poppies create many well-known evil effects downstream. Drug trafficking, though illegal in the country, engenders gang violence and international conflicts, and fuels much of the economic ties of violent countries to other violent countries. . .
But what if the poor farmers could be convinced to grow something good instead? Something beautiful, useful, and in high demand? What if they could make a better living growing roses?
The farmers who are trying it, according to the article, are finding these benefits in switching:
You can read the rest by clicking on "Will Everything Come Up Roses in War-torn Afghanistan?"