The other day before leading our Saturday outreach I had a bit of time.
I decided to head down to the town square to do a bit of pre-witnessing witnessing, just to check out what was happening and to give me something to encourage the people who came along to outreach with.
I sat down next to a Pakistani man and asked what he was doing. It is a great way of getting into a witness, if you have the time, by simply asking someone what they are up to that day. As we began to talk he revealed that he had been in the country three weeks and was facing losing his accomodation - he also had no job and thus no money.
He began to open up to me and revealed that his family were unable to help as they were all in Pakistan - his father being old and disabled and his mother having died when he was eight years old. I felt the Holy Spirit prompting me not to jam him about sin but to tell him about the love of God. As this dear man continued to talk tears suddenly started to stream down his face as he cried 'I miss my mother'. Tears of compassion from Jesus rolled down my face also. I put my arm around his shoulder and gave him a comforting embrace. I then prayed for God's peace to touch him.
This dear man would not accept any money to help him out, but thanked me sincerely for speaking to him and praying for him. I knew that God had done more in that witness than a hundred debates with hard-hearted people. We exchanged numbers as I told him God sent me to him today. He testified that he felt an incredible peace after I prayed for him and we left with a friendly embrace and a promise to stay in touch - praise God for that amazing opportunity to touch someone's life with the love of Jesus Christ!
Wednesday 25 May 2011
How or Why?
In a conversation with an evolutionist recently I asked him how free-will and morality evolved. He then explained that they evolved because of the need for increased social interaction.
I didn't pick up on what was going on at the time, but as hindsight would always afford us, it is now quite clear what had occured: I had asked how it evolved and he had answered with why he believed it evolved.
This is a common fallacy of evolutionism - namely glossing over the answer has to how something evolved with why they think it evolved, as if this explains it. The problem is that evolutionists have three main choices (Lamarkism, Darwinisn or Punctuated Equilibria) to explain how something evolved, and none of these even comes close to being able to justify any of their beliefs as to why it evolved.
Lamarkism says that giraffes had short necks, but as they stretched for higher branches over time their necks became longer as they slowly passed the increments onto their offspring. Darwinism says that as mutations happened in genomes over time, such mutations as turned out to be beneficial caused the creature/s to survive better or instead of their furry friends. Punctuated Equilibria came along after evolutionists started realising the limitations of Darwinism (or Natural Selection) and decided that the millions of changes between different kinds of animals happened instantaneously, i.e a bird hatched out of a reptile egg (sic).
Since removing a transcendent, intelligent programmer leaves only naturalistic explanations, which work in the realms of chance, you will find that evolutionists will skip over the theoretical impracticalities of explaining how something evolved and simply tell you why they think it evolved - believing that this is a perfectly valid answer to your question. Such is the level of indoctrination in this world that otherwise intelligent people will confidently spout logical fallacies and circular arguments, all the while thinking they are presenting not just a sound argument but the objective truth.
I had a similar result with a Harvard professor, who explained that zombie-ant fungus evolved to control ants to their own reproductive ends by the same way all complex genomes evolved - by tiny incremental changes over a long time. In this instance he went a step further and told me which evolutionary mechanism he believed explains it, but still avoided saying how it evolved, i.e. how those incremental changes have taken a fungus reproducing from normal spore dispersal to zombie-fying ants and exploding out their heads Alien style.
As usual, we must surrender reason and logic to the gods of Time and Chance, not to be questioned in their infallibility.
I didn't pick up on what was going on at the time, but as hindsight would always afford us, it is now quite clear what had occured: I had asked how it evolved and he had answered with why he believed it evolved.
This is a common fallacy of evolutionism - namely glossing over the answer has to how something evolved with why they think it evolved, as if this explains it. The problem is that evolutionists have three main choices (Lamarkism, Darwinisn or Punctuated Equilibria) to explain how something evolved, and none of these even comes close to being able to justify any of their beliefs as to why it evolved.
Lamarkism says that giraffes had short necks, but as they stretched for higher branches over time their necks became longer as they slowly passed the increments onto their offspring. Darwinism says that as mutations happened in genomes over time, such mutations as turned out to be beneficial caused the creature/s to survive better or instead of their furry friends. Punctuated Equilibria came along after evolutionists started realising the limitations of Darwinism (or Natural Selection) and decided that the millions of changes between different kinds of animals happened instantaneously, i.e a bird hatched out of a reptile egg (sic).
Since removing a transcendent, intelligent programmer leaves only naturalistic explanations, which work in the realms of chance, you will find that evolutionists will skip over the theoretical impracticalities of explaining how something evolved and simply tell you why they think it evolved - believing that this is a perfectly valid answer to your question. Such is the level of indoctrination in this world that otherwise intelligent people will confidently spout logical fallacies and circular arguments, all the while thinking they are presenting not just a sound argument but the objective truth.
I had a similar result with a Harvard professor, who explained that zombie-ant fungus evolved to control ants to their own reproductive ends by the same way all complex genomes evolved - by tiny incremental changes over a long time. In this instance he went a step further and told me which evolutionary mechanism he believed explains it, but still avoided saying how it evolved, i.e. how those incremental changes have taken a fungus reproducing from normal spore dispersal to zombie-fying ants and exploding out their heads Alien style.
As usual, we must surrender reason and logic to the gods of Time and Chance, not to be questioned in their infallibility.
Tuesday 24 May 2011
Mr. Unreasonable
I thought this interesting since I have never witnessed to someone quite so unreasonable.
I saw a brother seeming to struggle with a witness so I stepped into what I expected to be a typical encounter with a secular humanist.
This man turned out to be quite the anomaly as I challenged him on the origins of the universe. He said that Big Bang theory is the most likely explanation and that is what he believes. When I asked if he knew what evidence there was to support it (I was expecting Red Shift/Background Radiation) he said no - I then stated that him believing that the Big Bang is the most likely and scientific answer to the origin of the universe, when he didn't even know what evidence is put forward for it, is ridiculous and unscientific - he stared at me before going off on a tangent.
I then asked if he believed in absolutes and he said no. I asked him if he was absolutely sure about that and he said that he wasn't! He then went on to say that nothing is certain, but was adamant that rape cannot be justified, even by Evolution theory - at this point I realised I was speaking to someone who made about as much sense as a hippy sitting under a tree smoking dope: 'everything is everything, man' seemed to be his unspoken motto.
When he tried to explain free will and self-awareness by Evolution I started to mention animals that have neither but survive perfectly well. At this point he used the old cop-out that 'we are never going to agree' and made a hasty exit.
At first I was someone who he thought he could refute on every point, then I was someone who had an opposite opinion that was valid enough to be left alone incase any more of his illogical position was exposed.
It was interesting to see someone who held so many fallacious beliefs and could not even be reasoned with - at every turn he refuted logic as 'anthropomorphic' - completely denying the view of human interpretation that the science he claims to hold to works upon. So I guess Francis Crick (the co-discoverer of DNA) was being way too anthropomorphic when he said that DNA was too complex to evolve and must have been created by someone, even ET!
I saw a brother seeming to struggle with a witness so I stepped into what I expected to be a typical encounter with a secular humanist.
This man turned out to be quite the anomaly as I challenged him on the origins of the universe. He said that Big Bang theory is the most likely explanation and that is what he believes. When I asked if he knew what evidence there was to support it (I was expecting Red Shift/Background Radiation) he said no - I then stated that him believing that the Big Bang is the most likely and scientific answer to the origin of the universe, when he didn't even know what evidence is put forward for it, is ridiculous and unscientific - he stared at me before going off on a tangent.
I then asked if he believed in absolutes and he said no. I asked him if he was absolutely sure about that and he said that he wasn't! He then went on to say that nothing is certain, but was adamant that rape cannot be justified, even by Evolution theory - at this point I realised I was speaking to someone who made about as much sense as a hippy sitting under a tree smoking dope: 'everything is everything, man' seemed to be his unspoken motto.
When he tried to explain free will and self-awareness by Evolution I started to mention animals that have neither but survive perfectly well. At this point he used the old cop-out that 'we are never going to agree' and made a hasty exit.
At first I was someone who he thought he could refute on every point, then I was someone who had an opposite opinion that was valid enough to be left alone incase any more of his illogical position was exposed.
It was interesting to see someone who held so many fallacious beliefs and could not even be reasoned with - at every turn he refuted logic as 'anthropomorphic' - completely denying the view of human interpretation that the science he claims to hold to works upon. So I guess Francis Crick (the co-discoverer of DNA) was being way too anthropomorphic when he said that DNA was too complex to evolve and must have been created by someone, even ET!
Monday 23 May 2011
Lady Powerfully Healed on Streets
We saw an amazing miracle at our regular church outreach on Saturday, which I was leading.
I had a chair out to pray for the sick and asked an older lady passing by if she had any sickness or pain in her body that I could pray for. She immediately said 'God must have sent you'.
Her name was Margaret and she was an older Zimbabwean lady. She sat down and explained that she suffered from arthritis all over her body and a stomach hernia that kept her bloated and in pain.
After asking this dear lady if there was anybody she needed to forgive I held her hands and prayed for her, then layed my hands on her joints in the name of Jesus. She immediately smiled, opened her mouth in astonishment and began to move her shoulders without being asked. She then got up and bent over reaching past her knees! She moved her shoulders, legs and back without pain and began to pray to thank God for her healing and for our meeting.
As soon as she was healed she said 'what power is this?' and 'who are you?' in astonishment at the instant healing she had received - this is one of the most powerful reactions I have seen to a healing. She testified that the bloating and heavy feeling her hernia was giving her had also vanished to the glory of God!
I had a chair out to pray for the sick and asked an older lady passing by if she had any sickness or pain in her body that I could pray for. She immediately said 'God must have sent you'.
Her name was Margaret and she was an older Zimbabwean lady. She sat down and explained that she suffered from arthritis all over her body and a stomach hernia that kept her bloated and in pain.
After asking this dear lady if there was anybody she needed to forgive I held her hands and prayed for her, then layed my hands on her joints in the name of Jesus. She immediately smiled, opened her mouth in astonishment and began to move her shoulders without being asked. She then got up and bent over reaching past her knees! She moved her shoulders, legs and back without pain and began to pray to thank God for her healing and for our meeting.
As soon as she was healed she said 'what power is this?' and 'who are you?' in astonishment at the instant healing she had received - this is one of the most powerful reactions I have seen to a healing. She testified that the bloating and heavy feeling her hernia was giving her had also vanished to the glory of God!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)