June 15, 2016


My mother-in-law, who will soon be 93, is not happy that she can’t do the things she used to do. During a recent doctor visit the doctor was sympathetic, but told her she was in better shape than some 60 year-olds. The doctor said he didn’t want to prescribe any mood altering drugs, but then paused in mid-sentence and said, “On second thought I think I will give you a prescription. Do you have a Bible at home?” When she told him yes he said, “Okay, this is your prescription…go home and read the book of Ecclesiastes.” And she is doing as he prescribed.

1 comment:

Steve Corey said...


-----Great medicine! And prescribed by a man made by science to boot! Of course, science actually doesn’t prescribe anything or make anybody. To say it does is personification. Scientists do the prescribing and making. But the great muddle of non-sense between them called “scientific consensus” is what we call “science”. And most scientists appeal to it as if to a god. Fewer of them do not lay down their wisdom and understanding to bow down to this consensus-god. I’m not here referring to those few when I say that scientists are not really scientists, and their science is not really science.
-----The consensus-god worshipping scientists constrain their thinking to a limited box of ideas. Immediately, those of us who know the real and living I AM THAT I AM know that He is not of the nature to gratify such arrogance by dropping any evidence of Himself into their tiny match-box of foolishness. The floor, sides, and roof of their box is constructed of a rule to which all statements must conform before they are acceptable as descriptions of reality. This rule they teach by the cute acronym: CONPTT, standing for Consistent, Observable, Natural, Predictable, Testable, and Tentative. If a proposed statement does not satisfy all six of these criteria, the “scientist” will not accept it as either a statement or a proposition.
-----Although fault can be found with every criteria they use except tentativeness (a construct of humility) the faults easiest, quickest, and most conformable to limited discussion are those of Observation. It requires that an event or its evidence can be observed and explained. What’s so wrong with that? It limits observation to the basic human senses as also extended by equipment such as radio telescopes, microscopes, Geiger counters, etc. There would not be anything wrong with this limitation had scientists not failed to identify the human’s sixth sense: pattern recognition. Therefore the scientific definition of observation does not recognize the ability of a human mind to see a very real pattern in, let’s say, historical events and read out from it an observation consistent to that pattern. What am I talking about? For example, there is this pattern recorded in written history of several men sprinkled over a period of a few hundred years who warned leaders and peoples about behavioral and belief changes needing to be made lest travesty befall them. The changes weren’t made. Travesty befell. Historical atterns were established. And "scientists" ignore the Bible. Gee? Does that qualify for ignorance?
-----Pattern recognition is an absolute sense. Billions of photons pass through the lens of your eye to stimulate cones in the retina which make signals pass through nerves into networks of neurons in the brain. That is the extent of your sense of sight. So also compressions and rarefactions of molecules that pound against the drum of your ear cause stimulation in nerves passing patterns in electrochemicals along nerves into neural networks in the brain. It is the ability of these neural networks to sort and relate patterns in information that is the sixth sense. This sixth sense rises beyond the mere handling of sensual stimuli to also handle patterns of concepts and ideas. it is from patterns in these concepts and ideas that some with keener senses recognize a realm of existence not confined to the observable material world. The penchant for “seeing” with the sixth sense is at least a small part of the system Jesus spoke of: eyes to see and ears to hear. Through it the Holy Spirit is able to impart information. But because scientific consensus does not recognize the sixth sense, they refuse to observe what the Holy Spirit has to say, therefore they miss the most important aspects of real science.

Love you all,
Steve Corey