Sunday, November 17, 2013

Fornication & Pre-Marital Sexual Activity. The Bible IS Clear

1 Cor. 5:9-11 ~ 9- I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10-Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11-But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

The TV show, Preachers Of LA has given rise to many conversations among believers. The show has also detailed conversations that many believers have been having for quite some time. One such conversation centers around the relationship and eventual marriage of Deitrick Haddon to his current and new wife, Dominique (Mctyer), with whom, according to THIS ARTICLE, Deitrick had a baby before he was divorced from  his first wife Damita. In fact Deitrick and Dominique had a baby in early 2012. (So his relationship and infidelity with Dominique began as early as 2011) His divorce was said to have been finalized in August/Sept. 2012. Deitrick then went on to marry his current wife, in July 2013, preceded first in what appeared to be a fake wedding ceremony (with a string for a ring) carried out on Preachers Of LA and then in an official ceremony sometime in July 2013. 

It was plain to see that Deitrick, according to his own confession, not only fell off the wagon, (ie: Backslid, as we call it in Christian circles) so far as his salvation was concerned, but was also was an adulterer and a fornicator according to the biblical definition of the words.

Reinterpretation Of The WORD

One scene that caught my attention was when Bishop Ron Gibson was speaking to Derick and Dominique about marriage and living together, or what we often call in the Black community, "Shackin' Up". Interestingly enough Deitrick's claim was that "Shackin' up" wasn't in the bible. In fact Dominique would go on to claim that they (Deitrick and she) were "already married in God's eyes" because they had already had sex.

Now, if this wasn't the most biblically illiterate rambling I had ever heard. Here we had an adulterer claiming that God had honored the union of a relationship that had taken place when one party was not divorced and where it can be readily and rightfully said that Deitrick had committed adultery and fathered a child while still married? That was beyond belief....

I felt this issue to be important enough because Deitrick is not the only one confused on this issue or feeling that the bible and church folk should accommodate their sins. As you are reading this, you may know of some church musician or other individual who is associated with your church who not only has committed fornication but who lives in such as a lifestyle and is seemingly unchallenged in their sins. They feel that their actions or acts are unquestionable or that they simply should be accepted. Although sins of sinners will wax worse, let it be known that God will not and does not endorse any sin and the sin of fornication, whether that is the fornication of a church musician, singer, preacher or teacher will not be treated any less.

Does The Bible Condemn Pre-Marital Sex?

Interestingly enough, the same topic came up on Facebook (as everything eventually will) and some stated that Deitrick may have been right because scripture didn't condemn pre-marital sex, it just condemned prostitution. 

They interpret the "sexually immoral" (Gk:πόρνος, ου, ὁ ) (Pornos) as found in 1 Cor. 5:9 as being a male who prostitutes himself because the word is used in conjunction with one who has "sold themselves" into sexual immorality. They conclude that is the only Greek usage of the word is male prostitution. Therefore, "fornication" is only referring to making one's self a prostitute, not merely the act of having sex outside of marriage. They are wrong and I will point out the lines of argumentation and provide the biblical proof necessary to weed out charlatans such as this and refute their assertions. 

A Right Interpretation

The word that they point to (Gk:πόρνος, ου, ὁ ) (Pornos) which is used about 10 times in the NT and is translated as both "fornicator", 5 times and "whormonger"5 times: (Ephes. 5:5, 1 Tim. 1:10, Heb. 13:4, Rev. 21:8, Rev. 22:15) What them that make the claim that pre-marital sexual activity is not condemned  do is violate the first rule of interpretation...CONTEXT.

Similar to homosexuals advocates who attempt to find endorsement in the bible, they reinvent a context to say that the scripture was referring, in a strict sense, to those who sold their bodies for sex. However the context of 1 Cor. 5, for instance, DOES NOT facilitate that folk selling their bodies for prostitution was a problem. However, the context of the text does indicate that sexual immorality (in this case a man having sex with his mother -in law) was a problem. (Read 1 Cor. 5) This is just one scripture, but in order for them to make this case successfully, they must destroy the complete context of scripture and assert otherwise.

Premarital Sex, aka: Fornication, Is Condemned

The bible is clear on the issue. Let's look at 1 Thess. 4, where the word and the context are overwhelmingly clear:

1 Thess. 4:3-8~ "3-For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: 4-That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; 5-Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: 6-That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. 7-For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness. 8-He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit. 

The word used in v. 3 (Gk: πορνεία, ας, ἡ) (Porneia) from the same word group as "Pronos". This particular word is used 25 times in the NT. It is always interpreted in the NT as "fornication". Same instance in 1 Cor. 7:2 that a man should marry in order to avoid "fornication". This variation of the word DOES NOT yield to anyone who is "sold or selling anything" physically. In other words it is not a reference to prostitution or any other form of sexual merchandising.

In order to better understand the whole concept, Paul stated we were "sold under sin" (1 Cor. 7:14) Paul uses this term to signify relationship to sin as opposed to action of sin. 
There was a specific word for "prostitute" (Gk: πόρνη (porné) This word was used 12 times in the NT. The interpretations of that word are "harlot" and "whore". This word is also used to refer to Rahab in Heb. 11:13 specifically by name. So IF the parts where we see "fornication" is simply referring to the act that we know if as prostitution, there is a specific word that Paul and biblical writers would have used to indicate such actions.

In light of evidence, it then become more easy to understand why the variation of fornication was used 10 times. It was to indicate a relationship to the sin of sexual immorality rather than to specify a sexual immoral act such as prostitution.

One who did or performed the act could more readily and easily be called a "whore" or "harlot". So the use of "fornication" as we view it in scripture is sufficient to justify teaching against the out of wedlock and dishonorable sexual activity of a man and a woman. 

The Teachings Of Jesus

Jesus called sex outside of marriage fornication. Porneia (Gk: πορνεία, ας, ἡ) was the word used in the gospels. (Matthew 15:19. Mark 7:21) Jesus uses a word that does not and in any way indicate selling ones body but has in general been understood to indicate sexual promiscuity or sexual sins. In fact according to Jesus teachings on the subject, this act emanates from the condition of a defiled heart. So this is not merely a weakness of the flesh, or some action that can be separated from the heart's condition. 

A Long As They Were Committed In The Old Testament God Didn't Care, So They Were Right About That

First of all, assertions such as these are totally unfounded within scripture. Of course Adam and Eve, God married himself and even pronounced as much. However, there is a big difference from there to Jewish or ANE (Ancient Near Eastern) practice and cultural setting in which "honor" and "chastity" were values. Their is no OT support or endorsement of a man taking a woman out of the bond of marriage and having sex with her and calling it all good...Such sentiments are not based on solid biblical principles and are rooted in extremism and is not founded in history nor are such conclusions warranted in Jewish ANE culture. 

Sexual Immorality Is "Corruption"

Take it back to the time of Moses on the mountain. God told Moses that the people had "corrupted themselves" (Ex. 32:7, Deut. 9:12). This Hebrew word (שָׁחַת (shachath) means to pervert and defile. The same word was used in Genesis when God said that all flesh had "corrupted themselves" in Genesis 6 when the wickedness of man had become so wicked that God destroyed men and mankind save Noah. This phrase included all aspects of man's behavior and how it was defiled and not subject to God.

The overarching problem in the scene at the Mt. Horeb as idolatry. However that wasn't the only problem. I believe Jewish historian Philo takes it further claiming lasciviousness, reveling and all forms of sexual sins and evils were being committed by Israel. So from the root of idolatry, all forms of sexual immorality flowed. Therefore we see another dimension of sexual immorality. Sexual immorality is not merely an action that one does. It is a form of idolatry or worship. Further, it, false worship and sexual impurity, comes from the heart of an individual. One cannot separate the cause from the effect.

This is what under the OT instructions and commendations of scripture there was a strict and sincere penalty for a woman who was not a virgin when married. Here it is:

Deut. 22:21 ~ Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Folly - disgrace and whore that one had committed. This word is used to indicate fornication.

Now, the atheist claim is that the penalty was too severe for pre-marital sexual relations and was further biased against women. I would agree that there are some culturally relevant concepts and remedies presented in this scripture that are certainly not apropos to modern culture, but the emendation to righteousness and purity is clear and yet remains. Premarital sex was not endorsed among the people of God. It was and has always been a serious issue even if modern culture does not hold it to be so.

I Fornicate But I Am Alright 

Like Deitrick, we now have a generation of people that feel that it is "en vogue" to sleep around or occasionally and have sex with one another outside of marriage. Singers and so called pastors such as LeAndria Johnson have babies out of wedlock without shame and demand to be received by the church under the umbrella of "love" even claiming that she is right while everyone else is wrong:
"But the moment I got pregnant out of wedlock, that was the juicy part and that carried. It's still carrying on. To here different ones say, "She needs to be sat down until she gets this together..." I disagree with all the pastors and bishops that sit their members down for whatever type of behavior they have. Listen, for one, I'm a member of your church, I pay tithing into your church. I sew seed into your ministry. If you're going to silence me, then I feel like you need be silenced as well. If not, you're letting me know you're perfect. I refuse. I'm not the first woman in this industry to be pregnant out of wedlock, I'm not hiding it or condoning. But this is reality. I'm not going to stop because you think I should stop. I don't serve you, I serve God. I'm letting you know that God still blesses and he uses who ever he wants. When people get out of that pointing stage or that judging stage they'll be alright." ~ LeAndria Johnson, Essence Magazine 9/2012
In fact in many cases, men and women, who appear to be married, have nothing but a relationship that involves sex as if they were married. This is a shame and people have lost their identity to such practices and claim that nothing is wrong with their acts.  

However, let's take a look back at what we said of "folly". Interestingly enough the word "Folly" was the same word used to describe the actions of Tamar, Juda's daughter in law, in Genesis 38, when she ONE TIME slept with her father-in-law to maintain her inheritance. In fact v. 38 says that she "played the harlot". Now one could say that she was not a "harlot" by profession or practice, or that she only did this "one time". But that takes nothing away from how God saw her. In short a "harlot" is not only a "harlot" when one continues to be one. This is a defilement that comes from the heart as stated above, one time or not. 


At either rate, to say that God somehow did not view fornication or unmarried and non-committed sexual relations as a corruption especially in light of the Genesis 2:24 plan of TWO becoming ONE flesh is not in accordance with what we know about Jewish ANE culture, and traditions. Sexually immoral sin was always considered unacceptable, disgraceful and shameful in the Jewish culture in which these things were born. Jews were held to a higher standard because of the God with whom they had a relationship.

As SAINTS we are held to a higher standard in dealing and in relationships. We cannot find excuse in the weak and erroneous acts of others. Simply because they (whoever they are) appear to have gotten away or behaved badly does not exempt the true believer from acting right and producing the right fruit within our lives. When we stand before God, we will not be able to be justified based on standards of comparative righteousness. In other words doing "less sin" than someone else does not save, nor does it exempt us from living holy and godly. We will pay the penalty for sin.   

The fact is that we prove what we believe and who we love by our actions. If we deliver the defiled fruit of sexual immorality, by virtue of that we also prove that our hearts have not been or are not purified. In addition, as we have discovered, we also tell God that we worship ourselves more than we worship HIM. That idolatry violates the whole of any service to the Lord.

For those who have committed themselves and are awaiting a God given spouse, keep yourself pure. You will be blessed. It is you that exemplify the true and real blessings of the Lord and I believe that those blessings will abundantly be give to and made available to you. 

Jude 24-25 ~ 24-Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, 25-To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.



  1. The fact is that these folk can't really believe that God is real. That is the danger. The anointing has long left them and their lives. Similar to Sampson they are going off of their gifting and abilities as many of them have been raised in church. However the day is coming and now is when they rise to exercise power and have NONE. They are become weak and powerless as other men and women.

    Now, the preacher knows these things, but as LeAndria suggests is powerless to say anything because of what they have done and have been doing as well. See, the minister in many cases has also been seduced into ungodly actions and terrible sins of a sexual nature. Passions are out of control.

    That battle can only be fought on one's knees and in the presence of a delivering God. Every man/woman advancing in the Spirit and in the anointing has to fight that battle. The battle saying drop to the level of works for them, why can't it work for you? That is sad. The problem is that many of us give up because of what we see modeled around us. We see failure and we only rise to that and it. With CHRIST, we can make it and we should continually come to the fountain of grace to obtain strength and mercy.

    How many folk in the church know of habitual fornicators? Why is nothing being done to stop and address the problem? Folk don't know, addressing the problem just may be what it takes to make church membership grow. It PAYS to do, preach and teach right.

  2. In reference to your (Matthew 15:19. Mark 7:21) comment about Jesus--I noticed that he used plural forms of these words..he says out of a defiled heart arises adulteries, murders..fornications...I've always taken that scripture to mean that there are different types of fornications--which includes everything you could name that dishonors marriage, dishonors the body, or is where 'one abuses oneself with mankind'...I think we are in troubling times--Leandria and Deitrick fit that scripture so well that mentions of the generation who is pure in their own eyes. This is a dangerous slippery slope that they are going down--because just as you mentioned earlier, if they can twist (pervert --which is what Satan specializes in) the scripture to justify fornication; then what about homosexuals--can they also do the same? Where is all of this going? I want to let Deitrick know from experience that there are spiritual consequences to these acts--I have had to spirits cast out of me from not even fornicating but just making out. Not to mention, your children inherit curses because of violation of God's word...I hate that he's leading the saints and young people to question what is clearly wrong..

    1. You are absolutely right. These types of sins are diverse in nature and they are also never ending. Their desire is never fulfilled. Folk don;t realize just how much these things can set one back spiritually. Some folk struggle for years to overcome. These serial fornicators are bound to an extent that they really don't understand.

  3. Supt.Burnett the article is very well written. I agree. But calling people whores is a bit over the top. Remember, we still have to show forth loving kindness even when people are wrong and sin. That is someone's daughter/mother. the word usage should you should change...adulterer(sp) or fonicator.

    1. You know what? THANK YOU for that!!!! Sometimes passions get in the way and must be directed the right way! I think their actiosn speak for what and who they are, they need no further ID from me I suppose....Thanks again!!!!!

  4. thanks supt!!!! i always enjoy your blog. very well written stories. The part that really saddens me is LeAndria. Did you see that video of her "witnessing" to the people and smoking with them. No wonder the world does not take us seriously. The people in the church are just like them. We must be different. I am youth director at my church and i refuse on my watch to dumb down to the world and bring hip hop, and the world in the church. There must be a standard. Thx for this timely article on fornication. Our churches no longer teach it. Just like they stop teachinig on the holy ghost. We must go back and do our first works over again. Be blessed!!!

    1. You're welcome and you are so very right. I think it is about seeking to keep the offering plate full. If we can be as obscure as possible, then those in sin may be tricked into thinking that they are not as bad as the word says they are...That seems to be the thought.

      Why would a pastor allow a sexually immoral person to play music shouting everyone to heaven, while the person playing the music is on their way to hell? Why would a congregation allow a pastor or minister to stand before them in an unrepentant , defiled condition, preaching them to heaven while they allow him to go to hell?

      There some issues on both sides. Those who do this, without repentance, correction and change and those who allow it to be done without accountability...something is wrong.

  5. The problem with biblical interpretation is that there is no universally accepted methodology in interpreting the bible. And because of this, any interpretation is as valid as the next. In algebra, for instance, there are universal rules to it, so that no matter who I am, where I am, or when I am, if I'm doing an algebra equation, and if you're doing the same algebra equation and assuming we both do it correctly, we will always get the same answer, and there is only ONE correct answer. Since there is no universal method in which to interpret the bible, then one interpretation is as valid as the next. For instance, Muslims use certain passages in the bible to point to the coming of the prophet Muhammad and to say that he is supposedly the seal of the prophets. However, if you read the same bible verse, you will disagree with them and emphatically tell them they are wrong and they will say you are wrong and they are right and we still have no method to determine who is right and who is wrong. It all really boils down to a matter of opinion. A sample of this is St. John 15:26. Muslim apologists have whole commentaries and books explaining why that verse, and similar verses prophesy the coming of Muhammad, needless to say, I'm sure you would wholeheartedly disagree with their interpretation and you would have a different interpretation, but that is the point.

    This also presents problems in other ways. I see you used 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 as proof that pre-marital sex is wrong. If you read it, it seems like a very literal, straighforward statement. If you do x you can expect y. However in St. Mark 11:24, Jesus, who if you're a fundamentalist christian, believe was God in person, makes very specific and literal statements about how prayer is supposed to work. Ask, have faith, and it shall be yours. In the book of James, he says if there are any sick among you, bring them to the elders of the church and the prayer of faith shall raise them up.

    All 3 of the above bible verses are literal statements, but only 2 are falsifiable. A falsifiable statement is a statement which can be observed and/or proven to be either true or false. 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 is unfalsifiable because there is no way at all to check and see if an adulterer made it into heaven. There's no way to observe it and there's no way to prove it one way or the other. You just made a statement thats impossible to test. So if you're a biblical inerrantist, then you can interpret 1 Corinthian 5:9-11 as it is written on the page and simultaneously keep your doctrine of biblical inerrancy as being true, because in that case, there is no way to prove you right or wrong. If you don't see where I'm going with this I'm getting there.

    Now St. Mark 11:24 and St James 5:14 are both falsifiable statements that we can observe to be either true or false in reality. In both cases, they are observed to be clearly false. People pray all the time and nothing happens and sick people who are prayed for by church elders consistently do not get better and some of them even die. Growing up in COGIC, I've seen many sick people prayed for, and then I've seen those same people die from the same illness that so many prayed for. As an aside, I remember as a child when the 1st Bishop Patterson got sick with cancer and he refused to take treatment. He even said prayer is better than medicine or something to that effect. And saints around the world was praying for his healing and im sure alot of them believed St James 5:14. However, he still died from the same illness so many church elders were praying he'd recover from. And its a very far fetched assumption to say that out of the thousands of saints praying for Bishop Patterson, that not ONE had enough faith (and how do we know what is "enough faith", because there is no method to quantify it).

    1. This presents a problem for the biblical inerrantists, because, after all, the bible is always right about everything. However, we see in reality that St Mark 11:24 and St James 5:14 constantly fail to live up to their promises. It says do x and you'll get y, yet we see that when we do x, y constantly fails to show up. So, the biblical inerrantist resorts to accusing the reader of "taking it out of context". So it's not the passage thats wrong, it's the readers fault for not interpreting it right. And that might be a valid statement, except for the fact that the only verses taken "out of context" are verses that can be demonstrated in reality to be true or false, and that are consistently shown to be false. That and the fact that it is ALWAYS the reader who has it wrong, no matter who is reading it.

      So, without a universal method to determine what is taken out of context and what is not, you don't get to just pick and choose at your own convenience which verses are taken in context and out of context. If 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 is a literal,straightforward statement and St James 5:14 is a literal, straightforward statement then you have to accept both as they are written on the page in black and white. You can't say 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, which happens to be unfalsifiable, should be taken the way it is written on the page, but when it comes to James 5:14 or Mark 11:24, which are falsifiable and consistently fail in reality, say its being taken out of context.

      If you do that, then the next person has every right to tell you that you're taking 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 "out of context" and that it really means something else. And you cant say he doesn't, without resorting to special pleading ( which is a logical fallacy.

    2. Your first sentence is something that tells me that there is a problem rooted in ultra literalism. You said "The problem with biblical interpretation is that there is no universally accepted methodology in interpreting the bible." Well, there is no "universally accepted" method of science either. There are some generally agreed upon principles by which science is done, but "universal acceptance" of anything does not invalidate it.

      For example...there are over 14 methods of determining what a species is. Darwin wrote a book about "species" over 150 years ago and there is no "universally accepted" method on how to determine what a species is. Now does that invalidate speciation or science in general?

      Homosexuality is agreed upon to not be a psychological illness although it once was fully agreed upon by the medical community to be a psychological illness. Today, medical organization agree that it is not an illness by "consensus", not by evidence or any other scientific method or process. Is the fact that there is yet disagreement even over the consensus among scientific groups enough to invalidate all scientific consensuses and agreements?

      Of course not. There does not need to be a "universal consensus" on anything for that (anything) to be true. There is no "universal consensus" of agreement on many interpretations and the durability of the Constitution of the United States. See Barak's interpretation is vastly different than Allen Keys. Now does the confusion over hos the document should be interpreted invalidate the document and or the rule of law which the document regulates?

      So if that is the basline of your disagreement, the rest of your argument crumbles. One need not "universally agree" on interpretation of anything, before what a document says is real, binding and in effect.

    3. You also say that any interpretation is as valid as the next...OK, if that is true, then the interpretation of "love thy neighbor" being carried out by slashing your neighbors throat is a valid act, based upon your "equal interpretation" method. Is that true?

      You KNOW, without being taught that "love thy neighbor" means to do just that. That getting a gun trying to kill your neighbor is wrong, IF you are following this scripture. How do you know this? By what means do you deduce that killing your neighbor is not loving your neighbor? Is it by mere method of "your interpretation"? If that is the case, then your interpretation to do good is equally as valid and right as someone's interpretation to do evil and kill.

      That is ridiculous and you know as much. So a second part of your argument that "any interpretation is as valid as the next" Is also INCORRECT. Some interpretations, as I have PROVEN are better and more accurate than others.

    4. Some things are indeed open to interpretation. And there are different branches of science, however, the scientific method is a universally accepted proposition and there are things that are exact sciences. Example, they want to send a space ship to the moon. That doesn't happen by magic, they have to make specific calculations and those calculations are based on rules that are universal, unchangeable, and have been tested and observed to be true. Keep in mind, science is not dogmatic, it is subject to change as new evidence comes along and no one is claiming that science is inerrant or infallible. In fact, it is the fact that science is indeed fallible which allows progress to be made. Imagine what science doesn't know know what it will know in 3013 AD.

      My point was, if there is no equation for determining the bible, then no one can say for certain what it means. At best all we have is educated guesses and at worst we have people just making stuff up. And unfortunately because of that, no one can say for sure who is right or who is wrong. I mean, even christians don't agree with baptism in Jesus name or baptism in the name of the Trinity. Some christians don't believe in the trinity and they all read the same bible which says the same thing. Yet they get opposite conclusions. How is an outsider supposed to know who's right and wrong? If we had an exact science of interpreting the bible, everybody would always come to the correct conclusion.

      And because of this, no one has any basis to say the next person is in error when interpreting the bible, besides your opinion on what the bible teaches. If you interpret the bible literally, as the denomination I grew up in does, you have to be consistent and you can't pick and choose when something in the bible conflicts with your view. There are denominations who ordain homosexuals and use chapter and verse of the bible. Another denomination will look at them and say they're wrong and they'll claim they're right.

      Now if I am an objective observer, I'll hear out both sides. Both sides will be using the bible to justify their positions. Let's say both sides make excellent arguments for their position using scripture. My next question will be how did they come to their conclusion, in other words, show your work. Once they do that, if they do that, I'll ask how do you know that your method is the correct way of interpreting scripture? If you state that the bible plainly condemns homosexuality (or any other sin), I'll then ask you if you take the bible literally. If you say no, I'll ask then why are you taking this passage literally,and see if you can give a logically valid answer or if you have to resort to logical fallacies to defend your response. If you say yes you take the bible literally and believe it's inerrant, then I'll have to ask if you take everything else literally as well. Again, you'll have to be logically consistent with your answer or you'll just end up resorting to logical fallacies to support your argument.

      That is the whole problem, since there is no exact science of biblical interpretation, which there has to be to determine who's right and who's wrong, an objective observer can't know who to believe. And unless the person in question shares your interpretation of the bible then you'll get nowhere. And that goes for other religions who claim there word is the word of God. Imagine a muslim trying to convert you using the Quran? Well, you don't agree that the Quran is the word of God, so unless the muslim can somehow demonstrate to you that it is, that conversation will go nowhere.

    5. There are still yet false assumption that you are making. I had typed out a clear discourse and something went wrong with Blogger. I will try to restate.

      Many of the conclusion of science are not empirical. Before I even go there, let's back can't even empirically prove that either one of us have a "mind". Now if you confuse the brain with mind you are lost in that statement. However, given that mind exists and is yet unproveable and not subject to falsifiability, only serves to prove your premise is wrong.

      In fact I'll show you how wrong it is. LOGIC cannot be proven. It can only be assumed. though it undergirds all discourse, empirical science and even math, it cannot be proven. It is not subject to falsifiability. Are we to assume that it is false, or open to interpretation because it can't be proven? If that is the case, then we can be sure of nothing, not even what can be empirically verified, is that not right?

      So your whole thesis or premise is rooted in a false priori assumption. It is a presupposition that you have that causes you to conclude that there must be 1- a "universal consensus" before truth is established. I have proven that to be false and a false assumption. and 2- that truth is only true because it can be empirically verified. That in this statement I have also proven to be false.

      What you have is unwarranted assumptions upon which you have built your assertions.

    6. Now, before I go further into your argument against the scipture, I want to deal with what you think is direct evidence that refutes the scripture. You think that not receiving a healing or a miracle when prayed according to the proscription of scripture seals the deal that the scripture is either wrong or ineffective.

      Now, the fact is that all men will die of something. The death rate is still nearly 100% for all individuals healthy or sick. So ultimately, we will die.

      More importantly, God has a will for EACH human on earth and everything we pray, we pray according to his WILL. 1 John 5:14-And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: So any and all prayer we pray is answered in accordance with that. Miracles are in accordance with his WILL as well. He has a MIND and his mind knows what is the best path or course of action for each of us. "All things work together for the good... (Rom. 8:28) Everything that God does works together for our good when it is working in conjunction with everything else he is doing.

      The problem is that we pray in part and we only know in part. We don't know what his will is unless we seek him. That leads us to TRUST him because he has not otherwise failed or proven himself to be untrustworthy. I can say this because I have SEEN and EXPERIENCED miracles in response to believing prayer. Millions of others have the same experience, to varying degrees. So what are you to do with OUR testimony or collective experiences? Simply deny them and shrug them off? Is that even scientific or empirical? (since that is the only premise that you are trying to convince me that is valid)

      So, as I see it, that argument also has nothing to do with the facts or truth of scripture. Scripture is subject to the law of witness, as I have stated and there are plenty of both living and non-living witness to attest to it. So far as Bishop GE. Believe me, he is allright! Don't worry about the end of him as much as what he did for the other 60 plus years of life and living. If you place as much confidence in what he did while he was living as you have placed in how he died, you will realize he lived many more days than he died. he only died ONE day. he lived and served the Lord may day and they were abundant, vibrant, full of life and praise to HIM!

    7. Now here is another area of convoluted and confused statements: And unfortunately because of that, no one can say for sure who is right or who is wrong. I mean, even christians don't agree with baptism in Jesus name or baptism in the name of the Trinity. Some christians don't believe in the trinity and they all read the same bible which says the same thing. Yet they get opposite conclusions. How is an outsider supposed to know who's right and wrong? If we had an exact science of interpreting the bible, everybody would always come to the correct conclusion.

      What you have confused and convoluted together is called Orthodoxy with Orthopraxy. Orthodoxy is Christian belief. Orthopraxy is Christian practice. The two are not the same. It is possible for 2 Christians to baptize by 2 different methods. That is Orthopraxy. That does not make one right and the other wrong.

      Orthodoxy however, is the line of demarcation. Out of all the denominations delineated as Christian, it is simple to find out who are Christians based on their conformity to Orthodoxy. They mind the life, death burial and bodily resurrection of Jesus. They ALL agree that HE preformed miracles. That HE was God, that HE was born of a virgin, that HE took our sins upon himself with a sacrificial death of atonement on the cross, that HE rose from the grave and will return again to receive us unto himself and that HE will bring judgement in an ultimate sense.

      All around the world CHRISTIAN Churches agree on these things. even if we practice various methods, we yet agree.

      Now what makes us one. Practice or belief?

      The point is that we don't all have to practice the same thing for our faith and belief to be real or effective or true. How one carries out their faith may differ, but that variation is not the litmus test by which a person is saved.

      Now, a person calling on beelzebub is not saved, no matter how good they live. Why? because beelzebub is a devil and faith in him is devilish. So I think your point was that, because Christians can't agree in practice or orthopraxy, that the bible is wrong...I don't think that to be true. As I have proven, may folk do things by their faith and according to their understanding, but the baseline tenet is the same no matter what.

      There is no Christian that says that a sinner yet practicing their sins is saved (unless one is some type of hyper-calvinist) and even if they did that would be in spite of what the bible teaches and not because of what the bible teaches. So I don't see the effectiveness of your argument here.

    8. I knew you'd bring up the will of God scripture. At best, it's just a contradiction of other scriptures. If I'm a billionaire and I tell you that you can have anything you want, up to half my fortune, if you ask me and believe I'll give it to you and then I tell you that I'll only give you what I want you to have. Only 1 of those statements can be true, it doesn't matter if it so happens that what you want I also want you to have. Those statements are mutually exclusive. Therefore, 1 John 5:14 contradicts St Mark 11:24. If you say one confirms the other, then you'll have to explain why without resorting to logical fallacies. If you say it's in the bible, therefore, it must be true, then ok, I can't argue with you, however, that is special pleading.

      As far as personal experiences, those are anecdotal evidence and if thats enough for you, well that's ok. However, as to this date, there has not been one confirmed, unambiguous miracle that can be confirmed that doesn't have a natural explanation.

      P.S. I meant JO Patterson

    9. The problem is that God, being a Spirit, HAS given us ALL THINGS pertaining to life and godliness including the assurance of eternal life which begins NOW. So unlike the billionaires material fortune, which cannot be accessed until a certain point or time of delivery, Christians, or SAINTS have received the "earnest of our expectation" now...the PROOF of an empty tomb. This is the evidence of resurrection or eternity.

      So far as miracles...there are PLENTY...My goodness Darrell Hines was raised from the DEAD. I know of others who have experienced this myself. In the 106Th Annual Holy Convocation a young track athlete who had intestinal cancer, was HEALED of it. These things are medically verifiable. Hines has news stories, film and all kinds of third party evidences. Those are just 2....

      I have experienced miracles that is 3...I have folk in my church that have experienced miracles...that is quite a few more...those are not "anecdotes" ...That is an INSULT to character and human experience. The world is greater than your experience. It is arrogance to think that all that is on the outside of your understanding are anecdotes.

      That is the result of materialism...self exaltation...Man become his own God and nothing is greater than he.

    10. First of all, Darrell Hines made a claim of being raised from the dead. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever of anyone being resurrected from death. I mean, if something like that happened, it wouldn't occur in a vacuum. A genuine, bonafide resurrection would be worldwide news, scientists around the world would be studying this, there'd be multiple scientific, peer reviewed papers written on this and it would be very well documented. What probably happened was his heart stopped and with medical treatment, they got him going again. Clinical death can be reversed and it happens in hospitals all of the time. It is biological death that can't be reversed. I just googled Darrell Hines raised from the dead, and I found nothing except his website. If it were true, I'd at least be able to find something on the internet about it. As I said, that would be extremely well documented. And Darrell Hines would be immortally famous as the 1st and only confirmed and verified resurrection, ever, in human history. Someone being resurrected from the dead is up there with discovering a city hidden in a dark corner of the planet Mars. And cancer is known to resolve itself naturally in rare cases. Am I saying that there was nothing supernatural involved? No. What I am saying is that when there is a natural explanation to be had, it's probably the natural explanation which is the answer until it can be proven otherwise.

      I stand by my statement of calling personal experiences anecdotal evidence, because thats what it is. If you or any of your congregation claims you had something supernatural happen to you, i reserve skepticism until you can produce evidence. 1st, we have to determine if anything supernatural exist, and then we can work from there.


    12. First, Darrell Hines HAS proof. It's not an anecdote and that term is still offensive and unwarranted only indicates folk who insult others and who are pious in their own minds. Other folks experiences are VALID. not mere anecdotes. As stated Hines has medical record, and was tracked by the news. So your information is INCORRECT.

      In addition, many people are resuscitated who were dead and come back with new and fully intact memories. This is called near Death Experiences or NDE's. Both Hine's experience (and the experience of many others) MEET your criteria whether world news or not: there'd be multiple scientific, peer reviewed papers written on this and it would be very well documented." I don;t know how many "peer reviewed" papers there are but I have personally seen the evidence. Not only his testimony, but the evidence. He was DEAD 45 minutes and is now alive...So just because your last name is Ostrich, doesn't men the rest of us have to live with our heads stuck in the sand. I see "De Nile" is more than just a river in Egypt. then as "if" the internet is the sole repository of are out there!!!!

      The best proof of the existence of the supernatural is the natural. The natural CANNOT produce itself. Natural laws simply don't start themselves. The best cause of the existence of natural laws is a supernatural cause. That is pretty basic and NEVER satisfactorily addressed by any materialist, whether scientist or not and I have seen mostly all the modern scientific meandering around this issue.

      In addition, you offer David Hume's and Carl Sagan's old refuted "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"...First, this isn't even a real argument or retort. What is "extraordinary evidence"? All this is is an effort to SOUND smart. It is silly, as no matter what evidence is present, the goal is always pushed back a step to say , "that's not extraordinary" In other words this is a SILLY retort unless the skeptic is willing to define, evidence then we see how silly they are...Some say, "I will only accept video evidence" when most of history is not videotaped. I had one say that to me...that is silly....

      in addition, the materialists are chocked and hogtied by their own silliness...There is NO EVIDENCE for abiogensis...If the materialist state that all living things came from non living matter which is the claim, where is the EXTRAORDINARY evidence to support that claim? IT DOES NOT EXIST.

      So In this, I have demonstrated that the supernatural exists by means of causation. Natural laws don't and can't possibly cause themselves. They are not self causing agents.

      Secondly, I have demonstrated that folk can come back from death, with EVIDENCE, which is available from him, of Darrell Hine's 45 minute MEDICALLY VERIFIED death who's records I HAVE personally seen. and the evidence of NDE's which are only named "near death" because medicine doesn't understand what happened to folk who are clinically dead and have come back to life and refuses to admit that they were not "near death" but were actually DEAD.

      Third, I have demonstrated that the extraordinary claim criteria, is insufficient and not a real or valid objection and if true invalidates nearly all of material science as we know it, especially the origin of life thesis under any materialistic construct.

      I'll tell you what, you are entitled to believe what you want and assert what you will, but when you find or come across a GOOD argument that affirms materialism...PLEASE let me know!.

    13. Also, here is more on that "Extraordinary "DEBUNKED" claims" garbage:

    14. Ok, where is the proof he has? And does his proof meet the standard of evidence that is required for such a claim? The more incredible the claim, the more incredible the evidence needs to be! If I told you I went out to dinner last night, you probably would believe me, assuming there was no evidence to the contrary or you didn't know me to be a pathological liar. That's a common claim and people go out to dinner all the time. Right now, at this moment, we can go to a resturaunt and observe people eating dinner.

      If I told you I had dinner last night with President Obama, unless I were an important politician or someone of "importance", you'd probably be skeptical of my claim and would need some sort of evidence to verify my claim, like say photographs of me with President Obama or maybe a news article from a reputable newspaper or magazine.

      Now, if I tell you I had dinner at a Fridays resturaunt on the planet Jupiter, you will not believe me at all. Why won't you believe me, I made a claim, it must be true? Right? What if I were a bishop? Does that settle it? I would say that you would not believe me. Why not? Because what I am claiming goes against everything you know to be true about reality. The standard of evidence that I would have to produce to convince you to believe my claim of having had dinner at a Friday resturaunt located on the planet Jupiter last night, would need to be in proportion to my claim. So until I can provide suitable evidence for my claim, the default position for any reasonable person is to disbelieve my claim. I have the burden of proof, you don't have the burden of proof to debunk my claim, since I'm the one making the claim.

      With that being said, until I know all of the specifics of the situation in which Bishop Hines is claiming to be raised from the dead, and until he produces sufficient evidence that it actually happened in the way he is portraying, I will disbelieve the claim because it goes against everything I know to be true about reality. That is an incredible claim which requires incredible evidence, and without being able to thoroughly investigate it to come to a conclusion, I can't believe something like that any more than I would if he told he that he flew through the air like Superman or that he bench pressed a 747 jet plane.

      You say the natural cannot produce itself, but why can't it? Anything supernatural has to be demonstrated to exist. I'm not making the claim that the supernatural exist, so the burden of proof is not on me to prove it doesn't exist, it's on the person making the claim. So before we can attribute the cause of anything to the supernatural, we have to 1st demonstrate that there is a such thing. Otherwise, it's a nonanswer. It's like saying something was done by magic or Batman did it. Before I can claim Batman does anything, I have to 1st demonstrate his existence. I don't get to say "Well, I don't know how it happened, Batman must've done it", without showing that there even is a such thing as Batman. So, once I show that Batman exist, then we can determine what Batman does.

    15. How have you demonstrated people can come back from the dead, simply repeating someone who claims to have came back from the dead and claiming you saw records of it, isn't demonstrating that someone came back from the dead. That doesn't even begin to meet the standard of evidence that is required to prove someone can come back from the dead.

      As far as abiogenisis goes, I don't know much about it, but I will say this: debunking abiogenisis or evolution does not therefore prove the creation story as told in the bible. If that's what you're trying to do, you're committing 2 logical fallacies. 1. Argument from ignorance and 2. False dilemma fallacy. The argument from ignorance is just inserting a random answer because you don't know the answer to a question. A false dilemma is eliminating all other possible explanations, to make your explanation the correct one. If evolution was proven wrong tomorrow, it still doesn't mean that the creation story in the bible is correct. The Quran's creation story may be correct, the Hindu creation story could be correct, there could be another scientific explanation that we don't know about yet, Superman could've created the universe in 1995 from the fortress of solitude.

      So it's not enough to debunk evolution, it's not even enough to say the universe was intelligently designed. You have to demonstrate that your creation claim, the biblical creation claim, is the correct one. Otherwise, you're just making claims and I can make a claim that Superman created the universe from the fortress of solitude using a universe making machine. I would have to demonstrate that claim to be true, I don't get to say "Well, evolution is wrong, therefore Superman".

      Conversely, if the biblical creation story was thoroughly debunked tomorrow, that doesn't prove evolution right. Evolution still has to be demonstrated.

    16. I read that site and what it seems like they're trying to say is that extraordinary claims don't require extraordinary evidence, by accusing people who say that of moving the goalpost, etc. Allow me to just say this, an extraordinary claim is a claim made outside of what we (most reasonable people) know to be true outside of our everyday reality. The person who wrote that page probably won't believe Muhammad flew to Mecca on a magic unicorn and I'm sure, as a reasonable person, they would need a minimum amount of evidence in order to believe it.

      They're just playing word games and acting like we can't know what an extraordinary claim is in comparison to an ordinary claim. Well, maybe they can't, but the rest of us can. Personally, I'm not moving the goalpost. If Bishop Hines came back to life he came back to life, but I still need to see evidence of it before i believe it and the evidence has to meet a minimum standard in proportion to the claim. And frankly, people lie all of the time, people embellish details all of the time, people commit frauds and hoaxes all of the time, those are much more plausible explanations than him coming back from death, which is the most far fetched explanation there is.

    17. "Ok, where is the proof he has? And does his proof meet the standard of evidence that is required for such a claim?"

      Call his office. It is open daily and I am sure he will be glad to entertain you and your questions, meet with you and show you the PROOF. In addition, There is no "standard of evidence" to make any claim. That is just as imaginary as the myth of materialism and an imaginary requirement. Either it happened or it didn't. Well, it happened. Now what?

      And there is no "default position" of skepticism either. That GARBAGE is straight out of new atheist camps from people like John Loftus and such the like. That is the most CRAP ever. It is not a "default" for us to not believe what is being said or told us. Like we are some type of preprogrammed computer without freewill...Well I forgot, under materialistic constructs, we DON'T have any free will. It is an illusion. You don;t believe because you are not supposed to believe. Because it is not in your gene pool to believe...GARBAGE!!!!!!! More speculation and MYTH. In fact what that is a prepackaged excuse that eases the conscience. It's a trick to tell people, "If I doubt, God made me this way"....Every sinner wants that so that they can excuse their love of SIN. That's all that is.

      In truth, it is the opposite. We are believing people until we have reason not to believe. A baby will believe a person even though they may challenge what is being told by acting to the contrary but they need no proof to believe. Look at some children. Tell them not to touch a stove. Not every one needs to touch it to believe that it is hot. Some do. If non-belief was default, then instructions and discipline should not exist. There is no reason to believe any instructions. That is the danger of believing your type of MYTH. It only leads to self destruction and subjective truth.

      Funny thing is that even atheists like Michael Shermer are willing to adjust their position of skepticism if they feel they are in need enough.

      He would believe in miracles "if" he felt he needed on bad enough...Totally SELF SERVING! Rank and radical skepticism is simply not normal and or reasonable.

      Then to try to tell others that their experience is invalid is arrogant and silly at best. You know NOTHING but the thoughts in your head and they are not superior to anyone else's experience. Joshua Mantz DIED as documented by CNN and in OFFICIAL US MILITARY RECORDS! There was no religious reason or presupposition. This man awoke with IN TACT and DETAILED memories which is also an medical impossibility. So you know little about the subject of miracles and returning from death to life. How can you make a whole case so arrogantly and confidently off of the little info that you have and that little is full of flaws?? That is irrational. Here is the article and the VIDEO of this man telling his own indisputable story:

      I could tell you don't know much but the real proof of that is that is that you don't know about abiogenesis. Then what you are trying to pull over me and the audience here? You can't possibly be serious. Because if you don't know how life came from material matter, as there is is no way to bring life from material matter without a SUPERNATURAL cause, then you are the Ostrich I mentioned.

      Further, rocks simply don't develop morals. Show me an evil tree or rock and we can talk, until then you need to STUDY what you think you believe...It is nothing more than a SUPERSTITION:

    18. As the article states, and I TOTALLY agree, evidentialists simply move the goalposts for what it takes to satisfy your doubts. This is called scientism. No matter what you will believe that it is simply a "scientific mystery" and that you will know as further science is discovered. That is DISINGENUOUS and not real. The interesting thing is that at one time people believed that the earth was flat, no so much as because the bible said it. Because the bible DID NOT say that. It was through and by scientific OBSERVATION that the conclusion was formed.

      That is just one issue with materialism. There is more to evidence than what can be viewed and or determined through scientific means because what can be observed can be wrong.

      So what you have to say should be said in another forum. Who goes to a forum on "fornication" and argues for materialism???

    19. There is no default position of skepticism? I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I am supposed to believe wild claims just because someone says the and claims they are true. I mean, if Bishop Hines said he flys around like Superman, I ought to just shut up and believe that too. I should just believe anything anyone tells me! Yep, that's what I'll do from now on!

      We use standards of evidence everyday, I worked as a cop and securing evidence is my job. The court system operates off of standard of evidence, so does scientific investigation. A standard of evidence has to be met before someone is declared guilty or not guilty. If that standard of evidence cannot be met, they are presumed not guilty! As a cop, I need at least probable cause to make an arrest, a standard of evidence that says the person in question at least probably committed a crime!

      The only reason why you want to believe Bishop Hines claims is because you WANT them to be true. You're emotionally invested in them being true, so you special plead for them. I guarantee that if he was attributing his so-called resurrection to Allah, Vishnu, Thor or some other god, you'd be just as skeptical as I am. If the circumstances were exactly the same, except he says Thor raised him from the dead, you would disbelieve by default until he was able to produce solid evidence to match his claim of being raised from the dead. If he showed you "medical papers", since the claim is far fetched, the most rational thought would be the papers are phony until he could prove the papers to be genuine. You would want to interview witnesses in detail, you would want to determine the credibility of those witnesses, you would want to see camera footage. You would want to interview paramedics who were on the scene. You would want to know what medical procedures they used. You would want to find out was he clinically dead, meaning did his vitals just stop, or was he indeed biologically dead, meaning permenantley deceased. You would want to interview doctors to find out their expert opinion on whether it would've been possible to resuscitate someone in his condition using medical means or could only an act of God do it. You would want to find out if he was declared dead and how they knew he was dead.

      You would INVESTIGATE!!!!! You wouldn't just accept his claim of "Thor raised me from the dead" and you know you wouldn't. You would require a minimum standard of evidence before you accept that explanation. Also, if he claimed Thor resurrected him, you would wonder, if this is a genuine resurrection, why isn't this attracting the attention of doctors and scientists from around the world? Why don't they think enough of his claim to at least ask him some questions? You would say "Hmmm, this sure is odd that no one is paying this any attention, after all, it isn't everyday that someone comes back from the dead!" You would say "A confirmed and bonafide resurrection is of historical and scientific importance, why isn't anyone writing anything down about this?"

      But the reason you aren't asking those questions is because he is attributing that claim to your God and you need it to be true. If it were to another god, or if he claims he spontaneously resurrected, you wouldn't just accept the claim. That, my friend, is the logical fallacy known as special pleading. You're making a special case exemption for your situation without having a logically valid reason.

    20. You said: "There is no default position of skepticism? I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I am supposed to believe wild claims just because someone says the and claims they are true."

      I have never been to the moon. Others have. They show film but that could be of anyplace. Hollywood is Hollywood. Why should I believe that man has traveled to the moon? Your rationale is NOT healthy and it is not reasonable. I could be a skeptic about moon travel. U have never spoken to an astronaut nor have I ever interviewed a NASA employee. Why should I believe ANY of what is in text books or the paper...Do you see how SILLY I sound?

      At some point, one is just SILLY to argue for PROOF for everything when there is overwhelming and abundant testimony for and about it.When the first car was created, I am sure it was a mystery to many. Do you think folk who had never owned a car before said, "I won;t believe it until I ride in and see it myself"? That would be DUMB!!!! Folk accepted what was said, as fanciful as it was at the time, and when they had money and opportunity to obtain one, they got one and rode in it.

      There is more to analyzing truth than scientific method. Everything cannot be perceived scientifically or through the senses. As I stated much earlier, noone can prove mind. Noone can prove logic. Neither is empirically verifiable.

      The CLAIM that Jesus rose from the dead is not a problem if he is God as he stated. He has DEMONSTRATED that he is God through his acts which are preserved better than any other historical record of nearly anything in antiquity. The evidence surrounding his acts and actions including dates, times, places locations are all found to be clandestine and specific to the time stated. They are unique. The word itself has little to no redaction and form criticism has been found to have NO TREAD against scriptures. Archaeology verifies statements found within the testimony of scriptures and if that was not enough, UNLIKE the book of Mormon, or the Quran (since you bring those up) the Bible was written over 2500 years by no less than 40 different authors many of who did not know one another, in a congruent theme and message. This becomes an important algorithm in determining truth. It is not witnessed nor is it instituted by one person and the stories contained within it are not exclusive to it. There are historical records found in other societies which run tangent to the bible narrative as an incidental verification of certain facts.

      To DENY these things is to simply resign one's self to live in ignorance.

      neither Thor nor Vishnu make a promise to do anything for me or us. No other claimed deity commits themselves to be there for us in any way. Why would we attribute acts to them that they did not claim to commit? Again that is IRRATIONAL. I write about that here as I discuss CAT DIED:

      So NO, I would not have to "investigate" any claim simply because someone said something. You are so busy looking for logical fallacies that you have assumed the MOST illogical opposition...that is called the logical fallacy of ignorance and denial.

    21. Ok, the bible makes alot of claims, many of which there is no evidence for and many of which are just wrong. Saying that something happened in the bible, is not proof of anything. As for your moon analogy, there is abundant evidence for man going to the moon. You can ignore the evidence if you want, but guess what??? The evidence that man has been to the moon matches the claim!!! It rises to meet the standard!

      There has not been ONE, NOT ONE CONFIRMED, VERIFIED RESURRECTION OF ANYONE RETURNING FROM A STATE OF PERMENANT DEATH!!!! No, NOT ONE!!! If there has been give me where I can go read about it so I can judge it for myself. If it can't be perceived scientific or through the senses, I won't believe it until someone produces evidence that there is something there to believe. I won't believe in the invisible dragon that lives in your closet, just like I won't believe in someone being raised from the dead. Not without the appropiate evidence. No reasonable person would believe any such thing without evidence.

      I don't know how you are defining a mind, if you mean thoughts, they are products of bio-chemical processes that go on in our brain. Purely physical, there's nothing magic or spooky about it. And logic can be demonstrated. That's how we can do exact sciences like mathematics, physics, geology, cosmology. All are based in logic, which can be demonstrated, tested, and confirmed! How the bible was put together is another story for another time.

      All your claims are based purely on faith, there's no evidence to back it up. There is none to back up Bishop Hines claim of raising from the dead, there is none for the existence of anything supernatural! As for cars, well, I can actually go and see a car, I can easily verify it's existence. I never seen a germ before, but there's abundant evidence that they exist, and there affects can be witnessed and demonstrated.

      Your car analogy fails, because even if I never saw a car before, I can easily verify it's existence. And even if I disbelieved the existence of cars, whoever is making the claim to me would have no problem demonstrating the existence of a car. I got my first Ipod in 2003. Before then, I had no idea what an Ipod was. But if it was described to me, even though I never seen it, I would know that based on what I know about reality, it is very probable that Ipod's indeed exist, even though I had never seen one before. And, if I wanted to, I could easily go to any electronics store and verify the existence of Ipods. If I want to, I can find out how Ipod's work. So you can't reasonably compare technology which I never seen before, but have every reason to believe exist to someone being risen from the dead, which I have every reason to believe is impossible until shown otherwise.

      There is nothing illogical about demanding evidence for fantastic claims. I'll go so far as to say that you do it too.

    22. The reason FM said that he didn't like the article was that because his materialistic handlers haven't told him the truth about empiricism and scientism. The article said this about 3 valid reasons that the "evidence" requirement often fails:

      "a) It is possible for something to exist without leaving behind collectable evidence as a souvenir to us. For example, planes, radio waves, electromagnetism, and light move around without leaving “hard evidence” yet they exist. Therefore, extraordinary phenomena can exist without leaving behind extraordinary evidence.
      b) It is possible for something to exist yet the evidence for it hasn't been found or understood yet, which is the case for almost every discovery in history from fire and wheels to gunpowder and gravity, to planets, atoms and electromagnetism.
      c) It is possible that the evidence is already there but that it's subject to interpretation, making it controversial. This is true for instance, of the alleged mysterious implants found by doctors and surgeons in alleged alien abductees. So even when something leaves a trail, residue or mark, they are subject to interpretation anyway.

      This also leads us into knowing why the goalpost moves. It must move because a materialist is trying to analyze a full world using half information. Just too much for me....LOL!!!!

    23. Keep in mind, I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong about the existence of the supernatural, about Bishop Hines supposed claim of resurrection, as long as the evidence is adequate to show I'm wrong. Keep in mind, like any rational person, for supernatural claims I have HIGH standards of evidence and I will scrutinize it very hard, due to the nature of the claim. Just like I would take your word for it that you went to a resturaunt last night, I'm also going to scrutinize you very hard if you say you went to a resturaunt on the planet Jupiter last night or was raised from the dead. And since i'm not a baby, but an adult, I'm not going to just believe whatever wild claim someone tells me.


      LOL...what is a "state of permanent death"???LOL-LOL-LOL!!!!!! DEATH is permanent until it is interrupted!!!! My goodness....FOTFL!!!!! JESUS interrupted death my friend. Plain and simple. Just like I never been to the moon and believe because of the preponderance of the evidence and my own personal experience which cannot be denied, declined or overturned even by the most ignorantly arrogant, That can't be overturned either.

      You DO however believe that living and biological matter arises from non-living matter and then goes on to produce complex and intact systems which even at some point demands empirical "proof" for the existence of all things including itself. You also believe that the information necessary to begin this process is just there and find its way into cells, once they are created, to tell other cells how to arrange themselves. the information necessary for all this just appears over billions and billions of years. That's what YOU believe isn't it? Correct me if I am wrong.

      OK...if you agree with that it looks like you've passed all degree of rational....If rocks can create life and morality in any way, that would be the business-LOL....anyway, you said this too:

      I don't know how you are defining a mind, if you mean thoughts, they are products of bio-chemical processes that go on in our brain. Purely physical, there's nothing magic or spooky about it"

      So why don't you get a needle, place it in your brain. or brain stem, wherever these thoughts and memories are supposed to housed, extract one or two, place them under a microscope and tell em what you see? Ooh, they are just chemical processes you say???...then what is the mechanism or interface by which they are converted? In addition, would that not require a continual functioning of the body to happen? If so, why is it that dead people who have come back to life, (which you totally look over ALL THE NDE EVIDENCE that exists to make your silly postulations) have, in many cases, NEW and INTACT memories. Similar to Joshua Mantz as DOCUMENTED above????

      Like I said, you need to go back to atheist school because EVERY atheist and their mamma knows this one ain't true: And logic can be demonstrated. That's how we can do exact sciences like mathematics, physics, geology, cosmology. All are based in logic, which can be demonstrated, tested, and confirmed!

      Logic CANNOT be proven because in order to do so, one has to USE logic. Get it??? It would be a LOGICAL FALLACY to prove logic called circular reasoning. I didn't say "demonstrated"...I said PROVEN....Logic can only be assumed ie: TRUSTED uuh mean in order to use logic, you have to have FAITH in it???? In addition, Logic is NOT empirical and cannot be perceived scientifically...

      There is PLENTY of evidence for my claims. Like I said, this forum is on fornication and biblical construct, not evidence for Christianity or theism...I have tried to say it, but it is IGNORANCE for you to even argue what you are arguing here. It has nothing to do with the topic. Use one of the other forums and at least try to stay on track with the topic. Someone else may want to actually deal with the MAIN ISSUE and you are convoluting the page with a bunch of ALREADY DEBUNKED materialistic GARBAGE!

    25. Planes, radio waves, electromagnetism, and light are proven to exist and there effects can be witnessed and demonstrated. Nothing supernatural has ever been demonstrated to exist.

      I'm not saying the supernatural doesn't exist, it very well might. Just like Spider-Man might exist in an alternate universe. But I'm not the one making the claim, so the burden of proof isn't on me to prove it doesn't exist. But from my knowledge of practical reality, I have no reason to believe in the existence of the supernatural, just like I have no reason to believe that an alternate universe exist in which Spider-Man lives. If I claim that the supernatural doesn't exist, it's my responsibility to present evidence that it doesn't.

      There is no evidence that no one has ever been abducted by aliens. You just can't make a claim, present any old thing and call it evidence. And then if i don't accept it, accuse me of moving the goalpost. Once again, the evidence must, it must be proportional to the claim. If I tell you I had dinner last night at a resturaunt on the planet Jupiter, i can't just give you a newspaper article about me eating dinner on Jupiter as evidence. The most rational assumption, based on the situation, is that the article is fake, unless you have reason to believe it's not. And if you don't have reason to believe it's real and refuse to accept it, I cannot then accuse you of moving the goalpost. And it's not enough that I just call the newspaper article "evidence". It has to actually BE evidence and the evidence must be proportional to the claim.

      It is true, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    26. Appealing to Jesus to prove your point is like appealing to Batman to prove your point. You have to demonstrate they exist before you can claim what they do. Personal experience isn't evidence to anybody else, except you. You cannot demonstrate the existence of a soul, which I think is what you're getting at when you say "mind". Just because science can't explain something now, doesn't mean they'll never be able to explain it and it doesn't mean you get to attribute it to magic.

      NDE's have been explained. When the brain is starved of oxygen it can cause hallucinations. It isn't 100 percent understood, because we don't understand everything about how the brain works. And science is happy to say I don't know, let's find out rather than just attributing it to magic. It's also notable to point out that most of the time with NDE's, people see things consistent with their religion, which explains why christians never see Shiva, or why Muslims don't see Zeus and why Hindu's don't see jesus.

      Logic can be demonstrated. You're probably in a house or building right now. Alot of math and engineering went into constructing the structure you're in. And it has to be constructed in such a way that it doesn't fall over and crush you to death. There are alot of mathematical equations which go into designing the structure. This math is based on logic, which allows precise predictions to be made. So logic is demonstrated and proves itself in reality time and time again.

      You say logic doesn't exist, can't be proven and is irrelevant, and then turn around and attempt to use it to back up your claims. That doesn't make sense.

    27. As stated it doesn't take too many brains to know that material processes or laws can't begin themselves. Logic cannot be PROVEN and you know full well what I am saying. YOU said that you don't believe anything without evidence. Well there is no evidence to prove logic. Under your ruberic, logic doesn't exist.

      further Batman has no evidence in history other than a story line from comics to movies. There is no correlation from batman to a the real person. of Jesus. So you are about as off as off can be...

      You are an ultra skeptic. That is an unreasonable view and tenor of the world. You say that the Supernatural may exist in an alternate universe like Spider man. That is just stupid and ignorant. Has nothing to do with the concept of God or what we are talking about.

      Lastly, and I won't allow you to post another idiotic ramble in this forum, [show respect for someone other than yourself and my work and place commentary in the PROPER forum next time] you relegate NDE's to lack of scientific understanding. That is EXACTLY what I was saying and the author was saying about moving the goal post. That is also called scientism. You simply assert that "science will explain it all by and by"....That is ridiculous along with your excuse of hallucinations. There are NO hallucination when a person is dead unless you are trying to assert even when there is brain death, there is no death...either way, your theories are totally jacked up and unreasonable and even unscientific...

      Get believe, that life comes from rocks and material substances, that comic book characters offer some evidence in real life, on the same level of a real life Jesus whom all of history turns on for over 2000 years, and that brains can live for up to 15 minutes or longer when doctors declare them and the physical bodies that house them to be dead....You further believe that circular reasoning (such as using logic to prove logic) is logical and acceptable when it comes to supporting your premise, but is unacceptable to debunk your theories...You believe that there are different stages of death as noted in your COMICAL statement about "permanent death"-LOL Still laughin at that one!!!! So the dead may not really be dead....OK, so here we go, you should believe in zombies right? The living dead....then you believe that thoughts are material substances although you can't see them, capture them and or verify them by the same criteria that you assert....and you call what I say SPECIAL PLEADING??? Oooh brother!!!!

      You are out there my friend. I would suggest that you come out of the sewer of self, go back to God and obtain the abundant life that only Christ can provide because you NEED it with jacked up theories like that. Last I remember, if you were telling the truth, you were suffering. Now, since you left Christ, how is that materialism working out for you? You should have all your dreams by now...right????

      Materialism the ULTIMATE fantasy, myth, and deception of the ages!

    28. Now, if you had any GUTS at all, you would call Hines's office tomorrow and set a meeting with him to review this evidence that you supposedly want to see. travel to gain the information. Interview him and go visit the doctors who wrote the records that you will see. If you can't do that, you're not even real in your skepticism. be TRUE to yourself. When you do that, get back with me. I will be more than glad to hear your commentary.

    29. One thing I can't stand is a DISRESPECTFUL person. Told you what to do. Post in the APPROPRIATE forum and deal with the issues presented. Please. you have NOTHING new or interesting to offer except a RANT....No more rants at least not here. Thanks.

    30. Go HERE:

      More than half of what you try and insist on asserting is already DEBUNKED in his 10 minutes of presentation. Place any RATIONAL commentary there. I know that will be hard, but do that.

  6. You're throwing up a strawman argument. I'm not saying "love thy neighbor" means slash your neighbors throat. That's the most extreme example of my argument. And that would not be valid to what im saying. What I'm talking about are things like say, Muslims making a claim that the bible prophesies about the coming of Muhammad. Look at this site where Muslims site biblical references that prophesy Muhammad . I'm sure you'll disagree with it all day long and may have your own rebuttals using the bible. My point is, how can I know who's right or wrong? Or does it boil down to personal belief?

    1. NO...YOU SAID...that any and all interpretations are just as valid...THAT is NOT true and you affirm it.

      Muslims make their assumptions based on priori assumptions like you. They don't make the claim based on evidence of scripture not the examination of scripture. If they did they would know that scripture does not mention Muhammad, yet alone call him a Spirit and certainly does not reveal Muhammad as God. So , that is the problem with presuppositions.

      The EVIDENCE of scripture does not lead one to conclude that John 15 is about Muhammad in any way. So that has no bearing, but does prove that presuppositions can be fatal.

    2. So, how do you know that and what is your method for proving them wrong and how am I or anyone else to know it is correct? Otherwise, all I'm getting is your opinion.

    3. Read one of the Muslim forums on this blog to overcome that argument. I won't argue that here. That has nothing to do with the topic. I have dealt with that issue in the comments with a Muslim who taught just that.

    4. Would you mind posting the link if you would?

    5. It is Islam, Submission With No Peace Pt. 5. read about midway through the comments. A Muslim actually brings up that argument (about Muhammad being The Spirit) and I deal with it extensively.


  7. FM,

    The baseline of what you are saying is that truth cannot be known. If that statement is true, then I have proven that statement to be false.

    Since truth can be known, what the further question is, is can biblical truth be known? I say yes, based on any number of criteria, which also includes historical method for knowing history and literary methods and other forms of study inclusive but not limited to predictive prophecy and other forms of evidence.

    I believe that faith is enhanced or increased by these evidences, but that these evidences are not necessary for one to have and acquire faith. I believe that God, has placed in each of us an ability to know and identify truth. That is why we know that slashing our neighbor's through is not in accord with loving our neighbor.

    Our epistemology is innate and God given, but can be influenced by satan and environment. Thus truth is discerned from error and right from wrong, however, that does not mean that knowing right causes right actions and or right beliefs. Everyone knows that killing a baby is wrong, but there is great debate that abortion is wrong. Why? One would think based on the evidence that a fetus is a baby, that there would be universal consensus right? What influences individual "knowledge" in that area? There are many factors.

    Back to the have not rendered ANYTHING stating that my conclusions are are wrong. You have only poised that the truth of scripture is fatalistically lost in our inability to apprehend or comprehend it. If that is true, then God lied. He has no ability to communicate with us and we are all hopeless....

    BOY, ooh BOY!!!!

    THIS is why this blog yet exists. As long as there is confusion in the world like that!

    1. I think that me knowing that loving my neighbor means don't slash his throat has nothing to do with any type of religion. That's just common sense. I stand by my statement that without a method to interpret the bible, all interpretation is just opinion. Some may be more valid than others, but it is all just opinion. In fact, I'll go 1 step further. The Mormons claim the book of Mormon is the word of God, Muslims claim the Quran of the word of God, Christians say the Bible is the word of God. Without any objective demonstration, how am I supposed to know which one is? I mean, it all is a matter of faith, but no one can claim that theres is the fact and all others are wrong, unless they can somehow demonstrate it....through a clear and convincing demonstration. And saying God put the truth in our hearts, isn't a demonstration. That's just making a claim. First you have to define what is "true" and how you know it to be true. Then, we can move onto the rest.

    2. Mormonism, Islam and Christianity. One may be right, but all 3 can't be. Because each make mutually exclusive claims. our ability to even discern this is proof that we don't come from animals. Animals have no clue or care which is right. We do!

      Knowing that there is a truth is how we are created. That does not come from materialism or a bunch of chemicals in harmony. We "know" because the ability to discern has been placed in us by God. There is no materialistic mechanism to deliver truth and or morality. If there is SHOW US where it is.

      Since we are aware of law, there is a lawgiver. We don't assume that a computer program is not implemented by a programmer. How does it even remotely resemble science or a pursuit of higher intelligence to claim that morality and knowledge of right and wrong simply evolved. If it did, evolution is wrong. Why? The most praised and highly valued values among humans are those that go totally contrary to materialistic tenets. Materialism teaches selfishness is who the species is advance. The most praised and widely hailed valued among humans are SELFLESS values.

      If materialism is correct, we should all hate and seek to dominate. Community or no community, domination works in our own natural selection self interest. However, in society the most PRAISED values are values of humility and communion in peace with others.

      Simply put, the materialistic construct upon which you build your premises is nothing more than a self delusionary MYTH. It does not fit the facts.

      So how do we know? What is our epistemology? First we know there is a truth. If we didn't know that, there could be no communication with anyone over anything. Secondly, we are able to perceive truth. If we didn't believe that, why communicate. Third, theism is the BEST answer to why and how e can even perceive and know truth. Since I have demonstrated that materialism has no identifiable mechanism or proof for how truth is known, the only reasonable alternative is a theistic or God FILLED view of the issue.

      We can distinguish the differences between the religions, but that is not the forum and I have allowed you to stray far enough off the topic as it is.

  8. Supt. Burnett,

    I am grieved about the propagation of these "Christianized" reality shows. If you are in open sin, you need to step back and get ministered to before you sing, preach, dance, etc. before God's people. These individuals did not get a good foundation in the basics of Christianity before they got away from the church ands started recording careers. I would get myself together in all areas of my life before I launch myself out to the world. Humility and holiness is the key in anything we say and do. Haddon and LeAndria need to sit themselves out of ministry for a longer season and get help for the issues causing them bad press. Accountability also would help them get back on track.

  9. Now, in season 2 Dietrick has gone to great lengths to assert that he wasn't endorsing the sin of fornication as if everyone listening to him was some type of imbecile...Only he's the idiot...we know what both you and your new wife said or at least "were"saying...article on the way on this slow train-wreck and fiasco...


I've switched to real time comments for most posts. Refresh your screen if you post and do not see it right away. Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Thanks.