Category Archives: Uncategorized

Devil Victimized People with Sickness But God Healed Them

The devil made people sick. God made them well. The devil victimized people with sickness. God destroyed the work of the devil by healing and loosing these oppressed people from Satan’s power. Jesus was the stronger One; He bound and plundered the devil’s house.

They begged him to let the sick touch at least the fringe of his robe, and all who touched him were healed. Matthew 14:36 (NLT)

A vast crowd brought to him people who were lame, blind, crippled, those who couldn’t speak, and many others. They laid them before Jesus, and he healed them all. Matthew 15:30 (NLT)

Holy Spirit and with power. Then Jesus went around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. Acts 10:38 (NLT)

Science has no truth claim about reality…

Some philosophers and Scientists try to get around Karl Popper’s falsification explanation, which is simple a Modus Tollens. This Denying the consequent is a valid form of logic. Karl points out that science is based upon the fallacy of affirming the consequent and thus all scientific experimentation is logically invalid. The only logically valid option is to falsify a theory with Modus Tollens.
That is , “If hypothesis X is true, then necessarily G will result. G does not result. Therefore, X is false.”
Scientist try to escape this, by saying experimentation is not a simple , If [ X is true] , then [necessarily G results],” argument; rather it has a conjunction in the antecedent). (P() If [theory X, which is supported by auxiliary theory Y is truth], (Q) then [G necessarily will result].
What they do to avoid a Modus Tollens falsifying their main theory X, is to make the antecedent a conjunction, IF [X & Y], then [G results.].
This way if the consequent is falsified, they get throw out the auxiliary theory rather than their main theory of X: (example: evolution/Big bang). However, I do not believe ontology will allow them this logical arrangement. That is, if the auxiliary theory Y—ontologically speaking—is a necessary result of the main theory X, then their argument is not a conjunction in the antecedent, but rather, it is a chain argument with multiple, “If… then’s.”( If X, then Y. &. If Y then G. ) That being said, some instances would be an honest use of a conjunction, but if the category is ontology and ontology, and one is a sub-category of the other, then a conjunction is not a true logical reflection of that is happening.
In this logical form the original X would be falsified if G is shown to be false. If the smaller auxiliary theory X (that is, a smaller sub-ontology) is not a necessary result of their bigger theory of the Big Bang (that is, it is not contained in their bigger ontology), then what ontological antecedent “necessarily” makes it so, God? We are dealing with ontology, because we are going from result to cause. Thus, If X is a necessary ontology of Y, then Big Bang is falsified. If sub-ontologies are “not necessary,” or not necessarily contained in and result from the biggest X ontology of Evolution/Big Bang, then why even bother making an argument in the first place to try and prove your theory? Without necessity or a necessary connection there is no logic.
1.) If Big Bang (B) is true, then this necessarily results in inflation(I) .
2.) If inflation(I) is true, then necessarily (O) quasars will be far away.
3.) Not O.
4.) Thus, not B
Also, secular scientists attempt to escape this falsification with huge fudge factors like Dark Matter and Energy. Apart from issue of using an invisible untestable fudge factor every time you are wrong, is this issue: some scientist might say, “the big bang is not falsified because our other, other auxiliary theory (dark matter) effected quasars to be closer than thought.” And thus, if this is true, then “inflation” does not “necessarily” result to quasars being far away.
However, if so, then the scientist has no knowledge about the ontology of the cosmos, for he has no necessary connections to tell how ontology really works. He has no argument, he has no truth. But if his “argument” truly is a claim about “necessary” connections within ontology, then if (O) is falsified, then so to is their (B). The scientist must pick one or the other; either he has a truth clam about necessarily connections of ontology (if so, then falsification would falsify their (B)), or they must admit they have nothing to say about ontology to begin with.
We are now at the beginning of the issue of science to begin with; it commits a triple fallacy with, (1) empiricism, (2) inductive observation and (3) inductive, affirming the consequent. Thus, science is systematically, and habitually irrational. It has no knowledge about anything. In order to be true, it must be false at the same time. Science has no truth claim about reality. It’s epistemology foundation and logical argumentation makes it impossible for it to know anything about reality.

Jesus: “I Am Surrounded by Perverts!”

Luke 9:23–24 (LEB)  And he said to them all, “If anyone wants to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross every day and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life on account of me, this person will save it.”

Luke 9:40-41 (LEB)  … they were not able to [cast out the demon].”

So Jesus answered and said, “O unbelieving and perverted generation! How long will I be with you and put up with you? Bring your son here!”

Here is a simple question. Who does Jesus call perverts? Our societies, will use that word to describe particular people; however, since God is our intellectual foundation and Jesus is our salvation, it should be rather important to note who they call “perverts.” To pervert something is to make something curved when it was straight, or to make something that was running efficiently, to now run in a malfunctioned manner.

Jesus in Luke 9 says that famous quote about taking up your cross and following Him. To lose your worldly life, but find a new and better one in Him. Thus, with Jesus in a close context of saying this, and if He was going to use the word “pervert,” then one might suppose He would find a man caught with a hooker, and say, “look, this pervert has not taken up his cross to follow me.” However, that is certainly not the case here in Luke 9. Rather, the Scriptures found it important to highlight Jesus using the word pervert, but in a different context. Again, Jesus is still in near context of saying, “take up your cross and follow Me.” And soon later He points out some “Perverts,” who were not faithfully, taking up their cross. What we learn from Jesus’ use of a pervert is that bearing one’s cross is more than the obvious ethics of, do not murder, and help the poor, (etc.). To carry your cross, is to carry “faith.”

The followers of Jesus were asked to cast out a demon. This takes a level of faith to do this. In fact, dear readers, including you, how many people do you know that if Jesus ask you to cast out a demon, you have full confidence you/they can do it? This is the context that Jesus followers found themselves in. Their faith failed to produce this “goodness in the land of the living.” When it was exposed to Jesus that His personally trained disciples could not perform this basic act of ministry Jesus yells out, “O unbelieving and perverted generation!”

And so, the “perverts” were His very own apostles and other followers. Jesus discovered His disciples were not taking up their cross (putting off their old worldly unbelief and self-weakness), and following Him (putting on the new man who is filled with faith, courage and heavenly power). To carry your cross, is to carry miracle working “faith.” This Kingdom of God, or the new creation of the Christian, is a straight line. This straight line is faith, courage, and power. For a Christian to be weak, unbelieving, and fearful, is to make this straight line curved and bent. It is outright perversion.

Jesus yells out in public that His disciple were Perverts for not having the faith to cast out demons and work miracles. Imagine if that was you on the receiving end of Jesus’ outburst? What if you were being yelled at, in front of other people, by Jesus, that you are a pervert for not having faith to work miracles? Would you still follow Him? Would you be offended? What if you were hoping for Jesus to find an adulteress man to shame for not taking up his cross, when it was you He shamed for not taking up your cross, because you are a pervert who could not work miracles by your faith?

Thank God, the disciples did not leave Jesus. They received His rebuke, and continued to look to Him for help. One day not soon after, power came down from heaven and clothed them, so that even their shadows were more effective in ministry than entire churches today will ever be.