Twitter Follow Me

Learn English with the Gospel of John movie

This first video is the Gospel of John movie with English subtitles. 這是有英文字幕的約翰福音影片。

This second video is part 1 of the same movie with Chinese subtitles (you have to turn on the Chinese subtitles in the settings.) You can find part 2-20 on Youtube. 這有中文字幕的約翰福音影片的第1部(要安CC選中文字幕)。Youtube 有2到20部。

To learn English 為了學英文:

Open the Chinese version in one browser tab, and the English version in another tab. Listen to one sentence in the Chinese version, then hit pause and listen to the same sentence in the version with English subtitles.可以用一個瀏覽器分頁打開有中文字幕的影片。用第二個分頁看有英文字幕的影片。聽中文版的第一句,或幾句,就換英文版跟著說。

This is my favorite Jesus movie because it's word-for-word what is in the Bible. Very powerful. 這是我最喜歡的耶穌影片,因為是一句一句跟從聖經所寫的,就很有力量。

A Cappella “Lamb of God” and “Awesome God” with lyrics

Artist: Keith Lancaster & The Acappella Company
Album: Awesome God: A Cappella Worship Christian & Gospel

Your only Son, no sin to hide
But You have sent Him from your side
To walk upon this guilty sod
And to become the Lamb of God

O Lamb of God (Lamb of God)
Sweet Lamb of God (Sweet Lamb of God)
I love the Holy Lamb of God (Holy Lamb of God)
O wash me in His precious blood (wash me in His precious blood)
My Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God

Your gift of love they crucified
They laughed and scorned Him as He died
The humble King they named a fraud
And sacrificed the Lamb of God

Repeat Chorus

I was so lost I should have died
But You have brought me to Your side
To be led by Your staff and rod
And to be called the Lamb of God

Repeat Chorus (x2)

O wash me in His precious blood (wash me in His precious blood)
My Jesus Christ the Lamb of God

Scriptural Reference:
"The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said 'Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!'" John 1:29

Artist: Keith Lancaster & The Acappella Company
Album: Awesome God: A Cappella Worship Christian & Gospel

God is an awesome God
He reigns from heaven above
With wisdom power and love
Our God is an awesome God

Soprano, Alto, and Tenor (come in one round at a time, with each part continuing):
Our God is awesome
He reigns from heaven
With power and wisdom
Our God is an awesome God

Chorus (with four parts in background):
Our God is an awesome God
He reigns from heaven above
With wisdom power and love
Our God is an awesome God

Now when He rolled up His sleeves He wasn't putting on the ritz
Our God is an awesome God
There's thunder in his foot steps and lightning in His fists
Our God is an awesome God
And the Lord wasn't jokin' when He kicked 'em out of Eden
It wasn't for no reason that He shed His blood
His return is very soon and so ya'll better be believin'
Our God is an awesome God

Stepout (with four parts in background):
Yes we know that He's awesome
And He reigns with power and wisdom

Repeat Stepout

Now when the sky was starless in the void of the night
Our God is an awesome God
He spoke unto the darkness and created the light
Our God is an awesome God
The judgment and wrath He poured out on Sodom
His mercy and grace He gave us at the cross
I hope that we have not to quickly forgotten that
Our God is an awesome God

Repeat Stepout (x2)

Repeat Chorus (in unison)

Repeat Stepout (x2)

Our God is an awesome God
Our God is an awesome God
Our God is an awesome God

Scriptural Reference:
"Do not be terrified by them, for the Lord your God, who is among you, is a great and awesome God." Deuteronomy 7:21

Bill Nye/Ken Ham Debate Review: Tying Up Really Loose Ends

Have You Considered This Evidence?
"Tying Up Really Loose Ends" - The Bill Nye/Ken Ham Debate Review by Jeff Miller

I've been using the high school level Truth Be Told textbook with Bible students to address the creation versus evolution issue. But I found something even better to read with college level friends. And if you know of something that tops even that, please let me know in the comments.

Click here to jump straight to the whole article, so interesting you will read all the way to the end. Or keep scrolling to read the first few paragraphs.

Bill Nye/Ken Ham Debate Review: Tying Up Really Loose Ends

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Many have inquired about our thoughts on the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate that took place on February 4th in Petersburg, Kentucky. Of course, we strongly disagree with Bill Nye’s contention that evolution is a viable model of origins, and wholeheartedly agree with Ken Ham’s proposition that Creation is a viable model of origins. However, we were disappointed in creationist Ken Ham’s decision to allow so many of Bill Nye’s questions and comments to go unanswered, thus leaving the impression that Nye’s points have merit or are unanswerable. In light of so many evidences, undeniable truths, and critical responses that were not brought to light that evening, I asked A.P. staff scientist, Dr. Jeff Miller, to prepare a response to Bill Nye’s assertions. These three men of science are certainly qualified to discuss these matters: Ham received a bachelor’s degree in applied science from the Queensland Institute of Technology in Australia and a diploma of education from the University of Queensland. Nye received a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell University. Dr. Miller holds a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Auburn University.]

In the debate on February 4, 2014, which is said to have been viewed by over three million people Tuesday night, and another two million plus on Wednesday (“Over Three Million Tuned In...,” 2014), Answers in Genesis creationist Ken Ham squared off against Bill Nye (known to many of us as “The Science Guy”). Nye challenged Ham with several questions which he believed to be pertinent to the Creation/evolution controversy (Nye and Ham, 2014). The debate topic centered on whether or not Creation is a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era. Without dragging the reader through a play-by-play analysis of the entire debate, we believe several of Nye’s questions and comments that were not addressed in the debate are worthy of attention. [NOTE: Ironically, although Ken Ham did not respond to several of Nye’s points, the Answers in Genesis Web site is replete with solid responses to the bulk of Nye’s arguments, as the references in this article will attest.]

Nye’s Defense of Naturalistic Evolution

First, we wish to highlight the fact that Nye inadvertently revealed some of the weaknesses and even impenetrable barriers that prohibit the naturalistic evolutionary model from being true. Keep in mind that, regardless of the legitimacy of any attacks on the Creation model, if naturalism contradicts the evidence, then the evidence remains in support of some form of supernaturalism. In truth, however, the evidence supports the Creation model.

Evolution is a Historical Science

While Ham did not adequately address many of Nye’s points, Nye was eloquently treated to a lesson on the difference between observational and historical science, proving that naturalistic evolution and origin studies fall under the historical science category. Nye was unable to refute this claim. Nobody has ever observed macroevolution (i.e., inter-kind evolution), abiogenesis (i.e., life from non-life), the spontaneous generation of natural laws (i.e., scientific laws that write themselves), a cause-less effect, or the spontaneous generation or eternality of matter—all of which are necessary under the evolutionary model. This lack of observation proves that evolution does not fall under the definition of science, as stated by the National Academy of Sciences: “The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes. The statements of science are those that emerge from the application of human intelligence to data obtained from observation and experiment” (Teaching About Evolution…, 1998, p. 42, emp. added). Evolutionists are notorious for reasoning that the Creation model should not be taught in schools since it cannot be observed and, therefore, is not “science,” based on the naturalistic definition of the term. The fact that naturalistic evolution is also unobservable highlights that evolutionary theory is “faith-based” in the sense that direct evidence is lacking for several of its fundamental tenets. Instead of refuting that argument, Nye’s response was, “Mr. Ham, I learned something. Thank you.” Our response: if you do not have an adequate response to that argument, and if Creation does not belong in the science classroom because many of its fundamental tenets were not observed, then evolution does not belong in the classroom either.

In truth, whichever model is the best inference from the evidence should be the one used in the classroom, even if all of its tenets were not necessarily “observed”: Creation or evolution (or some other model). There is, however, a fundamental difference between Creation and evolution. The evidence actually stands against naturalism, since we know from science, for example, that abiogenesis and the origin of matter/energy from nothing (or the eternality of matter) cannot happen naturally. Those phenomena are required by naturalism. One cannot be a naturalist and yet believe in unnatural things like such phenomena without contradicting himself. The component logical fallacy called contradictory premises (or a logical paradox) occurs when one establishes “a premise in such a way that it contradicts another, earlier premise” (Wheeler, 2014). For example:

  • Premise One—Evolution is a naturalistic origin model.
  • Premise Two—Evolution requires abiogenesis and other unnatural phenomena.

If evolution is purely naturalistic, can it involve unnatural phenomena and still be consistent?

On the other hand, though the creation of the Universe and the Flood cannot be observed today, the evidence points to their historical reality indirectly. In the same way forensic scientists can enter a scene, gather evidence, and determine what happened, when it happened, how it happened, who did it, and many times, why he did it—all without actually witnessing the event—humans can examine the evidence and conclude that the Universe was created. Bottom line: it is clear, regardless of the model you choose, that something happened in the beginning that was unnatural, or as Nye insinuated, “magical.” How is Creation far-fetched, as the naturalists believe, in comparison to a model that espouses magic—with no magician?

Flawed Evolutionary Dating Techniques

Conflicting Dates from a Fossilized Forest

When the research of geologist Andrew Snelling was discussed as proof that uniformitarian dating techniques are fundamentally flawed, Nye was not able to offer an adequate response. In the research, fossilized wood from deep within the Earth under Australia was carbon dated to be about 37,500 years old, while the basalt rock encompassing the wood was dated using the K-Ar method to be some 47.5 million years old (2000), though both the rock and the wood should have been the same age. [NOTE: Carbon dating is used to date organic materials, while the K-Ar method and others are used to date inorganic materials (rocks).] Nye’s attempt to explain the problem using plate tectonics was quickly refuted by Ham when he pointed out that the basalt was not above the forest, but was encompassing the forest. Nye did not respond. Snelling’s research stands as evidence against the validity of evolutionary dating techniques which Nye could not refute. The Creation model has no problem with this research, since it does not rely on uniformitarian dating techniques. [NOTE: Uniformitarianism is the evolutionary assumption that “events of the geologic past can be explained by phenomena observable today” (McGraw-Hill Dictionary..., 2003, p. 2224). Creationists believe that catastrophism is a better model for interpreting the geologic column. Catastrophism is the idea that most “features in the Earth were produced by occurrence of sudden, short-lived, worldwide events” (McGraw-Hill..., p. 342).]

Assumptions and Evolution

Nye claimed that we can know with certainty the age of the Universe based on the present. The problem with that argument for the naturalist is that since no one was there at the beginning to observe what happened or when it happened, no naturalist can actually know, as Nye claimed. Instead, assumptions have to be made by the naturalist in order to try to surmise what may have happened—namely that conditions today were also present in the past (i.e., uniformitarianism). That is quite a presumptuous assumption to be sure. Creationists argue that assumptions such as uniformitarianism and those of radiometric dating techniques are faulty and disprove the validity of those techniques (e.g., Miller, 2013a; Morris, 2011, pp. 48-71). In response, Nye said:

When people make assumptions based on radiometric dating; when they make assumptions about the expanding Universe; when they make assumptions about the rate at which genes change in populations of bacteria in laboratory growth media; they’re making assumptions based on previous experience. They’re not coming out of whole cloth.

First, we find it ironic that Nye so strongly supports evolutionary assumptions, arguing that they are valid because they are based on “previous experience.” Nobody has ever observed macroevolution, abiogenesis, the spontaneous generation of natural laws, a cause-less effect, or the spontaneous generation or eternality of matter, and yet these absurd notions are assumed under the evolutionary model. In the debate, Nye even verbally admitted that the evolutionary model has no explanation for how consciousness could come from matter. He said, “Don’t know. This is a great mystery.” In truth, of course he cannot know, because the evidence from nature says that it cannot happen naturally. His evolutionary model prohibits it (Miller, 2012b), and yet he ignores that evidence. Concerning the origin of matter, he also admitted, “This is the great mystery. You’ve hit the nail on the head…. What was before the Big Bang? This is what drives us. This is what we wanna know!” Again, the naturalistic model prohibits the eternality or spontaneous generation of matter (Miller, 2013b), though one of them had to happen under the naturalistic model. So of course it’s “a great mystery” how it could happen. In truth, it cannot happen naturally. Nature has spoken, and yet Nye and his colleagues reject the evidence in favor of their closed-minded bias towards naturalism.

These are significant questions that evolution cannot answer and that cannot be brushed aside as he attempted to do. They must be answered by the naturalist before naturalistic evolution can even be a possibility—before it should even be allowed to be taught. Without a legitimate explanation, evolution is no different from a fictional story. Life had to come from non-life naturally in the evolutionary model, and matter had to come from somewhere, and yet the evolutionist ignores those problems as though they are irrelevant and assumes there’s a naturalistic explanation for them without any evidence substantiating that assumption.

In truth, all “previous experience” in science says that none of those things (i.e., macroevolution, abiogenesis, the spontaneous generation of natural laws, a cause-less effect, or the spontaneous generation or eternality of matter) can happen. The questions that Nye and his colleagues consider “a mystery” are not really mysteries. Science has spoken on those matters and concluded that they are impossible under the naturalistic model. There are scientific laws which prove that truth (see Miller, 2013c). Accepting those things as possible flies in the face of the scientific evidence and is tantamount to a blind faith in evolution. Evolution is a fideistic religion that ignores the evidence. It has no foundation, since the evidence contradicts its foundational premises. The Creation model, on the other hand, has no problem with the evidence. The Creation model harmonizes with the evidence on all counts and only disagrees with the evolutionary interpretation of the evidence.

That said, we have no problem with the idea that present observations can be useful today and even useful in some ways for the past—but within careful limits. If it is true that, for example, the nuclear decay rates are not a simple constant, but instead are variable, depending upon environmental conditions which could have been significantly different in the past due to catastrophic events like the Flood, then it would be naïve and erroneous to make age estimates of any rock without considering the possibility of such fluctuations.
“[M]aking assumptions based on previous experience” would be incorrect since that “previous experience” did not include the Flood.

In his book, The Young Earth, Creation geologist John Morris documents modern research which casts serious doubt on several of the assumptions of evolutionary dating techniques, especially the assumption of constant nuclear decay rates (2011; see also DeYoung, 2005). For example, research by a team of scientists (known as RATE) that was presented at the International Conference on Creationism in 2003, indicates that the nuclear decay rates have not always been constant (Humphreys, et al., 2003). The RATE team had several zircon crystals dated by expert evolutionists using the uranium-lead evolutionary dating technique and found them to be 1.5 billion years old, assuming a constant decay rate. A by-product of the breakdown of uranium into lead is helium. Content analysis of the crystals revealed that large amounts of helium were found to be present. However, if the crystals were as old as the dating techniques suggested, there should have been no trace of helium left, since helium atoms are known to be tiny, light, unreactive, and able to easily escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. The presence of helium and carbon-14 showed that the rocks were actually much younger (4,000 to 14,000 years old) than the dating techniques alleged. Since these zircons were taken from the Precambrian basement granite in the Earth, an implication of the find is that the whole Earth could be no older than 4,000 to 14,000 years old. The results of the crystal dating indicate that 1.5 billion years’ worth of radioactive decay, based on the uniformitarian constant decay rate assumption, occurred in only a few thousand years. How could such a thing be possible? How can the two dating techniques be reconciled? By understanding that the rate of decay of uranium into lead must have been different—much higher—in the past. This research simply cannot be ignored by any serious, honest scientist. If the Creation model is true, then modern, historical science should be reconsidered and completely revised.

Concerning the creationist stance that nuclear decay rates were different in the past, Nye further said:

So this idea, that you can separate the natural laws of the past from the natural laws that we have now, I think, is at the heart of our disagreement. I don’t, I don’t see how we’re ever going to agree with that if you insist that natural laws have changed. It’s, for lack of a better word, it’s magical. And I have appreciated magic since I was a kid, but it’s not really what we want in conventional, mainstream science…. I encourage you to explain to us why, why we should accept your word for it that natural law changed just 4,000 years ago. Completely. And there’s no record of it.

First keep in mind that three significant assumptions that underlie dating techniques were mentioned by Ham to Nye, and Nye completely ignored two of them (i.e., that radiometric dating techniques assume a specimen was originally completely composed of a parent element, which would yield incorrect dates if daughter elements were present in a specimen from its creation. Such initial conditions would be predicted in the Creation model. The other assumption he ignored was that the specimen was completely isolated throughout its lifetime, and therefore unaffected by outside phenomena—a closed system. See Miller, 2013a for a discussion on these dating technique assumptions.). We believe they were left completely unanswered because they would be impossible for him to refute.

Second, it should be firmly understood that we would not argue that the natural laws of the past have changed. That, in fact, is a requirement of the evolutionary model, not the Creation model. The Law of Biogenesis, for example, would have to be “changed” in the past in order for naturalistic evolution to get started since all evidence indicates that life comes only from life in nature (Miller, 2012b). The Laws of Thermodynamics would have to be “changed” in the past in order to account for the origin of matter and energy, since all of the scientific evidence indicates that energy cannot be eternal and/or cannot spontaneously generate (Miller, 2013b). The Law of Causality would have to be “changed” in the past in order to account for the Universe not having a cause (Miller, 2011b). It seems that we should be challenging Mr. Nye instead: “I encourage you to explain to us why, why we should accept your word for it that natural law changed billions of years ago. Completely. And there’s no record of it. It’s, for lack of a better word, magical.”

The creationist does not argue that the laws of nature changed in the past regarding decay rates, but rather, that decay is subject to a more complex law or equation than the one being assumed today. If nuclear decay rates fluctuate based on conditions resulting from certain catastrophic events, then if all of those conditions were met today, we would argue that the same results would still occur today. In other words, the “law” for decay rates is still the same today, but is merely misunderstood and needs to be modified to be more robust. It should be able to account for the unusual effects of catastrophic activity before applying it to the past. [NOTE: While the creationist does not argue that scientific laws have ever “changed,” he would argue that laws have been temporarily suspended in the past during God’s supernatural activities (Miller, 2003). The evolutionists, however, are in the unenviable position of having to explain, not only how a law could come into existence, but how it could be re-written without a Writer.]

Energy from the Sun for Evolution

The audience asked Nye the question, “How do you balance the Theory of Evolution with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?...

News Commentary: American Apocalypse - The Government’s Plot To Destabilize the Nation Is Working. Article by John W. Whitehead.

I don't agree with the last sentence of that article. If anything it should read something like “Let the one foot in another country begin.” Did the early Christians join a revolution? No, they scattered, taking the gospel with them. (Acts 8:4)

Want scattering not to be such a hardship? Take baby steps before you have to. Are you retired? Even better. Research how you can volunteer to help teach Bible classes, taking students through a Bible course for instance, in other mission fields around the world for a few months at a time. Enlarge your comfort zone. It'll help stave off dementia. And you might even find that your retirement check goes further in another country.

Want to brush up on your Bible knowledge? Check out and WVBS. Even more ambitious? Go to Bible school. That'll really sharpen your brain.

Revolution just gives the government a chance to try out its most horrifying weapons. Keeping enough of your savings out of the country and feeling free to move to wherever freedom is, lets you vote with your feet.

Video: Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood?

Please! Watch this video first...

... and read what I wrote about it here, before you watch this next video and come to a conclusion on it.

Also, I don't like the 7:35-8:40 segment of the video below. I think it is a distraction from his otherwise tight logic.

Be sure to keep watching after the credits.

Related Posts:
Video: The Genealogy of Jesus Christ (According to Eusebius)
Video: The Curse of Jeconiah

Sunday night, May 19

A sister's father-in-law passed away last week, and six of the brethren in Hualian came down to see the family, and stay the night with us afterward.

Jared and Tracy, and my mom next to her, Brother and Sister Wang (Mei-zhu we call her, but she's not in the picture), and her sister, Sister Mei-Luan, and Sister Liu Ah Yi (Auntie Liu we call her.)

There's Sister Mei-zhu, Brother Wang's wife. Liu Ah Yi is cooking spaghetti for breakfast and Mei-zhu did the sauce.

Brother and Sister Qiu dropped in to see everyone. Once again I take a photo of everybody just as they've got that first bite of food in the mouth. My relatives can commiserate.

Glad to know the gospel meeting flyers I passed out a few months ago had SOME effect!

I was getting ready to leave the market, fishing out the key to my scooter, when a man walked by and said, "YOU'RE far from home!” We got talking about my scooter and scooter prices in general and how long I'd been in Taiwan and how my dad was a preacher and I was embarrassed thinking I ought to know him, and told him I was so sorry, but who was he? and he said, “You passed out a flyer.” He still had our number and address. I said, “Well, drop in and check out our services sometime!” It turns out he goes to the Lin Yang Tang denomination. I told him we try to do only what's in the Bible. Found out he'd been immersed. I told him that was very good. But we didn't have time to talk more.

86 year-old lady at the secondhand store

One thing I like about Taiwan is all the older people out and about and doing things. So many times I wish I had my smartphone camera mounted on my scooter so I could tap the screen at things I see in front of me.

On market street this morning, this 86-year old lady arrived at the secondhand clothing store with her walker/chair and pink clip-on fan. She most likely walked from wherever her house is.

The chair has nice roller wheels and handlebar brakes, with storage under the seat. The lady added a pink battery-operated clip-on fan, and her umbrella is hanging from one handlebar.

Any suggestions as to what I should tag posts about Taiwan's awesome oldsters? Please let me know in the comments.

What happened on Monday

My brother Jared helps teach Bible in Mandarin Chinese

Jared helping to teach Bible in Taiwanese

Jared and Brother Wang baptizing one of the gentlemen.

Folding up the baptistry.

Lunch on Sunday with three generations of the Qiu family :)

Did he ask me if I wanted another 4,425 satellites blocking my sunshine?

Please, the smog is bad enough in Kaohsiung.

Elon Musk posts photo of rocket stacked with 60 satellites that will launch tomorrow in SpaceX bid to beam high-speed internet to the world

The company recently filed plans with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to launch 4,425 satellites into orbit above the Earth - three times as many that are currently in operation.

And what about the rare people who have intense nerve pain anywhere there is good cellphone reception? Will there be no more pockets of dead space for them to move to?

“Musk compared the project to 'rebuilding the internet in space', as it would reduce reliance on the existing network of undersea fibre-optic cables which criss-cross the planet.”

It wasn't blocking the sun down there.

Now it's only one more step to using satellites to block the sun on purpose:

Scientists will copy effects of a huge volcano eruption to fight global warming in £2.3m study

“As part of a £2.3million ($3million) experiment partly-funded by Microsoft’s Bill Gates, a team from Harvard University will spray tiny chalk particles into the atmosphere 12 miles above the Earth to reflect some of the Sun’s rays back into space.”

That was saved under my "there-it-is" tag. Fans of the “Searching for Bobby Fischer” movie will understand.

And now this just yesterday:

Cambridge scientists are building a new research centre to develop radical ways to ‘save the Earth’

“Among such schemes being considered are the spraying of salt into clouds in order to make them reflect more warming sunlight back into space.”

Remember the 5-year Agricultural Plans when the government (I forget which one) thought central planning could feed everybody and they all starved?

Have you seen the movie Idiocracy?

Video: “How Long Were the Israelites in Egypt?”

Some videos make such an impression you remember them often through the years.

Nathan Hoffman has done four videos I think are brilliant, two of which cleared up Bible mysteries for me.

For instance, a few years ago I asked a visiting preacher how Moses' mother could be Levi's daughter Jochebed if the Israelites were in Egypt for 400 years. I forget how I got this number but wouldn't she have to have been at least 250 years old before she bore Moses? And they weren't living that long at that point. Jochebed's great-great-grandfather Abraham died at 175 and it was already a big deal for him to have Isaac at 100. Her uncle Joseph died at 110.

I remember the preacher was in a hurry and simply said that it might have been a different Jochebed, which was not Biblically possible because the Bible says exactly whose aunt she is, which makes her Levi's daughter (see Exodus 6).

To try and fudge that is like saying it wasn't literal 24-hour days in Genesis but millions of years, when the Bible takes the trouble to specifically define each day of the creation week as one evening and one morning.

Nathan Hoffman did a video “How Long Were the Israelites in Egypt?” that has a very Biblically satisfying explanation as to how Moses' mother was definitely Levi's daughter Jochebed. As he demonstrates, there's no getting around the math of the ages of Moses' father, grandfather, and great-grandfather which the Bible took a lot of trouble to put clearly on record as well.

And please remember, the Bible missing a phrase in certain copies and not other copies is normal and not an issue of accuracy and reliability.

Just because SOME of the copies of the old Bible manuscripts are missing the last few verses of Mark doesn't mean the Bible isn't reliable, it just means they used scrolls back then and the ends often frayed off.

And when some of the copies have a whole Bible passage missing between two identical words, it just means that sometimes when the copyist turned his head to dip his quill in the ink pot and then turned back to resume copying, he resumed at the wrong same word a few lines further down.

Does It Matter What the Other Hand Is Doing?

If this is true, then why do people still sign up for the military?

I always assumed that if a German christian soldier had found out about the concentration camps back in the 1940's, the proper thing to do would be to resign from the military, go awol, emigrate, flee the country, do whatever you had to do, to not be part of an apparatus that was committing atrocities.

Questions about the morality of serving in the military aside, it's like, government, as long as you're being open, transparent and aboveboard, I'll participate, but any time you venture into corruption and atrocities, expect a loss of propping up.

We'll even keep paying taxes since the Bible said to, but it didn't say we had to be the arms and legs of corruption. If Walmart was doing it, I wouldn't say, well I'm not working in the torture department of this corporation, I'm just a lowly cashier.

If you had the means, it's not even a mortal sin to change one's nationality. It certainly isn't advocating revolution and bloodshed (so easily co-opted) to fix problems.

I'd like to ask good people in the military, if you had a very comfortable lifestyle as an electrician or a plumber, if money to feed your family was not an issue, would you still on principle leave your job to serve in the military? Would you feel like, this is where God wants me to be to do the most good?

This is where I feel homeschooling didn't go far enough. 40 years ago, having a good foundation in the basics, reading, writing and arithmetic, seemed to put you ahead of what was coming out of the public schools, but it's not enough to stay afloat with homeless under bridges and the economy bubbled and popped at every turn to put people on the military plantation. Now your children need to learn to be electricians and plumbers, and makers of "tiny houses" (the Apostle Paul was a tentmaker too!), on the side, to have more choices in choosing an ethical career that doesn't conflict with Biblical duties.

One person told me that in Acts 10, there is no record of Cornelius, the Roman centurion, leaving the military when he became a Christian. Is that a sign that God would want a German christian young man to sign up for the military in the 1940's (assuming he somehow knew about concentration camps at that time)? Setting aside the question of leaving, surely Cornelius's example is not commanding us to sign up if we're not yet in.

God commanded us to pay taxes, I'm assuming he nowhere commanded us to either join or leave the military.

Who would work for Walmart if it had the same exit policies as the military?

You can resign from Walmart without threat of prison if its policies conflict with morality.

If you resign from entities like the military and the mafia, on the other hand, you almost have to go awol or be prepared for persecution.

Hmm, I wonder which scenario God and common sense would have me pursue.

Sermon 2019.05.05

Here is a rough idea of what my dad taught this Sunday for those who are curious. I liked it.

He was speaking in Chinese, so this was me jotting English furiously on the fly. Started seven minutes into the sermon and sometimes I couldn't keep up, so missing verses and sentences here and there, not just where I managed to scribble the word “missing”. Totally my own interpretation of what he was saying, so any mistakes are mine:


If your friends are rejecting God's word, they're not your friends.

Hypocrites praise God, with their hearts far from him. This is often the case with religious leaders. The Pharisees arranged the cross.

Abide in his word, then you'll know the truth. John 17:17 Thy word is truth. Reject the Word, reject truth.

If you are teaching that which contradicts the truth then you're teaching false doctrine. Some people think can they can update Christianity's ceremonies because “It's only a ceremony.”

God is not picky, to label him that would be an insult, but he is not lax or slack. The Old Testament is intricate, every detail fraught with meaning.

The strange fire was closer, but God said treat me as holy. If change an iota, then you're not setting something apart as holy. Like saying, "I can improve on the ship's captain's instructions."

Romans 3:4 - Let God be found true though every man be found a liar. God is right even if the entire world says something different. Naturally not everyone disagrees with God. But when you consider all the false religions and all the false Christianity out there, they make up a majority disagreeing with God.

... [missed]...

Even if an angel tells you something different, don't go with him to hell.

John 17:17 1. The word is truth. 2. It sanctifies us.

Reject the word, and you are rejecting sanctification. We are his special sanctified ones.

Glad he gave us the New Testament, not commands in list-form, but examples of real christians and their problems.

You and I also have problems. But can't say, “Well we all have problems, so we're all going to heaven.”

If we had to completely understand the Bible then nobody would be going to heaven. A genius can study the Bible for a lifetime, and still not know everything, but everybody can understand enough to start obeying.

“This part is not important.” What part of God's Word is not important? When he speaks he doesn't waste a word. I often waste words, God no.

Romans 1:2 - My brethren perish for lack of knowledge. [“Lack of education ... Bam! Elimination.” - "The Fox and the Hound" cartoon song, sorry couldn't resist.]

God can be patient with a lack of knowledge but not if we outright reject him saying, “If I accept that, it means my mom is in hell, so I can't accept that.” We reject him when we say our friends are more important, our life is more important.

Really the permanent is more important. We must be faithful unto death because the spiritual is more important than the temporal.

... [missed] ...

If we rely on God's word we can stand in the day of judgment.

Sometimes people are wrong because they don't understand. Diligently study to get God's approval.

Some don't know because they don't care, that's why they don't come to church, that's why they don't study at home. But God says if we are willing to know we will know.

Every age in the Bible had its preachers who were not starting new denominations but taking people back to the original Word... Ezra, Nehemiah ... One phrase repeated over and over, “As it is written.. ” They restored everything to “as it is written.” They discovered 100-year lapses.

But most people don't care and don't study. Or they study and they don't like it, and think they can change it to be more entertaining. God's way is too simple. It needs guitars.

But God has his purpose, Matthew 15 and 17, Deuteronomy 4 and 12. Don't add, subtract, change.

So study and learn and God will have patience. Nobody has complete knowledge but there is an ignorance that will send you to hell.

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! (Galatians 1:6-9)

Even if an angel... Joseph Smith, who founded the Mormon religion, said an angel gave it to him. He made many propheies that didn't come true. The Bible says if a prophet prophesied and it didn't come true, you needn't fear that prophet. He even got the death penalty in the Old Testament. Told a Mormon that once and it just went in one ear and out the other. That is why people will be in hell.

I'm not the judge. Maybe God will make exceptions because he knows extenuating circumstances, maybe he knows the person couldn't understand. But God did tell me who I can fellowship. We are to love our enemies but we can't call them brethren.

“Let's have a council to decide how to make worship more interesting. Let's have a council to decide how to baptize, by pouring, sprinkling or immersing. What do you mean, 'We need to go to the Bible', that implies if I don't get in the water I'm going to hell and I don't like that.”

We sing that song, “Jesus, Jesus, I rely on Jesus,” [Chinese version]... not if you're relying on your feelings. You only care what you like, not what God likes.

Faith means: I trust that God is right, and I trust that his standard is right.

How does he guide us? By a voice in the ear? Or a feeling? How do you know if it's from God or Satan?

If it's contrary to God's Word, even if an angel directly tells you anything different, or a vision, contrary to what you have already received, don't accept it, rely on Jesus, but what did he give us to rely on? His objective Word.

“He guides me by feeling,” is subjective. His objective word guides us.

How do we know truth, objective and confirmed? By the miracles. That's why we can rely on his Word.

1. No contradictions with past revelation. 2. Must have miracles confirming it. 3. The miracles don't have to be repeated. 4. Witnesses to the miracles is enough.

Next week we will look at the attitude of unbelief and the verses that address that directly.

Truth has no contradictions. No wonder smart people reject Christianity when they see all the contradictions being taught in “Christendom”.

Jesus prayed that we would all be one, so that the world could believe. His prayer was answered. We are all to believe as one. All true Christians do believe as one even though we have no headquarters. Look at those meeting in Singapore and Taichung and Hualien, all one, but it is the truth making us one.

1 Corinthians 10:13 - No temptation has overtaken us but what we can bear. He restricts every temptation from exceeding your strength. If Satan had free reign the church would not exist. So don't give up. Some people smarter than me wonder why I can't see certain things. But like Paul, I may not have arrived, but I press on.

Breaking Covenant With God

When you became a Christian you made a covenant with God. If he doesn't exist, then obviously neither does your covenant with him.

But if you only have a guess as to whether he exists or not, if you only have some interesting theories as to how he doesn't exist, is that enough evidence to break your covenant with him? Would you break covenant with a real person on that much evidence? Or would that person be justified in calling you a faithless man with no word of honor?

Here is someone that if he exists, you are breaking covenant with. If you find out in the end that he exists, are you going to be able to look him in the face with your reasons for why you thought he didn't exist?

The rest of my photos from April 2019

This little fellow was so cute. No matter what direction I tried to shoot him from, he always carefully turned his body to keep those antennae between us.

A Baptism in Hualian

My brother Jared and his wife Tracy live in Hualian and love working with Preacher Wang and his wife and the church in the nursing homes there.


On Monday, my brother immersed someone into Christ.

Further teaching afterward.

Sister Wang (pronounced Wong), the preacher's wife, wrote:

The new brother, Huang Tian Jin*, had been living in the nursing home for a few days. He attended our assembly a few times, and today at 7 AM Brother Jared taught him about the plan of salvation. He understood and was willing to be immersed, so Brother Jared immersed him. Thank the Lord we could have a part in this work of service. God bless.


新的弟兄名叫黃天金 剛住進老人之家養護科幾天。來參加聚會幾次 今天早上七點白傑瑞弟兄專程教導他得救的方法 他明白也願意接受耶穌當救主 白傑瑞弟兄幫他受浸了。感謝神 我們能參與這事奉工作 願神祝福

Brother and Sister Wang on the left. My brother and his wife on the right. The new brother in the middle.傳道人和他的老婆在左邊,我弟弟和弟媳在右邊,新弟兄在中間。

Brother and Sister Wang

Brother Wang and his wife have a real heart for the elderly in nursing homes. Almost every day of the week, unless some thing comes up, they are at the nursing home around 6 in the morning, helping to spoonfeed those who need it, and Sister Wang helps blowdry the residents' hair after showers. Sometimes they are able to have additional Bible studies, while on Thursday mornings they have a set Bible class with the residents.


Brother Wang preaches 3 times on Sundays, and for years it used to be 4 times until two nursing homes were merged this year:


* The 7 AM worship service at the nursing home. (They have to get there at 6 AM and wheel about 40 people in their wheelchairs from their various rooms on various floors. The preacher and his wife and the preacher's tireless brother and his wife and son and daughter, and my brother and his wife, and sometimes other members would also be available to help with this.)
7 AM 老人家的敬拜 (還要提早6:00到接每一個要參加的老人,約40位左右,從各樓各房間推輪椅到聚會場。王弟兄姐妹,王弟兄的不倦的弟弟合他的老婆合兒子女兒,我的弟弟合弟媳,而有的時候其他,都幫忙。)

* The 9:00 AM Bible class lesson at the church building.

* The 10:00 AM worship service at the church building.
教堂的 10:00 敬拜的課

(And there used to be an afternoon 3:00 worship service at another nursing home which ended this year when two nursing homes merged.)

These are all the people who attended the 7 AM nursing home worship service this last Sunday, about 40 of them in wheelchairs who were wheeled to the meeting place. About half of them are brethren; good down-to-earth Taiwanese people about to pass into eternity who have been reconciled to God.
上個星期天 7:00 老人之家的敬拜,約有40位做輪椅的,都要被推到敬拜場。一半是弟兄,跟神和好的台灣人。

The Hualian church has a 3-day summer camp each year. One of those days is spent in the nursing home for Bible lessons and activities with the elderly. Adults and children are both welcome. If you are interested contact Brother Wang at 0919923720.

花蓮教會每年辦三天的夏令營。其中一天我們一直在老人之家,有聖經課,還有機會跟老人互動。大人小孩都歡迎。有興趣的話通知王弟兄 0919923720

*The Chinese name Huang Tien Jin is the surname Yellow with the given name Heavenly Gold.

Fish Skin Soup

I'm starting a new category of post for my aunts, uncles, cousins and relatives to see a bit of what I see in Taiwan.

This year I discovered fish skin soup when a sister in the church got some for my mom.

Kaohsiung is a seaport with an abundance of seafood, but growing up we never particularly sought it out because of all the fish bones, which we didn't know how to spit out as dexterously as the Asians, though we happily ate it when served.

Fish skin soup has no bones, and at 50 NT ($1.60) per bowl it's a great breakfast deal. Finish it off with a quarter of a pineapple and you will also stay regular ^o^

It must be fresh, if he's deboning it!
Grey gas tanks for cooking in the background.

Carefully ladling it into the takeout containers.

Complete with clams, and julienned ginger.

I think it's that cheap because these fish soup places are usually just tables and chairs under a roof with no door. I'm thankful to God for something so wholesome and delicious so cheap, though I wish I knew what to do about the risk of mercury. Read a news article saying the rich get mercury from fish while the poor get toxic chemicals from air-pollution and living closer to landfills. Kaohsiung's already got the air pollution!

The day I wrote that last post, I had just spent 3 days learning to read 1 Samuel 17 (David and Goliath) in 3 different Chinese versions. I don't believe in writing a new character 20 times in a row like a schoolchild in a copy book, but I do have to look up the story behind its hieroglyphics on, and be able to write it without looking and be satisfied with my calligraphy at least once.

I had just finished all three versions and was speed reading through the texts one last time, not having to look things up anymore but having fun jotting down any word I suspected I couldn't write from memory yet.

That still slowed me down a bit to notice things I'd never felt before in the story.

And it occured to me that David at some point finally decided, “This is not happening.”

When he arrived at the front line to find his brothers, he had this crucial cultural background, his head would have been full of the stories of the past (all that time composing things on his harp while out with the sheep).

It says David RAN to the front line to find his brothers. He probably thought it was his lucky day to be there when something finally looked happening. Like most young men who aren't preoccupied with their own mortality he would probably would have been more excited than not at the shouting as the battle lines were being drawn up.

And then Goliath walks out, and David hears what he says, and he sees the melee it's producing, and his course of action is practically handed to him by what everybody's saying, but I feel like he got mad. Yes, he heard all the other stuff about a wife and no more taxes, and yes he was lucky to have the experience under his belt that enabled him to do something about his anger, but it feels like Goliath's insult to God is what stuck under his skin.

And if he was even a little bit mad, it would have been an anger that burns away fear, that makes it a relief to speak up, but at the same time he's not enraged beyond thought, he's actually a little cool-headed asking the people around him a couple of times to make sure what the situation is. When his older brother accuses him, he has the swiftness of mind to defend himself immediately, “I didn't come up here for no reason,” as one version puts it. (Dad did send me here.)

But I think he mainly got mad, and decided it wasn't going go on anymore, because when he's telling Saul about rescuing the lamb from the lion or bear it felt like he would have been thinking, “Oh no you don't. Not on my watch.”

And for the first time in reading that story my heart started to pound as he took off the armor and picked up five smooth stones.

News Link: Fractional Reserves and the Fed

A tough read, but if you put even three-quarters of your mind to it, awesome! So what does it have to do with my daily life? Almost every single day I think about it because I have to do the grocery shopping for my family, and every time I see something I would dearly love to eat, and notice that it is now 4x the price it used to be, in my mind I lay that squarely at the door of whoever is printing up the money supply, but whenever I sigh and say, "Inflation :P" to the clerk, I have not met one person who does anything but stare at me blankly. Anyway, I remember when durian cost 30-something (TWD, not USD, LOL) a jin and how one year I refused to buy it when it went up to 40-something a jin, and today it is 139 a jin. Yes, the Fed is responsible for me not having durian to eat, and so am I for not finding a way to step outside that game.

So why read the article? What can I do about it? So that (1) when I hear about the State of Texas thinking about making it's own gold-backed currency, I realize what a huge deal that would be ... so that (2) I don't contribute to the morass of ignorance that might kill a deal like that ... so that (3) did I ever find a way to use an alternate form of currency in my daily life with impunity, I would do my part to step outside the game, the game beauracrats play with what I think of as my money but in reality is a pile of fiat money, paper that can lose half its power with a flip of the switch on the printing press.

But I wouldn't even be thinking those things or be ready for those things, if I didn't know what that article was talking about.

So yes, I feel a deep CONNECTION to this article, right in the area of my stomach, every time I see durian no less.

Postscript (2019.04.19):

Actually it wasn't the durian that got to me first.

For years, every time I passed little old grandmas pushing recycle carts on the road picking up scraps to sell I'd think about inflation, about how they were the ones that inflating the money supply was hurting the most when they needed their pennies to go the farthest.

And ordinary people, unable to afford non-junk food and non-poisoned food. Because that's all organic food is, food that hasn't had a dropper bottle of poison held over it. Call a spade a spade. There's poisoned food and then there's non-poisoned food.

Managed to start commenting over on the sidebar, not just linking to articles. But I'll still link with no comment if the only other choice is not linking at all.

A couple months ago a friend mentioned to me how he thought that all God's changes in law made it seem like he was experimenting on us like lab rats.

I wrote him afterward (edited for typos and readability):

“I don't think all the changes in God's instructions through history are God experimenting with us. I think it is like a parent guiding a child through different exercises in math, for instance.

For instance, God knew when he let the first people live into their 900's that he would have to reduce their lifespan [...] after Noah's flood because they had only used their long lives for evil.

But he still let mankind go through that experience and find out for themselves, otherwise we would be telling God, “God, how do you know we can't handle longer lifespans?”

Now he can say, “I DID give you longer lives at the beginning so you would understand why I gave you shorter lives later.” Because mankind really likes to find out the hard way (or you could say the concrete or experiential way) what is right and wrong. “Don't tell me, show me.” God: “OK, I'm showing you.”

So anytime you think God could be experimenting, please leave room for the possibility that he already knew the outcome, he is just working through the steps anyway for [the sake of] our knowledge, not his.”

He sent this back:

Number 2 I felt was unfair of Epicurus, and wrote back:

“Is he able but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.”

Every parent puts things into 2 groups:

Group 1: Things you have to let your child learn to take care of on his own or he will [grow up] weak. (Children who learn not to care when idots mock them - good. Children who were protected so much that when they grow up and go to college, they don't know how to wash their clothes or feed themselves - bad. Or children who can't deal with anybody who has a different opinion from them - bad.)

Group 2: Things you have to step in and protect your child from because to let your child try to learn to deal with it would put him at too high a risk of death.

Every parent has to decide what level of suffering/challenge they will let their children go through for the sake of their future health and independence, and what suffering/challenge would be too dangerous to allow.

Nobody calls parents [malevolent] for making their children face painful but healthy challenges.

What if everything we consider Group 2 [things too dangerous to let us learn to deal with], God considers Group 1 [things we have to learn to deal with anyway]?

2019 USA Trip - Day 1

It had been a full 8 years since I last saw my relatives in 2010. Recently I'd been wondering how to set up another visit, and then my Gramma developed cellulitis (festering oozy sores all over her lower legs) and there was no more dilemma. In March 2019 we were finally able to fly to the States for a 30-day stay... my mom, my younger sister and I.

We're back now, so I'll try to do a better job of blogging the trip this time around, and if I succeed I may tackle the 2010 trip too!

Day 1 - March 5
第一天 - 3月5號

Thank you for your prayers! Shortly after takeoff the pilot announced that there would be turbulence for the entire flight. I hate roller-coasters and certainly didn't want to be stuck on one for 10 hours! Thankfully it was not as bad as we feared.
感謝神!起飛不久, 飛行員公布說我們一路會有氣流。我已經很怕過山車,十個小時怎麼忍耐?感謝神,不是我想的那麼可怕。

My Uncle George (seventh child in my mom's family) and his wife, Aunt Melissa, picked us up at the airport, and we had supper at Cracker Barrel on the way to their house.
George舅舅(老七)和 Melissa舅媽,去飛機場接我們,回他們家的路上,吃晚飯。

8 years since I last ate at Cracker Barrel
已經八年沒吃 Cracker Barrel 餐廳

Uncle George (seventh child in my mom's family)
George 舅舅(老七)

When he was young

No. 5 Uncle Tim, No. 6 Aunt Jeannie, No. 7 Uncle George, No. 8 Aunt Martha, No. 9 Uncle Robert
老五Tim舅舅,老六Jeannie阿姨和她女兒Keri, 老七George舅舅,老八Martha阿姨,老九Robert舅舅。

Day 2 coming next...

News Link: Sleeping is Now a Crime

What about all those awesome youtubers living in their cars and blogging about it? What about people who can't afford Tiny Houses but do just fine in their cars? Even my uncle who has a house will sometimes study and nap in his car in the beautiful outdoors.

A bad law like this is what jury nullification is for.

... the most powerful vote ... is when you are acting as a jury member during a courtroom trial. At this point, “the buck stops” with you! It is in this setting that each JUROR has MORE POWER than the President, all of Congress, and all of the judges combined!

Congress can legislate (make law), the President or some other bureaucrat can make an order or issue regulations, and judges may instruct or make a decision, but no JUROR can ever be punished for voting “Not Guilty!” Any juror can, with impunity, choose to disregard the instructions of any judge or attorney in rendering his vote. If only one JUROR should vote “Not Guilty” for any reason, there is no conviction and no punishment at the end of the trial.

Thus, those acting in the name of government must come before the common man to get permission to enforce law. (Citizen's Rule Book)

Is this legal?


“The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1789

“The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.” Samuel Chase, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1796, Signer of the unanimous Declaration

“The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1902

“The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.” Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1941

“The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge...” U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139. (1972)


The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law, which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

“When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

This is why I post on my own blog instead of sharing through Facebook.


If you want to know what's happening with me, come to my blog where you will see everything, not just what Facebook chooses to show you.


In addition I want to learn how to host my own blog as soon as possible. Not just rely on Google's to make my blog, in case they feel like axing my blog in the future.


They can still tweek the Google search engine to deboost websites they don't like, but everybody who already knows me can still access my website and spread it by word of mouth on their own websites.


This still leaves the problem of your own Internet provider keeping a list of black-listed sites and making them slower or often impossible to access, like Facebook does in the video above, but hey, you take as many steps as you can toward freedom and leave the rest to God, time and circumstance.


So this is what you can do:


1. Change from Facebook to a blog.

1. 離開FB,開始用博客。

This way there is nobody deciding which of your articles they want to bury.


With a blog it's all or nothing. Your blog platform has to decide if it's worth axing your whole blog, they can't selectively censor your posts.


Also, the more people vote with their feet, the more FB has to back off and shape up for the people who don't leave.

越多人這樣抗議,FB越會有控制自己尊敬大家的反應, 這也會幫助不能離開FB的人。

2. Next, learn to host your own blog, so there is no blog platform provider to ax your blog.

2. 可以的話,還有一步驟:學習託管你自己的博客預防博客平台可以刪除你的博客。

Even if search engines like Google take the trouble to blacklist your blog so new people can't find it when they Google it, everybody who is already reading your blog can keep on reading it and they can spread it by word of mouth on their own blogs.


3. That leaves internet providers who could make it so a person can't get through to a webpage.

3. 剩下只有互聯網服務提供商可以阻礙人打開你的網站。

But if people have already sent a message  to FB by changing to blogs, and sent a message to blog platforms by learning to self host, this climate sends a message to the internet providers as well, as well al making it safer for those who can't switch over, for whatever reason.


"Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 10:32‭-‬33 NASB)

凡在人面前認我的,我在我天上的父面前也必認他; 凡在人面前不認我的,我在我天上的父面前也必不認他。 (馬太福音 10:32‭-‬33 CUNP-神)

We often think about not being afraid to die for Christ, when a shooter is asking if one is a christian, for instance.


But we don't think about how we deny God in laziness and apathy, when we read books that deny God and then never pick up the Bible to give God equal time to defend himself.


A person might think he'd never be such a coward as to deny Christ at gunpoint. But at bookpoint he long ago surrendered, when he stopped caring about giving God a chance to answer and no longer reads God's Word.


Especially when one has already given allegiance to Christ. If God does not exist, or Christ was deluded, then that is one thing. But when allegiance has been pledged, then the least that Christ deserves is a chance to answer his accusers in his Word.


It's like denying God by gag order. Gag orders can be used unfairly to tie the hands of whistleblowers from presenting their cases. And we gag God when we give ear to opposing messages without also giving ear to God's defense.


He put his defense into a single unchanging book. It shouldn't be that hard to reread it in the light of every new argument.


If after weighing both sides you judge God to be wrong, that may mean either that...


1. The God side IS wrong.

1. 神真的是錯的,或者

Or it is also possible that...

2. It may mean only that your evaluation faculties were not up to the job at the time.

2. 可能只是你當時的評估能力並不能勝任評估這項工作。

But at least this way you tried to be fair and not prejudiced.


Can you suggest a better way for me to have translated this? Leave a comment. Thanks to my sister Ling for collaborating on this translation.

Conversation with a Buddhist weighed down by Buddhism ...

I met a Buddhist lady who felt that the one big difference between Buddhism and other religions was that Buddhism was the most tolerant and inclusive. She said the churches she had visited always claimed Christianity as the ONLY TRUE RELIGION, labeling all the rest as wrong.

She told how some ladies had knocked on her door with a booklet, and she asked them, “If I have extra money to donate, I have no problem donating to a Christian orphanage, but would you Christians donate to a Buddhist orphanage?” They told her directly “no”, and left without sharing their booklet with her.

I told her about how from the beginning of creation, from Adam and Eve and the very first family, God had told people how to worship him, because he had a particular purpose for it, wanting it to represent Jesus who would come and die for the world, and how the Old Testament foreshadowed the New Testament, but how that from the very first family on earth, and all down through history, people were always walking away from what God wanted and inventing their own man-made worship, which could not accomplish the purpose God meant for it.

She was nodding her head and at some point mentioned how she was confused by all the different varieties of Christianity.

I told her that was why we were so careful to do only what we found in the Bible, so that we were not adding rules that God never wanted people to be burdened with -- even to the point that other groups would call us narrow and restrictive -- but we did so to keep from adding burdens God never commanded men to carry, and to keep from contributing to the bewildering array of flavors that she herself had just said made her worry that she would never know if she had found a true or fake Christianity.

She nodded her head, saying this was true of every religion she knew of, people adding stuff and leaving the original.

She said she had wished for a miracle like Christians always seemed to be talking about, telling God she would believe in him if he showed her one, but had not gotten one.

Wanting to relieve her mind, I told her that though we firmly believed that God would give us help in answer to prayer, the Bible did not teach that miracles were happening today. I told how Jesus did miracles to prove who he was, how the apostles also did miracles and could transfer this power to others, but how now that the Bible was finished and confirmed, and all the apostles dead, there was no one left alive to do a genuine miracle.

She said she was very happy to have met me, and that she was deeply burdened, believing in reincarnation, and conscientiously doing many good works to work off her debt from past lives, but oh the strain from never being able to know when it would all be paid back. She said, “You can’t remember any of it so you can never know how much you have left to pay back, and dear god what is the meaning of this wretched life. It is all making me hurt here, here, and here, in my body. I will never know when it is all paid back. The endless scripture readings I attend to pay back an unknowable cloud of victims. My husband says to just throw it all over, but if I do that, the people I have wronged may come back to haunt me.”

“And then I think about going over to Christianity but my husband says they burden people with sin, too, so then I think wouldn’t it be better if there were no religion and no sin, because it hurts me.”

I said, “So if reincarnation is not true, you are carrying this burden for nothing. If reincarnation is not true, you only have to deal with the sin from this life.”

“But I grew up believing in reincarnation,” she said, “like you grew up in Christianity. I can’t change and STOP believing in reincarnation, just like you can’t change and START believing in reincarnation.”

I said our father raised us to believe in the Bible because of its proof, how our father had told us never to do what some people do -- saying that even if Christianity wasn’t true they would believe in it anyway because it was “comforting” – but he had told us never to do that because truth was important. “The Bible says, ‘Know the truth and the truth will set you free.’” I said.

“Oh yes!” she said, and wanted to know if she was wrong to be searching for peace in a religion.

“There’s good fear and bad fear, but the main thing is ‘What is real?’” I said, “If someone says there’s a lion over there and I say, ‘That news makes me uncomfortable, I’m going to forget I heard it,’ that’s not going to save me from the lion. Or if someone says there is a lion when there isn’t, then I’m carrying a fear for nothing. It’s not whether you are comfortable or not that matters, but ‘Is there a lion or not?’”

“If reincarnation is true, fine, I’ll accept the burden,” I said, “but if it’s not, there’s no meaning to the burden…. Peace is important but if someone says for me to kill my mother or be killed, I will say go ahead and kill me then, because some things are more important than life and peace.”

“I know all that,” she said.

I continued, “So if you search for truth, peace will come with it, but if you look for peace and say truth is not important, then you will never find peace.”

“Ah yes!” she said.

**   **   **

Soon after this conversation and others, I attended brother Roger Campbell’s gospel meeting and filmed him answering 3 questions this lady had texted me to ask him: “Motives for Belief”, “Reincarnation”, and “If There Is Only One True God, Why So Many Religions?”

This article was originally written January 2019