Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Internet Maintenance

12:01am (GMT) APRIL 2nd.

*** Attention ***

It's that time again! As many of you know, each year the Internet
must be shut down for 24 hours in order to allow us to clean it. The
cleaning process, which eliminates dead email and inactive ftp, www
and gopher sites, allows for a better-working and faster Internet.

This year, the cleaning process will take place from 23:59 pm (GMT)
on March 31st until 00:01 am (GMT) on April 2nd. During that 24-hour
period, five powerful Internet-crawling robots situated around the
world will search the Internet and delete any data that they find.

In order to protect your valuable data from deletion we ask that you
do the following:

1. Disconnect all terminals and local area networks from their
Internet connections.

2. Shut down all Internet servers, or disconnect them from the

3. Disconnect all disks and hardrives from any connections to the

4. Refrain from connecting any computer to the Internet in any way.

We understand the inconvenience that this may cause some Internet
users, and we apologize. However, we are certain that any
inconveniences will be more than made up for by the increased speed
and efficiency of the Internet, once it has been cleared of
electronic flotsam and jetsam. We thank you for your cooperation. Fu
Ling Yu Interconnected Network Maintenance Staff Main Branch,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sysops and others:

Since the last Internet cleaning, the number of Internet users has
grown dramatically.

Please assist us in alerting the public of the upcoming Internet
cleaning by posting this message where your users will be able to
read it.

Please pass this message on to other sysops and Internet
users as well.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Monday, March 29, 2010


You May Trust The Lord Too Little,

But You Can Never Trust Him Too Much.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

"USA U-SAy?"

From my email inbox

"USA U-SAy?" (So, is that a big deal?)

When Washington scolds Israel about building in their own capital, this arrogance has gotten too big for our britches (or skirts). Israel's wars of the last century showed God's providential hand upon that country. Ezekiel 38-39 reveals the future protection of God.

So what about the big-say of USA as our leaders speak in condescending terms?

We need to know that Israel does not need America to survive, but America sure needs Israel in order to be blessed by God.

Genesis 12:2, 3

Gen 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

141st Fallen Canadian Soldier from Prince George

Our prayers are with the Fitzpatrick family of Prince George.

Also a Thank You from Ray Stevens

~ Jeff

Canadian soldier wounded in Afghanistan dies in hospital

Corporal Darren James Fitzpatrick 141st soldier killed

Corporal Darren James Fitzpatrick died at the University of  Alberta Hospital on Saturday as a result of wounds he sustained in  Afghanistan on March 6 Handout photo Corporal Darren James Fitzpatrick died at the University of Alberta Hospital on Saturday as a result of wounds he sustained in Afghanistan on March 6

EDMONTON - A Canadian soldier has died in Edmonton from wounds he sustained while in Afghanistan earlier this month, the Canadian Forces announced on Monday.

Corporal Darren James Fitzpatrick died at the University of Alberta Hospital on Saturday after succumbing to wounds he received from a roadside bomb that detonated while he was on patrol in Afghanistan on March 6.

The 21-year-old infantryman from Prince George, B.C., was critically wounded during a joint Canadian-Afghan mission 25 kilometres west of Kandahar City.

Cpl. Fitzpatrick was treated at the multinational hospital at Kandahar Airfield and was then airlifted to the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany. He was evacuated from Germany to the University of Alberta Hospital in Edmonton on Friday.

Cpl. Fitzpatrick died late Saturday afternoon surrounded by his family, the military said in a release.

Cpl. Fitzpatrick was a member of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, based at CFB Edmonton. He joined the military in 2006 and had been in Afghanistan since last October on his first overseas tour.

"Cpl. Darren James Fitzpatrick cared very deeply about serving his country," Governor-General Michaelle Jean said in a written statement. "On mission in Afghanistan, he was convinced of the crucial importance of humanitarian assistance for the communities of Kandahar province, where poverty, insecurity and terrorism are daily realities.

"From the bottom of our hearts and on behalf of all Canadians, we extend our most sincere condolences to the family, friends and comrades of Cpl. Fitzpatrick, in particular those serving in the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. We share their pain, and our thoughts are with them," Ms. Jean wrote.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper also expressed his condolences.

"This incident is a stark reminder that the Canadian mission in Afghanistan is a difficult one, but the Canadian Forces are making a difference and are improving the lives of the Afghan people," the Prime Minister said in a written statement.

"The government of Canada and all Canadians are proud of our men and women of the Canadian Forces who bravely give their all in support of this United Nations-mandated, NATO-led mission.

"Cpl. Fitzpatrick is a Canadian hero and his sacrifice will not be forgotten," he wrote.

Cpl. Fitzpatrick's death brings to 141 the number of Canadian soldiers killed in the Afghanistan conflict since 2002.

Some 2,800 Canadian military personnel are deployed in Afghanistan. Canada's military mission in Afghanistan is to end in 2011 in keeping with a parliamentary decision to withdraw forces.

Sunday, March 21, 2010

snow on the ground - Tyler, Texas

Greetings from the TRUE NORTH STRONG AND FREE...

I got this email from my wife Regena. She is in TYLER, TEXAS for her mother's surgery on Tuesday.

Here in Prince George, we have lite rain and 5.7c at 8:30AM.

Just thought I would let you know. We woke up to snow on the ground this morning. Not a whole lot, some
scattered, but it is still snowing!
Love, Regena

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Why The Baptists Do Not Baptize Infants

As a fact, Baptists do not baptize their infants. If there be any benefits springing from Infant Baptism, the children of Baptists miss them. If Infant Baptism is necessary to the salvation of children, then the children of Baptists are lost.

The motive of the Baptists in refusing baptism to children is no secret. They hardly consider it necessary to say it is from no want of kindness or religious solicitude for their children. They expect many things to be said against them, and are ready to bear them, but can not believe that their worst enemies will seriously deny that they love their children and are concerned for their highest religious safety.

Nor does their refusal arise from an unwillingness to consecrate their children to the Lord. This, every sincere and intelligent Baptist does. Nor is it from any desire to be eccentric or singular; but a deep conviction of duty which they cannot but regard.

The Bible Does Not Teach It

The one sufficient reason the Baptists have for rejecting Infant Baptism is, that the Bible does not teach it. With some this is nothing. They follow priests, creeds, and churches. But to the Baptists, the Bible is the end of controversy. They confess its authority as supreme, and accept nothing as religious duty except that which it teaches. They do not find that it teaches Infant Baptism. But some say that the Bible does teach it.

It is there! Well, where? Dreamy fancies that it is taught somewhere in the Word of God are worth nothing. Give the chapter and the verse where, by law or example if taught. If your child's salvation depended on a passage in the Scriptures that taught this doctrine, which would you select?

Jesus Did Not Practice It

True, certain passages or incidents in the Bible are presented in support of Infant Baptism, but even the friends of the doctrine differ widely concerning them. Without attempting to notice all these texts, I will, as a matter of justice, select for notice those which are considered the strongest. Perhaps the most popular proof passage is found in Mark 10:14-16.

This is to many a tower of strength - a refuge in weakness, and quoted on all occasions. What are the facts? Little children are brought to the Saviour and he takes them in his arms and blesses them. The surprise and displeasure of the disciples at the presentation of these children to Christ plainly indicated that the practice of Infant Baptism was not known to them. It was certainly a capital opportunity for instituting such an ordinance and explaining its object; but nothing of the kind was done.

The silence of Jesus on the subject is itself a significant argument against it. The fact that he said nothing about Infant Baptism, and did something quite different from it, turns this passage into a strong proof-test against the practice.

Household Baptisms Do Not Prove It

But there are the Household Baptisms. It is claimed that if whole families were baptized, there must have been children among them. First in the list is the family of Crispus. Paul baptized that household. It is enough to say that it is expressly declared that Crispus "believed in the Lord with all his house," Acts 18:8.

Next is the house of Stephanas, I Cor. 1:13. Here Paul simply speaks of it as the baptism of a household. Must there not have been infants? Not unless it can be shown that there are no households without infants.

But observe that in I Cor. 16:15, Paul, in alluding to this family, calls them "the first fruits of Achaia," and says they "addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." Manknight is candid enough to admit that there could have been no infants in the house of Stephanas.

Next is the household of the Philippian jailer. Acts 16:29-34. In reading the account, you observe that they spake the word of the Lord to all that were in the house of the jailer - that the jailer rejoiced, believed in God with all his house. That is unanswerably plain. Last in the list is the house of Lydia. Acts 16:14, 15-40.

Before an argument in favor of Infant Baptism can be wrung from this case, several impossible propositions must be established:

1. That Lydia was married.

2. That she had children.

3. That any of these children were at that time infants.

4. That these infants were baptized.

5. That the term brethren in verse 40 is used independently of these children.

Circumcision Has Nothing To Do With It

There is also the argument from circumcisions. It is claimed that Infant Baptism is the substitute for
circumcision. That such is the case nowhere intimated in the Word of God. The Jews that had been
circumcised, when converted to Christ were baptized. Timothy was circumcised after he had been baptized.

If baptism is the substitute for circumcision, where is the fact stated?

Some who practise Infant Baptism do not claim clear Bible authority for it. They put it on the ground that it is a "form of consecration," - "can do no harm."That there is any wrong or injury in the simple act of sprinkling a child with water and praying for its salvation, no one would be foolish as to assert. But when this act is performed on the plea that it is commanded by the Word of God, it becomes an evil. It is to claim scriptural authority for what is not taught in the Word of God. Besides, the observance of this practice is a practical abolition of believer's baptism, which is clearly required by the law of Christ.

It is an injury to the child. It infringed his right of choice in the matter of baptism. It confuses his mind in regard to his relation to the Church. It leaves him in doubt as to his regeneration. It is calculated to foster in his mind false religious hopes.

It is an injury to the Church. The scriptural idea of the Church is that of a body of baptized believers. Only those who have been pardoned and regenerated are entitled to membership. Upon the preservation of this idea of a spiritual membership is dependent the purity of the churches.

This idea is assailed by Infant Baptism, and the universal triumph of that doctrine would be the introduction of all classes of persons within the ranks of some external church. The truth of this statement is abundantly proved by the condition of the Lutheran Church in Germany, and that of the Established Church of England.

If it be true that Infant Baptism is not taught in the Word of God—that it is injurious to those who are its subjects, and unfriendly to the New Testament idea of a Church, then the Baptists are amply justified in rejecting it.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

St. Patrick A Baptist!

by Dr. L. K. Landis

For centuries Roman Catholicism has laid claim to the supposition that Patrick of Ireland was a Roman priest. However, over 100 hundred years ago W. A. Jarrel, much respected author and church historian, put into print what had been known by Baptists since the very beginning, that Patrick was not a Catholic priest, but rather a Baptist missionary. It is because of this much neglected fact that we put into print this material so that this present generation may know the truth and great heritage of this early Baptist missionary to Ireland. So zealous were these historians of the 1800's and so spirited was their conviction to this that one wrote, "Rome's most audacious theft was when she seized bodily the Apostle Peter and made him the putative head and founder of her system; but next to that brazen act stands her effrontery when she 'annexed' the great missionary preacher of Ireland and enrolled him among her saints" (A Short History of the Baptists [1907], Henry C. Vedder, pg. 71-72).

Most church historians agree that Patrick, originally named Succat (or Succathus) Patricus, was born sometime between the years 360 AD and 387 AD, probably near what is now Dumbarton, Scotland. It is also generally accepted by those knowledgable of the subject that he lived to a well advanced age, some placing him at over 100 years old at the time of his death.

Cathcart, the dean among Baptist apologists, suggests that Patrick is not his name, but rather a title of honor meaning noble and illustrous and was bestowed upon him by his grateful admirers (The Baptist Encyclopedia [1881], by William Cathcart, pg. 886). His writings reveal that his father, Calpurnius, was a deacon in a Baptist church (we know that there were Baptist churches on the British Isle as far back as A.D. 63, History of the Welch Baptists [1770], by J. Davis, Page 14), having apparently been converted to Christ while on a business trip to Rome as he also served as a Roman civil officer. In spite of being reared in a godly home and taught the ways of the Scriptures, Cathcart also states that the young Patrick was "...wild and wicked until his sixteenth year..." when, while working on his father's farm, he and several others were seized and carried away captive by a band of pirates to Ireland, where he was sold into slavery to a petty Irish clan chieftan. For over five years he suffered the atrocities of slavery. Later, however, he would recount that it was during this most dark period of his life that he, himself, was converted to Christ remembering the Christian training he had received from his godly father while but a child.

Regarding this, W. A. Jarrel wrote over one hundred years ago, "...the truth which saved him when a youthful slave in pagan Ireland was taught him in the godly home of...his father" (Baptist Church Perpetuity or History [1894], W. A Jarrel, pg. 472).

Historians also record that "...upon his twenty-first year, he escaped the chains of servitude..." and returned to his father's home in Scotland, only to find that he had died and his land acquired by others. It was during this time that Patrick, "being a stronger Christian, the Lord soon called him back to Ireland as the missionary for that blinded country" (Ibid.). Jarrel further suggests that the more one studies the life, ministry and writings of this Irish "apostle", "...the more he stands out as a Baptist." He, Jarrel, is perhaps among the greatest authorities on the subject of Saint Patrick, as one full chapter of his makes several suggestions as to why Patrick could not have been a Roman Catholic priest:

1. "At the time of Saint Patrick the Romish church was only en embryo".

2. "In St. Patrick's time the authority of the bishop of Rome was not generally recognized."

3. "There is no history to sustain the Romish claim that Patrick was sent to Ireland by Pope Celistine." Not one of the early biographers of his life mentions any ties to Rome. Even in all the writings of Saint Patrick himself there is never any mention of connection with Rome.

Neander, the church historian, wrote, "If Patrick came to Ireland as a deputy from Rome, it might naturally be expected that in the Irish church a certain sense of dependence would always have been preserved towards the mother church. But we find, on the contrary, in the Irish church a spirit of church freedom, similar to that in Britain, which struggled against the yoke of Roman ordinances. We find subsequently among the Irish a much greater agreement with the ancient British than with Roman ecclesiastical usages.

This goes to prove that the origin of the church was independent of Rome, and must be traced solely to the people of Britain... Again, no indication of his connection with the Romish church is to be found in his confesssion; rather everything seems to favor the supposition that he was ordained bishop in Britain itself" (Neander's History of the Christian Church, Volume 2, page 123).

Another Irish scholar says, "...Leo II, was bishop of Rome from 440 to 461 A.D. and upwards of one hundred and forty of his letters to correspondents in all parts of Christendom still remain and yet he never mentions Patrick or his work, or in any way intimates that he knew of the great work being done there."

Professor George T. Stokes, still yet another prominent scholar, declares that prior to the synod of Rathbresail in A.D. 1112, the rule of each Irish church was independent, autonomous, and "...dioceses and diocesan episcopacy had no existence at all."

Considering these indisputable and undeniable facts, it is impossible for Patrick to have been the patron Roman Catholic saint of Ireland. The material is just not there to substantiate any such claim. Baptist pastor, author and historian Gillham says that in the middle of the nineteenth century, Baptists universally accepted the fact that Patrick of Ireland was of apostolic tradition and therefore a Baptist. It was also commonly accepted that the baptism of the heirs to his ministry were also investigated and found to be New Testament in origin. It was only during these last 150 years that Baptists have been willing to relinquish Patrick to the hands of the papacy.

However, the insurmountable evidence of his position among the Baptists of antiquity comes from the writings of this great man himself. While several letters written by Patrick and sent to Christians converted to Christ under his ministry still exist, most of what we know of his beliefs are taken from two documents that he wrote: St. Patrick's Confession, or Epistle to the Irish; and an "Epistle to Coroticus." In these two writings that still survive, it becomes very apparent that this great preacher was not of Roman Catholic persuasion. He was a Baptist through and through, holding recognized Baptist positions on all the cardinal doctrines. Consider these eight (8) conclusive reasons why Saint Patrick was a Baptist!

Number One: St. Patrick Baptized Only Professed Believers

Contrary to Catholic dogma, which teaches that infants are to be "baptized", in all of Patrick's writings he does not mention one single incident when he baptized an infant, much less someone who had not professed Christ as their Saviour. Patrick records the baptism of one convert named Enda the night after his infant son, Cormac, was born. What an ideal opportunity to record the baptism of an infant, and yet Patrick makes no mention of it at all.

Only Enda, a professed believer; not his infant son who could make no claim of Christ. In all of his writings, the great Irish preacher never mentions or even alludes to pedobaptism (the baptism of infants). In fact, each time he refers to baptism at all he calls those ready for the ordinance of baptism "baptized captives", "baptized handmaidens of Christ", "baptized women distributed as rewards", "baptized believers", "men" and "women." In one place, Patrick wrote, "Perhaps, since I have baptized so many thousand men, I might have expected half a screpall [a coin worth six cents] from some of them..." Notice that he refers to having baptized " many thousand men..", no infants, but men; adult, professing, believing, responsible men. Another place he writes, "So that even after my death I may leave as legacies to my brethren...whom I have baptized in the Lord, so many thousand men." Again he acknowledges the fact that he has baptized thousands of men, but not one infant.

Number Two: St. Patrick Baptized By Immersion Only

This has been a leading principle among the Baptists since the days of the Apostles and still is today. Again, in all of his writings there is not one shred of evidence that the Irish preacher knew anything of sprinkling. All of the records of his baptisms tell of immersion. Cathcart (along with Nennius, Todd, O'Farrell and other church historians) records one such instance, "When the saint entered Tirawly, the seven sons of Amalgaidh assembled with their followers. Profiting by the presence of so vast a multitude, the apostle entered into the midst of them, his soul inflamed with the love of God, and with a celestial courage preached the truths of Christianity; and so powerful was the effect of his burning words that the seven princes and over twelve thousand more were converted on that day, and were soon baptized in a spring called Tobar Enadhaire" (The Baptist Encyclopedia [1881], by William Cathcart, page 887). Dr. Cathcart further states, "There is absolutely no evidence that any baptism but that of immersion of adult believers existed among the ancient Britons, in the first half of the fifth century, nor for a long time afterwards."

In 1631 the English Baptists discovered, and subsequently corresponded with, small communities of Baptists in Ireland and found them to be sound. These churches, located in Dublin, Waterford, Clonmel, Kilkenny, Cork, Limerick, Galloway, Wexford, Carrick Fergus and Kerry are listed in Joseph Ivimey's comprehensive History of the English Baptists [1811], Volume 1, Pages 240-241. It is believed that some of these churches had histories dating to the time of Patrick. Many of them can substantiate and confirm their claims of such for nearly 1100 years, which places them within two hundred years of Patrick.

Number Three: In Church Government,

St. Patrick Was A Baptist During his ministry, Patrick is recorded to have "founded 365 churches and consecrated the same number of bishops, and ordained 3,000 presbyters (Ancient British and Irish Churches, William Cathcart, page 282). Anglican Bishop Stillingfleet refers to an account of a great council of Brevy, Wales at which there were 118 Irish bishops. Noting that if these were Catholic bishops this little island was in danger of "...going to seed --- in bishops." Other historians concede that "...Saint Patrick placed a bishop in every church which he founded; and several presbyters after the example of the New Testament churches." One such scholar, a Dr. Carew of Maynooth, admits that a bishop "...was simply the pastor of one congregation." The Catholic and protestant idea of a bishop being the head over several churches in different cities was totally unknown among those early churches on the British Isles. This can be confirmed from writings of Irish clergymen dated from A.D. 1112 and reconfirmed from the same in A.D. 1057.

Number Four: Patrick Was A Baptist In Independence From Creeds, Councils, Popes, etc.

Patrick never attended one council and recognized no authority over him, save that of the Lord Jesus Himself. There is not any evidence whatsoever that even remotely suggests that the famed Irish preacher acknowledged any man to be of superior authority, power or position than he. He recognized no Pope. He recognized no Cardinal. In all of his writings it cannot be found where one time he subscribes to even the most insignificant and remote catechism, creed, or dogma of the Roman Catholic system. Of all the great Christians that Patrick refers to in his letters, he never pays homage to any Pope, nor mentions any man as being superior in church clergy. Instead, the great Irish missionary speaks of his love, regards, and terms of affection for those men whom had been ordained as pastors of the churches he founded. Upon the authority of the little Baptist church in Scotland where he was saved and from which he received his commission much as did Paul and Barnabus (Acts 15:22).

Number Five: In Doctrine

Patrick Was A Baptist In all of his writings, all of the doctrine that Patrick espouses adherence to is consistent with historic Baptist doctrine. The venerable preacher wrote, "It is Christ who gave His life for thee (and) is He who speaks to thee. He has poured out upon us abundantly the Holy Spirit, the gift and assurance of immortality, who causes men to believe and become obedient that they might be the sons of God and joint heirs with Christ." In this one statement, Patrick alludes to six (6) major Baptist doctrines:

a. Patrick believed in the substitutionary atonement of Christ. He did not believe that salvation comes through catechism, communion, confession or christening. He believes what Baptists have always believed, that all are saved by the Grace of God, through faith in His Son, coming in repentance, and by His blood. William Cathcart wrote, "There is no ground for doubting but that he preached the gospel of repentance and faith in Ireland, and that his ministrations were attended by overwhelming success" (The Baptist Encyclopedia, page 887).

b. He believes in the free gift of the Holy Spirit which comes to the believer at the moment of salvation. He does not believe that the gift of the Holy Spirit is a separate work of grace, nor is He manifested by speaking in tongues (John 14:16).

c. He also firmly conveys the message of the eternal security of the believer in that those who are genuinely saved have put on immortality (II Timothy 1:10).

d. He confirms his belief that men must be drawn by God in order to be saved (John 6:44).

e. Patrick affirms his conviction in the sonship of the believer (John 1:12). He believes that while Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, every true believer in Christ is also a son.

f. And the great Irish theologian attests to the fact that all believers are joint-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:16-17). Patrick's doctrine is also recorded by his disciples. Comgall writes, "religion does not exist in bodily efforts..." Muirchu states that the ancient poet Dubthac was redeemed under the ministry of Patrick and that he "...first on that day believed in God and it was imputed to him for righteousness" No mention of baptism for salvation. No mention of a confessional. No mention of communion. Patrick taught his disciples well that salvation comes only by and through the grace of Almighty God.

Number Six: In Terms Of The Lord's Supper, Patrick Was A Baptist.

From his writings we know that he rejected the Roman Catholic view of salvation in the ordinance. Also from his writings, we know that Patrick believed that the believer himself should partake of both elements of communion, the bread and the cup, and not just the administrator exclusively. In writing of the conversion of the two daughters of Irish King Loeghaire under his ministry, Patrick tells them to put away their idols and trust Christ alone. His instructions to them regarding the Lord's Supper is that they receive both elements representative of His body and blood.

Number Seven: Patrick Rejects The Roman Catholic Dogma Of Transubstantiation

Patrick believed that the elements were only pictures of Christ's body and Christ's blood. Dr. Jarrell wrote, "In all the descriptions of the Eucharist quoted there is no evidence that it is...", or literally becomes the flesh of Christ and His blood. The elements are merely symbols of such.

Number Eight: Patrick Never Affirmed His Belief In, Or Adherence To, Many Crucial Catholic Pecularities

St. Patrick was a Baptist and the first Irish churches were Baptist churches. He knew nothing of priestly confession and priestly forgiveness. He was not acquainted with extreme unction. He strictly forbade the worship of images. Never once did he instruct his converts that they were to pay homage to Mary or worship her. He never mentions the intercession of Mary or of any departed saint. In all of his writings there is no mention at all of purgatory, of indulgences, of keeping holy days, of praying to anyone but God Himself, of the persecution of opposers of the church, of distinguishing clerical garments, of the rosary, of last rites, of mass, of allegiance to the Pope. None of these crucial Catholic doctrines and dogmas were practiced by or even mentioned by the great missionary to Ireland.

It is my firm conviction that it has sufficiently been shown that Saint Patrick was not a Roman Catholic in doctrine or practice, but rather an early Baptist preacher following in the footsteps of the Apostles themselves, believing what they believed, practicing what they practiced. In conclusion, it seems that the words of W.A. Jarrell on this subject are most fitting, "Were Patrick not turned to dust, and were the body able to hear and turn, he would turn over in his coffin at the disgrace on his memory from the Romish church claiming him as a Roman Catholic" (Baptist Church Perpetuity or History, page 479).

Monday, March 15, 2010

Don't Talk with the Police 1 & 2

Remember the first is a lawyer a fast talking. But this is very interesting. jnh

Saturday, March 13, 2010

13 Crazy Earthquake Facts

Mark 13:8 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.

Luke 21:11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.


13 Crazy Earthquake Facts

1. Earth has been more seismologically active in the past 15 years or so, says Stephen S. Gao, a geophysicist at Missouri University of Science & Technology. Not all seismologist agree, however.

2. San Francisco is moving toward Los Angeles at the rate of about 2 inches per year — the same pace as the growth of your fingernails — as the two sides of the San Andreas fault slip past one another. The cities will meet in several million years. However, this north-south movement also means that despite fears, California won't fall into the sea.

3. March is not earthquake month, despite what some people believe. True, on March 28, 1964, Prince William Sound, Alaska, experienced a 9.2 magnitude event — one of the biggest ever. It killed 125 people and caused $311 million in property damages. And on March 9, 1957, the Andreanof Islands, Alaska, felt a 9.1 temblor. But the next three biggest U.S. earthquakes occurred in February, November, and December. The devastating major earthquake in Chile of 2010 struck on Feb. 27. And the huge 9.3 temblor that spawned the devastating Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 occurred on Dec. 26.

4. There are about 500,000 earthquakes a year around the world, as detected by sensitive instruments. About 100,000 of those can be felt, and 100 or so cause damage each year. Each year the southern California area alone experiences about 10,000 earthquakes, most of them not felt by people.

5. The sun and moon cause tremors. It's long been known that they create tides in the planet's crust, very minor versions of ocean tides. Now researchers say the tug of the sun and moon on the San Andreas Fault stimulates tremors deep underground.

6. A city in Chile moved 10 feet in the massive 8.8 magnitude earthquake Feb. 27, 2010. The rip in Earth's crust shifted the city of ConcepciĆ³n that much to the west. The quake is also thought to have changed the planet's rotation slightly and shortened Earth's day.

7. There's no such thing as "earthquake weather." Statistically, there is an equal distribution of earthquakes in cold weather, hot weather, rainy weather, and so on, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Scientists say there is no physical way that weather could affect the forces several miles beneath the surface of the earth where quakes originate. The changes in barometric pressure in the atmosphere are very small compared to the forces in the crust, and the effect of the barometric pressure does not reach beneath the soil.

8. Earth's bulge was trimmed a little by the 2004 Indonesian earthquake, the 9.0+ temblor that generated the deadly tsunami on Dec. 26 that year. Earth's midsection bulges in relation to the measurement from pole-to-pole, and the catastrophic land displacement caused a small reduction in the bulge, making the planet more round.

9. The Pacific Ring of Fire is the most geologically active region of Earth. It circles the Pacific Ocean, touching the coasts North and South America, Japan, China and Russia. It's where the majority of Earth's major quakes occur as major plate boundaries collide.

10. Oil extraction can cause minor earthquakes. These are not the quakes you read about. Rather, because oil generally is found in soft and squishy sediment, when oil is removed other rock moves in to fill the void, creating "mini-seismic events" that are not noticeable to humans.

11. The largest earthquake ever recorded was a magnitude 9.5 in Chile on May 22, 1960.

12. Quakes on one side of Earth can shake the other side. Seismologists studying the massive 2004 earthquake that triggered killer tsunamis throughout the Indian Ocean found that the quake had weakened at least a portion of California's famed San Andreas Fault. The Chilean quake of 1960 shook the entire Earth for many days, a phenomenon called oscillation that was measured by seismic stations around the planet.

13. The deadliest earthquake ever struck January 23, 1556 in Shansi, China. Some 830,000 are estimated to have died.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Why People are More Likely to Steal When Its Dark Out

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

John 3:19 - 21

There has always been a correlation between how ethically people behave and how brightly their surroundings are lit; most evil deeds are done under cover of darkness.

A new study suggest that this is not only because of the threat of discovery. Researchers recruited 84 students and divided them between a brightly lit room with 10 fluorescent bulbs burning and a dimmer room with only four bulbs. The subjects were each given a brown envelope with $10 in singles and coins as well as an empty white envelope.

They were all then told they had five minutes to complete a simple mathematical task, looking for pairs of numbers that added up to 10 in a grid of three-digit numbers. They could keep 50 cents for every pair they found and were to put the leftover money in the brown envelope.

When the researchers collected the envelopes and reviewed the results at the end of the five-minute period, what they found was striking. Consistently, the people in the dimmer room reported finding more matches than those in the bright room. When their work was checked, it turned out that cheating was rife in the dim room. The darkness seemed to confer what the researchers called a "false sense of concealment." Two other experiments by the same researchers had similar results.

Study mention by

Wednesday, March 10, 2010


Many manifest no loyalty to ideals they once espoused.

Many show no loyalty to their jobs.

Many really do not show loyalty to friends.

Many, as to their jobs, are as void of loyalty on the inside as frogs are void of feathers on the outside.

Many, without loyalty to wedding hour obligations and sanctity's, make perjury of their marriage vows.

And we know, as we have been told by those wiser by far than we, that people who are without loyalty are as worthless and undependable as

… houses without foundations,

… as ships without rudders,

… as unarmed soldiers in battle,

… as dishes with out food when the hungry are to be fed.

Loyalty is one of the biggest words. It is big with meaning. It is a red-blooded and robust word. It stands for a big idea. It represents one of the finest qualities of character. Loyalty is one of the noblest sentiments with which one can be endowed. Loyalty is close kin to royalty. One who is loyal in conduct is royal in character. Loyalty manifest itself in every relationship of life. Loyalty, or the lack of it, may be found between husband and wife, between parent and child, between employer and employee. Between the citizen and his nation, between the church member and his church, between the Christian and his Christ.

One who regards the obligations of any relationship lightly is a light weight. Church members need to confer with themselves often concerning the warmth and strength of their church loyalty. If it is easy to excuse one’s self from the discharge of definite duties to the church it is because the fires of loyalty are burning low.

In the long ago when God’s people left Him and His house to follow after other systems and orders, they were called spiritual whoremongers and were said to have been married in spiritual adultery to those whom they followed. That is what God said in the long ago, I do not know what He would say now about those who give of their time, devotion and money to the clubs, to the lodge, to the theatre on Wednesday night or the golf links on Sunday morning in preference to the church of Christ.

The Christian who is loyal to his church above all other institutions is like the man who is loyal to his wife above all other women, and like the patriot who is loyal to his won flag above all other nations, and like the child who is loyal to his own father and mother above all other men and women.

From over hill and plain
There comes the signal strain,
‘This loyalty, loyalty, loyalty to Christ;
Its music rolls along,
The hills take up the song,
Of loyalty, loyalty, yes, loyalty to Christ.

On to victory! On to victory!
Cries our great Commander: On!
We’ll move at His command,
We’ll soon possess the land,
Thro’ loyalty, loyalty, yes, loyalty to Christ.
E. Taylor Cassel 1894 for Baptist Young People’s Union

Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. I Corinthians 4:2

Monday, March 8, 2010

Buried in the deepest sea;

As a junior in Sunday School we sang -

Gone, Gone, Gone, Gone!
Yes, my sins are gone.
Now my soul is free, and in my heart's a song;
Buried in the deepest sea;
Yes, that's good enough for me;
I shall live eternally,
Praise God! my sins are
--by Helen Griggs

click on image

Micah 7:19 He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

My Blue Ford Mustang

As a teenager I started giving to Faith Promise Missions. I had a paper route in which I made $120. per month in collections. I promised $ 75. per month to missions, the week after I also got a job at Thompson Hill Landscape. My wage was $ 1.25 per hour and soon it was raised up to $ 1.50 per hour. Our Faith Promise Conference was in February 1970 and that September I was given a 1966 Ford Mustang.

For over 42 years I have been blessed by giving to Missions.

Monday, March 1, 2010

Computer Repair

Caller: Hi, our printer is not working.

Customer Service: What is wrong with it?

Caller: Mouse is jammed.

Customer Service: Mouse? Printers don't have a mouse!

Caller: Mmmmm??..Oh really?...I will send a picture